Mercury TimeToAct Hires

7/27/2019 Mercury TimeToAct Hires

1/44

MERCURY

TIME TO ACT


2/44

Copyright United Nations Environment Programme, 2013

ISBN: 978-92-807-3310-5

Job Number: DTI/1623/GE

Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation

o the material in this publication do not imply the expres-

sion o any opinion whatsoever on the part o the United

Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal statuso any country, territory, city or area or o its authorities, or

concerning delimitation o its rontiers or boundaries. The

views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision

or the stated policy o the United Nations Environment

Programme, nor does citing o trade names or commercial

processes constitute endorsement.

Editorial team

Alex Kirby (text and editing); Ieva Rucevska, Valentin Yemelin

and Christy Cooke (GRID-Arendal); Otto Simonett, Viktor

Novikov, Geo Hughes (Zoi Environment Network)

Cartography

Riccardo Pravettoni (GRID-Arendal); Carolyne Daniel and

Matthias Beilstein (Zoi Environment Network)

LayoutGRID-Arendal

Copy editing

Malvern Macrae Lumsden, Mairead Rocke, Maggie Crump

(GRID-Arendal)

Overall supervision

Chemicals Branch, Division o Technology, Industry and Eco-nomics, United Nations Environment Programme

Jiwon Rhee, Gunnar Futsaeter, David Piper

UNEP promotes

environmentally sound practices

globally and in its own activities. This

publication is printed on ully recycled paper,

FSC certifed, post-consumer waste and chlorine-ree. Inks are vegetable-based and coatings are

water-based. UNEPs distribution policy aims to reduce

its carbon ootprints.


3/44

MERCURYTIME TO ACT

Preface

It is imperative that we act now!

Background on Mercury

Impacts on human health and ecosystems

Emissions and releases

Mercury action

Acting now

References

IndexThe Global Mercury Partnership

5

6

12

20

26

33

36

38

40

42


4/44


5/44

5MERCURY TIME TO ACT

Preface

This report speaks directly to governments involved in the devel-

opment o the global treaty on mercury. It presents updates rom

the UNEP Global Mercury Assessment 2013 in short and punchy

acts and gures backed by compelling graphics, that provide

governments and civil society with the rationale and the impera-

tive to act on this notorious pollutant.

The report underlines the act that mercury remains a major glob-

al, regional and national challenge in terms o threats to human

health and the environment, especially but not uniquely to thehealth o pregnant woman and babies world-wide through the

eating o contaminated sh or example or to marine mammals in

places like the Arctic.

It also underlines that the burden o disease in many ways is shit-

ing towards developing countries such as those in areas o the

world where a growing burning o coal is increasing emissions o

mercury to the atmosphere.

Small-scale gold mining is also aggravating the threat, in part

ueled by increased extraction using mercury to meet rising de-

mands as a result o a high global gold price. In the mid 2000s

that price was around $420 an ounce whereas today it stands at

around $1,700 an ounce.

The challenge towards addressing mercury emissions is the wide

variety o sources o emissions, rom industrial processes to prod-

ucts in day-to-day use.

Indeed oten unknown to many, mercury is ound in electrical

switches and thermostats, lamps, measuring devices and dental

amalgam llings. Mercury as a compound is used in products

such as batteries, paints, soaps and creams.

In addition, mercury releases rom artisanal and small-scale gold

mining and coal combustion are supplemented by ones rom

metal smelters, chlor-alkali manuacturing and vinyl chloride

monomer (VCM) production just to mention a ew.

The world is acting: many mercury-containing products are al-

ready being phased out, and processes using mercury are increas-

ingly being converted to alternative technologies.

A global, legally binding treaty translated into national laws and

supported by creative nancing, can accelerate and scale-up such

responses and put the planet and its people on track to a more

sustainable world.

The World Health Organization has concluded there are no sae

limits in respect to mercury and its organic compounds and the

impacts o mercury on human health have been known or cen-

turies i not millennia.

In 2009, the Governing Council o UNEP governments showed

leadership and commitment by agreeing to negotiate a global,

legally-binding treaty currently approaching the nal stages o

negotiation or completion in 2013.

This treaty would catalyze and drive concerted international ac-

tion on an environmental and human health issue brought to

international recognition as a result o the inamous Minamata

poisoning o sh and people in the middle o the 20th century.

I am sure this report and its straight orward presentation o the

vital and undamental acts can assist governments to conclude

the negotiations successully and adopt a treaty to begin liting a

health and environmental threat rom the lives o tens o millions

o people, not to mention the generations to come.

Achim SteinerUN Under-Secretary General

and Executive Director of UNEP


6/44

MERCURY TIME TO ACT6

It is imperative that we act now!

We sometimes hear the term mercury-ree world which

seems a contradiction because mercury is an element.

Thus, mercury always will be present. What can the inter-

national community do about this?

It is true that mercury, as an element, will always be present

in our environment. Nonetheless, it is a pollutant o concern

so our main aim is to reduce, and where easible eliminate,

anthropogenic emissions and releases o mercury. Over time,

this will decrease the environmental load, and reduce the

amount o mercury which is re-emitted.

While there will be mercury in the environment, whether it

is considered to be a supply will depend on whether there is a

demand. I there are still essential uses which require mercury,

there will need to be a source o mercury. The aim o the in-

ternational community is to reduce uses as viable alternatives

to mercury become available. Over time, this will reduce thedemand or mercury, cutting the market and the interest in

mercury supply. Yes, mercury will always be with us and there is

signicant supply in circulation today. Thus, rather than to con-

tinue primary mining o mercury, we should be looking at the

supply that is already in circulation or use until viable alterna-

tives are ound. The mercury that is obtained rom decommis-

sioned chlor-alkali plants and other processes or products as

they are phased out and have no urther use, should be movedimmediately to environmentally sound disposal acilities.

MERCURY-FREE

ARTISANAL AND SMALL-SCALE GOLD MINING, LIGHTBULBS, AND PLASTICS

Interview with Minister Fernando Lugris, Special Representative o the Minister o Foreign Aairs o Uruguay or Environmental Aairs,

Chair o the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop a global legally binding instrument on mercury

The very good news is that all uses o mercury will con-

tinue to decline. But there are exceptions, such as mercury

use in artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM), in

lighting manuacture and in the production o plastics

that use vinyl chloride monomer (VCM). What can be done

to reduce its use in these particular areas?

These three areas are notable as ones where challenges still

exist in terms o the availability and accessibility to viable,

cost-eective and ecient alternatives. ASGM is recognized

as a major challenge but not just in regard to mercury issues.

There are a broad range o environmental and health chal-

lenges posed by this activity, including the role o the sector

in socio-economic development. While taking into account

the impacts on national development and poverty reduction,

we must move to set national goals and reduction targets,

and take action to eliminate the activities identied as being

responsible or the greatest emissions and releases o mer-cury. Other actions should work towards ormalization o the

sector, which is a largely unregulated and an oten unknown

sector o work. This includes labour laws, which may serve to

protect workers.


7/44


UNINTENDED EMISSIONS

In relation to the use o mercury in some compact fuores-

cent lamps, at this stage, no aordable and available alterna-

tive is currently available at the global level. Nonetheless, we

need to be working to phase these out and push the market

towards alternatives. In the interim, it should also be noted

that, where power is generated by coal combustion, the

provision o energy ecient lighting can result in signicant

reductions in the emissions o mercury through decreased

power consumption, which may (even with mercury-contain-

ing fuorescent lamps) result in a lower net mercury release or

emission to the environment. The eects on the environment

o mercury-containing products such as these lamps can also

be minimized by the implementation o environmentally

sound management o mercury-containing waste. Waste

separation programmes and recycling activities are able to

reduce the mercury made available to the environment rom

such products.

VCM using the mercury process is another where there is

no commercially viable alternative at this point in time. The

demand or polyvinyl chloride is very high in some countries,

particularly where there are extensive building projects, and

in some countries the viable sources o raw materials or VCM

mean that mercury use is needed. Nonetheless, measures to

minimize emissions and releases should be applied immedi-

ately, as well as a plan or eventual phasing out as alternativesare ound. It is my expectation that, over time, all o these uses

will become increasingly limited, and eventually will cease.

About hal o the global anthropogenic mercury emis-

sions come rom the burning o coal, metals production

and the production o cement. What concrete mechanisms

exist to address this?

The control o mercury emissions rom major sources has

been one o the key areas o discussion in the intergovern-

mental negotiations. Various mechanisms and approaches to

reduce mercury emissions have been discussed and discus-

sions continue on a variety o measures including the use obest available techniques and best environmental practices,

the use o emission limit values, the establishment o national

goals and the use o national implementation plans to set out

action plans or managing emissions. It should also be recog-

nized that many countries already have controls in place to

reduce mercury emissions either as stand-alone controls, or

as part o a multipollutant strategy.

Our main aim is

to reduce or eliminate

anthropogenic

emissions and releaseso mercury.


8/44


Once emitted or released, mercury persists in the environ-

ment where it circulates between air, water, sediments,

soil and living creatures. It can travel long distances to

areas ar rom any production or use, like the Arctic and

Antarctic regions. Mercury levels are continuing to rise in

some species in large areas o the Arctic, despite reduc-

tions in emissions rom human activities over the past

1530 years in some parts o the world. High exposure to

mercury is a serious risk to humans worldwide through

the ood chain. Solving these problems could be costly,

particularly related to remediation. Will this get sucient

attention and money in the next 20 years to x?

One o the key approaches to addressing the issue o con-

taminated sites is to prevent their occurrence in the uture.

Many o the measures we are already putting in place and

hope to increase, are working towards reducing emissions toair, water and land, by reducing the use o mercury in prod-

ucts and processes, and ensuring the sound management o

mercury-containing waste. These measures are designed to

reduce contamination o the environment, and thus to also

reduce re-emissions in the uture. Reduction and eventual

elimination o primary mercury mining will also avoid con-

tamination rom these sites. It is very challenging, at this stage,

to predict what the global situation will be over the next 20years, and to say whether there will be adequate unding to

completely solve the burden o many years o industrialized

activity. However, I can say with some condence, that should

we succeed in properly implementing many o the measures

currently in place and under discussion, we will be reducing

the uture burden o mercury pollution as well as its associ-

ated costs to humanity and the environment.

The global burden o diseases attributed to exposure to

hazardous chemicals is already signicant and is likely to

become more serious. Inants, children and pregnant wom-

en are the most vulnerable to the health efects o mercury.

What are the concrete measures to reduce health risks?

The global burden o disease related to mercury is well-recog-

nized and is a major driving orce or international action. Gov-

ernments have recognized that mercury poses a global threat

to human health and the environment. In considering this, it

should be recognized that the greatest health risks rom mer-

cury arise rom the consumption o sh with high levels o me-

thyl mercury, particularly by members o vulnerable groups. The

World Health Organization (WHO) has been closely involved in

developing background inormation utilized in the negotiations,

and has come out with policy papers on issues such as health

risks associated with the use o mercury in, or example, dentalamalgam and vaccines. I rely on their expert input in this regard.

International action is directly addressing the major health

concerns through the reduction o emissions and releases to

the environment. This includes reduction rom point sources,

and overall reductions seen with the decreased use o mer-

cury-containing products, decreased use o processes utiliz-

ing mercury, sound waste management, and a structuralapproach to reducing the use o mercury in ASGM. These

measures will reduce the mercury levels in sh as environ-

mental levels go down. In some species o sh, this reduction

may be seen quite quickly, while in other species, levels will

decrease more slowly as a actor o their size, age and diet.

However, much o the mercury emitted historically will con-

tinue to impact the environment or years to come. It is thus

imperative that we act now to reduce uture emissions andreleases to the maximum extent possible in order to stop add-

ing more to the global environment.

CLEAN-UP OFCONTAMINATED SITES HEALTH


9/44


IN 25 YEARS

Will you lets say 25 years rom now be able to look back

and say mission accomplished on mercury?

I am condent that through international legal action and

through partnering with stakeholders, we will be able to pro-

duce signicant decreases in environmental levels o mercury.

In many ways, the mercury instrument has a fying start as there

has been a long period o voluntary activities delivered through

the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Global

Mercury Partnership, as well as actions taken domestically in a

number o countries to address mercury pollution. Mercury is

on the global radar and many o the controls required are minor

adjustments to controls already implemented to address other

pollutants. Many mercury-containing products already have vi-

able alternatives, and we are likely to see a dramatically shrink-

ing market or more o them within the next 10 years. O course,

there are changes which will only occur over time. I am proudo the work and dedication o the international community and

am condent that in the uture we will deliver measurable re-

sults or human health and the environment.

I am condent

that we will deliver

measurable results or

human health and the

environment.


10/44


Global mercury events timeline

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Minamata Disease officially acknowledged

National regulatory frameworks on mercury

Earth Summit, Rio- de-Janeiro.

Establishment of the Global Environment FacilityNorth American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) on Mercury

UNEP's Global Mercury Assessment Report published

EU mercury strategy launched

Worlds largest mercury mine in Spain (Almaden)stopped primary mercury production

Mass intoxication and poisoning by mercury andmercury-containing products in several countries

UNEP Governing Council's decision toelaborate a legally binding instrument

to reduce risks posed by mercury

EU mercury export ban in effect

INC-2 Chiba and INC-3 Nairobi

INC-4 Punta del Este

Diplomatic conference in Japan,signing of a Global Mercury Treaty

INC-5 Geneva

Entry into force (?)

Numerous actions on mercurytaken by industries, governmentsand individuals

U.S. Mercury Export Ban Act(effective from January 1, 2013)

Source: Adapted from presentation by Fernando Lugris at UNEP Chemicals debriefing 26 July 2012 and 4 December 2012, Geneva.

"Outcomes of the 4th session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to prepare a global legally binding instrument on mercury".

Designed by Zo Environment Network / GRID-Arendal, December 2012.

Intergovernmental NegotiatingCommittee (INC) commence

its work, INC-1 Stockholm

Support to various demonstration andcapacity-building projects on mercury by the GEF

Arctic emission inventoryand UNEP's Global AtmosphericMercury Assessment published


11/44


Minamata mercury events timeline

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

A young girl at Minamata is hospitalised with

syndrome of severe numbness of the limbs,inability to speak and inability to eat.Minamata Disease ocially acknowledged.

Outbreak of the same disease in Niigata Prefecture.

Japan's Environment Agency

established; Certication Criteria forAcquired Minamata Disease published.

Establishment of Minamata Disease

Museums in Minamata and Niigata.

Comprehensive Programme to Address

Minamata Disease introduced.

Acetaldehyde and acetic acid manufacturing

industry takes the rst pollution reductionmeasures which later prove ineective.

The cause of Minamata Disease identied.

Compensation issues start to be discussed.

Relief Act to compensate

Minamata disease victims.

Production of acetaldehyde stopped at Minamata. Cost of damage caused by Minamata disease calculated:

- 7,671,000,000 yen/year health damage compensations

- 4,271,000,000 yen/year expenditure for dredging work in Mi namata Bay- 689,000,000 yen/year shery compensations

Minamata city is selected for

eco-model cities programme in Japan

Government decision on revitalisation

and development of local communities

Special Relief Act for Minamata victims.

Installation of dividing nets to containpolluted sh inside Minamata Bay.

Dredging of 1.5 million cubic metres ofmercury-contaminated bottom sediments.

Establishment of various social- economic

and victims integration programmes.

Source: Adapted from The lessons from Minamata Disease and Mercury Management in Japan , Ministry of Environment Japan, 2011. http://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/mercury/experience_of_japan.pdf



12/44


Background on MercuryMercury, also known as quicksilver, is a heavy, silvery-white

metal which is liquid at room temperature and evaporates

easily. In nature it is usually ound in the orm o cinnabar,used in the past as a red pigment. Cinnabar deposits have

been mined or centuries to produce mercury, but cinnabar

and other natural orms o mercury can also occur in deposits

o other metals such as lead and zinc. They may also be ound

in small amounts in a wide range o rocks including coal and

limestone. Mercury can be released into the air, water and soil

through industrial processes including mining, metal and ce-

ment production, and through uel extraction and the com-

bustion o ossil uels.

Mercury has been used since antiquity. Archaeologists have

recovered traces rom Mayan tombs and rom the remains o

Islamic Spain (Bank, 2012). The rst emperor o unied China

is said to have died ater ingesting mercury pills intended to

give him eternal lie (Asia History website). Metallic mercury

is still used in some herbal and religious remedies in Latin

America, Asia and Caribbean rituals (ATSDR, 1999).

Mercury is a heavy,

silvery-white metal

which is liquid at room

temperature and

evaporates easily.

10,000

0

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

Global annual mercurymining productionHg in metric tonnes

1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011

Source: Adapted from USGS, Mercury Statistics and information, Mineral Commodity Summaries.Designed by Zo Environment Network / GRID-Arendal, December 2012.


13/44


40,000-1,000,000

1971

1967

53,612

Minamata: 1953 - 1960Niigata: 1964 - 1965

27+

1989 - ?

1441963-1965

45

1956

100

1960

1,000

1969

100

2,000

1998

Global cases of mercury poisoning incidents

Contaminated flour

Contaminated wheat seeds

Contaminated grain

Contaminated seafood

Nature of contamination

Source: Adapted from A Small D ose of Toxicology, Steven Gilbert, 2011, Chapter 9; Adapted from Mercury Rising, Dan Olmsted, 2007, United Press International Inc. (> http://www2.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=13317); The Three Modern Faces of Mercury, Thomas Clarkson,

Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Reviews, 2002 (> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241144/pdf/ehp110s-000011.pdf); Methylmercury Posioning in Iraq, Bakir, et al., Science, Vol. 20, 1973, pp. 230-241

(> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/181/4096/230.full.pdf); The Three Modern Faces of Mercury, Thomas Clarkson, Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Reviews, 2002 (> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11114126);

Morphum Environment, Dr. Ron McDowall (> http://www.mcdowall.co.nz/ron/Site/Project_Gallery_-_Illegal_dumping_cambodia.html#0); BB C, 1999 (> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/310362.stm); University of Michigan (> University of Michigan);

The Independent, 1994 (> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/families-sue-over-mercury-poisoning-1403679.html); Lessons from Minamata Disease and Mercur y Management in Japan, 2011, Ministry of the Environment, Japan (> www.env.go.jp/chemi/tmms/pr-m/mat01/

en_full.pdf)

Designed by Zo Environment Network / GRID-Arendal, December 2012

Affected people

Fatalities

No information or uncertainties?

Illegal import of waste and inadequate storage


14/44


Tilesh, Swordsh,Shark and King

mackerel

Grouper, Tuna,Seabass, Marlin

and Halibut

CosmeticsThermometers

Batteries

Fluorescentlamps

Electronical devices(switches andthermostats)

Sources: adapted from UNEP, Mercury Awareness Raising Package, accessed on line in September 2012 (http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances);US Food and Drug Administration website on Mercury Levels in Commercial Fish and Shellsh (1990-2010)(http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specicinformation/seafood/foodbornepathogenscontaminants/methylmercury/ucm115644.htm)Designed by Zo Environment Network / GRID-Arendal, December 2012

Mercury in food and products


15/44


Even now, mercury is commonplace in daily lie. Electrical

and electronic devices, switches (including thermostats)and relays, measuring and control equipment, energy-

eicient luorescent light bulbs, batteries, mascara, skin-

lightening creams and other cosmetics which contain

mercury, dental illings and a host o other consumables

are used across the globe. Food products obtained rom

ish, terrestrial mammals and other products such as rice

can contain mercury. It is still widely used in health care

equipment, where much o it is used or measuring, andin blood pressure devices and thermometers, although

their use is declining. There are sae and cost-eective

replacements or mercury or many health care applica-

tions and or pharmaceuticals, and goals have been set

to phase out some mercury-containing devices altogeth-

er. For instance, the UNEP Mercury Products Partnership,

a mechanism or delivery o immediate actions, has set

the goal o reducing demand or mercury-containing e-

ver thermometers and blood pressure devices by at least

70 per cent by 2017.

Most o the worlds estimated 600,000 tonnes o mercury de-

posits are ound in a handul o countries, including China,Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Peru, Russia, Slovenia, Spain and Ukraine

(USGS, 2012). Primary mining (where mercury is the target ore,

not extracted as a by-product) is now limited to even ewer

countries, with only one (Kyrgyzstan) still exporting.

In 2005, UNEP estimated global annual mercury demand at be-

tween 3,000 and 3,900 tonnes (UNEP, 2006). Demand has allen

signicantly in the last 50 years, rom 9,000 tonnes a year in the1960s to 7,000 in the 1980s and 4,000 a decade later (UNEP, 2006).

A growing understanding o the risks posed by the toxicity o mer-

cury, the increasing availability o substitutes and international ac-

tion mean that many uses o mercury are now disappearing.

Given present trends, it appears likely that most uses o mercury

will continue to decline except in artisanal and small-scale gold

mining (ASGM) and in the production o vinyl chloride mono-

mer (VCM) which together accounts or around 45 per cent o all

global demand.

Most o the worlds

estimated 600,000tonnes o mercury

deposits are ound in a

handul o countries.


16/44


Global mercury consumption in 2005

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

1,600

1,700

1,800

1,900

Mercury consumption (tonnes)

East and

Southeast

Asia

South

Asia

European

Union

(EU25)

CIS and

other

European

countries

Middle

Eastern

States

North

Africa

Sub-

Saharan

Africa

North

America

Central

America

and the

Caribbean

South

America

Australia,

New Zealand

and Oceania

Dental amalgam

Measurement and control devices

Chlor-alkali industry

Fluorescent lighting

Artisanal and small-scale gold mining

Batteries

Electrical and electronic devices

Vinyl chloride monomer

Other

Source: Adapted from UNEP, Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions, Releases and Environmental Transport, 2013.



17/44


that may persist or decades ater the mining has stopped.

Low-mercury and mercury-ree methods are available, but

socio-economic conditions are oten barriers to the adoption

o better practices (UNEP, 2012). Persuading miners to change

the way they work because mercury is a threat to them and

their amilies can be dicult, but some good examples exist.

The Sustainable Artisanal Mining project in Mongolia, sup-

ported by the Swiss Development Cooperation, is one such

initiative, involving the Mongolian Government in working

with miners to develop policies and technical solutions to

ASGM is the largest sector o demand or mercury, using it to

separate the metal rom the ore. At least 1015 million min-

ers are involved worldwide, mainly in Arica, Asia and South

America. An estimated three million o them are women and

children (UNEP, 2012). Mercury use in ASGM was estimated

by Mercury Watch at 1,400 tonnes in 2011, and rising gold

prices are likely to increase that use (UNEP, 2012). The prac-

tice threatens the health o the workers and their amilies, and

the people downstream who eat mercury-contaminated sh

or drink the water. It can also cause environmental damage

Mercury use in

ASGM was estimated

by Mercury Watchat 1,400 tonnes

in 2011.

0

7,000

8,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

Mercury from stocks

Mercury from chlor-alkali industry

Recycled mercury

Mining & by-product mercury

Global mercury supply 1985-2005Commodity Hg (tonnes)

Source: Adapted from UNEP, Summary of Supply,Trade and Demand Information on Mercury, 2006. http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/PM-HgSupplyTradeDemand-Final-Nov2006-PMformat19Jan07.pdf


1985 1990 1995 2000 2005


18/44


Industrial processes: input and output of mercury

Vinyl chloridemonomerproduction

Batteriesproduction

Dental

amalgamproduction

Measuring andcontrol devices

production

Electrical andelectronic devices

production

Compact fluorescent lamps(CFL) production

INDUSTRIAL MERCURY DEMAND

IN MANUFACTURINGTonnes per year, estimates 2005

PRODUCTSCONTAINING

MERCURY

Automobiles

Irrigation pumps

Light switches

Thermostats

Button cell batteries

Special batteries

Compact fluorescent lamps

Paints (red pigment)

Pharmaceuticals

Dental amalgam

875

625

542333

292

292

166

Chlorine andcaustic sodaproduction

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Processes using mercury

Processes that produceproducts containing

mercury

Sources: adapted from UNEP, Summary of supply, trade and demand information

on mercury, 2006; UNEP, Mercury, A Priority for Action, 2008.Designed by Zo Environment Network / GRID-Arendal, December 2012


19/44


Sources: adapted from UNEP, Reducing Mercury Use in Artisanal andSmall-scale Gold Mining, 2012.Designed by Zo Environment Network / GRID-Arendal, December 2012

Mercury in artisanal andsmall-scale gold mining

Rocks or sedimentscontaining gold aremanually extracted

Mercury vapour is

released into theatmosphere

Direct impact ongold miner health

Indirect impact onchildren and fetus

Poor processing practicesrelease mercury to soil

and water

Water pollution

Soil pollutionHuman food chain

contamination

Mercury is used toseparate gold from

the ore

The amalgam isheated to drive off

the mercury,leaving the gold

eliminate mercury use. The Global Mercury Partnership pro-

motes the establishment o national action plans and reduc-

tion targets, encourages collaboration and the sharing o bestpractices to reduce mercury use, and helps the take-up o in-

novative market-based approaches.

The VCM industry, the basis or the large global production o

polyvinyl chloride (PVC), used in plastics, is the second largest

user o mercury, which is used as a catalyst in the production

process. Most o this production occurs in China. About 800

tonnes o mercury are thought to have been used by this in-dustry in China in 2012. Used mercury catalyst is recycled and

reused by enterprises that hold permits or hazadous waste

management in China. The amounts that may be emitted or

released are not known (UNEP, 2013).

Once a globally-binding treaty is in place, there is hope that

global mercury demand will decline sharply as industries

that use mercury in products and processes or release it to

the environment will be required to meet the obligations set

out in the instrument.

Global

mercury demand

is expected to decline

in response to

the treaty.


20/44


Impacts on human health and ecosystems

While some pollutants are restricted in their range and in the

size and number o the populations they aect, mercury is not

one o them. Wherever it is mined, used or discarded, it is li-

able in the absence o eective disposal methods to nish

up thousands o kilometers away because o its propensity totravel through air and water. Beyond that, it reaches the envi-

ronment more oten ater being unintentionally emitted than

through negligence in its disposal. The prime example o this

is the role played by the burning o ossil uels and biomass in

adding to mercury emissions.

Once released, mercury can travel long distances, and persists

in environments where it circulates between air, water, sedi-ments, soil, and living organisms. Mercury is concentrated as

it rises up the ood chain, reaching its highest level in preda-

tor sh such as swordsh and shark that may be consumed

by humans. There can also be serious impacts on ecosystems,

including reproductive eects on birds and predatory mam-

mals. High exposure to mercury is a serious risk to human

health and to the environment.

Air emissions o mercury are highly mobile globally, while

aquatic releases o mercury are more localised. Mercury in wa-

ter becomes more biologically dangerous and eventually some

mercury evaporates into the atmosphere. Once deposited in

soils and sediments, the mercury changes its chemical orm,

largely through metabolism by bacteria or other microbes,

and becomes methylmercury, the most dangerous orm orhuman health and the environment. Methylmercury normally

accounts or at least 90 per cent o the mercury in sh.

Mercury can enter the ood chain either rom agricultural prod-

ucts or rom seaood. It was widely used in agriculture, and at

least 459 people are known to have died in Iraq ater grain

treated with a ungicide containing mercury was imported in

1971 and used to make four (Greenwood, 1985). Those whoshowed the greatest eects were the children o women who

had eaten contaminated bread during pregnancy. Though

many o these acute cases are now in the past, agricultural

products may still contain mercury. The Institute or Agricul-

ture and Trade Policy in USA recently ound that high ruc-

tose corn syrup (used in sodas, ketchup and bread) could also

contain elevated mercury levels (Duault et al., 2009). Another

study suggested that in an area marked by intensive mercury

mining and smelting and heavy coal-powered industry, rice

crops could be contaminated (Zhang et al., 2010).


21/44


Large predatory fish

Mercury diffusion, depositionand suspension

Micro-organisms

Wasteincineration

and cremation

Biomagnification

Contamined surfacewater evaporation

Artisanal andsmall-scale

gold mining

Landfill

Chlor-alkali plantCement plant

Non-ferrousmetal plant

Vinyl chloridemonomer plant

Urbansewagesystem

How mercury can enter our environment

Sources: adapted from UNEP, Mercury Awareness Raising Package, accessed on line in S eptember 2012 (http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances);

Institute for Agruculture and Trade Policy, High fructose corn syrup's not-so-sweet surprise: mercury!, 2009.Designed by Zo Environment Network / GRID-Arendal, December 2012

Coal-firedpower plant

Soil contaminationSoil contamination

Mercury is releasedinto streams and

water bodies

Deposition fromatmosphere

Leakage intogroundwater

Leakage ingroundwater and

water bodies


22/44


2005-2007

1999-2005

1999-2005

20062002-2003

2003

2001-2003

2003-2006

2001-2003

2005

2006

2000-2007

1998-1999

2005-2006

1998-1999

1997

Mercury in the Arctic

Mercury in blood, % of samples exceeding 5.8 g/L

Source: Adapted from Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic Pollution 2011 (> www.amap.no)


Atmospheric transport100

0

50

Exceedance of blood guideline values (5.8 g/L) for (total) mercury in mothers and

women of child-bearing age in dierent populations around the Arctic (comparable

data not available from Norway, Sweden and Finland).

Aquatic transport

Riverine inow

Human groups at risk include the millions o ASGM miners

across the world, where mercury compounds are used in

production. However, a ar greater number o people whose

main source o protein is sh or other marine creatures may

be exposed to contamination (UNEP-WHO, 2008). The Foodand Agriculture Organization says: Just over 100 million tonnes

o fsh are eaten world-wide each year, providing two and a hal

billion people with at least 20 per cent o their average per capita

animal protein intake. This contribution is even more important

in developing countries, especially small island states and in

coastal regions, where requently over 50 per cent o peoples ani-

mal protein comes rom fsh. In some o the most ood-insecure

places many parts o Asia and Arica, or instance fsh proteinis absolutely essential, accounting or a large share o an already

low level o animal protein consumption(FAO, 2010).

The once pristine Arctic region is a special case. About

200 tonnes o mercury are deposited in the Arctic annually,

generally ar rom where it originated. A 2011 report by the

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) report-

ed that mercury levels are continuing to rise in some Arctic

species, despite reductions over the past 30 years in emissions

rom human activities in some parts o the world. It reports


23/44


a ten-old increase in the last 150 years in levels in belugas,

ringed seals, polar bears and birds o prey. Over 90 per cent

o the mercury in these animals, and possibly in some Arctic

human populations, is thereore believed to have originated

rom human sources. The average rate o increase in wildlieover the past 150 years is one to our per cent annually. The re-

port is clear about the implications or human health: The act

that trends are increasing in some marine species in Canada and

West Greenland despite reductions in North American emissions

is a particular cause or concern, as these include species used or

ood(AMAP, 2011). A recent study o the preschool children

in three regions o the Arctic showed that almost 59% o chil-

dren exceeded the provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI)

level or children (Tian et al., 2011; WHO, 1998).

Mercury can seriously harm human health, and is a particular

threat to the development o etuses and young children. It a-

ects humans in several ways. As vapour it is rapidly absorbed

into the blood stream when inhaled. It damages the central

nervous system, thyroid, kidneys, lungs, immune system, eyes,

gums and skin. Neurological and behavioural disorders may be

signs o mercury contamination, with symptoms including trem-

ors, insomnia, memory loss, neuromuscular eects, headaches,

and cognitive and motor dysunction. Recent studies have also

shown mercury to have cardiovascular eects (McKelvey and

Oken, 2012). In the young it can cause neurological damage re-

sulting in symptoms such as mental retardation, seizures, vision

and hearing loss, delayed development, language disorders andmemory loss. The Inuit population o Quebec has among the

highest levels o exposure to mercury o any population in the

world. Scientists recently concluded that children with higher

levels o contamination are more likely to be diagnosed with at-

tention decit hyperactivity disorder (Boucher et al., 2012).

In cases o severe mercury poisoning, as occurred in the Mi-

namata case in Japan, symptoms can include numbness in the

hands and eet, general muscle weakness, narrowing o the

eld o vision, and damage to hearing and speech (EINAP). In

extreme cases, insanity, paralysis, coma and death have been

known to ensue rapidly. People may be at risk o inhaling mer-

cury vapour rom their work (in industry or ASGM), or in spills,

and may be at risk through direct contact o mercury with the

skin. The most common orm o direct exposure or humans,

however, is through consuming sh and sea ood contami-

nated with methylmercury. Once ingested, 95 per cent o the

chemical is absorbed in the body.

Mercury can

seriously harm

human health.


24/44


Mercury and human health

Most

affected

organs

Most

affected

organs

Lungs

Heart

Liver

Kidneys

Fetus

Skin

Nervous system

Large predatory fish

Vegetables fromcontaminated soils

Waste

Use and damage of products

containing mercury (e.g. compact

fluorescent lamps, batteries,

medical devices)

Cosmetics, Soaps

Manufacturing of products

containing mercury (e.g.compact fluorescent lamps,

batteries, medical devices)

Artisanal and small-scale

gold mining

Industry(e.g. Chlor-alkali industry,cement production, metal

production)

Source: adapted from WHO, Toward The Tipping Point. WHO-HCWH Global Initiative to Substitute Mercury-Based Medical Devices in HealthCare, 2010; UNEP, Mercury Awareness Raising Package, accessed on line in September 2012 (http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances).Designed by Zo Environment Network / GRID-Arendal, December 2012

GENERAL EXPOSURE OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE


25/44


Population at risk from mercury contamination

Mercury pollution from mining and ore processing

Mercury contamination from artisanal and small-scale gold mining

Densely populated area

Populated area

Key regions of aected people by mercury pollution

Source: Adapted from Blacksmith Institute (> www.worstpolluted.org); Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) (> www.amap.no)


Health risk by consumption of contaminated marine mammals in arctic communities

Sparsely populated area


26/44


Emissions and releases

Global emissions o mercury to the air in 2010 rom human ac-

tivities were estimated at 1,960 tonnes. Although it is dicult

to compare emissions estimates or individual years, total an-

thropogenic emissions o mercury to the atmosphere appear

to have been relatively stable rom 1990 to 2010 (UNEP, 2013).

There has been a large shit in regional patterns, however. Eco-

nomic growth has driven an increase in anthropogenic emis-

sions in Southern and Eastern Asia, which now account or

about hal o global emissions. Emissions in Sub-Saharan A-

rica and in South America are slowly rising (together account-

ing or about 30 per cent o global emissions), while emissions

are declining in North America and Europe (about eight per

cent o global emissions altogether) (UNEP, 2013).

The largest anthropogenic sources are associated with arti-

sanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) and coal burning,

1.1%4.2% 2.4%

Australia, New Zealand & Oceania

Central America and the Caribbean

CIS & other European countries

East and Southeast Asia

EU27

Middle Eastern States

North Africa

North America

South Asia

South America*

Sub-Saharan Africa*

Region undened**

Regional mercury emissions in 2010

5.9%

39.7%

4.5%1.9%0.7%

3.1%

16.1% *

7.9%

12.5% *

* Artisanal and small-scale gold mining is by far the major contributor to mercuryemissions in South America and Sub-Saharan Africa

** Emissions from contaminated sites.

Source: Adapted from UNEP, Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions, Releases and Environmental Transport, 2013.



27/44


Global anthropogenic mercuryemissions in 2010

Source: Adapted from UNEP, Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions, Releases andEnvironmental Transport, 2013.


1%

Fossil fuel combustion (power & heating)

Metal production (ferrous & non-ferrous)

Chlor-alkali industry

Waste incineration, waste & other

Artisanal and small-scale gold mining

Cement production

Other

37%

9%

5%

24%

6%

18%

which together contribute about 61 per cent o total annual

anthropogenic emissions to the air (UNEP, 2013). Other major

contributors include errous and non-errous metal produc-

tion and cement production, together responsible or 27 per

cent (UNEP, 2013).

Emissions o mercury rom ASGM reported or 2010 are more

than twice those reported or 2005. While the higher price o

gold and increased rural poverty may indeed have caused

more activity in this sector, the increased emissions estimates

are thought to explained mainly by better data (UNEP, 2013).

Coal burning or electric power generation and or indus-

trial purposes continues to increase, especially in Asia (UNEP,

2013). Coal does not normally contain high concentrations

o mercury, but the combination o the large volume burnedand the act that a signicant portion o the mercury present

2,500

0

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Emissions to air

Source: Adapted from UNEP Study on mercury sources and emissions, and analysis of costand effectiveness of control measures, 2010.


Intentional use sectors

Unintentional use sectors

1990 1995 200520001990

tonnes


28/44


is emitted to the atmosphere results in large overall emissions

rom this sector. The mercury content o coal varies widely,

making emissions estimates highly uncertain (UNEP, 2013).

Much o the mercury released into aquatic environments

comes rom ASGM. However, the latest ndings suggest that

even deorestation can be a source o mercury emissions

through extensive erosion, which releases mercury previously

held in soils. Using 2010 gures or global deorestation rates,

it is estimated that around 260 tonnes o mercury may have

been released into rivers that year (UNEP, 2013).

Assessing the global spread and ate o mercury is a challeng-

ing task, as there are ew studies available about net deposi-tion o dierent orms o mercury in air, water and land. For

example, when mercury moves rom air to water and land it

is generally in an oxidized gaseous or particle orm, where-

as when it is re-emitted to air it has been converted back to

gaseous elemental mercury. These complicated mechanisms

make nal calculations a challenging task.

Much o the mercury in the Arctic has been carried over longdistances rom human sources at lower latitudes. The main

way mercury is transported to the Arctic is by the atmosphere,

which contributes slightly less than hal. Oceanic transport,

mainly rom the Atlantic, makes up around 23 per cent, with

a similar amount coming rom coastal erosion. The remainder

comes rom rivers. Mercury reaches the Arctic on air currents

within days, while on ocean currents it may take decades.

The orm in which mercury is released and the processes that

change it rom one chemical orm to another are the key to

determining its spread and ate. The aquatic environment is o

critical importance to mercury pathways to humans and wild-

lie, because inorganic mercury in water is transormed into

highly toxic methylmercury.

About 100 tonnes are estimated to reach the Arctic Ocean byair annually, with about the same amount rom the Atlantic

and Pacic Oceans, rivers and erosion combined. Recent cal-

culations suggest that the water in the Arctic Ocean accumu-

lates about 25 tonnes o mercury a year (AMAP, 2011). Less is

known about mercury dynamics and pathways in the ocean

than in the atmosphere, but about 75-90 tonnes annually are

thought to leave the Arctic in ocean outfow, with about 110

tonnes deposited in Arctic Ocean shel and deep ocean sedi-ments (AMAP, 2011).

Even deorestation

can be a source o mercury

emissions through

extensive erosion and

orest burning.


29/44


Long-range mercury transport

Major winds

Major ocean currents

Source: Adapted from AMAP/UNEP 2008, Technical Background Report to the Global Atmospheric Mercury Assessment; UNEP, Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions, Releases and Environmental Transport, 2013Designed by Zo Environment Network / GRID-Arendal, December 2012

Major emission areas

Mercury deposition > 20 g/km/year

Mercury deposition > 12 g/km/year

High annual mercury uxes to oceans

High annual mercury uxes in major river mouths


30/44


Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM)

Reported countries with ASGM

0-5 10,000

100,000

500,000

Estimated mercury releases from ASGMin tonnes per year

Estimated numbers of miners

Source: Adapted from Mercury Watch database (> www.mercurywatch.org); UNEP Global Forum on Artisanal and Small-scale gold mining Manila, 8th December 2010


No estimate

5-10

10-25

25-50

50-500


31/44


Mercury residues rom mining and industrial processing, as

well as mercury in waste, have resulted in a large number o

contaminated sites all over the world. Polluted soil can con-

tain as much as 400 grammes o mercury per hectare, as

measured at a Venezuelan gold mining site (Garcia-Sanchez et

al., 2006). Most mercury contamination sites are concentratedin the industrial areas o North America, Europe and Asia; and

in sub-Saharan Arica and South America. In contrast to Eu-

rope and North America, the number and extent o mercury-

contaminated sites in other parts o the world is increasing

because o the rising use o mercury (Kocman et al., 2011).

Sae storage o mercury-containing waste and rehabilitation

o various hotspots is needed.

Air pollution control technologies in industrial acilities re-

move mercury that would otherwise be emitted to the air, but

there is little inormation about the ultimate ate o the mercu-

ry captured in this way or about how the mercury-containing

wastes are subsequently disposed o. However, it is likely that

these control technologies will reduce the amount o mercury

that is transported globally by air. But the mercury captured

by lters will be disposed o in the area where it originated.While the atmosphere responds relatively quickly to changes

in mercury emissions, the large reservoirs o mercury in soils

and oceans mean that there will be a long time lag (in the or-

der o tens o decades) beore reductions in mercury inputs

are refected in depleted concentrations in these media and in

the wildlie taking up mercury rom them.

Artisanal and small-

scale gold mining and

coal burning are thelargest anthropogenic

sources o emissions.

M ti


32/44


Mercury action

Eorts to conront the threat posed by mercury to human healthand the environment have grown over the last decades. There

are a number o initiatives aiming, or example, to reduce the

use o mercury in products, to remediate sites and to clean up

historic pollution. Some countries have introduced ar-reaching

regulations. Global action, however, has been rather limited.

In 2008, United States o America (USA) introduced its Mercury

Export Ban Act, which bans the export o mercury rom theUSA rom 1 January 2013. It also includes provisions on long-

term mercury management and storage. Because the USA is

one o the worlds top mercury exporters, implementation o

the act will remove a signicant amount rom the global mar-

ket (US EPA, 2012).

The European Union (EU) banned mercury exports in 2011. Under

EU law, mercury that is no longer used by the chlor-alkali industry

or that is produced in certain other industrial operations must be

put into sae storage. Although the EU stopped all orms o mer-

cury mining in 2001, as recently as 2008 it was the worlds biggest

exporter, responsible or up to a quarter o the global supply.

Only a ew countries such as Canada and the USA have taken

steps to set national standards specically or mercury emis-

sions rom coal-red plants. Relatively strict mercury control re-

quirements in Canada demand signicant investment in someplants. The USA has recently nalized the Mercury and Air

0

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

The industrys self-commitment to phase-outmercury use in the chlor-alkali industryWestern Europe

Chlor-alkali capacity (thousand tonnes)

Source: Adapted from European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, 2004, Brussels.


2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020

Hg

Hg

Mercury

Mercury

Toxics Standard which aims to reduce mercury emissions by

20 tonnes by 2016, a total o 70 per cent reduction in emissionsrom the power sector (Sloss, 2012). In the EU, urther mercury


33/44


The UNEP Global Mercury Partnership estimates that some100 acilities in 43 nations today use mercury in the chlor-

alkali industry. The European chlor-alkali industry, producing

chlorine and caustic soda rom salt, has committed to the

closure or conversion o its mercury-based plants by 2020.

While agreeing to phase out mercury by 2020, the European

chlor-alkali producers are actively engaged in the applica-

tion o best practices when handling mercury during normal

operation and during conversion to other technologies. In2010, emissions or all mercury cells across Western Europe

reached an all-time low o 0.88 grammes per tonne o chlo-

rine capacity.

Forty-two mercury-based chlorine plants remain to be volun-

tarily phased out or converted to non-mercury technology by

2020 at a cost o more than 3,000 million. These plants ac-

count or an ever-decreasing part (31.8% in 2010) o European

chlor-alkali capacity (Euro Chlor website).

The EU Regulation on the Export Ban and Sae Storage o

Metallic Mercury makes it legal to permanently store liquid

mercury in underground salt mines or hard rock ormations.

An investigation into the saety o permanent storage o liq-

uid mercury is under way in Germany, but it may be several

years beore it reaches a conclusion. The industry is thereore

continuing to look into other permanent disposal solutions,including stabilized mercury.

0

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

6,500

6,000

5,500

5,000

Mercury use in the chlor-alkali industry

Capacity of plants (1000 t/y)

Source: Adapted from WCC Hg reporting to the Chlor-Alkali Partnership, 2012.


2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Capacity of mercury electrolysis units in USA / Canada / Mexico, EU,

Russia, India and Brazil / Agentina / Uruguay

reduction will be achieved through the new Industrial Emis-

sions Directive adopted in 2010, however, specic reduction orcontrol requirements o mercury may still be required.


34/44


Compact uorescent lamps (CFLs)Level of mercury per bulb (mg)

Source:

Adopted from European Lamp Companies Federation

http://www.elcfed.org

UNEP en.lighten, December 2012Designed by Zo Environment Network / GRID-Arendal

GlobalSalesofCFLs(millions)

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Global CFL Sales

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Managing surplus mercury involves collection, stabilization

and sae disposal to isolate it rom the biosphere. Stabilizing

mercury oers several benets: technology is available on an

industrial scale, there is no risk o liquid spillage, vapour pres-

sure is below occupational saety limits, and mercury con-

centrations in leachates are below the threshold or disposal.

Beyond that, the lower commercial value o the stabilized

mercury reduces the risk o thet, and disposal ater stabiliza-tion by binding with sulphur is possible. Several stabilization

technologies exist: chemical transormation into a more sta-

ble, less mobile chemical compound; micro-encapsulation,

the embedding o particles in an impermeable matrix such

as cement; and macro-encapsulation, the covering o waste

material with an impermeable material, or example poly-

ethylene. The act that stabilized mercury is non-toxic signi-

cantly helps the search or suitable storage sites. Unlike liquid

mercury, the stabilized orm is suitable or storage in landllsand underground.


35/44


Mercury storage and disposal is a growing problem. The glob-

al trend towards phasing out products which contain mercu-

ry and processes which use it will soon generate an excess o

mercury i supplies remain at their current level. Environmen-

tally sound management o mercury waste will be a critical

issue or most countries. There are some good examples. But

in the Latin American and Caribbean region, mercury supply

may exceed demand by 2013. In 2012, UNEP helped Argen-

tina and Uruguay to nd environmentally sound solutions or

the storage and disposal o excess mercury, including iden-

tiying existing hazardous waste acilities that could serve

as temporary storage and identiying relevant regulatory

rameworks. Both countries developed National Action Plans

or the environmentally sound management o mercury andmercury wastes.

Mercury is widely used in compact fuorescent lamps (CFLs)

and the demand or them is increasing in the quest or en-

ergy eciency. According to the EU Directive 2002/95/EC

on the restriction o hazardous substances in electrical and

electronic equipment (RoHS Directive), mercury content in

CFLs not exceeding 5 mg per lamp is allowed. These lamps

reduce electricity consumption so that in countries that gen-

erate electricity largely rom coal, there could be less electric-

ity required or lighting, thereby saving about 10 per cent o

emissions into the environment (EU, 2010). However, despite

continuing industry eorts to reduce the mercury content o

each CFL and proven recycling techniques allowing eective

recovery o mercury at the end o a lamps lie cycle, the high

global demand or CFLs might present a challenge to achiev-ing the goal o eective reduction o mercury use.

Mercury management options

Mercury input

Mercury input

Productionprocesses

Use of products

containingmercury

Landfill

Industrialwaste storage

Recovery(pre-treatment, thermal treatment, refinement)

StabilisationSolidification

Productswaste

Waste fromintentional use of

mercury in processes

Source: Adapted from UNEP 2011, Basel Convention Technical guidelines for the environmentally soundmanagement of wastes consisting of elemental mercury and wastes containing or contaminated with mercuryDesigned by Zo Environment Network / GRID-Arendal, December 2012

Hazardous wastemanagement facility

Permanent storageSpecially engineered landfill

Acting now


36/44


Acting now

Actions we need

Once emitted or released, mercury persists in the environment

where it circulates between air, water, sediments, soil and liv-ing creatures. It can travel long distances to areas ar rom any

production or use. Thereore actions need to be taken at the

source whenever possible.

Reduce supplyStop primary mining as soon as possible and satisy remain-

ing demand by recycling. The demand or mercury or use in

products and processes in the transition towards mercury reeproducts and processes should be met preerentially rom

mercury reuse and recycling.

Reduce demandViable, sae and commercial alternatives are available or

almost all uses o mercury. Take actions that promote the tran-

sition to mercury-ree alternatives in product and processes.

I it is not yet possible, reduce content o mercury in products.

Move to non-mercury technologies in the chlor-alkali and

vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) sectors.

Manage continuing use

While mercury-added products remain in production and use,those products must be managed to avoid mercury releases.

Dispose properlyMercury not needed or remaining uses needs to be disposed

o by environmentally sound means. Products containing or

contaminated by mercury should also be managed in an envi-

ronmentally sound way as they are turned into waste.

Reduce unintentional emissions and releasesMercury occurs as a trace contaminant in ossil uel, metal ores

and limestones used by industry. Thereore, industrial processes

need to be optimized to reduce or eliminate mercury emissions

and releases. Raw material selection and processing combined

with existing air pollution control devices may provide cost-

eective reductions o mercury emissions. Mercury captured

by control technologies and mercury containing waste streams

need to be managed in an environmentally sound manner.

Take holistic approach or artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM)Signicant reductions in mercury releases rom ASGM can be

obtained by introducing mercury-ree techniques and low-

cost mercury capturing devices that allow a high rate o recy-

cling. Take-up o such techniques will depend on training min-

ers that will need to take account o the wider socio-economicand development contexts o the sector.

Substitutes or mercury in products and mercury processes

are available, cost-eective and sae. Waste management and

stabilization processes can make mercury storage sae and e-

ective. Control technologies can capture emissions.

Society has the ability to make signicant reductions in an-

thropogenic emissions and releases o mercury without com-

promising development and peoples livelihoods. The reduc-

tion and eventual elimination o mercury as a commodity is

not only desirable but possible.


37/44


Who needs to act?

Governments: Ensure regulatory rameworks that promote

the transition to mercury-ree products, and investment inbest available techniques by industries continuing to use or

release mercury.

Industries: Invest in cleaner and more eective techniques

that do not require mercury, resulting in improved control o

releases o mercury and other pollutants. Invest in and com-

mercialize alternatives to mercury-added products.

Intergovernmental organizations and nongovernmental

organizations: Support governments in their eorts through

the provision o technical assistance, capacity-building and

mobilization o resources.

You too, can act: Be aware that exposure to mercury occurs

principally through ood chain and that oetuses, inants, chil-

dren, and pregnant women are the most susceptible to mer-

cury exposure. Look or and use mercury-ree products. Take

care when disposing o mercury-containing products and ask

your local authorities to provide acilities or proper disposal.

Many substitutes

or mercury in products

and mercury processes

are available, cost-

efective and sae.

References


38/44


References

AMAP (2011). Assessment 2011: Mercury in the Arctic. Arctic Monitor-

ing and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. pp xiv + 193.

ATSDR (1999). Toxicological Prole or Mercury. Agency or Toxic Sub-stances and Disease Registry U.S. Department o Health and Human Ser-

vices (Available rom http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxproles/tp46-c1.pd).

Asia History website (Available rom http://asianhistory.about.com).

Bank, M. S. (2012). Mercury in the Environment. Pattern and Process,

University o Caliornia Press.

Boucher, O., Jacobson, S. W., Plusquellec, P., Dewailly, E., Ayotte, P.,

Forget-Dubois, N., Jacobson, J. L., Muckle, G. (2010). Prenatal methyl-mercury, postnatal lead exposure, and evidence o attention decit/

hyperactivity disorder among Inuit children in Arctic Qubec. Environ-

mental Health Perspectives, Vol. 120: 10, 145661.

Duault, D., LeBlanc, B., Schnoll, R., Cornett, C., Schweitzer, L., Wallinga, D.,

Hightower, J., Patrick, L., Lukiw, W. J. (2009). Mercury rom chlor-alkali plants:

measured concentrations in ood product sugar. Environmental Helath, 8:2.

EINAP website (Available rom http://www.einap.org).

EU (2010). Opinion on Mercury in Certain Energy-saving Light Bulbs.

European Commission Scientic Committee on Health and Environ-

mental Risks. (Available http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientic_com-

mittees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_124.pd).

European Commission (2004). Mercury Flows in Europe and theWorlds: the Impacts o Decommissioned Chlor-Alkali Plants. Con-

corde. (Available rom http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/

mercury/pd/report.pd.).

Euro Chlor website (Available rom http://www.eurochlor.org).

FAO (2010). The State o World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. Food

and Agriculture Organization o the United Nations, Fisheries and Aq-

uaculture department. Rome, Italy.

Garcia-Sanchez, A., Contreras, F., Adams, M., Santos, F. (2006). Atmos-

pheric mercury emissions rom polluted gold mining areas (Venezue-

la). Environ Geochem Health 28, 529540.

Greenwood, M. R. (1985). Methylmercury poisoning in Iraq. An epide-

miological study o the 19711972 outbreak. Journal o Applied Toxi-

cology 5: 3, 148159.

Horvat, M., Kocman, D., Pirrone, N., Cinnirella, S. (2011). Contribution

o contaminated sites to the global mercury budget. Presentation atthe 3rd session o the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on

a Hg instrument Nairobi, 2nd November, 2011.


39/44


McKelvey, W., Oken, E. (2012). Mercury and Public Health: An Assess-

ment o Human Exposure. Mercury in the Environment: Pattern and

Process by Michael Bank, Chapter 13.

Tian, W., Egeland, G.M., Sobol, I., Chan, H.M. (2011). Mercury hair con-

centrations and dietary exposure among Inuit preschool children in

Nunavut, Canada. Environment International, 37:42-48.

UNEP (2006). Summary o supply, trade and demand inormation on

mercury. United Nations Environment Programme. UNEPs Division

o Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE) Chemical Branch. Ge-

neva, Switzerland.

UNEP (2010). Study on mercury sources and emissions, and analysis ocost and eectiveness o control measures UNEP Paragraph 29 study.

Division o Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE), Chemicals

Branch, Geneva, Switzerland.

UNEP (2012). A Practical Guide: Reducing Mercury Use in Artisanal and

Small-Scale Gold Mining. United Nations Environment Programme,

Global Mercury Partnership.

UNEP (2013). Global Mercury Assessment 2013 Sources, Emissions, Re-

leases and Environmental Transport. United Nations Environment Pro-gramme, report in drat.

UNEP Global Mercury Partnership (Available rom http://www.unep.

org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/GlobalMercuryPartnership/tab-

id/1253/Deault.aspx).

UNEP-WHO (2008). Guidelines or Identiying Populations at

Risk rom Mercury Exposure. UNEPs Division o Technology, Indus-

try and Economics (DTIE) Chemical Branch, the World Health Or-

ganization Department o Food Saety, Zoonoses and Foodborne

Diseases.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (Available

rom http://www.epa.gov/hg/regs.htm).

USGS (2012). Mineral Commodity Summary. United States Geologi-cal Service. (Available rom http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/

commodity/mercury/mcs-2012-mercu.pd).

WHO (1998). Summary and Conclusions: Joint FAO/WHO Expert

Committee on Food Additives. Presented at the 51st meeting. World

Health Organization.

Zhang, H., Feng, X., Larssen, T., Qiu, G., Vogt, R. D. (2010). In inland

China, rice, rather than sh, is the major pathway or methylmer-

cury exposure. Environmental Health Perspective, 118: 9, 11831188.

Index


40/44


AAccidents 13

Agriculture 20, 22

Alternative technologies 5, 6-7, 9, 36-37Arctic and Antarctic 5, 8, 10, 22-23, 25, 28

Artic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) 22-23, 25

Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) 5, 6, 15-19, 21, 24-27, 30-31, 36

Awareness-raising 14,21,24

BBurning o ossil uels and biomass 5, 7, 20, 26-27, 28, 31

C

Cardiovascular eects 23, 24Cement production 7, 12, 21, 24, 27

Chlor-alkali 5, 6, 16-17, 21, 24, 27, 32-33, 36

Coal combustion 5, 7, 12, 21, 26-27, 28, 31, 32, 35

Controls 7, 9, 15,16, 18, 27, 31, 32-33, 36-37

Contamination 8, 13, 19, 21, 22-23, 25, 31

DDisposal 6, 20, 33, 34-35, 37

EEcosystems 20

Endangering livelihoods 36

Environmental damage 11, 17Environmentally sound management 7, 8, 35

Emissions 5, 6-7, 8, 10, 16, 20, 22-23, 26-29, 31, 32-33, 35, 36

Erosion 28

European Union (EU) 10, 16, 25, 32-34

Exposure 8, 20, 23-24, 37

FFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 22

Food chain 8, 13-15, 19, 20, 22-23

GGlobal demand and supply 12, 15, 16-17, 19

Global Mercury Partnership 9, 42, 32-33

Global mercury treaty 5-10, 19, 32-33, 37

HHealth 5, 6, 8-9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23-25, 32

Hotspots 31


41/44


IIncidents 13

Industrial 5, 8, 12, 18, 27, 31-36

Inuit 23

MMethylmercury 13-14, 20, 23, 28

Mercury ban export act 10, 32-33

Mercury deposits 12, 15

Mercury exports 32

Mercury levels 8-9, 14, 20, 22-23

Mercury products partnership 15, 42

Mercury waste 7, 8,13, 19, 21, 24, 31, 34-36

Minamata 5, 10-11, 13, 23

NNeurological symptoms and disorders 23, 24

PPollution 8-9, 11, 19, 22, 25, 31-32, 36

Price and trade 5, 17-18, 20-21, 27

Primary mercury mining 6, 8, 12, 15, 20, 25, 32, 36

Products containing mercury 5, 7-10, 15, 18-19, 20, 24, 31, 35-37

RRegulations 32

Risk to humans 8, 10, 15, 20, 22-25

SStorage 13, 31-36

TToxicity 15

UUNEP 5, 9-10, 14-19, 21, 22, 24, 26-35

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 32

VVinyl chloride monomer (VCM) production 5-7, 15, 19, 36

WWorld Health Organization (WHO) 8, 22-24

The Global Mercury Partnership


42/44


Mercury partnerships were initiated through UNEP in 2005 to take

immediate actions to reduce risks to human health and the environ-

ment rom the release o mercury and its compounds to the envi-

ronment. The Global Mercury Partnership was ormalized in 2008through the development o the Overarching Framework that gov-

erns the UNEP Global Mercury Partnership.

The overall goal o the Global Mercury Partnership is to protect hu-

man health and the global environment rom the release o mercury

and its compounds by minimizing and, where easible, ultimately

eliminating global, anthropogenic mercury releases to air, water and

land. The Partnership currently has eight identied Priorities or Ac-

tions (or partnership areas) that refect the major source categories

and have established business plans:

Reducing mercury in artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM).

Mercury cell chlor-alkali production.

Mercury air transport and ate research.

Mercury-containing products.

Mercury releases rom coal combustion.

Mercury waste management.

Mercury supply and storage.

Mercury releases rom cement industry.

The work in the Global Mercury Partnership has provided helpul in-

ormation or decision-makers in the negotiation o the treaty and

is well positioned to support implementation in the years ahead.

Some key Partnership activities to date include:

Support or the development o sectoral inventories or chlor-

alkali and ASGM.

Expanding the previous knowledge base on coal, by develop-

ing new inormation rom China, India, South Arica and Russia our developing and transition economy countries that are

among the most signicant users o coal in power generation.

Products/emissions inventories and risk management plans

in Latin America (Chile, Ecuador, Peru), Mongolia and South

Arica.

The development o the Global Mercury Observation System (GMOS)

in support o the evaluation o the eectiveness o international con-

trol measures.

Development o guidance materials, including:

ASGM: (i) Reducing Mercury Use in ASGM: A Practical Guide (2012).

(ii) Analysis o ormalization approaches in the ASGM sector based

on national experiences in Ecuador, Mongolia, Peru, Tanzania and

Uganda (2012). (iii) Guidance Document on developing a National

Strategic Plan to reduce mercury use in ASGM.

Provision o assistance in the nalization o the Basel Convention

Technical Guidelines on Environmentally Sound Management o

Wastes Consisting o Elemental Mercury and Wastes Containing

and Contaminated with Mercury. Good Practices or Management o Mercury Releases rom Waste.

Process Optimisation Guidance (POG) prepared or mercury con-

trol at coal-red acilities outlining how changes in plant peror-

mance and eciency can reduce emissions o all pollutants in an

eective and economic manner. An interactive calculation tool

(iPOG) based on the POG has been developed, that allows users to

provide coal and plant specic data to study mercury behaviour

on a plant by plant basis.

Economics o Conversion in the chlor-alkali sector.

Mercury Regional Storage projects undertaken in Asia-Pacic and

Latin America developed assessment reports on projected excess

mercury supply and studied various options which governments

could use in the management o excess supply.

Supporting the Government o the Kyrgyz Republic to transition

away rom primary mercury mining, as it is the last exporting primary

mercury mine globally.

As o December 2012, there were 116 ocial partners in the Global Mer-cury Partnership, including 25 governments, 5 intergovernmental organi-

zations, 46 non-government organizations, and 40 others. Some o the

partners are global associations that represent industry sectors or global

civil society consortia. These represent a large number o national associa-

tions that extend the reach o the Partnership. In addition, the Partnership

works with a number o stakeholders that have not yet ocially joined.


43/44

This report speaks directly to governments

involved in development o the global


44/44

www.unep.orgUnited Nations Environment Programme

P.O. Box 30552 - 00100 Nairobi, KenyaTel.: +254 20 762 1234Fax: +254 20 762 3927

e-mail: [email protected]

g

treaty on mercury. It presents updates

rom the UNEP Global Mercury Assessment

2013 in short and punchy acts and fgures

backed by compelling graphics that provide

governments and civil society with the

rationale and the imperative to act on this

notorious pollutant.

The report underlines the act that mercury

remains a major global, regional and nationalchallenge in terms o threats to human health

and the environment, especially but not

uniquely to the health o pregnant woman

and babies world-wide through the eating

o contaminated fsh or example or marine

mammals in places like the Arctic.UNEP

Division of Technology, Industry and Economics

Chemicals Branch

International Environment House 1

11-13, Chemin des Anmones

CH -1219 Chtelaine, Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 (0) 22 917 12 34

Fax: +41 (0) 22 797 34 60

Email: [email protected]: www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances

ISBN: 978-92-807-3310-5Job Number: DTI/1623/GE

Documents

Mercury TimeToAct Hires