Background

Despite extensive evidence that exposure to lead from ingested ammunition harms humans and wildlife, and in contravention of European states’ commitments under multilateral environmental agreements to minimize lead emissions, lead in hunting ammunition is still poorly regulated in Europe. The proposed restriction on lead gunshot under the REACH regulation is currently discussed for adoption to protect birds in wetlands from lead poisoning. Based on a subsequent investigation report concluding that additional measures are warranted to control the use of lead ammunition in terrestrial environments, ECHA is preparing a new restriction until October 2020. To help inform this process, we describe REACH management instruments and evaluate the effectiveness and enforceability of different legislative alternatives as well as socio-economic aspects of restricting lead shot in comparison to a total ban. We further discuss how the risks and environmental emissions of lead in rifle bullets can be most effectively controlled by legislative provisions in the future.

Results

Among different management tools, restriction was shown to be most effective and appropriate, since imports of lead ammunition would be covered. The partial restriction of lead gunshot limited to wetlands covers only a minor proportion of all lead used in hunting ammunition in the European Union, leaving multiple wildlife species at risk of being poisoned. Moreover, lead shot will be still purchasable throughout the EU. Within Europe, the costs associated with impacts on wildlife, humans and the environment would be considerably lower when switching to alternative gunshot and rifle bullets.

Conclusion

We argue that there is sufficient evidence to justify more effective, economic, and practical legislative provisions under REACH, i.e., restricting the use and placing on the market of lead in hunting ammunition. The enforcement would be significantly facilitated and hunters could easier comply. A crucial step is to define a realistic phasing-out period and chemical composition standards for non-lead substitutes while engaging all stakeholders to improve acceptance and allow adaptation. Until the total restriction enters into force, Member States could consider imposing more stringent national measures. A total restriction would reduce wildlife poisoning, harmonize provisions of national and European laws, and foster any efforts to decelerate loss of biodiversity.

中文翻译：

---

对通过欧盟REACH法规管制狩猎弹药中铅的提案的评估

背景

尽管有大量证据表明，摄入的弹药中的铅会危害人类和野生生物，并且违反了欧洲国家根据多边环境协定做出的将铅排放量降至最低的承诺，但欧洲对狩猎弹药中铅的管理仍然很差。目前正在讨论根据REACH法规对铅射击提出的限制，以保护湿地鸟类免受铅中毒。根据随后的调查报告得出结论，认为有必要采取其他措施来控制陆地环境中铅弹药的使用，ECHA正在准备一项新的限制措施，直到2020年10月为止。我们描述了REACH管理工具，并评估了不同立法替代方案的有效性和可执行性，以及与总禁令相比限制铅丸的社会经济方面。我们进一步讨论了将来如何通过立法条款最有效地控制步枪子弹中铅的风险和环境排放。

结果

在各种管理工具中，限制被证明是最有效和最适当的，因为将涵盖铅弹药的进口。铅枪的部分限制仅限于湿地，仅覆盖了欧洲联盟用于狩猎弹药的所有铅中的一小部分，从而使多种野生动植物物种有中毒的危险。此外，在整个欧盟范围内仍然可以购买铅丸。在欧洲范围内，当改用另类的枪弹和步枪子弹时，与对野生生物，人类和环境的影响相关的成本将大大降低。

结论

我们认为，有足够的证据来证明根据REACH制定更有效，经济和实用的法律规定，即限制狩猎弹药中铅的使用和投放市场。执法将大大便利，猎人可以更轻松地遵守。关键的一步是为非铅替代品定义一个切实可行的淘汰期限和化学成分标准，同时让所有利益相关者参与进来，以提高接受度并允许适应。在全面限制措施生效之前，会员国可以考虑采取更严格的国家措施。全面限制将减少野生动植物中毒，协调国家和欧洲法律的规定，并促进减少生物多样性丧失的任何努力。