Transitioning to non-toxic ammunition: Making change happen

Abstract

If the multiple negative health impacts associated with lead ammunition are to be mitigated, a transition to the non-toxic alternatives is needed. This paper aims to map out the pathways to such a transition via a modification of Kotter's eight step theory of change, identifying key stakeholders, exploring options for those of us advocating change and the relationships between policy and persuasion. The focus is primarily on the UK, but it is of direct relevance to the rest of Europe and beyond. The theory of change model involves (1) creating urgency, (2) building coalitions, (3) creating a vision for change, (4) communicating that vision, (5) removing barriers to enable action, (6) creating short-term or geospatial wins, (7) building on the change and (8) embedding change in culture and regulation. The paper reflects on good progress to date in initial steps, but throughout subsequent steps creative engagement and other disciplines which appreciate the human dimensions such as mediation and psychology of behaviour change have been lacking. Although significant barriers remain for Step 5, the paper identifies the central vision of sustainability of hunting as a shared value around which most stakeholders can engage. The paper concludes that, given the growing momentum surrounding this issue in recent years, the phasing out of lead ammunition is at a tipping point.

Keywords: Conflict; Engagement; Lead ammunition; Stakeholder; Sustainable hunting; Theory of change.

Fig. 1

Stakeholder groups within a horizontal spectrum of support for, or willingness to use, lead or non-toxic ammunition. The hunter ‘at risk’ consumer group will contain the majority of frequent consumers, and the wider society/general public ‘at risk’ group represents individuals of all groups when not in their professional capacities. Together with some of wider society/general public and wildlife rescuers, the animal rights and welfarists group sit beyond the spectrum of support of ammunition of any kind. Resources for lobbying are generated within certain key stakeholder groups and are indicated. Groups, other than policy makers/government, are arranged in a tentative vertical axis of political ‘power’ (with greatest at the top) noting individuals within the hunter group are important in this respect. This suggested ranking is relative to the side of the spectrum only and does not read across between the two sides. See Table 1 for description of stakeholder groups

Fig. 2

Steps needed to transition from lead ammunition using an adapted framework based on the theory of change (Kotter 1995, 1996). Modified elements include the feedback loops. Note although the goal is ‘no’ exposures it is accepted that there is a toxic legacy of centuries of lead ammunition already deposited in soils which will continue to be available to wildlife and even domestic animals (and then humans) for many decades to come

Fig. 3

Increasing focus on lead ammunition over time—timeline illustrating some of the key reviews of evidence, policy initiatives and publication of European food safety agency advice. Further details of these are found in Stroud (2015), Cromie et al. (2015), the Appendix of the Open Letter of the European Scientists (European Scientists 2018) and Mateo and Kanstrup (2019). To note, this Ambio Special Issue on ‘Lead in Hunting Ammunition: Persistent Problems and Solutions’ represents another key review and summary of evidence for 2019