4. REVIEW OF THE ISSUE In order to monitor the developments, a review was carried out by Wetlands International with financial support from the AEWA Secretariat and the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It was published in July 2001, titled Lead Poisoning in Waterbirds. International Update Report 2000. This report, which is based on a literature review and on questionnaires returned by 74 nations and 11 organizations, was sent to delegates of all Contracting Parties, other contributors, and interested individuals and parties. In addition, it can be downloaded for free through the website of Wetlands International.

The main conclusions and recommendations of the report are:

• Presently, only six AEWA Range States (Canada, Norway, Finland, Denmark, The  Netherlands and Switzerland, the last four being Contracting Parties) plus the USA have phased out the use of lead shot in wetlands. In other words, the majority of Range States, including the remaining twenty-six Contracting Parties, have not yet complied with Paragraph 4.1.4, although five Contracting Parties are well on the way. Phasing out lead shot appears to entail certain difficulties, which impede a smooth transition to non-toxic shot. Examples of such factors are lack of awareness, lack of communication with the hunting community, low availability of non-toxic shot, lack of finances/Logistics to enforce legislation and to train and educate hunters, and the fact that the issue is not on a country’s priority list for political/Economical reasons.

• In order to deal with the largely insufficient awareness of the issue, both among hunters and among authorities, the Agreement Secretariat is requested, in accordance with the outcomes of the report mentioned above, to
  • Raise awareness of the issue by publishing low-key information materials;
  • Stimulate communication between hunters and conservation organisations/Authorities/Ammunition manufacturers by setting up contact networks across the Range, and by continuing to organize workshops similar to the one mentioned above, notably in developing countries and countries with economies in transition;
  • Stimulate communication between hunters’ organisations across the Range in order to set up an information/Expertise network;
  • Communicate to authorities the need to phase out lead shot, the need for gun proofing and testing facilities and the need for awareness raising campaigns, and consequently
  • Assist in fund raising activities to finance the above.
• Governments of Contracting Parties are encouraged to engage actively in the implementation of Paragraph 4.1.4 of the Action Plan at the national level. In addition they are responsible for the communication between authorities and conservation organisations on one side, and the hunting community on the other side.
• Law enforcement is an important factor in phasing out the use of lead shot. Range States are requested allocate finances and logistics to this end.
• International hunting federations are requested to allocate funds to the establishment of training and gun proofing facilities, and to the distribution of the available information materials at the national level.
• Time, finances and logistics available for research should preferably not be allocated to more detailed research concerning the exact degree and background of the toxicity of ingested lead pellets. Rather, research should be focused on determining the incidence of lead poisoning in those countries where the scale of the problem is unknown. Awareness of the scale of the problem can, in turn, lead to constructive developments.
• In line with the data presented in the report, conservation NGO’s and the Agreement Secretariat are advised to carry out additional research in order to determine more precisely which factors seem to be most important in tackling the lead poisoning issue. Such research could be used to inform governments on the relative importance, and order, of measures to be taken.
• The implementation of a lead shot ban should be accompanied by the enhancement of the availability of non-toxic shot. Authorities should make an effort to stimulate and facilitate its production. This could be done by encouraging and supporting lead shot manufacturers when they switch to producing non-toxic shot, both financially (through tax relief or other subsidies) and logistically (e.g. through the establishment of co-operation with countries which have experience in this field).
• Manufacturers of alternative shot - and preferably also other businesses - in well-developed (e.g. OECD) countries are encouraged to invest in the steel shot industry in developing countries and other countries which are financially unable to do so themselves. Once more widely accepted, it is expected that the increasing demand for alternative shot will give this industry high potential.

It appears that measures need to be taken simultaneously at the level of authorities, ammunition manufacturers and hunters’ organisations: one step cannot be made without the other. The question of co-ordinating this therefore requires planning and good communication. The most parsimonious line of action is therefore that the AEWA Secretariat will be asked to acquire access to funds necessary to accomplish both the practical and organisational aspects of solving the issue at the international level, and that the Range States are requested to allocate finances and logistics towards the facilitation of lead shot ban implementation at the national level. Training, education and awareness raising at the national level should preferably be co-ordinated by the international hunting federations. The combined action should be monitored and regularly reviewed by the Technical Committee.

Back to the Introduction Page on Lead Poisoning