Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:11:40.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preventing lead toxicosis of European waterfowl by regulatory and non-regulatory means

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

Vernon G. Thomas  and
Myrfyn Owen
Vernon G. Thomas*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, College of Biological Science, University of Guelph, Gitelph, Ontario NIG 2W1, Canada
Myrfyn Owen
Affiliation:
The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucester, GL2 7BT, UK
*
* Vernon G. Thomas Tel: +1519 824 4120 ext. 2738 Fax: + 1 519 767 1656
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Many years of waterfowl hunting have added thousands of tonnes of lead shot to European wetlands. Effective and non-toxic substitutes for lead shot have been developed and are commercially available throughout Europe, but few nations (Denmark, Finland, Norway and the Netherlands) have statutory requirements for their use. Governments can induce hunters to use non-toxic shot by regulatory measures and/or non-regulatory steps, but economic incentives to increase the affordability of lead-free shot have never been used by any nation and might be politically inappropriate. Educational programmes to increase the hunting public's understanding of the poisoning problem, and to provide accurate information on the non-toxic shot, are the best long-term way for governments to focus their spending and induce change, whether on a voluntary or regulated basis. Each of the six nations which has moved to end lead poisoning of waterfowl has adopted a regulatory approach, but these nations have acted independently of each other, and yet the use of non-toxic shot should apply to all countries of a flyway.

Several European treaty and policy precedents could form the basis of a pan-European regulation requiring the use of non-toxic shot. A proposal to eliminate the use of lead shot in wetlands has been made under the Bonn and Bern Conventions. An European Union-USA proposal to reduce the use of different categories of lead under an Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development Council Act has been made, but has deleted an earlier recommendation that lead shot be included. The substitution of lead shot by nontoxic alternatives is also consistent with the European Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds of 1979. The passing of a European Council regulation, stipulating the minimal acceptable standards for shot used for waterfowl hunting, is seen as the most effective way to remediate this transboundary toxic problem. This type of action by the European Union, while recognizing the Principle of Subsidiarity, would still allow other member states to enact more rigorous legislation pertaining to the use of lead shot within their jurisdiction, as have Denmark and the Netherlands. Although responsibility to enact and enforce a European Council regulation is the prerogative of each member state, a single regulation would promote consistency of action amongst all states.

Keywords

lead toxicosisremediationregulationsconventionsEurope
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 358 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon. (1979) Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Official Journal of the European Communities 50: 103–6.Google Scholar
Anon. (1994) Proposal. Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds. Third Revision. November, 1994. The Hague, the Netherlands: Ministry for Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries of the Netherlands: 35 pp.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R.S. (1994) Subsidiarity and environmental policy in the European Community. International Environmental Affairs 6: 115–32.Google Scholar
Bishop, R.A. & Wagner, W.C. (1992) The US cooperative lead poisoning control information programme. In: Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl, ed. Pain, D.J., pp. 42–5. (Proceedings of the IWRB Workshop, Brussels, Belgium, 1991). IWRB Special Publication 16. Slimbridge, England, UK: IWRB: 105 pp.Google Scholar
Carbone, C. & Owen, M. (1995) Differential migration of the sexes in the Pochard Aythya ferina: results from a European survey. Wildfowl 46: 99–108.Google Scholar
Fawcett, D. & van Vessem, J. (1995) Lead poisoning in waterfowl: international update report 1995. International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau, Slimbridge, England, UK: 65 pp.Google Scholar
Government of Canada (1995) It's About our Health! Towards Pollution Prevention. Report of The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: 357 pp.Google Scholar
Havera, S.P., Hine, C.S. & Georgi, M.M. (1994) Waterfowl hunter compliance with nontoxic shot regulations in Illinois. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22: 454–60.Google Scholar
Jorgensen, S.S. & Willems, M. (1987) The fate of lead in soils: the transformation of lead pellets in shooting-range soils. Ambio 16: 11–16.Google Scholar
Lecocq, Y. (1992) Current legislation affecting wise use of migratory waterfowl in Europe. In: Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl, ed. Pain, D.J., pp. 71–2. (Proceedings of the IWRB Workshop, Brussels, Belgium, 1991). IWRB Special Publication 16. Slimbridge, England, UK: IWRB: 105 pp.Google Scholar
Luke, A. (1995) Lead kills Spanish birds as hunters shoot wild. New Scientist 146(1980): 7.Google Scholar
Lyster, S. (1985) International Wildlife Law, Cambridge, UK: Grotius Publications Limited: 470 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morchouse, K.A. (1992) Crippling loss and shot-type: the United States experience. In: Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl, ed. Pain, D.J., pp. 32–7. (Proceedings of the IWRB Workshop, Brussels, Belgium, 1991). IWRB Special Publication 16. Slimbridge, England, UK. IWRB: 105 pp.Google Scholar
Motluk, A. (1995) Green consumers need incentives. New Scientist 148(2006): 7.Google Scholar
Nordic Council of Ministers (1994) Opportunities and costs of substituting lead. In: Issues Papers for the OECD Workshop on Lead Products and Uses: Session A – Shot and Fishing Sinkers, Toronto, Canada, 1994. Environment Directorate, Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 53 pp.Google Scholar
OECD (1993) Risk Reduction Monograph No. 1: Lead. Environment Directorate, Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 277 pp.Google Scholar
OECD (1994a) UK comments on the outline for a possible Council Act on risk reduction of lead. In: Issues Papers for the OECD Workshop on Lead Products and Uses, Toronto, Canada, 1994. Environment Directorate, Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 6 pp.Google Scholar
OECD (1994b) Lead risk reduction. Progress on development of a possible Council Act and discussion of further action. (ENV/MC/CHEM [94] 20). Chemicals Group and Management Committee, Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 10 pp.Google Scholar
OECD (1995) US/EU proposal for a Council Act on lead reduction measures. (EN/MC/CHEM [95] 8/ANNI). Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 7 pp.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, M.A. (1978) Wild Geese. Vermillion, SD, USA: Buteo Books: 350 pp.Google Scholar
Owen, M. (in press) A review of the migration strategies of the Anatidae: challenges for conservation. In: Proceedings of the Anatidae 2000 Symposium.Google Scholar
Owen, M. & Black, J.M. (1990) Waterfowl Ecology. Glasgow, UK: Blackie Publishers: 194 pp.Google Scholar
Pain, D.J., ed. (1992) Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl. (Proceedings of the IWRB Workshop, Brussels, Belgium, 1991). IWRB Special Publication 16, Slimbridge, England, UK: IWRB: 105 pp.Google Scholar
Pain, D.J., (1995) Lead in the environment. In: Handbook of Ecotoxicology, ed. Hoffman, D.J., Rattner, B.A., Burton, G.A. Jr & Cairns, J. Jr, pp. 356–91. Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Pain, D.J., Amiard-Triquet, C., Bavoux, C., Burneleau, G., Eon, L. & Nicobu-Guillaumet, P. (1993) Lead poisoning in wild populations of Marsh Harriers Circus aeruginosus in the Camargue and Charente-Maritime, France. Ibis 135: 379–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal Society of Canada (1986) Lead in the Canadian Environment: Science and Regulation. The Commission on Lead in the Environment, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: The Royal Society of Canada: 374 pp.Google Scholar
Shedden, C.B. (1992) The British hunter's perspective on lead and steel shot. In: Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl, ed. Pain, D.J., pp. 81–5. (Proceedings of the IWRB Workshop, Brussels, Belgium, 1991). IWRB Special Publication 16, Slimbridge, England, UK: IWRB: 105 pp.Google Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E. (1983) Lead in the Environment. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Ninth Report, London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationary Office:Google Scholar
Stansley, W., Widjeskog, L. & Roscoe, D.E. (1992) Lead contamination and mobility in surface water at trap and skeet ranges. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 49: 640–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, V.G. (1994) Lead shot in the environment: its role in toxicosis and remediation of the problem. In: Issues Papers for the OECD Workshop on Lead Products and Uses: Session A — Shot and Fishing Sinkers, Toronto, Canada, 1994. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 8 pp.Google Scholar
Thomas, V.G. (1995) Why the U.S. and Canada Aren't Adopting Nontoxic Shot and Fishing Sinkers. International Environmental Affairs 7: 364–78.Google Scholar
Thomas, V.G. (1996) The Importance of Shotgun Patterning. The Double Gun Journal 7(2): 9–16.Google Scholar
Thomas, V.G. (in press). Attitudes and issues preventing bans of toxic lead shot and sinkers. Environmental Values 6.Google Scholar
Thomas, V.G. & Owen, M. (1995) Transition towards use of non-toxic shot in the United Kingdom. Wildfowl 46: 157–60.Google Scholar
Thomas, V.G. & Pokras, M. (1993) International analysis of non-toxic shot adoption for waterfowling. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Union of Game Biologists Congress, Vol. 2, ed. Thompson, I.D., pp. 35–40. Chalk River, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Forest Service: 382 pp.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, D. (1996) Fair means for fowl. Country Life Magazine (UK) January II: 48.Google Scholar
UNCED (1992) The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. In: Earth Summit 92, pp. 11–13. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992. London, UK: The Regency Press Corporation: 240 + xvi pp.Google Scholar
USEPA (1977) Air Qtiality Criteria for Lead. US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA–600/8–77–017, 401 M. Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460, USA: 299 pp.Google Scholar
USFWS (1986) Use of Lead Shot for Hunting Migratory Birds in the United States. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. US Fish and Wildlife Service FES 86–16, US Department of the Interior, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, No. 634, Arlington, VA 22203, USA: 555 pp.Google Scholar