Ratifying Minamata Convention Mercury (04 70) (01 33)

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 33

Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Table A1: Potential industry impacts that were investigated, by article of the Minamata
Convention......................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Table A2: Qualitative summary of potential cost and benefit impacts that were investigated, by
stakeholder group........................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table A3: Exemptions sought for high-pressure mercury vapour lamps ............................................... 38
Table A4: Mercury vapour streetlight stocks, by state, 2017, 2020 and 2021 ...................................... 38
Table A5: Mercury vapour light stocks, Australia, 2017 and 2020 ............................................................ 39
Table A6: Replacement asset, energy savings and changeover costs for HPMV lamps ..................... 40
Table A7: Summary of impacts on government ................................................................................................. 44
Table A8: Annual loss of IQ points in the Australian population due to maternal exposure to
mercury ............................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Table A9: Spadaro and Rabl’s estimate of harm caused per kilogram of mercury released into the
environment (2008 US$/kg) ...................................................................................................................................... 48
Table A10: Australian estimate of harm caused per kilogram of mercury (benefit transfer) ........ 49
Table A11: Reduction in work incidents involving mercury ........................................................................ 51
Table A12: Quantitative summary of cost and benefit impacts that were identified ......................... 54
Table A13: Cost–benefit analysis results .............................................................................................................. 55
Table A14: Average annual regulatory costs from business as usual ($ million) ................................ 57
Table B1: Consultation summary and government response ...................................................................... 59

Figures
Figure 1: Sources of mercury exposure and its impacts on human health ................................................7
Figure 2: Mercury emissions to air, land and water, Australia, 2018–19................................................ 10
Figure 3: Sources of mercury exposure to the environment ........................................................................ 12
Figure 4: Estimated phase-out of HPMV lamps under the base case and the ratification option,
2019 to 2030 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 5: Process to identify and collate the impacts of ratification versus non-ratification ......... 24
Figure A1: Flowchart summarising the approach used .................................................................................. 30
Figure A2: Estimated phase-out of HPMV lamps under the base case and the ratification option,
2019 to 2030 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Map
Map 1: Mercury emissions hotspots in Australia, 2018–19 ............................................................................. 9

Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment


iv
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

1 Introduction
The Minamata Convention on Mercury is an international environmental agreement
coordinated by the UN Environment Programme. The text of the Convention was agreed by
countries in January 2013.

The Convention introduces global controls to protect human health and the environment from
anthropogenic (human-caused) releases of mercury and mercury compounds. The total health
cost of Australian mercury emissions to the domestic economy is estimated at approximately
$52.7 million in 2020.

Australia signed the Minamata Convention in October 2013. The signature indicates that
Australia will refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the
Convention. The next step is to ratify the Convention, which would bind Australia under
international law to meet the Convention’s obligations.

Because Australia is not yet a ratified Party to the Convention, it is increasingly set apart from
like-minded countries and key trading partners and is also unable to fully engage in, or
influence, the direction of the Convention, including decisions about future global controls on
mercury.

The Convention has been ratified by 125 countries, including the United States of America, the
European Union, Japan, China, India and Indonesia. In particular, non-ratification sets Australia
apart from the 30 out of 37 OECD countries that have ratified.

Since 2013, the Australian Government has been exploring possible pathways to ratifying the
Minamata Convention. Australia’s domestic treaty-making process requires the government to
meet the specific obligations of the Convention before ratification.

The government must consider two options:

• to ratify the Minamata Convention, or


• to do nothing, maintaining Australia’s current status as a non-Party to the Convention.
In deciding whether to ratify the Convention, the government’s policy objectives are to:

1) Protect the environment and human health from the harmful effects of mercury exposure.
2) Reduce mercury pollution from human activity.
3) Continue Australia’s role as an engaged and responsible global trading partner.
4) Ensure that any approach taken provides a net benefit to the community, including by
minimising the impact and cost to business and industry while still achieving the other
objectives.
The specific details of those key objectives, how they were identified and the benefits and
regulatory impacts of the proposal for government action are explored in greater detail through
this Regulation Impact Statement (RIS).

The government has conducted significant analysis and consultation over six years on the
potential costs, benefits and impacts of Australia’s ratification of the Convention. Consultation

5
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

found broad support among government, business, industry and other stakeholders for
ratification.

Following public consultation on an exposure draft RIS in 2016 (Australian Government 2016),
the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment has updated the options and
analyses to take account of international and domestic developments, which include:

• cancellation by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority of the


registration of Shirtan, which is a mercury-containing fungicide for sugar cane
• greater clarity on the likely market availability of mercury-added products from key
trading partners
• the development of guidelines under the Convention on implementing some of its
obligations, reducing uncertainty for industry.
Recognising the significant and ongoing threat that mercury pollution poses to human health
and the environment, Australian governments have historically been active in seeking to reduce
the Australian community’s risk of exposure. Consequently, Australia is already broadly in
alignment with many of the obligations of the Minamata Convention, so ratification will have a
minimal impact on most industries.
While the lighting sector has been actively replacing high-pressure mercury vapour (HPMV)
lamps with light-emitting diodes (LEDs), the proposed approach to ratifying the Convention
would bring forward capital expenditure for the final stages of that transition by two years. The
industry peak body has indicated its support for this transition strategy.

The impacts of the proposed ratification identified during consultations are outlined in this RIS.
Our analysis concludes that ratifying the Convention would meet all the government’s policy
objectives and be beneficial to the Australian economy.

6
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

2 The problem
2.1 The need for global action on mercury
Mercury is a toxic pollutant that is released into the environment mainly through human
activities such as industrial processes, including mining. It accumulates in the environment and
in food chains, and circulates globally through the oceans and the atmosphere, causing
significant harm to human health and the environment, sometimes at great distances from its
point of origin. The World Health Organization lists mercury as one of the top 10 chemicals of
major public health concern: acute or chronic exposure to mercury and mercury compounds
can be fatal.

Humans can be exposed to mercury through emissions in the air, from contaminated land and
water, and from eating contaminated foods (mostly marine fish; Figure 1). Mercury exposure
can cause significant adverse health impacts and environmental damage. The UN Environment
Programme estimates that human activity has increased mercury in Arctic marine animals by
10 to 12 times compared with pre-industrial levels. Mercury concentrations have also been
increasing in the North Pacific Ocean over the past few decades, coinciding with the
industrialisation of East Asia. Further increases in emissions would have ‘long term
consequences for commercial fisheries and all consumers of marine and freshwater foods’
(UNEP 2013a).

Figure 1: Sources of mercury exposure and its impacts on human health

Source: UNEP (2013b:24).

7
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

In a globally coordinated effort to protect human health and the environment from
anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds, the Minamata
Convention contains provisions that relate to the entire life cycle of mercury. It includes
controls and reductions for a range of products, processes and industries in which mercury is
used, released (to land and water) or emitted (to air). The Convention also addresses the direct
mining of mercury, its export and import, its safe storage and its disposal once it is waste.

2.2 Mercury in Australia


This RIS draws on evidence gathered through a review of international and domestic literature;
official economic, environmental and trade data; and consultations with government, business,
industry and non-government organisations.

According to the National Pollutant Inventory, industry in Australia reported the emission and
release of approximately 10 tonnes of mercury in 2018–19 (Australian Government 2020).
Previous studies have developed a benefit transfer methodology that, when updated and
applied to Australia, estimates the most likely impact of mercury emissions on human health to
be $5,273 per kilogram of mercury (Australian Government 2018). Therefore, the impact from
mercury emitted in 2018–19 alone equated to a human health cost of approximately
$52.7 million per year to the Australian economy.

Common sources of mercury emissions and releases in Australia include air emissions from
coal-fired power stations and non-ferrous metal smelters, the application of mercury-containing
fungicide to sugar cane (which will not occur after the deemed permit ends in June 2021), the
disposal of damaged fluorescent and low-energy lamps, leaking mercury-containing
thermometers and batteries, and amalgam waste from dental practices. Map 1 shows ‘hotspots’
of mercury emissions in Australia.

8
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Map 1: Mercury emissions hotspots in Australia, 2018–19

Note: The main point sources of mercury emissions are locations of metal smelting, alumina production and coal-fired
power generation.
Source: National Pollutant Inventory 2018/19.

One of the main sources of mercury pollution in Australia has been agricultural run-off from
sugar cane treated with Shirtan, which is a mercury-containing fungicide. Run-off released
around 4.3 tonnes of mercury into the environment in 2017–18 (the estimate is based on
Shirtan sales). Following the voluntary cancellation of the active constituent (containing
mercury), the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority cancelled the
registration of Shirtan for use in Australia in June 2020 (APVMA 2020), although the product
may continue to be supplied and used for 12 months under a deemed permit. The use of Shirtan
has already declined significantly, as growers look to other (non-mercury-containing)
fungicides.

Figure 2 illustrates the different industry contributions to domestic mercury emissions to air
and releases to land and water in 2018–19, based on information provided to the National
Pollutant Inventory. Note that total emissions to air are significantly greater than releases to
land and water.

The smelting and refining of copper, silver, lead and zinc contributes the greatest proportion of
mercury emissions to air. Petroleum refining and manufacturing contribute nearly half of
mercury emissions to land and water, although that is a much smaller total.

9
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Figure 2: Mercury emissions to air, land and water, Australia, 2018–19

Domestic mercury emissions to air (kg) Domestic mercury releases to land and
water (kg)
841 , 9%
20 , 8%
234 , 2% 3,628 , 10 , 4%
415 , 4% 37%
12 , 5% 110 , 45%

23 , 9%

2,043 ,
21%

73 , 29%
2,573 ,
27% Petroleum Refining and Petroleum Fuel
Copper, Silver, Lead and Zinc Smelting and Refining Manufacturing

Alumina Production Sewerage and Drainage Services

Fossil Fuel Electricity Generation


Copper, Silver, Lead and Zinc Smelting and Refining
Gold Ore Mining
Waste Treatment and Disposal Services
Iron Smelting and Steel Manufacturing

Other (Cement, Mining, Organic chemical Oil and Gas Extraction


manufacturing, Clay Brick manufacturing and other)
Other (mining, Fossil Fuel Electricity Generation,
Fertiliser manufacturing, Port and Water Transport
Terminal Operations and other)
Note: The releases to land and water do not include diffuse-source releases from sugarcane areas to which the fungicide
Shirtan was applied (estimated at 4,300 kg in 2017–18). Those releases are not reported to the National Pollutant
Inventory. With the expiration of the deemed permit for Shirtan from June 2021, run-off from sugarcane areas will no
longer be a significant source of mercury pollution.
Source: National Pollutant Inventory (Australian Government 2020).

Studying the effects of mercury on human health and the environment is extremely challenging
because, as it is an element, it is never destroyed and can transition into various forms as it
cycles through the environment. For example, mercury that is deposited to soils, lakes, wetlands
or oceans may later enter the food chain or be re-released into the atmosphere, from which it
can then be redeposited elsewhere. Therefore, it is highly likely that Australians are being
affected by mercury pollution from overseas.

Consumption of seafood and freshwater fish contaminated with mercury (which may be from
local or global sources) is also a potential source of exposure in the Australian community.
Traditionally, Australians are large consumers of seafood, annually consuming more fish and
other seafood per capita than the world average (AIHW 2012). Australia’s apparent
consumption of seafood increased, on average, at an annual rate of 1.9% between 1998–99 and
2017–18, from an estimated 238,968 tonnes in 1998–99 to 341,272 tonnes in 2017–18 (Steven
et al. 2020).
10
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

3 The need for government action


Through this RIS, the Australian Government is considering the possible benefits and
implications of Australia’s ratification of the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Given
Australia’s diplomatic position in the Indo-Pacific region, Australia’s ratification would assist
broader global efforts to reduce mercury pollution and ensure that ambition and accountability
are maintained in the long term, as other countries develop improved mercury control
strategies. Those global efforts to reduce mercury pollution will reduce the risk of mercury
exposure to human health and the environment, domestically and internationally.

3.1 Policy objectives overview


The Australian Government’s objective is to identify and implement the best policy approach for
managing mercury pollution in Australia, considering the full range of social, environmental and
economic impacts.

This RIS explores the four key policy objectives of the proposal to ratify the Minamata
Convention:

1) Protect the environment and human health from the harmful effects of mercury exposure.
2) Reduce mercury pollution from human activity.
3) Continue Australia’s role as an engaged and responsible global trading partner.
4) Ensure that any approach taken provides a net benefit to the community, including by
minimising the impact and costs to business and industry, while still achieving the other
objectives.

3.2 Objective 1: Protect the environment and human


health from the harmful effects of mercury exposure
Mercury is a naturally occurring element that can be emitted and released as a result of both
natural processes and human activities (as shown in Figure 3). Approximately 90 per cent of the
mercury emitted into the atmosphere each year is accounted to be from human activity
(UNEP 2013a).

Mercury is a highly toxic heavy metal that can cause serious adverse effects on humans,
ecosystems and wildlife, particularly because of its tendency to cause reproductive and
developmental impairment. Inhaled mercury is readily absorbed into the bloodstream and can
damage the central nervous system, thyroid, kidneys, heart, lungs, immune system, eyes, gums
and skin. Neurological and behavioural disorders can also indicate mercury contamination;
symptoms include tremors, insomnia, memory loss, neuromuscular effects, headaches and
cognitive and motor dysfunction, and damage to the brain from mercury cannot be reversed
(WHO 2013). In extreme cases, rapid onset insanity, paralysis, coma and death can also occur
(UNEP 2013b).

11
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Figure 3: Sources of mercury exposure to the environment

Source: UNEP (2013b:21).

There is no known safe exposure level for mercury in humans, and effects can be seen even at
very low levels. Foetuses, newborn babies and children are among the most vulnerable and
sensitive to the adverse effects of mercury (UNEP 2017).

Mercury is a chemical of global concern because, once emitted or released, it persists in the
environment, where it circulates between air, water, sediments, soil and living organisms. It can
travel far from its original source and becomes increasingly concentrated in the tissues of
organisms as it rises up the food chain.

The most common source of direct mercury exposure for humans is through the consumption of
contaminated fish and seafood. Once ingested, 95 per cent of the chemical is absorbed in the
body (UNEP 2013b). Infants, children and pregnant women (due to transplacental
contamination) are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of mercury. In children and infants,
mercury can cause severe neurological damage resulting in mental retardation, seizures, vision
and hearing loss, delayed development, language disorders and memory loss. Children with
elevated mercury levels are also more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (WHO 2013, Boucher et al. 2012).

The loss of IQ associated with in utero mercury exposure (Axelrad et al. 2007) and subsequent
methylmercury toxicity is of primary concern, as the resulting loss of intelligence causes
diminished economic productivity and persists over a person’s lifetime. That lost productivity

12
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

has been estimated to cost US$8.7 billion annually in the United States alone (Trasande et al.
2005).

In the European Union, more than 1.8 million children are born each year with methylmercury
exposures resulting in mercury levels in their hair above the recommended limit of
0.58 micrograms per gram (µg/g). It has been estimated that the total annual economic benefit
of exposure prevention is between €8 billion and €9 billion per year (Bellanger et al. 2013).

Based on a global population of 7.8 billion and an Australian population of 25.4 million (or
about 0.33% of the world’s population), Australia’s mercury emissions are less than 0.5 per cent
of global emissions from industrial sources, and the nation’s releases of mercury to land and
water make up less than 1 per cent of global releases from such sources (UNEP 2019). However,
due to its relatively small population, on a per capita basis, Australia’s industrial mercury
emissions are higher than the world per capita average.

As mercury pollution can travel long distances from source countries, it is a global problem that
requires global solutions. Through participation in the Minamata Convention, Australia can
work closely with other countries to mitigate the risk posed by mercury pollution at the global
level.

3.3 Objective 2: Reduce mercury pollution from human


activity
Due to its unique properties, mercury has been widely used in products such as measuring
devices (barometers, hygrometers, manometers, thermometers, sphygmomanometers),
switches, relays, some fluorescent light bulbs, batteries, cosmetics, pesticides, biocides,
pharmaceuticals, jewellery and dental amalgam (used in tooth restorations). It has also been
used in manufacturing processes that produce chlorine and sodium hydroxide (mercury chlor-
alkali plants) or vinyl chloride monomer for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) production, and
polyurethane elastomers.

Mercury can also be a by-product of raw material refining or production processes, such as oil
and gas refining and non-ferrous metal production (lead, zinc, copper and industrial gold). It can
also be emitted from coal-fired power stations and coal-fired industrial boilers.

In practice, Australia is already broadly in alignment with many of the obligations of the
Minamata Convention. For example, primary mercury mining (which is prohibited by the
Convention) no longer occurs in Australia. Mercury-using manufacturing processes prohibited
by the Convention are also not conducted in Australia. Australia is also a Party to the Basel
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their
Disposal, aspects of which have been incorporated into the Minamata Convention.

Many government regulatory and policy measures and voluntary actions by industry are
already in place to reduce mercury use, control industrial emissions of mercury and protect the
Australian community and environment from harmful effects of mercury. For example:

• Since 2012, the maximum mercury content allowed in certain fluorescent lights has been
set at levels equal to or less than those specified in the Minamata Convention.
• The Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Gidji gold roasting facility (north of Kalgoorlie,
Western Australia) was previously the largest single emitter of mercury in Australia,
13
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

emitting over 5 tonnes of mercury per year (KCGM n.d., KCGM 2015). Over recent years, the
facility worked with the Western Australian Government to improve its gold processing
methods and in 2017–18 emitted only 0.29 kilograms of mercury. The facility has also
implemented a monitoring program for potential spill or leak sources and a wastewater
treatment plant to ensure that it effectively controls mercury.
• Two new mercury waste treatment facilities have been constructed in Western Australia,
bolstering Australia’s capacity for managing mercury-contaminated materials.
Implementing the obligations of the Convention will therefore be relatively straightforward and
low-cost, involving minor amendments to legislation or policies, or adjustments to the
application of legislation in most instances. Proposed amendments to federal legislation relate
to controls on the import and export of mercury and the phasing out of the import, manufacture
and export of some mercury-added products (to which Part I of Annex A of the Convention
refers). Under the Convention, a number of products are excluded from those listed in Annex A:
a) Products essential for civil protection and military use
b) Products for research, calibration of instrumentation, for use as reference standard
c) Where no feasible mercury-free alternative for replacement is available, switches and
relays, cold cathode fluorescent lamps and external electrode fluorescent lamps (CCFL
and EEFL) for electronic displays, and measuring devices
d) Products used in traditional or religious practices and
e) Vaccines containing thiomersal as preservatives.
The Convention also requires that certain new or substantially modified industrial facilities
(coal-fired power stations and boilers, non-ferrous metal smelting, waste incineration and
cement clinker production) must apply the ‘best available techniques’ (BAT) and ‘best
environmental practices’ (BEP) to control and, where feasible, reduce mercury emissions. The
Conference of the Parties to the Minamata Convention has issued guidance on the application of
BAT/BEP for the specified types of facilities.

Existing facilities in those categories in Australia operate under a range of pollution control
measures similar to those specified in the Convention. Current regulatory and industry practice
in Australia is to use BAT/BEP for new industrial facilities of those types, so it is reasonable to
assume that the emissions requirements on any new facilities will align with Convention
requirements.

3.4 Objective 3: Continue Australia’s role as an engaged


and responsible global trading partner
The Convention has been ratified by 125 countries and regional organisations, including the
United States, the European Union, Japan, China, India and Indonesia.

As Australia is not a Party to the Convention, it is increasingly set apart from like-minded
countries and key trading partners, particularly from the 30 out of 37 OECD member countries
that have ratified. Australia is also unable to fully engage in or influence the directions of the
Convention, including decisions on future global controls on mercury. As the Minamata
Convention is a new treaty (entering into force in 2017), foundational guidance materials and
definitions are still being negotiated and adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

14
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Chemical pollution and wastes move across national borders, so global cooperation is necessary
to protect the health of Australians and our environment. As indicated in Section 3.2 of this RIS,
mercury emitted into the environment can circulate globally and create problems beyond
national borders. Multilateral environmental agreements, such as the Minamata Convention,
encourage best practice environmental protection, increase understanding of shared issues,
reduce transboundary pollution impacts and align trade requirements to decrease regulatory
burdens. Effective engagement with the Minamata Convention will help to optimise
environmental, social and economic outcomes for Australia, bolstering our reputation as a
responsible trading partner.

Being engaged in the international community through multilateral forums such as the
Minamata Convention also ensures that the Australian Government is kept up to date on key
scientific developments and emerging issues. This type of engagement fosters exchanges of
knowledge and experience as we seek to tackle challenging problems that affect both the
Australian and global communities. Furthermore, a Party to the Convention can guide
associated scientific and technical bodies on the direction and content of work they are
undertaking under the auspices of the Convention.

Global cooperation is now more important than ever as the world seeks to respond to the health
and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. To support the multilateral system at
this time, Australia has adopted a multilateral engagement strategy, recognising that our shared,
global interests are not served by isolation and protectionism. Australia’s full engagement on
the Minamata Convention will assist in meeting the strategy’s objectives.

3.5 Objective 4: Ensure that any approach taken provides


a net benefit to the community, including by
minimising the impact and costs to business and
industry
The World Health Organization considers mercury to be one of the top 10 chemicals of major
public health concern, as mercury contamination contributes to the overall global burden of
diseases, injuries and risks attributed to hazardous chemical exposure. Mitigating and resolving
those problems can be costly, particularly for remediation activities (WHO 2013). One such
example is Japan’s Minamata Bay (for which the Convention is named), where industrial
contamination led to costs of approximately A$134 million per year over 30 years for
remediation and compensation (Boston University 2020, UNEP 2013b).

The UN Environment Programme has reported that the global environmental costs of mercury
pollution from human activity are extensive, estimated at US$22 billion in 2008 (UNEP 2013c).

Australians benefit from international efforts to reduce the global load of mercury pollution
circulating in the environment and our food. Ratification of the Minamata Convention would
bring the nation’s management of the mercury life cycle into line with international best
practice, provide greater certainty for business and industry and create opportunities for
Australian businesses to take advantage of global prospects.

Ratification would impose some costs on industry and government. However, the detailed cost–
benefit analysis in Section 6.1 calculates that ratification would deliver a net benefit to the
Australian economy.
15
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Given that Australia already has robust environmental and human health regulations, existing
regulatory frameworks will be used to the extent possible to avoid additional or unnecessary
regulatory burden on business and industry (see Appendix C).

16
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

4 Options identification and analysis


Since 2014, the Australian Government has explored a range of regulatory and policy options to
address mercury pollution through ratifying the Minamata Convention.

The two options considered in this RIS are:

• Option 1: Do nothing. This option sets the base case, retaining Australia’s current status as
a signatory but non-Party to the Minamata Convention.
• Option 2: Ratification. This option considers the implications of Australia ratifying the
Convention.
In this section, we summarise the benefit or regulatory impact of each option. We provide a
quantitative and qualitative analysis of costs, benefits and regulatory impacts in Section 6 and
Appendix A.

The 2016 exposure draft RIS (Australian Government 2016) considered other possible options
that included a phase-out schedule for Shirtan liquid fungicide and a campaign to promote the
voluntary installation of traps and separators to capture waste dental amalgam. Those
additional options are not included in this final RIS because no registered agricultural products
that contain mercury remain in the market, and Australia already complies with several
measures required by the Convention to phase down the use of dental amalgam. For the
purposes of ratification at this time, it is not necessary to pursue dental amalgam waste
measures.

4.1 Option 1: Do nothing


Option 1 represents the base case under which there would be no changes to Australia’s current
controls on mercury, and Australia would not ratify the Minamata Convention. Current
approaches to managing and monitoring mercury under federal, state and territory legislation
cover some, but not all, aspects of the mercury life cycle:

• Regulation of mercury emissions and releases from industrial processes and other
activities, and management of waste and contaminated land, occur under general pollution
control measures. Not all regulatory frameworks contain specific mercury controls or
policies.
• Australia controls the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes (which include
mercury) under the Basel Convention (to which Australia is a Party).
• Australia exercises some controls on mercury exports under the Rotterdam Convention (to
which it is a Party) and the Customs Regulations. However, there are gaps in the regulation
of mercury exports and imports and in the provision of the certifications now required by
Parties to the Convention that may export mercury to Australia. This is creating hurdles for
the import of mercury for purposes allowed by the Minamata Convention (such as the
manufacture of dental amalgam).
• There are gaps in Australia’s regulation of mercury-added products, which include certain
lighting products, pesticides, therapeutic goods such as antiseptics and thermometers, and
devices such as barometers. Those products are a source of mercury pollution if not used or
disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.
17
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

• Australia will continue to require industry reporting on mercury emissions and releases
under the National Pollutant Inventory.
Under this option, Australia would retain its status as a signatory but non-Party to the Minamata
Convention.

The cost–benefit analysis conducted for this RIS used this option as the reference point and
considers all costs or benefits (including avoided costs) relative to this option.

While Option 1 would result in no direct changes to our domestic regulatory frameworks, the
status quo would not continue for all Australian industries and stakeholders. Because
125 countries, including Australia’s major trading partners, are now Parties to the Convention,
there will be impacts on Australia’s ability to trade in goods that are subject to controls under
the Convention. Countries bound by the convention must phase out the import, manufacture
and export of certain mercury-containing products by 31 December 2020. Those products will
become less available in Australia, although some countries have obtained exemptions under
the Convention to allow for additional time (expiring in 2025) to adjust to those prohibitions.
There will also be complications to importing mercury for purposes allowed by the Minamata
Convention, such as the manufacture of dental amalgam.

While the base case (by definition) has no costs or benefits, changes expected to occur in the
next two to three years will result in increased difficulties in importing and exporting mercury-
containing products. Those changes will increase the costs for some businesses compared with
the current situation. Importantly, some of those costs will also be avoided under Option 2, as
trade in mercury for acceptable uses is expected to be easier between Parties to the Convention.

4.2 Option 2: Ratify the Minamata Convention on


Mercury
Under Option 2, the Australian Government ratifies the Minamata Convention, having taken the
necessary steps to meet the Convention’s obligations. The aim is for Australia to pursue
ratification by the end of 2021. This would enable Australia to begin to contribute to, and
advance Australia’s interests in, the decisions of the Convention as soon as possible.

Under this option, Australia would meet the Convention’s obligations through adjustments to
existing regulatory frameworks. The main changes would be:

• additional federal legislation to implement Convention obligations for the import and
export of mercury and the import, manufacture and export of certain mercury-containing
products specified in the Convention
• some adjustments to the application of state and territory legislation related to mining,
manufacturing processes, pollution control and storage and waste management involving
mercury
• administration, information, reporting and planning for the implementation of the
Convention.
Under Option 2, the department recommends that Australia register a three-year exemption
(through to 31 December 2023) upon ratification for the import of HPMV lamps for general
lighting purposes (see Appendix A to this RIS). This was based on advice received by industry

18
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

through the consultation process (see Appendix B). Exemptions of up to five years from
1 January 2021 are permitted in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.

4.2.1 Benefits
Option 2 would deliver social, economic and environmental benefits such as:

• the qualitative benefit of Australia gaining a seat at the table to influence the future
direction of the treaty, and displaying environmental leadership
• potential reductions in mercury emitted (note that the reductions appear to be low to
none)
• energy and carbon emissions (CO2e) savings from converting HPMV streetlights to LEDs
• qualitative benefits from converting to ‘smart’ street lighting, such as lower maintenance
costs, lower failure rates and potential features such as dimming and remote fault
notification
• potential health and environmental benefits arising from any reduction in mercury
emissions and benefits accruing over a longer time as, for example, mercury-containing
products are no longer imported
• the benefit of safeguarding Australians against future international increases in emissions
and releases
• as identified by industry peak bodies, greater certainty for industry and, consequently,
support for investment decisions
• reduced mercury in Australia’s waste streams due to phasing out imports of non-essential
mercury-containing products
• protection of Australia’s ability to import and export permitted mercury-added products
and an easier process for imports and exports of those products.

4.2.2 Comparison of costs and benefits


We conducted a cost–benefit analysis to quantify the costs and benefits and compare them over
a 20-year period.

The cost–benefit analysis concluded that many of the potential impacts that were identified
would in fact result in zero costs and zero benefits. This is due in large part to the high standard
of environmental regulation that exists in Australia. The only quantified costs and benefits that
were identified under Option 2 were an increase in administrative costs for the Australian
Government and bringing forward both the costs and benefits for public lighting (street lighting
as well as lighting at commercial and sporting facilities), as HPMV lamps would need to be
changed to compliant alternatives. While domestic reductions of mercury emissions will be low
to none; benefits will instead accrue over a longer period as, for example, mercury-containing
products are no longer being imported and finding their way into Australia’s waste streams.

Using a discount rate of 4%, the analysis concluded that Option 2 would deliver a net benefit to
Australians of $5.9 million over 20 years. In addition, Option 2 has a benefit:cost ratio of 1.4,
which effectively means that, for every $1.00 invested in reducing or controlling mercury
pollution, the Australian community would receive a return of $1.40.

19
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Option 2 is the recommended option, as it is expected to deliver a net benefit.

The cost–benefit analysis is set out in further detail in Section 6 and provided in full in
Appendix A.

4.2.3 Regulatory impact


The regulatory impact on industry of ratifying the Minamata Convention will be minimal. There
would be no cost to industry for the construction of new facilities or substantial modification of
existing facilities, as emissions controls are already in alignment with the obligations of the
Convention.

In order to minimise potential impacts on the lighting sector and maximise potential benefits to
human health and the environment, the department recommends that Australia register a
three-year exemption for the import of HPMV lamps upon ratification. The exemption would
extend the time available to owners and operators of streetlights using HPMV bulbs to conduct
the necessary upgrades to suitable alternatives, thus minimising potential risks to service
provision. The changeover cost for some streetlight providers to transition from HPMV to LED
streetlights would be brought forward by two years (relative to the base case) at a present value
cost of approximately $7.5 million but deliver a present value benefit of around $17.3 million
from energy savings and $4.4 million from carbon savings.

20
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

5 Consultations
Since 2010, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment has conducted six
stakeholder consultation rounds (both public and targeted), first to consider Australia’s signing
of the Minamata Convention, and then to consider ratification. The consultations included public
workshops in every state and territory.

During the consultations, potential problems identified by government, industry and non-
government organisations were documented, and informed the consideration and development
of possible pathways to ratification (see Appendix B).

Additional targeted consultation was undertaken in 2020 with stakeholders potentially affected
by recent developments, including on:

• the impacts on industry of the Convention’s prohibition on the import, export and
manufacture of certain mercury-added products, which comes into effect from 1 January
2021 for most Parties
• the development of guidance material to aid the interpretation of some articles in the
Convention.

The consultations revealed broad support for ratification in government, business, industry and
non-government organisations. In general, business and industry spokespeople indicated that
ratification would provide much-needed certainty for business investment decisions and
recommended that the government use existing regulatory frameworks to avoid incurring
additional regulatory burdens.

As indicated in Section 4.2, the lighting industry’s concerns about the Convention’s impact on
the use of HPMV lamps in streetlights have been factored into the ratification option. The
proposed exemption for three years will give the industry additional time to make the transition
away from HPMV lamps.

More detail on the consultation process and outcomes is included in the cost–benefit analysis in
Appendix A.

21
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

6 Best option
Section 2 of this RIS outlines the serious environmental and human health problems arising
from mercury pollution. Mercury is a problem that needs to be addressed across its entire life
cycle in order to minimise the risk of exposure and provide meaningful benefits to the
Australian community.

Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis of benefits, costs and regulatory impacts
discussed in this section, the department has determined that ratification of the Minamata
Convention is in Australia’s national interest.

Public consultation has confirmed broad support from stakeholders and has not identified any
significant risks or disadvantages. Costs to industry are expected to be low, given global
movements away from mercury-containing products and the use of mercury generally.

Australia’s existing controls on environmental releases of mercury are already broadly in


alignment with the obligations of the Convention. Implementing the obligations will therefore
be relatively straightforward and low-cost, and only minor amendments to legislation or
policies will be required in most instances.

Industry supports the department’s recommendation to extend the time available to owners
and operators of streetlights containing HPMV bulbs to conduct the necessary upgrades to
suitable alternatives. Figure 4 compares the phase-out of HPMV lamps under Option 1 and
Option 2. It illustrates that, under the base-case scenario (Option 1), industry will have phased
out HPMV lamps by 2028.

22
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Figure 4: Estimated phase-out of HPMV lamps under the base case and the ratification
option, 2019 to 2030
Number of active
HPMV lamps in
Australia
1,200,000
Base case
Ratification
Ratification
1,000,000

800,000

600,000 Lamps replaced


earlier under
ratification
400,000

200,000

0
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Source: Marsden Jacob Associates analysis based on industry consultation.

6.1 Cost–benefit analysis


We carried out a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) to consider the full range of impacts that would
arise under the ratification option and compared those impacts to those under the base case (no
ratification). This section summarises the processes and results; more detail is available in
Appendix A.

In order to identify the full range of costs and benefits that would arise from ratifying the
Convention, we took multiple steps to review the Convention, identify potential impacts, consult
with industry to quantify each impact and then collate the full range of costs and benefits (as
outlined in Figure 5).

23
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Figure 5: Process to identify and collate the impacts of ratification versus non-ratification

Review the convention to identify potential impacts

Identify specific articles that could affect specific


industries

Consult with industry to discuss expected impacts


(costs and benefits)

Collate costs and benefits

The process used to identify potential impacts is set out in detail in Appendix A, along with a
summary of consultations with stakeholder groups.

Following consultations with stakeholders, we collated information on each of the potential


impacts. The CBA concluded that most of the potential impacts will result in zero costs and zero
benefits. The full list of cost and benefit estimates for each stakeholder group is in Table 1.

Table 1: Quantitative summary of costs and benefits of Option 2


Costs Benefits
Australian Estimated cost of $645,000 per year for
Government the life of the analysis.
This includes financial contributions,
staffing and border Qualitative benefit of seat at the negotiating
permitting/registration. table and environmental leadership
State and territory Estimated cost of $259,000 in 2021.
governments Based on 8 jurisdictions each requiring Qualitative benefit to industry by ensuring a
0.25FTE staff. nationally consistent approach
Industry with air
emissions $0 $0
Dental sector Qualitative benefits in increased ease of
$0 imports and exports.
Public lighting Brings energy savings earlier.
Estimated present value of $17,319,517.
Brings emissions (CO2e) savings earlier.
Estimated present value of $4,438,706.
Qualitative benefits of lower maintenance
Brings forward capital expenditure that costs, lower failure rates and potential
would occur anyway ‘smart lighting’ features such as dimming
Estimated present value of $7,498,747 and remote fault notification.
Waste and recycling $0 $0
Oil and gas $0 $0
Medical devices and
pharmaceutical goods $0 $0
Community Reduced Health & Safety Costs. Estimated
None identified present value of $352,000
Environment None identified $0 (not quantified)

Note: Present values are show based on 20 year analysis and a 4% discount rate.

24
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

In order to compare the costs and benefits under different timings, we considered the net
present value over a 20-year period and applied a discount rate to costs and benefits that
appear after the initial year.

The net benefit of Option 2 over a 20-year period is estimated to be over $5.9 million, using a
discount rate of 4%. This would also result in a benefit:cost ratio of 1.4, which effectively means
that the Australian community would receive a return of $1.40 for every $1.00 invested in
reducing mercury pollution.

The impact of alternative discount rates on the net benefit is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Cost–benefit analysis results


Stakeholder 2% discount rate 4% discount rate 7% discount rate
Costs
Australian Compulsory financial
Government contributions to the secretariat
of the Convention $1,950,227 $1,633,717 $1,285,634
Department of Agriculture,
Water and the Environment –
staffing $4,062,973 $3,403,577 $2,678,404
Border permitting /
registration / administration
and data collection $4,062,973 $3,403,577 $2,678,404
State and Some policy and/or regulation
territory amendments
governments $254,062 $249,177 $242,190
Industry Modifications to existing and
new plant to reduce air
emissions $0 $0 $0
Dental sector $0 $0 $0
Public lighting (to replace
HPMV lamps two years early) $4,136,002 $7,498,747 $11,394,350
Oil and gas $0 $0 $0
Benefits / avoided costs
Health Reduction in mercury emitted
outcomes and released $0 $0 $0
Reduced health and safety costs $435,321 $352,448 $262,368
Environmental Carbon savings (public lighting) $4,814,712 $4,438,706 $3,949,905
outcomes
Energy savings (public lighting) $18,786,663 $17,319,517 $15,412,249
Environmental benefits Not quantified Not quantified Not quantified
Totals Total costs $14,466,238 $16,188,794 $18,278,981
Total benefits $24,036,696 $22,110,672 $19,624,522
Net benefits $9,570,457 $5,921,878 $1,345,541
Benefit:cost ratio 1.7 1.4 1.1

As well as the quantified benefits, there are unquantified benefits to ratification, such as being
able to influence the future direction of the Convention. There are also a range of secondary
benefits to Australia in ratifying the Convention. Phasing out imports of non-essential mercury-
containing products will reduce mercury in Australia’s waste streams. Conversely, Australia’s

25
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

access to essential mercury-containing products will be protected as international controls on


those uses of mercury increase over time. By ratifying, Australia would also strengthen global
efforts to preserve fisheries and other critical ecosystems, contribute to protecting global
human health and the environment, and maintain Australia’s international reputation.

Because the CBA results in a net benefit of around $5.9 million and a benefit:cost ratio of greater
than 1, our analysis indicates that Option 2 (ratifying the Convention) is expected to deliver a
net benefit to the Australian economy. For that reason, Option 2 is the preferred option.

The CBA is set out in full detail in Appendix A.

6.2 Regulatory burden


Regulatory burden measurement was undertaken in line with Australian Government guidance
(OPBR 2020). It focused only on costs that fall to businesses (including government-owned
corporations), community organisations and individuals.

Based on our consultations with potentially affected industries, we estimate that no regulatory
burden would be imposed under Option 2 (Table 3).

Table 3: Average annual regulatory costs (change from business as usual)


Community Total change in
Change in costs Business organisations Individuals costs
Total, by sector $0 $0 $0 $0

A regulatory burden estimate of $0 indicates that ratifying the Convention would not impose
any additional regulatory burden (or ‘red tape’) on businesses in Australia over the initial 10-
year period following ratification. This is a positive outcome and indicates that the Convention
could be ratified with minimal impact on industry.

A detailed discussion of the regulatory burden is set out in Appendix A.

As ratifying the Minamata Convention would have limited direct impacts on industry and the
broader community, no competition or equity impacts were identified.

6.3 Conclusion
The most effective means to reduce the risk of mercury exposure is to prevent its emission and
release from anthropogenic sources. Accordingly, Australia’s ratification of the Convention will
fill gaps within the existing domestic regulatory framework and deliver significant benefits for
human health and the environment both domestically and internationally.

Under Option 2 (ratification), industry would benefit from a more streamlined, transparent and
predictable approach to the management of mercury. In addition, the Convention has the
potential to create market opportunities related to mercury disposal and recycling, which will
need industry solutions.

Ratifying the Convention would satisfy Australia’s policy objectives by reducing the risks of
mercury exposure to human health and the environment domestically while supporting the
global phase-down of anthropogenic mercury emissions and releases.

26
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Opting to do nothing to further address mercury pollution both domestically and internationally
would minimise environmental, social and economic benefits in the short and long terms.
Because many of the identified problems rely on global actions to reduce mercury pollution,
Australia’s voice as a ratified Party to the Minamata Convention is needed to maintain
international momentum, particularly through regional leadership and engagement.

27
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

7 Implementation and evaluation


7.1 Implementation
The Australian Government is working with the states and territories to examine legislative
approaches for implementing the preferred option, which is Australia’s ratification of the
Minamata Convention. Key considerations include the legislative design, coverage and the
selection of the right policy instruments to achieve the objectives.

It is expected that the states and territories will use existing legislative frameworks to
implement the preferred option within their areas of responsibility. All jurisdictions already
have legislative frameworks for environmental protection and development approval.
Licensing, compliance monitoring, investigations and prosecutions for breaches of relevant
regulatory measures would be carried out by those authorised to do so under each jurisdiction’s
legislation.

At the federal level, the necessary legislative amendments covering the import and export of
mercury and mercury compounds and the import, manufacture and export of mercury-added
products will need to be completed before Australia deposits its instrument of ratification in
accordance with Australia’s treaty-making process.

The Australian Government has engaged with state and territory governments in developing an
approach for satisfying Convention obligations. Following ratification, consultative
arrangements will continue to assist states and territories in fulfilling current and future
obligations in their areas of responsibility: mining; regulation of industry and mercury
emissions and releases; regulation of mercury storage and waste; and management of
contaminated sites.

The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment is also working more broadly with
states and territories to progress the nationally consistent management of chemicals in the
environment. The National Standard for the Environmental Risk Management of Industrial
Chemicals will be put in place to establish management controls throughout the full life cycles of
chemicals of concern, including mercury. The legislation will provide an effective framework to
control and manage chemicals and hazardous substances, including import, export,
manufacture, storage, emissions, releases, disposal and end-of-life management. This approach
will be an efficient way to implement Australia’s obligations under the Minamata Convention in
the medium to long term.

The department will continue to draw on expertise and support provided by the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade when developing Australian Government negotiating positions for
decisions to be taken under the Minamata Convention.

7.2 Regular monitoring and reporting


Parties to the Minamata Convention are required to report to the Conference of the Parties
every four years. Reports detail the measures a country has taken to implement the provisions
of the Convention, the effectiveness of those measures, and any possible challenges in meeting
the objectives of the Convention. Should Australia be a ratified Party to the Convention by the

28
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

end of 2021, we will be obliged to provide a report to the Conference of the Parties in the second
reporting period (slated for December 2025).

As a Party to the Convention, Australia would also participate in periodic effectiveness


evaluations conducted by the Conference of the Parties. The effectiveness evaluation framework
allows the Conference of the Parties to consider whether the Convention will achieve its
objective of protecting human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and
releases of mercury and mercury compounds.

The lead role in overseeing implementation of the Convention and carrying out associated
administrative and reporting requirements under the Convention will be performed by the
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment.

29
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Appendix A: Cost–benefit analysis


Background
A cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is a comprehensive economic appraisal technique used to
consider alternative policy and regulatory approaches. It considers the full range of impacts that
would arise under a reform option and compares them to a base case.

In undertaking the CBA for this RIS, we focused on the changes in costs and benefits that are
attributable to the reform option (referred to as the ‘marginal value’). Using this approach, the
CBA identified the option that provides the largest net benefit to Australia.

The approach used to frame and quantify the CBA was based on Australian Government
guidance (OBPR 2020). As the analysis considered ratifying an international convention, we
considered that a 20-year analysis time frame was appropriate.

Approach used
In order to identify the full range of costs and benefits that would arise from ratifying the
Convention, we used multiple steps to review the Convention, identify potential impacts, consult
with industry to quantify each impact and then collate the full range of costs and benefits. Those
steps can be considered as a process and are set out in Figure A1.

Figure A1: Flowchart summarising the approach used

Review the Convention


to identify potential
impacts

Identify specific articles


that could affect specific
industries

Consult with industry to


discuss expected impacts
(costs and benefits)

Collate costs and


benefits

30
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Review of the Minamata Convention


The initial step was to review the Convention text as well as supporting material that assists in
interpreting the Convention. The full text of the Convention is available on the Minamata
Convention website, and specific articles of the Convention are also supported by guidance
developed by the Conference of the Parties (UNEP 2020).

Based on our review of the Convention text, we identified four articles (Articles 4, 8, 9 and 11)
as potentially affecting a limited number of industries. Table A1 summarises the potential
impacts we investigated (based on specific Convention articles).

Table A1: Potential industry impacts that were investigated, by article of the Minamata
Convention
Non-ferrous
Coal-fired metals Cement
Article Dental sector generation processing production Other
4 Phase-down of Street lighting
Mercury-added amalgam Medical
products (measures in products
Annex A, Part 2)
8 Existing plant Existing plant Existing plant Waste
Emissions (air) New plant New plant New plant incineration and
coal-fired
boilers
Existing plant
New plant
9 Existing plant Existing plant Existing plant Oil and gas
Releases (to New plant New plant New plant production
water and
land)
11 Amalgam – sink Fly ash Wastes/tailings Recycling
Wastes waste
interceptors

Note: While potential impacts are identified here, we determined (as set out below) that most of the potential impacts
would not result in any costs or benefits.

In addition to the impacts on industry, we identified potential impacts on the federal, state and
territory governments from establishing and implementing any reforms and reporting.

Articles that could affect specific industries


Having reviewed the Convention, we identified the potential impacts that may arise from
ratification.

Key costs and benefits resulting from a reform of this kind arise from changes in government
costs, changes in industry costs and wider resultant impacts, such as environmental and
community benefits.

The potential impacts (both costs and benefits) that we investigated are summarised in Table
A2 and considered in detail below.

31
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

As the impact of the Minamata Convention will depend on the numbers and types of future
projects over a 20-year period, we encouraged stakeholders to consider best case, likely case
and worst case scenarios for industries that are harder to predict. For each of the potential costs
and benefits set out below, the table specifies (in square brackets) where the consultations
revealed that no impact is expected to arise.

Table A2: Qualitative summary of potential cost and benefit impacts that were
investigated, by stakeholder group
Potential costs investigated Potential benefits investigated
Australian Some implementation costs identified. Qualitative benefit of seat at the negotiating
Government Reporting costs identified. table and environmental leadership
identified.
Compulsory financial contributions under
the Convention identified.
State and Some policy and/or regulation amendments Qualitative benefit to industry by ensuring a
territory identified. nationally consistent approach identified.
governments Potential implementation costs for existing
facilities investigated. [No impact identified]
Industry with air Potential costs investigated for some Investigated potential reductions in mercury
emissions existing facilities that do not have emissions emitted. [No impact identified]
limit values. No cost identified for existing
facilities due to broader Convention
requirements. [No impact identified]
Potential costs investigated for new or
substantially modified facilities if emissions
would not meet BAT/BEP guidance under
the base case. [No impact identified]
Dental sector Potential operating/capital costs to align Investigated potential reductions in mercury
with Convention requirements investigated. emitted. [No impact identified]
[No impact identified] Increased ease of imports and exports
identified.
Public lighting Changeover cost from HPMV lamps brought Energy and emissions (CO2e) savings
forward by two years (relative to the base identified.
case scenario). Qualitative benefit to industry of lower
maintenance costs, lower failure rates and
potential ‘smart lighting’ features such as
dimming and remote fault notification
identified.
Waste and Potential operating/capital costs to align Potential reductions in mercury emitted
recycling with Convention requirements investigated. investigated [No impact identified]
[No impact identified]
Oil and gas Potential operating/capital costs to align Potential reductions in mercury emitted
with Convention requirements investigated. investigated. [No impact identified]
[No impact identified]
Medical devices Potential cost of reduced availability of Potential reductions in mercury emitted
and mercury-containing devices / investigated. [No impact identified]
pharmaceutical pharmaceutical goods to align with Article 4
goods of the Convention investigated. [No impact
identified]
Community Health benefits arising from reduced
mercury exposure identified.
Environment Environmental benefits arising from
reduced mercury exposure identified
(qualitative).

BAT = best available techniques; BEP = best environmental practices.

32
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

In addition to the benefits listed above, several industry groups commented that ratification
would provide certainty to industry and so support investment decisions. However, that benefit
is not readily quantifiable.

Costs identified through consultations with stakeholders


Overview of impacts on industry
Australian jurisdictions have extensive legislative and policy mechanisms in place to protect the
environment and human health from the harmful impacts of pollution and to improve
environmental quality. There are well-established requirements for the assessment, approval
and regulation of industrial facilities, including through licences or equivalent authorities that
have conditions governing the conduct of the activity and the control of pollution. Regulators
apply licence conditions to industrial facilities on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the
individual circumstances and the requirements in legislation, regulations and policies.
Depending on the legislation, licence conditions can include pollution emission controls,
requirements for plant and equipment, pollution reduction plans, operational improvement
plans and pollution monitoring.

The improved management of pollution over time and the application of best industrial practice
to facilities lie behind many aspects of state and territory environmental protection legislation
and the way it is applied in practice.

Industries with air emissions


Article 8 of the Convention concerns the control and, where feasible, reduction of mercury and
mercury compound emissions to the atmosphere from sources listed in Annex D. Those sources
are coal-fired power plants and coal-fired industrial boilers; smelting and roasting processes
used in the production of non-ferrous metals; waste incineration facilities; and cement clinker
production.

For existing facilities, the Convention takes a flexible approach by requiring a Party, within
10 years of ratifying the Convention, to implement one or more control measures ‘taking into
account its national circumstances, and the economic and technical feasibility and affordability
of the measures’. In summary, those measures are:

• a quantified emissions goal


• emissions limit values
• the use of best available techniques (BAT) and best environmental practices (BEP)
• a multipollutant control strategy that would deliver co-benefits for mercury emissions
control
• alternative measures to reduce emissions.
Following consultation with stakeholders, it was determined existing facilities in Australia
would already meet the requirements of Article 8, such as through emissions limit values or
multipollutant control strategies.

For new facilities (which include substantially modified existing facilities), a Party is required
to apply BAT/BEP to control and, where feasible, reduce mercury emissions.

33
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

Non-ferrous metal smelting

For Annex D of the Convention, ‘non-ferrous metals’ refers to lead, zinc, copper and industrial
gold.

Industry stakeholders generally agreed that ratification is likely to have no impact on existing
facilities unless a change in emissions levels were to be imposed (which appears unlikely and is
not included in this proposal by the department).

Based on advice from stakeholders, gold production is the only area in the non-ferrous metals
sector likely to develop new facilities in the next 20 years. The Minerals Council of Australia
indicated that a ‘most likely’ scenario would be 10 new gold projects (to produce gold doré,
which includes processing, crushing and roasting). An ‘optimistic’ outlook was 20 new projects.

For lead, zinc and copper industry stakeholders, the optimistic scenario was that no facilities
would close. A major upgrade of any facility would be dependent on the ore price rising.

Australia’s ratification of the Convention would be unlikely to create additional impacts on new
or substantially modified facilities. Following current trends for new industrial facilities in
Australia, it is likely that regulatory authorities would require, and industry would expect, the
use of BAT/BEP in new facilities whether or not Australia ratifies the Convention.

While each state and territory may set its own controls and policies on pollution levels,
industrial air pollutants have been consistently targeted by state and territory environmental
regulators due to their impacts on community and environmental health. In particular,
acceptable limits of industrial air pollutants such as particulate matter (measured as PM 2.5 and
PM 10), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (O3)
have consistently tightened over time, and emissions limits are generally set in line with
BAT/BEP for new facilities.

This tightening of air emissions requirements is demonstrated by a recent upgrade of the Gidji
gold-smelting facility north of Kalgoorlie that was developed in consultation with the Western
Australian Government. The Gidji facility was once the largest single emitter of mercury in
Australia, but, after an upgrade in 2017, the mercury emissions from the facility have been
reduced to a very low level.

Based on the tightening of air emissions levels that has occurred in Australia over the past
20 years, requirements on new gold facilities are likely to align with BAT/BEP requirements
under the base case due to controls on mercury and other industrial air pollutants.

Because it is expected that any new facilities built under the base case would meet BAT/BEP
criteria and that ratification of the Convention would have no impact on existing facilities, we
concluded that ratifying the Convention would have no impact on the non-ferrous metals
industries, resulting in $0 costs and $0 benefits.

Cement clinker production

The Cement Industry Federation indicated that no new cement clinker production facilities are
likely to be built in Australia in the next 20 years.

The federation indicated that ratification is likely to have minimal impact on existing facilities
unless a change in emissions standards were to be imposed (which appears unlikely and is not
included in this proposal by the department).
34
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

The federation noted that the definition of ‘substantial modification’ of existing facilities under
Article 8 of the Convention would need to be clarified for industry to understand whether there
are likely to be potential costs for current facilities. Under Article 8, ‘new source’ means any
relevant source within a category listed in Annex D, the construction or substantial modification
of which is commenced at least one year after the date of entry into force of the Convention for
the Party concerned. ‘Substantial modification’ is able to be defined by a Party under
Article 8(2)(d). During the implementation of the Convention, the Australian Government will
consider this definition in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including state and territory
governments.

While the definition of ‘substantial modification’ requires clarification, it appears likely that
there would be no impact on existing facilities.

As it is expected that no new facilities will be built and the Convention would have no impact on
existing facilities, we concluded that ratifying the Convention would have no impact on the
cement clinker industry, resulting in $0 costs and $0 benefits.

Coal-fired power generation

The Australian Energy Council commented that ‘if a reduction in mercury emissions to air was
required from existing sources, such as through the installation of additional pollution control
equipment, this would add substantial costs.’ The council also highlighted the potential for costs
to be incurred through multipollutant controls.

The Australian Energy Council also noted that a definition of ‘substantial modification’ under
Article 8 of the Convention would be needed for industry to clarify whether there are likely to
be potential costs for current facilities. Under Article 8, ‘new source’ means any relevant source
within a category listed in Annex D, the construction or substantial modification of which is
commenced at least one year after the date of entry into force of the Convention for the Party
concerned. However, it appears likely that ratification of the Convention would have no impact
on the regulation of existing facilities. As noted above, the Australian Government will set the
definition of ‘substantial modification’ during the implementation of the Convention in
consultation with relevant stakeholders, including state and territory governments.

The council indicated that no new coal-fired power stations or coal-fired industrial boilers were
expected to be developed in Australia in the next 20 years. In addition, discussions with
industry experts indicate that any interest in new coal-fired generation plants in the future is
likely to be in new technology, such as high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) plants. As a new
coal-fired generation plant using new HELE technology and burning Australian coal is likely to
align with the Convention’s BAT/BEP guidance, no additional cost for further pollution control
would be required when investing in a new plant.

Because it is expected that any new facilities would be built in accordance with BAT/BEP
guidance and the Convention would have no impact on existing facilities, we concluded that
ratifying the Convention would have no impact on coal-fired power generators, resulting in
$0 costs and $0 benefits.

Waste incineration

Incineration is a combustion process that uses rapid oxidation, excess air and high
temperatures to produce conditions under which hazardous and toxic waste products are

35
Ratification of the Minamata Convention: RIS

thermally broken down and destroyed. Where waste contains mercury or traces of mercury, the
incineration process releases mercury emissions.

Australia has not traditionally used waste incineration as a method for solid waste disposal.
However, in the past decade a small number of waste-to-energy facilities (which may include
incineration or other forms of energy capture) have gained environmental approvals. In
addition, there have been some reviews of the policy and approvals required for waste-to-
energy projects.

Both the Western Australian and Victorian environmental protection authorities have prepared
guidance on the environmental criteria that would be used for waste-to-energy operations
(WAEPA 2013, VEPA 2013).

From the authorities’ advice, it appears that both Western Australia and Victoria already adopt
best practice techniques in granting approvals. That view was confirmed in discussions with
staff from the office of the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority. Those
discussions also suggested that similar advice and sources of information to the Convention’s
BAT/BEP guidance were used by the authority in approving the plants. For that reason, it is
likely that any existing or new facilities already align with BAT/ BEP guidance, irrespective of
whether Australia ratifies the Convention or not.

As legislative requirements for solid waste incineration have not been set for other jurisdictions,
the Western Australian requirements are likely to be used as a starting point for other states.
For that reason, we concluded that ratification would not impose any additional costs on new
facilities.

Because it is expected that any existing facilities will have been constructed in line with
BAT/BEP guidance, we concluded that ratifying the Convention would result in $0 costs and
$0 benefits.

Dental sector
Under Option 2 (Australia ratifies the Convention), impacts to the dental industry would be
driven by:

• any measures Australia chooses to undertake to facilitate the phase-down of amalgam,


consistent with Article 4
• impacts on mercury for import and mercury products for export.
The Convention will potentially have some impacts on the international trade in mercury and
mercury-added products; however, it appears that the impacts will be the same whether
Australia ratifies the Convention or not. For that reason, potential Convention impacts on
international trade do not affect the CBA and were not considered further.

Options to meet Article 4 measures


Under Article 4(3) of the Convention, Parties are required to undertake two or more specific
measures (listed in Part II of Annex A) for phasing down the use of dental amalgam.

Australia is already compliant with at least two of those measures:

36

You might also like