Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Sep;48(9):969-988.
doi: 10.1007/s13280-019-01157-2. Epub 2019 Mar 16.

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

Affiliations
Review

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

Deborah J Pain et al. Ambio. 2019 Sep.

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.

Keywords: Birds; Bullets; Evaluation; Financial; Gunshot; Society.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Aebischer NJ. National Gamebag Census: Released game species. Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust Annual Review of. 2013;2012(44):34–37.
    1. AESAN. 2012. Report of the Scientific Committee of the Spanish Agency for Food Safety and Nutrition (AESAN) in relation to the risk associated with the presence of lead in wild game meat in Spain. AESAN-2012-002. Retrieved November, 2018, from, http://www.aecosan.msssi.gob.es/AECOSAN/docs/documentos/seguridad_alimen....
    1. AEWA. 1999. African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds Agreement – Resolution 1.14. UNEP/AEWA/MOP1/RES. 1.14. http://www.unep-aewa.org/en/document/phasing-out-lead-shot-wetlands.
    1. AEWA. 2017. Response to public consultation on ECHA restriction report #1873. EC Number 231-100-4, CAS Number 7439-92-1. Retrieved November, 2018, from, https://echa.europa.eu/previous-consultations-on-restriction-proposals/-....
    1. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited. 2012. European Chemicals Agency. Abatement Costs of Certain Hazardous Chemicals. Lead in shot—Final Report December 2012. Report for European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Contract No: ECHA 2011/140, Annankatu 18, 00121 Helsinki, Finland.

LinkOut - more resources