Wildlife, human and environmental costs of using lead ammunition: An economic review and analysis

Deborah J Pain,Ruth Cromie,Niels Kanstrup,Ian Dickie,Rhys E Green

doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01157-2

Abstract

A proposed European Union (EU)-wide restriction on the use of lead gunshot for shooting in and over wetlands estimated that the societal benefits of a restriction outweighed costs, despite few identified benefits being quantified economically. A subsequent Annex XV Investigation Report on the evidence of impacts of lead ammunition in terrestrial environments concluded that additional measures to control its use are warranted, although to date this has not been further evaluated. To help inform this process, we review the literature and undertake new analyses to estimate the costs of continued use of lead ammunition associated with impacts on wildlife, people and the environment. We estimate minimum annual direct costs across the EU and Europe of c. €383 million–€960 million and €444 million–€1.3 thousand million respectively. The value that society places on being able to avoid these losses, estimated using a ‘willingness to pay’ approach, was c. €2.2 thousand million for wildfowl alone. Our estimated costs of the continued use of lead ammunition across the EU appear to be considerably greater than the likely costs of switching to non‐toxic alternative ammunition types, although these have not been formally estimated in full.

Highlights

Due to the high toxicity of lead and the public and environmental health problems it causes, most releases of lead into the environment are strictly regulated in Europe
In Europe, a few countries banned the use of lead gunshot decades ago (e.g. Denmark and the Netherlands), but in most European Union (EU) Member States, controls are partial, piecemeal, and not always complied with (Cromie et al 2015)
The European Commission requested the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to prepare an Annex XV report proposing a restriction on lead gunshot in wetlands under the EU REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Regulation

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Due to the high toxicity of lead and the public and environmental health problems it causes, most releases of lead into the environment are strictly regulated in Europe (e.g. see AMEC 2012). We would wish to estimate lead poisoning mortality based upon numbers of birds that survive for different periods post release, and would correct for the fact that not all pheasants are released simultaneously These biases in both directions highlight that our estimate should be considered only as a very broad indicator of the possible magnitude of lead-poisoning-related costs. We multiplied this by the cost of producing and releasing a pheasant to arrive at an estimated annual replacement cost of over €3 million in the UK (Table 1) This is a broad approximate estimate rather than a precise estimate and does not include the contribution of sublethal lead poisoning to increased levels of mortality from other causes. Replacement mortality estimated estimated to die annually cost (€48 108 from lead poisoningc from lead poisoning per adult)

Conclusion

Findings

Study quality

DISCUSSION