EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 2.2.2016 SWD(2016) 17 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Ratification and Implementation by the EU of the Minamata Convention on Mercury Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 {COM(2016) 39 final}

{SWD(2016) 14 final}

{SWD(2016) 18 final}



TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations Introduction 1.Policy context, Problem Definition and Subsidiarity 1.1.Policy context 1.2.Problem definition 1.3.What are the underlying causes of the problem? 1.4.How will the problem evolve? 1.5.Who is affected and how? 1.6.The EU's right to act and justification 1.7.Issues identified in the assessment of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation 2. Objectives 3.Policy Options 3.0 Baseline - “No EU Action” 3.1Import of mercury (P1) 3.2Export of certain mercury-added products (P2) 3.3Mercury use in new products/processes (P3)

3.4Use of mercury in certain manufacturing processes (P4) 3.5Mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM) (P5) 3.6Use of dental amalgam (P6) 3.7Summary 3.8Legal instrument 4.Analysis of Impacts 4.0 Baseline - “No EU Action” 4.1Import of mercury (P1) 4.2Export of certain mercury-added products (P2) 4.3Use of mercury in new products/processes (P3) 4.4Mercury use in the manufacturing processes listed in MC Annex B (P4) 4.5Mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM) (P5) 4.6Use of dental amalgam (P6) 5.Comparing the Options 5.1Definition of scenarios 5.2Comparison of scenarios against the baseline 6.Monitoring and Evaluation 7. Annexes Annex 1 – Procedural information Appendix - List of Sources and Evidence

Annex 2 – Stakeholder Consultation Appendix A – Stakeholder Workshop of 7 July 2014 Appendix B – Results of the Public Consultation Annex 3 – Who is Affected by the Initiative and How Annex 4A – Mercury as A Global Issue Annex 4B – Major Mercury Pathways Annex 5 – The Minamata Convention on Mercury Annex 6 – Current EU Law on Mercury and Mercury Compounds Annex 7 – Regulatory Gap Analysis of EU Law Annex 8 – Assessment of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation Appendix 8.1 – Member State responses Appendix 8.2 – Other Stakeholder Responses Annex 9A – Detailed Impact Assessment of P2 (Products) Annex 9B – Detailed Impact Assessment of P4O2 (Processes) Annex 10A – Dental Amalgam Summary Annex 10B – Emissions From Dental Amalgam Annex 10C – Use of Separators in Dental Practices Annex 10D – Environmental Cost of Dental Amalgam Use Acronyms and Abbreviations

AMAP Arctic Monitoring and Assessment programme Art. Article(s) ASGM Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining BAT Best Available Techniques BAU Business as usual BEP Best Environmental Practices BR Better Regulation BREF BAT Reference Document CED Council of European Dentists CONTAM EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain COP Conference of the Parties EEB European Environmental Bureau EFSA European Food Safety Authority ELV Emission Limit Values EPBA European Portable Battery Association EU European Union FAO Food Agricultural Organisation Hg Mercury IASG Impact Assessment Steering Group IED Industrial Emissions Directive INC Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control MC Minamata Convention on Mercury MCP Medium Combustion Plants MS Member State(s) NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PIC Prior Informed Consent PRTR Pollutant Release and Transfer Register PUR Polyurethane PVC Polyvinylochloride R&D Research and Development RoHS Restriction of Hazardous Substances SCENIHR Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks SCHER Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TWI Tolerable Weekly Intake UNEP United Nations Environment Programme USA United States of America USD United States Dollar VCM Vinyl chloride monomer WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment WFD Water Framework Directive WHO World Health Organisation WPIEI Working Party on International Environmental Issues WSR Waste Shipment Regulation WTO World Trade Organisation WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant Introduction Mercury is a global pollutant that poses significant threats to human health and the environment. The general population is exposed to mercury mainly through their diet, especially the consumption of fresh water and marine fish and seafood. The European Union (EU) has a well-developed policy and legislative framework to control the risks posed by mercury. The overall policy framework is the EU Mercury Strategy adopted by the European Commission (“Commission”) in 2005, with the objective to reduce mercury levels in the environment and associated human exposure. The 2010 evaluation and review of the EU Mercury Strategy concluded that it had delivered on most of its actions. However, as EU action alone proved not to be sufficient to address the mercury problem, the Commission considered the negotiation of a legally binding instrument on mercury under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as a priority for further work. The European Parliament and the Council have also emphasised the importance of the international dimension of mercury policy. The EU played an instrumental role in the international negotiations on mercury launched by the Governing Council of UNEP in February 2009 and concluded successfully in January 2013. The Minamata Convention on Mercury (MC) adopted in October 2013 in Japan has been signed by 128 parties (including the EU and 26 MS) and it has already been ratified by 19 countries. As the entry into force of the Convention requires 50 ratifications, an early ratification by the EU and its Member States (MS) could trigger its entry into force and an early implementation, which is an objective supported by all MS. The MC has been inspired to a great extent by existing EU legislation. As a consequence, the vast majority of its provisions mirror EU law on mercury and thereby contribute to levelling the international playing field regarding mercury use and emission controls. Yet, the comparative analysis of the Convention text vis-à-vis the EU acquis shows that ratification of the MC would necessitate limited adjustments to EU legislation in certain areas, including imports of metallic mercury; exports of mercury-added products; use of mercury in industrial processes; new mercury uses in products and processes; artisanal and small-scale gold mining; and use of dental amalgam. Hence, this impact assessment focuses on the adaptations of the EU mercury legislation required to comply with the Convention and enable the EU to ratify it, as a means to trigger regulatory action at global level that would significantly complement existing EU action on mercury. The present report provides an in-depth assessment on how best to address the identified issues. 1.Policy context, Problem Definition and Subsidiarity 1.1.Policy context Mercury is recognised as a global threat to human health and the environment and there is broad consensus internationally on the need to phase it out. Annex 4 provides a general description of the mercury issue and its global dimension. The EU has made considerable progress in addressing domestically the challenges posed by mercury since it launched the EU Mercury Strategy in 2005, which was supported by an impact assessment addressing the mercury issue and areas for possible action. The Mercury Strategy was welcomed by Council Conclusions on 24 June 2005 and a European Parliament Resolution on 14 March 2006. It is a comprehensive plan consisting of 20 measures aiming at reducing mercury emissions, cutting mercury supply and demand and at protecting individuals against exposure, especially to methylmercury found in fish. The Mercury Strategy recognises the global character of the mercury issue and hence the imperative need for action at global level. Thus, seven of its actions (actions 14 to 20) support and promote international activities. As described in Annex 6, the existing EU acquis covers the whole mercury lifecycle (supply, demand, products, trade, emissions, waste, etc.) via a broad range of policy areas (e.g. environment, energy, health and trade). One of the key measures in implementing the EU Mercury Strategy was the adoption of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation, which set an export ban on mercury and certain mercury compounds and mixtures that entered into effect on 15 March 2011. The Commission evaluated the EU Mercury Strategy in 2010, examining in particular: progress made in implementing the Strategy and each of its 20 actions; areas where implementation was lagging behind and the need for complementary measures; amendments, as needed, as well as additional actions, taking into account new studies, best practices, and policy initiatives at the EU and international levels. On the basis of this evaluation, in December 2010, the Commission adopted a Communication on the review of the Community Strategy concerning Mercury, which concluded the following:

While the EU Mercury Strategy has resulted in significant progress in some areas, such as the establishment of a ban on EU exports of mercury from March 2011 and the ban on mercury use in some measuring devices, its implementation, however, has been lagging behind in other areas, e.g. the industrial emissions of mercury, the issue of dental amalgam use and waste management. Internal EU legislation alone could not guarantee effective protection of the European citizens and the negotiation of a global legally binding instrument on mercury, under the auspices of UNEP, was therefore identified as priority for further action. The EU contributed to a great extent to the adoption in 2009 of a UNEP decision on the start of such negotiations. The EU actively participated in and influenced the outcome of these international negotiations. The Minamata Convention on Mercury, adopted in October 2013 in Japan, seeks "to protect the human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds". This objective is fully in line with the EU Mercury Strategy, as well as with the European Parliament's and the Council’s statements on this issue. Some key provisions of the MC are described in Annex 5. The EU has an advanced legislative framework regarding mercury and the vast majority of the binding provisions of the MC are already covered by the EU acquis, including in particular: not allowing primary mining of mercury; banning the export of mercury; not allowing the marketing and import of the mercury containing products listed in Annex A to the MC; not allowing the use of mercury in chlor-alkali plants after 2017; establishing inventories of industrial emissions of mercury to air, soil and water from the sectors listed in Annex B to the MC; preventing and reducing the industrial emissions of mercury to air, soil and water from the sectors listed in Annex B to the MC by the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT); environmentally sound management of mercury waste. Given the instrumental role played by the EU in concluding the Convention, the important benefits expected at global and EU levels from its implementation, including in terms of levelling the global playing field regarding the use of mercury in products and processes and the controls of mercury emissions to the environment, it is in the interest of the EU to ratify it as soon as possible. The Convention has been signed by 128 parties and it has been ratified by 19 parties so far2. It will enter into force once it is ratified by at least 50 parties. The EU and 26 of its MS have signed the MC and thereby committed themselves to work towards its ratification and implementation. As the MC's provisions have been inspired to a great extent by EU legislation, full compliance with the Convention requires only few additional measures or amendments. This impact assessment complements previous work by focusing on the measures needed to ensure that the international action called for by the EU Mercury Strategy materialises. It assesses options for the ratification of the MC and examines how these contribute to the overall objective of reducing exposure to mercury, taking into particular account the global dimension of the issue. 1.2.Problem definition Exposure to high levels of mercury can cause harm to the brain, lungs, kidneys and immune system of people of all ages. Human exposure through eating of contaminated fish is due to the increased levels of mercury in the environment. The EU has already taken action to tackle the problem by reducing mercury emissions and use domestically. However, the global character of the mercury problem implies that the EU cannot provide sufficient protection to its citizens on its own, as exposure in the EU to mercury is largely due to emissions originating in other parts of the world. Hence, the EU actively supported the international negotiations for a global treaty on mercury and signed the Minamata Convention on Mercury. However, as long as the MC is not ratified by at least 50 Parties, it does not enter into force and therefore the above problem is not being tackled at a global scale. Given the significant extent of the EU mercury acquis and as the Convention is to a large extent modelled after the EU acquis, ratification would require only a limited number of adjustments to the EU acquis. Following a detailed analysis of the Convention text vis-à-vis the EU acquis presented in tabular form in Annex 7, existing gaps have been identified where EU legislation does not cover the requirements of the MC Convention: 1.imports of metallic mercury: imports into the EU of mercury from countries not party to the Convention are not controlled with a view to ensure that the mercury does not come from certain sources;

2.exports of certain mercury-added products: the export from the EU of a number of mercury containing products listed in the MC is not prohibited under EU law; 3.mercury use in new products and processes: putting on the market of new products or processes using mercury that do not currently exist is not sufficiently discouraged; 4.use of mercury in certain manufacturing processes: two industrial processes using mercury and prohibited under the MC are still allowed in the EU and certain restrictions applicable under the MC to three other processes, e.g. concerning the use of mercury and the reduction of mercury emissions, are not applied within the EU; 5.mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM): no steps are taken in EU law to reduce and were feasible eliminate the use of mercury in ASGM; 6.use of dental amalgam: there are no special measures for the phase down of the use of dental amalgam. 1.3.What are the underlying causes of the problem? Mercury can enter our environment (and subsequently the food chain) in many different ways. Emissions of mercury can travel through air and water and end up thousands of kilometers away from their source. Unless it is properly disposed of, mercury produced, used or discarded adds up to the global mercury pool, persists in the environment, and is concentrated mainly in predatory fish that may be consumed by humans. Additionally, significant quantities reach the environment as unintentional emissions, e.g. through the burning of fossil fuels and biomass. Global mercury emissions from human activity have been estimated at 1960t/y. This represents about 30% of annual mercury emissions to air. Another 10% comes from natural sources (e.g. volcanoes), and the remaining 60% is caused by re-emission, which again is largely due to mercury accumulated in the environment due to human activity over several centuries. Figure 1-a indicates the origin of these emissions on a global basis. It is clear that EU's contribution is rather limited (4,5%), while almost half of global emissions (931t) originate in Asia. The origin of atmospheric mercury deposition can differ substantially in different areas in the EU. Emission models predict currently that atmospheric deposition originating in Europe is up to 60% in certain industrialised areas, while in other areas, such as the Mediterranean, European emissions contribute only 20% or less to the total deposition. It is thus obvious, that the transboundary component of mercury pollution is very significant and addressing the problem requires not only local or regional, but global action. The underlying cause of the problem of the exposure of EU citizens to mercury is therefore significantly linked to the transboundary character of mercury pollution and to the fact that only the EU and a few other countries (e.g. Norway, Switzerland, the USA, Canada and Japan) have implemented advanced policies addressing mercury emissions and use, minimising their contribution to the global mercury pool in the last two decades, while there was an opposite trend with significant increases of mercury emissions (currently contributing almost 50% of the global total) by countries in Asia due to their industrialization. Figure 1a Anthropogenic mercury emissions in 2010 on a regional basis Figure 1b17 Long-range mercury transport 1.4.How will the problem evolve? Figure 1-c shows clearly the increase of mercury deposition since the industrial age. While emissions may have been slightly reduced after reaching a peak during the 1970s mainly due to control measures in Europe and North America, there are nowadays indications that this trend is reversed due to the exponential industrialisation in East and South-East Asia. As a result, concentrations in marine animals have increased substantially (in some areas, e.g. the Arctic, up to 10-12 times) compared to pre-industrial times. Given the size of the global mercury pool (estimated at 350 000t), it will take decades before reductions in atmospheric emissions can have a visible impact on mercury levels in the environment and fish. Delaying the ratification of the MC would thus have long-term consequences both for Europe and the rest of the world leading to unacceptably high contamination of marine and freshwater foods. Figure 1c Atmospheric mercury deposition during the last three centuries (UpperFremont Glacier, Wyoming, USA 1991&1998)

1.5.Who is affected and how? Citizens: All individuals will be exposed to mercury through fish consumption to some extent. However, certain groups (toddlers, women in childbearing age and high fish consumers) are particularly vulnerable. The level of exposure can obviously vary greatly depending on dietary habits, contamination levels and the species consumed. Everybody is affected to some extent, but indigenous people in the Arctic and citizens in Southern Europe are at higher disk due to dietary habits and the availability of large fish species from the Mediterranean. In its scientific opinion on the risk for public health related to the presence of mercury and methylmercury in food, the EFSA Panel on contaminants in the food chain (CONTAM) concluded that high fish consumers, which might include pregnant women, may exceed the Tolerable Weekly Intake (TWI) for methylmercury by up to approximately six-fold. While dietary inorganic mercury exposure in Europe does not exceed the TWI in most cases, parallel inhalation exposure of elemental mercury from dental amalgam is likely to increase the internal inorganic mercury exposure; thus the TWI might be exceeded. Unborn children constitute the most vulnerable group. Due to the critical effect of methylmercury exposure to the brain of the embryo, exposures of pregnant women are of major concern. The DEMOCOPHES project has analysed exposure levels on the basis of mercury concentrations in the hair of women of reproductive age in different countries. It was found that parts of the European population exceed the tolerated level (0,58 μg/g hair). The percentage of the population exceeding this level differs between the 17 participating European countries, with some exhibiting levels higher than 0,58 μg/g hair in over 50% of the population, while in others less than 5% of the population exceeded the tolerated level. Economic operators: This includes mainly importers and exporters of mercury and/or mercury containing products, manufacturers of products containing mercury, industries using or emitting mercury, waste handlers and recyclers. Mercury is still used in several sectors, such as the chlor-alkali industry, dental amalgam fillings, light sources, batteries, measuring equipment, switches and relays, chemicals, etc. However, since mercury use is heavily regulated within the EU (while this is not the case in most other countries), non-EU companies producing goods containing mercury enjoy a competitive advantage. A study report carried for the Commission in 2008 provides detailed information on all remaining uses of mercury, sectors involved and EU companies concerned. Member States: Twenty six MS16 have signed the MC and they would also need to ratify and implement it. Lack of global action makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for MS to guarantee to their citizens the required level of protection from the risks posed by mercury. MS will obviously share the burden of implementation, but will also reap the environmental and health benefits. Third countries: Given the lack of strict regulatory control, populations in third countries are at even higher risk of exposure to mercury. ASGM is one of the major sources of anthropogenic emissions of mercury, in more than 70 countries, mainly in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Around 10-15 million people are directly involved (among those 4-5 million women and children) and are exposed to dangerous levels of elemental mercury. 1.6.The EU's right to act and justification The MC is a multilateral environmental agreement addressing the mercury problem on a global scale. It establishes a legally-binding framework providing for trade-related measures (import and export restrictions on mercury, mercury compounds and mercury-added products) falling under the exclusive competence of the EU in accordance with Art. 3(1)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") and for environmental protection measures (e.g. reduction of mercury emissions from certain manufacturing processes) regarding which competence is shared between the EU and the MS by virtue of Art. 4(2)(e) TFEU. Hence, this Convention is a so-called "mixed agreement", as not all the matters covered by it fall exclusively within the competence of the EU or of its MS. As such, the MC is an agreement to which both the EU and the MS are signatories and which can be ratified by the EU and the MS. The EU's legal right to act regarding the MC is based on the external competences of the EU, as defined in Art. 216 TFEU, on the basis of which the EU may conclude international agreements, where the conclusion of an agreement is necessary to achieve one of the objectives of the EU, including the establishment of a common commercial policy and the protection of the environment. To control and reduce mercury use and pollution fits clearly with the EU environmental objectives established in Art. 191(1) and (2) TFEU that are concerned with e.g. the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, the protection of human health and the promotion of measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems. The transposition into EU law of the trade-related measures provided for in the MC and aiming at restricting imports and/or exports of mercury and mercury-added products fits also with the objectives of the EU common commercial policy. The proposed EU mercury regulation has therefore a twofold legal basis, namely Art. 192 and 207 TFEU that entitle the EU to regulate in the field of the environment and of common commercial policy. The legal right of the EU to act regarding the MC is also based on the mere fact that EU competence in the fields of mercury trade and environmental protection from mercury is already widely exercised, as demonstrated by the significant EU acquis on mercury described in Annex 6. In fact, the EU acquis covers already most of the issues addressed by the MC, including mercury export restrictions, the placing on the market of mercury-added products, the use of mercury and mercury compounds in industrial processes, the control of mercury emissions from large point sources and the management of mercury waste. It is also worth noting that the negotiating positions, and subsequently the content of the MC, were developed in close cooperation between the Commission and the MS, in accordance with Art. 218(3) and (4) TFEU. Not only has the EU the right to act vis-à-vis the MC, but EU action is clearly justified given the significant transboundary component of mercury emissions, which therefore requires action at EU level. EU action is also necessary as MS would not be entitled to ratify the MC in the absence of EU transposing legislation. Indeed, as specified above, since the MC trade-related measures are to be addressed within the context of the establishment of an EU common commercial policy, only the EU is competent to set out trade restrictions on mercury and mercury-added products. Furthermore, the EU acquis covers MC provisions relevant for the EU internal market. Hence, the ratification of the MC and its implementation within the EU requires beforehand the enacting of EU transposing legislation. 1.7.Issues identified in the assessment of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation

The Commission contracted COWI A/S in 2014 to carry out an ex-post assessment of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation. Such assessment was limited, given the short time period for implementation of the Export Ban (2011-2015) and concomitantly, the limited evidence base available. Therefore, this assessment was also limited in scope as it covered 3 evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. Yet, COWI’s study, based on stakeholder consultation and available statistical data, provides important information on the performance of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation so far and guidance on potential improvements. Overall, the export ban seems to be effective in reducing the global mercury supply: As a result of the export ban, it is estimated that approximately 650t of mercury are prevented annually from reaching the global market, corresponding to approximately 20% of the global mercury supply. Available data indicates that the decrease in mercury supply may not have been replaced by increased mine production outside the EU and that the threefold increase in the price of mercury can most probably be attributed to the decreased supply of mercury from the EU and the USA. However, the effectiveness of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation has not been entirely met regarding the safe storage of mercury as waste. Whilst Art. 4(3) of that Regulation foresees the adoption of criteria for the admissibility of such waste in landfills, only criteria for the temporary storage, for a period up to 5 years, have so far been enacted by Council Directive 2011/97/EU, as there was so far no majority amongst MS enabling the adoption of criteria for permanent storage of metallic mercury which is liquid. The issue of the lack of criteria for the permanent safe storage of mercury as waste has been identified as a concern by stakeholders consulted, since there may be stocks in 2016 of mercury waste that would have been stored for 5 years. However, as other forms of environmentally sound storage exist (i.e. in solidified form), the lack of permanent storage criteria for mercury in liquid form is considered as a minor issue not leading to significant impacts. Therefore, this issue is not pursued further in this Impact Assessment. As regards the efficiency of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation, it is likely that the health benefits significantly outweigh the costs associated with the export ban. On the one hand the cost to the chlor-alkali industry of storage of surplus mercury is estimated at an average of 0,6-2 million EUR/y, while the lost revenue from sale of mercury is estimated at 3-5 million EUR/y. The most affected industry group is that of recyclers and exporters of mercury. The total lost revenues are estimated at an average of 5-7 million EUR/y i.e. of the same size as the lost revenue to the chlor-alkali sector from sale of mercury to the recyclers and exporters. On the other hand, the total benefits of preventing the 650 t/y in reaching the global mercury market cannot be fully assessed. As an illustrative example: assuming that the reduced export of mercury from the EU would result in a 10% decrease in the expected impacts from lost IQ due to ingestion and inhalation of mercury (one of the environmental and health impacts of mercury), and using available estimates of the costs of mercury impacts, the total benefits can be estimated to be at least 400 million EUR/y at global level and likely significantly higher. Concerning the coherence of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation, the assessment carried out by COWI and the analysis undertaken by DG ENV services, have identified the following two opportunities for simplification24: Art. 3 of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation foresees the application of the Seveso Directive for all mercury waste above-ground temporary storage facilities. However, following the adoption of Council Decision 2011/97/EU, this obligation could now be considered as disproportionate in view of the limited added-value of the application of the Seveso Directive to facilities that are regulated by the Landfill Directive. Certain reporting obligations established under Art. 5 and 6 of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation are now outdated as they refer for instance to information that had to be communicated to the Commission and to the competent authorities of the MS by 1st July 2012. Considering that those two issues are very minor and will not significantly affect existing EU legislation, they are not pursued any further in this impact assessment. 2. Objectives The general objective of this initiative is to enable a significant reduction of global mercury pollution by international action complementing EU efforts. This objective has been identified as a priority following the 2010 review of the EU Strategy concerning mercury. Given the current international developments and the global context, the general objective can best be achieved by narrowing it down to the following specific objective. The specific objective is an early ratification of the MC by the EU and its MS, its early entry into force and implementation on the global scale. The operational objectives are to adapt the EU acquis to the points required by the MC and not yet reflected in the EU acquis, by addressing the legislative gaps in the areas listed below in an effective and efficient manner: import of metallic mercury; export of certain mercury-added products; mercury use in new products and processes;

use of mercury in certain manufacturing processes; mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM); use of dental amalgam. 3. Policy Options It should be noted that other approaches were initially considered despite calls from the EU and other countries for a legally binding instrument on mercury. In 2005, UNEP Governing Council decision 23/9 launched global mercury partnerships between governments and other stakeholders. Such partnerships still exist today and cover a number of areas (coal combustion, cement production, chlor-alkali, mercury in products, supply and storage, mercury waste, ASGM and air transport). However, they were not successful in addressing the global mercury problem as only few (less than 30) governments were involved, not including major polluters such as Asian countries contributing nearly 50% of the global mercury anthropogenic emissions. Partnership projects could be continued on a voluntary basis or be encompassed by the MC framework, however, there is no obligation even for participating countries to implement or even take into account the outcome of the process. The limited success of voluntary approaches (e.g. partnerships) so far, confirms the necessity of a legally-binding instrument to address the mercury problem on a global scale, which was already called for in the EU Mercury Strategy. Different policy options for the ratification of the MC have been examined and are presented below. As the majority of the provisions in the Minamata Convention are binding, for those provisions only legally binding policy options would serve the objective of future ratification of the Convention. The options considered hereunder are based on: 1.the minimum actions required to fulfil the obligations set-out in the MC; 2.more stringent measures in the cases where they have been suggested by stakeholders and which would allow to further tackle the mercury problem. These options go beyond what is strictly required by the MC, and represent another way to address the operational objectives. It should be noted that the MC allows the Parties to take additional domestic measures that are consistent with its provisions (as indicated in the preamble). The measures foreseen under the different policy options would address the existing gaps in the EU legislation and would allow the ratification of the MC, which in turn foresees the appropriate measures to tackle the mercury issue on a global scale. 3.0 Baseline - “No EU Action” Under the baseline, the EU would not take any additional measures. This would correspond to an option O0 for each of the various provisions described below. Under the baseline, the MS would not be able to ratify the MC, as certain provisions in the MC (e.g. trade or internal market related) are exclusive EU competence or would have an impact on the EU acquis. 3.1 Import of mercury (P1) The export of metallic mercury and certain mercury compounds is already banned under existing EU legislation. The export ban is intended to reduce the global mercury supply and prevents the EU's mercury surplus from entering the global market and (particularly) being diverted to polluting activities, such as ASGM. No import restrictions for metallic mercury currently exist under EU law. The MC establishes a Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure for imports from non-Parties. In particular, Art. 3(8) of the Convention restricts imports of metallic mercury and certain mercury compounds and mixtures from non-Parties, when such mercury is derived from sources not allowed under the Convention (e.g. primary mining or excess mercury from the decommissioning of chlor-alkali facilities). When considering implementation of Art. 3(8) of the Convention, the EU has the option of restricting imports only from non-Parties, as foreseen by the Convention (P1O1), or adopting a stricter approach (P1O2) by legislating a prohibition on imports from all non-EU countries. 3.2 Export of certain mercury-added products (P2) In many parts of the world, mercury is still used in products quite extensively. Art. 4(1) of the MC foresees a prohibition on the manufacture, import and export of nine major mercury-containing product categories: batteries, switches and relays, compact fluorescent lamps, linear fluorescent lamps, high pressure mercury vapour lamps, electronic displays, cosmetics, pesticides/biocides/topical antiseptics and non-electronic measuring devices such as barometers, hygrometers, manometers, thermometers, sphygmomanometers, after the phase-out date of 2020, as specified in Annex A, Part I of the Convention. Under EU law, products in the above categories containing mercury are already regulated under various regimes (e.g. RoHS Directive, Batteries Directive, REACH Regulation), making it illegal to place them on the EU market (or indeed to import them). However, no export restrictions currently exist.

The internal market restrictions under EU law are in some cases stricter than those under the MC. An EU export prohibition could thus apply either to all products already prohibited on the internal EU market (P2O2) or only to those prohibited for export under the Convention (P2O1). 3.3 Mercury use in new products/processes (P3) The MC obliges Parties to take measures discouraging mercury use in new (i.e. not yet placed on the market at global level) products and processes, unless an assessment of the risks and benefits demonstrates environmental or human health benefits (Art. 4(6) and 5(7) of the Convention). There is currently no provision in EU law that would reflect this obligation. One option to implement this would be to establish an obligation for operators and MS to notify the use of mercury in new products and processes. This would enable an assessment to be made by the Commission in consultation with MS experts of potential risks and benefits (P3O1) and could lead to a notification to the MC Secretariat for inclusion in the list of products or processes prohibited by the Convention. An alternative approach would be to enact an a priori prohibition of mercury use in new products and processes (P3O2), while it would remain possible to grant future derogations in case an assessment of the risks and benefits demonstrates environmental or human health benefits. 3.4 Use of mercury in certain manufacturing processes (P4) The MC covers five manufacturing processes in which mercury or mercury compounds are used, namely the production of: chlor-alkali; acetaldehyde; vinyl chloride; sodium (or potassium) methylate (or ethylate); polyurethane. Phase-out dates are foreseen in the Convention for mercury use in chlor-alkali production and acetaldehyde production (2025 and 2018, respectively), while a number of measures to be taken by the Parties are specified for each of the other processes. Processes subject to a phase out date Emissions from industrial installations are currently regulated under EU law by the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (IED) . The IED imposes the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) aiming at reducing the environmental impact of industrial activities, and covers to a great extent the requirements concerning the manufacturing processes undertaken by the EU in view of ratifying the Convention. As an example, Commission Implementing Decision 2013/732/EU , concerning the chlor-alkali industry, concludes that the mercury cell technique cannot be considered BAT under any circumstances and hence, this process will have to be phased out in the EU by end 2017, much earlier than the 2025 deadline specified in the Convention. There is no acetaldehyde production using mercury catalysts in the EU. Processes for which the Convention foresees certain restrictions The manufacturing, placing on the market or use of five phenylmercury compounds, known to be used especially as catalysts in polyurethane systems, as well as the placing on the market of articles containing these substances above a certain concentration limit is restricted by EU law under REACH as from 10 October 2017. There is only one plant in the EU that is using catalysts containing mercury in the production of vinyl chloride as an ancillary activity. Ongoing work on the review of the reference document on best available techniques on large volume organic chemicals includes conclusion that use of such mercury-based catalysts would not qualify as BAT, which means that such use should not be allowed under the Industrial Emissions Directive. There are two plants in the EU that use a mercury process for the production of sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate. The measures listed in the Convention differ depending on the process and fall in the following categories:

prohibiting the use of mercury from primary mining and reducing the use of mercury from other sources; reducing emissions and releases of mercury; supporting research and development in respect of mercury-free processes. In practice, given the measures already taken by the EU and the activities that take place within the EU, as described above, and as EU policy on research allows for supporting research in these fields, the mandatory measures to be taken are: for the three processes concerned, the duty not to use mercury from primary mining; for the production of sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate, the obligation to reduce mercury emissions and releases to air and water by 50% by 2020 compared to 2010. In transposing and implementing this Article, the EU could opt for the following option which restricts such processes (P4O1): prohibit by 2018 the use of mercury in the production of acetaldehyde and vinyl chloride; impose the measures listed above to other processes; encourage through dialogue Germany and the concerned companies to find solution for conversion of the two installations producing alcoholates into non-mercury technologies. The other option would consist in establishing a stricter approach by simply prohibiting mercury use in these processes (P4O2). 3.5 Mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM) (P5) ASGM is an important source of mercury emissions on a global scale with an estimated 37% contribution to the global anthropogenic mercury emissions in 201017. However, the only part of the EU concerned is the overseas department of French Guiana. Art. 7 of the Convention (in conjunction with Annex C) foresees measures to reduce (and where feasible, eliminate) both the use and the emissions of mercury from ASGM and requires a national action plan from the Parties in case such activity on their territories is “more than insignificant”. Given the limited scope of this activity in the EU and the existence of relevant legislation at Member State level (France), transposition of this provision into EU law would have limited consequences from the practical point of view. However, there are again two options: transpose all requirements as they are set out in Art. 7 (and Annex C) of the Convention (P5O1) or adopt a stricter approach by prohibiting mercury use in ASGM altogether (P5O2). 3.6 Use of dental amalgam (P6) Dental amalgam has been used for over 150 years in the treatment of dental cavities and is still used, in particular in large cavities due to its excellent mechanical properties and durability. Dental amalgam is a combination of alloy particles and mercury that contains about 50% of mercury in the elemental form. Overall, the use of alternatives is increasing either due to their aesthetic properties or alleged health concerns related to the use of dental amalgam. Mercury vapour is released from dental amalgam and absorbed in a variety of tissues; however the clinical significance of mercury toxicity and its potential health impacts have remained a matter of debate for more than a century. Improperly managed dental amalgam waste can pose a risk for the environment. If it ends up in a landfill, mercury may be released into the groundwater or air; if it is incinerated, mercury may be released to the atmosphere; even mercury in fillings may eventually end up in the environment as a consequence of cremation or burial. Dental amalgam and its substitutes are regulated under the Medical Devices Directive, according to which they must comply with the essential requirements laid out in the Directive, in particular in relation to the health and safety of the patients.

In 2008, the Commission consulted two independent scientific committees, the Scientific Committee for Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) and the Scientific Committee for Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), on the health and environmental risks posed by mercury in dental amalgam. Whilst SCENIHR concluded that dental amalgam was safe to use and that there was no evidence of systemic disease caused by its use, SCHER concluded that on the basis of the information available, it was not possible to "comprehensively assess the environmental risks and indirect health effects from use of dental amalgam", and identified a number of gaps that would have to be addressed. In reviewing the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury in 2010, the Commission identified dental amalgam as one the biggest remaining use of mercury in the EU and undertook a comprehensive study. The study focuses mainly on the environmental impacts of dental amalgam use and seeks also to address, to the extent possible, the gaps identified in the SCHER 2008 opinion. It concluded that a prohibition on the use of mercury in dentistry in combination with better enforcement of EU waste legislation would reduce the environmental impact of dental amalgam use. The main conclusions of the study are summarised below, while a detailed summary of the study report is provided in Annex 10A: Mercury demand for dentistry in the EU was estimated at around 75 t/y representing 24% of total mercury use (ca. 320 t/y). Despite its decline in the last few years, dental use of mercury remains a significant contributor to overall mercury releases to water in the EU. In some MS (e.g. SE, DK, IT, EE) the use of dental amalgam is very limited due to policy measures in place, while in others (e.g. FR, PL) it is still rather widespread. Around 46 t/y of mercury from EU dental practices end up in chair side effluents, with only part of it being captured and treated as hazardous waste. Only 14 MS adopted national legislation obliging dental practices to use separators (to capture mercury in the waste stream), while around 25% of EU dental facilities were still not equipped with separators. The total stock of mercury in European citizens’ mouths has been estimated at 1000 t. Given the longevity of amalgam fillings (10-15 years), this means that the environmental problem cannot be addressed only by measures restricting future use of mercury in fillings. Alternative mercury-free filling materials are available and gain momentum (mainly on aesthetic grounds); they comprise ca. 66% of tooth restorations in the EU. There are significant differences among MS regarding the cost of dental amalgam restorations born by the patients, mainly due to differences in labour costs and insurance reimbursement schemes. A major component of the cost is the time required for the placement of the filling, which is linked to some extent with the training of the dentists. The WHO has pointed out that staff training is a major component for success in using mercury-free alternatives. In Annex A, Part II, the MC requires Parties to take at least two out of a list of measures covering the following areas: national health care policies and systems; education and research; best environmental practices; restrictions on the form of dental amalgam used by dentists. Most of these measures would be best addressed by MS. As promotion of research at EU level is covered by EU research programme Horizon2020, it is considered that the EU is already taking one of the measures listed in the Minamata Convention. Hence, at the minimum the EU would have to take at least one more measure out of the following measures listed in the Convention: restrict the use of dental amalgam to its encapsulated form; promote best environmental practices at dental clinics by imposing the use of separators in dental practices. In implementing this article, the EU could seek to meet the minimum requirement of the Convention by taking only one additional measure. This could be either restricting the use of dental amalgam to its encapsulated form (P6O1a) or imposing the use of separators in dental practices (P601b). As the Minamata Convention encourages Parties to take more than two measures, the EU could also opt for taking both P601a and P601b, which are independent from each other. Alternatively, the EU could legislate with the aim of prohibiting the use of dental amalgam (P6O2).

3.7 Summary The information above is presented in a summary form in the following tables. Table 3-a lists the MC provisions not covered by EU law that would have to be transposed before ratification. Table 3a Summary of Minamata Convention provisions to be transposed in EU law Provision MC Article Description P1 3(8) Restrict the import of metallic mercury from non-Parties P2 4(1) Prohibit the export of certain mercury-added products (Annex A) P3 4(6) & 5(7) Discourage mercury use in new products and processes P4 5(2) Restrict mercury use in manufacturing processes (MC Annex B) P5 7 Restrict mercury use in ASGM P6 4(3) Restrict the use of dental amalgam In identifying options for each of the provisions listed in Table 3-b, O1 corresponds to the requirements of the MC, while O2 goes beyond that: Table 3b Summary of options Provision Option Description P1 P1O1 Import restrictions at EU level for metallic mercury from non-Parties P1O2 General EU import prohibition of metallic mercury P2 P2O1 Export prohibition of the mercury-added products listed in MC Annex A P2O2 Export prohibition of all mercury-added products currently not allowed in the EU market P3 P3O1 Notification of mercury use in new products and processes P3O2 Prohibition of mercury use in new products and processes P4 P4O1 Restriction of mercury use in certain processes listed in MC Annex B P4O2 Prohibition of mercury use in the processes listed in MC Annex B P5 P5O1 Controls on mercury use in ASGM P5O2 Prohibition of mercury use in ASGM P6 P6O1a Restrict the use of dental amalgam to its encapsulated form P6O1b Impose the use of separators in dental practices P6O2 Phase out of dental amalgam use Various combinations of these options are obviously possible, such combinations (consisting of 6 options each) are defined and examined as scenarios in Section 6. 3.8 Legal instrument As mentioned earlier, certain provisions of the MC are not covered by the existing EU acquis and they would need to be introduced into EU legislation before the ratification of the Convention by the EU and by the MS. Such provisions concern different areas including trade, products, chemicals, environment, etc. A number of legislative options were examined for each provision (whatever the level of its ambition), including amending already existing EU legislation specific to the area under consideration. In line with the principles of better law making, an approach with a single legislative proposal addressing all necessary provisions appears to be more appropriate, in terms of both legal clarity and workload/time needed in the inter-institutional process, than proceeding with amendments of various regulations and directives. This single legislative proposal could complement the internal market ban by an international trade ban of mercury-added products which are so far regulated, in terms of restricting their placing on the market, under several pieces of waste legislation (WEEE/RoHS, Batteries, End-of-Life Vehicles) as well as under REACH, and cosmetics legislation. Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 on the banning of exports of metallic mercury forms a good basis for adding provisions needed to ensure compliance with the MC. It already contains trade measures and provisions for the storage of waste mercury and it has a double legal base (environment and trade). However, given that: the amendments (additions) to be made are numerous and outweigh the existing text, the scope of the instrument will be extended, which should also be reflected in its title, in the interest of legal clarity and readability, a proposal for a new Regulation, integrating the new elements and the existing provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008, as well as repealing the latter, would appear as the most straightforward way.



4. Analysis of Impacts 4.0 Baseline - “No EU Action” At the time of drafting this report, the entry into force of the Convention requires 31 additional ratifications (19 parties have ratified so far). On the basis of available information, a few other countries (e.g. Japan, Switzerland, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil) intend to ratify very soon and the number of ratifications is expected to reach 25 early in 2016. Therefore, ratification of the Convention by the EU and its MS (planned for 2016) would most likely trigger its entry into force in 2016.

In view of the leading role the EU played in the negotiations and the expressed political will, both at the EU and MS level, to address the mercury problem globally, the international community is aware of EU’s strong commitment to ratify the Convention. Most important countries in terms of mercury pollution have signed the Convention and there are reasonable expectations they will also ratify it. Non-ratification by the EU would not only have a negative impact on EU’s reputation and credibility on the international scene but would additionally send a strong negative signal that would discourage ratification by other countries. In particular, it could be expected that several key developing countries would probably not ratify unless a critical mass of developed countries (such as the EU, Japan and USA) have ratified first. Ratification by many developing countries could also be delayed or even deterred by an EU decision not to ratify, as many of them look forward to the EU in particular for capacity-building, technical assistance and technology transfer (Article 14 of the MC) for implementing the Convention. Based on these considerations, with a strong commitment by the EU, entry into force of the Convention would likely take place in 2016, otherwise entry into force will probably be delayed substantially, most likely to a date not earlier than 2020. In such a case, the Convention would also be significantly weakened as its Parties would be limited in terms of number (ca. 50-60) and impact (e.g. due to non-participation of major polluters). As explained earlier, given the long-range transboundary character of the mercury pollution, in such a case, the environmental and health impacts would be experienced both on the global scale and within the EU and the overall objective would not be met. Models conclude that without measures to control mercury pollution on the global scale, mercury emissions are likely to be substantially higher in 2050 than they are today. Furthermore, early ratification of the MC by the EU and its MS is essential as only then can they participate as a Party in the first meetings of the COP that will elaborate (among others) the rules of procedure of the Implementation and Compliance Committee and adopt guidance on best available techniques used to reduce and/or prevent emissions of mercury from industrial activities. It is very difficult to quantify either the cost of inaction or expected benefits of a ratification by the EU, as these depend on actions undertaken by the rest of the world to reduce emissions. Bellanger et al estimated the annual benefits of removing mercury exposure to be approximately €9 billion in Europe. A comprehensive study on the socio-economic costs of continuing the status-quo of mercury pollution undertaken by the Nordic Council estimated at 2 439 tonnes the global emissions of mercury to the atmosphere in 2020 for a Status Quo scenario (no further actions to control mercury) and the corresponding annual damage costs due to loss of IQ at 8 billion USD, acknowledging that the total cost to society of mercury pollution would be considerably higher in view of the additional costs not taken into account in the analysis. While one can safely conclude that the cost of inaction would be very high, such costs can neither be estimated accurately nor easily monetised and the authors themselves acknowledge that such estimates are highly influenced by uncertainties. Most studies so far analysed neurotoxic impacts, but they have not taken into account a significant body of evidence on potential elevated risk for cardiovascular diseases, especially myocardial infarction. A thorough analysis of societal costs and benefits would require the consideration of certain other aspects, e.g. co-benefits. Moreover, regional aspects may be quite important, therefore extrapolation to a global scale is very difficult. In order to demonstrate the impact of a ratification/non-ratification of the MC to the competitiveness of the European businesses, a few illustrative examples are presented below: Most of the mercury-added products listed in Annex A of the MC have already been phased out within the EU. By way of example, mercury thermometers and sphygmomanometers are illegal to place on the EU market since 10 April 2014, thus the European businesses concerned have already undergone the transition to alternative, mercury-free products (i.e. electronic thermometers and electronic or anaerobic sphygmomanometers). Provided the MC enters into force, a phase out obligation would be imposed to all Parties by 2020. China, one of the main players in this business sector, has a production capacity of 183 million mercury thermometers and 4,18 million mercury sphygmomanometers and an employment of 5 500. Production capacity for both products has been increasing in recent years and this trend will certainly continue in the coming years due to rapid economic growth unless these products are regulated. Provided China becomes Party to the MC, this whole business sector would face the need of a transition that would entail significant costs (e.g. due to technology introduction, investment in alternative equipment). It should be mentioned that there is no available mature technology for the production of electronic thermometers and sphygmomanometers in China and thus basic electronic components would have to be imported from other countries (e.g. Germany) creating potential business opportunities for European companies in this field. As an additional example, battery producers within the EU are already subject to a prohibition on placing on the EU market of batteries containing mercury, a restriction that MC would impose on Parties by 2020. In fact, all mercury-added products listed in Annex A of the MC are already restricted within the EU, thus the Convention would establish a level playing field in these sectors. Certain provisions of the MC on processes using mercury (Article 6 in conjunction with Annex B) would have minimal impact on European industry, as such processes are either practically non-existent in Europe (e.g. acetaldehyde production, vinyl-cloride monomer production) or are already regulated beyond the requirements of the Convention (e.g. chlor-alkali production, where mercury technology will be phased-out by 2017 within the EU, while the phase-out date foreseen by the Convention is 2025). For example, while PVC in Europe is produced almost exclusively from oil or natural gas, China, one of the major producers of PVC globally, uses an alternative process with coal as a raw material, utilising a mercury-containing catalyst. In fact, PVC production is the largest intentional use of mercury in China with an annual consumption of ca. 1000 t of mercury in recent years and with a forecast of significant growth in the future. As a Party to the Convention, China would have to reduce the use of mercury in this sector by 50% by the year 2020 or even eliminate such use once alternative mercury-free catalysts become technically and economically viable. Such a transition would entail costs for Chinese PVC producers, while there is no economic impact on the European industry. In fact, there are business opportunities, as a European company (Johnson Matthey) reported promising results from a pilot-scale test of a mercury-free catalyst carried out in China. Industrial emissions of mercury have been regulated within the EU since long. The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) currently into force requires the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Best Environmental Practices (BEP) that cover all major industrial sectors. The MC will impose similar obligations to Parties with regard to the industrial sectors listed in Annex D (Coal-fired power plants; coal-fired industrial boilers; smelting and roasting processes used in the production of non-ferrous metals; waste incineration facilities; and cement clinker production facilities). Guidance will be adopted at the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties on the basis of documents currently developed by an expert group on emissions, where the Commission is actively participating. Adoption of stricter emission standards by industry in other countries will entail for them a compliance cost, the EU industry is already facing. It would thus establish a level playing field and have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the sectors concerned. It should be noted, that given the high number of signatory countries (128) and the restrictions imposed by the Convention to non-Parties, the risk of potential competition by non-acceding countries is minimal. 4.1 Import of mercury (P1) Mercury supply in the EU is currently estimated at around 200 t/y, of which 100 t/y represents imports, while another 100 t/y is mercury originating from recycling activities within the EU. Mercury demand at the moment is estimated at 260-400 t/y, but projected consumption in 2025-2030 is estimated at 40-220 t/y (see Table 4-e for details). The expected decline is justified mainly by the phase-out of the use of mercury in the chlor-alkali industry by 2017, which accounts for ca. 40% of current mercury consumption within the EU. Low High Current Hg consumption 260 400 Projected Hg consumption in 2025-2030 40 220 On the basis of historical data, mercury prices could be expected to fluctuate significantly based on the relative decrease of supply and demand in 2025-2030, when the MC would have been implemented. It would be reasonable to assume that such fluctuation would range from 50% to +100% of current mercury prices, hence (after rounding) between 19 000 €/t and 78 000 €/t. Low High Current Hg price 38 900 38 900 Projected Hg price in 2025-2030 19 000 78 000 Given the high number of signatories (128) of the MC and the fact that most of the major EU trading partners are currently working on its ratification, it is reasonable to assume that about 90% of mercury imports to the EU would originate from future Parties, while only 10% (hence about 10 t/y) may originate from countries that will not become Parties to the Convention. Option P1O1 (import restrictions at EU level for metallic mercury from non-Parties) would result in annual import loss = 10t/y, of a total value of 10t/y*€38 900/t= €389 000/y. Option P1O2 (general import prohibition of metallic mercury) would result in annual import loss = 100 t/y, of a total value of 100 t/y*€38 900/t= €3 890 000/y.

Depending on mercury demand, imports from allowed sources and for allowed uses may increase and outweigh or even overcompensate the possible losses of revenue under option P1O1. Option P1O1 is not expected to impose additional costs on industry, while option P1O2 may do so, but much depends on how the demand for mercury will change in the years ahead. Both options will potentially lead to a lower supply of mercury. Option P1O1 could lead to a small decrease in mercury supply (under an assumption that import restrictions from non-Parties will reduce supply imports from 100 to 90 t/y; and the remaining supply will be about 190 t/y). Option P1O2 could lead to a significant decrease in mercury supply; the remaining supply would be about 100 t/y. Yet demand is also expected to drop as a consequence of the MC (to 40-220 t/y). Decreasing supply and decreasing demand have inverse effects on mercury prices. No mercury shortage is expected under the option P1O1, while some shortage may occur under option P1O2, if demand for mercury remains high (see Table 4-c below). BAU (no import restrictions) Option P1O1 Option P1O2 Supply (t/y) ~200 ~190 ~100 Demand (t/y) 40 to 220 40 to 220 40 to 220 Balance (t/y) +160 to -20 +150 to -30 +60 to –120 If EU demand for mercury remains high (up to 220 t/y) it may lead to higher prices and additional costs to industry. If demand falls to the lower range of the estimate (down to 40 t/y) then prices may fall, with commensurate cost savings to industry. If prices increase, substitution is expected first to occur in those areas where it is most economically feasible and costs of mercury-free alternatives are not significantly higher than those of the mercury use. Substitution costs cannot however be estimated at this stage. If prices fall, additional costs of substitution would not become relevant (at least not due to increased mercury prices). Based on these considerations, any actual costs of substitution will be similar to the costs of the corresponding mercury use, unless the alternatives provide added functional benefits (which represent an added value). In a foreseeable future (2025-2030), industry would need, as per projections of demand above, to purchase between 40 and 220 t /y of mercury at an average price of €38 900/t, equalling a value of €1,6 to €8,6 million/y (average €5,1 million/y). In case of an average demand of 130 t/y, the incremental costs of option P1O2 would thus correspond to 0 – 5,1 million EUR/y. If demand would be in the lower end of the projected interval, cost savings for industry could be possible. If demand would be at the top of the interval, estimated cost increases (compared to business as usual) would be between 9-16 million EUR/y. Therefore, across the whole range of possible developments, the incremental costs interval would be 0-16 million EUR/y. Under both options, extra administrative costs for importers and competent authorities would arise, however they are expected to be low. As the option P1O1 requires a procedure for checking imports from non-Parties to the MC, its administrative burden (for industry and authorities) would be expected to be higher than that of option P1O2, where only regular import (border) control is required. As indicated above, option P1O1 will practically not reduce mercury imports in the EU, while they would fall from current levels of 100 t/y to 0 t/y under option P2O2. A reduction in mercury supply within the EU under a general import prohibition would have a positive environmental impact at local level. However, in the global context, this would probably be more than counterbalanced by the negative impact expected due to increased supply in the rest of the world (following reduced use in the EU) and particularly in the areas and activities (such as ASGM), where environmental management is markedly worse than in the EU. It should be noted that while mercury use has significantly decreased in the OECD countries in the last 20-30 years, mercury consumption increased in many developing countries, particularly in South East Asia and Central and South America. The main reasons are a general shift of mercury product manufacturing operations from OECD to developing countries, as well as ASGM activities. Global mercury flows have been extensively analysed in a dedicated study contracted by the Commission in preparation of the Mercury Export ban legislation. Social impacts (e.g. job losses) are difficult to assess in detail, but are deemed to be minimal, based on the relatively low cost. The table below compares the impacts of options P1O1 and P1O2. Provision Option P1O1 Option P1O2 P1 – import restrictions No significant cost impacts (0-0,4 million EUR foregone imports but may be outweighed or even overcompensated by imports from allowed sources and for allowed uses). Larger administrative burden than P1O2. Reduced releases from primary Hg mining globally. Possible cost for Hg importers: 0-4 million EUR/y. Potential cost range for industry due to raised Hg prices: 0-16 million EUR/y. Low administrative burden. Environmental benefits: uncertain and potentially negative. Stakeholder consultation The vast majority of stakeholders responding to the relevant question in the public consultation favoured option P1O2 (43%), with only 7% preferring option P1O1. Another 50% of the participants did not submit a response. Individual respondents are in favour of a strict approach concerning import restrictions. When it comes to organisations, NGOs are clearly in favour of a strict approach, while private sector and other organisations have a split view concerning this issue. However, among the participants in the public consultation, even organisations that opted for option P1O1 would mostly not reject a stricter approach, provided their worries concerning the effects of P1O2 on the global mercury market were addressed. A strict approach (preference for option P1O2) was favoured by Dragon Recycling Solutions Ltd, a private company in the UK, who argued that mercury supply within Europe would be more than sufficient to cover potential demand. Conclusions The expected economic impacts under option P1O2 are 0-20 million EUR, significantly higher than those of option P1O1. Concerning environmental impacts, the general objective of the MC to reduce mercury supply and use would be better achieved within the EU by implementing Option P1O2, i.e. prohibiting the import from all countries. However, on a global scale, this option may have negative environmental impacts as the reduction of mercury demand in the EU may well result in an increased availability of mercury on the worldwide market and potentially increased mercury consumption elsewhere, in particular in areas and activities, such as ASGM, where supply restrictions are most needed. Option P1O2 would probably be less effective than P1O1 and it goes further than necessary, it could thus be considered disproportionate. Social impacts (e.g. job losses) are difficult to assess in detail but are expected to be minimal based on the relatively low cost.

Keeping in mind the general objective of achieving a reduction of mercury pollution on the global level, P1O1 would score higher than P1O2 in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. As an additional consideration, given that there are no clear environmental advantages of option P1O2 in relation to option P1O1, import restrictions going beyond the MC would be difficult to defend in view of relevant WTO provisions. Therefore, P1O2 is not retained and P1O1 is the preferred option. 4.2 Export of certain mercury-added products (P2) A comprehensive study on the use of mercury in products and applications within the EU had been carried out by DG ENV in 2008. The consumption of mercury (and its distribution across different uses) back in 2007, along with an update for 2014-2015 and a projection for 2025-2030 are shown in Table 4-e. As the information in the table is based on the MC and EU legislation requirements, as well as background knowledge of trends and technical considerations, ranges have been used in certain cases, where the lower and upper end limits represent correspondingly the best and the worst case scenario. For the majority of mercury-added products controlled under the MC export prohibition (e.g. batteries, switches and relays, cosmetics, pesticides, non-electronic measuring devices, etc.) mercury use is minimal due to already existing EU restrictions; lamps is the only product category within the EU, where substantial amounts of mercury are still used. The analysis of options will thus focus on this, however, all other products categories are discussed in Annex 9A. Intentional mercury use 2007 (EU25)

(t/y) 2014-2015 (EU28)

(t/y) 2025-2030 (EU28)

(t/y) Batteries 7-25 0 0 Switches and relays 0,3-0,8 0,3-0,8 0,3-0,8 Lamps 11-15 11-15 11-15 Barometers, hygrometers, manometers, thermometers, sphygmomanometers 7-17 <3 0 Preservatives in vaccines and cosmetics + disinfectants (including cosmetics, pesticides, biocides, topical antiseptics) 1,1-2,5 1,1-2,5 1,1-2,5 Dental amalgam 90-110 55-95 10-95 Chlor-alkali production with Hg cells (CAK-Hg) 160-190 160-190 0 Acetaldehyde production with mercury catalysts Unknown 0 0 “Chemical intermediates and catalysts except PUR” (may include VCM production with mercury catalysts) 10-20 10-20 0-10 Alcoholates (sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate) (perhaps part of CAK-Hg above) 0,3-1 0,3-1 Polyurethane production using mercury catalysts 20-35 Likely below 20-35 0-10 ASGM (illegal) 3-6 3-6 3-6 Hg compounds in laboratories and pharmaceutical industry 3-10 3-10 3-10 Preservatives in paints 4-10 0 0 Porosimetry, pycnometry and hanging drop electrodes 10-100 12-58 10-50 Other miscellaneous uses 1-14 1-14 1-14 Total 320-530 ~260-400 ~40-220 Under the baseline scenario (i.e. EU does not ratify the Minamata Convention), EU exports might be negatively affected by import restrictions imposed by the Parties to the Convention. Under option P2O1, the export of mercury-added products that do meet the MC specifications would not be affected and manufacturing and export could continue. On the other hand, the manufacturing and export of mercury-added products that do not meet the MC specifications would have to cease; which may lead to a loss of associated production jobs. This impact is considered insignificant as industry reported that there are no such exports. Under option P2O2, the EU exports would be regulated by stricter standards than those applicable to similar production outside the EU (where the MC standards would likely dominate). Therefore, any such production currently existing inside the EU and intended for export may simply be relocated outside the EU, with consequent losses of EU revenues and jobs. When examining the environmental impact, under option P2O1, mercury input and emissions/releases will remain unchanged. Under option P2O2, mercury use and releases inside the EU will be reduced, but if production of the targeted products is relocated out of the EU to the countries with lower environment and health standards than in the EU, the global negative impact of mercury emissions/releases on the environment and health may increase. Lamps Mercury-containing non-electronic measuring devices are regulated within the EU by the RoHS Directive that has prohibited the placing on the EU market of electrical and electronic equipment containing mercury, with certain exemptions. LightingEurope (2014) has advised that, of the lamps concerned by the MC, only fluorescent lamps of the halophosphate type would be affected under option P2O2, but not under option P2O1. LightingEurope estimates that around 143 million pieces of halophosphate lamps per year are manufactured in the EU for export, which comply with the standard set by the MC (maximum 10 mg mercury per lamp) but do not comply with the standard applicable for marketing within the EU (0,1% of mercury by weight, which is in practice lower than 10 mg mercury per lamp). Assuming an average consumer price of 5 EUR/piece (within a range of between 2 and 8 EUR) the consumer market value of these lamps is estimated at 715 million EUR/y. The actual export revenue from this production was not reported, but would probably not exceed one third to half of this amount, or approximately 240–360 million EUR/y. As these lamps are reported to have mercury content below 10 mg/piece, their export would not be affected under option P2O1, but could be eliminated under the option P2O2, meaning loss of export revenues of maximum 240–360 million EUR/y. The number of jobs at risk was not reported. No specific quantitative information on mercury emissions and releases from production of lamps for export was provided, but these are assumed to be minimal in EU production. Conservatively assuming that the lamps exported contain an average of 10 mg of mercury per lamp, the total mercury in these lamps would be 1,4 t/y. This defines the maximum potential mercury emissions/releases in the life cycle of the lamps under option P2O2. While some lamps may be recycled and mercury therein reused or deposited as waste, most of this mercury is expected to end up in the environment. Under option P2O1, no environmental impacts are expected. Table 4f Overview of impacts of option P2O1 vs option P2O2 Provision Option P2O1 Option P2O2 P2 - export prohibition of the mercury-added products listed in MC Annex A Very minor impacts are expected, as targeted products are already restricted for placing on the market within the EU and for several products the existing export is in conformity with MC requirements as reported by EU industry. Lost export revenues from the lamps industry is estimated at 240-360 million EUR/y with possible associated job losses. Potential reductions in mercury input to society (0-5 t/y). However, negative global environmental impacts are expected, in case production is moved outside the EU. Table 4-f above presents the impacts generated by the two options. The types of impacts are the same for both options, but the scale of impact will be higher under option P2O2 for the stakeholders involved in production and export of products which are targeted by EU marketing restrictions but not by MC marketing restrictions. Table 4-g below provides an overview of the stakeholders affected and the impacts expected.

Table 4g Stakeholders affected by options in question and impacts in summary. Options assessed Stakeholders affected Impacts P2O1:

Export prohibition of the mercury-added products listed in MC Annex A and P2O2:

Export prohibition of all mercury-added products currently not allowed in the EU market Industry and exporters Costs: Loss of revenues from exports of targeted products manufactured in the EU. Social: Loss of jobs with cessation or reduction of production and export of targeted products manufactured in the EU. Impacts could be qualified as insignificant for option P2O1 and as limited for option P2O2. Competent authorities Administrative burden of enforcement: as control programmes are already conducted for diverse restrictions of marketing of mercury containing products, incremental efforts are deemed minimal. Environment and consumers globally Environmental: Reduction of releases of mercury from the life cycle of the targeted products (from manufacture in EU; from use and disposal outside the EU). No impact under option P2O1, potentially negative impact under option P2O2, in case production is moved outside the EU. Stakeholder consultation The majority of respondents (39%) in the public consultation favoured option P2O2, while 10% expressed a preference for option P2O1. The rest of the participants (51%) did not respond to the relevant question in the public consultation. The percentage of supporters of a strict approach (option P2O2) is higher (51%) among participating organisations than among individual participants (39%). Certain business sectors (e.g. button cell batteries) expressed clear support for the option going beyond the requirements of the MC (EPBA position paper of 14/8/2015), while others such as LightingEurope (the industry association representing the European Lighting manufacturers preferred the simple transposition option as certain types of lamps for which EU law sets stricter standards than those established in the MC could still be exported after the entry into force of the Convention. All stakeholders’ views, included the ones referred to earlier have been published and are available on our mercury webpage. Conclusions The main economic impact is expected from the potential loss of exports of 143 million pieces of halophosphate lamps per year, corresponding to an estimated loss of revenues of about 240-360 million EUR/y under option P2O2. The number of jobs at risk is not known. No specific quantitative information for the mercury emissions and releases from production of lamps for export was received but these are assumed to be minimal. While this option could have a positive environmental impact due to the elimination of up to 1,4 t of mercury input to society, this would probably not materialise if production is moved outside the EU. Even worse, increases of emissions/releases from manufacturing and waste disposal may occur, thus leading to a negative environmental impact, which would be contradictory to the general objective. P2O2 is thus less effective than P2O1 and it goes further than necessary, it could thus be considered disproportionate. P2O1 is therefore preferable to P2O2 in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. For this reason P2O2 is not retained. Under option P2O1, no environmental impacts are expected and therefore P2O1 is the preferred option. While preference to P2O1 means that the standards foreseen in Annex A of the MC will be applied, care will be taken to maintain stricter provisions where relevant (e.g. those foreseen by the batteries directive, given especially the support expressed by EPBA, main representative of the business sector concerned). 4.3 Use of mercury in new products/processes (P3) These provisions of the MC relate to future products and processes which are unknown today, so a specific impact assessment is not possible. It is only possible to outline the type of impacts that may occur. Impacts of the two considered options on stakeholders are summarised in Table 4-h below: Table 4h Stakeholders affected by options in question and impacts in summary Options assessed Stakeholders affected Impacts P3O1:

notification of mercury use in new products and processes Researchers and developers of new products and processes Possible stimulation to develop mercury-free alternatives. Possible jobs and profits related to inventions for mercury-free alternatives. Industry Possible loss of jobs and profit in industry related to products which will not be placed on the market and manufacturing processes which will not be used. Possible creation of jobs and profit related to mercury-free products and processes which will be placed on the market or used instead of products and processes using mercury. Competent authorities Possible costs at competent authorities in order to manage increased administrative burdens. Administration efforts for implementation may vary quite heavily depending on the implementation mode. However, they are expected to be very limited given the low likelihood of new products or processes. Consumers Possible cost impacts (positive or negative) due to changes in manufacturing costs. Reduced risk of exposure due to avoidance of new mercury uses. Workers Reduced risk of exposure due to avoidance of new mercury uses. Environment Reduced risk of exposure due to avoidance of new mercury uses. P3O2:

Prohibition of mercury use in new products and processes Researchers and Developers of new products and processes Generally the same as above for option P3O1 - potentially more effective and with higher signal value. Industry Generally the same as above for option P3O1. Moreover, possible additional (authorisation) costs for (i) the assessment of the risks and benefits of mercury related products to demonstrate (or not) environmental or human health benefits and/or (ii) for the assessment whether a manufacturing process provides significant environmental and health benefits and that there are no technically and economically feasible mercury-free alternatives available providing such benefits. Competent authorities Possible costs for market surveillance. However, this is expected to be very limited given that (1) any such activity would be combined with the current market surveillance related to the vast mercury acquis, where the illegal import of existing product is the main issue, and (2) the low likelihood of new products or processes. Consumers Generally the same as above for option P3O1. Workers Generally the same as above for option P3O1. Environment Generally the same as above for option P3O1. Mercury is being phased out in most of its former uses in commercial products and manufacturing processes. The probability that new mercury related commercial products and manufacturing processes will achieve significant market scale is considered as very low, but the possibility cannot be entirely excluded. A conditional restriction would be an effective means of discouraging such applications. However, R&D activities are exempted from the MC and would thus still be possible. Introduction of authorisation requirements would impose new cost barriers to bringing new products and processes to market and provide additional protection against the health and environmental impacts of mercury use in circumstances where there are no significant social benefits. Such requirements would discourage new uses of mercury and impose no significant direct costs on business if no new products are developed (i.e. there is no need for requests for authorisation). If a "soft" discouragement, as in option P3O1 is chosen, it could be considered to establish a reporting obligation (e.g. to the Commission through MS authorities) on new types of mercury products and processes, in order to monitor development and demonstrate conformity. Given the limited number of potential new developments, the associated administrative cost would be negligible. An explicit prohibition (option P3O2) will have a stronger signal value both internally in the EU and towards other Parties of the MC, thereby reducing the likelihood that economic operators would engage in potentially very costly development of products or processes that would not meet the environmental and health benefits condition and thus reduce any related wastage of human and financial resources. On the basis of experience with similar procedures under REACH, industry could face additional costs in the 100-450 kEUR range for authorisation costs and fees. Table 4-i below compares the impacts of option P3O1 vs option P3O2. Table 4i Overview of impacts of option P3O1 vs option P3O2 Provision Option P3O1 Option P3O2 P3 - restrictions on mercury use in new products and processes Limited impacts, both cost-wise and environmentally. Limited economic impact. More effective and with higher signal value than P3O1, reducing the risk that economic operators would engage in costly developments and marketing of new products or processes that would be subsequently prohibited.

Stakeholder consultation The majority of respondents in the public consultation (47%) favoured option P3O2, while only 6% expressed a preference for option P3O1. Again, 47% of the participants did not respond to the relevant question. Among individual participants, only 5% are in favour of P3O1, 47% were in favour of P3O2, while 48% did not respond to the relevant question. Among participating organisations, the corresponding figures are 21% for P3O1, 54% for P3O2 and 25% not responding. Conclusions Economic and social impacts: The discouragement of mercury uses in new products or processes can eliminate potential risks. The mercury applications used today are based on technology invented 50 or more years ago (though some variants are more recent). There are currently no indications of new products or processes involving mercury being brought to the market at any significant scale. The probability that such products and processes will be developed is considered low, but it cannot be ruled out completely. However, R&D activities are exempted from the scope of the MC, as well as under existing EU law relevant to mercury, therefore, the development of new products and processes would still be possible. The main impact of the considered options is their signal value. The stronger the signal, the more unlikely it would be that operators would waste substantial resources in developing new uses of mercury that do not have significant environmental and health benefits. Under option P3O2, determination of whether the MC conditions for significant environmental or human health benefits are fulfilled would be necessary before a product was placed on the market or a process deployed. This has a significantly stronger signal value than monitoring of the market and possible prohibition of a new use after an assessment process under option P301. Environmental impacts: The choice of option could result in anything between “no effect” (but conformity with the MC) and virtually full elimination of mercury input to society via novel mercury uses. P3O2 would better achieve the objectives set and at a lower cost, it could thus be considered both more effective and efficient than P3O1, while both options seem to score equally well in terms of coherence. P3O2 is therefore the preferred option. 4.4 Mercury use in the manufacturing processes listed in MC Annex B (P4) Prohibition of the use of mercury from primary mining Currently, the main industrial activities using mercury in their processes are plants producing chlor-alkali or alcoholates. Any mercury replenishment need for these plants comes from stocks of mercury the operators already have. Therefore, a prohibition of the use of mercury from primary mining would not induce any additional costs. Reduction of emissions to air The cost of 50% reduction of emissions of mercury to air per unit production by 2020 compared to 2010, from production of alcoholates, is estimated at 0,6-1 million EUR/y. Prohibition of using the mercury process The acetylene mercury catalyst-based process for production of vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) is only used in the EU by Fortischem in the Slovak Republic, in parallel to the mercury-free ethylene process. It is used for approximately 25% of the total VCM production. The main reason of still using this process is reportedly the availability of certain quantities of low quality (off-specifications) calcium carbide, which is easily converted to acetylene and subsequently used for VCM/PVC production. Approximately 20t of catalyst containing 10% by weight of mercury chloride (2t) is consumed annually. Used catalyst at the end of its life span is sent for recovery. While there is no information on the intentions of the company regarding phase out of the acetylene process, the dependence on this process is limited, as the company uses in parallel the mercury-free ethylene process. The concerned company has not expressed any objections to the prohibition of the use of mercury catalysts. To comply with the prohibition the company would either have to use mercury-free catalysts that are available on the market at a higher cost or discontinue this ancillary activity. Existing alternative catalysts (based on palladium/platinum) that could be used as a replacement for mercuric chloride are relatively more expensive. However, two European companies (Johnson Matthew catalysts in the UK and Aker Solutions from NO) have developed a catalyst for the acetylene process that would easily (with no need for changes to process) substitute mercuric chloride. This would have an even higher yield compared to the mercury catalyst and would have a low impact on the process cost. Higher catalyst costs (5-15EUR per ton of PVC) would be compensated to a great extent by achieving a higher yield. Given the minimal production cost increase expected in relation to the PVC production cost (400EUR/t) and market price (900EUR/t), the new catalyst could provide a sustainable solution from an environmental and economic point of view. The additional cost of using the mercury-free catalyst was estimated at less than 1% of the total PVC production cost. Four alcoholates - substances used as catalysts in biodiesel production and in several other syntheses of organic chemicals – are produced in the EU in two plants using a mercury process. The main chemical concerned, by far the economically most important, is sodium methylate. However, the companies concerned consider the production of the four alcoholates as economically mutually dependent and therefore state that they may have to terminate the production of all four substances, should the use of the mercury-based process be prohibited in the EU. Two German companies (Evonic and BASF) are the world leaders in production of these substances. While they use the mercury-based process in their EU production, they make use of a non-mercury alternative process in their facilities located in North and South America for sodium methylate. All other global production is based on non-mercury technology. In the EU, the non-mercury production method is used by a French company, EnviroCat, which accounts for 10% of the total EU-based production of sodium methylate. Non-mercury technologies are also commercially available for the production of sodium ethylate and potassium methylate, although they seem not to allow the production of potassium methylate in the quantities and quality required by the market. The production of potassium ethylate with non-mercury technology appears to be possible at laboratory scale, but the EU producers using mercury do not consider it technically and economically feasible on an industrial scale. The substance is currently not registered under REACH, meaning that (if used) EU consumption is less than 100 t/y. The substance is reported by a stakeholder to be produced without mercury in India, but this has not been confirmed by other sources. The producers argued that cessation of production of potassium ethylate would make downstream users suffer from scarcity of the substance. This argument could not be verified based on available information.

The total costs for the industry of substitution for all four alcoholates is estimated at between 60 and 76 million EUR/y, of which about half are investments annualised over a 10 year period and the other half are operational costs. Research costs cannot be quantified precisely, but it is expected that a reasonable research activity would generate costs of 2 million EUR/y. Therefore, the substitution costs could range between 2 and 76 million EUR/y. Summary of impacts of the options The costs of reducing emissions under option P4O1 are estimated at 0,6-1 million EUR/y. As these measures would be taken in a context of discouragement of the use of this process, depending on the measures taken by Germany or voluntarily by industry, costs of research and/or substitution may be also incurred bringing the potential costs range to 3-77 million EUR/y. For option P4O2, the costs of prohibition of the mercury process for alcoholates production the costs could range from 61 to 77 million EUR/y. Social impacts of option P4O2: While the numbers available are considered uncertain and not necessarily consistent with the lower production costs of the mercury-based process, they could indicate that the mercury-based production technology is more labour-intensive, and the loss of 80-200 jobs cannot be ruled out. Under option P4O1, such impacts may be also observed depending on the measures taken by Germany or voluntarily by industry, the transition will come more slowly, or not at all (in case adequate alternatives are not developed for all four alcoholates), and consequently potential job losses would range between 0 and 200. Environmental benefits under both options are moderate in the EU context. For option P4O2, the reduction in air emissions is estimated at about 190 kg/y and reductions of the mercury input at about 0,3-1,0 t/y. The reductions potentially achieved under option P4O1 can also not be quantified more precisely than up to 0,3-1,0 t/y, while in the short term emission reductions should drop by 95kg/y. Table 4j Overview of impacts of option P4O1 vs option P4O2 Provision Option P4O1 Option P4O2 P4 – restrictions on the use of mercury in the manufacturing processes listed in MC Annex B Moderate to substantial impacts (costs 3-77 million EUR/y), depending on whether an alternative process for the last of the four alcoholates considered technically and economically feasible is identified and implemented following measures taken by Germany or voluntarily by industry. Reductions of mercury air emissions by at least 95kg/y and mercury use by 0,3-1t/y. Significant economic impacts: Annual estimated costs of 61-77 million EUR/y. Reductions of mercury air emissions by 190kg/y and mercury use by 0,3-1t/y Stakeholder consultation The majority of respondents in the public consultation (45%) favoured option P4O2, while 7% expressed a preference for option P4O1, with 48% of the respondents not responding to the relevant question. Among individuals, 45% favoured option P4O2, against 7% favouring option P4O1 and 48% not responding. Among organisations, the corresponding figures are 54% for P4O2, 27% for P4O1 and 19% for no response. However, while the overwhelming majority of NGOs are in favour of P4O2, most private sector organisations (9 out of 14) favour P4O1, i.e. an implementation as foreseen in the MC. The business sector concerned is divided, as mentioned above, as the companies using the mercury technology clearly favour P4O1, while their competitors support an outright ban (option P4O2). Conclusions Phase-out of the use of mercury in VCM production does not have significant impacts, as the company concerned could easily switch to the ethylene process or alternatively use a mercury-free catalyst that would have a minimal impact on the process cost. Whilst there is a clear non-mercury alternative for the production of sodium methylate, the companies using the mercury-based production process state that they would have to terminate the production of all four substances if the use of the mercury-based process is prohibited for sodium methylate as the activity would not be economically viable anymore. There remains uncertainty on the potential negative impacts that such cessation would imply for downstream users of two of the four chemicals. P4O2 is associated with an economic impact of 61-77 million EUR/y corresponding to a reduction of mercury emissions of about 190 kg/y and potential losses of 80-200 jobs. On the other hand, P4O1 could achieve similar environmental benefits over time with potentially much lower cost, as the economic impact was estimated between 3-77 million EUR/y depending on the measures taken by Germany or voluntarily by industry. While P4O2 is more effective than P4O1, the latter would probably be slightly more efficient. P4O2 would score better in terms of coherence as the mercury process used will be phased out in the chlor-alkali industry within the EU by 2017. P4O1 is thus the preferred option. 4.5 Mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM) (P5) Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) activity is defined by Art. 2(1) MC as “mining and processing in which mercury amalgamation is used to extract gold from ore.” Art. 7(2) of the MC requires the Parties for which such activity is relevant to take steps “to reduce, and where feasible eliminate, the use of mercury and mercury compounds in, and the releases to the environment of mercury from, such mining and processing.” ASGM is not prohibited under the MC, but where a Party determines that ASGM and processing in its territory is “more than insignificant”, it is required to develop a National Action Plan (Art. 7(3) MC), in line with the requirements of Annex C to the MC. Such plans have to be submitted to the Secretariat of the Convention within three years after its entry into force with a review every three years. ASGM activities are very widespread in developing countries, particularly in South America, Africa and South-East Asia. Within the EU, the only Member State concerned is France (as ASGM takes place in the overseas department of French Guiana), resulting in mercury pollution despite the prohibition under French law to use mercury for such an activity.

The incremental impact of the transposition into EU law of a general obligation to restrict the use of mercury for ASGM would therefore be minimal s