|
The United States and Canada
provided the kick-off. A few others have followed: Denmark,
The Netherlands, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland. Common
factor is the ban on the use of lead shot for all waterfowl
hunting. Slowly but gradually, other countries are starting
to take similar actions.
Specialists agree, hunters and conservationists
alike, that the use of lead shot is not in accordance with
the principle of wise use. Millions of waterbirds die annually
due to the ingestion of spent lead shot pellets. Ecosystems
and species are affected worldwide. In order to preserve
the waterbird resource for the future, many countries have
decided to restrict the use of lead shot and promote the
use of alternative, non-toxic materials.
International agreement
Already in 1894 a scientific publication discussed the possibility
of waterfowl being poisoned by ingested lead pellets. It
took almost a century, and many large-scale die-offs of
waterbirds around the world, until the first few countries
started to take the issue seriously. The International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) started this process
in the 1980s and 1990s by initiating a series of educational
programmes for hunters, which emphasised the need for the
use of alternative ammunition. Political action soon followed.
In 1991, the United States were the first nation to ban
the use of lead shot for waterbird hunting. International
co-ordination of similar actions started in that same year
when the International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau
(IWRB, now Wetlands International) convened a workshop to
assess the scale of the issue, and to discuss possible solutions.
The outcomes of this workshop led to the
formulation of regulatory statements in a number of international
Conventions and Agreements, notably the Agreement on the
Conservation of Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA). This agreement
was established under the Convention on the Conservation
of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, also known as the
Bonn Convention. AEWA is under the administration of the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and currently
has 33 contracting parties in the African-Eurasian flyway.
Paragraph 4.1.4 of AEWA’s Action Plan literally states
that Parties shall endeavour to phase out the use of lead
shot for hunting in wetlands by the year 2000. During the
past few years, however, it became clear that lead shot
regulation on an international scale is still a far-away
ideal. Only six AEWA Range States – Canada, Norway,
Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands and Switzerland –
plus the USA have actually banned the use of lead shot in
wetlands. Unfortunately many countries made little progress
or have not yet started the process.
Introducing legislation concerning the
use of lead shot is a process with many difficulties. Niels
Kanstrup, director of the Danish Hunters’ Association,
is positive about the way the ban on lead shot was introduced
in his country. “Having observed the phasing out of
lead shot in Denmark during the last fifteen years,”
Kanstrup explains, “I have listened to – and
taken part in – a lot of discussions. The authorities
have been quite firm, but they have also been willing to
listen to the hunters and their organisations.” In
Denmark, the authorities applied a stepwise introduction
of the ban on the use of lead shot. This way, the new legislation
allowed for a period of education campaigns and training
for hunters. All stakeholders had a chance to adapt to the
new situation. “The hunters have been open and willing
to take up the challenge,” Kanstrup adds, “mostly
with the overall motive of manifesting a good image of hunters
being a responsible partner in modern nature management.
Looking back, the process has absolutely been a case of
‘win-win’.”
Proper hunting practice
Not in all countries, the switch in legislation is going
as smoothly as in Denmark. There appear to be a number of
factors which impede the process. Firstly, there is the
question of awareness. In many countries, the issue is not
known beyond a narrow circle of specialists. Research into
the incidence and exact scale of the problem on the national
level has been carried out in just a few countries. Even
though there is general data available on the impact of
lead shot, policy makers seem to want specific information
about the extent to which their own country is subject to
the issue. Setting up research programmes, of course, costs
time and money.
Even if hunters know about the effects
of lead on the environment, they are not enthusiastic about
switching to using non-toxic shot. “Many hunters are
very sceptical to alternatives,” says Niels Kanstrup.
“This is not because they had any negative experience
with it, but because “they always used lead”.
In other words, hunters are conservative.” True, alternative
shot has clear disadvantages compared to good old lead shot,
but with training and proper hunting practice, these problems
can absolutely be overcome, says Kanstrup. He finds it deplorable
that prejudices against alternative shot are widely persistent.
“Honestly, I do not care very much what shot I use,”
he says. “To shoot large birds like geese and heavy
sea ducks, I always choose high performance shot –
mostly steel shot size 3,5 mm to 4 mm. For smaller game
species I will use any alternative with a standard load
(28 gram). I have absolutely no worry concerning damage
to my gun or risk of explosion.” However, Kanstrup
has had to make adjustments to his hunting style. “In
general, I am more aware of shooting distances than before,”
he explains, “and today I keep monitoring the number
of shot used per bagged animal, which should always be somewhat
below three. Concerning security I am aware of the higher
risk of ricochets from hard shot (mostly steel), although
this has caused no increase in numbers of hunting accidents
in Denmark. In areas where you might hit hard surfaces (ground,
stones, trees) I would normally use soft shot.”
Increasing demand
Why then, if alternative shot seems to be satisfactory,
do not all countries adjust their legislation? The answer
to that often lies in bureaucracy. Even if both the national
authority and the hunting community are aware that the issue
exists, and even if they agree that a solution should be
sought in order to comply with the wise use principle, it
still is not always easy to get the ball rolling. Ammunition
manufacturers have to switch to producing non-toxic shot,
for example. Even though this switch does not entail major
adjustments in production method, manufacturers are still
hesitant. They fear that due to higher costs and lower demand,
they will be the ones that pay the price. This fear is understandable,
although it is estimated that with changing legislation,
and consequently increasing demand, profits for manufacturers
will not be likely to drop.
And then there’s the question of
finances, logistics and expertise on the side of the authorities
in charge. Research, change of legislation, monitoring and
enforcement efforts are costly and require good planning.
Many countries are not in a position to prioritise these
actions, due to factors such as political unrest or an economic
transition period. “The Danish example of banning
all use of lead for hunting seems to be too ambitious for
most other countries,” states Niels Kanstrup. “To
many of them, hunting-related lead poisoning is a rather
limited problem compared to general conservation needs.
To address the problem worldwide there is a clear need of
a constructive dialogue on a national and international
level between governments, nature conservationists and hunters.
Such co-operation is a precondition to maintain the momentum
of the process of phasing out lead shot in wetlands.”
Some countries are doing all that is in
their capacity. A very positive example in that respect
is being set by Spain. In Spain, a country with a large
waterfowl hunting tradition, research showed that thirty
to fifty thousand waterbirds annually die due to lead shot
ingestion. Incidence of lead shot ingestion lies around
fifty percent. The authorities, however, recently introduced
a ban on the use of lead shot over wetlands that are protected
under the international Ramsar Convention. This will strongly
decrease the annual 5000 ton lead deposition, since these
wetlands are the principal hunting areas in Spain.
Workshop
The story is therefore not just a negative one. True, compliance
with the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement
(AEWA) is still rather low, but things are slowly changing
for the better. More and more countries have put forward
a date for the introduction of measures, whether statutory
or voluntary. Campaigns are being set up, communication
networks are being established among hunting associations,
nature conservation organisations, authorities and ammunition
manufacturers. The Federation of European Hunting Associations
(FACE) helped organise a workshop together with AEWA, aimed
to introduce the issue in all its various aspects to the
Eastern European hunting community. A similar workshop will
be held in Italy early next year. The word is spreading
that alternative shot does not even perform all that bad
in the field. This is the development that we need to minimise
the unnecessary losses of waterbirds in the future.
Download article:
| Non-toxic shot is gaining territory |
|
|
Nienke Beintema
Consultant
UNEP/AEWA Secretariat
Hermann-Ehlers- Str. 10
53113 Bonn, Germany
Tel.: (+49) 0228 -815 2414
Fax: (+49) 0228 -815 2450
E-mail: aewa@unep.de
Internet: www.unep-aewa.org
|
