advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of

European Commission Enterprise Directorate-General

CONTRACT NUMBER � ETD/FIF.20030756

Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks Final Report

November 2004

European Commission Enterprise Directorate-General

Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks Final Report

November 2004

P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc

Preface

Background While the effects and the emissions of lead used for lead ammunition, lead fishing sinkers and candle wicks are relatively well documented, little is known about the markets of the products and the impact of potential marketing and use restrictions.

This study is therefore aimed at analysing the markets of lead ammunition, lead sinkers and lead candle wicks in the old and new Member States and to assess the economic, social and environmental consequences of potential marketing and use restrictions.

All military use of lead ammunition is outside the scope of this study. However military experience regarding development of substitutes and remediation of shooting has to the extent relevant been presented.

Purpose The overall objective of the present project is to assess the impact of potential restrictions of lead ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks containing lead on business and private users.

More specific the objectives of the study are:

� To provide a quantitative up-to-date assessment of the various uses in the old and new Member States.

� To identify and analyse the regulation and rules on hunting, shooting and fishing at national or regional level which may have an influence on the use of products in question.

� To discuss to what extent a common market exist for the products in ques-tion and whether a community wide approach is adequate.

� To identify the alternatives available to lead for the various applications and assess potential drawbacks of substitutes.

� Finally, to estimate the costs related to restrictions on lead in the various applications and compare them to the emission reduction expected.

Study team The following team has contributed to the solving of this assignment: Erik Hansen (Project Manager), Carsten Lassen and Adam Elbæk-Jørgensen, COWI A/S.


4

.


5

.

Table of Contents

Preface 3

1 Executive summary 7 1.1 Lead ammunition 7 1.2 Lead fishing equipment 12 1.3 Lead candle wicks 17

2 Potential environmental and health impact of the use of lead in shot and sinkers 19

2.1 Environmental impact 19 2.1.1 Effects on waterfowl and other birds by direct

ingestion 19 2.1.2 Secondary poisoning 20 2.1.3 Effects of dissolved lead on the biota 20

2.2 Health impact 24

3 Ammunition 27 3.1 Application of lead in cartridges 27 3.2 Markets of cartridges 28

3.2.1 Available information 28 3.2.2 Lead consumption by shooters and hunters 29 3.2.3 Lead consumption by ammunitions

manufacturing 33 3.2.4 Structure of shooting and hunting ammunition

industry in Europe 37 3.2.5 Ammunition trade patterns in Europe 41

3.3 Legal or voluntary use restrictions on lead ammunition 43 3.4 Rules on hunting and shooting which govern

consumers' access to and demand for lead ammunition 46

3.5 Available measures to recover used lead ammunition 47 3.6 Availability of substitutes for lead cartridges 50

3.6.1 Technical issues 50 3.6.2 Environmental and health issues 55

3.7 Impact of potential marketing and use restrictions on lead ammunition 59 3.7.1 Impact on business and users 59 3.7.2 Impact on the environment and health 69 3.7.3 Discussion of the need for a community wide

approach 75 3.8 Summary and conclusion 77


6

.

4 Fishing sinkers 84 4.1 Application of lead in fishing sinkers 84 4.2 Markets of fishing sinkers 86

4.2.1 Angling 86 4.2.2 Commercial fishing 97

4.3 Legal or voluntary use restrictions on lead fishing sinkers 103 4.3.1 Effectiveness of the restrictions 104

4.4 Availability of substitutes for lead fishing equipment 106 4.5 Impact of potential marketing and use restrictions on

lead fishing sinkers 109 4.5.1 Impact on business and users 109 4.5.2 Impact on the environment and health 114 4.5.3 Discussion of the need for a community wide

approach 118 4.6 Summary and conclusion 119

5 Candle wicks 123 5.1 Application of lead in candle wicks 123 5.2 Markets of candle wicks 123 5.3 Legal or voluntary use restrictions on lead wicks 128 5.4 Availability of substitutes for lead wicks 129 5.5 Impact of potential marketing and use restrictions on

lead wicks 129 5.6 Summary and conclusion 130

References 132

Annex 1 Contacted European associations 141

Annex 2 Other contacted associations and companies 144

Annex 3 Abbreviations 146

Annex 4 Questionnaires 147

Annex 5 Trade Statistics 159


7

.

1 Executive summary

The aim of this report is to assess the impact of potential restrictions of lead ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks containing lead on business and private users considering economic, social and environmental consequences.

1.1 Lead ammunition Applications Lead ammunition is covering lead shot, lead pellets and bullets. All military use

of lead ammunition is, however, outside the scope of this study.

Market Detailed data on consumption of lead as ammunition or for manufacturing of ammunition in the EU old and new Member States are generally not available and it has been necessary to assess these data indirectly based on the total num-ber of cartridges used in the EU, the number of hunters and shooters registered in each country and the content of lead in cartridges combined with statistical information on import and export of ammunition to the individual countries.

Based on this approach the total consumption of lead about 2003 as ammuni-tion in EU15 is estimated at approximately 38,600 tonnes of lead yearly. The dominant countries of consumption seem to be Germany, France, UK, Spain and Italy. Lead shot ammunition is estimated to account for about 34,600 ton-nes of lead while lead bullets and pellets count for about 4,000 tonnes of lead. The picture of manufacturing is somewhat similar, but Italy is presenting itself as clearly the largest country of manufacturing followed by Germany, Spain, UK and France. The total consumption for manufacturing is estimated at about 53,000 tonnes of lead. The difference between manufacturing and consumption is export. Data for consumption and manufacturing has furthermore been esti-mated for Hungary, Lithuania and Poland as representatives of the new Mem-ber States.

Apart from the countries in which restrictions have been introduced, the con-sumption of lead as ammunition as well as for manufacturing of ammunition should be taken as reasonable stable.

The African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement calls for the phase out of lead shot for hunting in wetlands. The agreement has entered into force in 9 EU Member States and has been signed by another 5 besides the EU. Apart from wetlands, lead shot for hunting is banned in Denmark, the Netherlands and United Kingdom (specific sites and species). Restrictions for hunting in forests and other areas will, furthermore, be introduced in Sweden from 2006 and in Belgium (the Flemish region - in forests) from 2008.

Generally no legal restrictions on the use of lead shot for sports shootings apply apart from Denmark, where the use of lead shot is only allowed on a few speci-fied shooting ranges. However, a ban on lead shot for several shooting disci-plines will take effect from January 2005. In the Netherlands a ban on the use of lead shoot on shooting ranges is expected shortly. Regarding lead bullets no

Existing restrictions and rules


8

.

restrictions have been introduced neither for hunting nor sports shooting. How-ever, in Sweden a ban on lead for this purpose will take effect from 2008.

Substitutes seem to be available for all types of lead ammunition. Most focus has been on substitutes for lead shot. The cheapest alternative is steel shot be-ing about 20% more expensive than lead shot. As the ballistic properties of steel shot differ from lead shot, steel shot requires some time of acquaintance. The drawbacks of steel shot may otherwise be summarised as follows:

� they cannot be used in old guns with thin barrels as the barrels may be damaged;

� they are often not allowed in forest from which trunks are sold for furniture and veneer making as the industrial cutting tools may be damaged;

� they should not be used in rocky and similar terrain due to the risks of ricochets.

Other alternatives based on e.g. bismuth, tungsten and tin are available that do not suffer from the technical drawbacks of steel and may ballisticly be taken as rather similar to lead. These alternatives, however, suffer from the disadvantage of a price corresponding to 150 - 1000% of the price of lead.

Regarding sports shooting, the general strategy of the International Sports Shooting Federation regarding the issue of minimizing the environmental con-sequences of the use of lead ammunition is to promote improved lead recovery at shooting ranges. However, due to restrictions on lead shot, steel shot is the type of shoot mainly used in Denmark. The Danish experiences consider steel shot to be an acceptable alternative to lead shot also for competitions. Experi-ences from other countries have not been available.

Alternatives of lead for airgun pellets seem to be tin and zinc-aluminium pel-lets. While tin pellets are claimed to be as accurate and soft as lead pellets, the experience of zinc-aluminium pellets is not always positive. The major draw-back of tin pellets seems to be a price increase of 1.5-6 times compared to lead pellets.

Substitutes for lead bullets are not as developed as alternatives for shot and pel-lets. Non-lead ammunition claimed to be appropriate is being marketed. Devel-opment efforts addressing non-lead bullet ammunition seem, however primarily to be related to military ammunition. It may be noted that lead-free bullets for military purposes fulfilling all NATO-standards today is available in Europe at a price about 20% higher than lead bullets.

Several techniques are available for lead containment as well as lead recovery from shooting ranges. Regarding shooting ranges for riffle and pistol shooting containment measures may include earthen berms as well as bullets traps made of sand, steel or rubber. Regarding shooting ranges for clay pigeons high soil berms (up to 20 m) are being developed in order to minimize the shot fall zone. Such berms can be equipped with large nets placed vertically on top of the berms in order to intercept shot flying over the berms. Nets can also be placed horizontally in the shot fall zone to catch shot and prevent them from being

Options of substitu-tion

Recovering of lead from shooting ranges


9

.

mixed with soil. A solid asphalt surface may be used as an alternative to hori-zontal nets. Generally, a process of developing an environmental friendly de-sign of shooting ranges seems to have been initiated.

Once contained, lead ammunition can be recovered by a number of techniques including sifting, vacuuming and soil washing. Which technique to apply de-pends heavily on the site conditions, soil composition and level of lead deemed acceptable in the cleaned soil or bullet trap material utilised. The lead colleted (bullet and particles) can be directed to recycling.

The international sports shooting association (ISSF) recommends that collec-tion and recycling of the lead from shooting ranges are promoted rather than substitutes for lead ammunition. It is believed that significant improvements in this field are possible, and that shooting ranges can be designed and operated in a way paying full respect to environmental concerns related to inter alia lead. However, a strategy of improving design and operation of shooting ranges will certainly imply higher cost and it remains to be seen whether this strategy is more or less cost-effective than a strategy of substitution of lead ammunition.

The potential environmental and health impact of lead compared to the substi-tutes available may be summarised as follows:

Extensive documentation exists of the toxicity of lead towards humans as well as towards plants, animals and micro-organisms. The actual effects, however depends on the actual concentrations and availability of lead in the environment and the sensitivity of the exposed species.

Specific focus has been on the poisoning of waterfowl and other birds by ingestion of lead shot and sinkers and the following secondary poisoning of raptors. Lead shot and fragments of lead shot in muscle tissues in waterfowl and other game may in special cases form a health risk to humans consuming this game.

In soil and other parts of the environment metallic lead as bullets and shot are, furthermore, slowly corroded and turned into toxic lead compounds (oxides, carbonates, sulphides etc.). In the environment effects are generally limited to specially contaminated areas. Shooting ranges may be regarded as a type of contaminated areas where remedial action can be required.

Lead ammunition is today regarded as the major source of lead contamination of soils slowly causing the content of lead in topsoil to increase. No compre-hensive assessment of the effects of this increase exists. However, a continued increase will narrow the gap between the current lead content of soil and the levels for which effects may actually be observed and could eventually cause these levels to be exceeded. The actual rate of increase should be expected to vary between Member States depending on the present content of lead in soil and the actual load of lead from ammunition and other sources.

Environmental im-pacts of lead com-pared to substitutes


10

.

While the issue of poisoning of waterfowl and other birds is related to the use of lead shot in wetlands and upland areas the issue of soil contamination is re-lated to all types of lead ammunition.

Substitutes based on steel, tin, bismuth and tungsten is approved as non-toxic to birds in either USA or Canada. Regarding other impacts only iron presents a clear improvement compared to lead, while other alternatives suffers from one or more drawbacks inclusive of lack of data. Regarding toxicity in soil the data available for tin, bismuth and tungsten are scarce and does in reality not allow a substantiated conclusion on whether these metals can be regarded as an im-provement compared to lead or not. It is recommended that research is initiated that can eliminate the current lack of data. This recommendation is supported by the fact that new data on tungsten has indicated effects towards humans (e.g. reproductive and development effects) as well as towards soil organisms and plants.

The impact of potential restrictions to business and users are assessed as fol-lows:

The incremental cost of ammunition is estimated at 22� - 46� for the average European hunter if lead ammunition was to be completely banned for all hunt-ing. This estimate is based on an estimated 6.2 mill. hunters within EU15. To this cost should be added a one-time cost of 50� per testing related to safety testing of a shotgun. Spread over 5 years this conversion cost corresponds to an annual incremental cost of 13� per hunter. In this estimate lead shot is assumed to be replaced by a mix of steel, tin, bismuth and tungsten shot depending on the local conditions. To these costs may be added the costs of replacement of old shotguns not able to cope with steel or other shot of similar hardness. How-ever, the owners of these guns may have the option of choosing shot of tin, bismuth or tungsten polymer having softness similar to lead but being more expensive. On average non-lead shot gun ammunition for hunters are assumed to cost 3 times as much as lead shot ammunition.

The incremental cost of ammunition to the average European shooter is esti-mated at 27 - 55� for shotgun ammunition, 2 - 20� for bullet ammunition, and 8 -24� for airgun ammunition, corresponding to a total of 37 - 99�, if lead am-munition was to be completely banned for all shooting. For shotgun ammuni-tion is assumed that lead is substituted by a mix of steel, tin, bismuth and tung-sten ammunition, while for airguns tin pellets is assumed to be an acceptable alternative. These figures indicated above describes the incremental cost to the average shooter, while a competitive shot gun shooter may have to face extra costs in the range of 500� to 7500� annually due to a significantly higher con-sumption of shot gun cartridges. The same picture applies to a competitive pis-tol, rifle or air gun shooter. To the ammunition cost for shotguns must be added the cost of gun testing, besides that for many shotguns new chokes will have to be installed. This one-time conversion cost of 50 -100� pr shooter assumed relevant for 50% of all shooters will spread over 5 years correspond to an an-nual incremental cost of 6.5 - 13� taken as an average for all shooters. Finally, competitive shooters with very high cartridge consumption may face increased barrel wear due to steel shot forcing frequent replacement of weapons. Assum-

Business impacts of restrictions on am-munition.


11

.

ing that 3 - 5 % of all sport shooters will make an extra replacement of their weapon annually the costs incurred will correspond to an annual incremental cost of 30 -50� as average for all sport shooters.

The direct costs to the industry of a ban on lead shot ammunition in Europe is related to conversion of existing lead based production lines have been esti-mated at approximately 310 million �. These costs should be assumed to be included in the incremental costs of ammunition stated above.

A ban on lead shot may hit hard on about 5-8 European companies specialised in manufacturing of lead shot or machinery for manufacturing of lead shot. Giving the appropriate time of adaptation the production of these companies may be taken over by other European companies thus minimizing the economic impact from the transition process. However, it is at the present stage not possi-ble to assess the social and other costs related to the transition process as these depends heavily on the local conditions in the regions of the companies. How-ever, as the companies in question to the best of knowledge are relatively small, the transition costs should be expected to be limited.

It is assessed that arguments exist for a community wide approach regarding the use of lead shot in wetlands, as in particularly waterfowl are migratory birds and the actions of individual Member States may naturally influence other Member States.

Regarding other hunting activities the picture is more complicated, as the pri-mary environmental problem in this context seems to be the issue of soil con-tamination, and it is unclear whether the substitutes available in all cases repre-sent an improvement in the soil environment compared to lead. Soil contamina-tion should generally be regarded as a local or national issue and despite the uncertainties mentioned regarding available substitutes to lead shot. Member States may for environmental reasons consider it justified to introduce local or national restrictions on the use of lead based on national conditions. The main argument in favour of a community wide approach in this context would thus be the implications of such restrictions towards the free trade across the EU. Assuming that appropriate time will be allowed for companies to adapt to re-strictions, it is difficult to believe that such restrictions will be critical to more than very few companies.

Regarding shooting activities the environmental issue in focus again is the issue of soil contamination which should regarded as a local or national issue. As already stated ISSF has proposed a strategy of promoting improved design and operation of shooting ranges in order to ensure almost completely collection and recycling of lead. Behind this strategy lies the recognition of the fact that lead ammunition is the ammunition preferred for international sports shooting events and that a ban on lead ammunition in the EU naturally will be a draw-back for European shooters compared to their competitors outside the EU.

The need for a com-munity wide ap-proach


12

.

Table 1.1 Estimated costs of selected measures to reduce the load to the environment from lead containing ammunition, EU-15 area

Phase-out regime

Lead shot for hunting in wet-

lands 1)

Lead shot for other hunting activities 2)

Lead bullets for hunting,

Lead shot and air gun pellets for shooting

Lead bullets for shooting

Total

Total costs per tonne lead substituted (�/t) 1)

12,200 - 20,600 12,200 - 20,600 1,200 - 10,300 10,100 - 19,700 1,850 - 18,500 10,500 - 19,900

Total costs in EU-15 (mill.�/year) 1)

44 - 74 176 - 296 0.18 - 1.5 180 - 350 5 - 50 405 - 770

Reduced load to the environment in EU-15 (tonnes lead/year)

3,400 - 3,600 13,700 - 14,400 140 - 150 ? - 17,800 3)

? - 2700 3)

17,240 - 38,6003)

1) All costs are based on estimated retail prices and include for shot gun also the anticipated costs of testing of weapons. Costs of reduced remedial actions related to shooting ranges and other areas exposed to soil contamination are not included. Costs of transition incl. of social costs for companies not able to adapt to restrictions are not included either.

2) For hunting in wetlands as well as other hunting activities has been assumed a mix of 50 steel, 20% bismuth, 20% tungsten and 10% tin. It is likely that the percentage of steel could be higher in wetlands causing the average cost per ton of lead substituted to be less than for other activities. It is assumed that 20% of all shotgun hunting takes place in wet-lands areas.

3) Some collection and recycling is taking place already today. However, no exact data on the amount of lead recycled is available.

In case substitution turns out to be more cost-effective the option always re-mains to restrict the use of lead on the individual shooting ranges or nationally. Again Member States may for environmental reasons consider it justified to introduce local or national restrictions on the use on lead based on national conditions. Thus the only argument in favour of a community wide approach in this context would be the implications of such restrictions towards the free trade across the EU. Again, assuming that appropriate time will be allowed for companies to adapt to restrictions, it is difficult to believe that such restrictions will be critical to more than very few companies.

The cost and consequences in terms of reduced contribution of lead to the envi-ronment in the EU related to the possible restriction options are presented in table 1.1.

1.2 Lead fishing equipment Applications Lead fishing equipment is covering anglers' equipment as well as equipment for

commercial fishing. Lead equipment for anglers can be divided in a number of different items like split shot, sinkers/weights, pirks, downriggers and to a mi-nor extent also wobblers and floats. Regarding commercial fishing it is relevant to distinguish between sinkers/weights, lead lines and seine ropes.

Market The data available on consumption of lead for fishing equipment in the EU old or new Member States is rather scarce. Only few investigations have been car-

Cost and conse-quences of selected measures


13

.

ried out in this field, and the companies active are generally small having little or no knowledge of the total market for lead equipment neither in Europe nor in their home countries.

Based on the data available the total consumption of lead for angling equipment in EU15 and EU25 is estimated at 1,900 - 5,600 and 2,000 - 6,000 tonnes/year respectively, of which about 50% is used for fresh water fishing. The consump-tion of lead for commercial fishing in EU15 and EU25 is similar estimated at 1,900 - 8,700 and 2,000 - 9,000 tonnes/year.

As the data available on national consumption of lead for angling is highly varying it is deemed not reasonable to estimate consumption figures for coun-tries for which no data is available. As manufacturing of lead sinkers is rela-tively simple and may take place in small workshops no major manufacturers in Europe seem to exist, and the general picture emerging is that with respect to ordinary sinkers most countries are supplied by own manufacturers of which many are small or having sinker manufacturing as a minor activity besides manufacturing of other lead based products.

Concerning equipment for commercial equipment national data are even scarcer than for angling. The estimates presented are based on data regarding the size and composition of the fishing fleet combined with estimates for size and quantity of typical fishing equipment for different vessels. It has not been possible to estimate figures for consumption for manufacturing in the different countries.

Denmark has established a total ban on the use of lead in fishing equipment. However, for commercial fishing the ban has been derogated to 1 December 2004.

UK has banned the use of lead split shot and lead sinkers above 0.06 g and be-low 28.35 in fresh waters.

In Sweden voluntary restrictions on lead fishing sinkers exist in some rivers.

Substitutes seem to be available for many but not all types of lead sinkers (e.g. substitutes do not exist for the so-called "dust shot"). Most development has taken place with respect to angler's equipment. The dominant substitutes are zinc alloys and iron/steel which is used for several types of equipment. For spe-cial equipment also tin, tungsten composites and bismuth are utilised. The de-velopment of substitutes is, however, somewhat limited by the fact that the most extensive ban on lead exist in Denmark, which is a little market not neces-sarily interesting for foreign manufacturers. The costs of substituting products are estimated to be in the range of extra +10% - 1000% of the price of lead products. The price differs with the products in question but also with the alter-native material used. Bismuth and tungsten substitutes are typical high end sub-stitutes, while zinc and iron are the cheap alternatives. For several types of sinkers the products formerly produced in Denmark from lead is now manufac-tured in China based on zinc or iron. This outsourcing has effectively reduced




14

.

the extra costs related to the change of raw materials as well as other costs of manufacturing.

Regarding equipment for commercial fishing substitutes are only available for sinkers/weights for which substitutes based on iron or zinc are developed at a price equalling the price of lead products.

With respect to lead lines and seine ropes no alternatives are commercially available today. Efforts to develop substitutes are, however, ongoing, and it is believed that substitutes based on iron or zinc can be realised at a price equal-ling or slightly exceeding the price level of lead equipment.

The potential environmental and health impact of lead compared to the substi-tutes available may be summarised as follows:

Extensive documentation exists of the toxicity of lead towards humans as well as towards plants, animals and micro-organisms. Specific focus has been on the poisoning of waterfowl and other birds by ingestion of lead split shot and small sinkers and the following secondary poisoning of raptors. Poisoning of water-fowl may in special cases form a health risk to humans consuming these birds. In this context the discussion of lead sinkers/weights are similar to lead ammu-nition.

In the aquatic environment sinkers lost in fast running streams as well as in the wave zone and other erosion zones in the sea are likely to be slowly eroded and dissolved. Sinkers lost to the ground along streams and lakes may also be slowly corroded and turned into toxic lead compounds (e.g. lead oxides and lead sulphides). This way lead used for sinkers are dispersed into the environ-ment and is adding to the general concentration of lead in the environment. Other sinkers may directly end up in sediments and the overall picture is that lead will accumulate in sedimentation areas and by time be buried in the sedi-ments. Apart from poisoning of waterfowl no reported environmental effects have been ascribed to lead from fishing sinkers and weights.

Other concerns related to the use of lead for sinkers is that they are often manu-factured by home-casting or small scale casting in small enterprises which is not likely to be equipped with adequate emission abatements technology and thus may result in relatively high emissions of lead to the environment. Lead in abandoned fishing equipment collected as waste may furthermore be a source of lead to waste incineration and thus add to lead emissions to air and the con-tent of lead in residual products recycled to civil works etc.

Regarding substitutes to small sinkers and lead split shot based on tin, tungsten, bismuth, iron and zinc the discussion is similar to the discussion on substitutes for lead shot ammunition. However, zinc is not currently approved in the US as a non-toxic shot and is in reality also toxic to birds although the toxicity is lower than that of lead.

Regarding other impacts only iron presents a clear improvement compared to lead, while other alternatives suffers from one or more drawbacks inclusive of

Environmental im-pacts of lead com-pared to substitutes


15

.

lack of data. Regarding toxicity in water zinc must be considered significantly less toxic than lead, while no water quality criterion or other comparative as-sessment covering toxicity in water environments have been identified for tin, bismuth or tungsten. While it is generally believed that neither tin, bismuth nor tungsten should be of concern regarding their environmental impact in water environments, this is in reality not documented, and it is recommended that re-search is initiated that can eliminate the current lack of data.

The impact of potential restrictions to business and users are assessed as fol-lows:

Sinkers and other lead equipment for angling and commercial fishing are manu-facturers by several hundred companies in Europe. Many companies are small and dealing with other activities than sinker manufacturing. Lead sinkers are easy to cast and can be manufactured in a small workshop or even as home-casting. Lead wires/string of beads are estimated to be manufactured by 10-50 companies in Europe.

Lead casting may relatively easy be replaced by zinc casting by using other moulds while manufacturing of iron or steel is more complicated and requires different equipment and expertise. It has not been possible to quantify the direct and indirect costs of industry in case of restrictions on the use of lead as well as the social cost of transition for companies not able to adapt to a restriction. It is, however, deemed likely that a change from lead to other materials will result in a concentration of production and the close down of many small workshops and companies. Danish experience indicates that the market changes introduced by a ban may to some extent also speed up a process of outsourcing to Asia.

Regarding the consequences for angling, it is roughly estimated that on average anglers annual expenses may increase by 1.5-10.4 �/year considering raw mate-rials as well as other elements included in the retail price. Other consequences are assessed to be small and without significance regarding the use of lead-free equipment.

Regarding the consequences for commercial fishing, test fishing with lead-free equipment is first scheduled to take place in 2004 and no precise experience with lead-free sinkers and equipment is yet available. Concern is raised related to the extra volume of substitute metals and the extra noise coming from han-dling steel or zinc equipment as compared to lead equipment. Also the impacts on substitutes on net materials need to be clarified.

Regarding the issue of a common market for fishing equipment, it is clear that a significant part of the production in particular of sinkers/weights is carried out by small companies for their home market. However, as the same types of sink-ers and lead lines are used all over Europe, a common market for these products to some extent also exists. For lead wires and lead bead strings used for lead line production - the main application of lead for commercial fishing - there seems to be a common European market.

Business impacts of restrictions on lead sinkers.


16

.

The restriction options available differ from restricting lead sinkers for angling in inland waters to a total ban on the use lead large sinkers for angling and a ban on the use of lead for commercial fishing. The costs of these measures are roughly indicated in table 1.2 below.

The environmental concerns as to the use of lead sinkers are mainly related to the use of lead split shot and small sinkers for fishing in inland waters as in par-ticularly waterfowl are migratory birds and the actions of individual Member States may naturally influence other Member States. From an environmental point of view a use restriction as the restriction implemented in the UK would be the most well-documented as reasonable solid arguments related to migra-tory birds exist for a community wide approach.

It must be recognized that only iron presents a clear improvement compared to lead considering toxicity as well as other environmental issues, while other al-ternatives suffers from one or more drawbacks inclusive of lack of data. Fur-thermore, substitutes for "dust shot" seem not to be available, besides that their impact on birds has not been specifically documented.

For larger sinkers and other lures used in the sea and in large lakes, a signifi-cant home casting takes place, and these activities may increase as a conse-quence of a ban on the sale of lead sinkers. It is deemed that a ban on the use of lead sinkers (like in the UK) more efficiently would reduce the load of lead to the environment than a ban on the sale (like in Denmark). In both cases a re-striction will reduce the amount of lead (estimated 850-2,520 tonnes yearly from EU15) emitted to waters covered by international sea conventions as the OSPAR Convention aimed at - among other issues - to reduce the emissions of lead to the marine environment.

A phase-out of lead for commercial fishing has relatively small incremental costs to the fisheries and the costs per ton of lead phased out is considerably lower than for sinkers for angling. However, the environmental effect of the decreased load of lead to the sea by lead from commercial fishing is not well-documented apart from that a restriction will reduce the amount of lead emitted to marine waters covered by international sea conventions as the OSPAR Con-vention.

The commitment of the EU related to sea conventions as the OSPAR Conven-tion could be used as an argument for a community wide approach for lead wires and lead bead strings for which a common market exist. Assuming that appropriate time will be allowed for companies to adapt to restrictions, it is not possible based on the knowledge available to assess whether restrictions may lead to market distortions.

However, it is relevant to note that national concerns and restrictions regarding the use of large lead sinkers and commercial equipment may also be argued by other concerns as e.g. emissions from home casting of lead and waste disposal. Fishing equipment disposed of to landfills and waste incineration may contrib-ute significantly to total lead in waste and thus to the emissions caused by e.g. utilisation of incineration residues for civil works. The load of lead to the waste

Restriction options and the need for a community wide ap-proach


17

.

streams may, however, be reduced by the use of other instruments requiring the discarded equipment to be collected separately and recycled, which however may be costly in particular for items like lead lines and seine robes.

Table 1.2 Estimated costs of phase-out of lead sinkers and reduced lead load to the environment

Phase-out of lead sinkers for angling in inland wa-

ters

Total phase-out of lead sinkers for angling

Phase-out of lead sinkers for commercial fishing

Total costs to anglers/the fisheries per tonne lead substituted (�/t) 1)

19,000-39,000 12,000-34,500 300-1,330

Total costs to anglers/the fisheries in the EU25 (million �/year) 1)

19-117 24-207 0.6-12

Reduced lead load to the environment in the EU25 (t lead/year)

900-2,700 1,800-5,400 100-1,800


18-110 23-198 0.57-11.6


850-2,520 1,700-5,040 95-1,740

1) All costs are based on estimated retail prices. Costs of transition incl. of social costs for companies not able to adapt to restrictions are not included.

1.3 Lead candle wicks Applications Lead candle wicks covers the type of wicks in which a thin lead wire is inserted

into the wick in order to stiffen or support the wick.

Market Use of lead candle wicks is just one of a variety of known candle manufacturing technologies. No members of the European Association of Can-dle Makers (AECM) are known to be engaged in production or use of lead can-dle wicks and no production of lead containing candles in the EU15 area has been detected. There may reportedly be a small production in certain parts of Eastern Europe, notably the general Balkan area, but it has not been possible to document this assumption.

It is, however, based on surveys from USA and Australia assumed that a certain share of the imported volume of candles from the Far East contains lead candle wicks, although no precise data is available to quantify this import. It is esti-mated that the import of lead to the EU in candle wicks in candles from the Far East most likely will be well below 100 tonnes per year and may not exceed a few tonnes per year.

Lead in candle wicks has been banned in Finland (indoor uses) from 2001 and in Denmark from 2002, while a voluntary restriction on the use of lead in can-dles in the UK has existed since the 1970's.

Lead candle wicks can be substituted by wicks with cores based on tin or zinc or simply by using a thicker woven wick. In the EU, production of candles




18

.

seems to be based mainly or solely on wicks without a metal core, as there are no known manufacturer of zinc or tin wicks in Europe.

When a lead wick based candle is burned in indoor conditions, considerable amounts of lead may be released to the indoor air and result in human exposure to lead by inhalation. The lead released may otherwise settle as dust on furni-ture and floors and thus be a source of human intake of lead for adults as well as for children. Besides, the released lead may be a source of lead to waste and waste water when the lead is removed from the indoor environment by clean-ing. For candles used outdoor, lead will similarly settle in the surroundings and thus add to the general level of lead in the surroundings. Regarding environ-mental and health impacts of substitutes no reports are available indicating con-cerns related to any of the substitutes in question.

It is assessed that an EU-wide restriction on marketing and use of lead wicks in and for candles will have no effects on the manufacturing industry in the EU. It is also not possible to identify any disadvantages to the European consumers of such a restriction, while the consumers certainly will benefit from such a re-striction. Although the import and consumption of lead candle wicks in Europe likely is small the risk exists that some consumers are exposed to lead fumes from lead wicks in candles and the lead dust generated by those fumes. A re-striction should - in principle - eliminate this risk completely.

To the best of knowledge a community wide approach may benefit all stake-holders in all Member States of the EU apart from those companies importing and selling candles with lead wicks on the European market.

Environmental and health impacts of lead and substitutes

Business impacts of restrictions on lead.

Relevance of a community wide ap-proach


19

.

2 Potential environmental and health impact of the use of lead in shot and sinkers

Potential environmental and health impact of the use of lead in shot and sinkers is shortly reviewed in the following. At the moment a risk assessment of lead financed by the industry is undertaken by Lead Development Association In-ternational (LDAI). In a comprehensive risk assessment the actual and pro-jected exposure of man and organisms in the environment is compared against the observed effect levels. It has been beyond the scope of the current study to undertake a risk assessment.

2.1 Environmental impact The environmental issues related to the use of lead shot and fishing sinkers can roughly be divided into three aspects:

� Poisoning of waterfowl and other birds by ingestion of split-shot and small sinkers;

� Secondary poisoning of raptors; � Short-term and long-term effects of dissolved lead on the biota.

2.1.1 Effects on waterfowl and other birds by direct ingestion Waterbirds Metallic lead is highly toxic to birds when given as lead shot; ingestion of a

single pellet of lead shot can be fatal for some birds. Lead shot is typically trapped in the gizzard of birds where it is slowly ground down resulting in the release of lead, which causes severe lead contamination: in organs, high levels of lead are found in blood, kidney, liver and bone [WHO 1989]. The sensitivity varies between species and is dependent on the diet. Since birds have been found in the wild with large numbers of lead shot in the gizzard, this poses a major hazard to those species feeding on river margins and in fields where many shot have accumulated [WHO 1989].

Lead shot ingestion and poisoning of waterfowl has now been documented in at least 21 countries, including Canada, Australia, Great Britain, France, Spain, The Netherlands, Japan, and the United States (referred in [Beintema 2001]. Mortality of waterfowl from lead shot ingestion becomes manifest either as large-scale die-offs or as less conspicuous, day-to-day mortality. Many in-stances of die-offs have been recorded in the United States and Canada. Al-though spectacular cases of mortality have drawn public attention to the issue of lead poisoning, these occasions are probably less important than the largely invisible losses of small numbers of birds on a daily basis. Sick and dying birds generally become increasingly reclusive [Beintema 2001]. The effects of lead shot on waterfowl is the direct background for article 4.1.4 under the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) that states that Parties shall endeavour to phase out the use of lead shot for hunting in wetlands by the year 2000.


20

.

Besides lead shot, waterfowl are also ingesting small sinkers. Because sinkers are generally much larger than shot pellets, a single lead sinker may induce acute poisoning. In an American study on the causes of mortality of 600 loons showed that fishing lures was responsible for about 10% of the deaths. The loons most often ingested weights of 1/4 - 1 ounce (28.35 g). The types of lures recovered from the loons could be split into sinkers (40%), split shot (16%), jigs (16%), pellets (2%), shot (2%) and miscellaneous (6%) [Tufts 2004].

Birds in the terrestrial system may also be exposed to spent lead shot. Evidence exist that upland birds, particularly mouring doves (Zenaida macroura) ingest spent lead shot [Kendall et al. 1996]. A review of the scientific data and an eco-logical risk assessment was performed by [Kendall et al. 1996]. The risk as-sessment did not clearly define a significant risk of lead exposure to upland game birds. However, Locke and Friend 1992 (as cited by [Scheuhammer and Norris 1995]) conclude that "lead poisoning has been documented in a suffi-ciently wide variety of birds to consider all birds as being susceptible to intoxi-cation after ingesting and retaining lead shot".

2.1.2 Secondary poisoning Secondary lead shot poisoning can occur when a predator or scavenger

consumes animals that have been shot with lead shot ammunition and conse-quently carry lead shot pellets embedded in their bodies, or consumes the giz-zard of a bird that has ingested lead shot. Research done in various countries over the past 5�10 years has demonstrated that secondary poisoning, particu-larly of raptors such as Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), is a significant source of mortality in many places. In the United States and in Canada, for ex-ample, secondary lead poisoning accounts for 10-15% of the recorded post-fledging Bald Eagle mortality. Similar facts have now been documented in many locations in Europe and North America in various other raptor species as well, including Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), Northern Goshawks (Ac-cipiter gentilis), Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus), White-tailed Eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) and European Sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus). Many free-living raptor species for which secondary poisoning has not yet been documented nevertheless risk this type of poisoning as a direct consequence of their preferred feeding habits. Also, sublethal lead exposure contributes to mor-tality from other causes. ([Beintema 2001] - whole paragraph)

2.1.3 Effects of dissolved lead on the biota Besides the effects on birds and raptors in general no reported environmental effects has been ascribed to poisoning by lead from shot and sinkers. It can based on the present knowledge, however, not be excluded that some harmful effects could arise from the occurrence of lead in soil and water; in particular in combination with the effects of other chemical substances or other stress fac-tors. Of particular concern is clay target shooting ranges in which significant quantities of lead is deposited.

Terrestrial birds


21

.

When metallic lead in the form of spent shot is exposed to air or water, lead oxides, carbonates and other compounds are produced by weathering of the pel-lets. Analyses of spent lead shot pellets collected from target shooting ranges in Canada and Denmark have shown pellets to be visibly corroded and covered with a crust of white, grey or brown material [Scheuhammer and Norris 1995]. The rates of erosion, oxidation, and dissolution of metallic lead pellets in the environment depend on various physical and chemical factors. Aerobic, acidic conditions enhance the rate of pellet breakdown, whereas anaerobic, alkaline conditions decrease it. Physical factors such as high water flow rates, soils or sediments dominated by the presence of coarse sand or gravel, and frequent disturbance of contaminated soils all serve to enhance the rate of lead pellet breakdown. Dependent on chemical and mechanical conditions the shot pellets will be totally corroded within tens to hundreds of years. This process can re-sult in local lead concentrations in soils and water far in excess of normal con-centrations, which can form a risk factor for all trophic levels: lead transferred to soil and sediment invertebrates and terrestrial and aquatic plants will ulti-mately affect entire food webs [Beintema 2001]. High local concentrations are mainly associated with shooting ranges with a high load of lead.

Lead is in general not very mobile in soil. Soil pH, content of humic acids, and amount of organic matter influences the content and mobility of lead in soils. Only a very small portion of the lead in soil is present in the soil solution, which is the immediate source for lead for plant roots, but soil acidification will lead to increased mobility and bioavailability of lead. More acid conditions (lower pH) not only increase the solubility of lead, but also other heavy metals. In Europe major differences exist among regions as to soil acidity. In the north-ern Member States like Denmark, Sweden and Finland the soil in general have lower pH than in Member States with soils with a high alkalinity like France and the U.K. [Hansen et al. 2002]. This result in regional differences in heavy metals mobility in soils and influences the assessments of the environmental impact of heavy metal load to soil.

Due to the binding capacity of the soil minerals and humus, groundwater usu-ally contains very low concentrations of lead, and the diffusion of lead from and the top soil layers to the groundwater must be expected to be a relatively slow process. This again results in that lead added to the top soil layers, e.g. as lead shot, generally will accumulate in the top soil layer.

The significance of this accumulation depends on the actual load of lead to the soil as well as the content of lead already present. This issue in particular re-lates to ammunition (reference is made to section 3.7.2).

The tendency of inorganic lead, to form highly insoluble salts and complexes with various anions together with its tight binding to soils, drastically reduces its availability to terrestrial plants via the roots. Lead is taken up by terrestrial plants through the roots and to a lesser extent through the shoots [WHO 1989].

According to [Davies and Thornton 1989] a positive linear relationship exists between lead concentrations in plant and soil for a wide range of uncontami-nated and contaminated soils. At higher soil lead levels, however, plant uptake

Fate of lead shot and sinkers in soil

Effects in the ter-restric environment


22

.

has been found to decline with increasing soil lead concentrations and a curvi-linear relationship has been reported [Davies and Thornton 1989].

Translocation of the ion in plants is limited and most bound lead stays at root or leaf surfaces. As a result, in most experimental studies on lead toxicity, high lead concentrations in the range of 100 to 1,000 mg/kg soil are needed to cause visible toxic effects on photo synthesis, growth, or other parameters. Thus, lead is only likely to affect plants at sites with very high environmental concentra-tions [WHO 1989].

Ingestion of lead-contaminated bacteria and fungi by nematodes leads to im-paired reproduction. Caterpillars that are maintained on a diet containing lead salts show symptoms of toxicity leading to impaired development and repro-duction. The information available is too meagre to quantify the risks to inver-tebrates during the decomposition of lead-contaminated litter [WHO 1989].

Effects on micro-organisms are reported from soil lead concentrations down to 10 mg/kg, but for most organisms effects starts at 50-100 mg/kg [Scott-Fordsmand et al 1995].

Lead in the aquatic environment is strongly adsorbed onto sediment and soil particles reducing its availability to organisms. Because of the low solubility of most of its salts, lead tends to precipitate out of complex solutions.

Lead lost as shot and sinkers is in metallic form and, contrary to lead from at-mospheric deposition and waste water, not readily available to organisms. Over time the lead can be dissolved - probably e.g. as lead oxides - and therefore be available, but the extent and rate at which this occurs are not known in detail.

The fate of lead shot and sinkers in the aquatic environments is highly depend-ent on the chemistry of the water and mechanical disturbances. Highest corro-sion rates are expected in rivers with acidic water and high velocity whereas low rates are expected in sedimentation areas in the marine environment. Rela-tively high corrosion rates of about 1% per year have e.g. been demonstrated on lead sinkers in Swedish rivers (pH 6.3-6.7) with a high velocity [Jacks & By-stöm 1995]. The study does not demonstrate to what extent the sinkers contrib-ute to the lead concentration of the river water. Lakes may be considered sinks in which the sinkers accumulate in the anoxic part of the sediment.

In the marine environment lead sinkers in the wave zone and sinkers fixed to e.g. pound nets on low water is highly exposed to wear whereas the sinkers lost in sedimentation zones must be expected to move into the anoxic part of the sediment in which the corrosion is extremely slow.

Lead will tend to accumulate in the anoxic zones of the sedimentation areas - probably e.g. as lead sulphides - and over time be buried and not be available for the bottom living biota. It means that the sediments act like a sink for the lead. At that point the fate of lead in the aquatic environment differs signifi-cantly from the fate of lead in soil. In the soil (or more widely in the terrestrial environment) the lead will accumulate and for hundreds or thousands of years

Fate of lead shot and sinkers in the aquatic environments


23

.

be available for the biota or be released to surface waters or ground water re-sources.

Lead dissolved in water can be taken up by the organisms and some organisms can concentrate lead compared to their surroundings, but magnification of lead through the food chains (bio magnification) have not been reported.

The following information has largely been extracted from [WHO 1989] unless otherwise indicated.

Lead is unlikely to affect aquatic plants at levels that might be found in the general environment.

In communities of aquatic invertebrates, some populations are more sensitive than others and community structure may be adversely affected by lead con-tamination. However, populations of invertebrates from polluted areas can show more tolerance to lead than those from non-polluted areas. In other aquatic invertebrates, adaptation to low oxygen conditions can be hindered by high lead concentrations. Young stages of fish are more susceptible to lead than adults or eggs. Typical symptoms of lead toxicity include spinal deformity and blackening of the tail region. The maximum acceptable toxicant limit for solu-ble species of inorganic lead has been determined for several species under dif-ferent conditions and results ranging from 0.04 mg/litre to 0.198 mg/litre. Or-ganic compounds are more toxic to fish than inorganic lead salts. There is evi-dence that frog and toad eggs are sensitive to nominal lead concentrations of less than 1.0 mg/litre in standing water and 0.04 mg/litre in flow-through sys-tems; arrested development and delayed hatching have been observed. For adult frogs, there are no significant effects below 5 mg/litre in aqueous solution, but lead in the diet at 10 mg/kg food has some biochemical effects.

Fish eggs show increasing lead levels with increased exposure concentration, and there are indications that lead is present on the egg surface but not accumu-lated in the embryo. In contrast to inorganic lead compounds, tetra alkyl-lead is rapidly taken up by fish and rapidly eliminated after the end of the exposure.

In communities of aquatic invertebrates, some populations are more sensitive than others and community structure may be adversely affected by lead con-tamination. However, populations of invertebrates from polluted areas can show more tolerance to lead than those from non-polluted areas. In other aquatic invertebrates, adaptation to hypoxic conditions can be hindered by high lead concentrations.

Young stages of fish are more susceptible to lead than adults or eggs. Typical symptoms of lead toxicity include spinal deformity and blackening of the cau-dal region. The maximum acceptable toxicant limit (MATC) for inorganic lead has been determined for several species under different conditions and results range from 0.04 mg/litre to 0.198 mg/litre. The acute toxicity of lead is highly dependent on the presence of other ions in solution, and the measurement of dissolved lead in toxicity tests is essential for a realistic result. Organic com-pounds are more toxic to fish than inorganic lead salts.

Effects of lead in the aquatic environment


24

.

There is evidence that frog and toad eggs are sensitive to nominal lead concen-trations of less than 1.0 mg/litre in standing water and 0.04 mg/litre in flow-through systems; arrested development and delayed hatching have been ob-served. For adult frogs, there are no significant effects below 5 mg/litre in aqueous solution, but lead in the diet at 10 mg/kg food has some biochemical effects.

2.2 Health impact Human health issues related to the use lead in shot and sinkers can be divided into two aspects:

� Secondary poisoning by consumption of game; � Effects of a general increase of lead in the environment.

In humans, lead can result in a wide range of biological effects depending upon the level and duration of exposure. Effects may range from inhibition of en-zymes to the production of marked morphological changes and death. Such changes occur over a broad range of doses. For neurological, metabolic and be-havioral reasons, children are more vulnerable to the effects of lead than adults. Signs of serious lead intoxication include paralysis of the hands, anaemia, wast-ing of the upper chest muscles, weakness in limbs, and neurological signs

Of particular concern for the general population is the effect of lead on the cen-tral nervous system. Epidemiological studies suggest that low level exposure of the foetus and developing child may lead to reprotoxic effects, i.e. damage to the learning capacity and the neuropsychological development. Studies of chil-dren indicate a correlation between higher lead contents in the blood and a lower IQ. Slowing of nerve conduction velocity has been found at low lead blood levels. Impairment of psychological and neurobehavioral functions has also been found after long-term lead exposure of workers.

WHO has established a PTWI (Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake) value for lead of 25 µg/kg bodyweight for both adults and children [WHO 1995]. The PTWI represents the average weekly intake of lead considered to be safe over a lifetime of exposure.

Lead in petrol Organic lead is more bioavailable and toxic than inorganic lead. The primary source of organic lead, and the primary source of the exposure of the general population, has been leaded petrol which is now phased out from the market in the EU.

Lead shot in game According to [Beintema 2001] and [Scheuhammer and Norris 1995] lead poisoning in waterfowl and other game animals can form a health risk to hu-mans. Consumption of game killed with lead shot can result in lead exposure and intoxication. This can happen either through ingestion of tissues from lead-exposed or lead-poisoned animals that have biologically accumulated higher than normal concentrations of lead, or through ingestion of tissues containing fragments of metallic lead or lead shot pellets themselves.

Effect of lead


25

.

While lead concentrations in muscle tissue of wildfowl are generally considered harmless to human health when not exceeding 0.5 mg/kg, scientists from Canadian Wildlife Service scientists observed that 15% of 227 breast muscle samples from waterfowl killed with lead shot contained lead at concen-trations higher than 0.5 mg/kg. Lead concentrations in these muscle samples ranged as high as 759 mg/kg [Scheuhammer and Norris 1995].

Increased lead exposure and intoxication in humans can also occur as a result from retention of lead shot pellets, most often in the appendix. A Danish study [Madsen et al 1988] quoted by [Scheuhammer and Norris 1995] reports in-creased blood level concentrations for persons having 1 or 2 lead shot in their appendices compared to a control group without shot retention (11.4 and 6.0 µg/dL, respectively). In Canada, one study [Reddy 1985] quoted by [Scheu-hammer and Norris 1995] reported that 62 patients seen in a Newfoundland hospital had from 1 to over 200 retained lead shot in their appendices. [Hillman 1967] quoted by [Scheuhammer and Norris 1995] discussed a woman having signs of serious lead intoxication prior to the discovery of more than a dozen lead shot pellets in her appendix, which was subsequently removed, leading to the gradually recovery of the patient over the cause of a year.

Lead in food In the general non-smoking adult population, the major exposure pathway for lead today is from food and water. The question is to what extent increased lead concentration in the terrestric and aquatic environments (e.g. by accumulation of spread lead shot) may increase the exposure to lead from food.

In foods, lead may originate from atmospheric dust deposition on fruits, vege-tables grains and contamination via environmental origin of meat, seafood or fishes. Lead is present on plant surfaces as a result of atmospheric deposition. Traditionally the major source of lead on plant surfaces has been lead in the air originating from the use of leaded gasoline. Biological uptake from the soil or leaves may also occur as indicated by the presence of lead in internal tissues. However, a reduced atmospheric deposition will in the shorter time perspective be more significant than an increasing content of lead in soil. From the positive relationship between lead concentrations in plant and soil mentioned in section 2.1.3 follows that increasing content of lead in agricultural soils by time may lead to increasing content of lead in plants used for food.

Lead is not biomagnified in terrestrial and aquatic food chains. Biomagnifica-tion seems limited to phytoplancton or to filtering organisms such as mussels or oysters. In aquatic organisms, more lead is found in benthic organisms and al-gae than in upper trophic level predators.

Concern about the potential environmental and health effects of a general in-crease of the lead concentration in the environment is one of the drivers behind the Danish ban on lead trade [Brønnum and Hansen 1998]. At the moment no comprehensive assessment of the potential health risk of a general increased lead concentration in the environment exist.

A particular problem concerns children's intake of lead from soil and dust. For infants and young children lead in dust and soil often constitutes a major expo-

Lead intake from soil and dust


26

.

sure pathway and this exposure has been one of the main concerns as to the ex-posure of the general population. The intake of lead will be influenced by the age and behavioural characteristics of the child and the bioavailability of lead in the source material. It is, however, not likely that shot and sinkers in general will be used in areas, where children in present, and thus not likely that lead in shot and sinkers will add significantly to the lead content of soil and dust taken in by children.


27

.

3 Ammunition

3.1 Application of lead in cartridges Application Cartridges containing lead can be divided in:

� Lead shot; � Airgun pellets; � Bullets.

The application of these types of cartridges may be briefly presented as follows.

Shot is used in particular for hunting and competition. The same applies to bul-lets, for which military purposes, however, also is an important application. Pellets are used primarily for amusement and competition, but in a few coun-tries also for hunting. Pellets are not indicated separately in the EU statistics on production, import and export of cartridges, but are registered together with shotgun cartridges (reference is made to Annex 3).

Information on the use of lead for production of shot and ammunition in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K. is shown in Table 3.1 and illus-trated in Figure 3.1. Lead is formed into spherical lead shot to be used as am-munition, or added to certain steel alloys to improve the steel machinability (steelmaking shot). According to [OECD 1993] shot for steel alloys in 1990 accounted for 20% of the total used for ammunition and shot with a declining trend. Is has not been possible to obtain specific data on lead use in the other EU countries. As indicated the market of lead for production of shot and am-munition in the EU should be considered rather stable. The total consumption of lead for ammunitions manufacturing in EU15 including all countries is in table 2.8 estimated at approximately 53,000 tonnes/year (average of 2000-2003).

Table 3.1 Consumption of lead for production of shot and ammunition in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. 1993-2001[ILZSG 2004]

Consumption (1000 t)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

France 7.0 7.9 8.0 6.5 8.0 7.0 7.5 7.3 7.0 7.0

Germany 11.9 13.2 14.4 14.7 14. 14.6 13.6 13.4 13.3 13.3

Italy 19.1 23.5 21.9 23.7 23.6 24.6 26.4 23.1 21.6 16.3

Spain 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

UnitedKingdom 3.2 3.5 3.5 5.5 5.2 5.3 5.6 5.3 6.5 5.7

Total 5 countries 45.7 52.6 51.8 55.4 55.8 56.5 58.6 54.6 53.9 47.8

Consumption of lead


28

.

Figure 3.1 Consumption of lead for production of shot and ammunition in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. 1993-2001

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Lead

con

sum

ptio

n (t/

year

) UKSpainItalyGermanyFrance

3.2 Markets of cartridges

3.2.1 Available information The statistical data available for the EU regarding production, export and im-port of ammunition by Member States is presented in Annex 3 (table A3.1-A3.17). The data does not indicate the amount of lead used in production of sporting and hunting ammunition or the amount of lead consumed by sports shooters and hunters.

It is noted that the PRODCOM commodity code 29.60.14.30 (reference is made to table A3.1) records "production, import and export of cartridges and parts hereof for shotguns, revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and military firearms, slugs, pellets and darts". The fact that this database includes ammunition for military firearms implies that the database is not an appropriate source of in-formation, as the share of military to civilian ammunitions production is not known. Furthermore, the commodity code is too aggregated to be of any use in this respect.

No other statistical data directly covering these issues seems to be available.

The Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition (AFEMS) - reference is made to section 3.2.4 - has been contacted and has kindly provided a significant part of the information presented and utilised in the following sections inclusive figures on the total consumption of ammuni-tion for sporting and hunting in Europe. However, the Association has not been able to provide information on the amount of lead used and the number of car-tridges produced by the individual members of the Association as this informa-tion is considered confidential. As the Association among its members includes the dominant part of European manufacturers of ammunition - the list of mem-bers is presented in table 3.10 while the estimated coverage of manufacturing activities in Europe is indicated in table 3.11 - it has been deemed as not realis-

No detailed records available


29

.

tic to obtain figures on the consumption and production of lead ammunition for sporting and hunting in the various Member States by direct contact to industry.

In stead the choice has been made to estimate these data indirectly based on the total number of cartridges used in the EU, the number of hunters and shooters registered in each country and the content of lead in cartridges combined with statistical information on import and export of lead data to the individual coun-tries.

3.2.2 Lead consumption by shooters and hunters The Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition (AFEMS) has provided aggregate data on the annual consumption of ammuni-tion in the EU15 area. These data that is assumed to describe the consumption pattern about 2003 have been summarised in the table below.

Table 3.2 Number of cartridges/rounds consumed by sports shooters and hunters in the EU15 area annually [AFEMS 2004a]

Cartridge type Shooters Hunters

Shotgun 1) 640,000,000 560,000,000

Rim fire 500,000,000 0

Centre fire rifle 33,000,000 22,000,000

Pistol/revolver 178,200,000 0

Total cartridges 1,351,000,000 582,000,000

Air gun pellets 2,400,000,000 0

1) According to AFEMS hunters and shooters consume an equal amount of shotgun car-tridges annually. Some 6% of the total consumption is based on substitute metals (non-lead alternatives), and it is assumed that these 6% are used entirely by hunters. Hence the difference between hunters and shooters for this particular item.

According to the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) [ISSF 2004b] rules for skeet and trap shooting the lead content of a cartridge used for interna-tional competitions must not exceed 24 grams. A survey of European manufac-turers however indicates that gauge 12 cartridges (the most commonly used shotgun calibre) is widely marketed in 28 grams and 32 grams versions as well, with the 28 grams version being the most strongly marketed. The metal used for this purpose may contain 95%-100% lead, as certain hardeners are some-times added (up to 5% antimony or similar). 26 grams as an average is the AFEMS estimate [AFEMS 2004a].

Shotgun cartridges used for hunting normally contains relatively more lead, although the variation in the marketed products is considerably higher as com-pared to sports shooting cartridges. For gauge 12 the lead content ranges roughly between 25 grams up to 50 grams or even more, as hunting cartridges tend to be marketed for dedicated purposes (different kinds of game). 32 grams as an average for all hunting shotgun cartridges is the AFEMS estimate [AFEMS 2004a].

Aggregate consump-tion

Lead content, shot-gun cartridges


30

.

Rim fire cartridges are, according to [AFEMS 2004a], only used for sporting purposes and mainly cover ammunition for calibre .22 (5.6 mm) guns. Accord-ing to ISSF rules, rim fire calibre .22 ammunition is used within the disciplines of rapid fire pistol, 25 m pistol and standard pistol, 50 m pistol and 50 m rifle (including running target).

A survey of European manufacturers indicates that the weight of the bullet of a calibre .22 cartridge generally ranges between 30 and 40 grains1. The AFEMS estimate [AFEMS 2004a] of the lead content of an average rim fire cartridge is 2.4 grams.

Centre fire rifle cartridges for sports shooting are used in the ISSF-discipline of 300 m rifle (calibres of up to 8 mm)

The AFEMS estimate [AFEMS 2004a] of the average lead content of a car-tridge in this category is 7 grams (125-185 grains) and is based on weight dis-tributions of 6.5 mm, 7.65 mm and WIN 308 rifle cartridges. A similar estimate is made for centre fire cartridges used for hunting.

Cartridges for pistol and revolver are according to AFEMS almost entirely used for sporting purposes. The relevant ISSF-discipline is centre fire pistol (calibres between 7.62 and 9.65 mm)

The category may, however, also cover a number of shooting disciplines that are not Olympic disciplines. Furthermore, most ISSF pistol disciplines uses .22 rim fire ammunition (described above) and it is therefore for practical reasons assumed that consumption for these purposes is covered separately under the rim fire cartridge category. The AFEMS estimate [AFEMS 2004a] of the aver-age lead content of a cartridge within the pistol/revolver category is 7 grams.

Table 3.3 Estimated lead content of an average cartridge [AFEMS 2004a]

Cartridge type (user type) Lead content (grams) per cartridge

Shotgun (shooting) 26

Shotgun (hunting) 32

Rim fire (shooting) 2.4

Centre fire rifle (shooting) 7

Centre fire rifle (hunting) 7

Pistol/revolver (shooting) 7

Air gun pellets (shooting) 0.5

Air gun pellets are according to AFEMS used solely for sports shooting, and covers various sports disciplines. The prevailing calibre is .177, and a market survey indicates that pellets for this calibre ranges between 5 and 10 grains. Hence the AFEMS estimate [AFEMS 2004a]of the lead content is 0.5 grams

1 1 grain (gr) = 0.00006479891 kilogram (kg) according to [EX 2004]

Lead content, rim fire cartridges

Lead content, centre fire cartridges

Lead content, pis-tol/revolver car-tridges

Lead content, air gun pellets


31

.

per pellet. It may be noted that air gun pellets according to [Lecocq 2004] to some extent also is used for hunting, in particular, in the UK. However, as the quantity used for hunting cannot be quantified and likely is small, the choice is made in this study to assume that air gun pellets only are used for sports shoot-ing. The estimates are summarised in table 3.3 above.

The number of ammunition users (sports shooters and hunters) has been quoted from an inventory prepared in 1995 (see table 3.4 below).

Table 3.4 Estimated number of shooters and hunters in the EU15 area and in se-lected new Member States (1995)

Shooters Hunters

Austria 60,000 110,000

Belgium 25,000 29,000

Denmark 1) 50,000 177,000

Finland 40,000 300,000

France 150,000 1,650,000

Germany 1,450,000 326,000

Greece 7,000 293,000

Italy 40,000 925,000

Ireland 2) 10,000 120,000

Luxembourg 4,000 2,200

Netherlands 33,000 33,500

Portugal 13,500 300,000

Spain 100,000 1,000,000

Sweden 70,000 320,000

UK 550,000 625,000

EU15 total 2,602,500 6,210,700

Hungary 2,000 50,000

Lithuania 10,000 27,000

Poland 20,000 107,000

Source [AFEMS 2004a] quoting 1995 data from the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE) and European Shooting Confederation (ESC); [Rinkevicius 2004; Andruszkiewicz et al 2004; Varkonyi 2004 ]

1) According to the original 1995 ESC inventory of shooters, no shooters are registered in Denmark and Ireland. Number of shooters in Denmark is therefore based on information from [Danmarks Skytteunion 2004]. It has not been possible to obtain similar information for Ireland, so the number of shooters is estimated (very roughly) based on the number of inhabitants (3.9 million).

The consumption of lead for EU15 in total as well as the individual Member States is estimated in table 3.5 based on the data presented in table 3.2 - 3.4. The total consumption for EU15 for each type of cartridge is calculated by combining table 3.2 and table 3.3, while the distribution on the Member States finally is calculated by distributing the totals on the Member States according to the estimated number of shooters and hunters. As this distribution assumes

Number of users

Estimated consump-tion of lead


32

.

identical use patters for shooters and hunters across countries - an assumption that is probably not correct - the figures for Member States should be regarded as less reliable than the figures for EU15 in total.

Table 3.5 Estimated consumption of lead about 2003 in ammunition for sports shooting and hunting in EU15 and selected new Member States, all numbers indicated in tonnes

Shotgun

shooting

Shotgun

hunting

Rim

fire shooting

Centre fire

shooting

Centre fire

hunting

Pistol shoot-

ing

Air gun

shooting

To

tal 4)

Austria 384 343 28 5 3 29 28 800

Belgium 2) 160 72 12 2 1 12 12 250

Denmark 1) 320 0 23 4 4 24 23 400

Finland 2) 256 749 18 4 7 19 18 1,100

France 959 5,146 69 13 41 72 69 6,400

Germany 9,271 1,017 669 129 8 695 669 12,500

Greece 45 914 3 1 7 3 3 1,000

Ireland 64 374 5 1 3 5 5 450

Italy 256 2,885 18 4 23 19 18 3,200

Luxembourg 26 7 2 0 0 2 2 50

Netherlands 1) 211 0 15 3 1 16 15 250

Portugal 86 936 6 1 7 6 6 1,000

Spain 639 3,119 46 9 25 48 46 3,900

Sweden 2) 448 798 32 6 8 34 32 1,400

UK 2) 3,517 1,560 254 49 15 264 254 5,900

EU15 total 16,640 17,920 1,200 231 154 1,247 1,200 38,600

Hungary 3) 13 156 1 0 1 1 1 150

Lithuania 3) 64 84 5 1 1 5 5 150

Poland 3) 128 334 9 2 3 10 9 500

Source Own calculations - reference is made to the text

1) Denmark and the Netherlands have applied full ban on the use of lead containing shotgun ammunition for hunting since mid 90'ies, and consumption of lead for shotgun hunting therefore has been set at 0 for these two countries.

2) A number of countries apply a partial ban on the use of lead containing shotgun ammuni-tion for hunting (wetlands areas, national reserves or other especially dedicated areas). In-formation on this has been provided through the questionnaires. For these countries it has therefore been estimated that the consumption of lead is some 20% lower than average EU level.

3) Consumption of lead for sports shooting and hunting in Hungary, Lithuania and Poland has been estimated assuming use patterns similar to the EU15 average

4) All figures are rounded.

The assessment of the assumption of identical use patterns as probably not cor-rect is based on it is likely for example that certain sporting disciplines are more popular in some countries as compared to other countries. Hunting tradi-


33

.

tions may also differ quite substantially from one country to the other. National and regional variations in use patterns throughout Europe have thus not been accounted for, as no information on this topic has been available.

Despite these limitations the estimated figures for the Members States still indi-cate a likely order of magnitude of the consumption in each country. It may be noted that AFEMS deems the consumption figure for Germany as to high which may be caused by that most of the registered sports shooters in Germany actually are air gun shooters [AFEMS 2004a].

3.2.3 Lead consumption by ammunitions manufacturing Model calculations In lack of direct data from the industry on the amount of lead used for

manufacturing of ammunition the choice has been made to estimate these fig-ures based on the figures estimated in table 3.5 for consumption of lead in EU15 in total and in the Member States combined with statistical data from the EU COMEXT database on export and import to and from the Member States (reference is made to Annex 3).

Basically, the amount of lead used in domestic ammunitions manufacturing can be estimated using the following equation:

[Consumption for manufacturing] = [domestic consumption by users] + [export (intra+extra EU)] - [import (intra+extra EU)].

COMEXT data The relevant COMEXT nomenclature for civilian ammunitions manufacturing includes three separate listings:

� 9306 21 00: Cartridges for smooth-barrelled shotguns including air gun pellets;

� 9306 30 91: Centre fire cartridges; � 9306 30 93: Rim fire cartridges.

Table 3.6 Transition from AFEMS to general COMEXT nomenclature

AFEMS nomenclature Corresponding nomenclature of COMEXT Weight distribution, lead component to overall cartridge 1)

Shotgun, shooters Smooth-barrelled shotguns and air gun pellets 72.50%

Shotgun, hunters Smooth-barrelled shotguns and air gun pellets 72.50%

Air gun pellets Smooth-barrelled shotguns and air gun pellets 100.00%

Centre fire, shooting Centre fire 70.00%

Centre fire, hunting Centre fire 70.00%

Pistol/revolver shooting Centre fire 65.00%

Rim fire shooting Rim fire 70.00%

1) [AFEMS 2004a]


34

.

As the calculations use the estimated consumption by users as its basis, it is necessary to harmonise the classification schemes of the AFEMS nomenclature (see Table 3.2) and the relevant COMEXT nomenclature. Table 3.6 above out-lines the correspondence between the two systems that has been applied in the subsequent calculations.

Weight components The COMEXT databases provide data in tonnes import/export of the relevant items. The weights applied under this system, however, incorporates the weight of the complete, finished product (the cartridge) including packaging. The weight component of the lead content in an average cartridge relative to the weight of the entire cartridge has been provided by AFEMS and is indicated in the right-most column in the table above.

This information has been combined so as to yield a weighted average of the lead contents in the import/export figures recorded in the COMEXT database. A further 5% deduction has been made for the additional weight of the packag-ing.

Table 3.7 Estimated relative weight of lead content in items covered by the rele-vant COMEXT classifications

EU nomenclature Estimated lead to cartridge distribution 1)

Adjusted incl. 5% packaging

Smooth barrelled shotguns and air gun pellets (9306 21 00)

73.38% 69.71%

Centre fire (9306 30 91) 66.53% 63.20%

Rim fire (9306 30 93) 70.00% 66.50%

1) The distribution is based on the weight distribution for cartridges indicated in table 3.6 weighted according to the calculated consumption patterns in EU15 stated in table 3.5.

The COMEXT database classification on cartridges for smooth-barrelled shot-guns and air gun pellets includes lead as well as non-lead shot. According to AFEMS, some 6% of the shotgun ammunition used in the EU is based on a non-lead alternative [AFEMS 2004a]. It has been assumed that the same rela-tive share can be applied to the import/export figures (the part, which specifi-cally covers shotgun ammunition for hunting), and the COMEXT data has been adjusted accordingly.

Furthermore, from the country questionnaires it has been established that two (Denmark and Netherlands) out of the 15 EU countries apply a full ban on lead containing shotgun ammunition for hunting. Similarly, is has been established that another 4 countries (Belgium, Finland, Sweden and UK) applied a partial ban, typically in wetland areas or other areas of particular interest.

It must be assumed that Denmark and Netherlands do not import or export lead containing shotgun ammunition for hunting purposes at all, and similarly that Hungary, Finland, Sweden and UK import and export an amount of shotgun ammunition for hunting, which is below the EU average. The COMEXT data has been adjusted accordingly.

Adjustments for hunting shotgun ammunition


35

.

The above information and assumptions have been combined so as to yield in overall estimate of the amount of lead used in the 15 EU countries for sports shooting and hunting ammunitions manufacturing. Specifically, two break-downs have been provided as presented in table 3.8 and 3.9.

Table 3.8 Estimated use of lead for ammunitions manufacturing in EU15 and se-lected new Member States, average for 2000-2003, breakdown by COMEXT nomenclature, all figures in tonnes lead per year

Country Shotgun and air gun

Centre fire Rim fire Total 1)

Austria 490 48 24 550 2)

Belgium 311 -26 6 300

Denmark -113 -43 -27 -200 2)

Finland 606 127 51 800

France 5,859 -177 -91 5,600

Germany 10,440 616 776 11,900

Greece 712 9 -7 750

Ireland 195 8 4 200 2)

Italy 13,098 1,097 -24 14,150

Luxembourg 24 -2 -9 0 2)

Netherlands 211 -18 6 200 2)

Portugal 204 1 0 150

Spain 7,901 2,262 4) -2 10,100

Sweden 1,573 48 32 1,700

UK 5,768 318 417 6,500

Total EU15 47,281 4,269 1,156 52,700

Hungary 3) 1,167 3 -3 1,150

Lithuania 3) 134 1 3 100

Poland 3) 397 -21 -8 400

Source Calculated as described in the text

1) Figures are rounded

2) According to AFEMS [AFEMS 2004a] no production are known to take place in Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Luxemburg and the Netherlands. It is thus likely that the calculated fig-ures in reality represents calculation "noise" and statistical "errors" more than actual manu-facturing.

3) Import and export figures for Hungary, Lithuania and Poland to and from countries outside the EU15 area have been estimated based on statistical data available in annex 3.

4) According to AFEMS there is no production in Spain of centre fire ammunition [Grodzki 2004]. The observation must be assumed to be an error based on statistical registration shortcomings.

Similar to the statement made for consumption, it is emphasized that the figures for Member States should be regarded as less reliable than the figures for EU15 in total.

Use of lead for am-munitions manufac-turing


36

.

Calculations like this are naturally subject to calculation "noise" caused by partly incorrect assumptions and statistical "errors" caused by incorrect report-ing from companies to the statistical institutions. No matter the actual cause it is noted that for Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Luxemburg and the Netherlands the calculation results does not correspond with the AFEMS statement that no pro-duction of sporting ammunition is known to take place in these countries [AFEMS 2004a].

Table 3.9 Estimated use of lead for ammunitions manufacturing in EU15 and se-lected new Member States, average for 2000-2003, breakdown by totals for all COMEXT classifications, all figures in tonnes lead per year

Country Total consumption1)

Total export Total import Estimated total production 1)

Austria 800 96 353 550 2)

Belgium 250 1,599 1,577 300

Denmark 400 30 612 -200 2)

Finland 1,100 217 504 800

France 6,400 1,075 1,856 5,600

Germany 12,500 1,223 1,849 11,900

Greece 1,000 54 316 750

Ireland 450 0 248 200 2)

Italy 3,200 11,975 1,022 14,150

Luxembourg 50 1 26 0 2)

Netherlands 250 5 67 200 2)

Portugal 1,000 108 952 150

Spain 3,900 7,053 813 10,100

Sweden 1,400 401 106 1,700

UK 5,900 1,897 1,305 6,500

Total EU15 38,600 25,733 11,606 52,700

Hungary 3) 150 1,116 122 1,150

Lithuania 3) 150 0 26 100

Poland 3) 500 10 136 400

Source Calculated as described in the text

1) Figures are rounded

2) According to AFEMS [AFEMS 2004a] no production are known to take place in Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Luxemburg and the Netherlands. It is thus likely that the calculated fig-ures in reality represents calculation "noise" and statistical errors more than actual manu-facturing.

3) Import and export figures for Hungary, Lithuania and Poland to and from countries outside the EU15 area have been estimated based on statistical data available in annex 3.

No matter the "noise" attached to the calculation results a picture is emerging, which corresponds well to the other data available in e.g. table 3.1, table 3.10 and 3.11:


37

.

! The total consumption of lead for manufacturing of ammunition for shoot-ing and hunting in EU15 comes up to about 50,000 tonnes of lead yearly.

! Shotgun ammunition is the dominant type of shooting and hunting ammuni-tion manufactured and consumed in EU15 (follows from table 3.5 com-bined with table 3.8).

! The dominant countries of manufacturing are Italy and Germany followed by France, Spain and the UK. Italy and Germany seems to the dominant countries of manufacturing regarding shotgun and air gun ammunition. While Germany dominates concerning rim fire ammunition, Spain is seem-ingly a dominant country of manufacturing with respect to centre fire am-munition. However, according to AFEMS there is no production in Spain of centre fire ammunition [Grodzki 2004], and the observation must be as-sumed to be an error based on statistical registration shortcomings. AFEMS informs that on centre fire ammunition the Czech Republic is the major manufacturer in Europe [Grodzki 2004].

! Manufacturing also takes place in countries like Sweden, Finland, Greece and Portugal (confirmed by AFEMS [AFEMS 2004a]) and in Belgium (by the large company of Groupe Herstal, which is not a member of AFEMS [KOMPASS 2004]).

! To the best of knowledge no manufacturing is taking place in Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Luxemburg and the Netherlands [AFEMS 2004a].

3.2.4 Structure of shooting and hunting ammunition industry in Europe

The Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition (AFEMS) represents companies that are somehow engaged in the manufactur-ing of ammunition and related products for sports and hunting purposes in Europe. These companies include:

� Manufacturers of ammunition components (primers, cases, propellants, wads, lead and alternative shot, lead and alternative bullets);

� Manufacturers of ammunition (assembling of components into final car-tridges);

� Manufacturers of machinery used in ammunitions manufacturing (incl. testing equipment);

� Distributors of ammunition and components; � Manufacturers of clay targets.

There are 45 entries in the AFEMS members list, of which some are owned by the same holding/parent companies. 16 of the companies listed are engaged in two or more manufacturing activities (typically manufacturing of selected am-munition components and assembling of the final cartridges). The overall pic-ture is, however, rather complex (see table 3.10 below).

Overview of the European manufac-turing industry

38

.

Table 3.10 AFEMS member list by activities

Name of manufacturer Country

Components

Sho

tgun

Am

mun

i-tio

n lo

ader

s

Bul

lets

am

mun

ition

lo

ader

s

Ma-chin-ery

Dis-tribu-tors

Clay targets

Company turn-over

4)

Number of Employees

4)

pro-pel-lant

primer

bul-lets

wad case lead shot

steel shot

zinc shot

mill. EUR

Browning International BEL X 53 3) 60 3)

Indusys Technologies BEL X ? ?

New Lachaussée BEL X ? 68

P. B. Clermont BEL X 16 123

G&L Calibers CYP x X 22 22

Explosia CZE X ? ?

Sellier&Bellot CZE x x x x x x X 35 3) 1420 3)

Nammo Lapua FIN x x X 23 250

Nastakiekko FIN X ? ?

Eurenco Vihtavuori FIN X ? ?

Cheddite France 2) FRA X X x 36 200

Decathlon FRA X ? ?

Laporte Ball Trap FRA X ? ?

ETS Colombi Sarl FRA X ? 14

MR Equipment FRA X ? ?

Nobelsport S. A. 2) FRA X X ? 190

39

.


Components

Sho

tgun

Am

mun

i-tio

n lo

ader

s

Bul

lets

am

mun

ition

lo

ader

s

Ma-chin-ery

Dis-tribu-tors

Clay targets

Company turn-over

4)

Number of Employees

4)

pro-pel-lant

primer

bul-lets

wad case lead shot

steel shot

zinc shot

mill. EUR

RUAG Ammotec 1) DEU X x X X X ? ?

FROHN DEU X ? 40

GRILLO DEU X ? >1000 3)

Metallwerk Elisenhütte DEU x X X 16 101-250

Metplast GRE X x 11 60

Sotirios Nafpliotis ABEE GRE x x ? ?

Nike-Fiocchi Sporting ammunition HUN x x X x 6 86

Baschieri & Pellagri ITA X X X X 15 86

BSN International ITA X ? ?

Cheddite S.r.I. 2) ITA X x 18 25

Eurotarget ITA X ? ?

Fiocchi Munizioni ITA X x X x x X 56 430

Locatelli ITA X 5 5

Nobelsport Martignoni 2) ITA X x X X x 25 151

STAS ITA X ? ?

Team Italia ITA X ? ?

Norma AS NOR X 6 12

Fabicaca LDA POR x x ? ?

Corsivia SPA X 1.5 10

40

.


Components

Sho

tgun

Am

mun

i-tio

n lo

ader

s

Bul

lets

am

mun

ition

lo

ader

s

Ma-chin-ery

Dis-tribu-tors

Clay targets

Company turn-over

4)

Number of Employees

4)

pro-pel-lant

primer

bul-lets

wad case lead shot

steel shot

zinc shot

mill. EUR

Montorretas SPA X 6 11-20

Nobel Sport Espana 2) SPA X x ? ?

UEE Cartucheria Deportiva SPA X X X X ? ?

Gyttorp SWE X 1 10

Eurenco Bofors SWE X 22 3) 190 3)

Norma Precision AB SWE x X X 17 140

RUAG Ammotec 1) SWI X X X 8 3) 300 3)

CCI International UK X 3-7 21-50

ELEY Limited UK x X X 7-15 101-250

Lyalvale Express UK x X 5-15 21-50

Total number EU15 7 8 7 5 15 8 1 1 16 8 5 8 5

Source: Company list and information on activities is provided by AFEMS [AFEMS 2004a, AFEMS 2004b].

? No data

1) The company RUAG Ammunition in Switzerland is owner by RUAG Ammunition in Germany [AFEMS 2004a].

2) The Nobel companies in Italy, France and Spain together with Cheddite companies in France and Italy are owned by SOFISPORT in France [AFEMS 2004a].

3) The company undertakes many other activities than shooting and hunting ammunition manufacturing and distribution etc.

4) Data from KOMPASS International Business to Business Search Engine [KOMPASS 2004], Turn over in other currencies than � has been converted to � by exchange rates of 30 September 2004.

Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks

41

.

AFEMS represents individual companies rather than national associations. The organisation estimates that about 70% of all shotgun cartridge manufacturers (loaders shotgun) in Europe are members of AFEMS, whereas all bullet car-tridge manufacturers (loaders bullets) are members. Similar information on the component manufacturers have been provided in the table below.

Table 3.11 AFEMS representation of European industry

Percentage of production by AFEMS members to production by total

EU15, %

Specific characteristics to the indus-try sector outside AFEMS

Comp: Propellant 95

Comp: Primer 100

Comp: Wad 60 Typically small family-owned busi-nesses (e.g. Gualandi Italy)

Comp: Lead shot 90

Comp: Steel shot 50

Comp: Zink/bismuth shot

50

Loaders bullets 100

Loaders shotgun 70

Machinery 75

The brands that are known to end users (sport shooters and hunters) are typi-cally the names of the loading companies. The same companies may, however, also be engaged in supplying specific components for other loading companies. Non AFEMS members are normally medium or small companies spread eve-rywhere, in particular in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal, Spain and UK. These companies typically are just loaders and use 100% components produced by AFEMS members [AFEMS 2004a].

Based on table 3.10 and 3.11 the total number of manufacturing companies in Europe dealing with sporting and hunting ammunition should be expected to be in the range of 50 to 100 companies.

3.2.5 Ammunition trade patterns in Europe Cartridges Based on the statistical data presented in annex 3 it can be calculated that there

is a substantial trade with ammunition across borders in Europe. Overall, the import amounts to 21% of total ammunitions production. 17% of production is on average imported from other EU15 member countries. Similarly, 47% of total production is exported, of which 18% (of total production) is exported to other EU15 member countries. The ammunitions market is assessed to be worth of roughly 300 million euros annually (worth of production based on average import/export prices for 2003).

AFEMS representa-tion


42

.

As can be seen from the table 3.12 below, substantial regional variations exist. Italy is by far the largest exporter of shotgun ammunition and Germany is the largest exporter of rim fire ammunition. According to table 3.12 Spain is seem-ingly the most prominent exporter of centre fire ammunition. However, as AFEMS informs that there is no production in Spain of that type of ammunition [Grodzki 2004], the observation must be assumed to be an error based on statis-tical registration shortcomings.

Table 3.12 Import and export (intra and extra EU) measured in tonnes lead used in ammunitions manufacturing, average of 2000-2003

Shotgun and air gun Centre fire Rim fire

export import export import export import

Austria 26 290 54 43 16 20

Belgium 1,406 1,339 85 126 107 112

Denmark 14 470 6 83 10 60

Finland 2 419 125 28 90 57

France 1,059 1,374 6 311 10 171

Germany 613 1,129 223 440 387 280

Greece 54 303 0 2 0 10

Ireland 0 247 0 0 0 1

Italy 10,835 897 1,122 66 17 59

Luxembourg 1 11 0 4 0 11

Netherlands 4 20 0 38 0 9

Portugal 108 932 0 14 0 6

Spain 4,703 606 2,350 1) 158 0 48

Sweden 401 106 0 0 0 0

UK 1,610 1,172 29 39 258 94

Total EU15 20,836 9,315 4,002 1,351 895 939

Hungary 1,100 103 15 14 1 5

Lithuania 0 19 0 5 0 2

Poland 10 84 0 35 0 17

Source COMEXT, adjusted

1) According to AFEMS there is no production in Spain of centre fire ammunition [Grodzki 2004]. The observation must be assumed to be an error based on statistical registration shortcomings.

For a comprehensive picture on the ammunition trade patterns in EU15 refer-ence is made to table A3.12-A3.17 in Annex 3.

AFEMS has informed that there is a widespread trade across borders of ammu-nitions components, although no detailed data in this issue has been provided. This is apparent when browsing websites of manufacturers (cartridge loaders).

Ammunition compo-nents


43

.

3.3 Legal or voluntary use restrictions on lead ammunition

The African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement AEWA, the largest agreement developed so far under the UN Convention of Migratory Species (CMS), came into force on 1 November 1999. According to article 4.1.4 of the agreement 'Parties shall endeavour to phase out the use of lead shot for hunting in wetlands by the year 2000'. Per September 2004 the agreement has entered into force in Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK besides also in Hungary and Slovakia, and has furthermore been signed by EU, Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland and Luxemburg [UNEP 2004].

Information on legal use restrictions on lead shot and other ammunition at na-tional level was collected by a questionnaire to the national environmental au-thorities in all old and new Member States and Candidate Countries. The ques-tionnaire was prepared in English. The questionnaire was addressed to contact persons in the Member States attending the Commission's Working Group on the Limitation of Marketing and Use Directive. For countries without contact persons in the working group, the questionnaire was addressed to the ministries responsible for environmental issues in each country. For countries not answer-ing, questionnaires were further addressed to the ministry responsible for envi-ronmental issues. Twenty-five of the 28 countries answered the questionnaire.

Further information on legal and voluntary use restrictions were collected by questionnaires in English, French and German sent to hunters' associations in 26 old and new Member States and Candidate Countries based on a list of asso-ciations obtained from FACE (Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU). 13 of the associations answered the questionnaire. The combined result of the questionnaires is shown in table 3.13. The survey shows that the use of lead shot in wetlands (or specified sites and species) are regulated by legal instruments in Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Flanders, UK and 7 of 16 federal states of Germany (reference is made to table 3.13). In France the regu-lation is still not in force. Use of lead shot in forests and other terrestrial envi-ronments are or will be regulated in the Flemish region of Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK (specified sites and species) only.

Further a voluntary agreement on the restriction of the use of lead in wetlands has been entered into between the German Deutscher Jagdschutz-Verband e.V. and Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft in 1993. In Slovenia the Slovenian Hunters Association recommends not to use lead shot over wetlands.

Only Denmark and Sweden have a general restriction on the use of lead shot for clay target shooting.

International agree-ments

Use restrictions in old and new Member States

Use restriction on lead-shot for shoot-ing


44

.

Table 3.13 Restrictions on the use of lead-shot for hunting in the EU old and new Member States and Candidate Countries

Legal or voluntary use restrictions (year of entry into force)

Country

Wetlands or waterfowl hunting

Hunting in forests

Other hunting

Type of instrument

Austria no no no

Belgium

- Brussels no no no

- Federal reg. by regions reg. by regions no info *

- Flemish region yes (2003) yes (2008) no info * 1) Decision of the Flemish Government

Cyprus yes (2003) potentially potentially Legislation for Protection and Management of Wild Birds and Game Species. According to the regulation type of shot used in forest and other areas may be specified by the Director of the Game Fund Service

Czech Rep. no no no

Denmark yes (1994) yes (1996) yes (1994) Statutory Order no 41 (1994) and no 39 of Jan 1996

(First regulation: Statutory Order no 784 of Nov 1986)

Estonia no no no

Finland yes (1996) no no Hunting act

France yes (2005) no no Arreté du 21 mars 2002

Germany yes no no Acts in 7 of 16 Federal States) (Jagdgesetze und Verordnungen der Länder)

Voluntary agreement between Deutcher Jagdshutz-Verband e.V. and Bundesministerium für Verbrauchershutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft from 1993

Greece no no no

Hungary yes (2002) no no Parliament Resolution 55/2002 and Law XXXIII of 2003

Ireland no no no

Italy no no no

Latvia partly (in na-ture reserves)

no no Regulations of the Cabinet of the Ministers No 415 of July 22, 2003

Lithuania no no no

Luxembourg no no no

Malta no no no

Netherlands yes (1995) yes (1995) yes (1995) Flora and Fauna Act

Poland no no no

Portugal no no no

Slovakia no no no

Slovenia no / yes no no Slovenian Hunters Association recommend not to use lead shot over wetlands

Spain

Sweden yes (1998) yes (2006) yes (2006) SFS 1998:944


45

.

Legal or voluntary use restrictions (year of entry into force)

Country

Wetlands or waterfowl hunting

Hunting in forests

Other hunting

Type of instrument

UK partly partly partly The Environmental Protection (Restriction of Use of Lead Shot). The regulations detail a site list and species. Any activity on a listed site cannot use lead.

Bulgaria

Romania no no no

Turkey no no no

* "no info" indicated in questionnaire response 1) According to Mr. Lecocq [Lecocq 2004] use of lead shot is restricted in the Flemish region of Bel-gium for other hunting from 2008 parallel to the restrictions for wetlands and forests.

Denmark has a general ban which entered into force in 1994 on the use of lead shot for shooting, with an exception for 10 specified shooting ranges for the Olympic disciplines 'trap', 'double trap', 'skeet' and 'automatic trap'.

Sweden has a ban on the use of lead shot for shooting which entered into force in 2002. Lead shoot may be used until 1 January 2005 for the disciplines 'trap', 'double trap', 'skeet' and 'automatic trap' and until 1 January 2006 for competi-tion in 'jaktstigskytte' (a Swedish training exercise simulating hunting with tar-gets of different sizes on different distances).

The Netherlands In the Netherlands a ban on the use of lead shoot on shooting ranges (clay pigeon shooting) is expected shortly.

The UK has a regulation detailing a site list. Any activity on the listed sites cannot use lead shot, but most shooting ranges are probably outside these sites.

According to the questionnaire response, Poland has some specific regulation on the construction and use of shooting ranges (Regulation of Ministry of Envi-ronment of 4 April 2000 on special requirements concerning construction and use of riffle-ranges in regard to protection of the environment). The question-naire did not include specific questions regarding the regulation of shooting ranges, and other Member States may similarly have requirements as to the construction of shooting ranges.

Sweden is the only country with a use restriction on the use of lead for rifle ammunition entering into force January 1 2008. The regulation concerns rifle cartridges for both hunting and shooting, but lead-containing bullets may be used on shooting ranges if the spent bullets are managed properly from an envi-ronmental and health perspective. In Greece the use of rifles for hunting is ac-cording to Hellenic Hunters Confederation not allowed (questionnaire re-sponse). In Cyprus hunting may be carried out only with shotguns (question-naire response).

Use restriction on lead in rifle car-tridges


46

.

3.4 Rules on hunting and shooting which govern consumers' access to and demand for lead ammunition

Rules of hunting In many Member States specific requirements to the ammunition for hunting of specific game exist. Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Slovenia, Sweden, Hungary and UK have answered the questionnaire that such regulation exist, but regulation may exist in other Member States as well as many countries have left the question blank. The regulation specifies e.g. a specific bullet weight or striking energy. As an example, to illustrate the type of regulation, for hunting moose, red deer, wild boar and brown bear in Estonia the minimum calibre of barrel should be 6.5 mm and minimum weight of bullet 9.0 g.

The requirements first of all concern the weight and striking energy of bullets and by replacement of lead by other metals in the bullets it is critical that the alternative bullets meet these requirements. According to [Lecocq 2004] some Member States - Netherlands, the Flemish region of Belgium - has legally es-tablished legal requirements for the maximum size of shotgun pellets for hunted species. It is not known whether these requirements are critical with respect to the use of non-lead alternatives, such as steel, for which it is recommended to use a larger size shot than for lead (reference is made to section 3.6).

Rules of shooting The European Shooting Confederation (ESC) is the European branch of the global shooters' association, International Sports Shooting Federation (ISSF). The ISSF is responsible for the organisation of official international sports shooting events, such as the world championships and notably the Olympics. The organisation formulates and regulates the rules applied in international sport shooting competitions.

There may be special rules for sport shooting competitions applied in individual countries or even in sub-regional contexts. It must be recognised, however, that the structure of sports shooting is highly hierarchical, as are most other sports. Hence, only the best of competitors at the local level makes it through to the national level; only the best at the national level makes it through to the sub-regional or regional level; only the best at the regional level makes it through to the international level, and only the best of the international competitors makes it through to the Olympics.

Therefore, there are strong incentives for competitors even at lower levels (lo-cal and national levels) to compete under the same rules that are applied for up-per-level competitions. The successful shooter would eventually be competing directly under the ISSF regulations (e.g. the Olympics) and therefore there would be little or no sense in training for these events under other conditions. There are only few countries in which the use of lead ammunition is banned, and in these countries range shooting for competitions is typically specifically exempted in order to maintain the competitiveness of the national sportsmen when training for international competitions.

The rules by the International Shooting Federation [ISSF 2004] requires for all competitions expect 300 m riffle that ammunition are based on lead or similar


47

.

soft material. For 300 m riffle the ammunition may be based on any material that does not imply any danger to the shooters, spectators or range personnel. According to the best of knowledge of ISSF lead bullets is the only ammunition used. Also for 300 m riffle, close to 100% of all bullets used for the last 10 years are based on lead.

Regarding shot or pellets used for clay pigeon competitions this types of am-munition should be made of lead, lead alloy or alternative material decided by the ISSF [ISSF 2004]. In practice only the lead option is used in international competitions. However, in Denmark the use of lead shot is limited to a few shooting ranges. On other shooting ranges in Denmark the alternative accepted is steel [Winther 2004]. As stated in section 3.3, a ban on the use of lead shoot on shooting ranges is expected shortly in the Netherlands.

According to the ISSF, all new ranges may only be constructed with a back-ground created in such a way that a complete collection of lead pellets is guar-anteed. Existing ranges have been modified in order to make it possible to col-lect the lead. In practically all cases where existing ranges have been located in particularly vulnerable areas (wetlands for example) or where modification has not been deemed feasible, facilities have been shut down.

3.5 Available measures to recover used lead ammunition

Measures to recover used lead ammunition are relevant mainly for shooting ranges. Certain measures - e.g. sifting of earth to separate bullets and shot - could in principle be applied to all shooting areas inclusive of hunting areas, but would certainly be considered not economically realistic for almost all areas apart from shooting ranges. For this reason the following presentation is fo-cused on shooting ranges only. In this discussion it is relevant to distinguish between shooting ranges for bullets, i.e. riffle and pistol shooting, and shooting ranges for clay pigeons, i.e. use of shot for trap and skeet shooting.

The measures to recover used lead ammunition may be divided in measures for containment of used ammunition and measures for recovering of lead from the materials in which the have been contained.

Focusing on shooting ranges for bullets containment measures may include (based on [USEPA 2001] and [AFEMS 2002] unless otherwise noted):

� Earthen berms and backstops; � Sand traps; � Steel traps; � Rubber traps.

Earthen banks and backstops are a common kind of bullet stops employed at shooting ranges. The earthen backstop is generally between 5 - 7 meters high with a slope as steep as possible. It may be constructed of any material avail-able free of stones, rocks, debris and other items, that could cause ricochet and

Containment meas-ures - ranges for bul-let shooting


48

.

bullet fragmentation. From time to time it is necessary to remove bullets from the earthen backstop - at least from the top layer - to avoid build up of bullets increasing the risk of ricochet and bullet fragmentation. Bullets may be re-moved by simple sifting of the earth. The earthen backstops may be underlined by a plastic membrane in order to control the extent to which penetrating rain water are contaminated by lead or other bullets materials.

Sand traps are a variation of earthen backstop. A sandbank is placed in front of e.g. a concrete wall behind the shooting targets to allow the bullets to become embedded in the sand. Occasional removal of bullets is required as for the earthen backstop. Again sifting is an appropriate method.

Traps based on wood chips but otherwise similar to sand traps are used by the Danish army. In this case the wood chips is not sifted, but disposed of as haz-ardous waste due to the content of lead dust generated on impact [Fredslund 2004]. Similar generation of lead dust should be expected to occur for earthen backstops and sand traps.

Steel traps are designed so that used bullets are directed into some form of de-celeration chamber and finally into a collection tray/box. Several different de-signs of steel traps are available.

Rubber traps include tight hanging vertical strips of rubber before a solid wall of steel or concrete or shredded rubber granules covered by a solid rubber front placed as a bank in front of a solid wall [Fredslund 2004]. From both types of traps the bullets may be removed by either sifting or centrifugal treatment.

Regarding clay pigeon shooting ranges containment measures include (based on [Ceccarelli & Rosi 2004; Streitberger 2004 ] unless otherwise noted):

� Earthen berms; � Net and similar traps; Earthen berms is a measure introduced primarily in order to reduce the shot fall zone. In Germany soil berms up to about 20 m high are being developed. Such berms can be equipped with large nets placed vertically on top of the berms in order to intercept shot flying over the berms.

In the shot fall zone the single shot will typical remain on the soil surface or close to the surface. However, nets can also be placed horizontally in the shot fall zone to catch shot and prevent them from being mixed with soil. A solid asphalt surface may be used as an alternative to horizontal nets. Generally, a process of developing an environmental friendly design of shooting ranges seems to been initiated.

It may, however, be noted that Danish experience indicates that soil berms on windy places, may cause wind turbulence again causing uncontrolled and un-predictable movements of clay pigeons [Winther 2004].

Containment meas-ures - ranges for clay pigeon shooting


49

.

Recovery measures Measures for recovering of lead includes [USEPA 2001; AFEMS 2002] excavation (or simply raking in case of shooting ranges for clay pigeons) of the contaminated material followed by either:

� Sifting (manually or mechanically); � Vacuuming; � Soil washing.

While manually sifting may be employed for small ranges mechanical sifting using e.g. soil shaking or gravel sizing, machinery may by relevant for larger ranges.

Vacuuming is mainly relevant for clay pigeon ranges.

Soil washing is a technique aimed at separating the sand and gravel fraction from the clay fraction. The soil is mixed with a water-based wash solution and then exposed to either screening or gravity separation techniques.

Which technique to apply depends heavily on the site conditions, soil composi-tion and level of lead deemed acceptable in the cleaned soil or bullet trap mate-rial utilised. The lead colleted (bullet and particles) can be directed to recycling.

The US Army ([Lillie et al 2002]) has summarised their experience regarding lead removal from impact berms on outdoor shooting ranges as follows:

'The cost of removing lead from ranges varies depending on the method used and site conditions. Mining industry technologies such as dry screening, wet screening and acid washing have been shown to be effective in removing lead from range soils and allowing for recycling of the lead. Dry screening costs about US$30 per tonne of soil, but only recovers between 50 percent and 75 percent of the lead. Wet screening costs from US$40 to US$60 per tonne of range soil and recover 74 percent to 95 percent of the lead. Acid washing costs about US$170 per tonne and has a 95 percent recovery rate. A method of last resort is the removal of both the lead and the soil without separating the lead, which means the soil will have to be disposed of as a hazardous waste. This method has no recycling capability, can cost up to US$200 per tonne and is the least preferred method.'

An interesting conclusion of the US Army experiences with lead recovery from berms on outdoor shooting ranges is that considering the costs of lead recovery and soil cleaning, lead-free ammunition e.g. based on tungsten would probably be cheaper than lead ammunition [Lillie et al 2002].

UK experience A calculation of remediation costs related to a clay pigeon shooting range in the UK involving soil washing (only by water) of approx. 28,000 m3 soil and screening of an extra 10,000 m3 soil resulted in unit costs for the soil washing operation of approximately 105� (US$130) per tonne of soil and 50� (US$60) per tonne for the soil screening operation [McAllister 2004]. The calculation is based on an assumed soil density of approximately 2.7 t/m3.

Experience of the US Army


50

.

It is noted by [Streitberger 2004] that contaminated soil from existing shooting ranges may be used for constructing earthen berms when renovating and im-proving ranges, thereby minimizing remediation costs in the first round.

No studies indicating the cost of lead recovery from shooting ranges, using other types of bullet containment than earthen berms, seem to have been pub-lished.

3.6 Availability of substitutes for lead cartridges Several substitutes for lead are available based e.g. on the materials steel, bis-muth, tungsten, tin, copper and zinc/aluminium. Basic characteristics of these substitutes compared to lead are presented below.

3.6.1 Technical issues The substitutes generally available for lead shot for hunting includes steel, bis-muth/tin alloy, pure tin and tungsten mixed with a polymer giving a resulting density of about 10 g/cm3. Other metals and composite materials like zinc and molybdenum/polymer or tungsten/bismuth/polymer have also been developed, but seem so far not to have entered the market significantly. Specifically re-garding zinc shot this type of shot is promoted in e.g. Germany and prohibited in e.g. the Flemish region of Belgium [Lecocq 2004]. Here the choice is made to focus on steel, bismuth/tin alloy, pure tin and tungsten shot.

Steel shot seems to have obtained a position as the dominant substitute for lead shot whereas bismuth-tin and the tungsten alloys/polymer are lacking behind presumably due to the price level.

Table 3.1410 Substitutes for lead in shot - alternative materials and price indication relative to lead of products marketed 1).

Material Density

g/cm3

Hardness

HV (Vickers) 2)

Price of shot relative to lead shot 1)

Lead 11.3 20 100%

Iron/Steel 7.9 100 120%

Bismuth 9.6 - 9.8 20 300-500%

Tungsten al-loy/polymer 3)

~10 - 12.5 ~8 300-1000%

Tin 7.3 15 150-250%

1) [Hartmann 2001; Bjælkehytten 2004] - the price of 1 lead shot cartridge is assumed to be in the range of 0.13 - 0.27 � depending on the size, quality, discount offers etc.

2) [AFEMS 2004a]

3) Includes alloys as tungsten-iron, tungsten-nickel-iron and tungsten-nickel-iron-tin just as heavy and even heavier than lead and having hardness typical higher than iron/steel. Fur-thermore includes tungsten-nylon composites with a density almost similar to lead and a hardness equalling bismuth and tin. Tungsten is a metal with a density of 19.3 g/cm3 and a hardness above steel.

Substitutes for lead shot for hunting


51

.

Steel shot Steel is hard, relatively cheap and lighter than lead. In Denmark it has been used as substitute to lead shot since 1985. Significant experience from several other countries like the USA, Canada, Sweden, etc. is also available.

It may be noted that CIP (Permanent International Commission for the Proof of Small Arms) to which several European Countries are a member, have estab-lished regulations related to steel shot cartridges and the proof requirements of guns used to fire steel shot ammunition - it is e.g. required that the Vickers hardness of steel shot are below 110 at the surface and below 100 in the core [BASC 2004].

Table 3.15 Weight, price, mine production and reserve base of lead and po-tential substitutes

Chemical formula

Weight

g/cm3

Price

US$ /t

Price metal : lead

Price, source date

Mine production 2002

1000 t 5)

Reserve base 2002

1000 t 5)

Lead Pb 11.34 888 1 1) 2,910 140,000

Iron Fe 7.87 330 0.4 4) 504,000 6) 150,000,000

Tin Sn 7.31 6,668 8 1) 249 11,000

Nickel Ni 8.90 15,145 17 1) 1,340 140,000

Zinc Zn 7.14 1,087 1.2 1) 8,360 460,000

Copper Cu 8.92 2,759 3.1 1) 13,600 940,000

Molybdenum Mo 10.28 40,840 43,5 2) 128 19,000

Bismuth Bi 9.87 6,834 8 2) 4 680

Tungsten W 19.25 10,857 12 3) 59 6,200

1) London Metal Exchange, cash mean prises for the month February 2004. http://www.lme.co.uk/dataprices_monthlyaverages.asp

2) Metalprices.com, average price of 20 Feb 2004. http://www.metalprices.com/subscription/metals/w/w.asp - price indication for molybde-num from 29.Sep. 2004 (price covers molybdenumoxide with min. 57% Mo)

3) Metalprices.com, average price for "pure Chinese bar", 31 Jan 2004.

4) Metalprices.com, Pig iron prices , Midwest USA - FOB delivered 9 Feb 2004.

5) USGS. 2004. Mineral Commodity Summaries. U.S. Geological Survey, http://minerals.usgs.gov

6) Estimated assuming an average iron content of ore of 47% (same content as for the re-serves).

The hunters experience with steel shot may be summarised into the statement that some time of acquaintance seems to be needed, as the ballistic properties of lead and steel shot differ due to the lower weight and higher hardness of steel shot compared to lead shot. The consequences of these differences are less pel-let deformation, denser pattering, shorter shot strings and lower retained energy at long ranges for steel shot compared to lead shot [Scheuhammer & Norris 1995]. Practical solutions for hunters to remedy these consequences have been to use larger size steel shot and shortening the shooting distance thereby in-

Different ballistic properties


52

.

creasing the efficiency of the shot. According to the Danish Hunters Associa-tion [Kanstrup 2004a], all predictions related to exploding guns, increased number of crippled game etc. caused by the use of steel shot instead of lead has turned out to be "really only rumours".

Old guns However, older guns with thin-walled barrels may not be able to use steel shot and may be damaged if trying. The experience from Denmark on this issue may be summarised into the statement that about 10-20% of the shotguns in use in Denmark, when the first ban was introduced, was deemed not suitable for steel shot. This figure should be regarded as a rough estimate as no statistical records on the issue are available [Korsholm 2004]. At that time testing facilities for guns was established by major dealers in order to ensure that all hunters could feel safe regarding whether steel shot could be used in their weapon. It is an-ticipated that all guns not being completely new at that time were actually tested. Also today old weapons are being tested. The price of testing is about 50 � [Korsholm 2004]. As a consequence of this effort, no explosions of guns caused by the use of new ammunition and no cases of personal damage due to exploding guns have been recorded in Denmark [Kanstrup 2004b].

In several countries in Europe the authorities responsible for gun testing is the CIP Proof Houses. According to AFEMS [AFEMS 2004a] it is estimated that in the whole Europe no more than 2% of the shotgun in circulation has been submitted to CIP steel shot proof.

It is similar noted by the European Federation of Hunters [Lecocq 2004] that the extent to which older guns not suitable for steel shot is still in use may de-pend strongly on local habits and in reality differ between the European coun-tries. Thus, the number of old guns may well be relatively higher in countries like e.g. France and Italy than in Scandinavia.

It is difficult on this stage to judge on, whether hunters in e.g. France and Italy may be less aware of having their gun tested than hunters in Denmark. Fur-thermore, it is beyond the scope of this project to assess the potential organisa-tional problems - if any - in the different Member States related to a large scale testing of older guns.

Besides the risk of damaging old guns not suitable for steel shot, other practical disadvantages related to steel shot include increased wear of guns, the conse-quences for the wood industry and the increased risks related to ricochets.

Wear of guns An issue presented by AFEMS [AFEMS 2004c] after discussion with the Italian Association of Sporting Firearms Manufacturers and so far not con-firmed by other sources and not covered by existing CIP regulations (reference is made to [BASC 2004]) is the issue of increased wear of shot guns using steel shot as compared to shot guns using lead shot. It is the opinion of Italian ex-perts on this issue that while the expected average lifetime for a shotgun barrel using lead shot ammunition is between 20,000 and 30,000 rounds, a shotgun barrel exposed to high performance steel shot will only have an average life-time of 3,000 to 10,000 rounds. This assessment is based on investigations dis-covering micro-cracks inside the barrel surface - micro-cracks that in the long


53

.

term could lead to serious damage. It is assumed that the increased wear of bar-rels due to steel shot is due to higher acceleration of the shot column increasing the radial pressure, which together with inter alia the higher hardness of steel shot are causing some steel shot pellets to penetrate the plastic wad and thus damaging the barrel [AFEMS 2004c].

Steel shot ending in wood in forests is causing discoloration of wood besides being a cause of breaking down of cutting tools used in the veneer industry. It has been tried to solve the last problem by developing "soft iron" shot in Den-mark, but without success, as the iron hardens in the process of entering the trees. The general solution adopted is that forest owners do not allow the use of steel shot in a forest from which trunks are sold for industrial purposes like fur-niture and veneer making [Hartmann 2001].

Richochets The hardness of steel increases the risk of ricochets, when steel shot is used in areas where hard surfaces (stones, rocks) might be hit. In such cases other al-ternatives than steel shot should be preferred. However, it must be recognised that all hunters, no matter the type of shot used, may face and should be able to handle situations where risk of ricochets are present. Among the situations giv-ing risk of ricochets for all types of ammunition may be mentioned shooting animals close to the ground, e.g. rabbits, hunting in wintertime when the ground is frozen and hitting a water surface at a low angle [Kanstrup 2004b].

Crippled game The issue of increased number of crippled game mentioned above is based on the belief that the lower density of e.g. steel shot results in less strike energy on impact making the shot less lethal. While this in principle is correct, the prob-lem, as also stated above, is solved by changing shooting habits and use larger size steel shot besides shortening the shooting distance, thereby increasing the efficiency of the shot. Hunters accustomed to steel shot often polemically brings forward the question of how many birds are suffering from lead shot in their body due to an optimistic hunter hoping to bring down the bird with a shot even if the distance is a bit too long. As stated above the Danish experience shows that the ban on lead shot has not increased the amount of crippled game [Kanstrup 2004a]. In reality the issue of cripple game can be reduced to that this is a matter of hunter's habits and not a matter of ammunition.

Bismuth shot Bismuth/tin shot contains about 3-6% tin and obtains a resulting density of approx. 9.6 g/cm3 and are almost as soft as lead. Bismuth shot are taken as very close to lead, and they can be used in all guns with risk for ricochets similar to lead shot. The major disadvantage is the price. The early generations of bis-muth shot had a disadvantage of pulverising easily on impact. This problem has been reduced by the addition of tin.

Tungsten shot Tungsten alloy/polymer shot are manufactured with densities rather close to the density of lead. For some alloys even densities above lead are obtained by vary-ing the alloy composition. Tungsten/polymer shot is based on the polymer ny-lon and has softness at the level as bismuth and tin and consequently they can easily be used in all guns with risk of ricochets similar to lead shot. Again, the price is a major disadvantage.

Impact on wood in-dustry


54

.

Tin shot Tin shot may be characterised as an in-between compared to other substitutes. The low density is causing behaviour quite similar to steel shot requiring larger size shot. The softness allows it to be used in forest areas similar to bismuth and tungsten shot and eliminates damage to old guns. The risk of ricochets is similar to lead shot.

Zinc shot Zinc shot is also a kind of in-between compared to other substitutes. It has a density close to tin and hardness slightly above bismuth. However, as tin it is relatively expensive compared with either steel or lead [Scheuhammer & Norris 1995].

In summary it can be concluded that several alternatives are available. No al-ternative can be described as the perfect substitute recognising that all alterna-tives in their characteristics represent some kind of trade-off compared to lead shot.

It is the opinion of ISSF that lead shot is beyond discussion the best option for clay pigeon shooting and that steel shot suffers from being ballistic inferior and not reliable to the same extent as lead shot [ISSF 2004a]. In Denmark use of lead shot is restricted to a few shooting ranges and steel shot is actual the domi-nant ammunition used for clay pigeon shooting. The Danish experiences with steel shot for clay pigeon can be summarised as follows [Winther 2004]:

While steel shot a decade ago to some extent was unreliable, the quality has improved considerably and is today at a level similar to lead shot. Thus, steel shot today should be regarded as fully qualified for competition shooting as-suming that all competitors are using steel shot . Furthermore, there are no problems related to the use of steel shot in modern guns. Focusing on weak-nesses of steel shot compared to lead shot the following issues could be noted:

� While a single lead shot typically will cause the clay pigeon to break, this is not the case for steel shot. Typically the pigeon must be hit by a number of steel shot before it breaks. A single steel shot may due to its hardness simply penetrate the clay pigeon without causing other damage than just a hole in the pigeon. Danish experience from shooting ranges where steel shot are used shows that clay pigeons frequently can be found on the ground penetrated by one or two holes but otherwise undamaged [Winther 2004].

� For several brands of steel cartridges a problem of delayed ignition (2-3 seconds) seem to be occurring frequently and the Danish Shooting Federa-tion has decided to warn its members of this problem.

� Cartridges should generally be stored at a temperature of 10-25 ûC. Car-tridges stored at temperatures outside this interval may behave differently. This problem is more important for steel shot than for lead shot.

Non-lead airgun pellets available on the market include pellets based on zinc-aluminium alloys and tin based pellets. Tin based pellets are claimed to be as accurate as lead pellets [Airgun 2004; Airgunpellets 2004] and possess softness

Substitutes for lead shot for shooting of clay pigeons

Substitutes for airgun lead pellets


55

.

similar to lead, while the experience with zinc-aluminium pellets is not always positive (reference is made to [Geocities 2004b]). It is relevant to note that pel-let uniformity is essential for accuracy and may well depend on the price of the pellets [Holzer 2004]. According to information available on the internet the price of lead pellets is assumed to be in the range of 0.005 - 0.017 � per pellet depending on the size, quality, discount offers etc. while the cost of tin-based pellets to the consumer must is about 0.029 � or 1.5 - 6 times the cost of lead pellets, while zinc-aluminium alloy pellets seem to be slightly more expensive than tin pellets [Shootinggear 2004; UK gun 2004; Skenco 2004].

The substitutes available for lead bullets can - rather simplified - be said to be numerous, as in principle all materials able to be cast in a form or as a powder able to be put inside a jacket may be used as bullets. However, the ballistic characteristics will differ with the materials employed and the design of the car-tridge and very few final cartridge alternatives to lead bullets are actually mar-keted. Cupper seems today the most widely used alternative [Lecocq 2004]. Bullet density equalling lead bullets is obtained by using materials like tungsten as composites with polymers or as an alloy with other metals like tin, nickel, iron etc. Powder-based materials may pulverize or fragmentize on impact, while soft materials like tin is more likely to resemble the behaviour of lead on impact. Using materials with lower density than lead is partly compensated by increasing the length of the bullets. However, the extent to which the length of bullets can be increased is covered by CIP-regulations [Grodzki 2004].

Inter alia motivated by the costs of cleaning up shooting ranges for lead pollu-tion, considerable efforts have been invested in developing lead free ammuni-tion for military purposes. It may e.g. be noted that a Nordic ammunition com-pany today is supplying Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish defence forces with non-lead ammunition. The company has furthermore recently established a li-censing agreement with the Danish Army Material Command regarding local manufacturing in Denmark [Nammo 2004]. The ammunition in question fulfils all requirements of NATO and is roughly estimated to cost about 20% more than lead ammunition [Rasmussen 2004].

The company in question has also developed non-lead ammunition for hunting. The ammunition is according to the company able to create a "mushrooming" effect similar to lead bullets and the ammunition is considered suitable for all game inclusive of e.g. of boar and moose [Nammo 2004].

According to information available on the internet etc. the price of bullets for small arms is assumed to be in the range of 0.04 - 0.35� per cartridge depend-ing on the size, quality, discount offers etc. [Shootinggear 2004; Globalnet 2004, Bille 2004].

3.6.2 Environmental and health issues Toxicity of alternatives The evaluation of the environmental toxicity of alternatives can be divided into

three aspects:

Substitutes for lead bullets

Substitutes for mili-tary and hunting ammunition


56

.

� Toxicity to birds when ingested; � Toxicity of shot in the tissue of wounded animals; � General environmental toxicity of the substances.

In some countries specific systems for certification/approval of non-toxic shot, based on the toxicity of the shot to birds, have been developed. None of the EU Member States have such systems. In Member States with legal restrictions on the use of lead in shot, the regulation in general concerns the use of lead only. However, zinc shot is prohibited in the Flemish region of Belgium [Lecocq 2004a]

- USA The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) implemented a ban on the use of lead shot for migratory waterfowl hunting which was finalized in 1991. They have also developed a review/certification process to evaluate the safety of other alternative shot materials i.e. that the spent shot material does not impose a significant danger to migratory birds and other wildlife or their habitats. The certification concerns thus primarily the toxicity of the materials to birds when ingested. Most U.S. ammunition manufacturers produce lead-free ammunition. The following shot types have received non-toxic approval for the 2003-2004 season: Steel Shot, bismuth-tin shot, tungsten-iron shot, tungsten-polymer shot, tungsten-matrix shot (in reality also tungsten-polymer), and tung-sten-nickel-iron [Nevada 2004].

- Canada Bismuth shot, steel shot, tin shot, tungsten-iron shot, tungsten-matrix shot (in reality also tungsten-polymer), tungsten-nickel-iron shot and tungsten-polymer shot have been approved as non-toxic alternatives for use in Canada in accor-dance with the Toxicity Test Guidelines of the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) of Environment Canada [Canada Gazette 2004]

- zinc shot Zinc has been demonstrated to be toxic to birds when ingested although its toxicity is lower than that of lead [Scheuhammer and Norris 1995]. Zinc shot are not currently approved for use as non-toxic shot in the USA or Canada.

- molybdenum Chronic oral ingestion of molecular molybdenum can be toxic [Scheuhammer and Norris 1995]. Molybdenum shot are not currently approved for use as non-toxic shot in the USA or Canada

For many species of waterfowl sampled in many locations it is common for 20-30% of apparently healthy individuals to be carrying one or more shot pellets [Scheuhammer and Norris 1995]. The embedded pellets may be the source of secondary poisoning of raptors but lead released from the pellets may also in-fluence the health of the wounded animal.

The potential effects on wounded animals of embedded shot pellets of alterna-tive materials have still not been investigated in detail.

Comparison of the general environmental toxicity of substances implies a re-view of a large range of effects to different organisms in different media. It has been beyond the scope of this study to carry out a comprehensive comparative review of environmental toxicity of all alternatives and it has not been possible

Toxicity to birds when ingested

Toxicity of shot in the tissue of wounded animals

General environ-mental toxicity of alternatives


57

.

to identify a comparative review. Furthermore, it is noted, that the assessment presented in the following is focused on the dominant material available - e.g. iron in steel shot - and will not detail on the fact that all materials will contain traces and fractions of other substances - e.g. steel shot will besides iron contain small amounts of heavy metals.

Within the context of the EU Water Framework Directive environmental qual-ity standards are being developed for priority substances. However, of the nine substances included in table 3.16 only lead and nickel is included in the list of priority substances [Lepper 2002]. For this reason the choice has been made to consider water and soil quality criteria as aggregated indicators of the toxicity of the substances. Danish ecotoxicological soil quality criteria and water quality criteria for the substances together with soil target values for the Netherlands are shown in the table below. It is noted that similar criteria are also available for Canada (reference is made to [Canada 2003]).

The Danish ecotoxicological soil quality criteria are considered as a level, where no harmful effects on soil organisms or processes can be expected [Scott-Fordsmand and Pedersen 1995]. The Dutch target values indicates the level corresponding to fully functional properties of the soil for humans and plant and animal life besides giving an indication of the benchmark for envi-ronmental quality in the long time on the assumption of negligible risk to the ecosystem [Netherlands 2000].

As shown in the table the soil criteria and target values for molybdenum, nickel and copper is lower than the criteria for lead (i.e. the substances are considered more problematic than lead). In particular molybdenum is considered much more problematic than lead. Regarding tin it should be noted that no target value is established in the Netherlands for the present and that the ecotoxi-cological data underlying the Danish criterion is rather scarce and a re-evaluation of the criteria when new knowledge is available was specifically recommended [Jensen et al 1997]. It is the opinion of the authors of this report that it may well be discussed whether the data available for tin compared to the data available for lead does justify tin to be assessed as more problematic than lead (reference is made to [Jensen et al 1997] and [Scott-Fordsmand and Peder-sen 1995]). Inorganic tin is considered low-toxic to humans, for which reason WHO has decided not to recommend a specific guideline value for drinking-water [WHO 1993].

Regarding tungsten and bismuth no criteria and target values been identified neither in Denmark and the Netherlands nor in other countries and the problem of scarce data may likely also apply to these metals. Lack of criterion and target value for iron is justified with the fact that iron in general are considered non- toxic in soil besides that iron normally are present in abundant quantities in natural soils.

Water quality criteria Regarding water quality criteria, the criteria for copper are at the same level as lead, whereas the criteria for zinc and nickel are significantly higher than the criterion for lead (i.e. the substances are considered less problematic than lead). Again as for the soil environment it is generally believed that neither tin, bis-

Soil quality criteria and target values


58

.

muth nor tungsten should be of concern with respect to the water environment. However, this assumption has actually not been documented and no water qual-ity criteria for tin, bismuth and bismuth have been identified. The same applies to molybdenum. Lack of criterion for iron is justified with the fact that iron in general are considered low- toxic in natural water environments.

New data on tungsten Recent studies on tungsten has created concern about possible links between tungsten and leukaemia and animal data suggesting reproductive and develop-ments effects as well as possible neurological effects has caused tungsten and several tungsten compounds to be nominated to the US Toxic Substances Con-trol Act Priority list [Begley 2004; Federal Register 2004]. Research has further shown uptake of tungsten by plants and invertebrates besides that tungsten in pure and ammunition grade forms was found to produce a strong impact on soil microbial community, soil microfauna and plant growth ([Dermatas et al. 2004] and [Strigul et al. 2004a,b] quoted by [Begley 2004]).

Table 3.16 Danish ecotoxicological soil and water quality criteria and soil target values from the Netherlands

Soil quality crite-ria

Denmark

mg/kg dry weight

Target values Netherlands

3)

mg/kg dry weight

Water quality criteria 4) µg/l

Saltwater Freshwater

Lead 50 2) 85 5.6 3.2

Zinc 100 2) 140 86 110

Molybdenum 2 1) 3 n.a. n.a.

Tin 20 1) n.a. n.a. n.a.

Nickel 10 2) 35 8.3 160

Copper 30 2) 36 2.9 12

Tungsten n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Bismuth n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Iron n.a. n.a. n.a n.a.

n.a: Not available

1) [Jensen et al. 1997].

2) [Scott-Fordsmand and Pedersen 1995].

3) [Netherlands 2004]

4) [Danish Ministry of Environment 1996] - The proposed criteria are based on US EPA water quality criteria.

As stated in table 3.15 bismuth, tungsten, molybdenum and tin are relatively scarce metals with a limited reserve base and based on the knowledge available seemingly significantly more scarce than lead. Metals as zinc, cupper and in particular iron are, however, more abundant and less critical than lead.

Other environmental aspects


59

.

Summary While iron presents an clear improvement compared to lead considering toxicity as well as other environmental issues (although steel shot besides iron contain small amounts of heavy metals), other alternatives suffers from one or more disadvantages inclusive of lack of data.

Tin, bismuth and tungsten are all characterised by being more scarce than lead. Regarding toxicity tin, bismuth and tungsten are considered non-toxic to birds and tin are generally considered low-toxic to humans. However, regarding tox-icity in soil and water the data available are for all 3 metals scarce and does in reality not allow a substantiated conclusion on whether these metals can be re-garded as an improvement compared to lead or not. It is recommended that re-search is initiated that can eliminate the current lack of data. This recommenda-tion is supported by the fact that new data on tungsten has indicated effects to-wards humans as well as soil organisms and plants. Whether these effects are serious enough, to disqualify tungsten as a substitute to lead in ammunition, remains to be clarified.

Zinc and cupper are both more abundant than lead although not as plentiful as iron. However, neither of these materials are approved as non-toxic in USA and Canada and zinc is also prohibited in the Flemish region. Zinc is toxic to birds, but less toxic than lead considering birds as well as soil and water. Cupper are more toxic than lead in soil and on the same level as lead in water.

Molybdenum is scarcer than zinc. It is not approved as non-toxic shot in the USA and Canada and far more toxic than lead in the soil environment.

Nickel, which is only used in combination with tungsten, is more toxic in the soil environment but less toxic in water. The reserve-base is similar to lead.

3.7 Impact of potential marketing and use restrictions on lead ammunition

3.7.1 Impact on business and users A shotgun or bullet cartridge is made from five main components:

� The primer, which is probably the most sophisticated part of the cartridge due to the safety risks involved;

� The propellant; � The wad, which is made of plastic or other similar material; � The shot or projectile, which is typically made of lead but can also be bis-

muth, steel, zinc, alloys or similar; this part typically makes up 60%-75% of the entire weight of the cartridge;

� The case. In general the cases, the propellants, the primers and the wadding system of the cartridge (that is primer, propellant and wad) must be reconfigured when lead is substituted by another metal in the bullet/pellets (reference is made to table 3.17).

Fundamentals of car-tridge manufacturing

Consequences for manufacturing proc-ess


60

.

Table 3.17 Consequences for processes in ammunitions manufacturing [AFEMS 2004a]

Type of manu-facturer

Description

Comp: Propel-lant

Use of a different metal for the shot/projectile will require development of new propellants (geometric configuration and composition). The propellant is uniquely designed for each single product type (different calibres, different pellet sizes, different purposes).

Cost of the raw materials will be approximately the same regardless of the metal used for the shot/projectiles. New installation process could be necessary to pro-duce the required propellant. Otherwise, incremental costs relate to research and development in addition to new propellants.

Comp: Primer The primer is developed so as to match the specific type of propellant used in the cartridge. As new propellants are to be developed if lead is being substituted, so could also the corresponding primers.

Cost of the raw materials will be approximately the same regardless of the metal used for the shot/projectiles. Machinery for the manufacturing process will be un-changed. Hence, incremental costs relate only to research and development

Comp: Wad The wad is uniquely designed for each single product type (different calibres, dif-ferent pellet sizes, different purposes).

The wad will have to be redesigned if a different metal is used. Lower density of the alternatives implies that less space is available inside the cartridge for the wad, and also different metals behave differently with respect to the passage in the barrel of the firearm.

Cost of the raw materials will be approximately the same regardless of the metal used for the shot/projectiles. Machinery for the manufacturing process will be un-changed. Incremental costs relate to research and development and to new injec-tion moulders. Cost of new material will increase accordingly to new design.

Comp: Shot (pellets)

The manufacturing process of steel shot is distinctly different from lead shot. The machinery needed is generally more complex and in entirely different from lead manufacturing machinery.

In general neither machinery nor know how of lead manufacturing processes can be transferred to manufacturing of substitute metals. Any extensive regulation on the use of lead in ammunition on the EU level may therefore have substantive con-sequences for this particular category of manufacturers.

Loaders Assembling of components into final cartridges is done on a separate piece of machinery.

New type of pellets will require modification of some sections of the present ma-chines with costs which varies from machine to machine, so to allow them to work with other alternative metals as well.

Machinery for pellets, bullets

Only producers of machinery for lead shot manufacturing (the machine that actu-ally makes the pellets) will be affected by a potential restriction on the use of lead in ammunition. However, it seems likely that the demand for machines for manu-facturing of other types of pellets will increase accordingly to the request of lead alternatives.

Distributors No consequences.

Cases New cases with different lengths would be required to accept higher volume of pellets. Consequently this would require adaptation to the existing machines.

Clay targets No consequences.


61

.

General costs for the industry in case the use of lead in ammunition is com-pletely restricted relate mainly to research and development of new products as well as adaptation of existing machinery. The consequences for the existing producers of lead shot (cartridge component) may, however, be more severe.

The technology used for lead shot manufacturing cannot be adapted to alterna-tive metals. The companies in question are typically specialised in lead process-ing, and therefore would have no basis for entering new markets (e.g. produc-tion of steel shot).According to the AFEMS registry -reference is made to table 3.10 - approximately 5 companies in Europe are sole producers of lead shot (i.e. neither engaged in production of other cartridge components nor assem-bling of cartridges). Based on the data presented in table 3.10 it can be assumed that these 5 companies most likely represent a total staff of employees of less than 200 and a total turnover of less than 100 mill.�/year. 3 other lead shot manufacturers exist, but these are engaged in other activities related to ammuni-tions manufacturing parallel to the production of lead shot. Together these 8 manufacturers according to table 3.11 are covering 90% of the production of lead shot in EU15, indicating that the number of employees and the turnover of other companies active in this field is limited.

There exists in Europe today 3 companies (that has been identified during this survey) that manufacture machines for lead shot production. These companies would obviously be affected also in case of a stricter regulation in Europe for the use of lead ammunition (as for example a ban). The number of employees and the turnover of these companies are not either.

Estimated costs for research and development in accordance with the needs in-dicated in table 3.17 above have been outlined in table 3.18 below.

Table 3.18 Estimated costs for research and development [AFEMS 2004a]

Item Unit costs in � Applies to Total 1)

Propellant 400,000 60 types of propellant of which 70% would need reformulation

17,700,000 �

Primers 400,000 10 types of primers 4,000,000 �

Wads (including new moulds)

100,000 per die 150 moulds 25,000,000 �

New cartridges with lead alternatives (inte-grated cartridge de-sign)

10,000 per cartridge type

10,000 articles 2) 142,900,000 �

New packaging 150 10,000 articles 2) 2,100,000 �

Total R&D (rounded) 190,000,000 �

1) Totals have been adjusted to account for non AFEMS members in accordance with table 2.11.

2) The high number of articles indicated comes from that several companies besides their main product lines also have a significant production of speciality products for individual customers [AFEMS 2004a].

Costs for research and development


62

.

Estimated costs for adaptation of existing machinery in accordance with the needs indicated in table 3.17 above have been outlined in table 3.19 below.

In summary, the estimated costs for the European ammunitions manufacturing industry of completely converting the existing lead based production lines to alternative metals are approximately 310 mill.�. This amount mainly covers costs for development of new products as well as costs for adapting existing machinery.

In case a more selective regulation is put forward for the use of lead ammuni-tion in Europe it is likely that conversion costs for the industry will decrease accordingly. It is assessed that approximately 50% of the entire lead shot am-munitions production is used for sports shooting purposes, and similarly 50% for hunting purposes. Assuming that about 20% of all hunting takes place in wetlands, conversion costs for the industry could be down at about 30-40 mill.�, in case the regulation only concerns hunting in such areas.

Table 3.19 Estimated costs for machinery adaptation [AFEMS 2004a]

Item Unit costs in � Applies to Total (note 1)

Assembling machines (cartridge cases): The use of steel shot requires in some cases longer shells (up to 89 mm long). Most of the shell assembling machines are designed for only 3" (76 mm) long shells. This means that those assembling machines have to be modified for this new length by changing the cams and the slides when it is possible

500,000 25 machines 17,900,000 �

Loading machines: The extra length of the shell would also require a modification (change of the stroke of the machine) of all loading machines (most are de-signed for 3" shells).

20,000 1,200 machines 34,300,000 �

Loading machines: Increased hardness of alternative materials will require alterations of the volumetrical pellet dosing devices and for the larger diameters the use of counting (instead of volumetrical) systems

15,000 1,200 machines 25,700,000 �

Printing machines: The use of steel shot (or other alternative materials) will also require for safety rea-sons a clear and resistant print of that information on the shell tubes. New printing machines would be required

75,000 400 machines 42,900,000 �

Total machinery adaptation (rounded) 120,000,000 �

Note 1 Totals have been adjusted to account for non AFEMS members in accordance with table 3.11.

It is impossible at this stage to quantify the general effects for the markets of a complete or partial ban on lead ammunition in Europe. Producers of ammuni-tion based on alternative metals and alloys certainly do exist in Europe already (supplying the markets in Denmark and elsewhere) and they would obviously benefit from such a ban, as would also the import to Europe of such ammuni-tion. To the extent manufacturing activity is taken over by other European companies, the economic impact is minimized, but social costs related to the

Costs for machinery adaptation

Costs of a complete or partial industry conversion


63

.

transition process remains. It is, however, at the present stage not possible to assess the social costs related to the transition process. Generally such transi-tion costs depend heavily on the conditions in the region in which the com-pany is located and is thus generally very difficult to assess.

Other elements that are difficult to quantify at this stage include:

! A change in the overall activity (amount of ammunition sold and used) in hunting and sport shooting following a restriction on the use of lead in ammunition. It is difficult to predict with certainty whether the outcome of a restriction might be a decrease in activity caused by increased ammuni-tion costs or a status quo. The possibility of an increase following the status of being a more environmentally friendly sport may not be ex-cluded, either.

! A restriction on the use of lead in the EU may result in that companies have to maintain two lines of production to the extent they are serving cus-tomers outside the EU still requesting lead ammunition.

The end users - sports shooters and hunters - will eventually pay for any in-creased costs in manufacturing through increased price levels for the individual cartridges. Increased costs not only cover higher prices for the raw materials used (the stock quotes are certainly higher for a number of the alloys used, and also for tungsten and bismuth), but also covers the costs of more complex pro-duction techniques (more energy is required to cast steel pellets as compared to lead pellets) as well as the conversion costs of the industry described above. However, the transition costs related to companies not able to adapt to non-lead products incl. of social costs related to the transition process is not included in the increased price level for cartridges.

The Netherlands and Denmark are the only European countries to have banned all use of shotgun ammunition as of today. Therefore, it has been deemed the most appropriate way of estimating the costs to users to assess the retail prices for ammunition in one of these countries, where it should be safe to assume that the market for non-lead alternatives is relatively mature. Based on the informa-tion in table 3.14 it has been estimated that the average European hunter would face annual expenses for ammunition of approximately 290% as compared with today corresponding to an increase of 190%. This estimate is based on the as-sumption that lead shot would be substituted by a basket of alternatives - 50% steel, 20% tungsten alloy, 20% bismuth and 10% tin. This basket should be re-garded as the authors' estimate of a reasonable mix of the alternatives available - an estimate that pays respect to the advantages and drawbacks of each alterna-tive (reference is made to section 3.6.1).

On average it is assessed that the prices of cartridges based on alternative met-als would range from a factor 1.2 to a factor 6.5 to the comparable price of a lead based cartridge, depending on the actual substitute metals used.

As stated in table 3.4, there was about 6.2 mill. hunters within the EU15 area in 1995. According to industry estimates approximately 560 mill. shotgun car-

Consequences for hunters and shooters

Incremental costs for hunters


64

.

tridges and 22 mill. centre rifle cartridges are annually consumed in Europe for hunting purposes, so each hunter on average consumes approximately 90 lead shot cartridges and 4 rifle cartridges per year. With a retail price of a lead shot cartridge of 0.13 - 0.27 � (reference is made to table 3.14), this implies that the average European hunter would be subject for annual extra costs in the range of 22� to 46� for ammunition if lead ammunition was to be completely banned for all shotgun hunting.

Parallel to this and assuming a retail price of a rifle cartridge of 0.04 - 0.35� and a cost of non-lead rifle cartridges of 120% compared to lead cartridges (reference is made to section 3.6.1), a ban on lead in rifle cartridges would im-ply annual, incremental costs to the average European hunter in the range of 0.03� to 0.3�.

The experience from Denmark and other places, where lead ammunition has been subject to a stricter regulation than in the EU average, shows increased specialisation in the market. The very expensive bismuth or tungsten based al-ternative shotgun cartridges would typically not be used for small game hunting (e.g. game birds) in upland areas. For this purpose a cheaper steel or tin based alternative is adequate. Bismuth and tungsten based cartridges are sold for hunting of fur game (hare, roe deer and similar) and together with tin shot for use in forest areas or when risks of ricochets are present. In the US the tungsten alloy cartridges are marketed specifically for turkey hunting.

Finally, as stated in section 3.7 some old guns may be replaced in case use of lead shot is restricted. The number of guns being replaced could considering Danish experiences (reference is made to section 3.7) be as high as 20% and even higher. Assuming a cost of a new gun of 1,000�, the total costs could be significant. However, each hunter having an old gun actually has the choice of whether to replace the gun in order to benefit from the relatively cheap steel shot or to continue using the gun with the more expensive cartridges based on e.g. tin, bismuth or tungsten. Furthermore, the problem is likely to diminish over time (long term), as all guns eventually at some point will be renewed due to general wear and tear. All new guns are reportedly capable of using non-lead ammunition, and the estimate stated above of an increase in annual expenses for ammunition of approximately 190% actually has included about 50% soft ammunition suitably for old guns.

These considerations also partly apply to the issue of increased wear on barrels due to the use of steel shot. With a consumption of 90 shot gun cartridges yearly the average hunter may face an average life of the shotgun or the barrel to be reduced from 200-300 years to 30 - 100 years. Therefore this is an issue only relevant for hunters with cartridge consumption considerably above aver-age and paying attention to the many other factors influencing the practical life of shotguns the economic consequences should in general be considered small.

It should, however, be noted, that owners of old guns will need to have their gun tested for use with steel shot in case they decide to use this type of shot. This could be relevant for most owners of shotguns in Europe and imply a cost of 50� per gun. Assuming that each hunter on average owns 2-3 guns and that


65

.

on average 1gun per hunter will be tested, each hunter will face an one and for all expenditure of 50�. Spread over 5 years this conversion cost corresponds to an annual incremental cost of 13�.

In summary, a very rough estimate of the costs incurred on the European hunt-ers would be approximately 220 - 370 mill.� annually.

Most ammunition used for sports shooting in Europe today is lead based. The main arguments from the point of view of the sport shooters are somewhat par-allel to hunters [ISSF 2004a]:

� Alternatives to lead, most notably steel, imply higher safety risks at shoot-ing ranges due to ricocheting pellets; a ban on the use of lead based shot-gun ammunition could require reengineering of many existing shooting ranges;

� A ban on the use of lead based ammunition for sporting purposes will im-ply that European shooters must compete on unfair terms when participat-ing in international sporting events;

� The financial impact on the average sports shooter would be more severe than for the average hunter because sports shooters generally use more car-tridges (several thousands per competitive shooter [AFEMS 2004a]).

Available alternatives Even though alternatives to lead ammunition are being used or tested for competition purposes, it appears that the sports shooters within the ISSF and associated organisations are focussing their efforts on reclaiming and recycling lead pellets and bullets from the shooting ranges rather than on identifying sub-stitute metals. According to the ISSF [ISSF 2004a; Nicolaysen 2004], all new ranges may only be constructed with a background created in such a way that a complete collection of lead pellets is guaranteed. Existing ranges have been modified in order to make it possible to collect the lead. In practically all cases where existing ranges have been located in particularly vulnerable areas (wet-lands for example) or where modification has not been deemed feasible, facili-ties have been shut down.

Retail prices for sporting ammunition in principle will follow the market for hunting ammunition. As the average sports shooter annually consumes 5-6 times the amount of ammunition consumed by the average hunter, it seems fair to assume, however, that quantity discounts will be available for the sports shooter. Based on the information in table 3.14 it has been estimated that the average European sports shooter would face annual expenses for ammunition of approximately 180% for shotgun ammunition as compared with today corre-sponding to an increase of 80%. This estimate is based on the assumption that lead shot would be substituted by a basket of alternatives - 80% steel, 7% tung-sten alloy, 7% bismuth and 7% tin. This basket should be regarded as the au-thors' estimate of a reasonable mix of the alternatives available - an estimate that pays respect to the advantages and drawbacks of each alternative (reference is made to section 3.6.1). Similarly, a 20% increase for bullet ammunition could be expected, while the increase for airgun pellets probably is in the range

Other consequences for shooters

Incremental costs for sports shooters


66

.

of 50% - 500% (reference is made to section 3.6.1). The substitutes for bullet ammunition and the price increase to be expected is, however, difficult to as-sess in detail at this stage because a market for full range of high-performance cartridges for sports shooting has not been developed (or has not matured) yet.

As stated in table 3.2 approximately 640 million shotgun cartridges (total for various sports shooting disciplines) along with some 711 million bullet car-tridges and 2.4 billion air gun pellets are being consumed by European sports shooters annually.

Table 3.20 Number of sport shooters in Europe in 1995

Country Number of sport shooters Overlapping (shooters also listed as hunters)

AUSTRIA 60,000

BELGIUM 25,000

DANEMARK

FINLAND 40,000 40,000

FRANCE 150,000 100,000

GERMANY 1,450,000 50,000

GREECE 7,000

HUNGARY 2,000

ITALY 40,000 10,000

IRELAND

LUXEMBOURG 4,000

NETHERLAND 33,000 30,000

NORWAY 33,000 10,000

POLAND 1,500

PORTUGAL 13,500 6,000

SLOVENIA 2,700

SPAIN 100,000 50,000

SWEDEN 70,000 40,000

SWITZERLAND 552,000

UNITED KINGDOM 550,000 300,000

Total 3,133,700 636,000

Source [AFEMS 2004a] quoting 1995 data from the European Shooting Confederation (ESC)

According to the ESC registry made in 1995 (see table 3.20), there are some 2.5 mill. sports shooters within the EU15 area. On average this implies that a Euro-pean sports shooter consumes 256 shotgun cartridges, 284 bullet cartridges and 944 air gun pellets. It should be noted, however, that these average numbers cover large geographical variations. Major users of ammunition for clay target shooting (shotgun cartridges) are Italy, France, Spain and UK. Major users of bullet cartridges for sports shooting purposes are Germany, Austria, Sweden and UK. The major user of air gun pellets is Germany.


67

.

With a retail price of lead shot cartridges of 0.13 - 0.27 �/piece, bullet car-tridges of 0.04 - 0.35�/piece and airgun lead pellets of 0.005 - 0.017�/piece (reference is made to section 3.6.1), and extra costs of non-lead ammunition of 80%, 20% and 50-500% respectively, this implies that the average European shooter would be subject for annual extra costs in the range of 27� to 55� for shotgun ammunition, 2� to 20� for bullet ammunition, and 8� to 24� for airgun ammunition, if lead ammunition was to be completely banned for all shooting.

All in all the average European sports shooter would thus in principle have to face annual extra costs in the range of 37� and 99� for ammunition if lead am-munition was to be completely banned for all sports shooting purposes.

It is emphasized that these estimates addresses the average shooter, while a competitive shooter using e.g. 5,000 - 35,000 shot gun cartridges yearly may have to face extra costs in the range of 500� to 7500� annually, which have to be added to the existing costs of 650� - 9500� that a shooter with this cartridge consumption is paying already today for lead shot.

Also a competitive pistol, rifle or air gun shooter will have consumption far above average and the general picture emerging is that the group of shooters is composed of a little subgroup (the competitive shooters) with consumption high above and a large subgroup close to or below average.

It is assessed that guns used currently by sports shooters generally will be easier to adapt to the use of non-lead ammunition, at least as seen from a safety point of view as the average age of gun used for sports shooting generally is lower and sports shooters may be better informed of the risks related to shift of am-munition. For many shotguns new chokes will have to be installed in order to adjust for the changed shot characteristics of non-lead ammunition, but the risk of gun explosions is likely very small assuming that proper testing of all weap-ons are carried out before shift of ammunition. Assuming that approx. 50% of the shooters are using shotguns and each shooter on average will need testing of one weapon about 1.250.000 shotguns need to be tested. It may, furthermore, be assumed that the testing together with replacement of chokes may add up to between 50� and 100� pr shooter as a one-time conversion cost. Spread over 5 years this conversion cost will correspond to an annual incremental cost of 13 - 25� for each shooter using a shotgun and 6.5 - 13� taken as an average for all shooters.

Furthermore, the issue of increased wear of shotguns using steel shot (reference is made to section 3.6) with a high consumption could be relevant for competi-tive shooters, as their cartridge consumption may be so high that they even with lead shot have to replace their weapon as often as every year or every second year. The economic consequences of an increased replacement may be roughly estimated by assuming that about 3 - 5% of the sport shooters will have to face the extra costs of replacing their weapon once per year. With a cost of a new gun of 1000� this would lead to total extra cost of 75 - 125 mill.� per year cor-responding to an annual incremental cost of 30 -50� as average for all sport shooters.


68

.

It is assumed that there will be no need for testing of pistols and rifles changing to non-lead ammunition. However, as non-lead ammunition still is in the proc-ess of being developed this assumption may well be discussed.

In summary, a very rough estimate of the extra costs incurred on the European sports shooters would be approximately 185 - 400 mill.� annually.

In principle as described earlier the ammunition users would cover the indus-try's increased manufacturing costs. More specifically this would include costs for industry conversion (development of new products and machinery adapta-tion) and the incremental costs of manufacturing a substitute metal shot (changed prices for the raw material and for the detailed pellet/shot manufactur-ing process). It is assessed that all subsequent steps in the manufacturing proc-ess (manufacturing and handling of other ammunitions components as well as loading, packaging etc) would be similar to a regular lead ammunition produc-tion line - at least in terms of costs involved.

Stock quotes for the substitute raw materials have been provided in table 3.15. It is roughly assessed that the price of lead (not as manufactured pellets/bullets but as a raw material) to the final cartridge is at about 7-15% of a shotgun car-tridge and 3-10% of other types of cartridges. Based in this information it can be estimated that the price of an average hunting non-lead shotgun cartridge (assuming the same mix as above - 50% steel, 20% tungsten alloy, 20% bis-muth and 10% tin) as an example would increase 25-50% due to increased costs for raw materials alone. On top of this would come additional costs for the more costly pellet/shot manufacturing process (for example steel requires more energy to process than lead). It has not been possible to estimate this par-ticular individual cost component, however. And finally, would come the one-time conversion cost for the industry, which could amount to additional 10-20% of final retail price for the cartridge, provided that conversion costs are spread evenly over a period of - say - five years.

So, all in all, the 190% increase in hunters' annual expenses for shotgun ammu-nition estimated above (which is mainly driven by price developments for shot-gun ammunition) and which is based on the experience from Denmark, seems like a fair estimate, although maybe on the high side. This may reflect that Denmark in itself is only a small market, which for the non-lead ammunition alternatives relies on specialist suppliers and import from outside the EU15 area. These market conditions would expectedly change in case the entire European industry is forced by regulation into converting from lead to substi-tute metals, thereby over time probably lowering average prices somewhat be-low the 190% mark.

In case an EU-wide regulation on the use of lead ammunition is introduced suf-ficient time for transition activities should be allowed for.

The industry will need time practically to convert production lines and develop new product ranges (including the required know-how). At the same time it should be emphasised that at least for shotgun ammunition full ranges of non-lead cartridges already exist on the market (of which some are imported from

Manufacturing costs versus hunters and shooters costs

Timing


69

.

outside the EU15 area). A regulation, which is being implemented too hastily could therefore skew the market quite extensively and redistribute market shares among ammunition manufacturers inside and outside of the general EU-area.

Also users will need time to adapt properly to new types of ammunition, in par-ticular in order to have testing and adjustments of weapons carried out and to obtain instruction and training in new safety routines to the extent relevant.

3.7.2 Impact on the environment and health The potential environment and health effects of the environmental load of lead by the use of lead shot and sinkers are reviewed in chapter 2.

A restriction of the use of lead for shot and bullets may result in reduced re-leases from the following activities:

� Primary and secondary production of lead and manufacturing of lead shot and bullets;

� Hunting and shooting; � Waste disposal, e.g. incineration.

It is beyond the scope of this study to review the impact of the releases from the production of lead, manufacturing of lead shot and bullets and the disposal of lead shot and bullets that are not spread in the environment. However, it should be kept in mind that a restriction of the use of lead for ammunition also would reduce the releases from these activities.

The impact on the environment and health of a restriction of the use of lead for hunting and shooting will depend on which materials are used to substitute for the lead. As reviewed in section 3.6.2 iron presents a clear improvement com-pared to lead considering toxicity as well as other environmental issues, while other alternatives suffers from one or more drawbacks inclusive of lack of data.

Resource perspective Lead is a relatively scarce metal with a limited reserve base even though raw material deficiency is not expected for the next decades. The same is true for all the alternatives except iron. Replacement of lead by bismuth and tungsten would imply a very important increase in the total global demand for those metals (reference is made to table 3.15). A significant increase in demand may also be observed for the metals of tin and molybdenum. From a resource per-spective only substitution of lead by iron (steel) can be considered advanta-geous.

The impact of a restriction of the use of lead will in the following be estimated on terms of reduced load of lead to the environment without considering the impact of the increased load of the alternative materials.

The effects of lead shot on waterfowl are well-documented and generally rec-ognised.

Use of lead shot for hunting in wetlands


70

.

It is anticipated that lead shot by time generally will be buried in sediments and disappear out of reach for waterfowl and that the risks related to lead shot gen-erally are limited to 1-2 years after the shot has been discharged [Brønnum & Hansen 1998]. However, investigations in the UK indicate that waterfowl poi-soned by lead can be found many years after the use of lead shot has been pro-hibited [Perrins et al 2003]. The cause is not known for sure, but several expla-nations have been proposed including the following [Perrins et al 2003]:

! The birds are finding long-lost lead or lead shot used illegally.

! Waterfowl are generally migratory birds that may move from areas where the use of lead shots is allowed to areas where it is prohibited.

! The birds may find other lead products not banned but having an effect similar to lead shot like the so called "dust" shot (sizes 8 and smaller - not prohibited in the UK) and lead shot for fishing (banned in UK but al-lowed in many other countries - authors comment).

! An unidentified source of lead - it has, however, not been possible to bring forward any reasonable suggestions.

According to [AFEMS 2004a] shotgun cartridges are approximately used 50% for hunting and 50% for shooting. According to table 2.5 approximately 18,000 tonnes of lead is used annually in the EU for shotgun hunting. It is not known how much of this is used for hunting in wetlands. In Denmark before the ban of the use of lead shot in wetlands, approximately half of the lead shot was used in wetlands, but it must be assumed that the share of hunting in wetlands in EU as a whole is lower. In addition hunting in wetlands is restricted in some countries. It has thus for a first estimate been assumed in this report that 20% of the lead shot is used in wetlands corresponding to 3,600 tonnes. It is further assumed that more than 95% of this is released directly to the environment by the use. The amount of lead shot not directly released to the environment must be as-sumed sooner or later to end up as waste or be collected for recycling. Besides the effects on the waterfowl, the release of lead contributes to the general load of lead to the environment. Although it is more common that agricultural soil are converted to wetlands than the opposite, it happens that wetlands are con-verted to agricultural soil. In such agricultural soils the content of lead will surely be above the average. However, it is not documented that the content of lead in plants grown in such soils can be measured to exceed the average.

Effects of the use of lead shot for other hunting activities on upland birds have been reported, but it has not been demonstrated that the use of lead shot consti-tute a significant risk.

Lead for hunting may contribute to a general increase of the lead content of soils. To what extent the use of lead shot may contribute significantly to an in-crease of lead in the soils will depend on the amount of lead used in the specific region or area and the actual content of lead in soils in this region or area.

Use of lead shot for other hunting activi-ties


71

.

Based on an assessment of the loss of lead shot in the environment and the cor-rosion rate of lead shot is soil, [TNO 2001] estimates that lead shot/ammunition will be responsible for 80 % of total anthropogenic lead releases to soil in 2030 (EU15 countries). The report estimates that the lead releases on average may result in an annual enrichment of the upper 25 cm of the soil of 0.2-0.5 % per year (0.048 mg/kg/year) which implies on average a doubling of the lead con-centration of European soils in 200 to 500 years. For the estimate, an average natural background concentration of 10-30 mg/kg is applied. For grasslands, in which the accumulation mainly takes place in the upper 5 cm, the report con-cludes that the lead content of the 5 cm top layer may double in 40 years if a "clean" soil concentration of 10 mg/kg is assumed. In the calculations it has been assumed that 50% of the total consumption of lead for ammunition is col-lected and thus not emitted to the environment. This assumption corresponds to an almost complete collection of lead from shooting ranges. As pointed out by the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment, [CSTEE 2003b] in their comments to the report, the estimates are based on very uncertain assumptions that should be further examined and analysed. In any case the study indicates that lead shot today is the major source of lead con-tamination of soils, and that the resulting doubling times (except for permanent grasslands) on average are in the order of magnitude of hundreds of years.

The lead content of soils varies considerably between Member States, e.g. the geometric mean of soils in England and Wales are shown to be 42 mg/kg [Thornton et al. 2001] whereas it in Danish agricultural soils (upper 30 cm) is 11.3 mg/kg [Brønnum and Hansen 1998]. The differences in background con-centration to some extent reflect differences in mobility (and thus bioavailabil-ity) of lead in the soils. In soils with low pH, and consequently high mobility of lead, and relatively low background lead content, a load of 0.048 mg/kg/year would have much more significant impacts in the content of bioavailable lead in the soil than in soils with high pH and high background lead content.

For Norway it has been estimated assuming a background concentration of lead in soil of 10 - 42 ppm that the time to double the lead concentration in soil will be in the range of 10,000 to 42,000 years [Nicolaysen 2004]. This estimate is however based on an assumed consumption of lead shot for hunting in Norway of 50 tonnes only [Nicolaysen 2004], which is far below the consumption esti-mated in table 3.5 for the neighbouring countries of Sweden and Finland and furthermore may illustrate the fact, that Norway is a relatively large country compared to the number of inhabitants and thus may show a relatively small consumption per unit of area.

Generally should be expected that the actual load (consumption per unit of area) of lead on soil from ammunition will vary between countries and also be-tween regions in the individual countries.

So far no documented environmental or health impacts related to a general in-crease of the lead content of the agricultural soils have been reported. It is, however, obvious that an continued increase will narrow the gab between the current lead content of soil and the levels for which effects may actually be ob-served (reference is made to table 3.16) and could eventually cause these levels


72

.

to be exceeded. It may also be argued that new knowledge often tend to lower the concentrations for which effects are observed - e.g. by focusing on effects not previously studied - for which reason increasing concentrations in the envi-ronment of hazardous substances like lead should be avoided to the extent pos-sible.

Of the 18,000 tonnes lead used annually in the EU for shotgun hunting, ap-proximately 14,400 tonnes are roughly assumed to be used for other hunting activities (excluding wetlands) and it is estimated that more than 95 % of this lead is released to the environment by the use. Please note the mutual depend-ence between the estimated amount used for hunting in wetlands and the amount used for other hunting activities, respectively. The amount of lead shot not directly released to the environment must be assumed sooner or later to end up as waste or be collected for recycling.

Rifle projectiles are in general too large to be ingested by birds, but the bullets may fragment when striking hard surfaces. Ingestion of fragments of lead pro-jectile parts found in animal carcasses by birds have been reported from USA [CCRT 2003], but to the knowledge of the authors ingestion of lead from pro-jectiles by birds are in general not considered a significant problem.

The same considerations regarding a general increase of lead in the environ-ment as discussed above may apply to the use of lead in rifle bullets.

According to table 2.5 approximately 150 tonnes lead is annually used in EU15 for hunting with centre fire cartridges and it is estimated that more than 95% of this is released to the environment by the use corresponding to more than 135 tonnes lead. The amount of lead not directly released to the environment must be assumed sooner or later to end up as waste or be collected for recycling.

Lead shot for clay pigeon shooting is mainly used on out-door shooting ranges. The potential environmental impact of the activities is highly dependent on the measures applied for recovery of the used lead and for preventing releases from the ranges to the surroundings (via drain, surface water and ground water).

Traditionally the lead applied for clay pigeon shooting have been left of the ground and have accumulated over time at the shooting ranges. As the lead shot corrodes very slowly and the corrosion products have a low solubility in water and a slow mobility in most soils, leaching of lead from the ranges to the sur-roundings is a very slow process.

A comprehensive survey of the present situation of soil contamination of shoot-ing ranges in Germany from 1998 [Working Group 1998] demonstrated only a few cases of ground water contamination at the areas of shooting ranges, but the report concludes that: "Especially the lead, accumulated in the soil, contains - in the long term and depending on the conditions at the site (long detention period, high acidity of the soil) - a considerable danger potential for different protected resources and may - without measures taken - also give reason for limitations on follow-up uses". The extension of the lead contamination of the ranges is indicated by a calculation showing that 137 ranges in Lower Saxony

Use of lead rifle bul-lets for hunting

Use of lead shot for shooting


73

.

in total were contaminated with 2,722 tonnes lead (as of 1990). In the six ranges with the highest activity the area on average was contaminated with 1,011 kg lead/ha per year and the author of the ranges in Lower Saxony "con-siders approx. two thirds of the shooting ranges in Lower Saxony as areas, which - at least partial areas - need to be remediated" [Working Group 1998].

The mobility of lead in the soil may be reduced by changing the chemistry of the soils by addition of e.g. lime or phosphates thereby delaying the leaching of the lead, but the addition do not remove the lead from the ranges or the need for remediation.

The risk of contamination of the surroundings with lead leaching from shooting ranges is today in general recognised, and methods for recovery of lead is de-veloped and promoted by e.g. shooters organisations and the Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition. Methods for recovery of lead are reviewed in section 3.5. Besides, the recovery is promoted by the shooter's organisation by demanding the ranges to recover the lead and the Sec-retary General of IFFS and the President of ESC express "that we will do eve-rything possible to only permit competitions on shooting ranges which guaran-tee the collection of the lead ammunition used" [ISSF 2004a].

To what extent lead shot is actually recovered today is presumably very varying between the Member States and it has not been possible to identify any com-prehensive surveys of the actual recovery rates. An estimate of the amount of lead released to the environment from the actual clay pigeon shooting activities is consequently not possible.

According to [AFEMS 2004a] shotgun cartridges are approximately used 50% for hunting and 50% for shooting. According to table 3.5 about 16,600 tonnes of lead is used annually in the EU15 for shotgun shooting. As mentioned above, surveys of actual recovery rates are a prerequisite for an assessment of the amount of lead released to shooting ranges today.

Besides approximately 1,200 tonnes is used for air-gun pellets. The air-pellets are dominantly used for shooting and expected mainly to be disposed of for re-cycling, though a minor part used in households may be released to the envi-ronment.

A significant part of this is assumed to be recovered for recycling, but as men-tioned above no actual data on recovery rates has been obtained.

It is relatively simple to collect bullets from rifle and pistol shooting and the release of lead to the environment from these activities is considered small and consists mainly of dust transported to the surrounding by the air and dust cre-ated on impact e.g. when bullets are hitting earthen berms or traps etc.

According to table 3.5 approximately 2,700 tonnes lead is used annually in the EU15 for rifle and pistol shooting. While it should be possible to collect a dominant part of this lead for recycling no actual data on recovery rates has been obtained.

Lead rifle and pistol shooting


74

.

The estimated impacts of different use restrictions on the release of lead to the environment is summarised in table 3.21.

The environmental issues discussed in this section can in principle be divided into the following:

! The resource issue which basically is a global issue and of concern to all countries in the world. The issue is hardly relevant in a discussion of cross-national perspectives within the EU.

! The issue of poisoning of birds and in particular of waterfowl. To the extent the birds exposed to lead shots by ingestion - direct ingestion as well as secondary ingestion - are migratory birds the actions of individual Member States may naturally influence other Member States, as birds naturally be-longing to the environment in some Member States may be poisoned during their travel through and temporary stay in other Member states. This per-spective is certainly relevant for many species of waterfowl and will to a limited extent be relevant for upland birds as well. The issue may thus jus-tify a coordinated effort within the EU related to the use of lead shot in wet-lands and to a limited extent also to the use of lead shot for hunting in gen-eral.

! The issue of soil contamination which fundamentally is a local and thus na-tional issue apart from contamination taking place in border zones. The is-sue of soil contamination is the environmental issue in focus considering use of lead bullets and pellets for hunting as well as lead ammunition for shooting in general.

To these issues may be added the general issues of emissions caused by primary and secondary production of lead and waste disposal. As stated earlier a review of these emissions is beyond the scope of this study, but a restriction of the use of lead for ammunition would naturally also reduce the releases from these activities.

Cross-national per-spectives within the EU


75

.

Table 3.21 Reduced lead consumption and release to the environment by restrict-ing the use of lead in EU15

Application for which lead is re-stricted

Reduced lead consumption

Tonnes/year

Reduced release of lead to the environment

Tonnes/year

Lead shot for hunting in wetlands 3,600 1) 3,400-3,600

Lead shot for other hunting activi-ties

14,400 1) 13,700-14,400

Rifle bullets for hunting 150 140-150

Lead shot for clay target shooting and air gun pellets

17,800 ? 2)

Rifle and pistol bullets for shooting 2,700 ? 2)

1) The precise amount used in wetlands is not known. The figures should be regarded as a first es-timate and are mutually interdependent. The total is estimated at 18,000 t.

2) Released on shooting ranges, no data on recovery rates available

Alternatives to lead While iron presents an clear improvement compared to lead considering toxicity as well as other environmental issues, other alternatives suffers from one or more drawbacks inclusive of lack of data. All main alternatives to lead - steel, tungsten, bismuth and tin - have the advantage of being non toxic to birds.

Regarding shooting it is relevant to emphasize that the potential benefits related to substitution of lead ammunition is highly depending on the management of the shooting ranges. Shooting performed on shooting ranges designed and man-aged in a way allowing almost complete collection and recycling of lead - as well as other metals - does not for environmental reasons call strongly for a substitution of lead.

3.7.3 Discussion of the need for a community wide approach Regarding the need for a common approach related to restrictions on the mar-keting and use of lead in ammunition, the following arguments calling for a common approach have been identified:

1) Lead shot is an important source of poisoning of birds and in particular of waterfowl. As many birds and in particularly waterfowl are migratory birds the actions of individual Member States may naturally influence other Member States, as birds naturally belonging to the environment in some Member States may be poisoned during their travel through and temporary stay in other Member states.

2) National restrictions could hamper the free trade in EU, as substantial trade of cartridges and components between Member States is taking place mean-ing that in reality a common market for hunting and sports shooting ammu-nition exist in EU. It is obvious that any restriction introduced in a member state will have some effect on companies in other member states consider-ing the extensive trade across EU (reference is made to section3.2.5). As-


76

.

suming that appropriate time will be allowed for companies to adapt to re-strictions, it is, however, difficult to believe that such restrictions will be critical to more than very few companies.

However, attention may also be paid to the following argument partly opposing the need for a common approach:

3) To the extent the main environmental impact is soil contamination condi-tions may differ between the Member States with respect to e.g. the content of lead in soil, the mobility of lead in soil, the lead load on soil from ammu-nition and other sources etc. These differences may motivate Member States to establish individual local or national restrictions regarding the use of lead ammunition for hunting and shooting as well as for design and op-eration of shooting ranges, as some Member States naturally may feel a need to be more restrictive on lead than other Member States.

Compared to the restriction options presented in table 3.21 it is obvious that arguments related to migratory birds exist for a community wide approach re-garding the use of lead shot for hunting in wetlands inclusive of the fact that several non-lead substitutes deemed non-toxic to birds are easily available on the market.

Considering lead shot for other hunting activities the picture is more compli-cated, as it is debatable to what extent the risk of lead shot is significant to birds and a restriction may also be argued by the general impact of lead shot on the soil environment. In this context it is relevant to note that while steel shot is a favourite alternative to lead shot other alternatives should be preferred in areas with hard surfaces like rocks due to the risk of ricochets. Steel shot may, fur-thermore, not be allowed in forest areas where the wood is utilised for indus-trial production. However, the data available on soil toxicity for other substi-tutes with a softness similar to lead as tin, bismuth and tungsten are scarce and does in reality not allow a substantiated conclusion on whether these metals can be regarded as an improvement in the soil environment compared to lead or not. It is recommended that research is initiated that can eliminate the current lack of data. This recommendation is supported by the fact that new data on tungsten has indicated effects towards humans as well as soil organisms and plants.

However, despite these uncertainties regarding available substitutes to lead shot Member States may for environmental reasons consider it justified to introduce national restrictions on the use on lead based on national conditions. The only argument in favour of a community wide approach in this context would be the trade argument stated above as (2).

Considering riffle bullets for hunting the discussion is very similar to the dis-cussion above for lead shot for other hunting activities apart from that substi-tutes for lead riffle bullets are less developed and tested than substitutes for lead shot.

Discussion of restric-tion options available


77

.

Considering lead shot and air gun pellets for shooting the environmental issue in focus is generally the issue of soil contamination which is a local or national issue not calling for a community-wide approach. This conclusion is also sup-ported by the fact that the potential benefits related to substitution of lead am-munition are highly depending on the management of the shooting ranges and that it should be possible to design and operate shooting ranges in a way allow-ing almost complete collection and recycling of lead. A strategy of collection and recycling of lead is strongly supported by ISSF. It remains, however, to be seen whether this strategy is more or less cost-effective than a strategy of sub-stitution of lead ammunition. In case substitution turns out to be more cost-effective the option always remains to restrict the use of lead on the individual shooting ranges or nationally. Thus the only argument in favour of a commu-nity wide approach in this context would be the trade argument stated above as (2). It may be noted that also with respect to shooting ranges Member States may for environmental reasons consider it justified to introduce restrictions on the use on lead based on national conditions.

Considering riffle and pistol bullets for shooting the discussion is similar to the discussion above for lead shot and air gun pellets for shooting.

3.8 Summary and conclusion The European (EU15 area) market for sporting and hunting ammunition can be characterised by the following key figures:

� 6.2 million hunters � 2.5 million sports shooters � Hunters and shooters use roughly 39,000 tonnes of lead annually � Approximately 50-100 companies are involved in ammunitions manufac-

turing and the general industry structure is quite complex � The manufacturing industry annually produces ammunition representing a

load of 53,000 tonnes of lead � The EU15 as a whole is a net exporter of ammunition (the net export

comes up to about 14,000 tonnes of lead annually) � 17-18% of total ammunitions production is exchanged across borders

within the EU15 area annually - hence there appears to be a well-developed common internal market; this is even more evident for the sepa-rate market of ammunition components (i.e. not finished cartridges)

� The ammunitions market is assessed to be worth of roughly 300 million euros annually (worth of production based on average import/export prices for 2003); measured in terms of retail prices (what hunters and shooters pay in retail stores) the market could be assessed to be worth of some 400-500 million euros

� Approximately 70% of the market (measured in monetary terms) is for shotgun ammunition; similarly, approximately 90% of the lead annually consumed (measured in tonnes lead) is for shotgun ammunition.

The existing regulation within the EU15 area on the use of sporting and hunting ammunition can be summarised as follows:

Existing market overview

Existing regulation overview


78

.

� Full bans on the use of lead shotgun ammunition are applied in the Nether-lands and in Denmark.

� Partial bans on the use of lead shotgun ammunition are applied in Belgium, Finland, Sweden and UK (use in wetland areas or other special protected resorts).

� Use of lead shotgun ammunition for sports shooting is restricted in Den-mark and Netherlands; selected shooting ranges are exempted for interna-tional competition purposes and training for such competitions, however.

� The internationally applied rules for sport shooting do not require the use of lead ammunition in any sporting disciplines (typically the provision is "lead or other soft material"); practically, lead ammunition is used in al-most all shooting disciplines, reportedly due to attractive performance characteristics of such ammunition.

� Use of lead centre fire or lead rim fire ammunition is not restricted for hunting or for sporting purposes (with few exemptions, notably in Swe-den).

Direct costs cover required investments for conversion of lead based ammuni-tions production lines into production lines based on substitute metals, as well as operating and administrative costs and consist of two separately identified cost components: costs for development of new products (research and devel-opment) and cost for adaptation of existing machinery, thus allowing the ma-chinery to work properly with substitute metals. Conversion costs (costs of a full conversion of existing lead based production lines) have been estimated at approximately 310 million � based on information provided by the European ammunitions manufacturing industry.

Incremental costs of a full ban on the use of lead ammunition - apart from con-version costs described above - relate in principle solely to increased costs for the detailed manufacturing of pellets/shots/bullets (seen as a separate cartridge component). For a number of the available substitute metals the major part of these costs would be incurred by the substantially higher price of the raw mate-rials. An exemplary calculation indicates that retail prices of an average hunting shotgun cartridge may increase by 25-50% due to higher expenses for raw ma-terials alone. To this will be added additional costs for more costly manufactur-ing processes.

All subsequent downstream steps in the manufacturing process of a cartridge is assessed to be similar (at least in cost terms) to that of a lead based production line. Thus costs for other ammunition components - propellant, case, wad and primer - as well as costs for loading, printing, packaging and distribution would remain unchanged once the industry conversion has been completed.

Additional costs could be foreseen in case parallel production lines of lead and non-lead ammunition are established and maintained (this could be relevant for example in order to serve export markets even in case of a full ban on the use of lead ammunition in Europe).

Impact on industry, direct costs


79

.

Indirect costs cover consequences for the manufacturers regarding competitive-ness and their decisions to invest and innovate due to the proposed regulation. Focus in this respect is on the existing manufacturers of lead shot/pellets/bullets as the sub-sector of the entire ammunitions industry, which is likely to be hit hardest by any new regulation on the use of lead ammunition. For this particu-lar sub-sector the barriers involved in converting production lines as well as in acquiring new know-how could be severe.

Of the AFEMS-members 5 companies (1 French, 1 Greek, 2 Italian and 1 Span-ish) have been identified as specialist suppliers of lead shots/pellets, implying that these five are not engaged in manufacturing of other ammunition compo-nents or loading of final cartridges. The consequences of a ban on the use of lead shot/pellets must be expected to be particularly hard felt for these 5 com-panies. It is assumed that these 5 companies most likely represent a total staff of employees of less than 200 and a total turnover of less than 100 mill.�/year. 3 other lead shot manufacturers exist, but these are engaged in other activities related to ammunitions manufacturing parallel to the production of lead shot. Together these 8 manufacturers are covering 90% of the production of lead shot in EU15, indicating that the number of employees and the turnover of other companies active in this field is limited.

Also 3 companies, which reportedly are engaged in manufacturing of machines for lead shot production may face severe consequences. The know-how used in lead processing cannot be transferred directly to for example steel processing. Those companies that are not engaged in other types of lead processing (for example produces lead sheets for roofing or similar parallel to the production of lead shot for ammunition) may simply be pushed out of the market in case of a full ban on the use of lead ammunition. It is noted that the number of employ-ees and the turnover of these companies are not known.

Other lead shot manufacturers will probably to a varying extent be able to di-versify their activities into some of the other manufacturing processes, in which they are also engaged apart from the lead shot manufacturing. At least in a tran-sitional period until production lines have been fully converted as described above.

To the extent manufacturing activity is taken over by other European compa-nies, the economic impact is minimized, but social costs related to the transition process remains. It is, however, at the present stage not possible to assess the social costs related to the transition process. Generally such transition costs de-pend heavily on the conditions in the region in which the company is located and is thus generally difficult to assess. However, as the number of employees affected seems to be relatively small the social costs of transition are likely lim-ited.

The end users - sports shooters and hunters - will eventually pay for any in-creased costs in manufacturing of ammunition through increased price levels for the individual cartridges. Increased costs not only cover higher prices for the raw materials used, but also cover the costs of more complex production techniques as well as the conversion costs of the industry described above.

Impact on industry, indirect costs

Social costs of tran-sition

Impact on hunters


80

.

The incremental cost of ammunition is estimated at 22� - 46� for the average European hunter if lead ammunition was to be completely banned for all hunt-ing. To this should be added a one-time cost of 50� per testing related to safety testing of a shotgun. Spread over 5 years this conversion cost corresponds to an annual incremental cost of 13� per hunter.

The safety testing relates to the fact that the cheapest alternative available to lead shot is steel shot, which however cannot be used in some old guns with thin-walled barrels as these guns may explode or be damaged if trying. For a number of other alternatives as shot made of tin, bismuth or tungsten, this prob-lem does not exist. These other alternatives are however significantly more ex-pensive than steel shot. The incremental cost of ammunition is calculated based on a mix of alternatives giving each hunter having an old gun the choice of whether to have the gun tested - and replaced if it does not pass the test - in or-der to benefit from the relatively cheap steel shot or to use the gun with the more expensive cartridges based on e.g. tin, bismuth or tungsten.

Other consequences to the hunter will vary with the alternative preferred. Bismuth and tungsten-polymer shot will behave very similar to lead shot hav-ing a significant higher price as their main disadvantage. Steel shot is the cheapest alternative but will behave ballistic differently requiring the shooter to shorten the shooting distance and generally get accustomed to this type of shot. Furthermore, the shooter must be more careful as the risks of ricochets are higher with steel shot. For this reason steel shot cannot be recommended in ar-eas with hard surfaces like rocks. Finally steel shot may be not recommended in forests in which the trees are utilised by the wood industry. Tin shot is like an in-between being as light as steel and as soft as lead, bismuth and tungsten-polymer.

Alternatives for other types of hunting ammunition like in particular bullets are not as developed as alternatives for lead shotgun cartridges. Non-lead ammuni-tion claimed to be appropriate is being marketed. Development efforts address-ing non-lead bullet ammunition seem, however primarily to be related to mili-tary ammunition.

The incremental cost of ammunition to the average European shooter is esti-mated at 27 - 55� for shotgun ammunition, 2 - 20� for bullet ammunition, and 8 -24� for airgun ammunition, corresponding to a total of 37 - 99�, if lead am-munition was to be completely banned for all shooting. For shotgun ammuni-tion is assumed that lead is substituted by a mix of steel, tin, bismuth and tung-sten ammunition, while for airguns tin pellets is assumed to be an acceptable alternative. The alternatives regarding bullets are not that developed, and de-velopments efforts seem primarily to be focused on military ammunition.

These figures indicated above describes the incremental cost to the average shooter, while a competitive shot gun shooter may have to face extra costs in the range of 500� to 7500� annually due to a significantly higher consumption of shot gun cartridges. The same picture applies to a competitive pistol, rifle or air gun shooter.

Impact on sports shooters


81

.

As the dominant alternative for shotgun shooters also is assumed to be steel shot again the issue of gun testing is relevant besides that for many shotguns new chokes will have to be installed. This one-time conversion cost of 50 -100� pr shooter assumed relevant for 50% of all shooters will spread over 5 years correspond to an annual incremental cost of 6.5 - 13� taken as an average for all shooters.

Finally, competitive shooters with very high cartridge consumption may face increased barrel wear due to steel shot forcing frequent replacement of weap-ons. Assuming that 3 - 5 % of all sport shooters will make an extra replace-ment of their weapon annually the costs incurred will correspond to an annual incremental cost of 30 -50� as average for all sport shooters.

Other consequences of a restriction on the use of lead ammunition to sports shooters include the following:

� Steel, a likely alternative to lead for shotguns, imply higher safety risks at shooting ranges due to the risks of ricocheting shot and a ban on the use of lead based shotgun ammunition could require reengineering of many exist-ing shooting ranges;

� As lead ammunition is the ammunition normally used at international sport shooting events, European shooters may have to compete on unfair terms.

The international sports shooting association (ISSF) recommends that collec-tion and recycling of the lead from shooting ranges are promoted rather than substitutes for lead ammunition. It is believed that significant improvements in this field are possible, and that shooting ranges can be designed and operated in a way paying full respect to environmental concerns related to inter alia lead.

It must be recognised that measures for effective collection of lead ammunition at shooting ranges and remediation of range areas exist and is being further de-veloped. However, a strategy of improving design and operation of shooting ranges will certainly imply higher cost and it remains to be seen whether this strategy is more cost-effective than a strategy of substitution of lead ammuni-tion.

The main environmental and health issues related to lead ammunition is as fol-lows:

! Poisoning of waterfowl and other birds by ingestion of lead split shot and sinkers and the following secondary poisoning of raptors. Poisoning of wa-terfowl may in special cases form a health risk to humans consuming these birds.

! Lead contamination of soil taking place on agricultural areas, in forests and other areas used as hunting grounds as well as on shooting ranges. Metallic lead is in soil slowly corroded and turned into toxic lead compounds. Lead ammunition is today regarded as the major source of lead contamination of soils slowly causing the content of lead in topsoil to increase. No compre-

Impact of lead and substitutes on envi-ronment and health


82

.

hensive assessment of the effects of this increase exists. However, a contin-ued increase will narrow the gab between the current lead content of soil and the levels for which effects may actually be observed and could eventu-ally cause these levels to be exceeded. The effects of lead to be expected cover toxicity of lead towards humans as well as towards plants, animals and micro-organisms.

While the issue of poisoning of waterfowl and other birds is related to the use of lead shot in wetlands and upland areas the issue of soil contamination is re-lated to all types of lead ammunition.

Substitutes based on steel, tin, bismuth and tungsten is approved as non-toxic to birds in either USA or Canada. Regarding other impacts only iron presents a clear improvement compared to lead, while other alternatives suffers from one or more drawbacks inclusive of lack of data. Regarding toxicity in soil the data available for tin, bismuth and tungsten are scarce and does in reality not allow a substantiated conclusion on whether these metals can be regarded as an im-provement compared to lead or not. It is recommended that research is initiated that can eliminate the current lack of data. This recommendation is supported by the fact that new data on tungsten has indicated effects towards humans as well as soil organisms and plants.

It is assessed that arguments exist for a community wide approach regarding the use of lead shot in wetlands, as in particularly waterfowl are migratory birds and the actions of individual Member States may naturally influence other Member States.

Regarding other hunting activities the picture is more complicated, as the pri-mary environmental problem in this context seems to be the issue of soil con-tamination, and it is unclear whether the substitutes available in all cases repre-sent an improvement in the soil environment compared to lead. Soil contamina-tion should generally be regarded as a local or national issue and despite the uncertainties mentioned regarding available substitutes to lead shot Member States may for environmental reasons consider it justified to introduce restric-tions on the use on lead based on national environmental conditions. The only argument in favour of a community wide approach in this context would thus be the implications of such restrictions towards the free trade across the EU. Assuming that appropriate time will be allowed for companies to adapt to re-strictions, it is difficult to believe that such restrictions will be critical to more than very few companies.

Regarding shooting activities the environmental issue in focus again is the issue of soil contamination which should regarded as a local or national issue. As already stated ISSF has proposed a strategy of promoting improved the design and operation of shooting ranges in order to ensure almost completely collec-tion and recycling of lead. In case substitution turns out to be more cost-effective the option always remains to restrict the use of lead on the individual shooting ranges or nationally. Also for shooting ranges specific national restric-tions may be considered justified by national environmental conditions. Thus the only argument in favour for a community wide approach in this context

The need for a com-munity wide ap-proach


83

.

would be the implications of such restrictions towards the free trade across EU and again assuming that appropriate time will be allowed for companies to adapt to restrictions, it is difficult to believe that such restrictions will be criti-cal to more than very few companies.

The cost and consequences in terms of reduced contribution of lead to the envi-ronment in the EU related to the possible restriction options are presented in table 3.22.

Table 3.22 Estimated costs of selected measures to reduce the load to the environ-ment from lead containing ammunition, EU-15 area

Phase-out regime

Lead shot for hunting in wet-

lands 1)

Lead shot for other hunting

activities 2)

Lead bullets for hunting,

Lead shot and air gun pellets for shooting

Lead bullets for shooting

Total

Total costs per ton lead substituted (�/t) 1)

12,200 - 20,600 12,200 - 20,600 1,200 - 10,300 10,100 - 19,700 1,850 - 18,500 10,500 - 19,900

Total costs in EU-15 (mill.�/year) 1)

44 - 74 176 - 296 0.18 - 1.5 180 - 350 5 - 50 405 - 770

Reduced load to the environment in EU-15 (tonnes lead/year)

3,400 - 3,600 13,700 - 14,400 140 - 150 ? - 17,800 3)

? - 2,700 3)

17,240 - 38,600

Source Own calculations

1) All costs are based on estimated retail prices and includes for shot gun also the anticipated costs of testing of weapons. Costs of reduced remedial actions related to shooting ranges and other areas exposed to soil contamination are not included. Costs of transition incl. of social costs for companies not able to adapt to restrictions are not included either.

2) For hunting in wetlands as well as other hunting activities has been assumed a mix of 50 steel, 20% bismuth, 20% tungsten and 10% tin. It is likely that the percentage of steel could be higher in wetlands causing the average cost per ton of lead substituted to be less than for other activities. It is assumed that 20% of all shotgun hunting takes place in wet-lands areas.

3) Some collection and recycling is taking place already today. However, no exact data on the amount of lead recycled is available.

Cost and conse-quences of selected measures


84

.

4 Fishing sinkers

4.1 Application of lead in fishing sinkers Fishing sinkers are uses for both angling (recreational fishing) and commercial fishing. In this context the term sinkers is used as anonymous for all applica-tions of lead for lures and fishing equipment.

Angling Lead is used for angling in a number of lures: Sinkers/weights, jigs, wobblers, downrigger weights, split shot, pirks, etc. (See Figure 4.1). In this study the term 'sinkers' is used for all these applications.

Figure 4.1 Fishing lures that typically contain lead

Sinkers/weights Jigs

Split shot

Downrigger weight

Pirks

Sources: Grejbiksen Albæk, http://gbab.dk/catalog; Cabelas Inc., http://www.cabelas.com

The weight of split shot range from fractions of a gram to about 50 gram. The weight of sinkers, which consists of a lead body with one or more eyelets to fasten the fishing line with a knot, range from a couple of grams to several hundred grams. Downriggers may weight up to 5 kg whereas the weight of


85

.

pirks typically ranges from 100-600 g. Wobblers are mainly made of wood or plastics but contain often a small part of lead.

Split shot, small sinkers/weights, and wobblers are mainly used in fresh water, whereas larger sinkers/weights, downrigger weights and pirks are used in the sea.

For commercial and artisanal fishing (small-scale semi-commercial and recrea-tional fishing using nets), lead is used in at least three different ways dependent on the specific fishing nets:

Seine ropes are used for large seines (nets), mainly used for fishing benthic fish on relatively shallow water as in the North Sea. The seine rope is typi-cally designed as a woven rope with a thin lead wire woven into the fila-ments of polypropylene or polyester, which is sewn to the net. Benthic seine nets are mainly used in Denmark, Scotland, Norway and Iceland. Seine ropes are produced in different diameters and the weight of the ropes range from about 23 to 85 kg per 100 m.

Lead lines are used all over Europe for pound nets (or set nets). A line is made of small pieces of lead beads threaded on a plastic rope. The string of lead beads is covered by a woven plastic stocking of polypropylene, polyester or other plastics and the stocking is sewn or woven on the net. Lead lines are produced in different diameters and the weight range from about 2 to 20 kg per 100 m.

Sinkers/weights are used all over Europe for large ring nets or seines for pe-lagic fish, some type of trawls, fykes, hoop nets and other types of net fishing. The size and design of the weights may differ considerably and the weights shown below represent a few examples only. Lead weight for fishing nets ranges from about 50 g to several kg per weight.

Commercial and ar-tisanal fishing


86

.

Lead is in general not used for trawl. The trawls are in general equipped with steel wires, but lead sinkers may in some cases be used in addition.

4.2 Markets of fishing sinkers

4.2.1 Angling Manufacturers of tackle for angling are organised in the European Fishing Tackle Trade Association (EFTTA) located in London. The organisation has currently more than 250 members and represents about 80% of the producers and wholesalers in the EU in terms of turnover. The organisation provides sta-tistics on export/import by country obtained from national statistical bureaus.

In the nomenclature of production and trade statistics lead-containing tackle is included in a commodity group including all fishing tackle exclusive rods, reels and hooks. EFFTA does not hold any statistics specifically on sinkers and no specific information on the use of lead for sinker production in the EU.

Statistics on production and trade of tackle for angling is shown in Annex 3. Lead-containing lures are included under a commodity code covering all lures, landing nets and other equipment exclusive rods, reels and hooks. The total re-ported production for EU15 according to the PRODCOM statistics add up to about 80 million �/year (table A3.18). However, the production statistics seems not to include production figures for all Member States. Import and export sta-tistics are more complete. In total the export from the Member States totalled about 65 million �/year.

The import/export statistics from the COMEXT database (table A3.19-A3.23) average of 2000-2002) seems to use a slightly different delimitation of the commodity code and the import/export data from PRODCOM and COMEXT, respectively, are not immediately comparable. According to the COMEXT sta-tistics (table A3.22) intra-community export from the Member States totalled 86 million � with Finland, France, Italy and UK as the main export countries. The extra-community export totalled 65 million � with Finland, Ireland and Italy as the main export countries.

EU15 is net-importer of the equipment concerned (table A3.23). The total ex-tra-community import totalled 85 million �.

The total import to EU15 countries of line fishing tackle n.e.s. in tonnes in-creased from 4,700 tonnes in 1993 to 14,000 tonnes in 2003 (Figure 4.2). Pro-

Production and trade statistics


87

.

duction data are only available in monetary units and only for some of the member States.

Figure 4.2 Total import of line fishing tackle n.e.s; fish landing nets, butterfly nets and similar nets; decoys and similar hunting or shooting requisites (ex-clusive rods, reels and hooks) (CN 95.07.90.00) to EU15 Member States 1993-2003

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Impo

rt (t

onne

s/ye

ar)

Extra EU15

Intra EU15

According to a leading European wholesaler of fishing tackle, the lead-containing lures account for about 10-15% of the total market for lures and for less than 3% of the total fishing tackle market in monetary terms. Assuming that sinkers and other lead-containing lures account for 10-20 % of the products covered by CN 95.07.90.00 (figure 4.2) and that import account for 2/3 of the total consumption, the weight of the lead-containing lures can be estimated at 2,000-4,000 t/year in accordance with the estimates of the total consumption presented below.

Turnover of the major European fishing tackle companies based on information from EFTTA is shown in table 4.1 (turnover off all types of tackle and fishing equipment). It has not been possible to obtain information on the turnover of the remaining companies, but it is estimated by EFTTA that the 20 largest companies account for at least 50% of the total turnover.

Names of specific companies are considered confidential by EFFTA and will not be reported here.

Fishing tackle com-panies


88

.

Table 4.1 Turnover of European fishing tackle companies in 2001 (EFTTA 2004)

Total domestic turnover

Million US$

Total export turnover

Million US$

5 biggest companies 86 125

15 following companies 128 74

It must be expected that the production is concentrated on fewer companies for high-tech products like rods and reels, whereas manufacturing of sinkers is relatively simple and may take place in many smaller companies. According to the database of EFTTA, 159 European members of EFTTA are registered as manufacturers of weights/sinkers. In total, inclusive non-members, the database holds information on 1,637 European manufacturers of weights/sinkers. A spot check of the manufacturers of the latter list indicates that this list includes manufacturers of equipment for professional fishing and manufacturers no longer in operation or not producing sinkers. The lists are considered confiden-tial.

The manufacturers of weights/sinkers are spread over most of Europe with most producers (organised in EFTTA) in France, Germany, Italy and the UK and Poland. Sinkers and other lead-containing lures are to a large extent sold on the domestic market. As an example two Danish producers of lead-containing lures ceased the production following the Danish ban on lead in sinkers.

It is relatively simple to manufacture sinkers and it can easily be done in a small workshop. There seems not to be any "major" manufacturers in Europe. At the international trade fair for fishing tackle, EFTTEX, in 2003, 10 manufac-turers were registered in the catalogue as manufacturers of weights and sinkers. All of these have been contacted as part of this study.

Most of the contacted manufacturers are either manufacturing different tackle with sinkers as a minor part of their supply of products or they are lead foun-dries, with sinkers as a small part of their supply of products besides batteries, keels, and other lead products. The only identified companies of a certain size (>20 employees) which have manufacturing of sinkers as their main activity are situated in Eastern Europe. Among the contacted companies who provided spe-cific information one company used about 150 t lead/year for sinkers.

Most of the contacted manufacturers are either manufacturing different tackle with sinkers as a minor part of their supply of products or they are lead foun-dries, with sinkers as a small part of their supply of products besides batteries, keels, and other lead products. The only identified companies of a certain size (>20 employees) which have manufacturing of sinkers as their main activity are situated in Eastern Europe. As production volumes are considered confidential actual figures on the use of lead for production has only been obtained from a few manufacturers.


89

.

Common market The statistical data shows that there is an extensive trade of lures (and other fishing tackle other than rods, reels and hooks) between the Member States (Table A3.22 in Annex 3) and a common market seems to exist for lures in general. Contact to a large number of manufacturers of sinkers, however, indi-cate that for the simple sinkers the manufacturers mainly supply to the lo-cal/national markets, but it actually difficult to trace where the products end up. Only some manufacturers in the Czech Republic and Hungary have reported that the major part of their production is exported.

A thorough assessment of the sinkers market in Europe would imply a compre-hensive market survey and the positive participation of several hundreds of manufacturers and wholesalers.

Table 4.2 European members of EFTTA recorded as manufacturers of weights/sinkers by country

Manufacturers of Weights/sinkers

Austria 1

Belgium 4

Denmark 3

Finland 4

France 26

Germany 20

Greece 0

Ireland 0

Italy 35

Luxembourg 0

Netherlands 0

Portugal 2

Spain 5

Sweden 4

United Kingdom 25

Czech Republic 3

Hungary 6

Latvia 1

Norway 3

Poland 14

Switzerland 3

Total 159

Lead consumption In general only limited information is available on the consumption of lead for fishing tackle in Europe. The European Fishing Tackle Trade Association (EFTTA), European Anglers´ Alliance (EAA), the International Lead and Zinc Study Group (ILZSG) and Lead Development Association International


90

.

(LDAI) have been contacted, but none of the organisations hold any informa-tion on the use of lead for fishing sinkers at a European level.

In the statistics prepared by ILZSG, sinkers are included in 'miscellaneous products' which also include yacht keels, curtain weights, counter balances, etc. The total consumption for 'miscellaneous products' in EU15 is about 65,000 tonnes [TNO 2001].

A questionnaire and follow-up enquiries to environmental authorities in the old and new Member States did except for Denmark not reveal any studies of the use of lead for sinkers in the countries. The following information is obtained by combining information from the literature with information from national associations of manufacturers (identified through information obtained from EFTTA) and from manufacturers of lead sinkers for angling.

As described in the next chapter, fishing sinkers are manufactured by a large number of small manufacturers and the manufacturers mainly supplies to the domestic markets. This makes it very difficult to identify 'major' manufacturers and to obtain overall data on the use of lead in each country. It has for the data retrieval been assumed that manufacturers exhibiting on the international fish-ing tackle trade fair EFTTEX and registered in the catalogue as manufacturers of sinkers could be regarded major manufacturers potentially supplying an in-ternational market. However several of the manufacturers were actually not producing lead sinkers.

- Denmark Denmark is the only country for which a detailed study of the use of lead for fishing sinkers exists. The total content of lead in lures sold in Denmark in 2000 before the lead ban came into force is estimated at 97-170 t [Lassen et. al 2003], corresponding to 18-32 g/capita/year. The consumption can be broken down into 30-51 t with general sinkers, 3-3.5 t with split shot, 4-12 t large troll-ing sinkers, and 50-70 t with pirks, jigs, wobblers, etc. The consumption is ex-pected to be decreasing because of the current Danish ban on the sale of lead sinkers. The manufacturing of sinkers and pirks in Denmark has ceased the last year because of the disappearance of a domestic market.

- Czech Republic Manufacturers of fishing tackle in the Czech Republic are not organised in an association Four to five manufacturers of sinkers are operating in the Czech Republic and three of the Czech members of EFTTA are registered as manufac-turers of sinkers. Three manufacturers of lead sinkers, members of EFTTA and exhibiting on the EFTTEX and registered in the catalogue as manufacturers were contacted. One of the manufacturers declined to participate in the study, one informed that they were actually not producing sinkers and one provided specific information. Based on information from manufacturer, that account for a significant part of the domestic market, the domestic Czech market for fishing sinkers is estimated at 40-100 t. The sinkers are mainly used for carp fishing. Besides, there may be a significant home casting of lead sinkers. The consump-tion of lead for production of sinkers in the Czech Republic is estimated to be several thousand tonnes; the main part of the produced sinkers is exported.


91

.

- France The national association of manufacturers and wholesalers of fishing tackle, GIFAB and a major manufacturer of sinkers were contacted. GIFAB has in-formed that they are in the process of collecting information from manufactur-ers, but no information has been received yet.

- Hungary Information about the Hungarian market for fishing sinkers have been collected by COWI Hungary Ltd. [Varkonyi 2004]. Manufacturers of fishing tackle in Hungary are not organised in an association. Besides four market leaders a large number of small manufacturers (workshops) exist. The 4 leading manu-facturers of lead sinkers, members of EFTTA and exhibiting on the EFTTEX and registered in the catalogue as manufacturers (3 of the 4) were contacted. Based on information from the manufacturers the domestic market of sinkers in Hungary is estimated at 80-100 t lead. Some of the manufacturers report that up to 90% of their production is exported to Western Europe, and the amount of lead used for manufacturing of sinkers in Hungary is considerably higher than the 80-100 t.

- Lithuania Information on the Lithuanian market of sinkers has been collected by UAB COWI Baltic [Rinkevicius 2004]. Manufacturers of sinkers are not organised in an association, and the list of manufacturers of sinkers from EFFTA do not in-clude any Lithuanian manufacturers. Sinkers are only produced in small work-shops and by home casting, and it has not been possible to obtain any estimate of the sinker market in Lithuania.

- Italy The Italian association of manufacturers and wholesalers of fishing tackle, FIPO, and two manufacturers of lead sinkers, members of EFFTA and exhibit-ing on EFTTEX, were contacted. The contacted manufacturers confirm that lead is used for manufacturing of sinkers in Italy, but that sinkers based on al-ternatives to lead were manufactured as well. It has not been possible to obtain an estimate of the Italian market. The difficulties in obtaining an estimate is illustrated by the answer from the association of manufacturers, FIBO: "It is true that are not many foundries in Italy which manufacture lead articles for sports fishing, but there are small companies which manufacture the same arti-cles for a limited market. A large part of the lead sinkers are imported from abroad directly by the retailers, so it will be difficult to discover the market val-ues" [FIPO 2004].

- Poland As regards the consumption of lead with sinkers, The Ministry of Environment, describe the situation in their questionnaire response: "As far as sinkers and candle wicks are concerned, these are mainly produced from micro and small sized enterprises which are under the authorization of the Local Environmental Authorities and it is extremely difficult to collect relevant data from them."

The Polish Association of Angling, manufacturers of sinkers and a fishing tackle retailer have been contacted for collection of additional information.

About 20 manufacturers of sinkers operate in Poland and 14 of the Polish members of EFTTA are registered as manufacturers of s inkers. The manufac-turers produce mainly for the domestic market. The consumption of lead with sinkers in Poland is, based on information from the Polish Angling Association,


92

.

estimated at 1,000-1,500 t/year in inland waters and 20-40 t/year in marine wa-ter (Baltic Sea). The estimate is based on information from the Polish Associa-tion of Angling using an approach of multiplying the number of anglers with the average amount of lead lost each time the go fishing and the number of fish-ing expeditions as follows [Andruszkiewicz et al 2004]:

Technique Number of anglers

Lost per expedition (weight per sinkers x

number of sinkers lost

Numbers of fish-ing expeditions

Total lost

(t Pb/year)

Base techniques (float and similar)

400,000 30 g x 1 30 360

Spinning 500,000 10 g x 5 30 750

Carp fishing 100,000 50 g x 1 30 150

Marine angling 10,000 100 g x 1 30 30

Total 1,290

It has not been possible to confirm the consumption estimate by actual infor-mation on the Polish market from the contacted manufacturers. In countries with many small manufacturers it seems to be a common problem that each manufacturer does not know the volume of the whole market. Compared to information from other countries the estimated amount of lead sinkers per an-gler appears to be very high.

- The Netherlands A Dutch survey estimate a load of lead from fishing sinkers in surface waters in 1993 of 28 tonnes, corresponding to 1.84 g/capita/year [Annema et al. 1995]. For the risk assessment, which is currently undertaken by LDAI, data from this Dutch national emissions inventory is used to extrapolate the total releases from fishing sinkers [Bush 2004].

- Spain and Portugal Five Spanish companies and two Portuguese registered as members of EFTTA and registered in the EFTTA database as manufacturers of fishing tackle were contacted. The contacted Portuguese companies turned out not to manufacture sinkers. No association of manufacturers of fishing tackle exist in Spain. The contacted Spanish companies confirm the use of lead for sinkers in Spain and it is informed that sinkers are produced by a large number of small enterprises and that a significant part of the sinkers are manufactured by "home produc-tion". It is not possible on the basis of the obtained information to estimate the use of lead for production of sinkers in Spain or the volume of the domestic market.

- Sweden In Sweden about 200 t lead was used for lures in 1992 [Gustafsson et al. 1993], corresponding to 22 g/capita. Swedish manufacturers and wholesalers of fish-ing tackle is organised in the association, Spofa Spöfiske. The association has for the present study collected information from its members. The recent as-sessment shows that lures sold on the Swedish market in total contained only about 3.5 t lead. All lead-containing equipment is imported and lead is to an increasing extent being replaced by other materials.


93

.

- UK In the UK zinc and tin is used for split shot and small sinkers, whereas lead is still used for large sinkers, pirks and other tackle used in the sea. According to a leading producer of small sinkers in the UK, the UK market for split-shot and non-toxic sinkers (<1 ounce) is about 40 t and 100 t, respectively corresponding to 2.3 g/capita/year in total for these applications.

The consumption of lead for large sinkers and pirks is considerably higher and is according to information from one manufacturer probably in the order of magnitude of 500-1000 t, giving a per capita consumption at the same level as reported for Denmark and Sweden.

The UK Angling Trades Association Ltd has been contacted for information on the UK market of lead sinkers for this study, but holds no statistics on the pro-duction or consumption of lead in angling equipment [Broughton 2004].

USA and Canada Considering the scarce data on the use of lead sinkers in Europe, data on the consumption of lead sinkers in Canada is included here. Split shot sinkers are estimated to account for almost half of total U.S. sinker production; and the ma-jority of lead sinkers of all types are less than 2 cm in any direction [Scheu-hammer and Norris 1995]. Canadian experts estimate that the mass of lead sold as fishing sinkers annually in Canada is in the range of 388�559 t (12-17 g/capita). The main part of the sinkers is manufactured by so-called 'cottage industries' [Scheuhammer and Norris 1995]. An undetermined additional amount of lead is sold in the form of jigs. Virtually all of this lead is according to the authors destined to be deposited into the environment [Scheuhammer and Norris 1995].

Summary The obtained data are summarised in table 3.4. Based on information on total population and the number of active anglers, per-capita and per-angler con-sumption for each country is estimated.

General considerations According to a leading European wholesaler, the consumption per capita in Denmark and other Scandinavian Countries is significantly higher than in most other Western European countries because of a large consumption of pirks and large sinkers used at sea. In Scandinavia a significant part is used for angling in the sea using large sinkers, pirks and downriggers with a relatively high lead content. In the rest of Europe angling in streams and lakes is more widespread and split-shot and smaller sinkers seem to make up a major part of the con-sumption. However, a major French manufacturer indicates that the lead con-sumption for angling in the sea may be higher than the consumption in fresh water in France, because the significantly higher weight of each sinker.

The information obtained from Eastern Europe indicates that the consumption of lead may be higher in those countries which may be due to general differ-ences in the lures used for the fishing (lead account only for a small part of the total use of lures). Further it is indicated that there is a significant export of lead sinkers from Czech Republic and Hungary to Western Europe.

The obtained data shows very large variations, in particular if consumption is estimated in terms of consumption per angler per year. The per-angler con-


94

.

sumption varies from 0.002 kg/year in Sweden to 1.7 kg/year (maximum in the range) in Poland. It should be noted that the data from the Poland is considered quite uncertain and may be an overestimation. The reported consumption in Sweden and the Netherlands is considerably lower than the reported consump-tion in the other countries.

Considering the large variation is seems not to be feasible to try to estimate the consumption of lead for sinkers in the countries for which no data is available, neither on the basis of number of anglers nor total population.

The total consumption of lead for sinkers for angling will here be roughly esti-mated on the basis of the available data. For the estimate it is assumed that the per-capita consumption is 10-30 g/capita/year whereas the per-angler consump-tion is assumed to be 0.1-0.3 kg/angler/year. The total number of angler in EU15 and EU25 is shown in table 4.4.

Using the per-capita figures the total consumption in EU15 and EU25 can be estimated at 3,800-11,300 and 4,500-13,500 t/year respectively. Using the per-angler figures (table 4.4) the total consumption can be estimated at 1,900-5,600 and 2,000-6,000 t/year for EU15 and EU25 respectively.

As the number of anglers in percentage of the total population varies consid-erably, the per-angler estimate is considered most appropriate.

Table 4.3 Annual consumption of lead for fishing sinkers for angling in

Country Consumption

t Pb/year

Total Population

Million

Number of active an-

glers Million 1)

Consumption

g Pb/capita/year

Consumption

kg Pb/angler/year

Year of study

Source

Czech republic 40-100 10.3 0.23 4-10 0.2-0.4 2004 This study

Denmark 97-170 5.3 0.45 18-32 0.2-0.4 2000 Lassen et al. 2003

France - 59.2 4 This study

Hungary 80-100 10.2 0.325 8-10 0.2-0.3 This study

Netherlands 28 15.9 1.5 2 0.02 1993 Annema et al. 1995

Poland 1,020-1,530 38.6 0.6 26-40 1.7-2.6 This study

Sweden 200 9.0 2.02 22 0.1 1992 Gustafsson et al. 1993

Sweden 3.5 9.0 2.02 0.4 0.002 2004 This Study

UK 500-1,000 59.6 4 8-17 0.1-0.3 2004 This study

Canada 388-559 32.5 0 12-17 - 1995 Scheuhammer and Norris 1995

1) Source: Website of European Anglers´ Alliance, 2004. See the source for details regarding the basis of the estimates: http://www.eaa-europe.org/2003/PFAbout/About-EAA-EN.htm

For the impact assessment it will be assumed that the annual consumption in EU25 is 2,000-6,000 t lead (EU15: 1,900-5,600 t). It is not known how much of this is used in inland waters (fresh water). Data from the UK and Denmark in-


95

.

dicate that it is a minor part, whereas it seems to be a major part in Poland and 100% in countries like the Czech Republic. It will here be assumed that half of the sinkers are used in fresh water; the remaining part used in the sea. It gives an estimated consumption for fishing in inland waters in EU25 of 1,000-3,000 t. The loss of lead with fishing sinkers to inland waters in EU15 have previ-ously based on the Dutch and Danish data been estimated at 1,000-3,000 t [TNO 2001].


96

.

Table 4.4 Numbers of anglers in EU15 and EU25

Active recreational an-glers 1)

% of popu-lation

Total population

Austria 410,000 5.1 8,100,000

Belgium 300,000 3 10,000,000

Denmark 451,000 8.5 5,300,000

Finland 2) 1,390,000 26.7 5,200,000

France 4,000,000 6.8 59,200,000

Germany 3,300,000 4 82,200,000

Greece no data - 10,500,000

Ireland 200,000 5.3 3,800,000

Italy 900,000 1.6 57,700,000

Luxembourg 4,000 1 400,000

Netherlands 1,500,000 9.4 15,900,000

Portugal 230,000 2.3 10,000,000

Spain no data - 39,400,000

Sweden 2,020,000 22.7 8,900,000

UK 4,000,000 6.7 59,600,000

Total EU15 18,705,000 376,200,000

Cyprus 3,000 0.4 800,000

Czech Republic 263 000 2.6 10,300,000

Estonia 50,000 3.6 1,400,000

Hungary 325,000 3.2 10,200,000

Latvia 200,000 8.3 2,400,000

Lithuania no data - 3,500,000

Malta no data - 400,000

Poland 600,000 1.6 38,600,000

Slovakia 69,000 1.3 5,400,000

Slovenia no data - 2,000,000

Total EU25 19,952,000 6.2 451,200,000

Rumania 200,000 0.9 22,318,000

Bulgaria 180,000 2.2 8,283,000

1) Source: Website of European Anglers´ Alliance, 2004: http://www.eaa-europe.org/2003/PFAbout/About-EAA-EN.htm

2) According to [Salonen 2004] the correct figure for Finland is probably 1,9 mill. anglers.

Based on the experience from the UK and Denmark it is roughly estimated that split shot (used in inland waters) account for about 10% of the total consump-tion corresponding to 200-600 t/year and it is consequently estimated that 800-2,400 t is the uses for other lures (small sinkers, jigs, etc.) used in inland waters in EU25.


97

.

4.2.2 Commercial fishing Manufacturers of nets for commercial fishing are not organised in a common European association.

Data collection A request was March 2004 circulated to national industry confederations which are members of the Union des Industries de la Communauté Européenne, UNICE (one in each Member State and Candidate Country) in order to identify national associations of manufacturers of fishing equipment for commercial fishing. The request was only answered by a few of the confederations and no national associations of manufacturers of fishing nets have been identified.

In order to obtain more information on the application and consumption of lead for commercial fishing in the different countries a questionnaire was prepared and the association representing professionals in the fisheries sector in the EU, Europêche, was contacted. The questionnaire was via Europêche circulated to all member associations in the Member States. Only one association (Dutch Fish Product Board) has until now responded to the questionnaire.

The questionnaire and follow-up enquiries to environmental authorities in the old and new Member States did except for Denmark, not reveal any studies of the use of lead for sinkers in the countries.

The experience with studies in Denmark is that it is necessary to contact a large number of manufacturers and wholesalers just to obtain a rough overview, be-cause of the many different applications, and import/export at different levels of the product chains. The use of trade statistics is further complicated by the fact that the fishermen often directly buy the equipment in other countries when visiting the harbours.

It is beyond the scope of the present study to undertake a comprehensive mar-ket research for all applications in all Member States.

Product chain The use of lead-lines for fishing nets involve three links of manufacturers in the product chain as described below in figure 4.3 (excluding wholesalers, retailers, etc.). The use of seine ropes involves similarly three links, but with other actors except for the manufacturing of lead-wire. The product chain for lead sinkers involves usually the manufacturers of the sinkers and manufacturing of made up nets/fykes, but often the weights are applied directly be the fishermen.

A large number of companies are involved in the production of lead weights, extruded lead wire, lead-lines, made-up fishing nets, etc. As an example more than 20 companies are involved in Denmark alone.

The Business to Business Search Engine, KOMPASS, holds information on 184 manufacturers of 'fishing nets' in Europe, 44 manufacturers of 'fishing line sinker', and 36 manufacturers of 'lead wire' [KOMPASS 2004]. The actual number is presumably significantly higher. A spot check in Spain, in which all four Spanish manufacturers of 'fishing nets' listed in KOMPASS were con-tacted, revealed that none of them were actually manufacturing made-up fishing


98

.

nets or dealing with lead (they only made the netting). The relatively small companies (often supplying a local market) which make up the fishing nets were not listed in KOMPASS.

Figure 4.3 Product chain for lead lines

Manufacturing of extrudes lead-wire

The lead wire or lead string of beads (small pieces of lead threaded on a plastic rope) are manufactured by relatively few companies each supplying a number of manufacturers of lead lines and seine ropes

Manufacturing of lead-lines and seine ropes

By the production of lead-lines, the lead strings are covered by a woven plastic stocking of polypropylene, polyester or other plastics. Lead lines are typically manufactured by manufac-turers of made-up fishing nets who use the lines directly or sell the lines to minor manufacturers or fishermen

Manufacturing of made-up fishing nets

By manufacturing of the made-up nets, the lead-lines are sewn onto the netting. The netting is usually manufactured by other companies special-ised on netting and ropes. The manufacturing of the made-up nets often takes place locally (e.g. by the fishermen themselves).

Fisheries The made-up nets are used for commercial or ar-tisanal fishery

From manufacturers of lead lines it was informed that a significant part of the machinery used for production of the extruded lead-wire in Europe were pro-vided by one German company. The company was contacted but declined to participate in the study.

Lead wire, lead sinkers and lead lines for fishing nets do not have specific CN codes and it is not possible from the statistics to obtain specific information on the production or trade of these products.

Statistics on production and trade of made-up fishing nets in EU15 is shown in Annex 3. The value of the reported production totalled according to the PRODCOM statistics142 million � in 2002, while the export from the individ-ual countries totalled 40 million � (Table A3. 25, in Annex 3). The production is not reported for some of the countries, but the data indicates that a major part of the production is sold on the domestic markets. For the three main producer

Production and trade statistics


99

.

countries, Italy, Spain and the UK, export accounted for 10 %, 32 % and 15 %, respectively.

The weight of the reported production (including all major export countries) is in total 20,000-25,000 tonnes/year. As several types of nets (e.g. trawl) are not equipped with lead, it is not possible to make an exact estimate of the consump-tion of lead for production of the nets. If it is assumed that maximum 20% of the made-up nets are lead, the lead content would be 5,000 t as a maximum.

It is not known to what extent the made-up nets are actually equipped with a lead line or sinkers when traded. A spot-check in Denmark indicated that both nets with and without lead-lines will be included in "made-up fishing nets".

According to the COMEXT statistics the intra-community export totalled 41 million � (average of 2000-2002) with Italy, Portugal and Spain as the main export countries (Table A3. 30). Extra-community export totalled 39 million � with Denmark, Italy, Portugal and Spain as main export countries. The total extra-community export equalled the extra-community import.

Common market As mentioned above the export of made-up fishing nets in the three largest producer countries only accounted for 10-15% of the total production. All available information points at production of sinkers for fishing nets to take place in many small enterprises mainly supplying to a local market. Contrary to this there seems to be a more common market for the lead wires and lead-bead treads used for lead line production, as well as for the lead lines used for set-nets. It has however not been possible within the limits of the present pro-ject to establish a comprehensive view of the market, and it is uncertain to what extent a common market exists. The same type of sinkers and lead lines seems to be used in the different Member Countries.

In the absence of specific data from most Member States, a first rough estimate will be provided on the basis of information on European fishing fleets and an estimated average consumption of lead per vessel. Data on the European fish-ing fleets are obtained from the concerted action "Economic performance of selected European fishing fleets" [EAEF 2003]. The report provides very spe-cific information on the number of large vessel types like trawlers and seiners, whereas the segmentation of the rest of the fleet does not allow a detailed as-sessment. The EU25 fleet consists of about 84,000 vessels (table 3.6) and em-ploy 206,000 fishermen [EAEF 2003].

For a first estimate we will distinguish between three segments: trawlers, sein-ers and 'other'.

It general trawl seem not contain lead (confirmed from Denmark, the Nether-lands, Poland and Spain). Different information has been obtained regarding seines; the term actually used for different nets. In 'Danish seine' used in the North Sea, seine ropes with lead is used, but it is informed that seines in the Netherlands do not contain lead, and in Spain some contain lead whereas some do not. Set nets with lead lines are traded all over Europe and set nets seem in

Estimating lead con-sumption on the ba-sis of number of ves-sels


100

.

general to include lead. Similarly, lead sinkers are traded all over Europe for use in different types of pound nets, ring nets, fykes and other net types.

Consumption of lead The only identified comprehensive studies of the use of lead for commercial fishing in Europe is from Denmark. Information from Denmark, Spain and Po-land will be used for estimating the average consumption per vessel.

- Denmark The background for the Danish studies is the considerations of the Danish Ministry of Environment regarding a general regulation of the use and trade of lead. The total content of lead in sinkers and ropes for fishing nets for commer-cial and artisanal fishing sold in Denmark in 2000 is estimated at 430-740 t [Lassen et al. 2003]. Artisanal fishing is in the study defined as recreational fishing using nets and fykes. The brake down by applications is shown in table 4.5. It is estimated that the nets (or lead lines) on average have a life of 5 years, i.e. about 3,000 t lead is in active use in the Danish fishery.

Table 4.5 Use of lead for commercial and artisanal fishing in Denmark, 2000 [Lassen et al. 2003]

Application Lead consumption

t/year

Commercial fishing:

- Lead lines in set nets 200-300

- Seine ropes in Danish seines 60-70

- Sinkers in ring nets, pound nets, fykes, etc. 150-300

Artisanal fishing (both sinkers and lead lines) 21-72

Total (round) 430-740

The study was based on information from manufacturers and wholesalers and detailed information on:

� Danish fishing fleet segmentation (the number of fishing vessels by type); � The use of fishing net per vessel for each segment; � The content of lead in each type of fishing nets/fishing gear; � The average life of the fishing nets/gear.

The consumption of lead per vessel is highly variable dependent on the size of the vessels, net types, etc.

Dividing the annual consumption of lead with seine ropes with the number of vessels (95) gives an annual consumption of 600-700 kg per vessel.

The average consumption for all other boats than trawlers and seiners can be estimated at 110-180 tonnes per vessel per year. There will be large variation within the group. For example for gilnetters (>15 GRT) the average consump-tion is thus 100-350 kg whereas the average for gilnetters (<15 GRT) is 30-180 kg (Lassen et al 2002, background information).


101

.

- Spain In order to obtain information on the application of lead in different equipment and the typical lead consumption per vessel in Southern Europe it was decided to concentrate the efforts on obtaining detailed information on Spanish fisheries and market and use this information for the further assessment. The information on Spanish fisheries was collected by Covitecma, S.A. Ingenieros Consultores, Madrid. The experience from Spain illustrates the difficulties in obtaining in-formation on lead consumption in fisheries if no studies of the subject have been undertaken.

Besides the national Fishing Government Office, thee national association of professionals in the fishery sector were contacted: Federación Española de Or-ganizaciones pesqueras (FEOPE, member of Europêche), Federación Española de Armadores de Buques de Pesca (FEABP, member of Europêche) and Aso-ciación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas (ASPE). Further two regional asso-ciations, Asociación de Productore de Ondario (Pais Vasco) and Organización de Productores de Celeiro (Galicia) and University of Vigo (responsible of the Spanish part of [EAEF 2003]) were contacted. None of the organisations could provide information on the consumption of lead for commercial fishing in Spain.

A number of manufacturers of fishing nets were contacted (see list in Annex 1) for more detailed information on the use of lead in nets.

In general lead is not use in trawl, but small amount of lead have formerly been used for this application.

Galician seines are large ring nets, about 1000 m. According to a report from the Spanish Ministry of Science two examples of ring net of 385 m and 460 m contain 300 kg and 900 kg lead respectively. A ring net of 1000 m would then contain several tonnes of lead (Danish ring nets contain up to 7 tonnes). Each vessel may carry up to 3-4 nets but only one is used at a time.

Set nets are produced in Spain but to a large extent imported from Portugal and Italy (as confirmed by the COMEXT trade statistics). The nets are often bought without floats and lead line and made up by the shoresmen. Set nets are both used by larger vessels (gillnetters) and small boats for artisanal fishing. The lead content of one set net range from 5 to 23 kg (Danish figures: 5-10 kg/net); a typical net is 50 m long. The vessels are allowed to apply 2500 m nets, it means each vessel carry about 50 nets (slightly less than the average for Danish <15 BRT vessels). In total 250-1150 kg is in use per boat. According to Span-ish producers 10-12% is lost or disposed of per year giving an annual consump-tion per vessel of 25-138 kg per vessel. The 10% replacement per year is rela-tively low; in Denmark about 20% is replaced per year.

The use of lead sinkers for other types of artisanal fishing (e.g. longlines) has not been investigated, but the lead consumption is assumed to be lower than the amount estimated above.

One producer estimates that about 2000 tonnes of lead is used for commercial fishing annually in Spain, which is above the range calculated in table 4.6.


102

.

- Poland Information on the use of lead in Poland was obtained by Polish speaking experts of COWI A/S [Andruszkiewicz et al 2004]. According to information from the Polish Anglers Association lead sinkers are not used for commercial fishing in the sea. Sinkers of cast iron are used instead.

For commercial/artisanal fishing in inland water set nets including lead is used. It is informed that in total about 200 cooperatives are dealing with inland wa-ters. Each cooperative is estimated to annually use (loss or dispose of) 20 nets, each containing 20-80 kg lead. In total about 200 t should accordingly be used annually for inland commercial/artisanal fishing. Compared to information from other countries the lead content of the nets is very high.

- Sweden According to [Gustafsson et al. 1993] 400 t lead was used for nets for commercial fishing in Sweden in 1992. Lead lines accounted for about 2/3 of the total consumption of lead for fishing purposes

- Finland The use of lead for fishing sinkers (for all applications) in Finland in 1992 is estimated at 200 t (cited by [Ponsaing and Hansen 1995]).

- The Netherlands The Dutch association of fishermen, Produktschap Vis, has responded to the enquiry that the types of equipment used in the Netherlands are: trawl, seines and beamtrawl nets. It is reported that lead is not used in any of the equipment. It is further reported that there is no domestic production of lead weights and lead-containing ropes or lines. The information is in accordance with the in-formation on the European fishing fleets shown in table 4.6.

In order to make a first estimate of the lead consumption for commercial fish-ing it is assumed that trawlers/dredgers do not apply lead, seiners consume 200-800 kg lead per year (for replacement of lead/nets disposed of or lost). For other vessels it is assumed that they on average consume 40-150 kg lead per year in Northern Europa and 20-100 kg in the Mediterranean (Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece).

Based on these assumptions the total consumption of lead for commercial fish-ing in the EU25 is estimated at about 2,000-9,000 t/year (EU15: 1,900-8.700 t). Considering the statistical data on the production of made up fishing nets the actual consumptions is most probably within the lowest half of the range. Of this seines only account for about 150-600 t/year.

The calculated consumption for Denmark is below the actual consumption, be-cause the report EAEF only includes the larger segment of the fleet as indicated in the report. It is not specifically indicated for the other countries. The calcu-lated values for Sweden and Finland are somewhat below the reported con-sumption (discussed above). It might well be so that the calculated figures are too low for countries in the Northern Europe and too high for countries in Southern Europe. However, the actual consumption of lead for this application area in the EU is considered to be within the calculated range.

The calculation indicates that the highest consumption is in France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

Model estimates of lead consumption


103

.

Table 4.6 Fishing fleet of selected Member States (in 2002)* and calculated lead consumption for commercial fishing

Total fishing fleet

Number of vessels

Trawlers/dredgers

Number of vessels

Seiners

Number of vessels

Other

Number of vessels

Calculated lead con-sumption

t Pb/year

Belgium 130 119 11 0-2

Denmark 1,409 613 95 701 47-181

Finland 357 86 271 11-41

France 5,712 1,125 4,587 183-688

Germany 2,199 424 1,775 71-266

Greece 19,546 54 19,492 390-1,949

Ireland 1,361 244 1,117 45-168

Italy 15,915 3,193 180 12,542 287-1,398

Netherlands 410 410 - -

Portugal 10,548 125 160 10,263 237-1,154

Spain 15,385 338 240 14,807 344-1,673

Sweden 1,821 360 1,461 58-219

UK 7,033 1,053 47 5,933 247-928

Total EU15 81,826 8,144 722 72,960 1,921-8,666

Estonia 736 136 600 24-90

Latvia 191 131 60 2-9

Lithuania 148 124 24 1-4

Poland 1,426 85 1,341 54-201

Total EU25 84,327 8,620 722 74,985 2,002-8,970

* Source: [EAEF 2003]

4.3 Legal or voluntary use restrictions on lead fishing sinkers

Information on legal use restrictions on lead sinkers at national level was col-lected by a questionnaire to the national environmental authorities in all old and new Member States and Candidate Countries. The questionnaire was prepared in English. The questionnaire was addressed to contact persons in the Member States attending the Commission's Working Group on the Limitation of Mar-keting and Use Directive. For countries without contact persons in the working group, the questionnaire was addressed to the ministries responsible for envi-ronmental issues in each country.

Twenty-five of the 28 countries answered the questionnaire.

Denmark is the only country with a general ban on the use of lead for fishing sinkers which entered into force in 2002 with derogation for sinkers used for commercial fishing until December 1, 2004.


104

.

In the UK the use of lead split shot and sinkers above 0.06 grams and below 1 ounce (28.35 grams) in fresh water has been prohibited by the Control of Pollu-tion (Anglers' Lead Weights) Regulation since 1986.

In Sweden voluntary local prohibitions on the use of lead sinkers in some river systems exist.

4.3.1 Effectiveness of the restrictions Denmark The sale of lead-containing fishing sinkers has in Denmark been banned since 1

December 2002. For commercial fishing equipment an exemption until De-cember 1 2004 has been granted.

According to the Danish Angler's Association (Danmarks Sportsfiskerforbund) home casting of pilks has been widespread whereas home casting of sinkers have been less common because of the low price of the sinkers. The exact lead consumption for the activities is not known but could as an average quite well be one kg or more per year per angler. According to a substance flow analysis of lead, 14-40 t lead was used for home casting in Denmark in 2000 (Lassen et al 2003).

In recent years the Danish Angler's Association has for environmental reasons stopped courses in home casting. It should be noted that home casting of lead and the use of lead sinkers is not prohibited by the Danish regulation on prod-ucts containing lead.

According to a leading Danish wholesaler of fishing tackle, cross-frontier trade of lead-containing lures is not considered to take place to any appreciable ex-tent, whereas home casting of sinkers has increased significantly after the regu-lation went into force. As home casting of sinkers is relatively simple it must be expected that the activities increase if the price of sinkers increase.

U.K. Since January 1987 the use of lead split shot and sinkers above 0.06 grams and below 1 ounce (28.35 grams) has been prohibited in the UK. According to a leading UK manufacturer of split-shot and small sinkers, home casting and cross-frontier trade is not taking place in any significant quantities.

Questions regarding the effectiveness of the restriction have been addressed to the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Chemicals & GM Policy Division and European Wildlife Division, but no an-swers have been obtained yet.


105

.

Table 4.7 Restrictions on the use of lead in fishing sinkers in the old and new Member States of the EU and Candidate Countries

Legal or voluntary use restrictions (Year of entry into force)

Instrument

Austria no

Belgium

- Federal no info * (sea water)

- Flanders no info (fresh water and commercial)

- Brussels no (all applications)

- Walloon

Cyprus no

Czech Rep. no

Denmark yes (2002)

derogation for commercial fishing until Dec 1 2004

The sale on lead sinkers is prohibited by Statutory Order no 1012 on prohibition of import and marketing of products containing lead

Estonia no

Finland no

France no

Germany no **

Greece no

Hungary no

Ireland no

Italy

Latvia no

Lithuania no

Luxembourg no

Malta no

Netherlands no

Poland no Restrictions may according to questionnaire response be applied by means of voluntary code of good conduct for sport fishing and pro-fessional fishing

Portugal no

Slovakia no

Slovenia no

Spain

Sweden partly (year not informed) Voluntary restriction on the use of lead sinkers in some river systems

UK partly (1987) The use of lead split shot and sinkers above 0.06 grams and below 1 ounce (28.35 grams) in fresh water is prohibited by the Control of Pollution (Anglers' Lead Weights) Regulation 1986 as amended

Bulgaria

Romania no

Turkey no

* "no info" indicated in questionnaire response.

** Answers have been received from only 9 of 16 federal states.


106

.

4.4 Availability of substitutes for lead fishing equipment

Several alternatives to lead fishing sinkers are available on the market or being developed. The alternative materials utilised include iron, tin, tungsten and zinc and likely also others depending on the individual applications.

Angling Regarding anglers equipment an overview of available alternatives and their price at the retail level compared to lead based equipment is presented in table table 4.8.

Table 4.8 Substitutes for lead in anglers' equipment - alternative materials and price indication relative to lead of products marketed 1).

Type of equipment Alternative material Price indication (retail level in Denmark) 2)

Split shot Tin, tungsten composite/alloy + 200-300% 3)

Sinkers/weights Zinc, iron/steel, Bismuth, tungsten composite/alloy

+10-100% 3) + 400-1000%

Jigs Zinc alloy, steel ~0%

Pirks Zinc alloy, iron/steel + 10%-?

Downriggers Zinc alloy, iron, + 10%-?

Woblers Tungsten - zinc or tin alloys may likely be used

+ 10%-?

Floats No alternative - zinc, tin or tungsten alloys may likely be used

+?

1) Based on [Toft 2004; Bjælkehytten 2004, Cabelas 2004; BulletWeights 2004]

2) Price level varies with actual alternative and country of manufacturing.

3) In the UK the price of spilt shot increased by approximately 300% by the shift from lead to tin. The price of small sinkers increased by approximately 100% by the shift from lead to zinc.

The picture presented in table 4.8 reflects Danish experiences mainly and illus-trates a situation that cannot be regarded as fully stabilised, as the ban on sale of lead based equipment for angling in Denmark in reality first have been in full effect from 1. December 2003. Danish dealers of fishing equipment were granted an extra year for sale of lead equipment in order to facilitate emptying of lead equipment stocks [Danish EPA 2002b]. As the Danish market is small and generally not important in an international context development of substi-tutes make take time and should with respect to several types of equipment be regarded as an ongoing process. The price indications should be treated with caution.

Regarding the different types of equipment the situation may be presented as follows:

- split shot Development of substitutes for lead split shot has in Europe in particular been driven by the ban in UK from 1987 (reference is made to table 4.7) and should be assumed to have reached a rather mature state. Tin seems to be the dominant alternative marketed. The price of the substitutes compared to lead must be as-


107

.

sumed primarily to reflect the cost of raw materials (reference is made to table 3.15). Whereas tin shot is lighter than lead, tungsten composites/alloys are manufactured with a density very similar to lead. The major disadvantage of the substitutes seems to be the price difference.

However according to European Angles´ Alliance [Broughton 2004] no substi-tutes are yet available for spilt shot below 0.06 g ("micro-shot" or "dust shot").

- small sinkers Development of substitutes for small sinkers/weights up to 28 g/piece have similarly been driven by the ban in UK from 1987, whereas for larger sizes a legal requirement for substitutes was first established with the Danish ban in 2002. Iron is cheap but has a disadvantage of corrosion, besides being more complicated to manufacture. Therefore zinc seems to be the preferred alterna-tive at least for smaller sinkers. The lower density of zinc and iron versus lead frequently requires the use of larger sinkers/weights (about 50% larger), which in fast-flowing waters may be considered a disadvantage due to a different be-haviour compared to lead sinkers. Regarding the price of lead equipment versus substitutes the picture is complicated by the ongoing process of outsourcing European production to China and other Asian countries. Whereas zinc and iron substitutes a few years back represented a price increase at the retail level of 100% compared to lead, outsourcing has today resulted in prices only 10-20% higher than the former prices of lead equipment [Toft 2004]. It may be noted that also steel sinkers today are available at a price almost at the level of lead [Cabelas 2004]. The high-end substitutes are bismuth and tungsten sink-ers/weights, which have a density similar to or above lead but have a price level of 400-1000% of the level of lead [Cabelas 2004].

- jigs Regarding jigs only few substitutes seem to be available. A substitute based on zinc is marketed in Denmark to a price equal to the former prices of lead equipment [Toft 2004]. The substitute is, however, manufactured outside Europe. Internationally also substitutes based on steel are marketed [Bullet-Weights 2004].

Considering pirks and downriggers, the situation of substitutes in many ways resemble the situation for sinkers and weights. The alternative materials in fa-vour seem to be zinc/tin-alloys and iron/steel. In all cases the price increase has been reduced significantly by outsourcing the manufacturing to outside Europe. Stainless steel substitutes exist on the market but should be considered a high-end and costly alternative.

Some wobblers and floats may contain a small quantity of lead in order to op-timise the position of the equipment in water. Wobblers with tungsten or bis-muth are available on the market. No substitutes have to the best of knowledge been developed so far for floats, probably due to the limited size of the Danish market [Toft 2004]. Tin must be regarded as an obvious alternative.

Commercial fishing Regarding commercial fishing equipment an overview of available alternatives and their price at the retail level compared to lead based equipment is presented in table 4.9.

- pirks and downriggers


108

.

Table 4.9 Substitutes for lead in equipment for commercial fishing - alternative materials and indication of expected price relative to lead of products marketed [Heron 2004].

Type of equipment Alternative material Expected price (retail level) 2)

Sinkers/weights Iron, zinc ~0%

Lead lines Coated iron, iron?, zinc? ~0-33% *

Seine ropes zinc ~0 % *

* Alternatives are not available today.

Internationally only limited efforts have been invested in developing alterna-tives, as a ban on import and sale of lead equipment for commercial fishing has only been introduced in Denmark. Apart from sinkers/weights for which iron has been an alternative for many years and e.g. utilised in trawls, no alterna-tives to lead are so far actually marketed.

However, in Denmark a coordinated effort involving several Danish companies and supported by the Danish Government have been invested since 1999 in de-veloping substitutes to lead equipment. The effort is aimed at developing alter-natives matching lead equipment in efficiency without implying extra costs. The effort has not been finally evaluated yet, but is planned to be published in autumn 2004. The delayed development of lead-free equipment has led the Danish EPA to grant exemption until 1 December 2004 for import and sale of commercial fishing equipment containing lead (EPA 2000).Status for develop-ment of lead-free commercial fishing equipment can at this time only be briefly summarised as follows [Heron 2004]:

- lead lines With respect to lead-lines substitutes based e.g. on coated iron have been developed, successfully tested and a number of patents have been granted. Full scale production has not yet been initiated, but it is estimated that these substi-tutes would be about 33% more expensive than lead equipment. It is believed that other substitutes based on iron or zinc, being cost neutral compared to lead lines, could be developed, but manufacturing technologies are still not devel-oped. A well-tested substitute being an efficient and cost neutral replacement for lead lines cannot be expected to be available on the market before summer 2005 as the earliest. By the development of alternatives it has been a challenge to overcome some problems arising when the lines are sewn on the made-up nets, but these problems seems to have been solved by the developed alterna-tives. Besides, it is unclear to what extent corrosion of zinc may have negative influence on the life of the netting, in any case it is necessary to use corrosion resistant zinc alloys.

- seine ropes Considering seine ropes the situation is not yet clarified. It is believed that a substitute based on zinc wire could be developed, but the company in charge of the development work has lately come into financial troubles and the future of the company is thus unclear. It is, therefore, at present unclear when and how the development work will be continued. To what extent extruded zinc wire will be provided by the same companies that produce extruded lead wire has not been assessed, but most likely some changes will take place.


109

.

- sinkers Regarding sinkers/weights the most feasible alternatives seem to be iron and zinc. 1 kg iron sinkers suitable for pound nets are manufactured in China at a price equalling the former lead sinkers. These iron sinkers are the only alterna-tive sinkers for commercial fishing that are actually being marketed in Den-mark today. Zinc sinkers are being tested by Danish fishermen during summer 2004. The price of the zinc sinkers are expected to be comparable to the price of lead sinkers, because the higher raw material price is offset by lower produc-tion costs It is assumed that several fisher-men actually have developed their own alternative solutions e.g. by using iron chains in stead of lead sinkers on trawls.

It is the authors' assessment that for manufacturers with experience in lead cast-ing it is relatively easy to change to zinc casting, whereas iron sinkers most probably will be manufactured by other companies. A shift from lead to iron sinkers may thus have a significant impact on the industry.

4.5 Impact of potential marketing and use restrictions on lead fishing sinkers

4.5.1 Impact on business and users Compared to lead in ammunition, much less information has been available for the assessment of the impact of potential marketing and use restrictions on lead fishing sinkers. Fishing sinkers only account for a small part of the fishing tackle trade and no investigations of the impact of a restriction on the use of lead for sinkers has been done by EFFTA or national associations. As regards sinkers for commercial fishing the development of alternatives is at a premature stage, and the development has mainly taken place at individual companies, and neither trade associations nor fisher's associations have carried out any assess-ment of the consequences of a potential use restriction.

Sinkers, split shot and other lead-containing lures are manufactured by several hundred companies in Europe. Many of the companies are small or sinker manufacturing account only for a minor part of their activity. Lead sinkers are relatively easy to cast and can be produced in a small workshop.

It is relatively easy for a foundry to replace lead with zinc for sinker casting, but it is necessary to change the moulds. Large manufacturers may use up to 100 different moulds. The change of lead with tin has implied major changes in design because the tin shot due to the hardness has to be fastened to the line in a different way.

The manufacturing of sinkers of cast iron or steel is more complicated and will typically take place in iron and steel foundries or the sinkers may be produced by totally other methods (e.g. turning of steel rods).

Consequences for manufacturing indus-try

Sinkers and other lures for angling


110

.

It has not been possible based on the available information to estimate the need for investment within the manufacturing industry as a consequence of a restric-tion of the use of lead.

Since January 1987 the use of lead shot above 0.06 grams and lead sinkers be-low 1 ounce (28.35 grams) has been prohibited in the UK. According to a lead-ing UK producer, the volumes of the sale of lead shot and small sinkers dropped dramatically before the ban went into force, and the sale of alternative shot and sinkers boomed within the first three years following the ban, because all anglers replaced their lead sinkers with the alternatives. After three year the volume of sales was at the same level as before the ban, indicating that the de-mand was unaffected by increases prices and that home casting and cross-frontier trade was insignificant. It should be noted that the cost of split-shot and small sinkers in any case is relatively small, and the experience may not be ex-trapolated to larger lures of lead like pirks. The change from lead to alternatives like tin and zinc required some development of technology and investment in new tools (e.g. new moulds) and by the change over, the number of manufac-turers of split-shot and small sinkers in the UK decreased from about 10 to 4.

In Denmark at least two small manufacturers of lead-containing lures has ceased production after the introduction of the Danish ban on lead. There seems to be a tendency to outsource the manufacturing of lures to Eastern Asia and a significant part of the lead alternatives sold in Danish angling shops are pro-duced in Eastern Asia. The changes in the market introduced by the ban may have speeded up a tendency already taking place.

Sinkers for commercial fishing is most probably produced by hundred to sev-eral hundred companies all over Europe, some of the companies also manufac-turing sinkers for angling.

Based on the experience with development of substitutes for commercial fish-ing equipment (reference is made to section 3.4) zinc and iron seems to be the most obvious alternatives to lead in the relatively large sinkers used in equip-ment for commercial fishing, and companies seem to be ready for manufactur-ing of sinkers of iron and zinc at a price equal to the price of lead sinkers.

Zinc sinkers may be manufactured in the foundries casting lead sinkers by the change of moulds, but for production of large lots it may be relevant to totally change the machinery.

A significant part of sinkers for commercial fishing has traditionally been manufactured is small workshops near the fishing ports. A shift from lead to other materials most probably will result in a concentration of the production on fewer enterprises and the close down of a number of small workshops.

A replacement of lead with other materials is not considered to influence the next step in the product chain, the make-up of the fishing nets.

- experience from the UK

- experience from Denmark

Sinkers, commercial fishing


111

.

It has not been possible based on the available information to estimate the need for investment within the manufacturing industry as a consequence of a restric-tion of the use of lead.

A replacement of lead with other materials in lead lines and seine ropes may influence three links of product chain: The manufacturing of the lead wire/string of beads, the manufacturing of lead-lines and seine ropes, and the making-up of the fishing nets. In some cases all three links takes place within the same company, but it seems not to be the most common.

Lead wires/string of beads is estimated to be manufactured by 10-50 companies all over Europe.

Regarding the manufacturing of lead lines, several of the developed alternatives will imply a total change in machinery. The investment costs for machinery for production of lines with polymer coated iron beads in one company is indicated to be in the order of magnitude of 1.5 million � .

By the use of alternative material the volume of the string of lead beads will increase, but as lead wires today are produced in many different thicknesses, the changed volume most probably will not imply the need for changes in ma-chinery for production of the textile stockings and the final lead lines.

The most probable alternative to lead in seine ropes is zinc wire. The total amount of lead used for seine ropes is relatively small and it has not been as-sessed whether the zinc wire will be manufactured by the same companies that manufacture the lead wire today.

It has not been possible based on the available information to estimate the need for investment within the manufacturing industry as a consequence of a restric-tion of the use of lead, but it is estimated that the most significant investment costs most probably would be related to the manufacturing of the string of beads used for manufacturing of lead lines.

The consequences for anglers of a restriction of the use of lead, apart from the incremental costs discussed below, are generally estimated to be small apart from the users of "dust shot", for which no alternatives so far are identified. For shot above 0,06g tin split shot is available but somewhat harder than lead shot, and should not be attached to the line by the use of the teeth, but split shot which can attached without the use of teeth or other tools have been developed. Sinkers and other lures will be slightly larger if made of zinc, and therefore act differently in the water, but the changes are not considered to be of significance for the application of the lures.

The alternative metals, except for iron, are more expensive that lead and other things being equal the price of the products at the retail stage will be more ex-pensive than the lead products.

A spot check in an angling shop in Denmark showed that the price of small sinkers and jigs of zinc equalled about 133 �/kg whereas the price of split shot

Lead lines and seine ropes

Consequences for anglers

Incremental costs for anglers


112

.

of tin equalled 333 �/kg. Comparing these prices with the price of the raw ma-terials on the metal exchange (table 3.15) of about 1.5 �/kg and 5.5 �/kg for zinc and tin, respectively, clearly demonstrate that the prices of lures in the an-gling shop only to some extent reflect the prices of the raw materials.

The total lead consumption for angling in EU25 is estimated at 2,000-6,000 t/year (section 4.2.1) of which the half, 1,000-3000 t/yeas, is used in inland wa-ters. A first estimate will be done by assuming that in split shot lead is replaced by tin whereas zinc is replacing lead for all other lures.

Based on the experience from the UK and Denmark it is roughly estimated that split shot account for about 10% of the consumption corresponding to 200-600 t/year. The price of split shot on the UK retail market is approximately 6 � for a dispenser with about 60 g tin shot. It is informed that the price is approximately 4 times the price of lead shot giving an extra price of approximately 75 �/kg. Using these figures the incremental costs to anglers of a phase out of lead for split shot (at the retail level) would be approximately 15-45 mil.� correspond-ing to 0.75-2.3 � per angler per year (assuming a total of 20 million anglers). The incremental costs may be smaller than estimated if the price of non-lead split shot decreases with in increased European market.

The price of sinkers and other lures varies considerably and for many lead-containing lures like pirks and wobblers the price of the metal account only for a minor part of the price of the final product. The increase in price at the retail level is roughly estimated to be between 10 and 100%.It is very difficult to es-tablish an average price for these products. The typical price for lead sinkers in bulk sold directly from manufacturers to fishermen in Denmark is 2-2.5 �/kg, but the price paid by anglers in a shop may be up to 50 times more. For the first estimate an average extra price of the alternatives of 5-30 �/kg will be assumed.

Using these figures, the incremental costs to anglers for sinkers used in inland waters (800-2,400 t excluding split shot) can be estimated at 4-72 mil.�/year corresponding to 0.2-3.6 � per angler per year. The incremental costs to angles for sinkers used in the sea (1,050-3,000 t) can be estimated at 5-90 mil.�/year corresponding to 0.25-4.5 � per angler per year.

In total the incremental costs to anglers (at the retail level) is estimated at 24-207 mil.� corresponding to approximately 1.2-10.4 �/year per angler.

In a Canadian assessment it was estimated that the incremental costs per an-glers by replacement of lead in 1995 would be 0.6-10.1 CA$/year (0.4-6.3 �/year) [Scheuhammer and Norris1995].

Besides the increased price of the equipment discussed below, the conse-quences of a restriction on the use of lead concern increased volume of the equipment, increased noise and maybe shorter life of the equipment.

The most realistic alternatives for lead in equipment for commercial fishing, iron and zinc, both have a lower density than lead, and the volume of the sink-ers will increase with about 60%. It means that the equipment will take up more

Consequences for the fisheries


113

.

space in the fishing vessels and it will be more difficult to handle. To what ex-tent the consequences of the increased volume of the equipment are of signifi-cance for the fisheries need to be further investigated.

Replacement of lead sinkers by iron, e.g. on large ring nets, may have some negative consequences on the working environment of the fishermen because of increased noise when the nets hit the ship's side and the deck. The signifi-cance of the increased noise by the use of different alternatives (iron, zinc, etc.) needs a further investigation. Some experiments using equipment with zinc for large ring-nets are planned to take place in Denmark during the summer 2004.

It is still unclear to what extent corrosion of zinc may have a negative conse-quence on the netting (the textile) and by this shortening the life of equipment (Gudum 2002). It has to be investigated to what extent these problems can be overcome by using the right combinations of zinc alloy and netting material.

Incremental costs for the fisheries are a consequence of:

� Increased price of equipment; � Increased volume of equipment; � Reduced life of equipment.

The consequences of increased volume of the equipment will be highly de-pendent on the actual equipment, vessel type, etc. and in the absence of actual investigations it is not possible to quantify the incremental costs. Similarly it has to be further investigated to what extent the life of the equipment is influ-enced by the replacement of lead with other metals.

In an assessment of the economic consequences of the Danish ban on lead [Gudum 2002] it is estimated that the extra price at the retail level of both sink-ers, lead lines and seine ropes using zinc as alternative will be about 5.5 DKK (0.74 �) per kg lead replaced. Using iron as alternative to lead in sinkers de-crease the price with 1 DKK (1.13 �) per kg lead. The extra price of lead-lines and seine ropes with coated iron is estimated at 26 DKK (3.5 �) per kg lead re-placed.

A new Danish investigation, are to the best of knowledge confirming the price levels stated above. The investigation is, however, not yet ready for publication.

The actual prices at the retail level will obviously be different in the different Member States and, considering the uncertainty on the increases in price, the extra price of lead lines will for the present estimate be assumed to be in the range of 0.5-2 � per kg lead replaced. It is assumed that lead alternative lead sinkers and seine ropes can be manufactured at a price equal to products con-taining lead.

The total consumption of lead with equipment for commercial fishing in EU25 is roughly estimated at 2,000-9,000 t/year (section 4.2.2). It is not known how much is this is used in lead lines, but most probably it is the major part, and the consumption for lead lines is here roughly estimated at 1,200-6,000 t/year.

Incremental costs for the fisheries


114

.

If the extra price of the lines is assumed to be in the range of 0.5-2 � per kg lead, the incremental costs to the fisheries, as a consequence of increased prices of equipment, can be estimated at 0.6-12 million �/year.

Due time should be given for an EU-wide regulation on the use of lead sinkers to be implemented, either in terms of a due notification period or in terms of gradual phase in of selected parts of the regulation (e.g. starting by regulating the use in inland waters).

The industry will need time practically to convert production lines and develop new product ranges (including the required know-how). At the same time it should be emphasised that a full range of lead-free sinkers for angling already exist on the market (of which some are imported from outside the EU25 area). A regulation, which is being implemented too hastily could therefore skew the market quite extensively and redistribute market shares among sinker manufac-turers inside and outside of the EU-area.

4.5.2 Impact on the environment and health A restriction of the use of lead for shot and bullets may result in reduced re-leases from the following activities:

� Primary and secondary production of lead and manufacturing of lead shot and bullets;

� Angling and commercial fishing; � Waste disposal, e.g. incineration.

It is beyond the scope of this study to review the impact of the releases from the production of lead, manufacturing of lead sinkers and the disposal of lead sink-ers and bullets that are not spread in the environment. However, it should be kept in mind, that a restriction of the use of lead for sinkers also would reduce the releases from these activities (although they may as well be reduced by the use of other instruments). Contrary to lead ammunition, sinkers are often pro-duced by home casting and small-scale casting in small enterprises which may result in relatively high emission of lead as the lead is cast with no or insuffi-cient emission abatements technology. In addition the casting may have signifi-cant health impact of the persons involved. The emission to air from home-casting may be in the order of magnitude of 0.1-1% of the cast volume (Lassen et al. 2003).

The impact on the environment and health of a restriction of the use of lead for angling and commercial fishing will depend on which materials are used to substitute for the lead. The most obvious (and used) alternatives are iron, zinc and tin. From an environmental view, iron sinkers is certainly the most advan-tageous alternative and the environmental impact of the use of iron sinkers seems to be small compared to the impact of the use of lead. For this applica-tion iron without heavy metals as alloying elements can be used. The data for zinc indicate that zinc is significantly less problematic in the aquatic environ-ments than lead (see section 3.6.2), while no water quality criterion or other

Timing


115

.

comparative assessment covering toxicity in water environments seems to be available for tin. However, zinc is toxic to birds when ingested, although less toxic than lead (reference is made to section 3.6.2).

Resource perspective Lead is a scarce metal with a limited reserve base even though raw material deficiency is not expected for the next decades. The same is true for zinc and tin. From a resource perspective only substitution of lead by iron can be con-sidered advantageous.

Direct effects of lead sinkers on waterfowl has been demonstrated for lead split shot of a size above 0.06 grams and sinkers below 1 ounce (28.35 grams) which is the background for the ban of the use of lead sinkers of this size in the UK. A study of lead poisoning of loons by sinkers is described in section 2.1.1, while a recent article is suggesting that even "dust shot" could also be of importance considering poisoning of mute swans (reference is made to [Perrins et al 2003] and section 3.7.2.

Besides the direct effect on the birds, sinkers lost in rivers contribute to the general contamination of the rivers by lead.

Based on section 4.2.1 the lead consumption for angling in inland waters in EU25 is estimated at 1,000-3000 t/yeas. The major part is lost to the waters by the application, but a minor part may be disposed of with municipal solid waste. For some lures the amount disposed of with municipal solid waste may be significant (lures which have been tried with no luck) but for simple lures as sinkers it is estimated that approximately 90% of the sinkers are lost to the wa-ters corresponding to 900-2,700 t.

Based on section 4.2.1 the lead consumption for angling in the sea in EU25 is estimated at 1,000-3000 t/yeas. The amount used in the sea vary of course with the differences in access to the sea, and in e.g. Denmark the consumption of lead sinkers for fishing in sea is several times higher than the consumption for fishing in inland waters. The major part is lost to the sea by the application, but a minor part may be disposed of with municipal solid waste. For some lures the amount disposed of with municipal solid waste may be significant, but for sim-ple lures and sinkers it is estimated that approximately 90% of the sinkers are lost to the sea corresponding to 900-2,700 t. As the conditions in large lakes are very similar to the sea it is assumed reasonable to accept that consumption and losses in large lakes is similar to consumption and losses in the sea.

To the knowledge of the authors it has not been demonstrated that sinkers in the sea environment significantly contribute to the lead content of the water. As discussed in section 2.1.3, lead will tend to accumulate in the anoxic zones of the sedimentation areas and over time be buried and not available for the bot-tom living biota. It means that the sediments act like a sink for the lead.

The total consumption of lead for commercial fishing is in section 4.2.2 esti-mated 2,000-9,000 t/year.

Use of split shot and small lead sinkers in inland waters

Use of large sinkers for angling in the sea or in large lakes

Use of sinkers in equipment for com-mercial fishing


116

.

Only a part of this is lost at sea whereas the remaining part is disposed of to landfills, recycling (mainly sinkers) or waste incineration. A Danish study indi-cated that in total 5-20% of the lead applied for fishing equipment for commer-cial fishing is lost to the sea either by loss of the equipment or by corrosion and wear of sinkers [Lassen et al. 2003], and the same figures will be used here. Assuming that 5-20% of the used lead is lost at sea the total release can be es-timated with high uncertainty at 100-1,800 t per year.

The environmental issues discussed in this section can in principle be divided into the following:

! The resource issue which basically is a global issue and of concern to all countries in the world. The issue is hardly relevant in a discussion of cross-national perspectives within the EU.

! The issue of poisoning of waterfowl. To the extent the birds exposed to lead shots by ingestion - direct ingestion as well as secondary ingestion - are migratory birds the actions of individual Member States may naturally in-fluence other Member States, as birds naturally belonging to the environ-ment in some Member States may be poisoned during their travel through and temporary stay in other Member states. This perspective is certainly relevant for many species of waterfowl and will to a limited extent be rele-vant for upland birds as well. The issue may thus justify a coordinated effort within the EU related to the use of lead sinkers in wetlands.

! The issue of lead contamination of the water environment and in particular sediments. Regarding fresh water systems this is mainly a national issue but could for large river systems also be a cross-national issue. Concerning the marine environment, lead is covered by international sea conventions as e.g. the OSPAR Convention that has established binding commitments aimed at reducing lead emissions to marine environment.

To these issues may be added the general issues of emissions caused by pri-mary and secondary production of lead inclusive of home casting and waste disposal. As stated earlier a review of these emissions is beyond the scope of this study, but a restriction of the use of lead for sinkers would naturally also reduce the releases from these activities.

Alternatives to lead Regarding substitutes to small sinkers and lead split shot based on tin, tungsten, bismuth, iron and zinc the discussion is similar to the discussion on substitutes for lead shot ammunition. Most main alternatives to lead - steel, tin, tungsten, and bismuth - have the advantage of being non toxic to birds. Zinc, however, is not currently approved in the US as a non-toxic shot and is in reality also toxic to birds although the toxicity is lower than that of lead.

Regarding other impacts only iron presents a clear improvement compared to lead, while other alternatives suffers from one or more drawbacks inclusive of lack of data. Regarding toxicity in water zinc must be considered significantly less toxic than lead, while no water quality criteria or other comparative as-sessment covering toxicity in water environments have been established for tin,


117

.

bismuth or tungsten. While it is generally believed that neither tin, bismuth nor tungsten should be of concern regarding their environmental impact in water environments, this is in reality not documented, and it is recommended that re-search is initiated that can eliminate this deficiency.

Summary The estimated impacts of different use restrictions on the release of lead to the environment is summarised in table 4.10 (EU25) and table 4.11 (EU15).

The only demonstrated effect of the use of lead lures is the effect of split shot and small sinkers on waterfowl. These lures are mainly used in inland waters.


Restriction option Reduced lead consumption

Tonnes/year


Tonnes/year

Lead split shot and small sinkers used for angling in inland waters

1,000-3,000 900-2,700

Large lead sinkers used for an-gling in sea and large lakes

1,000-3,000 900-2,700

Lead in equipment for commercial fishing

2,000-9,000 100-1,800


Restriction option Reduced lead consumption

Tonnes/year


Tonnes/year

Lead split shot and small sinkers used for angling in inland waters

950-2,800 850-2,520

Large lead sinkers used for an-gling in sea and large lakes.

950-2,800 850-2,520

Lead in equipment for commercial fishing

1,900-8,700 95-1,740

While iron presents a clear improvement compared to lead considering toxicity as well as other environmental issues, other alternatives suffers from one or more drawbacks inclusive of lack of data. As regards the resource perspective neither zinc nor tin is better than lead, but the general toxicity of zinc in water is lower than the toxicity of lead. No water quality criterion or other compara-tive assessment of toxicity in water environments is available for tin, bismuth and tungsten.


118

.

4.5.3 Discussion of the need for a community wide approach Regarding the need for a common approach related to restrictions on the mar-keting and use of lead in fishing sinkers, the following arguments calling for a common approach have been identified:

1) Lead split shot is a recognized source of poisoning of waterfowl. As many waterfowl are migratory birds the actions of individual Member States may naturally influence other Member States, as birds naturally belonging to the environment in some Member States may be poisoned during their travel through and temporary stay in other Member states.

2) National restrictions could hamper the free trade in the EU to the extent a common market exists. For lead wires and lead bead stings used for lead lines production a common market in Europe exist. For other types of equipment the production is highly national, but the same types of sinkers and lead lines are used all over Europe meaning that a common market for these products to some extent exists. When a common market exist, it is obvious that any restriction introduced in a member state will have some ef-fect on companies in other member states. Assuming that appropriate time will be allowed for companies to adapt to restrictions, it is, however, diffi-cult based on the knowledge available to assess the extent to which restric-tions may lead to market distortions.

Attention may also be paid to the following argument partly opposing the need for a common approach:

3) Restrictions in local fresh water systems have been introduced based on lo-cal environmental conditions. To the extent the main environmental impact is contamination of local or national fresh water environments conditions may differ between the Member States with respect to e.g. the load and con-tent of lead in water and sediments, and the mobility and impact of lead on the local environment. Local conditions may thus justify that Member States or local authorities are establishing local or national restrictions re-garding the use of lead sinkers.

In principle a conflict could exist between arguments 2) and 3). However, ar-gument 3 is mainly addressing fresh water systems and thereby mainly angling equipment while the common market for angling equipment seems to be weak and not relevant to consider in this context.

Compared to the restriction options presented in table 4.10 and 4.11, it is obvi-ous that reasonable solid arguments related to migratory birds exist for a com-munity wide approach regarding the use of lead split shot and small sinkers for fishing in inland waters. However, it must be noted that substitutes for "dust shot" seem not to be available, besides that their impact on birds have not been specifically documented.

Considering large sinkers for angling in sea and in large lakes as well as lead sinkers for commercial fishing the main argument in favour of a community

Discussion of restric-tion options available


119

.

wide approach would be the commitments for the EU related to sea conven-tions as the OSPAR Convention. It is noted that the EU is a party to this con-vention and thus committed to work for reduced emissions of lead to the marine environment [OSPAR 2004]. For lead wires and lead bead stings a common market exist but it is not possible based on the knowledge available to assess whether restrictions may lead to market distortions.

However, it is relevant to note that national concerns and restrictions regarding the use of large lead sinkers and commercial equipment may also be argued by other concerns as e.g. emissions from home casting of lead and waste disposal. Lead sinkers combining lead and plastic materials may often end up as combus-tible waste. While common rules exist in the EU regarding air emissions from waste incineration national practices may differ considerably regarding disposal of incineration residues like slag and clinker. Some countries as e.g. Denmark are utilising such residues for civil works to the extent possible, and are thus focused on reducing the content of hazardous substances like lead in waste for incineration and may also for such reasons find restrictions on the use of lead in fishing equipment for justified. The load of lead from fishing sinkers to the waste streams may be reduced by the use of other instruments requiring the dis-carded equipment to be collected separately and recycled. The costs of such a separation and recycling operation could, however, be significant in particular for lead lines and seine robes.

4.6 Summary and conclusion The EU25 market for lead fishing sinkers (lead-containing fishing equipment) can be characterised by the following key figures:

� More than 20 million anglers; � 206,000 fishermen; � Detailed studies on the use of lead with sinkers are only available from a

few countries; � Anglers use roughly 2,500-6,000 tonnes lead annually; � Approximately 2,000-9,000 tonnes lead is annually used for commercial

fishing; � Manufacturers of lead sinkers and made-up fishing nets for commercial

fishing are not organised in associations and limited information on the in-dustry is available;

� Several hundred companies are involved in the manufacturing of lead sinkers, other lead-containing lures, lead wires and lead bead strings for lead-lines;

� Further several hundred companies are involved in the manufacturing of made-up fishing nets;

� Specific statistical information on the trade of fishing sinkers does not ex-ist;

� Extra-community import of line fishing lures (including lead sinkers) and made-up fishing nets (including lead sinkers) to EU15 approximately equal the extra-community export;

Existing market overview


120

.

� Fishing sinkers for angling is to a large extent produced for the domestic markets hence there appears to be a well-developed common internal mar-ket for fishing lures;

� Fishing sinkers and lead lines for fishing equipment for commercial fishing is to a large extent produced to the domestic markets, whereas there seems to be a common European market for lead wires and lead bead strings used for production lead-lines and ropes;

The existing regulation within the EU25 area on the use of lead for sinkers can be summarised as follows:

� Full ban of the sale of lead sinkers in Denmark with a derogation for com-mercial fishing until December 1, 2004;

� The use of lead shot above 0.06 grams and sinkers below 1 ounce (28.35 grams) in fresh water is prohibited in the UK;

� Local voluntary use restrictions in some river systems in Sweden.

Direct costs cover required investments for conversion of lead based sinkers production lines into production lines based on substitute metals, as well as op-erating and administrative costs. Investment costs relate to costs of converting the industry (so-called conversion costs), and consist of two separate cost com-ponents: costs for development of new products (research and development) and cost for adaptation of existing machinery, thus allowing the machinery to work properly with substitute metals.

It has for the present study not been possible to obtain specific information on potential conversion costs. Change from lead casting to casting of other nonfer-rous metals like zinc and tin is relatively simple, but involve investment in new moulds. Change to a production based on steel and iron in general involves a total change of machinery, and the production will most likely a shift from non-ferrous foundries to industries based on ferrous metallurgy.

Indirect costs cover consequences for the manufacturers regarding competitive-ness and their decisions to invest and innovate due to the proposed regulation. Lead sinkers are often manufactured for a local market by small workshops. Based on the experience from UK and Denmark it is assessed that many small-scale manufacturers are less for changes and may be pushed out of the market in case of a ban on the use of lead for sinkers. There seems to be a tendency to outsource the manufacturing of lures to Eastern Asia. The changes in the mar-ket introduced by the ban may have speeded up a tendency already taking place.

It is at the present stage not possible to assess the social costs related to the transition process for companies not able to adapt to restrictions on lead.

The only significant impact of a restriction of the use of lead sinkers on anglers is increased prices of sinkers and other lead-containing lures. The incremental cost are roughly estimated at 1.2-10.4 � per angler per year. It should be noted that the price of lures only to a minor extent reflect the price of the raw materi-

Existing regulation overview

Impact on industry, direct costs

Impact on industry, indirect costs

Social costs of tran-sition

Impact on anglers


121

.

als and the price may decrease as the market for lead-free alternatives mature and the actual incremental costs may then be lower.

Three main consequences have been identified for commercial fishing: In-creased volume of fishing equipment, increased noise by applying the equip-ment and increased prices. The significance of the two first mentioned impacts needs further investigations by actual testing of alternatives. The incremental cost of a restriction on lead for sinkers to the fisheries due to increased prices is estimated at 0.6-12 million �/year.

It has been demonstrated that split shot and small sinkers are ingested by water-fowl and similar effects as demonstrated for lead shot can be expected. Lead sinkers lost in rivers is over time dissolved and may contribute to the total con-tent of lead in the water and sediment. Lead sinkers lost in sea water will over time be buried in the sediments and out of reach of the biota. Home casting of sinkers may result in significant releases to the environment and exposure of the persons involved.

Sinkers and made-up fishing nets are to a large extent produced for the domes-tic markets in the different countries. A reason is that lead sinkers are relatively easy to produce in small-scale for a local market and that slightly different types of nets are used in different countries (e.g. dependent on water depth, cur-rent, sea floor, etc.). However, the same types of sinkers and lead lines are used all over Europe and a common market for these products to some extent exists. For lead wires and lead bead stings used for lead lines production, the main ap-plication of lead for commercial fishing, there seems to be a common European market.

The main findings of the analysis are summarised in table 4.12.

The environmental concerns as to the use of lead sinkers are mainly related to the use of lead split shot and small sinkers for fishing in inland waters. From an environmental point of view a use restriction as the restriction implemented in the UK would be the most well-documented. Furthermore, reasonable solid ar-guments related to migratory birds exist for a community wide approach. How-ever, the incremental costs to the anglers of a total ban is only a little higher as a significant part of the incremental costs are due to the increased price of split shot used in inland waters. It must also be recognized that only iron presents a clear improvement compared to lead considering toxicity as well as other envi-ronmental issues, while other alternatives suffers from one or more drawbacks inclusive of lack of data. While both tin, bismuth and tungsten is regarded as non-toxic to birds no water quality criteria or other comparative assessment covering toxicity in water environments have been identified for these metals. Zinc is toxic to birds and in the water environment although less toxic than lead. Furthermore, it must be noted that substitutes for "dust shot" seem not to be available, besides that their impact on birds have not been specifically documented.

For larger sinkers and other lures used in the sea and in large lakes, a signifi-cant home casting takes place, and these activities may increase as a conse-

Impact on the fisher-ies

Impact on environ-ment and health

Considerations re-garding a common market

Summary


122

.

quence of a ban of the sale of lead sinkers. It is deemed that a ban on the use of lead sinkers (like in the UK) more efficiently will reduce the load of lead to the environment than a ban of the sale (like in Denmark). In both cases a restriction will reduce the amount of lead emitted to waters covered by international sea conventions as the OSPAR Convention aimed at - among other issues - to re-duce the emissions of lead to the marine environment.

A phase-out of lead for commercial fishing has relatively small incremental costs to the fisheries and the costs per ton of lead phased out is considerably lower than for sinkers for angling. It should be noted that the differences be-tween the incremental costs to anglers and the fisheries are reflecting the high profits at wholesaler and retails level for angling equipment compared to equipment for commercial fishing. However, the environmental effect of the decreased load of lead to the sea by lead from commercial fishing is not well-documented apart from that a restriction will reduce the amount of lead emitted to waters covered by international sea conventions as the OSPAR Convention.

However, it is relevant to note that national concerns and restrictions regarding the use of large lead sinkers and commercial equipment may also be argued by other concerns as e.g. emissions from home casting of lead and waste disposal. Fishing equipment disposed of to landfills and waste incineration may contrib-ute significantly to total lead in waste and thus to the emissions caused by e.g. utilisation of incineration residues for civil works. The load of lead to the waste streams may, however, be reduced by the use of other instruments requiring the discarded equipment to be collected separately and recycled, which however may be costly in particular for items like lead lines and seine robes.

Table 4.12 Estimated costs of phase-out of lead sinkers and reduced lead load to the environment

Phase-out of lead sinkers for angling in inland waters

Total phase-out of lead sinkers for angling

Phase-out of lead sinkers for commercial fishing

Total costs to anglers/the fisheries per ton lead substituted (�/t) 1)

19,000-39,000 12,000-34,500 300-1,330


19-117 24-207 0.6-12


900-2,700 1,800-5,400 100-1,800


18-110 23-198 0.57-11.6


850-2,530 1,700-5,040 95-1,740

1) All costs are based on estimated retail prices. Costs of transition incl. of social costs for companies not able to adapt to restrictions are not included.


123

.

5 Candle wicks

5.1 Application of lead in candle wicks Using lead containing wicks in candles is one of a variety of known candle manufacturing technologies. Practically, a thin lead wire is inserted into a woven wick and thereby supports or stiffens the candle wick.

The lead wire is used to support the wick and keep it centred in the deeper wax pools that develop in container candles. The wire is also used in sustaining the position of the wick during the wax pouring process. Additionally, some candle makers find that the metal wire transmits heat from the flame down into the wax pool. This provides a larger wax pool for a given flame size and it is possi-ble to use a smaller flame, that keeps the jar cooler, and still melt the wax to the edge.

The technology has traditionally been applied for certain specific product types (container candles, mostly outdoor applications). When a lead wick based can-dle is burned in indoor conditions, considerable amounts of lead may be re-leased into indoor air and result in human exposure to lead by inhalation (CSTEE 2003a). The lead released may otherwise settle as dust on furniture and floors and thus be a source of human intake of lead for adults as well as children or be as source of lead to waste and waste water to the extent lead is removed from the indoor environment by cleaning. For candles used outdoor, lead will similarly settle in the surroundings and thus add to the general level of lead in the surroundings.

5.2 Markets of candle wicks Industry structure The European Association of Candle Makers (AECM) represents the larger

share of the European candle manufacturing industry. Members of AECM are national manufacturer associations. Member countries include the EU15 (ex-cept for Portugal, Luxemburg and Greece) as well as Switzerland and Norway (total of 14 member countries). A few countries of the EU15 are thus not repre-sented by AECM, which according to the AECM is due to the fact that no na-tional associations of candle makers are known to exist in these particular coun-tries. AECM also covers Poland and is in discussion with associations in some of the other new EU-25 countries.

By estimate, AECM represents approximately 80-90% of the entire candle pro-duction in Europe [AECM 2004].

A simple count of manufacturer links on the website www.europecandles.com yields a total of 188 companies being registered as member of one of the 14 constituent national manufacturer associations of AECM. Traditionally, the candle industry consisted of a large number of manufacturers, each serving their own country or region. A few larger manufacturers have grown up in some countries, but still there exist a large number of manufacturers throughout Europe.

Technological ra-tionale

Environmental and health impacts


124

.

Most wicks today are made by specialist companies, who then supply the regu-lar candle makers.

The production of candles within the EU15 area is worth of approximately 650 mill. � per year (measured as an average of the years 2000-2002), which repre-sents an annual volume of about 350,000 tonnes. Germany is by far the largest single producer covering approximately 40% of the entire EU15 production measured in monetary terms.

The relevant PRODCOM commodity codes only record amounts in monetary terms and not in weight terms. The relevant weight proportions have, however, been estimated based on an assumption on price per ton, which has been ex-trapolated using the relevant COMEXT figures (that record volumes in mone-tary and in weight terms, but do not record production or consumption figures - reference is made to Annex 3).

Table 5.1 Estimated production and consumption of candles, average of 2000-2002, tonnes finished candles

Production Consumption

Austria 8,567 27,826

Belgium na na

Denmark 17,879 27,212

Finland 11,371 12,226

France 48,421 54,315

Germany 176,617 183,015

Greece na na

Ireland 6,880 11,196

Italy 46,121 48,947

Luxembourg 0 1,545

Netherlands na na

Portugal 17,068 8,698

Spain 11,306 13,935

Sweden 21,603 26,796

UK 57,492 51,182

Total EU15 423,325 466,894

Hungary 1) 16,498 6,444

Lithuania 1) 789 2,612

Poland 1) 53,110 26,318

Source Annex 3 table A3.33 and table A3.34

1) Production figures for Hungary, Lithuania and Poland is based on 2002 figures. For Lithua-nia only export to EU15 has been recorded. Poland and Hungary only export and import to and from EU15 has been recorded.

Candles with lead cored wicks are not recorded in the available EU-databases on candle production and can therefore not be tracked separately. According to

Production and con-sumption

Experience with lead wicks


125

.

the AECM none of its present members are known to be engaged in production or use of lead cored wicks. Lead wicks has earlier been used in European can-dle manufacturing, but has been gradually phased out during the 1970'ties and 1980'ties [AECM 2004].

Lead was in the USA commonly used as a core material until 1974 when the US candle manufacturing industry voluntarily agreed to discontinue use of lead in wicks. There are, however, still candles on the US market that contain lead wick cores. In one study 3% of 285 purchased candles in 2000 contained lead [Potera 2000]. In another study from 2000 the researchers found lead wicks in fourteen brands of candles manufactured in the US, Mexico, and China (cited in [Knight et. al 2001]. In Australian investigations, several large China candles were releasing lead [Potera 2000].

In 1999 the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate received information that lead had been found in candles in Sweden (questionnaire response - reference is made to section 5.3).

Based on inter alia this knowledge, there is growing concern in the European industry about the risks associated with imported candles and in particular im-port from the Far East. Hence, a certain share of the imported volume from the Far East is believed to contain lead cored wicks, although it has not been possi-ble to estimate the actual extent of the problem [AECM 2004].

Due to the reported health problems related to using lead cored wicks, stricter regulation concerning the use of such candles has been put forward by the gov-ernments of Australia, USA and Canada. This - emphasised by an increasingly strong euro - could imply that candle manufacturers in the Far East will refocus their marketing and sales of lead cored wicks in candles towards the EU mar-kets. Use of lead cored wicks is presently not subject to EU-wide regulation, and more such candles are therefore likely to appear on the EU markets in the future, according to the AECM [AECM 2004].

Import/export On average, some 36% of total production is exchanged across borders within the EU15 area, and another approximately 17% is exported to countries outside the EU15 area, notably the US, Norway and Switzerland - reference is made to table A3.33 and table A3.34 in annex 3.

Annually, candles worth of about 280 mill. � are imported into the EU15 area, most notably from China (53% of total imports) and from Poland (16% of total imports) - reference is made to table A3.34 in annex 3.

Candles with lead cored wicks are not recorded in the available import/export EU-databases and can therefore not be tracked separately. The AECM has not been able to supply any supplementing statistics on the subject.

Focus on the Far East As described above, the import from the Far East into the EU15 area is considerable. The share of the total import, which contains lead cored wicks, is not recorded. Some calculated estimates can be provided, however, based on


126

.

the overall imported ton figures. For this purpose it is necessary to calculate the relative lead content (by weight) in a candle.

Table 5.2 Assumptions for lead content estimation

Item Assumption Comments

Density lead 11.34 grams/cm3 Table 3.15

Density wax 0.91 grams/cm3 [candletech 2004]

Lead core diameter 0.0381 cm 0.01-0.02 inches according to [VOSI 2000]. The arith-metic average of 0.015 inches (equalling 0.0381 cm) is used in the calculations.

Lead content core 55% Lead cores are practically typically lead alloys, with a lead content between 25%-85% according to [VOSI 2000]. The arithmetic average of 55% is used in the calculations.

The relative weight of the lead in a candle depends on the diameter of the can-dle. Estimated lead content of round candles with varying diameters have been provided in the table below.

Table 5.3 Relative weight of lead content of a lead containing candle

Candle diameter, cm Relative lead content by weight

1 0.977%

2 0.248%

3 0.110%

4 0.062%

5 0.040%

6 0.028%

7 0.020%

8 0.016%

9 0.012%

10 0.010%

Source Own calculations

It is assumed that lead cored wicks are mainly used in container candles and the like, which typically are of diameters between 3 to 8 centimetres. It has not been possible to obtain any information about the share of the import from the Far East, which contains lead cored wicks.

According to table A3.34 in annex 3 the total import of candles and the like from the Far East comes up to approximately 80,000 tonnes annually.

Assuming as a hypothetical example that 100% of all candles imported from the Far East contain lead wicks and that the size of these candles corresponds to diameters between 3 to 8 cm, the amount of lead imported yearly to EU15 with


127

.

such lead candle wicks can be roughly estimated at (reference is made to table 5.3):

80,000 tonnes (0,016% - 0,11%) = 12.8 - 88 tonnes

The example illustrates the relevant order of magnitude of the import and con-sumption of lead that might take place by import of candles with lead candle wicks from the Far East. Most likely the consumption will be well below 100 tonnes per year and may not exceed a few tonnes per year. The quantities in-volved should therefore be considered small comparing to e.g. a consumption of 38,600 tonnes of lead yearly in sporting and hunting ammunition (reference is made to table 3.5).

Lead cored wicks are, reportedly, still being used in a few Eastern European countries. The technology is specifically applied in the production of graveyard candles according to information provided by the industry2. It has, however, not been able to verify the extent of the production or of the consumption of such candles, neither through official statistics nor through more thorough and spe-cific investigations undertaken in Poland, Hungary and Lithuania.

Poland was the second largest exporter of candles to the EU15 area, and there-fore of course also plays an important role on the newly enlarged internal mar-ket. The National Association of Candle Producers in Poland reports that there are some 27 companies involved in the business. None of these uses lead for manufacturing of wicks or candles. The technology was phased out in the Pol-ish industry for some 15 years ago. [Andrusszkiewicz et al 2004]

It has not been possible to identify a national industry association for candle makers in Lithuania. General knowledge about the sector in Lithuania is there-fore sparse and not readily available. In general, however, Lithuanian candle producers are typically small, family-owned, individual enterprises. Some of these may be using the lead wick technology, in particular for manufacturing of graveyard candles, although it has not been possible to verify. Candles using lead wicks are not recorded separately in national statistics databases or similar. About 800 tonnes of candles were produced in 2002 in Lithuania. In the same year almost 2,000 tonnes were imported, of which 80% came from Poland and approximately 6% from China. So, the import accounts for the larger part of candles used in Lithuania, and the main importer reportedly does not use the lead wick technology [Rinkevicius 2004].

Attempts have been made at establishing a national manufacturers association in Hungary. No such association, however, exists yet. It is reported that the us-age of lead candlewicks is rather limited in the Hungarian market, all the mar-ket leaders produce lead-free candles. The number of producers of lead candle-wicks could not be estimated directly, however, their aggregate share of the

2 Telephone interview with the largest European wick manufacturer Wedo (www.wedowick.de); 22 July 2004

Eastern Europe


128

.

market for candles is not deemed to be significant. Interviews made with repre-sentatives of the Hungarian industry have revealed that some candles with lead wicks are imported from Croatia into Hungary. The extent of that import, how-ever, is unknown [Varkonyi 2004].

There are thus indications in the available information that production of can-dles with lead wicks may take place in the Balkan Region, but neither the size of the production nor the more detailed geographical dispersion is known.

5.3 Legal or voluntary use restrictions on lead wicks The phasing-out of lead wicks in European candle manufacturing during the 1970'ties and 1980'ties was supported by a number of voluntary agreements made among manufacturers and their associations. Today, AECM as the main European manufacturer association is formally recommending a European ban on the production and use of candles with lead wicks (above the 0.06% thresh-old). The minimum threshold is recommended because zink naturally may con-tain up to 0.06% lead. Zink is one of the likely substitutes to lead cored wicks [AECM 2004].

Information on legal use restrictions on lead candle wicks at national level was collected by a questionnaire to the national environmental authorities in all old and new Member States and Candidate Countries. The questionnaire was pre-pared in English. The questionnaire was addressed to contact persons in the Member States attending the Commission's Working Group on the Limitation of Marketing and Use Directive. For countries without contact persons in the working group, the questionnaire was addressed to the ministries responsible for environmental issues in each country.

Twenty-five of the 28 countries answered the questionnaire.

Lead in candle wicks has been prohibited in Denmark from 2002 (questionnaire response). The Danish EPA did not find any candles with lead wicks in a cam-paign in 2001 covering candles from six stores in Copenhagen [Danish EPA 2002].

The use of lead wicks is restricted in Finland for indoor use since 2001 by the Consumer Agency's Guidelines on Safety Requirements for Candle Products and Related Indications, while for outdoor uses it is recommended not to use lead in candle wicks (questionnaire response).

Lead in candle wicks has been prohibited in Denmark from 2002 (questionnaire response).

The Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate in 1999 reacted to the information that lead had been found in candles in Sweden by asking the stores in a press notice to remove candles with lead from the shelves (questionnaire response).

AECM Voluntary agreement

National regulation identified


129

.

UK candle manufacturers have voluntarily agreed not to use lead and lead has not been used in wicks since 1970's (questionnaire response).

It is assumed that no specific regulation on the use of production of lead cored wicks exist elsewhere within the EU area. Specifically, no use restrictions have been identified in Poland, Lithuania or Hungary.

Lead was in the USA commonly used as a core material until 1974 when the US candle manufacturing industry voluntarily agreed to discontinue use of lead in wicks.

Today lead candle wicks are banned in Australia, USA and Canada [AECM 2004].

5.4 Availability of substitutes for lead wicks According to AECM [AECM 2004] lead supported wicks can in all cases be substituted simply by using thicker woven wicks or wicks with alternative cores. Alternative cores may be made from either zinc or tin. Both alternatives are considered complete substitutes to lead in the sense that all required per-formance characteristics both in use as well as in manufacturing are maintained.

There are no significant barriers for a manufacturer in shifting technology (shift to substitute metal cores) in terms of adaptation of machinery and adjustment of production processes.

There are no known manufacturers of zinc or tin wicks in Europe, according to the AECM. By far the larger share of candles used in Europe is based on wicks without supporting metal wires [AECM 2004].

Zinc is today commonly used in US produced candles as an alternative metal core for the wicks, since it provides the desired amount of stiffness and burns off readily with the rest of the wick [Knight et. al 2001]. Tin is also commonly used in the USA as a stiffener for candle wicks [NCA 2004].

Neither zinc nor tin wicks are considered to emit metals at concentrations caus-ing health concerns [Knight et. al 2001]. No precise data regarding the impact on environment of tin and zinc being burned as candle wicks are available. Re-garding the other option of using thicker wicks, no studies are available indicat-ing specific health or environmental problems related to this option.

5.5 Impact of potential marketing and use restrictions on lead wicks

It is assessed that an EU-wide restriction on marketing and use of lead wicks in candles in the EU area will have no effects on the manufacturing industry in EU, as no manufacturing companies in EU15 as well as the New Member States to the best of knowledge is manufacturing candles with lead wicks. Indi-

Experience from abroad

Alternative tech-nologies

Experience from abroad


Business impacts


130

.

cation exists of that such candles may be produced in the Balkan region e.g. Croatia, but no certain knowledge on this issue is available.

It is assumed that candles with lead wicks to the extent such candles are avail-able to consumers in the EU will originate from import from countries outside the EU and in particular from the Far East.

Substitutes for lead wicks based on zinc and tin is available besides that thicker woven wicks is the general solution adopted in Europe.

As it has not been possible to identify candles with lead wicks for sale in the EU and thereby to be informed of retail prices for such candles as compared to candles with substitute solutions it is not possible to estimate the costs to con-sumers of a potential restriction on the use of lead wicks in Europe.

The data on prices on raw materials presented in table 3.15 makes it likely that the manufacturing price for candles with lead wicks could be slightly lower than for candles with substitute solutions. However, considering the amount of lead used per candle and the likely very limited consumption of lead for this purpose in Europe, the financial consequences to European consumers of a po-tential restriction must be assumed marginal or in reality non-existing.

It is estimated that the amount of lead being imported to Europe as candle wicks in candles - although not known - likely is small and may not exceed a few tonnes per year. Still the risk exists that some consumers are exposed to lead fumes from lead wicks in candles. When a lead wick based candle is burned in indoor conditions, considerable amounts of lead may be released to the indoor air and result in human exposure to lead by inhalation. The lead re-leased may otherwise settle as dust on furniture and floors and thus be a source of human intake of lead for adults as well as for children. Besides, the released lead may be a source of lead to waste and waste water when the lead is re-moved from the indoor environment by cleaning. For candles used outdoor, lead will similarly settle in the surroundings and thus add to the general level of lead in the surroundings.

To the best of knowledge a community wide approach may benefit all stake-holders in all Member States of the EU apart from those companies making a profit out of importing and selling candles with lead wicks on the European market. In particular the consumers of candles may benefit from a complete elimination of the risk of being exposed to lead fumes from candles.

5.6 Summary and conclusion Market overview The total consumption of candles within EU15 is estimated at about 470,000

tonnes, while the production in EU15 reached about 420,000 tonnes. The dif-ference is covered by a net import of candles, of which more than 50% is com-ing from the Far East.


Relevance of a community wide ap-proach


131

.

No production of lead containing candles in the EU15 area has been detected. There may reportedly be a small production in certain parts of Eastern Europe, notably the general Balkan area, but it has not been possible to document this assumption.

Lead wicks are in Europe primarily substituted by thicker woven wicks. How-ever zinc and tin wicks may be used as substitutes as well. The available substi-tutes are fully satisfactory from a user as well as a manufacturing point of view, and potential costs related to this substitution are assumed marginal or in reality non-existing.

To the extent that lead containing candles can be found for retail sale within the EU area, they are likely to be imported, mainly from the Far East. Actually this issue is a main reason behind the focus on candle wicks, as it is known that lead wicks is used in the Far East and imported to e.g. USA and Australia, and it is feared that restrictions in inter alia these countries may motivate candle export-ers in the Far East to increase their export to the EU.

It is assessed that an EU-wide restriction on marketing and use of lead wicks in and for candles will have no effects on the manufacturing industry in the EU. It is also not possible to identify any disadvantages to the European consumers of such a restriction, while the consumers certainly will benefit from such a re-striction. Although the import and consumption of lead candle wicks in Europe likely is small the risk exists that some consumers are exposed to lead fumes from lead wicks in candles and the lead dust generated by those fumes. A re-striction should - in principle - eliminate this risk completely.

To the best of knowledge a community wide approach may benefit all stakeholders in all Member States of the EU apart from those companies im-porting and selling candles with lead wicks on the European market.

Restriction on mar-keting and use of lead wicks


132

.

References

AECM 2004. Personal communication with Mr. Andrew Leach, Association of European Candle Manufacturers, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France March - June 2004.

AFEMS 2002. Shooting Ranges and the Environment - a Handbook for

European Range Managers. Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting ammunition, Rome, Italy

AFEMS 2004a. Personal communication with Dr. Vito Genco, Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting ammunition, Rome, Italy March-September 2004.

AFEMS 2004b. Information available on www.afems.org. June 2004 AFEMS 2004c. Letter dated 12.10.2004 from Dr. Vito Genco, Association of

European Manufacturers of Sporting ammunition, Rome, Italy to Erik Hansen, COWI, Denmark.

Airgun 2004. Information available on

http://www.airgun.co.uk/dynamic_test.htm. September 2004 Airgunpellets 2004. Information available on

http://www.airgunpellets.com/expert.htm. September 2004

Andrusszkiewicz, K., M.Czepelski, Z.Paprocki, M.Kleszcz. 2004. Information collected in Poland by Mr. Krzysztof Andrusszkiewicz, K., Marek Czepel-ski, Zbigniew Paprocki, Mariusz Kleszcz, Warszawa, June-July 2004.

Annema, J.A., E.M. Paardekooper, H. Booij, LFCM. van Oers, E. van der Hoet & P.A.A. Mulder. 1995. Stofstroomanalyse van zes zware metalen - Gevolgen van autonome ontwikkelingen en maatregelen. RIVM, Biltho-ven.

BASC. 1993. Problems with lead shot. Extract from BASC paper by head of Research, 29th July 1993. British Association for Shooting and Conserva-tion, Wrexham.

BASC. 2004. CIP regulations on steel shot ammunition and shotgun proof. British Association for Shooting and Conservation, http://www.basc.org.uk/content/steelshotsafety (September 2004)

Baschieri-pellagri 2004. Information available on www.baschieri-pellagri.com. June 2004


133

.

Begley, M. 2004. Environmental impact of new materials: The tungsten ex-perience. Paper presented at the WFSA World Symposium on Lead in Ammunition in Rome, September 9-10, 2004.

Beintema, N. 2001. Lead poisoning in waterbirds. International update report 2000. Wetlands International supported by the UK Joint Nature Conserva-tion Committee and the African � Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agree-ment, AEWA.

Bille, S. 2004. Personal communication with Mr. Søren Bille, Member of the Danish Association of Shooters, Vingsted. September 2004

Bjælkehytten 2004. Information received from the shop Bjælkehytten - jagt og fiskeri (hunting and fishing). Vejle, Denmark, July 2004.

Broughton, R. 2004. A Brief Criteque on Advantages and Drawsbacks of Re-stricting the Marketing and Use of Lead in Ammunition, Fishing Sinkers and Candle Wicks - Final Draft report dated August 2004. European Anglers´ Alliance, Brussel.

Brønnum, J. and E. Hansen. 1998. Bly - anvendelse, problemer, den videre indsats. Environmental Project No. 377. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen.

BulletWeights 2004. Information available on www.bulletweights.com. July 2004.

Bush, A. 2004. Personal communication with Mr. Andy Bush, LDAI, March 2004.

Cabelas 2004. Information available on www.cabelas.com. July 2004

Canada 2003. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/e1_062.pdf a (Assessed September 2004).

Canada Gazette 2004. Information available on http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2004/20040221/html/regle1-e.html. March 2004

Candletech 2004. Information available on http://candletech.com/calculator/round.php. October 2004.

CCRT. 2003. A Report from the California Condor Lead Exposure Reduction Steering Committee, a Subcommittee of the California Condor Recovery Team. Available at: http://www.projectgutpile.org/archives/LeadSubcommitteeReport.doc

Ceccarelli, G. and S. Rosi. 2004. Future range design. Paper presented at the WFSA World Symposium on Lead in Ammunition in Rome, September 9-10, 2004.


134

.

CSTEE. 2000. Opinion on "LEAD � DANISH NOTIFICATION 98/595/DK". Opinion expressed at the 15th CSTEE plenary meeting, Brussels, 5th of May 2000. Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment.

CSTEE. 2003a. Opinion of the CSTEE on "Potential health risks associated with the use of lead containing candlewicks". Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment, (CSTEE), Brussels 6 February 2003. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/sct/out176_en.pdf

CSTEE. 2003b. Opinion on the Report on "Risks to Health and the Environ-ment Related to the Use of lead in products" (TNO report, STB-01-39 fi-nal). Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment, (CSTEE). Adopted by the CSTEE during the 37th plenary meeting of 1st April 2003. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/sct/out182_en.pdf

Danish EPA. 1989. Bly . Statement no. 1/1989. Danish Environmental Agency, Copenhagen.

Danish EPA. 2002. Miljøstyrelsens Kemikalieinspektion - årsberetning 2001. Orientering fra Miljøstyrelsen No. 6/2002. The Danish EPA, Copenhagen.

Danish EPA. 2002b. Letter of 24. September from H. Heron, Danish Environ-mental Protection Agency, to Grej Sport V/ Ole Toft, Herning.

Danish Ministry of Environment 1996. Bekendtgørelse om kvalitetskrav for vandområder og krav til udledning af visse farlige stoffer til vandløb, sø-er eller havet. BEK nr 921 af 08/10/1996. Copenhagen.

Danmarks Skytteunion 2004. Information available on www.skytteunion.dk. June 2004

Davies, B.E. and I.Thornton 1989. Pathways of lead into food. International

Lead Zinc Research Organisation (Quoted in Risk Reduction Monograph No. 1: Lead. OECD, Paris 1993).

Dermatas, D., W.Braida, C.Chritodoulatos, N.Strigul, N.Panikov, M.Los, and S. Larson. 2004. Solubility, sorption, and soil respiration effects of tung-sten and tungsten alloys. Environmental Forensics, 5:5-13, 2004

EAEF 2003. Economic performance of selected European fishing fleets. An-nual Report 2003. Economic Assessment of European Fisheries, Con-certed Action Q5CA-2001-01502.

Eley 2004. Information available on www.eley.co.uk. June 2004 Elisenhuette 2004. Information available on www.elisenhuette.de. June 2004 ESC 2004. Information available on www.esc-shooting.org. June 2004


135

.

EX 2004. Information available on

www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/dictunit.htm#mass. June 2004

Federal Register 2004. Vol 69, No. 10, January 15, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/itc53.pdf. (Assessed September 2004).

Fiocchigfl 2004. Information available on www.fiocchigfl.it. June 2004 FIPO. 2004. Personal communication with Mr. F. Mondini, Federazione Ital-

iana Produttori e Operatori Articoli da Pesca Sportiva.

Geocities 2004. Information available on www. geo-cities.com/colosseum/slope/4882. June 2004

Geocities 2004b. Information available on

www.geocities.com/echochap/leadfree.html. September 2004 Globalnet 2004. Information available on

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~targetts/pricelis.htm. September 2004.

Grodzki, K. 2004. Information received by e-mail dated 4. November 2004 from Ms. K. Grodzki, DG Enterprise, EU Commission, Brussel.

Gudum A. 2002. Økonomisk konsekvensanalyse af blybekendtgørelsen. Envi-ronmental Project No. 676. Danish EPA, Copenhagen.

Gustafsson L. et al. 1993. Phasing out lead and mercury. Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate, Solna.

Hansen, E., Lassen, C., Stuer-Lauridsen, F. and Kjølholt, J. 2002. Heavy metals in waste. EU Commission, DG Environment, Brussels 2002.

Harradine, J. 2002. Shooting ranges and the environment - a handbook for European range managers. Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition, Brussels.

Hartmann, P. 2001. Personal communication with Mr. Poul Hartmann, National Environmental Research Institute, Kalø, Denmark.

Heron, H. 2004. Personal communication with Mr. Henri Heron, Danish Envi-ronmental Protection Agency. Copenhagen, July 2004

Holzel, T. 2004. Airgun, Caliber, and Pellet Selection. http://www.airguns.net/cal_pell.html. September 2004.

Hillman, F.E. 1967. A rare case of chronic lead poisoning: polyneuropathy

traced to lead shot in the appendix. Ind. Med. Surg. 36(7):388-398. ICPSA 2004. Information available on www.icpsa.ie. June 2004


136

.

ISSF 2004a. E-mail dated 23 June 2004 and letter dated 21 June 2004 from

Secretary General Horst. G. Schreiber, International Sports Shooting Fed-eration.

ISSF 2004b. Information available on www.issf-shooting.org. June 2004 ILZSG 2004. International Lead and Zinc Study Group, London. Personal

communication, 2004.

Jacks, G. and M. Byström. 1995. Dissolution of lead weights lost when fish-ing. Div. of Land & Water Resources, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Jensen, J., H.L. Kristensen and J.J. Scott-Fordsmand. 1997. Soil quality criteria for selected compounds. Working Report No 83/1997. The Danish EPA, Copenhagen.

Kanstrup, N. 2004a. Lead poisoning in water birds - background information. Essay by Niels Kanstrup, Director of the Danish Hunters� Association, Kalø, Denmark on http://www.unep-wcmc.org/AEWA/eng/Leadshot/leadpage9.htm, March 2004.

Kanstrup, N. 2004b. Personal communication with Niels Kanstrup, Danish Hunters� Association, Kalø, Denmark. July 2004.

Kendall, R.J., T.E. Lacker, C. Bunck, B. Daniel, C. Driver, C.E. Grue, F. Leighton and W. Stansley. 1996. An ecological risk assessment of lead shot exposure in non-waterfowl avian species: Upland game birds and raptors. Env. Tox. Chem. 15:4-20.

Korsholm, L 2004. Personal communication with Lars Korsholm, Korsholm A/S, Skjern, Denmark. July 2004.

Knight, L., A. Levin, and C. Mendenhall. 2001. Candles and incense as po-tential sources of indoor air pollution: Market analysis and literature re-view. US EPA, Washington D.C.

KOMPASS 2004. Information available via www.KOMPASS.dk. September 2004.

Lassen, C., C.L. Christensen & S. Skårup. 2003. Massestrømsanalyse for bly 2000. Environmental Project No. 789. The Danish EPA, Copenhagen.

Lecocq, Y. 2004. Personal communication with Secretary-General Yves Lecocq, Fed-eration of Associations for Hunting & Conservation of the E.U.. Brussel, May 2004.

Lepper, P. 2002. Towards the derivation of quality standards for priority substances in the context of the Water Framework Directive. Fraunhofer-Institute Molecu-


137

.

lar Biology and Applied Ecology.

Lillie, S., M.T. Corbett and R. O'Donnell. 2002. How Much Does a Bullet Cost? Army Magazine, Vol. 52, No. 5, May 2002 http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/0/33D13BCA948DA8B785256B0050ECA2? OpenDocument

Lyalvaleex-press 2004. Information available on www.lyalvaleex-press.com. June 2004 Netherlands 2000. Circular on target values and intervention values for soil reme-

diation. Ministry of housing, spatial planning and the environment. The Hague, Netherlands http://www2.vrom.nl/Docs/internationaal/S_I2000.pdf (assessed September 2004)

Nevada 2004. Information form Nevada Department of Wildlife at http://www.ndow.org/hunt/seasons/nontoxic.shtm. March 2004

Nammo 2004. Information available on the homepages www.nammo.fi/hunting.html and www.nammo.com/smallarms/index.html. July 2004.

NCA 2004. Information available on http://www.candles.org/Candlemaking/qa_wicks.htm. September 2004.

Nicolaysen, K. 2004. Personal communication with by Prof. Kåre Nicolaysen,

Member of technical committee of European Shooting Confederation (ESC).

Norma 2004. Information available on www.norma.cc. June 2004 Madsen, H.H.T., T. Kkjom, P.J. Jørgensen and P. Granjean, 1988. Blood lead

levels in patients with lead shot retained in the appendix. Acta Radiol. 29:745-746.

McAllister, J. 2004. Environmental benefits, Treatment methods, costs and results. Paper presented at the WFSA World Symposium on Lead in Am-munition in Rome, September 9-10, 2004.

OECD 1993. Risk Reduction Monograph No. 1: LEAD - Background and National Experience with Reducing Risk. OECD Environmental Health and Safety Division, Paris.

OSPAR 2004. Information available at http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/welcome.html. (Assessed October 2004).

Perrins, C.M., G. Cousquer and J. Waine. 2003. A survey of blood levels in Mute Swans - Cygnus olor. Avian Pathology (2003) 32, 205-212.

Ponsaing, P & E. Hansen. 1995. Opportunities and Costs of substituting Lead. TemaNord 1995:565. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.


138

.

Potera, C. 2000. The Core of the Candle Problem. Environmental Health Per-spectives Vol. 108, No. 4 April 2000. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2000/108-4/forum.html (assessed October 2004)

Rasmussen, B. 2004. Personal communication with Mr. Birger Rasmussen, Armmunitionsarsenalet, Danish Army Material Command, Frederikshavn. July 2004.

Reddy, E.R. 1985. Retained lead shot in the appendix. J.Can.Assoc.Radiol.36:47-48.

Rinkevicius, S. 2004. Information collected in Lithaunia by Mr. Sigitas Rinke-vicius, COWI Baltic. July 2004.

Salonen, H. 2004. E-mail dated 13-08-2004 from Ms. Heikko Salonen, Finnish Environmental Institute, to Ms. Karola Grodzki, EU Commission DG En-terprise.

Scheuhammer, A.M. and S. L. Norris. 1995. A review of the environmental impacts of lead shotshell ammunition and lead fishing weights in Can-ada. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottaw

Schreiber, H.G. 2004. Personal communication with Mr. Horst. G. Schreiber, Secretary General of the ISSF, June 2004.

Scott-Fordsmand, J.J., J. Jensen, M.B. Pedersen and P. Folker Hansen 1995. Økologiske jordkvalitetskriterier - Udvalgte stoffer og stofgrupper. Pro-jekt om jord og grundvand Nr 13/1995. The Danish EPA.

Scott-Fordsmand, J.J. and M.B. Pedersen. 1995. Soil quality criteria for se-lected inorganic compounds. Working Report No 48/1995. The Danish EPA.

Sellier-bellot 2004. Information available on www.sellier-bellot.cz. June 2004 Shootinggear 2004. Information available on

http://www.shootinggear.co.uk/main/cartridges/. September 2004

SFT. 2001. Konsekvensvurdering av forslag til forskrift om blyhagl. Norve-gian EPA., Oslo

Skenco 2004. Information available on www.skenco.com/pellets.html. Septem-ber 2004.

Streitberger, J. 2004. Range design. Paper presented at the WFSA World Sym-posium on Lead in Ammunition in Rome, September 9-10, 2004.

Strigul, N., W.Braida, D. Dermatas, C.Chritodoulatos, and M.Los. 2004a. Tungsten effects on soil environments. Abstract submitted to the Univer-


139

.

sity of Massachusetts Annual International Conference on soils, sedi-manets and water.

Strigul, N., A. Koutsospyros, C.Chritodoulatos, D. Dermatas, and W.Braida. 2004a. Effects of munitions grade tungsten environmental systems. Manuscript submitted to Chemosphere.

Thornton, I., R. Rautiu & S. Brush. 2001. Lead - the facts. IC Consultants Ltd, London.

TNO. 2001. Risks to health and the environment related to the use of lead in products. TNO report STB-01-39 for the European Commission, DG En-terprise. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/chemicals/markrestr/studies/studies.htm)

Toft, O. 2004. Personal communication with Ole Toft, Grej Sport. Herning, Denmark, July 2004

Tufts. 2004. Loons and lead poisoning. Tufts University Scholl of Veterinary Medicine at: http://www.tufts.edu.

UNEP 2004. African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement. at: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/AEWA/eng/intro.htm

UK gun 2004. Information available on www.ukgunproducts.com. September 2004.

US EPA. 2001. Best management practices for lead at outdoor shooting ranges. United States EPA-902-B-01-001

USGS. 2001. Mineral commodity summaries. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/chromium/index.html.

Varkonyi, Z. 2004. Information collected in Hungary by Mr. Zoltan Varkonyi, COWI Hungary. July 2004.

VOSI. 2000. Information available on voicesofsafety.com/t1-ph-v50-1-standard.htm. Assessed by October 2004.

WHO. 1989. Lead - environmental aspects. Environmental Health Criteria 85. World Health Organisation, International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), Geneva, Switzerland.

WHO 1993. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Recom-mendations. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1993. p. 56. http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/GDWQ/Chemicals/tinsum.htm


140

.

WHO 1995. Inorganic lead. Environmental Health Criteria 165. World Health Organisation, International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), Ge-neva, Switzerland.

Winther, B. 2004. Personal communication with Mr. Bent Winther, Chairman of the clay pigeon section within the Danish Shooting Federation. Copen-hagen, July 2004.

Working Group. 1998. Soil contaminations at shooting ranges. Report by the Work Group of the Conference of the (Laender) Ministers for the Envi-ronment. Germany. Available at: http://www.wfsa.net/SoilReport.pdf


141

.

Annex 1 Contacted European associations AMMUNITION FACE Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the E.U. 82, Rue F. Pelletier Street 1030 Brussels, Belgium Phone: +32.2.732.69.00 Fax: +32.2.732.70.72 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.face-europe.org A questionnaire has been circulated to national associations, members of FACE, based on the FACE member list. AFEMS The Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition Av. Van Nieuwenhuyse, 4 B 1160 Brussels-Belgium Tel. +32.2.676.7211 Fax +32.2.676.7203 Secretariat: AFEMS Via Flaminia 342/B I-00196 Rome-Italy Tel. +39.06.322.0016 Fax +39.06.322.0018 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.afems.org ISSF International Shooting Sport Federation ISSF Headquarters: Bavariaring 21D-80336 München, Germany Phone: 49-89-5443550 - Fax: 49-89-54435544 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.issf-shooting.org ESC European Shooting Confederation Unni Nicolaysen, President Skadalsvn. 26 A 0781 Oslo, Norway Norway Ph: +47 22920627 Phone: +22140481 Fax +47 22920827 Email: [email protected] FISHING SINKERS


142

.

EFTTA The European Fishing Tackle Trade Association 73 St John Street London EC1M 4NJ Tel: +.44.20.7253.0777 Fax: +.44.20.7253.7779 (trade ony) Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.eftta.com EAA European Anglers Alliance Rue du Parnasse, 42 B-1050 Brussels - Belgium Tel/Fax : +32 (0)2 732 03 09 E-mail : [email protected] Website: http://www.eaa-europe.org EUROPÊCHE Association representing professionals in the fisheries sector in the EU Rue de la Science 23/25, B 1040, Brussels Tel: +32 2 230 4848 Fax: +32 2 230 26 80 Email: [email protected] A questionnaire has been circulated by EUROPÊCHE to their national member associations. Further, a request regarding the presence of national associations of manufac-turers of fishing equipment for commercial fishing has been circulated to na-tional industry associations based on a member list at: http://www.unice.org/content/default.asp?PageId=260 CANDLE WICKS AECM Association of European Candle Manufacturers 118, Avenue Achille Peretti F-92200 Neuilly-sur-Seine Tel. 33 (0) 1 46 37 22 06 Fax 33 (0) 1 46 37 15 60 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.europecandles.com USE OF LEAD IN GENERAL LDAI Lead Development Association International


143

.

42 Weymouth Street London W1G 6NP Tel: +44 (0)20 7499 8422 Fax: +44 (0)20 7493 1555 Website: http://www.ldaint.org ILZSG International Lead and Zinc Study Group 1 Mill Street London SE1 2DF United Kingdom Telephone: + (44) 20 7740 2750 Facsimile: + (44) 20 7740 2983 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ilzsg.org


144

.

Annex 2 Other contacted associations and companies (contacted by phone eventually supplied with e-mail) Contacted national fishing tackle trade associations Angling Trades Association Ltd, UK GIFAB, France Spofa Spöfiske, Sweden FIPO, Italy Other contacted associations Nordic Fishermen's Council, Denmark Lithuanian Association of Hunters and Anglers, Lithuania National Federation of Hungarian Anglers, Hungary National Association of Fishermen, Hungary Hungarian Hunters� National Chamber, Hungary Hungarian Dynamic Sport Shooting Federation, Hungary Polish Association of Angling, Poland National Association of Candle Producers, Poland Polish Association of Sport Shooting, Poland Polish Association of Hunters, Poland Federación Española de Organizaciones pesqueras (FEOPE), Spain Federación Española de Armadores de Buques de Pesca (FEABP), Spain Asociación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas (ASPE) , Spain Asociación de Productore de Ondario (Pais Vasco), Spain Organización de Productores de Celeiro (Galicia), Spain Contacted companies, fishing sinkers Delta Plus, Czech Republic Sema, Czech Republic Lovy s.r.o, Czech Republic Hvalpsund Net, Denmark Svendsen Sport, Denmark Randers Reb A/S, Denmark Daconet A/S, Denmark Iron Strand, Denmark Kuusamon Uistin Oy, Finland Lemer Fondarie, France Collin Technology GmBH, Germany Kamasaki Elnex, Hungary Fisch KFT, Hungary Deáky Fishing Tackle Manufacturing Ltd, Hungary Q-tor Ltd., Hungary Balaton Fishing Co., Hungary JSC Elizija, Lithuania Vedette di Viassone, Italy Stoppioni Snc - STONFO, Italy


145

.

KAMAX, Poland Konger, Poland Gamakatsu, Poland Angel Sport, Poland Kostal SC, Poland Somsen & Poole Da Costa lda, Portugal Dom Carlos Santos Miranda, Portugal Cabos Y Redes, Spain Efectos Navales de Celeiro, Spain Calico SA, Spain El Vilar, Spain Grauvell Fishing SA, Spain Lukris, S.L., Spain Plumiratun, Spain Talleres González y Fajardo, S.L., Spain Redes Salinas S.L., Spain Marina Hispanica S.L., Spain Contacted companies, other applications Eurocandle Ltd, Hungary Candle Shop Ltd, Hungary WEDO, Germany


146

.

Annex 3 Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in this report:

AECM Association of European Candle Manufacturers AFEMS The Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition ASPE Asociación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas CA$ Canadian dollars CIP Permanent international Commission for the Proof of Small Arms CN Common Nomenclature (statistical commodity codes) COMEXT An Eurostat database on commodities CWS Canadian Wildlife service DKK Danske kroner (Danish currency) EAA European Anglers Alliance EFTTA The European Fishing Tackle Trade Association EFTTEX The European Fishing Tackle Trade Exhibition EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESC European Shooting Confederation EU15 The European Union with 15 Member States i.e. before 2004 EU25 The European Union with 25 Member States i.e. from 2004 EUROPÊCHE Association representing professionals in the fisheries sector in the EU EUROSTAT The Statistical Agency of the European Union FACE Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the E.U. FEABP Federación Española de Armadores de Buques de Pesca FEOPE Federación Española de Organizaciones pesqueras FIPO The Italian association of manufacturers and wholesalers of fishing tackle. GIFAB The French association of manufacturers and wholesalers of fishing tackle. GRT Gross Register Tonnage ILZSG International Lead and Zinc Study Group ISSF International Shooting Sport Federation LDAI Lead Development Association International Mill. Million OSPAR The OSPAR Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. Pb Lead PRODCOM An Eurostat database on commodities t Tonne/tonnes UNICE Union des Industries de la Communauté Européenne USFWS The United States Fish and Wildlife Service � Euro US$ US dollars


147

.

Annex 4 Questionnaires

The following questionnaires used for collection of data are presented in this annex:

! Questionnaire to national environmental authorities in Member States and Candidate Countries

! Questionnaire to hunters associations in Member States and Candidate Countries

! Questionnaire to fisheries associations in Member States and Candidate Countries

! Questionnaire to associations of producers of fishing equipment in Member States and Candidate Countries


148

.

(To national environmental authorities) Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammuni-tion, fishing sinkers and candle wicks COWI A/S for the European Commission, DG ENT Please return before March 30, 2004 to [email protected] or the address indicated below

Please indicate the names of legal instruments and agreements in both the original language and in English.

COUNTRY

INSTITUTION

FILLED IN BY (NAME)

DATE

Restrictions on the use of lead for fishing

Please mark with an X

Use restriction No use re-striction Legal use restriction

1) Voluntary use restriction 2) Date of entry into force

Use of lead for sport fish-ing in seawater

Use of lead for sport fish-ing in fresh water

Use of lead for profes-sional fishing

Other (please specify un-der comments)

1) Name of instrument for legal use restriction:

2) Description of voluntary use restriction (name of agreement, partners, etc.):

Comments:


149

.

Restrictions on the use of lead for candle wicks




Use of lead for production of candle wicks

Use of lead in marketed products


2) Description of voluntary use restriction (name of agreement, partners, etc.):

Comments:

Restrictions on the use of lead for ammunition




Use of lead shots over wetlands (or for waterfowl hunting)

Use of lead shots in for-ests

Use of lead shots for tar-get shooting and sporting

Other uses of lead shots

Use of lead for rifle ammu-nition (please specify under comments)

Other


2) Description of voluntary use restriction (name, partners, etc.):


150

.

Comments:

Legal requirements to ammunition for hunting

Is ammunition for hunting to some extent regulated by legal requirements (e.g. specific bullet weight or striking energy for different types of game? No legal requirements (mark with an X):

Legal requirements (name of instrument):

Please address questions regarding the questionnaire to:

Carsten Lassen, COWI A/S, Havneparken 1

DK-7100 Vejle, Denmark

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +45 7642 6412 Fax: +45 7642 6401


151

.

(To hunters associations) Rules, restrictions and measures for the use of hunting ammunition containing lead COWI A/S for the European Commission, DG ENT

Please fill in and return before April 30, 2004 to COWI at [email protected] or fax +45 7642 6401

Please indicate the names of legal instruments and agreements in both the original language and in English.

COUNTRY

NAME OF ASSOCIATION

FILLED IN BY (NAME)

DATE

Legal or voluntary restrictions on the use of hunting ammunition containing lead

Please mark with an X:

Use restriction or ban No restriction or ban on the use

Legal use restriction

1)

Voluntary use restriction 2)

Date of entry into force

Region

Use of lead shot over wet-lands (or for waterfowl hunting)

Use of lead shot in forests

Use of lead shot for target shooting and sporting

Other uses of lead shot

Use of lead for rifle am-munition

Other (please specify un-der comments)


2) Description of voluntary use restriction (name of agreement, partners, etc):

Comments:


152

.

Other rules or measures that regulate the use of hunting ammunition containing lead

Please indicate other rules or measures taken by competent authorities or organisations that regulate the use of lead in hunting ammunition: Please address questions regarding the questionnaire to:

Carsten Lassen

COWI A/S

Havneparken 1

DK-7100 Vejle

Denmark


Tel: +45 7642 6412 Fax: +45 7642 6401


153

.

(To fisheries associations) Use of lead in fishing sinkers - impact of restricting the use COWI A/S for the European Commission, DG ENT Please fill in electronically and return before July 20, 2004 to [email protected]

COUNTRY

NAME OF ASSOCIATION

FILLED IN BY (NAME)

TEL.

E-mail

DATE

Use of lead for fishing nets for commercial fishing

Which types of fishing equipment for commercial fishing are manufactured and used in the country and to what extent is lead used for the equipment:

Lead is used in the equipment in the form of: Put a cross Manufactured

in the country Used in the

country Weights/ sinkers Lead lines Seine ropes No lead

Ring net

Seines

Trawl

Pound nets

Fyke or hoop nets

Set net

Lines for line fishing

Other (describe in comments)


Comments:

If any studies on the use of lead for fishing equipment in the country exist, please make a full reference to the study:

How much lead is annually used for equipment for commercial fishing in the country (put a cross)?


154

.

<10 10-50 t 50-200 t 200-800 t 800-2000 t >2000 t

The estimate is based on (put a cross):

Actual study Expert judgement Guess

Manufacturing of fishing nets/gear in the country

If a national association of manufacturers of fishing nets/gear exists, please indicate contact coordinates:

How many manufacturers of made-up fishing nets/gear are operative in the country (indicate approximate number):

Are lead weights and lead ropes/lines for production of made-up nets mainly produced domestically (yes/no):

Are fishing nets/gear with lead-free alternatives produced in the country (yes/no):

(In case of "yes", please describe the types):

Effects of restricting the use of lead

How would a ban on the use of lead for fishing nets impact the fishery in the country:

How would a ban on the use of lead for fishing nets impact the manufacturing of fishing nets/gear in the country:


155

.

Net terminology (according to Glossary of United Kingdom Fishing Gear Terms): Ring net: A single-panelled multi-sectioned pelagic encircling net usually operated by two vessels. Seine: An encircling net sometimes with ropes, e.g. purse seine, beach seine, Danish seine. Trawl: A fishing gear assembly incorporating a funnel-shaped net, ropes and hardware to hold open the mouth of the net when towed. Pound net: General term for any moored and/or staked net comprising a leader and one or more enclosures, e.g. bag net, stake net, kettle net. Fyke net: Anchored comprised of leader(s) and one or more small cham-bers, each with an inner conical-shaped non-return 'valve' leading to the next chamber. Hoop net: Conical net attached to a hoop and baited to catch lobsters, prawns, etc. Set net: General term for any simple net when it is held in fishing trim by anchors, sinkers and/or stakes, e.g. trammel net, tangle net, gill net.

Seine ropes are used for large seines used e.g. for fishing benthic fish on relatively shallow water. The seine rope is typi-cally designed as a woven rope with a thin lead woven into the filaments of polypropylene or polyester, which is sewn to the net.

Lead lines are made of small pieces of lead threaded on a plastic rope. The leaded rope is covered by a woven plastic stocking of polypropylene, polyester or other plastics and the stocking is sewn or woven on the net.


Carsten Lassen

COWI A/S

Havneparken 1

DK-7100 Vejle, Denmark


Tel: +45 7642 6412


156

.

(To associations of producers of fishing equipment) Use of lead in fishing sinkers - impact of restricting the use COWI A/S for the European Commission, DG ENT Please fill in electronically and return before May 5, 2004 to [email protected]

COUNTRY

NAME OF ASSOCIATION

FILLED IN BY (NAME)

TEL.

DATE

Use of lead for fishing nets for professional fishing

How many producers of fishing nets are operative in the country (indicate approximate number):

How many professional fishermen are operative in the country (indicate approximate number):

Which types of fishing tools for professional fishing are produced and used in the country (see terminology below):

lead is used in the equipment in the form of: Put a cross Produced

in the country

Used in the country Weights/ sinkers Lead lines Seine ropes No lead

Ring net

Seines

Trawl

Pound nets

Fyke or hoop nets

Set net

Lines for line fishing


Comments:

How much lead is annually used for production of fishing equipment in the country (put a cross)?


157

.

<10 10-50 t 50-200 t 200-800 t 800-2000 t >2000 t

Are lead weights and lead ropes/lines for production of made-up nets mainly produced domestically (yes/no): (In case "yes" please describe the types):

Are fishing nets with lead-free alternatives produced in the country (yes/no):

(In case "yes" please describe the types):

Effects of restricting the use of lead

How would a ban on the use of lead for fishing nets impact the fishing nets industry in the country (use the categories below or prepare your own):

Put a cross

All net/ equip-ment

Ring net

Seines Trawl Pound nets

Fyke/ hoop nets

Set nets

Lines Other

No effects expected

The production would be concen-trated on fewer enterprises

A part of the domestic production would be replaced by imported products

The production and export would increase

A part of the domestic production would be replaced by domestic production at other companies.

Domestic production may cease completely in favour of imported products

Comments:

How many years would be needed for the industry to shift to lead-free alternatives for production of fishing nets (indicate number of years):


158

.

Net terminology (according to Glossary of United Kingdom Fishing Gear Terms): Ring net: A single-panelled multi-sectioned pelagic encircling net usually operated by two vessels. Seine: An encircling net sometimes with ropes, e.g. purse seine, beach seine, Danish seine. Trawl: A fishing gear assembly incorporating a funnel-shaped net, ropes and hardware to hold open the mouth of the net when towed. Pound net: General term for any moored and/or staked net comprising a leader and one or more enclosures, e.g. bag net, stake net, kettle net. Fyke net: Anchored comprised of leader(s) and one or more small cham-bers, each with an inner conical-shaped non-return 'valve' leading to the next chamber. Hoop net: Conical net attached to a hoop and baited to catch lobsters, prawns, etc. Set net: General term for any simple net when it is held in fishing trim by anchors, sinkers and/or stakes, e.g. trammel net, tangle net, gill net.

Seine ropes are used for large seines used e.g. for fishing benthic fish on relatively shallow water in the North Sea. The seine rope is typically designed as a woven rope with a thin lead woven into the filaments of polypropylene or polyester, which is sewn to the net.

Lead lines are used all over Europe for pound nets (or set nets). A line is made of small pieces of lead threaded on a plastic rope. The leaded rope is covered by a woven plastic stocking of polypropylene, polyester or other plastics and the stocking is sewn or woven on the net.

Sinkers/weights are used all over Europe for large ring nets for pelagic fish, trawls, fykes, hoop nets and other types of net fishing. The size and design of the weights may differ considerably.


Carsten Lassen

COWI A/S

Havneparken 1

DK-7100 Vejle

Denmark


Tel: +45 7642 6412


159

.

Annex 5 Trade Statistics

Production and intra- and extra-community trade of cartridges

Statistics on production, import and export by old and new Member States and Candidate Countries was retrieved from the Europroms database of Eurostat. According to the PRODCOM nomenclature (the nomenclature used for the da-tabase), all ammunition is covered by one commodity code only: 29.60.14.30 'Cartridges and parts thereof for shotguns, revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and military firearms, slugs, pellets and darts (excl. for captive-bolt humane killers)' . The database thus does not provide detailed statistical data for the different types of ammunition.

Statistics on intra- and extra-community export was retrieved from the COMEXT database of Eurostat. Data was retrieved for the Combined Nomen-clature (CN) codes:

9306 21 00 - Shotgun cartridges 9306 30 91 - Centrefire cartridges 9306 30 93 - Rimfire cartridges

The full CN classification regarding ammunition is shown below:

9306 Bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles and similar munitions of war and parts thereof; cartridges and other ammunition and projectiles and parts thereof, including shot and cartridge wads :

9306 10 00 Cartridges for riveting or similar tools or for captive�bolt humane killers and

parts thereof � Shotgun cartridges and parts thereof; air gun pellets : 9306 21 00 � � Cartridges 9306 29 00 � � Other : 9306 29 40 � � � Cases 9306 29 70 � � � Other 9306 30 � Other cartridges and parts thereof : 9306 30 10 � � For revolvers and pistols falling within heading 9302** and for sub�machine�

guns falling within heading 9301 � � Other 9306 30 30 � � � For military weapons � � � Other : 9306 30 91 � � � � Centrefire cartridges 9306 30 93 � � � � Rimfire cartridges 9306 30 98 � � � � Other 9306 90 � Other : 9306 90 10 � � For military purposes 9306 90 90 � � Other note ** Heading 9302 Revolvers and pistols, other than those of heading 9303 (9303: Other

firearms and similar devices which operate by the firing of an explosive


160

.

charge) or 9304 (Other arms (for example, spring, air or gas guns and pistols, truncheons), excluding those of heading 9307( 9307: Swords, cutlasses, bayonets, lances and similar arms and parts thereof and scabbards and shealths therefor)).

9302 00 10 � 9 mm calibre and higher 9302 00 90 � Other


161

.

Table A5. 1 Production, import and export of cartridges and parts thereof for shot-guns, revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and military firearms, slugs, pellets and darts (excl. for captive-bolt humane killers) 2000-2002*

All figures in 2000 2001 2002

Million �/year Prod. Import Export Prod. Import Export Prod. Import Export

Austria - 5.9 3 - 8.7 5.3 - 10.5 4.5

Belgium - 9.4 11 - 12.0 14.9 - 4.9 9.2

Denmark 0.0 7.8 0 - 9.6 0.8 - 9.4 0.0

Finland 2.1 3.1 5 2.1 4.4 12.9 2.3 3.7 4.1

France - 15.6 20 - 16.1 15.8 - 16.3 18.9

Germany - 17.6 13 - 13.0 13.9 - 15.0 29.7

Greece 7.6 5.1 3 15.9 3.4 4.4 - - -

Ireland 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0

Italy 102.2 15.7 36 88.0 13.2 32.6 93.3 16.9 36.1

Luxembourg 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Netherlands 0.0 1.5 3 0.0 1.1 2.7 0.0 1.2 3.4

Portugal 10.7 5.2 3 6.2 3.5 2.9 5.4 4.5 1.4

Spain 65.0 9.6 9 72.2 9.9 10.1 81.0 9.6 10.0

Sweden 40.8 3.1 1 37.9 2.8 0.6 33.9 3.9 1.4

UK 98.9 18.3 13 96.9 14.7 10.5 124.3 18.8 12.2

Total EU 15 ** - 56.4 110.1 - 58.7 113.3 - 79.0 115.7

Bulgaria - - - 0 - - 0 - -

Croatia - - - 0 - - 0 - -

Czech Republic - - - - - - - - -

Estonia 0 - - 0 - - 0 - -

Hungary - - - 6.8 - - 7 - -

Latvia - - - - - - - - -

Lituania - - - 0 - - 0 - -

Poland - - - - - - - - -

Romania 0 - - - - - - - -

Slovakia - - - - - - - - -

Slovenia - - - 0 - - 0 - -

* PRODCOM commodity code 29.60.14.30 "Cartridges and parts thereof for shotguns, revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and military firearms, slugs, pellets and darts (excl. for captive-bolt hu-mane killers)'

** Total import/export from EU 15 to other countries

- No data

Source: Europroms database. Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat).


162

.


1000 p/st per year Prod. Import Export Prod. Import Export Prod. Import Export

Austria - - - - - - - - -

Belgium - - - - - - - - -

Denmark 0 - - - - - - - -

Finland 4863000 - - 5847000 - - 5498000 - -

France - - - - - - - - -

Germany 370369000 - - 386074000 - - - - -

Greece 101536430 - - 238435435 - - - - -

Ireland 0 - - 0 - - 0 - -

Italy 1506482000 - - 1275652000 - - 1261583000 - -

Luxembourg 0 - - 0 - - - - -

Netherlands 0 - - 0 - - 0 - -

Portugal 84135559 - - 54679704 - - 42440479 - -

Spain - - - 2070508000 - - 1968172000 - -

Sweden 58220948 - - 40509644 - - 36135272 - -

UK 1111163867 - - 959432077 - - 1282108815 - -

Bulgaria - - - 0 - - 0 - -

Croatia - - - 0 - - 0 - -


Estonia 0 - - 0 - - 0 - -

Hungary - - - 111632682 - - 91698147 - -

Latvia - - - - - - - - -

Lituania - - - 0 - - - - -

Poland - - - - - - - - -

Romania 0 - - - - - - - -

Slovakia - - - - - - - - -

Slovenia - - - 0 - - - - -

* PRODCOM commodity code 29.60.14.30 "Cartridges and parts thereof for shotguns, revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and military firearms, slugs, pellets and darts (excl. for captive-bolt hu-mane killers)'


- No data



163

.

Table A5. 2 Import and export of cartridges for smooth-barrelled shotguns (93.06.21.00) to/from EU 15, 1993-2003, in tonnes

EXPORT,Intra EU15

tonnes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 1 1 1 6 1 3 4 0 1

Belg,-Luxbg 3,520 1,342 1,731 1,578 2,953 2,255

Belgium 2,016 2,600 3,461 1,945 1,074

Denmark 31 1 41 -

Finland - 0 0 0 17 0 3

France 207 324 296 146 487 149 174 152 93 119 757

Germany 717 734 646 816 992 951 572 296 254 830 586

Greece 0 25

Ireland 6 2 5 - - -

Italy 3,245 3,740 4,494 4,689 3,658 4,108 4,460 4,720 4,400 7,116 8,054

Luxembourg -

Netherlands 28 2 9 0 - - - 7

Portugal 37 11 55 83 47 50 54 35 58 30 16

Spain 161 572 202 263 369 295 417 805 982 986 872

Sweden 102 51 287 206 229 228 247 580 490

Utd,Kingdom 1,102 973 1,704 2,465 1,850 1,576 1,407 1,662 1,409 1,160 1,395

EXPORT,Extra EU15 tonnes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 21 16 34 17 15 31 46 42 25

Belg,-Luxbg 69 121 135 25 8 74

Belgium 54 45 83 4 23

Denmark 155 151 73 71 55 74 65 73 32 50 10

Finland 2 2 4 7 6 5 2 3 3

France 480 543 1,039 497 841 819 964 985 2,002 1,008 1,156

Germany 563 496 337 316 323 324 272 348 352 629 338

Greece 1 21 30 26 96 119 88 61 40 70 122

Ireland -

Italy 3,257 3,722 4,529 6,743 8,225 9,623 10,113 11,493 9,170 10,240 9,005

Luxembourg 3

Netherlands 0 0 4 0 1 2 42 3 0

Portugal 20 51 92 60 96 100 102 132 120 123 127

Spain 316 503 860 2,387 3,811 2,375 4,163 5,290 4,535 7,376 7,018

Sweden 311 149 219 168 196 222 270 297 298

Utd,Kingdom 2,917 2,531 2,634 2,679 2,100 1,308 1,328 1,225 1,426 1,233 1,064

Total EU15 7,778 8,139 10,062 12,976 15,812 15,009 17,369 19,954 18,080 21,074 19,189

**contimued


164

.

IMPORT,Intra EU15 tonnes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 422 499 513 527 467 419 362 292 341

Belg,-Luxbg 2,605 2,247 2,535 2,098 3,491 3,235

Belgium 3,611 2,649 4,314 995 456

Denmark 757 64 287 754 1,282 1,544 1,061 1,266 1,407 1,083 1,556

Finland 386 557 384 422 625 510 410 420 444

France 1,782 2,418 2,450 2,220 2,678 2,591 2,145 1,912 2,289 1,892 1,741

Germany 1,461 1,217 1,746 1,664 1,674 1,307 1,142 1,433 817 1,005 1,006

Greece 259 234 344 428 555 413 552 598 349 389 294

Ireland 409 358 449 377 323 300 221 131 442 493 363

Italy 52 63 74 85 405 191 24 78 30 651 617

Luxembourg 123 21 17 10 16

Netherlands 214 211 268 423 152 95 53 65 30 6 54

Portugal 164 281 147 122 108 254 232 462 3,724 567 702

Spain 449 560 540 566 571 518 668 578 697 1,011 1,205

Sweden 243 203 386 246 248 203 121 146 142

Utd,Kingdom 1,975 1,439 1,472 1,131 1,644 1,170 1,121 2,373 1,337 1,505 1,501

IMPORT,Extra EU15 tonnes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 50 74 135 142 46 105 104 77 19

Belg,-Luxbg 43 103 21 18 56 111

Belgium 99 151 37 98 94

Denmark 33 57 2 8 18 2 5 3 46 19 72

Finland 204 325 300 291 190 279 272 224 195

France 186 114 140 38 66 12 74 69 68 58 111

Germany 531 475 407 605 813 653 746 668 621 675 466

Greece 109 71 47 70 54 51 40 24 27 51 65

Ireland 7 3 2 1 4 6 21 19 2 6 10

Italy 38 110 96 58 15 75 103 1,036 1,412 838 651

Luxembourg -

Netherlands 1 16 7 3 - 12 16 37 0 0 37

Portugal 7 13 21 6 11 4 40 6 26 8 27

Spain 67 8 2 9 8 12 7 1 57 41

Sweden 2 3 2 1 3 2 46 6 32

Utd,Kingdom 1,258 857 624 352 366 202 168 198 254 277 250

TotalEU15 2,280 1,826 1,624 1,570 1,847 1,573 1,556 2,598 2,915 2,393 2,069

Source: COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)

Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept se-cret)


165

.

Table A5. 3 Import and export of cartridges for smooth-barrelled shotguns (93.06.21.00) to/from EU 15, 1993-2003, in 1000 �

EXPORT,Intra EU15

1000 � 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 6 17 11 28 5 12 17 2 5

Belg,-Luxbg 8,543 3,669 4,273 5,476 7,982 6,438

Belgium 5,631 7,363 9,816 5,483 3,077

Denmark 87 5 138 -

Finland 0 1 9 2 215 3 13

France 1,006 1,039 828 1,012 1,556 514 779 672 626 741 1,975

Germany 3,160 2,893 2,571 3,032 3,403 3,730 1,880 986 995 3,231 2,046

Greece 3 54

Ireland 22 10 15 15 1 1

Italy 7,149 9,001 9,579 10,840 9,123 9,653 10,609 11,810 11,141 18,059 19,529

Luxembourg 0

Netherlands 68 12 41 4 0 0 0 36

Portugal 96 24 138 184 113 147 155 129 132 77 81

Spain 334 1,259 564 710 840 837 930 1,790 2,087 2,071 1,987

Sweden 252 137 711 520 531 547 633 1,404 1,179

Utd,Kingdom 4,602 3,604 4,154 8,886 7,147 5,541 4,774 5,310 4,885 3,880 4,580


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 116 139 251 97 85 140 238 226 169

Belg,-Luxbg 262 254 317 313 65 218

Belgium 253 160 206 19 115

Denmark 578 511 298 282 219 259 269 281 150 205 31

Finland 16 7 24 28 26 28 23 26 22

France 1,855 2,033 2,139 1,667 2,586 2,576 2,525 2,609 4,814 2,688 3,226

Germany 3,557 2,643 1,878 1,491 1,709 1,713 1,754 2,123 1,703 2,760 1,493

Greece 3 72 37 229 235 278 361 188 100 181 269

Ireland 1

Italy 7,320 8,499 9,279 15,386 18,083 20,869 21,550 26,146 22,080 24,144 21,519

Luxembourg 31

Netherlands 1 1 65 5 6 5 106 12 26

Portugal 103 31 302 196 288 337 263 385 429 552 664

Spain 719 1,181 2,003 5,935 8,270 5,251 9,482 12,814 10,933 16,793 15,313

Sweden 756 364 553 461 544 722 747 860 951

Utd,Kingdom 7,205 6,677 8,478 6,976 6,869 4,527 4,589 4,613 6,232 5,413 3,644

TotalEU15 21,602 21,901 25,619 33,051 39,157 36,620 41,706 50,346 47,667 53,894 47,417

Continued


166

.

IMPORT,Intra EU15 1000 �

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 1,994 1,764 1,894 2,084 2,941 1,381 1,294 1,051 1,238

Belg,-Luxbg 6,706 5,327 5,289 5,454 9,201 8,276

Belgium 9,140 6,978 9,821 2,638 1,898

Denmark 2,392 2,028 4,397 3,839 5,127 6,639 4,167 6,022 6,683 6,272 6,576

Finland 1,010 1,817 1,949 1,072 1,472 1,384 1,068 1,301 1,414

France 5,222 8,453 6,312 6,190 7,386 7,139 5,641 5,990 6,263 5,199 4,976

Germany 4,014 3,231 4,414 4,048 4,327 3,495 2,525 3,358 2,193 2,529 2,457

Greece 721 595 993 1,342 1,597 1,306 1,682 1,616 1,010 1,044 943

Ireland 1,055 837 1,011 1,003 900 870 558 399 1,264 1,746 1,271

Italy 244 396 586 658 6,653 2,832 155 1,001 181 1,443 1,396

Luxembourg 453 186 255 152 231

Netherlands 640 676 664 909 597 500 392 240 214 59 241

Portugal 487 452 395 370 340 815 763 1,379 1,197 1,333 1,667

Spain 2,099 2,224 1,927 2,071 2,173 1,544 2,190 2,004 2,363 2,049 3,508

Sweden 758 647 1,204 827 800 628 364 583 344

Utd,Kingdom 4,907 3,401 3,438 3,279 4,838 3,443 3,067 3,535 2,883 4,071 4,519

IMPORT,Extra EU15 1000 �

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 161 237 316 351 147 294 297 290 64

Belg,-Luxbg 157 252 59 83 187 644

Belgium 603 1,258 179 419 421

Denmark 223 571 16 61 191 14 55 42 101 213 458

Finland 524 716 755 677 437 684 669 542 499

France 970 655 540 262 437 139 348 291 563 334 353

Germany 1,648 1,115 1,161 1,512 1,810 1,434 1,584 1,583 1,783 1,925 1,128

Greece 429 273 206 319 314 261 168 249 182 290 350

Ireland 11 28 18 20 105 111 103 37 69 160 167

Italy 308 547 749 590 176 652 829 2,841 3,084 1,986 1,700

Luxembourg 1

Netherlands 5 82 40 17 1 84 59 135 3 8 272

Portugal 45 86 106 48 162 49 408 87 252 44 271

Spain 209 74 85 103 121 196 111 12 139 86

Sweden 18 27 12 11 23 34 123 27 113

Utd,Kingdom 2,837 2,015 1,567 832 955 420 570 580 746 1,218 787

TotalEU15 6,844 5,697 5,250 4,828 5,540 5,043 5,446 8,129 8,051 7,599 6,669




167

.

Table A5. 4 Import and export of centre fire cartridges (93.06.30.91) to/from EU 15, 1993-2003, in tonnes

EXPORT,Intra EU15

tonnes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 84 26 8 28 9 7 9 17 7

Belg,-Luxbg 85 75 75 106 122 116

Belgium 111 143 165 102 122

Denmark 2 2 - - 0 - 0 - - 4 2

Finland 90 95 112 121 139 113 96 64 88

France 2 7 5 21 8 8 1 1 0 0 2

Germany 92 110 155 182 200 179 136 80 151 253 197

Greece

Ireland

Italy 3,905 4,031 4,516 3,830 4,860 4,717 3,991 3,341 2,605 204

Luxembourg -

Netherlands 1 6 2 1 1 0 1 0

Portugal 15 73 - 0 - 1 0

Spain 211 343 696 794 1,211 1,264 1,301 1,718 2,438 2,741

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 0 0 13 11 8 8 1 4 2 0 0


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 11 16 54 21 19 34 60 88 122

Belg,-Luxbg 11 3 2 3 0 1

Belgium 5 1 2 2 2

Denmark 24 24 34 19 22 20 14 12 9 7 7

Finland 241 217 190 79 51 96 71 136 124

France 60 53 35 48 7 8 10 12 6 7 12

Germany 224 287 340 332 397 273 1,266 360 133 140 95

Greece 149

Ireland

Italy 392 370 1,467 1,498 986 396 438 318 465 144 27

Luxembourg

Netherlands 1 2 2 2

Portugal 1 0 - -

Spain 718 1,169 2,151 1,129 2,312 2,889 1,804 1,207 2,116 1,608 1,744

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 41 11 2 5 4 17 212 3 22 1 154

Total EU15 1,469 1,916 4,282 3,267 4,124 3,705 3,820 2,043 2,884 2,135 2,286

**contimued


168

.


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 21 25 85 16 14 18 22 80 29

Belg,-Luxbg 157 112 52 41 32 13

Belgium 94 160 30 20 15

Denmark 8 21 31 39 44 54 60 59 96 202 105

Finland 13 10 10 2 15 4 63 41 31

France 460 152 269 367 142 161 161 407 176 168 901

Germany 116 129 179 134 231 162 108 346 642 204 119

Greece 4 1 1 3 1 0 0 6 -

Ireland 0 0 0 - 2 0 3 0 1 1

Italy 37 14 73 51 109 58 33 51 44 67 52

Luxembourg 15 6 5 4 7

Netherlands 11 30 30 30 15 6 9 11 53 39 24

Portugal 36 69 3 18 10 8 22 14 21 6 5

Spain 87 45 81 33 59 147 59 102 63 51 402

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 10 41 39 74 52 88 46 15 26 15 14


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 67 17 89 31 34 48 43 17 13

Belg,-Luxbg 68 18 19 13 26 83

Belgium 184 175 94 142 161

Denmark 74 53 14 18 11 7 13 31 9 19 2

Finland 11 19 22 11 12 7 9 6 14

France 116 122 101 133 67 80 75 69 82 80 87

Germany 338 439 240 279 1,072 408 304 473 304 387 307

Greece 1 8 4 6 1

Ireland 0 0 0 1 3

Italy 44 49 58 32 31 16 9 32 48 42 79

Luxembourg 0 - 0 4

Netherlands 5 12 10 2 1 13 2 26 39 24 23

Portugal 21 17 22 5 6 2 4 13 14 9 8

Spain 51 24 8 47 35 23 144 81 66 74 164

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 68 17 45 80 42 153 106 60 30 64 23

Total EU15 784 751 593 645 1,412 833 886 1,014 744 864 883




169

.

Table A5. 5 Import and export of centre fire cartridges (93.06.30.91) to/from EU 15, 1993-2003, in 1000 �

EXPORT,Intra EU15

1000 � 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 2,868 537 225 233 268 275 346 435 198

Belg,-Luxbg 989 928 982 1,510 1,488 1,774

Belgium 1,688 2,316 3,072 2,220 2,550

Denmark 14 13 1 0 3 0 3 1 0 16 7

Finland 1,481 1,491 2,087 1,929 2,720 1,910 3,896 1,446 1,915

France 15 74 61 82 66 16 7 19 7 5 30

Germany 2,312 2,863 3,765 4,228 4,524 3,929 2,914 1,524 2,061 4,918 4,429

Greece

Ireland

Italy 9,166 9,467 9,394 9,845 12,383 11,689 9,959 8,319 6,493 471

Luxembourg 16

Netherlands 6 63 24 10 25 3 11 11

Portugal 28 646 1 5 0 14 1

Spain 459 781 1,496 1,763 2,546 2,695 2,901 3,745 4,780 5,648

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 13 15 160 115 87 75 14 79 53 9 5

EXPORT,Extra EU15 1000 �

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 280 350 736 377 493 953 956 1,772 2,282

Belg,-Luxbg 152 35 24 56 2 18

Belgium 155 18 29 44 62

Denmark 474 434 701 415 610 451 388 303 240 221 214

Finland 2,198 2,168 3,365 1,425 925 1,764 1,481 2,709 2,765

France 493 306 342 302 69 214 99 166 155 171 229

Germany 2,339 3,227 2,321 2,303 3,021 2,321 5,765 2,506 2,035 2,747 2,059

Greece 233

Ireland

Italy 959 778 3,286 3,580 2,512 1,106 1,055 994 1,232 378 103

Luxembourg

Netherlands 10 105 18 368

Portugal 2 0 0 0

Spain 1,660 2,331 4,343 2,582 5,869 6,598 4,063 2,896 5,363 3,234 3,821

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 492 129 58 108 119 481 963 251 164 35 550

Total EU15 6,569 7,242 13,552 11,874 16,641 13,010 13,908 9,851 11,655 11,680 12,086

Continued


170

.


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 420 426 562 325 336 421 481 630 1,017

Belg,-Luxbg 780 738 348 443 346 270

Belgium 423 1,474 892 543 516

Denmark 134 208 510 761 936 1,017 907 814 1,175 1,785 1,614

Finland 189 219 148 49 173 82 1,840 767 340

France 2,756 1,727 2,829 3,556 2,528 2,898 2,776 4,070 3,445 3,962 4,558

Germany 844 1,091 2,498 2,541 3,700 3,198 2,120 3,954 4,539 3,112 2,743

Greece 55 10 4 30 13 1 4 230 1

Ireland 7 5 23 5 29 3 65 3 10 14

Italy 322 236 1,030 611 884 747 480 715 673 1,239 1,488

Luxembourg 148 95 109 135 174

Netherlands 122 266 263 305 183 63 148 145 334 424 329

Portugal 163 222 75 155 143 32 186 121 129 151 133

Spain 646 582 717 603 825 1,213 862 1,408 1,228 1,175 1,868

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 104 431 519 988 722 1,541 1,394 395 588 792 529


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 567 187 858 455 359 396 332 338 282

Belg,-Luxbg 732 294 176 188 323 1,214

Belgium 1,987 2,726 1,236 2,150 2,188

Denmark 879 713 98 173 121 107 147 184 169 162 64

Finland 71 127 217 144 62 61 140 123 166

France 1,282 1,611 1,507 1,080 1,079 1,105 1,204 1,074 1,437 1,452 1,385

Germany 3,693 4,691 2,180 2,403 4,001 2,972 2,716 3,496 3,525 4,345 3,928

Greece 5 71 22 129 25

Ireland 2 5 3 13 330

Italy 421 659 284 360 248 187 169 447 588 408 916

Luxembourg 7 1 15 49

Netherlands 46 114 76 18 16 87 13 102 141 91 93

Portugal 231 212 271 74 85 28 78 234 329 147 174

Spain 673 429 131 506 379 517 929 881 836 1,284 1,353

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 582 357 466 502 416 872 979 828 443 929 413

Total EU15 8,542 9,083 5,830 5,623 7,826 8,038 8,643 10,436 9,304 11,470 11,012




171

.

Table A5. 6 Import and export of rimfire cartridges (93.06.30.93 to/from EU 15, 1993-2003, in tonnes

EXPORT,Intra EU15

tonnes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 5 6 0 0 0 28 1 2 2

Belg,-Luxbg 134 121 97 89 219 210

Belgium 173 185 195 131 112

Denmark - - -

Finland 61 69 70 83 107 92 74 60 65

France 31 13 15 32 10 4 1 10 7 0 0

Germany 109 117 216 241 290 222 255 228 251 372 214

Greece

Ireland 0 0

Italy 124 96 7 6 3 18 18

Luxembourg


Portugal

Spain - - - - -

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 270 252 343 324 308 291 257 270 192 229 162


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 2 13 20 10 9 36 19 6 3

Belg,-Luxbg 9 15 25 16 0

Belgium 0 1 11 5 5

Denmark 9 15 13 13 16 15 19 23 14 11 10

Finland 21 3 2 46 48 73 54 61 62

France 35 42 16 11 8 17 4 31 6 5 4

Germany 179 260 232 185 314 279 179 294 276 316 378

Greece

Ireland

Italy 977 1,629 189 327 134 89 0 15 12 11 19

Luxembourg

Netherlands 1

Portugal - - -

Spain 0 0 -

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 510 273 261 242 225 202 170 149 152 189 207

Total EU15 2 13 20 10 9 36 19 6 3

**contimued


172

.

IMPORT,IntraEU15 tonnes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 58 50 63 40 46 29 27 29 19

Belg,-Luxbg 51 27 37 73 29 45

Belgium 23 20 21 19 22

Denmark 33 45 78 115 277 285 68 57 130 79 60

Finland 131 35 71 63 74 62 73 43 59

France 137 87 108 124 110 125 153 143 146 211 155

Germany 236 236 231 238 212 210 166 173 201 170 112

Greece 30 58 34 24 18 22 13 28 7 11 17

Ireland 10 9 7 6 5 5 0

Italy 6 12 22 16 20 31 59 157 81 31 15


Netherlands 17 19 72 26 14 10 8 5 7 9 8

Portugal 2 3 1 1 0 4 5 20 4 6

Spain 25 41 71 89 47 22 22 42 99 63 85

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 9 50 21 38 82 122 25 47 38 23 20

IMPORT,ExtraEU15 tonnes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 19 5 15 12 8 5 2 2 8

Belg,-Luxbg 36 32 66 68 31 137

Belgium 138 187 99 184 124

Denmark 9 5 11 1 5 5 11 7 9 9 7

Finland 103 63 22 7 14 30 22 39 17

France 329 252 279 211 83 74 135 50 82 134 108

Germany 245 219 364 412 305 262 333 355 232 254 188

Greece

Ireland 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 3 1

Italy 27 22 39 29 1 3 5 18 20 20 15

Luxembourg

Netherlands 7 34 16 8 24 1 1 9 0 6 11

Portugal 5 3 1 1

Spain 11 11 32 33 24 21 2 0 1

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 47 96 37 123 42 105 64 69 71 153 145

Total EU15 716 670 965 955 556 628 713 733 540 801 623

Total extra EU15, tonnes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Export 1,719 2,234 758 810 718 657 429 622 544 603 688

Import 716 670 965 955 556 628 713 733 540 801 623




173

.

Table A5. 7 Import and export of rimfire cartridges (93.06.30.93 to/from EU 15, 1993-2003, in 1000 �

EXPORT,Intra EU15

1000 � 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 54 96 33 37 43 264 36 51 80

Belg,-Luxbg 759 794 692 554 1,331 1,486

Belgium 1,230 1,328 1,567 1,171 941

Denmark 1 0 0

Finland 582 731 879 848 1,323 1,260 2,716 1,035 1,083

France 194 112 137 140 90 37 3 95 64 2 1

Germany 907 902 1,792 1,816 2,105 1,635 1,733 1,548 1,800 2,953 1,874

Greece

Ireland 1

Italy 871 698 21 51 47 169 209

Luxembourg


Portugal

Spain 1 2 0 0 0 1

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 2,477 2,311 3,212 3,149 2,948 2,802 2,427 2,195 2,075 2,676 1,944

EXPORT,ExtraEU15 1000 �

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 47 84 191 138 168 223 237 100 49

Belg,-Luxbg 84 328 637 446 1

Belgium 2 9 63 35 46

Denmark 164 241 230 190 267 223 276 355 318 227 175

Finland 232 60 30 633 653 1,447 1,083 1,086 985

France 390 510 161 80 43 132 43 136 61 41 47

Germany 1,485 2,150 1,902 1,653 2,294 2,193 1,842 2,717 2,648 2,969 3,839

Greece

Ireland

Italy 2,781 3,968 449 834 586 261 4 204 144 153 327

Luxembourg

Netherlands 9

Portugal 0 0 1

Spain 4 4 6

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 4,789 3,629 3,442 3,534 3,250 2,757 2,349 2,381 2,764 3,177 3,367

Total EU15 9,697 10,825 7,100 6,881 6,660 6,338 5,338 7,477 7,326 7,794 8,835

Continued


174

.

IMPORT,IntraEU15 1000 �

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 760 637 838 682 1,002 394 443 499 302

Belg,-Luxbg 409 207 514 521 267 315

Belgium 154 160 158 174 196

Denmark 283 311 685 355 549 726 670 635 1,217 693 595

Finland 782 299 405 432 416 350 465 361 408

France 1,435 969 1,014 990 937 1,061 1,015 1,076 1,143 1,607 1,450

Germany 1,831 1,810 2,085 2,167 1,847 1,956 1,537 1,640 2,033 1,693 1,451

Greece 194 286 263 184 137 173 99 207 51 93 148

Ireland 72 96 97 98 77 94 3

Italy 65 121 149 143 117 210 239 354 1,125 355 188

Luxembourg 41 64 410 53 98

Netherlands 125 156 437 162 108 63 63 37 66 94 146

Portugal 15 28 5 2 1 15 20 41 29 27

Spain 118 140 198 219 225 146 52 281 379 270 248

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 97 309 242 484 880 1,150 485 417 438 633 324

IMPORT,ExtraEU15 1000 �

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 114 25 117 72 50 86 26 24 59

Belg,-Luxbg 199 149 297 281 148 791

Belgium 948 1,211 727 1,290 789

Denmark 47 37 67 17 26 58 105 97 90 104 82

Finland 437 252 94 37 80 166 112 226 116

France 1,626 1,288 1,261 820 503 426 717 532 418 843 601

Germany 1,271 1,400 1,686 1,855 1,342 1,336 1,625 1,939 1,480 1,760 1,139

Greece

Ireland 7 9 7 23 17 8 8 48 19

Italy 112 100 182 91 18 22 25 138 119 103 101

Luxembourg

Netherlands 55 296 92 44 122 5 11 55 5 43 49

Portugal 46 18 6 10

Spain 70 57 138 153 101 70 16 2 9

Sweden

Utd,Kingdom 330 748 228 687 319 621 541 559 802 1,573 1,369

TotalEU15 3,762 4,083 4,509 4,248 2,823 3,451 4,136 4,832 3,806 5,965 4,306

Total ekstra EU 15, 1000 �

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Export 9,697 10,825 7,100 6,881 6,660 6,338 5,338 7,477 7,326 7,794 8,835

Import 3,762 4,083 4,509 4,248 2,823 3,451 4,136 4,832 3,806 5,965 4,306




175

.

Table A5. 8 Import and export of cartridges for smooth-barrelled shotguns (93.06.21.00) from new Member States and Candidate Countries.

EXPORT, EU 15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria

Cyprus 246 310 218 269 249

Czech Republic 442 618 642 484 693

Estonia

Hungary 792

Latvia

Lituania

Malta -

Poland 13 18 13 15 15

Rumania

Slovakia 0

Slovenia

Turkey 0 0

Total 701 946 874 768 1.749

EXPORT, NON-EU 15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria

Cyprus 381 331 498 455 289

Czech Republic 1,658 1,393 1,355 1,339 1,211

Estonia 0

Hungary 186

Latvia 3 10 3 2 1

Lituania 0 1 3 2

Malta

Poland 377 92 69 65 44

Rumania

Slovakia 1 1 4 1

Slovenia

Turkey 0 2

Total 2,420 1,826 1,928 1,868 1,735

EXPORT, total , tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 0

Cyprus 627 642 717 724 538

Czech Republic 2,100 2,011 1,997 1,823 1,904

Estonia 0 - - - -

Hungary - - - - 979

Latvia 3 10 3 2 1

Lituania 0 - 1 3 2

Malta - - - - -

Poland 390 110 82 80 59

Rumania - - - - -

Slovakia 1 - 1 4 1

Slovenia - - - - -

Turkey 0 0 2 - -

Total 3,120 2,773 2,801 2,636 3,484

Continued�


176

.

IMPORT, EU 15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria

Cyprus 105 192 1,596 186 1,169

Czech Republic 172 67 141 181 162

Estonia 8 34 31 26 53

Hungary 99 129 127 163 194

Latvia 30 31 32 27 29

Lituania 19 25 30 23 24

Malta - - - - -

Poland 100 92 113 168 167

Rumania

Slovakia 9 16 9 47

Slovenia

Turkey 6,406 7,101 2,269 4,655 2,625

Total 6,948 7,688 4,340 5,437 4,470

IMPORT, NON-EU 15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria

Cyprus 11 4 131 61 19

Czech Republic 35 17 39 23 2

Estonia 9 10 3 10 5

Hungary 34 1 4 2 2

Latvia 2 5 14 33

Lituania 11 0 0 1 4

Malta -

Poland 107 92 87 95 61

Rumania

Slovakia 66 98 88 119 129

Slovenia

Turkey 459 19 117

Total 733 221 357 343 371

IMPORT, total , tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 0

Cyprus 116 196 1,727 247 1,189

Czech Republic 206 84 180 203 163

Estonia 17 44 34 36 58

Hungary 132 130 131 164 197

Latvia 32 31 38 41 61

Lituania 31 25 31 24 28

Malta - - - - -

Poland 207 185 200 263 228

Rumania - - - - -

Slovakia 75 113 88 128 176

Slovenia - - - - -

Turkey 6,864 7,101 2,269 4,674 2,742

Total 7,681 7,909 4,697 5,780 4,842

Continued�


177

.

EXPORT, EU 15, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria

Cyprus 554 685 482 576 498

Czech Republic 886 1,357 1,412 1,112 1,649

Estonia

Hungary 1,488

Latvia

Lituania

Malta 0

Poland 31 56 37 40 29

Rumania

Slovakia 0

Slovenia

Turkey 0 0

Total 1,471 2,098 1,931 1,728 3,665

EXPORT, NON-EU 15, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria

Cyprus 1,043 835 1,260 777 648

Czech Republic 3,402 3,424 3,196 2,985 2,642

Estonia 0

Hungary 1,006

Latvia 24 180 10 10 3

Lituania 0 3 13 12

Malta

Poland 863 256 204 227 105

Rumania

Slovakia 2 3 11 2

Slovenia

Turkey 0 6

Total 5,333 4,695 4,682 4,023 4,419

EXPORT, total , 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 0

Cyprus 1,597 1,520 1,742 1,354 1,146

Czech Republic 4,288 4,781 4,608 4,096 4,291

Estonia 0 - - - -

Hungary - - - - 2,495

Latvia 24 180 10 10 3

Lituania 0 - 3 13 12

Malta - 0 - - -

Poland 893 312 241 267 134

Rumania - - - - -

Slovakia 2 - 3 11 2

Slovenia - - - - -

Turkey 0 1 6 - -

Total 6,804 6,793 6,614 5,751 8,084

Continued�


178

.

IMPORT, EU 15, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria

Cyprus 285 567 719 507 619

Czech Republic 366 171 337 495 470

Estonia 31 199 98 70 141

Hungary 214 305 308 393 482

Latvia 98 138 122 75 108

Lituania 156 141 114 84 94

Malta 265 449 538 263 434

Poland 275 201 283 408 511

Rumania

Slovakia 33 37 21 111

Slovenia

Turkey 13,259 15,379 4,907 10,130 5,969

Total 14,984 17,588 7,425 12,445 8,939

IMPORT, NON-EU 15, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria

Cyprus 41 33 98 43 62

Czech Republic 69 41 71 45 13

Estonia 40 69 12 39 25

Hungary 71 5 8 6 12

Latvia 11 23 46 157

Lituania 45 0 5 10 13

Malta 46

Poland 379 387 483 692 530

Rumania

Slovakia 133 185 190 289 320

Slovenia

Turkey 991 112 591

Total 1,825 719 888 1,282 1,722

IMPORT, total , 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 0

Cyprus 327 600 817 550 680

Czech Republic 435 212 408 539 483

Estonia 71 268 110 109 166

Hungary 285 310 316 399 494

Latvia 109 138 144 121 265

Lituania 201 141 119 94 107

Malta 311 449 538 263 434

Poland 654 589 766 1,100 1,041

Rumania - - - - -

Slovakia 166 222 190 310 431

Slovenia - - - - -

Turkey 14,250 15,379 4,907 10,242 6,560

Total 16,809 18,307 8,313 13,727 10,660




179

.

Table A5. 9 Import and export of cartridges for smooth-barrelled shotguns (93.06.21.00) from EU 15, average of 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Import from: Export to:

1.000 �/year tonnes/year 1000 �/ton** 1.000 �/year tonnes/year 1000 �/ton**

New Member States and Candi-date countries (NMSCC):

Bulgaria 262 93 2.8

Cyprus 495 207 2.4 679 234 2.9

Czech Rep. 1,177 469 2.5 298 131 2.3

Estonia 11 7 1.6 68 27 2.5

Hungary 3,074 1,571 2 348 147 2.4

Latvia 125 42 2.9

Lithuania 90 28 3.2

Malta 465 219 2.1

Poland 39 14 2.7 271 120 2.3

Romania 398 183 2.2

Slovakia 34 11 3.2

Slovenia 44 7 6.3 312 128 2.4

Turkey 8,948 4,476 2.0

Total NMSCC 4,840 2,275 2.1 12,298 5,838 2.1

Other:

USA 2,484 252 9.9 11,883 4,152 2.9

Japan 22 13 1.7 3,575 1,282 2.8

Norway 77 2 36.3 1,808 573 3.2

Venezuela 1,721 541 3.2

Ghana 1,692 643 2.6

Australia 1 0 21.7 1,377 647 2.1

Argentina 17 7 2.5 1,232 522 2.4

Kuwait 1,132 408 2.8

Peru 1,019 348 2.9

Morocco 976 427 2.3

Chile 38 17 2.2 965 394 2.5

Guinea 841 304 2.8

Switzerland 279 21 13.6 775 198 3.9

South Africa 29 10 3 714 315 2.3

South Korea 691 265 2.6

Senegal 541 269 2.0

Cameroon 482 195 2.5

Canada 12 1 8.5 462 162 2.9

Russia 6 1 10.9 431 147 2.9

New Zealand 310 117 2.6

Ukraine 14 7 2.1 276 113 2.4

China 78 28 2.8 63 23 2.8

Other 82 17 4.8 5,373 1,823 2.9

Total non-NMSCC 3,139 375 8.4 38,124 13,865 2.8


* Export and import as registered by EU Member States

** Calculated from non-round basic data



180

.

Table A5. 10 Import and export of centre fire cartridges (93.06.30.91) from EU 15, average of 2000, 2001 and 2002.


1.000 �/year tonnes/year 1000 �/ton** 1.000 �/year tonnes/year 1000 �/ton**


Bulgaria 55 24 2.3 174 26 6.6

Cyprus 21 8 2.7

Czech Rep. 1,810 188 9.6 227 31 7.3

Estonia and Malta

Hungary 215 24 9 257 22 11.7

Latvia 234 16 14.8

Lithuania 136 8 16.9

Poland 2 0 6.7 525 55 9.5

Romania 47 9 5.3

Slovakia 124 21 5.9 91 3 28.9

Slovenia 79 5 17 108 4 28.2

Turkey 9 0 18.9 49 16 3.1

Total NMSCC 2,293 262 8.7 1,867 198 9.4

Other: USA 6,279 378 16.6 1,496 475 3.1

Ghana 1,277 487 2.6

Japan 26 9 2.8 1,063 351 3.0

Norway 8 0 24.5 874 56 15.7

Switzerland 470 21 22.5 680 34 20.1

Guinea 347 147 2.4

Russia 74 16 4.6 320 19 16.6

Equat.Guinea 292 131 2.2

Greenland 263 10 27.3

Brunei 236 7 31.8

South Korea 7 0 20.3 210 29 7.2

U.A.Emirates 162 6 28.3


Ukraine 1 0 4.8 134 36 3.7

Andorra 132 4 29.8

Canada 19 7 2.9 88 14 6.3

Tunisia 78 4 18.6

Brazil 76 7 10.8 75 4 20.9

Lebanon 73 23 3.2

Burkina Faso 67 26 2.5

Kuwait 63 8 7.8

Croatia 62 3 20

Saudi Arabia 57 2 26

Other 1,151 173 6.6 524 193 2.7

Total non-NMSCC 8,111 612 13.3 8,720 2,129 4.1





181

.

Table A5. 11 Import and export of rimfire cartridges (93.06.30.93) from EU 15, av-erage of 2000, 2001 and 2002.


1.000 �/year tonnes/year 1000 �/ton ** 1.000 �/year tonnes/year 1000 �/ton**


Bulgaria 48 3 13.9

Cyprus

Czech Rep. 144 24 6.0 207 26 8

Estonia 38 4 9.7

Hungary 10 2 4.0 87 7 12.6

Latvia 45 6 7.8

Lithuania 40 3 12.4

Malta

Poland 212 25 8.6

Romania 16 1 15.1

Slovakia 68 8 8.6

Slovenia 43 4 10.4

Turkey 27 27 1

Total NMSCC 154 27 5.8 830 114 7.3

Other:

USA 3,321 471 7.1 2,034 142 14.3

Switzerland 2 0.1 14.8 887 79 11.2

Norway 525 60 8.8

Japan 22 1 20.2 450 23 19.5

China 433 16 26.6

South Korea 324 12 28.1

Greenland 305 16 18.7

Yemen 288 46 6.3

Australia 815 109 7.5 206 19 10.7


Malaysia 84 4 22

India 78 4 18.8

Egypt 65 3 21.5

Canada 63 5 11.9

Brazil 153 23 6.7 42 2 19.3

Vietnam 41 4 9.7

South Africa 191 18 10.8 39 2 20.5

Qatar 38 2 20.5

Belarus 33 1 22.7

Other 210 43 4.9 610 48 12.7

Total non-NMSCC 4,714 665 7.1 6,703 502 13.4





182

.

Table A5. 12 Intra and extra community trade of cartridges for smooth-barrelled shotguns (93.06.21.00), average of 2000, 2001 and 2002

to * Export from (1000 �/year) *

1000 �/year AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK EU 15 NMS/

CC**

Austria 237 6 188 529 35 13 1,009

Belgium 89 15 1,583 46 461 2,193 20

Denmark 23 1 174 89 718 2,190 3,195 1

Finland 184 261 693 117 38 124 1,417 393

France 2,821 775 2,746 609 88 7,039 74

Germany 8 952 60 2,475 253 8 196 3,952 698

Greece 22 25 45 994 66 5 1,157 56

Ireland 1 435 32 1,077 1,545

Italy 1 631 4 31 228 18 59 103 1,074


Netherlands 0,3 420 11 242 220 249 1,143

Portugal 0,3 99 42 11 254 230 637 12

Spain 1 724 215 58 1,951 113 8 3,068 28

Sweden 0.3 65 2 43 218 25 176 529 49

United Kingdom 1,330 213 94 1,334 200 98 3,269 508

Total EU 15 11 7,554 5 680 1,737 18 13,670 113 1,983 861 4,691 31,323 1,840

New Member States and Candi-date Countries

93 12 140 310 89 8,255 10 3,164 226 12,298 235

Other countries 109 129 212 14 3,230 1,885 68 15,869 48 455 10,349 776 5,194 38,337 1,667


* Registered export from the countries in the first rows to the countries in the first column (registered by the export country). The registered import (registered by the import countries) is for most figures slightly different.

** As registered by the new Member States and Candidate Countries. For some countries export data are missing although import from the countries is registered by the EU15 countries.

Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)

183

.

Table A5. 13 Intra and extra community trade of cartridges for smooth-barrelled shotguns (93.06.21.00), average of 2000, 2001 and 2002

to * Export from (tonnes/year) *

Tonnes/year AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK EU 15 NMS/

CC

Austria 60 <0.5 61 223 14 3 360

Belgium 21 4 641 <0.5 19 168 854 7

Denmark 5 <0.5 64 33 291 572 965 0

Finland 54 46 303 56 17 28 503 187

France 1,062 208 1,056 301 34 2,661 38

Germany 2 298 16 980 116 3 62 1,478 293

Greece 3 3 11 374 34 2 426 29

Ireland <0.5 178 16 425 619

Italy <0.5 210 1 2 50 8 23 25 319


Netherlands <0.5 122 3 96 105 57 382

Portugal <0.5 33 3 3 96 97 232 3

Spain 245 7 21 728 41 2 1,045 12

Sweden <0.5 19 <0.5 13 98 15 32 178 23

United Kingdom 546 68 38 559 95 41 1,348 226

Total EU 15 2 2,669 1 121 460 8 5,412 41 924 352 1,410 11,400 819


25 3 70 100 23 3,966 1 1,589 61 5,838 235

Other countries 14 44 52 <0.5 1,261 343 34 6,335 15 125 4,145 263 1,233 13,865 1,667




184

.

Table A5. 14 Intra and extra community trade of centre-fire cartridges (other than cases) (93.06.30.91), average of 2000, 2001 and 2002



CC

Austria 138 143 392 96 136 905

Belgium 5 31 3 116 2,981 2 14 6 3,158

Denmark 5 12 365 102 <0.5 409 893

Finland 12 79 4 223 318

France 52 908 251 1,014 456 723 3,404

Germany 149 545 6 299 1 104 4 383 1,489

Greece 19 4 16 107 146

Ireland 8 22 12 41 94 15 193

Italy 49 327 104 422 41 25 969

Luxembourg 46 80 64 1 136 327

Netherlands 6 48 22 198 106 379

Portugal <0.5 62 4 1 25 <0.5 674 766

Spain 29 264 31 <0.5 113 493 3 <0.5 934

Sweden 2 38 <0.5 745 5 79 1 166 1,036

United Kingdom 2 103 316 <0.5 142 903 733 2,199

Total EU 15 352 2,536 6 2,417 10 2,834 5,094 4 5 3,809 47 17,115


387 10 351 1 710 53 123 230 4 1,867

Other countries 722 20 255 1,358 94 1,708 815 <0.5 3,602 145 8,720




185

.

Table A5. 15 Intra and extra community trade of centre-fire cartridges (other than cases) (93.06.30.91), average of 2000, 2001 and 2002


tonnes/year AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK EU 15 NMS/

CC

Austria 7 4 20 27 70 128

Belgium <0.5 2 <0.5 5 1,202 8 <0.5 1,217

Denmark <0.5 <0.5 18 7 <0.5 147 172

Finland 1 10 1 111 123

France 2 53 7 41 197 343 642

Germany 4 29 1 9 <0.5 50 <0.5 177 271

Greece 1 <0.5 6 53 60

Ireland <0.5 1 <0.5 20 45 1 67

Italy 1 17 4 33 28 1 84


Netherlands <0.5 2 1 15 51 69

Portugal 3 <0.5 1 <0.5 326 330

Spain 1 14 1 5 177 <0.5 199

Sweden 2 32 <0.5 5 <0.5 81 120

United Kingdom <0.5 4 10 9 370 379 771

Total EU 15 11 137 1 91 1 161 2,050 <0.5 <0.5 1,819 2 4,273

New Member States and Candi-date Countries 19 1 16 32 22 1 106 1 198

Other countries 35 1 9 71 3 178 286 <0.5 1,537 8 2,129




186

.

Table A5. 16 Intra and extra community trade of rim-fire cartridges (other than cases) (93.06.30.93), average of 2000, 2001 and 2002



CC

Austria 39 57 242 6 11 355

Belgium 2 10 6 75 15 85 194

Denmark 73 115 <0.5 327 225 741

Finland 44 290 3 43 381

France <0.5 437 31 385 4 212 1,068

Germany 112 249 829 36 28 <0.5 1,200 2,454

Greece 13 6 8 8 34

Ireland 1 36 17 124 179

Italy <0.5 76 135 <0.5 78 81 370


Netherlands <0.5 229 6 102 89 426

Portugal 1 14 3 1 32 1 <0.5 29 81

Spain 70 42 3 42 27 110 293

Sweden <0.5 22 <0.5 93 307 5 99 527

United Kingdom 68 270 3 133 475

Total EU 15 117 1,356 <0.5 1,670 54 2,100 89 <0.5 2,315 7,701


62 27 83 9 497 34 119 830

Other countries 125 8 300 1,122 70 2,282 133 3 <0.5 3 2,655 6,703




187

.

Table A5. 17 Intra and extra community trade of rim-fire cartridges (other than cases) (93.06.30.93), average of 2000, 2001 and 2002


tonnes/year AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK EU 15 NMS/

CC

Austria 4 3 27 <0.5 1 34

Belgium <0.5 1 <0.5 12 2 6 21

Denmark 7 5 48 25 85

Finland 4 45 <0.5 6 55

France 56 1 50 <0.5 20 128

Germany 10 31 34 4 3 112 193

Greece 1 1 1 <0.5 3

Ireland <0.5 2 1 18 21

Italy 10 6 10 7 33


Netherlands 33 <0.5 15 11 59

Portugal <0.5 2 <0.5 <0.5 4 <0.5 3 9

Spain 10 3 <0.5 5 3 9 31

Sweden 2 5 44 <0.5 12 63

United Kingdom 8 14 <0.5 12 35

Total EU 15 10 171 75 6 284 9 230 785

New Member States and Candi-date Countries 4 5 7 1 65 3 30 114

Other countries 16 1 16 56 13 235 10 <0.5 <0.5 155 502




188

.

Production and intra- and extra-community trade of fishing tackle Statistics on production, import and export by old and new Member States and Candidate Countries retrieved from the Europroms database of Eurostat is shown in Table A5.18. The PRODCOM data is for this commodity code only available in monetary units (�). Data on intra and extra community trade from the COMEXT database is shown in Table A5.19 - A5.24.

Data are shown for fishing tackle exclusive rods, wheels, and hooks. Sinkers and other lead-containing tackle will account for a small part of this group of fishing tackle.

189

.

Table A5. 18 Production, import and export of line fishing tackle n.e.s., fish landing nets, butterfly and similar nets 2000-2002 (exclusive rods, wheels and hooks)*


million �/year Prod. Import Export Prod. Import Export Prod. Import Export

Austria 0.0 2.8 0.3 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.0 2.2 0.3

Belgium 0.0 6.7 3.6 0.0 6.7 4.9 0.0 5.4 3.2

Denmark 0.0 2.1 6.6 - 3.7 5.8 - 3.0 4.6

Finland 18.9 1.9 12.7 23.8 2.6 9.9 21.7 2.3 10.6

France 26 15.4 11.5 21.6 13.5 15.3 22.6 11.9 11.5

Germany - 7.0 5.7 2.8 6.1 4.6 2.9 8.9 5.9

Greece - 1.5 0.0 - 0.9 0.0 - - -

Ireland - 12.1 2.5 - 10.2 4.8 - 9.2 5.3

Italy 11.4 6.2 16.4 8.8 6.4 15.7 8.8 5.3 16.2

Luxembourg 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 - - -

Netherlands 0.0 3.1 3.9 0.0 2.9 3.7 0.0 4.0 7.6

Portugal - 3.4 0.1 - 2.7 0.1 - 3.1 0.1

Spain - 8.4 5.4 - 8.1 4.1 - 7.9 7.8

Sweden 0.0 1.3 3.0 0.0 1.4 3.7 0.0 2.0 4.6

UK 16 4.8 13.9 22.4 4.9 12 25.5 4.5 10.1

EU 15 ** 75.4 80 57.1 - 83.6 70.5 - 90.1 65.6

Bulgaria - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - -

Croatia - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - -


Estonia 0.0 - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - -

Hungary - - - 0.7 - - 0.7 - -

Latvia - - - - - - 0.0 - -

Lituania 0.0 - - - - - - - -

Poland - - - - - - - - -

Romania 0.0 - - 0.0 - - - - -

Slovakia - - - - - - - - -

Slovenia - - - 0.0 - -

* PRODCOM commodity code 36.40.15.50, "Line fishing tackle, fish landing nets, butterfly and similar nets .


- No data


190

.

Table A5. 19 Import/export of fishing line fishing tackle n.e.s (95.07.90.00) to/from to/from EU 15, 1993-2003, in tonnes

EXPORT,Intra EU15

tonnes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria - 0 - - - - - - -

Belg,-Luxbg 98 8 10 14 44 21

Belgium 11 12 5 5 21

Denmark 433 777 682 634 498 475 403 755 390 433 465

Finland 12 10 15 8 12 6 6 7 8

France 175 162 175 136 154 272 458 474 397 325 349

Germany 14 1 - 1 3 5 5 4 1

Greece 1 3 1 0 3 2 58 4 21 27

Ireland 76 97 85 182 145 89 46 82 124 11 5

Italy 508 582 602 674 736 920 986 1,303 1,040 906 761

Luxembourg 0

Netherlands 189 208 124 146 176 248 184 179 213 266 188

Portugal 1,369 1,313 1,391 1,565 1,813 1,867 2,367 2,471 2,855 2,408 2,361

Spain 1,247 1,436 1,648 1,662 1,917 2,146 1,926 2,187 2,571 2,449 1,612

Sweden 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 6 2

Utd,Kingdom 296 152 238 320 254 82 92 34 24 63 16


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 0 3 2 1 4 0 2 1

Belg,-Luxbg 0 1 7 0

Belgium 1 2 0 0 1

Denmark 497 710 730 1,129 1,440 1,401 1,385 1,531 1,659 1,507 1,700

Finland 56 74 68 59 68 77 68 54 51

France 172 225 225 282 253 428 447 382 439 261 474

Germany 132 167 170 156 225 203 98 186 227 152 139

Greece 25 12 20 17 11 28 19 59 92 70 47

Ireland 22 41 108 152 204 114 143 174 80 23 113

Italy 173 198 274 347 399 259 496 1,058 1,242 582 840

Luxembourg

Netherlands 64 68 182 113 178 289 199 136 161 167 204

Portugal 532 617 869 915 986 1,124 1,257 1,331 1,380 1,349 1,524

Spain 1,545 1,468 1,946 1,741 1,210 1,524 735 1,041 1,053 935 1,231

Sweden 28 13 11 16 10 9 36 16 44

Utd,Kingdom 314 227 193 421 146 205 176 262 74 194 163

Total EU15 3,476 3,734 4,807 5,362 5,132 5,653 5,036 6,247 6,510 5,312 6,531

**contimued

191

.


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 2 3 3 1 34 38 37 19 1

Belg,-Luxbg 116 179 136 86 117 269

Belgium 121 158 142 177 153

Denmark 220 191 230 440 786 880 1,106 1,254 1,213 1,115 942

Finland 6 5 8 17 4 20 8 14 6

France 630 409 437 602 627 749 721 821 830 1,036 1,029

Germany 85 119 128 119 111 76 46 105 96 88 52

Greece 208 231 257 389 482 483 594 504 504 432 441

Ireland 112 87 133 244 257 351 207 270 272 204 245

Italy 33 25 19 49 78 68 42 146 80 87 89

Luxembourg - 0 1 2 0

Netherlands 260 250 46 44 56 229 224 185 335 393 249

Portugal 139 75 68 62 98 120 172 166 332 217 181

Spain 489 622 547 482 563 799 739 3,649 1,191 1,784 1,278

Sweden 60 73 78 16 36 58 39 46 58

Utd,Kingdom 486 832 844 897 866 669 1,177 832 599 556 490


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria - - 0 0 0 6 1 1 1

Belg,-Luxbg 98 9 4 1 2

Belgium 10 2 3 3 3

Denmark 513 729 963 987 1,257 1,068 1,184 1,530 1,622 1,585 1,876

Finland 128 114 90 113 121 124 172 167 181

France 622 427 535 582 492 619 837 719 695 782 903

Germany 74 71 104 167 112 99 131 142 122 139 90

Greece 463 507 504 587 609 422 470 413 448 851 541

Ireland 148 147 182 174 116 192 250 245 238 152 141

Italy 212 266 511 701 630 861 868 691 450 437 701

Luxembourg

Netherlands 46 29 52 76 74 48 142 151 204 212 223

Portugal 26 9 17 4 32 65 61 88 55 35 41

Spain 289 330 546 787 1,083 1,222 1,199 809 1,080 1,104 1,193

Sweden 90 79 64 59 58 53 35 54 59

Utd,Kingdom 186 237 340 274 313 274 259 381 311 305 342

Total EU15 2,679 2,750 3,981 4,536 4,874 5,046 5,588 5,353 5,434 5,826 6,293


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Export 3,476 3,734 4,807 5,362 5,132 5,653 5,036 6,247 6,510 5,312 6,531

Import 2,679 2,750 3,981 4,536 4,874 5,046 5,588 5,353 5,434 5,826 6,293



192

.

Table A5. 20 Import/export of fishing line fishing tackle n.e.s (95.07.90.00) to/from to/from EU 15, 1993-2003, in 1000 �

EXPORT,Intra EU15

1000 � 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 140 143 128 772 429 304 398 282 254

Belg,-Luxbg 1,648 1,307 2,444 2,826 5,021 10,177

Belgium 9,246 3,617 4,924 3,204 5,744

Denmark 96 1,127 507 838 552 810 1,665 6,633 5,785 4,592 3,226

Finland 6,698 8,439 8,597 8,589 9,496 12,668 9,919 10,559 5,561

France 5,622 6,097 8,161 8,372 8,800 8,491 8,183 11,462 15,327 11,466 11,839

Germany 2,042 1,408 2,452 3,374 3,657 4,842 5,599 5,705 4,581 5,906 4,513

Greece 1 9 22 56 8 1 22 36

Ireland 725 1,637 3,345 4,466 5,016 4,628 4,474 2,537 4,783 5,285 6,299

Italy 9,528 12,020 11,799 15,690 15,417 18,578 17,411 16,388 15,699 16,774 16,545

Luxembourg 1,946 1,165 0 1 0

Netherlands 2,401 3,425 2,511 3,065 4,601 4,037 3,891 3,898 3,748 7,574 13,266

Portugal 2 87 64 70 169 69 85 75 135 75 123

Spain 883 1,110 1,479 2,741 2,287 2,345 2,868 5,358 4,060 7,819 5,859

Sweden 1,021 1,294 2,429 3,115 2,194 3,010 3,694 4,612 5,340

Utd,Kingdom 8,322 10,015 12,799 12,395 12,226 14,590 12,535 13,866 12,045 10,144 12,599

EXPORT,Extra EU15 1000 �

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 285 773 600 720 764 924 852 560 692

Belg,-Luxbg 33 64 31 13 54 101

Belgium 31 21 19 71 164

Denmark 879 1,046 343 1,186 1,204 803 909 978 595 476 517

Finland 9,768 11,280 7,963 7,972 6,719 9,678 15,456 12,799 6,310

France 3,836 4,210 3,782 4,103 4,335 4,807 4,329 4,433 5,523 7,924 4,763

Germany 2,550 3,498 2,237 2,716 3,640 3,579 2,702 3,655 3,359 3,255 2,914

Greece 51 32 59 69 65 133 88 69 147 146 59

Ireland 4,974 4,340 419 10,487 22,096 6,930 2,485 10,689 16,360 13,671 7,288

Italy 7,089 8,842 9,299 10,378 12,767 13,814 12,900 16,414 15,226 14,128 12,737


Netherlands 799 1,085 993 1,473 781 1,049 552 1,327 1,576 2,906 4,719

Portugal 962 146 114 133 155 813 359 281 649 361 279

Spain 1,190 1,351 1,300 1,367 747 978 1,058 1,201 1,092 1,522 2,531

Sweden 1,663 1,753 1,895 2,330 2,326 2,154 3,443 2,872 1,901

Utd,Kingdom 6,913 7,030 6,318 4,900 6,075 4,256 4,057 5,312 6,196 4,877 4,345

Total EU15 29,276 31,643 36,611 50,629 62,378 48,285 39,283 57,138 70,497 65,567 49,221

**contimued

193

.


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 2,061 3,076 2,762 2,423 2,871 3,304 3,820 2,855 3,572

Belg,-Luxbg 6,073 6,596 7,768 8,079 7,784 7,926

Belgium 6,901 8,063 8,237 7,372 10,615

Denmark 3,525 3,842 4,173 6,080 5,648 6,154 4,625 4,151 5,841 5,320 5,774

Finland 3,105 3,379 5,924 6,318 5,928 9,369 11,628 10,642 7,115

France 13,865 17,660 17,246 20,082 21,479 29,219 27,848 25,874 23,147 21,377 25,674

Germany 15,381 15,733 17,542 21,075 22,471 21,148 18,297 21,506 18,993 21,119 19,391

Greece 1,147 1,366 1,355 1,611 2,144 2,190 1,715 2,191 1,767 1,767 2,558

Ireland 1,551 1,816 4,850 6,837 7,069 7,800 8,157 12,379 10,735 9,778 7,568

Italy 8,009 9,653 10,423 10,997 12,023 11,973 14,407 17,223 17,053 17,455 17,006

Luxembourg 371 442 557 473 590

Netherlands 6,083 7,589 6,578 7,397 8,085 8,353 9,115 8,503 8,214 10,983 10,061

Portugal 2,525 1,798 1,925 2,413 2,892 3,409 3,645 3,959 3,111 3,635 3,331

Spain 5,970 6,193 7,413 9,452 10,395 12,543 9,720 13,858 14,011 14,520 16,014

Sweden 4,309 5,722 7,347 7,658 6,963 7,425 8,198 8,607 8,452

Utd,Kingdom 8,284 11,087 13,750 13,231 15,836 17,395 17,476 18,816 21,851 25,442 26,461


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 1,746 2,409 2,467 1,954 2,401 2,795 2,875 2,209 2,905

Belg,-Luxbg 5,227 5,448 6,485 6,793 6,523 6,406

Belgium 5,675 6,750 6,702 5,383 7,775

Denmark 1,443 1,505 2,408 3,956 4,399 4,481 2,961 2,107 3,745 3,025 2,001

Finland 1,357 1,280 2,148 2,002 1,782 1,917 2,628 2,335 2,208

France 7,932 11,838 11,570 14,041 14,964 21,639 20,805 15,372 13,469 11,878 13,798

Germany 4,754 4,777 6,161 8,481 9,890 8,448 6,631 6,980 6,112 8,890 6,343

Greece 303 368 527 964 1,458 1,380 1,141 1,496 947 976 1,681

Ireland 733 802 4,646 6,563 6,815 7,457 7,674 12,106 10,158 9,167 7,146

Italy 2,692 2,751 3,384 3,879 4,692 3,936 5,296 6,162 6,352 5,455 4,075

Luxembourg 311 396 536 458 571

Netherlands 3,912 4,734 3,836 4,700 4,753 4,728 4,778 3,145 2,926 4,046 2,091

Portugal 2,047 1,426 1,555 2,176 2,482 2,800 3,131 3,379 2,721 3,081 2,619

Spain 2,655 3,686 4,729 6,636 6,245 8,748 5,857 8,402 8,140 7,890 9,420

Sweden 1,268 1,596 1,856 1,331 1,362 1,266 1,371 1,961 2,199

Utd,Kingdom 2,505 4,289 8,282 5,320 5,501 6,670 5,017 4,837 4,854 4,473 4,252

Total EU15 34,203 41,624 57,956 68,795 74,193 81,980 74,822 77,110 73,536 71,227 69,082


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Export 29,276 31,643 36,611 50,629 62,378 48,285 39,283 57,138 70,497 65,567 49,221

Import 34,203 41,624 57,956 68,795 74,193 81,980 74,822 77,110 73,536 71,227 69,082

194

.

Table A5. 21 Import/export of fishing line fishing tackle n.e.s (95.07.90.00) to/from New Member States and Candidate Countries 1999-2003

EXPORT, EU15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 8.9 6.3 9.8 8.8 11.2

Cyprus 0.1 - -

CzechRepublic 154.9 197.8 212.2 193.7 202.7

Estonia 178.3 254.7 320.5 326.6 163.5

Hungary 201.2 244.7 245.3 205.1 202.1

Latvia 50.8 30.6 30.5 35.1 42.6

Lituania 1.7 2.1 0.2 0.4 1.8

Malta 0.2 0.4 0.6

Poland 128.7 141.4 139.3 179.1 189.2

Rumania 45.8 0.1 1.1 3.0 19.1

Slovakia 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

Slovenia 1.7 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5

Turkey 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.3

Total 774.8 878.7 960.1 952.7 834.1

EXPORT, NON-EU15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 2.8 1.2 0.9 6.9 10.9

Cyprus - - - -

CzechRepublic 62.0 21.0 29.9 18.6 21.7

Estonia 1.0 1.3 1.1 4.8 136.7

Hungary 52.9 70.6 68.9 78.9 51.3

Latvia 17.7 12.4 11.4 11.3 18.1

Lituania 20.4 1.7 14.2 30.4 60.6

Malta 0.3

Poland 105.4 94.4 89.3 131.2 131.1

Rumania 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.3

Slovakia 6.8 13.4 14.7 18.5 41.8

Slovenia 1.4 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.3

Turkey 24.1 0.4 2.9 2.7 1.0

Total 294.6 217.4 234.8 304.1 473.8

EXPORT, total, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 11.7 7.6 10.7 15.7 22.0

Cyprus 0.1 - - -

CzechRepublic 216.9 218.8 242.2 212.3 224.4

Estonia 179.3 256.0 321.6 331.5 300.2

Hungary 254.1 315.3 314.2 284.0 253.4

Latvia 68.5 43.0 41.8 46.4 60.7

Lituania 22.1 3.7 14.4 30.8 62.5

Malta 0.2 0.4 0.9

Poland 234.0 235.9 228.6 310.3 320.3

Rumania 45.8 0.2 1.9 3.2 19.3

Slovakia 9.3 13.5 14.8 18.5 41.9

Slovenia 3.1 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.8

Turkey 26.4 2.0 3.8 4.2 4.2

Total 1,071.4 1,097.5 1,195.8 1,257.8 1,309.7

Continued�

195

.

IMPORT, EU15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 28.8 34.6 22.1 16.2 17.6

Cyprus - - - - -

CzechRepublic 33.1 39.5 26.8 25.0 19.3

Estonia 147.0 212.0 173.8 139.4 134.6

Hungary 26.7 43.3 59.1 36.6 37.7

Latvia 12.1 9.0 14.2 8.3 9.3

Lituania 26.7 19.0 13.2 34.0 10.6

Malta 14.7 24.6 45.2 130.8 56.6

Poland 72.5 72.1 66.5 56.7 61.2

Rumania 3.1 15.0 15.4 8.4 15.4

Slovakia 14.6 17.4 11.4 19.2 18.1

Slovenia 9.2 10.2 9.6 12.4 9.6

Turkey 5.0 10.3 1.5 6.5 6.5

Total 393.5 506.9 459.0 493.5 396.6

IMPORT, NON-EU15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 53.2 49.6 47.4 46.4 75.0

Cyprus - - - - -

CzechRepublic 32.1 44.5 49.4 78.8 104.8

Estonia 6.2 11.0 9.8 17.6 15.5

Hungary 48.6 43.0 63.6 75.2 113.5

Latvia 22.5 17.1 21.8 32.3 46.5

Lituania 143.8 140.5 126.1 279.7 301.0

Malta 5.2 7.2 6.1 4.9 41.7

Poland 81.5 191.4 166.3 147.1 238.4

Rumania 25.5 27.0 37.5 46.9 84.8

Slovakia 41.8 31.7 31.0 39.9 44.8

Slovenia 4.5 5.3 6.8 11.7 11.9

Turkey 32.7 35.9 12.9 15.9 965.6

Total 497.4 604.2 578.7 796.4 2,043.4

IMPORT, total, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 82.0 84.2 69.6 62.6 92.6

Cyprus - - - - -

CzechRepublic 65.3 83.9 76.2 103.8 124.1

Estonia 153.2 223.0 183.6 157.0 150.1

Hungary 75.3 86.3 122.7 111.8 151.2

Latvia 34.6 26.2 36.0 40.6 55.8

Lituania 170.5 159.5 139.4 313.8 311.6

Malta 20.0 31.8 51.2 135.7 98.3

Poland 154.0 263.6 232.8 203.9 299.6

Rumania 28.7 42.0 53.0 55.3 100.2

Slovakia 56.4 49.2 42.4 59.1 62.9

Slovenia 13.7 15.5 16.4 24.2 21.4

Turkey 37.7 46.9 14.5 22.3 972.0

Total 891.2 1,111.9 1,037.8 1,289.9 2,440.0

Continued�

196

.

EXPORT, EU15, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 225.3 188.8 320.9 350.7 458.7

Cyprus 4.7 2.2 2.8

CzechRepublic 903.4 1,151.4 1,248.5 1,216.1 1,082.7

Estonia 2,801.8 5,591.2 7,529.9 5,767.3 3,544.5

Hungary 1,109.3 1,363.2 1,528.7 1,432.1 1,409.9

Latvia 265.8 281.3 211.9 278.3 214.0

Lituania 37.1 77.5 9.8 10.3 41.2

Malta 3.1 4.5 1.1

Poland 2,156.6 3,230.6 2,242.9 2,481.1 2,541.9

Rumania 38.0 10.9 28.8 8.0 89.5

Slovakia 7.0 3.6 1.6 0.2 1.0

Slovenia 34.5 24.5 41.4 32.1 38.6

Turkey 0.8 1.6 1.0 2.5 12.4

Total 7,587.4 11,929.2 13,166.3 11,580.7 9,437.2

EXPORT, NON-EU15, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 24.3 25.0 18.5 35.5 128.1

Cyprus 6.1 1.8 0.2 0.2

CzechRepublic 214.0 183.1 313.0 285.0 292.3

Estonia 42.5 47.1 44.8 72.6 5,187.5

Hungary 539.3 719.2 681.7 762.8 529.4

Latvia 257.4 200.2 234.8 228.4 283.7

Lituania 74.3 35.7 129.5 171.9 401.1

Malta 0.8

Poland 1,450.4 1,702.1 2,121.7 2,937.7 2,773.9

Rumania 0.0 0.4 3.4 7.0 4.6

Slovakia 34.9 31.7 24.3 28.5 60.2

Slovenia 16.1 15.1 10.2 10.0 16.0

Turkey 42.7 1.3 3.7 12.0 3.9

Total 2,702.0 2,960.9 3,588.1 4,551.6 9,680.9

EXPORT, total, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 249.5 213.7 339.4 386.2 586.8

Cyprus 10.8 1.8 2.4 3.0

CzechRepublic 1,117.4 1,334.5 1,561.5 1,501.1 1,375.0

Estonia 2,844.4 5,638.3 7,575.7 5,839.8 8,732.0

Hungary 1,648.7 2,082.4 2,210.4 2,194.9 1,939.3

Latvia 523.2 481.5 446.7 507.3 497.7

Lituania 111.4 113.2 139.3 182.2 442.4

Malta 3.1 4.5 1.9

Poland 3,607.0 4,932.8 4,364.7 5,419.7 5,315.8

Rumania 38.1 11.4 32.1 15.0 94.0

Slovakia 41.9 35.3 25.9 28.6 61.2

Slovenia 50.6 39.6 51.6 42.0 54.7

Turkey 51.4 13.4 11.6 20.2 28.9

Total 10,297.5 14,900.6 16,762.4 16,139.5 19,130.7

Continued�

197

.

IMPORT, EU15, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 139.9 157.1 156.1 169.7 210.8

Cyprus 127.0 74.9 191.0 225.6 210.7

CzechRepublic 485.1 824.5 869.9 576.4 404.2

Estonia 2,526.7 5,277.7 5,803.7 4,242.0 3,915.1

Hungary 605.2 830.5 668.2 645.2 611.7

Latvia 226.8 250.9 311.8 260.5 288.2

Lituania 484.6 358.8 200.7 297.8 226.2

Malta 298.1 279.2 459.2 795.0 229.8

Poland 844.5 1,238.1 919.0 807.4 1,013.0

Rumania 39.7 36.4 84.3 114.0 178.5

Slovakia 148.4 177.7 223.4 217.3 230.0

Slovenia 123.9 169.1 147.7 181.3 162.5

Turkey 167.3 304.0 74.4 210.4 279.3

Total 6,217.1 9,979.0 10,109.5 8,742.7 7,959.9

IMPORT, NON-EU15, 1000� 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 97.4 106.0 129.2 197.6 253.4

Cyprus 48.2 49.4 108.1 139.2 125.7

CzechRepublic 452.5 521.0 730.3 892.6 961.3

Estonia 122.5 243.1 213.0 193.0 212.4

Hungary 623.1 898.4 908.0 1,002.0 1,197.3

Latvia 163.5 255.5 283.6 357.0 487.2

Lituania 676.6 712.0 581.1 977.6 880.9

Malta 107.9 167.0 78.9 94.5 320.3

Poland 1,362.1 1,792.8 1,866.0 1,833.5 2,180.3

Rumania 154.4 195.9 237.7 268.2 329.1

Slovakia 253.7 378.8 421.1 448.3 466.6

Slovenia 111.7 109.8 131.2 193.3 211.3

Turkey 307.7 388.0 218.7 163.2 397.8

Total 4,481.1 5,817.8 5,906.9 6,760.2 8,023.6

IMPORT, total, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 237.2 263.1 285.2 367.3 464.1

Cyprus 175.2 124.4 299.1 364.9 336.4

CzechRepublic 937.9 1,345.6 1,600.2 1,469.0 1,365.5

Estonia 2,649.2 5,520.7 6,016.7 4,435.1 4,127.5

Hungary 1,228.3 1,729.0 1,576.2 1,647.2 1,809.1

Latvia 390.3 506.4 595.4 617.6 775.4

Lituania 1,161.2 1,070.8 781.8 1,275.4 1,107.1

Malta 406.0 446.1 538.1 889.5 550.1

Poland 2,206.7 3,031.6 2,785.1 2,641.1 3,193.3

Rumania 198.0 232.4 322.1 382.2 507.6

Slovakia 402.1 556.6 644.5 665.6 696.6

Slovenia 235.5 279.0 278.9 374.7 373.7

Turkey 475.0 697.1 293.2 373.6 677.0

Total 10,702.6 15,802.7 16,016.4 15,503.0 15,983.4



198

.

Table A5. 22 Intra and extra community trade of line fishing tackle n.e.s; fish landing nets, butterfly nets and similar nets; decoys and similar hunting or shooting requisites ((ex-clusive rods, wheels and hooks) (95.07.90.00), average of 2000, 2001 and 2002



CC

Austria 33 458 11 151 2,290 44 302 3 45 1 45 367 3,749 122

Belgium 426 31 1,810 180 66 1,308 65 1,099 1 32 1,388 6,406 65

Denmark 7 74 98 152 <0.5 43 189 2 24 1 981 229 1,800 110

Finland <0.5 264 210 21 1,074 102 <0.5 11 89 1,478 98 3,348 6,483

France 2,712 237 226 1,002 <0.5 1,189 5,470 67 379 5 3,653 97 2,634 17,674 436

Germany 283 56 1,139 46 4,207 661 1,858 27 2,352 116 284 2,437 13,466 3,683

Greece 3 25 3 187 99 61 592 9 21 8 14 1,021 17

Ireland 1 67 9,762 101 49 117 22 <0.5 8 552 10,681 72

Italy <0.5 9 173 2 1,646 179 2 28 43 211 18 104 53 1,622 4,091 177

Luxembourg 125 23 73 33 68 20 1 22 365 3

Netherlands 28 728 272 99 680 553 335 402 22 1 19 2,346 5,486 523

Portugal 8 13 21 47 504 53 86 1,200 2 284 1,616 1 45 3,880 38

Spain 36 406 144 1,857 459 8 381 2,232 22 15 71 44 95 5,771 57

Sweden 2 <0.5 1,095 489 125 85 127 159 2 22 41 169 2,317 141

United Kingdom 3 194 530 112 1,104 240 104 2,288 123 570 83 727 6,079 299

Total EU 15 328 3,915 5,137 11,048 12,752 5,397 10 4,200 16,287 389 5,073 95 5,715 3,772 12,018 86,136 12,225


292 13 64 5,191 1,187 1,531 50 97 4,704 729 39 97 629 14,622

Other countries 488 24 1,153 7,454 4,773 1,893 70 13,478 10,551 2 1,208 431 1,263 2,726 4,832 50,345




P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Annex statistics.DOC

199

.

Table A5. 23 Import and export of line fishing tackle n.e.s; fish landing nets, butterfly nets and similar nets; decoys and similar hunting or shooting requisites (exclusive rods, wheels and hooks) (95.07.90.00) to/from EU 15, aver-age of 2000, 2001 and 2002


1.000 �/year t/year 1.000 �/year t/year

New Member States and Candi-date Countries (NMSCC):

Bulgaria 247 8 450 28

Cyprus 2 0 327 16

Czech Rep. 1,504 268 2,430 115

Estonia 6,450 303 5,147 178

Hungary 1,301 214 1,835 103

Latvia 65 2 231 10

Lithuania 23 1 329 26

Malta 2 0 272 13

Poland 2,696 203 1,897 219

Romania 23 3 301 30

Slovakia 28 8 556 42

Slovenia 20 0 581 62

Turkey 51 7 267 267

Total NMSCC 12,411 1,018 14,622 1,109

Other:

USA 15,006 503 23,130 819

Russia 47 0 3,622 102

Norway 1,043 71 3,400 150

Canada 804 59 2,033 54

Tunisia 1,952 169 2,029 342

Switzerland 215 12 1,904 86

Croatia 9 0 1,775 185

Japan 6,130 95 1,612 63

Serb. Monten. 237 13 906 73

Algeria 1 0 688 75

Ivory Coast - - 611 75

N. det.Intra 53 14 566 41

Australia 178 5 471 20

Singapore 377 8 462 7

Andorra 50 3 442 13

South Africa 198 14 398 14

Madagascar 150 4 383 17

Ukraine 1 0 373 14

Taiwan 4,707 267 316 4

Cuba - - 282 23

Iceland 53 10 257 13

China 23,129 2,821 37 2

South Korea 8,573 361 16 1

India 4,942 471 98 98

Other 4,351 235 4,535 4,288

Total non-NMSCC 72,207 5,132 50,345 6,578




P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Annex statistics.DOC

200

.

Table A5. 24 Import and export of fishing tackle to/from EU 15 countries in 2001

All figures Import Export

in million �/year Rods Hooks Reels Other Totals Rods Hooks Reels Other Totals

Outside EU 15

Austria 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.9 2.8 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.9 1.5

Belgium 3.7 0.3 1.8 1.4 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Denmark 2.3 2.5 0.9 2.1 7.8 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.6 1.6

Finland 1.2 0.5 1.4 9.0 12.2 0.2 0.7 0.5 15.5 16.8

France 12.3 4.6 9.5 9.7 36.1 0.5 7.9 0.5 5.5 14.4

Germany 11.4 2.8 9.3 12.9 36.5 2.8 0.5 2.8 3.4 9.4

Greece 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2

Ireland 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.6 1.3 3.3 1.4 0.0 16.4 21

Italy 9.5 2.7 4.1 10.7 26.9 1.4 1.7 0.5 15.2 18.8

Luxembourg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Netherlands 9.0 1.6 8.8 5.3 24.7 1.4 0.3 0.5 1.6 3.8

Portugal - - - - - 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.6 1.3

Spain 6.2 1.6 4.9 6.0 18.7 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.1 2.1

Sweden 5.0 1.5 5.3 6.8 18.7 1.0 0.2 19.1 3.4 23.8

United Kingdom 14.4 4.2 6.1 17 41.6 1.3 3.5 3.7 6.2 14.6

Total outside EU 15 76.5 23.8 53.0 83.3 236.6 13.4 17.3 28.1 70.5 129.3

Within EU 15

Austria 1.5 0.4 1.0 2.9 5.7 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.4 1.3

Belgium 1.7 0.2 0.5 5.6 7.9 7.0 0.1 1.3 4.0 12.4

Denmark 0.7 0.1 0.8 4.1 5.7 2.6 0.6 1.2 5.3 9.6

Finland 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.6 4.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 9.9 10.3

France 8.1 1.3 3.1 13.5 26 6.8 3.6 4.7 14.4 29.5

Germany 2.6 0.4 1.8 5.5 10.3 3.4 1.0 3.6 4.4 12.4

Greece 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ireland 0.6 0.2 0.3 10.2 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8

Italy 3.1 0.4 2.7 6.3 12.5 10.2 0.9 1.1 15.6 27.8

Luxembourg 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Netherlands 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.5 7.3 0.1 2.9 3.4 13.7

Portugal 1.4 0.4 1.0 0.4 3.2 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 1.3

Spain 1.5 1.8 0.5 7.6 11.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.9 5.1

Sweden 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.4 1.7 1.1 0.1 1.5 3.5 6.1

United Kingdom 7.2 0.3 2.0 5.9 15.4 4.5 1.2 3.8 12.7 22.2

Total within EU 29.3 7.2 14.8 69.6 120.9 43.8 9.1 21.2 82.4 156.5

Source: European Fishing Tackle Trade Association EFTTA, London. Based on national statistics from each of the EU 15 countries.

201

.

Production and intra- and extra-community trade of made-up fishing nets Statistics on production, import and export by Member State and Candidate Country retrieved from the Europroms database of Eurostat is shown in Table A5.25-A5.26. The table shows the total for made-up fishing nets. Data on intra and extra community trade from the COMEXT database is shown in the tables A5.27-A5.32.

Table A5. 25 Production, import and export of made-up fishing nets 2000-2002*



Austria - 0.2 0.0 - 0.2 0.0 - 0.1 0.0

Belgium - 0.9 0.1 - 0.9 0.0 - 1.0 0.0

Denmark 9.1 6.3 5.6 7.1 6.0 3.1 8.4 5.5 3.4

Finland 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 - 0.1 0.1

France - 4.3 2.7 13.4 4.9 2.4 11.2 5.4 2.9

Germany - 0.8 0.1 - 0.7 0.0 - 0.8 -

Greece - 2.3 0.3 - 2.4 0.0 - - -

Ireland 6.1 2.0 0.9 6.3 1.9 1.5 3.1 1.5 0.1

Italy 24.2 1.4 6.2 46.1 0.4 5.8 45.2 0.6 4.2

Luxembourg - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - -

Netherlands - 1.1 2.0 - 1.8 2.0 - 1.9 2.8

Portugal 17.9 0.6 11.2 6.2 1.2 14.2 17.8 2.0 11.5

Spain 35.6 4.6 9.9 35.2 5.5 13.1 40.8 7.1 13.2

Sweden - 0.8 0.0 - 0.6 0.0 - 0.7 0.0

UK - 4.3 0.3 - 2.9 1.1 15.7 2.7 1.7

EU 15 ** - 34.8 36.5 - 30.6 38.4 - 28.8 30.1

Bulgaria - - - - - - - - -

Croatia - - - - - - - - -


Estonia 0.1 - - - - - - - -

Hungary - - - - - - - - -

Latvia - - - 0.6 - - - - -

Lituania - - - - - - - - -

Poland - - - - - - - - -

Romania - - - - - - - - -

Slovakia - - - - - - - - -

Slovenia - - - - - - - - -

* Sum of PRODCOM commodity codes 17.52.12.33, 17.52.12.35: "Made up fishing nets�." (with different codes for nets of different types).

** Total reported mport/export from EU 15 to other countries (not identical with the sum of the indi-vidual countries' export/import)

- No data or insufficient data (the figure for reported commodity codes = 0)


202

.

Table A5. 26 Production, import and export of made-up fishing nets 2000-2002*


Tonnes/year Prod. Import Export Prod. Import Export Prod. Import Export

Austria - 38 - - 37 - - 19 -

Belgium - 158 12 - 142 5 - 178 5

Denmark 763 1,254 755 556 1,213 390 633 1,115 433

Finland - 20 6 - 8 6 - 14 7

France - 821 474 1,058 830 397 1,058 1,036 325

Germany - 105 4 - 96 1 - 88 -

Greece - 504 58 - 504 4 - - -

Ireland 841 271 82 1,398 273 124 664 204 11

Italy 3,967 146 1,303 7,947 80 1,040 7,823 87 758

Luxembourg - 0.1 0.1 - 1 - - - -

Netherlands - 185 179 - 335 213 - 393 266

Portugal 3,505 166 2,471 794 332 2,855 3,271 217 2,408

Spain 9,312 3,649 2,187 8,396 1,191 2,571 9,793 1,784 2,449

Sweden - 58 1 - 39 2 - 46 6

UK - 832 34 - 599 24 1,688 556 63

EU 15 ** - 5,353 6,247 - 5,434 6,510 - 5,826 5,311

Bulgaria - - - - - - - - -

Croatia - - - - - - - - -


Estonia 169 - - - - - - - -

Hungary - - - - - - - - -

Latvia - - - 61 - - - - -

Lituania - - - - - - - - -

Poland - - - - - - - - -

Romania - - - - - - - - -

Slovakia - - - - - - - - -

Slovenia - - - - - - - - -

* Sum of PRODCOM commodity codes 17.52.12.33, 17.52.12.35: "Made up fishing nets�." (with different codes for nets of different types).

** Total reported mport/export from EU 15 to other countries (not identical with the sum of the indi-vidual countries' export/import)

- No data or insufficient data (the figure for reported commodity codes = 0)


203

.

Table A5. 27 Import and export of made-up fishing nets (56.08.11) EU 15, 1993-2003, in tonnes

EXPORT,Intra EU15

tonnes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria - 0.1 - - - - - - -

Belg,-Luxbg 98.3 8.4 10.3 14.2 44.4 20.6

Belgium 10.6 12.3 4.7 4.9 21.2

Denmark 433.0 776.7 681.6 633.6 497.8 475.1 402.8 754.8 389.9 433.2 465.1

Finland 11.5 9.7 15.4 7.8 12.2 5.9 6.4 7.4 8.4

France 175.0 162.1 174.8 136.1 154.3 272.4 458.1 474.3 397.0 324.5 349.2

Germany 13.5 0.9 - 1.3 3.2 4.8 5.2 4.1 1.0

Greece 1.0 2.8 1.1 0.2 3.1 1.9 57.5 3.5 21.1 27.4

Ireland 75.7 96.8 84.6 181.6 145.1 88.8 45.9 81.9 123.8 10.8 5.3

Italy 507.7 581.6 601.6 673.5 736.1 920.1 986.1 1,302.7 1,039.9 906.1 761.2

Luxembourg 0.1

Netherlands 188.9 207.9 123.5 145.8 175.9 247.7 183.9 178.7 212.8 265.5 187.5

Portugal 1,369.1 1,312.9 1,391.3 1,565.4 1,813.1 1,867.2 2,367.1 2,471.0 2,854.8 2,408.1 2,361.0

Spain 1,246.5 1,436.4 1,647.5 1,661.8 1,917.0 2,145.9 1,926.1 2,186.8 2,570.8 2,448.6 1,612.3

Sweden 0.8 3.9 2.3 1.9 0.5 0.9 1.7 5.7 1.9

Utd,Kingdom 296.0 151.8 237.8 319.9 254.4 81.8 91.8 34.1 24.4 62.9 15.8

Total EU15 4,404.7 4,738.3 4,965.3 5,348.0 5,759.2 6,137.2 6,492.2 7,565.1 7,630.7 6,898.8 5,816.3


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 0.3 2.6 2.1 1.0 4.0 0.1 1.7 0.7

Belg,-Luxbg 0.4 1.1 7.3 0.4

Belgium 0.5 2.2 0.2 0.1 1.1

Denmark 496.7 709.9 729.7 1,128.8 1,440.3 1,400.5 1,385.1 1,531.0 1,659.0 1,507.2 1,699.8

Finland 55.5 73.6 68.0 59.4 67.7 76.6 67.7 54.3 51.4

France 172.4 224.7 225.0 282.0 253.0 428.3 446.7 382.0 438.9 260.6 474.1

Germany 132.4 167.1 170.2 156.0 224.9 203.2 97.6 186.2 226.5 151.5 138.6

Greece 24.8 11.7 19.9 16.8 11.4 28.4 18.6 59.2 91.6 70.2 47.2

Ireland 21.6 41.0 107.7 151.5 204.0 114.0 143.1 173.9 80.3 23.1 112.8

Italy 172.7 198.1 273.8 347.3 399.2 259.0 495.6 1,057.8 1,241.7 582.2 839.6

Luxembourg

Netherlands 63.6 68.4 181.7 112.8 177.5 289.4 198.7 135.9 161.1 166.8 204.1

Portugal 531.8 616.9 869.1 915.4 985.8 1,124.4 1,257.0 1,330.7 1,379.7 1,349.4 1,523.6

Spain 1,545.4 1,468.0 1,945.9 1,741.3 1,210.0 1,524.0 734.6 1,040.8 1,052.8 934.6 1,231.0

Sweden 28.3 13.3 10.7 15.9 10.4 9.3 36.3 15.8 43.7

Utd,Kingdom 313.7 226.9 192.6 420.5 145.5 205.3 176.2 261.7 74.0 194.0 163.2

Total EU15 3,475.5 3,733.8 4,807.0 5,362.3 5,132.4 5,652.8 5,035.8 6,247.4 6,509.8 5,311.5 6,530.9

**contimued

204

.


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 2.0 3.0 2.8 1.2 33.7 37.6 37.3 18.9 0.7

Belg,-Luxbg 116.3 178.8 135.6 85.8 117.0 268.5

Belgium 120.5 158.2 141.5 177.2 152.9

Denmark 220.2 191.4 229.9 439.6 786.0 880.4 1,106.3 1,253.5 1,212.8 1,114.5 942.4

Finland 5.9 4.8 8.3 17.3 3.7 19.7 7.5 14.2 5.7

France 630.2 408.9 437.4 601.6 627.4 749.2 720.7 821.1 830.3 1,036.1 1,028.5

Germany 84.7 118.8 128.4 119.3 111.2 75.6 46.1 105.2 96.0 87.9 52.3

Greece 208.2 230.7 256.5 389.2 482.0 483.3 593.9 503.8 503.9 432.1 441.0

Ireland 112.1 86.9 133.3 243.5 257.4 350.5 206.5 270.2 272.1 204.2 244.7

Italy 33.1 25.2 19.1 49.3 78.1 67.7 42.4 146.3 80.2 87.3 88.9

Luxembourg - 0.1 1.1 2.0 0.2

Netherlands 259.8 250.2 45.8 44.3 55.8 229.1 224.1 184.6 334.7 392.8 249.2

Portugal 138.5 74.6 68.3 61.5 97.6 119.9 172.4 165.7 331.9 216.7 181.4

Spain 488.8 622.3 546.7 481.7 562.9 799.2 738.9 3,649.4 1,190.6 1,784.1 1,277.9

Sweden 59.7 73.0 77.5 16.2 36.0 57.8 38.6 45.9 57.5

Utd,Kingdom 485.5 832.0 844.1 896.5 865.8 669.4 1,176.9 831.8 598.7 555.5 489.5

Total EU15 2,777.4 3,019.8 2,912.7 3,493.1 4,129.8 4,727.5 5,222.1 8,205.0 5,677.2 6,169.4 5,212.8


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria - - 0.2 0.3 0.3 6.1 0.5 1.1 0.6

Belg,-Luxbg 98.1 9.3 3.7 0.6 2.3

Belgium 10.0 1.9 2.9 3.3 3.1

Denmark 513.1 728.7 963.0 986.6 1,257.3 1,068.0 1,184.1 1,529.9 1,622.2 1,584.7 1,875.8

Finland 127.7 114.2 89.9 112.9 120.5 123.5 171.9 166.6 181.0

France 622.0 426.9 535.2 582.0 492.3 619.2 837.0 719.3 694.8 782.3 902.9

Germany 74.4 70.5 104.2 166.7 112.2 99.0 131.2 141.5 122.2 139.0 89.9

Greece 463.4 506.8 503.9 587.3 609.1 421.8 469.6 412.9 448.2 850.7 540.6

Ireland 148.2 147.1 182.3 173.5 115.9 192.4 249.5 245.4 237.7 152.0 141.3

Italy 212.2 265.5 510.8 701.3 629.6 861.4 867.6 691.1 449.6 437.0 700.9

Luxembourg

Netherlands 46.4 29.1 51.7 76.2 73.9 48.1 141.8 151.1 203.8 211.7 222.8

Portugal 26.1 8.8 17.0 3.8 31.9 64.8 60.5 87.9 55.3 35.4 41.1

Spain 288.9 330.2 545.9 787.4 1,083.4 1,222.1 1,198.5 808.8 1,079.7 1,103.9 1,192.8

Sweden 90.3 79.3 64.3 59.3 58.3 52.7 34.5 53.6 58.6

Utd,Kingdom 186.1 236.6 339.8 274.0 312.9 274.1 258.9 380.5 310.7 304.9 341.5

Total EU15 2,678.9 2,750.2 3,981.1 4,536.0 4,873.5 5,045.7 5,587.8 5,352.6 5,434.0 5,826.2 6,292.9



205

.

Table A5. 28 Import and export of made-up fishing nets (56.08.11) EU 15, 1993-2003, in 1000 �

EXPORT,IntraEU15

1000� 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 0 2 3 0 1 2 2 3 1

Belg,-Luxbg 148 64 117 107 164 312

Belgium 34 51 27 31 90

Denmark 3,197 4,670 6,607 6,446 5,110 4,745 3,625 5,614 3,102 3,362 3,315

Finland 115 119 123 117 155 81 115 89 109

France 731 706 884 918 1,079 1,080 2,168 2,677 2,366 2,904 2,234

Germany 69 34 10 39 65 95 157 101 11

Greece 9 22 5 2 22 17 294 24 161 84

Ireland 523 1,118 960 2,462 2,115 1,112 559 929 1,542 99 49

Italy 3,319 3,509 3,691 4,553 4,598 5,580 5,478 6,225 5,756 5,081 4,461

Luxembourg 3

Netherlands 1,263 1,361 961 1,231 1,434 1,896 1,732 1,952 2,019 2,817 2,023

Portugal 6,700 5,921 6,171 7,143 7,715 8,502 10,614 11,224 14,211 11,489 11,300

Spain 3,969 4,604 8,323 8,846 9,658 10,486 9,064 9,898 13,127 13,197 7,743

Sweden 13 80 61 61 3 4 15 45 58

Utd,Kingdom 2,747 1,039 1,179 2,054 1,495 924 876 318 1,103 1,653 348

TotalEU15 22,675 23,048 29,032 34,006 33,623 34,934 34,483 39,375 43,420 40,932 31,816

EXPORT,ExtraEU15 1000 �

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 4 7 13 11 21 1 19 9

Belg,-Luxbg 8 8 44 9

Belgium 4 15 2 2 8

Denmark 4,048 5,081 4,544 6,503 8,385 7,549 6,820 7,702 8,691 6,958 6,476

Finland 506 568 645 522 539 566 543 490 407

France 1,525 2,102 1,387 1,814 1,343 3,156 3,389 2,959 3,491 1,806 3,300

Germany 1,404 1,674 1,793 1,464 1,860 1,759 831 2,042 2,610 1,543 1,258

Greece 160 101 139 149 99 216 173 825 1,009 669 400

Ireland 327 711 1,546 1,870 2,593 1,527 2,546 2,869 935 290 1,425

Italy 1,064 894 1,456 1,848 2,031 1,316 2,457 4,690 5,705 2,643 3,717

Luxembourg

Netherlands 521 478 1,116 956 1,386 2,044 1,332 1,054 1,454 1,642 1,706

Portugal 2,425 2,511 4,085 4,630 4,804 5,338 5,707 6,850 7,138 7,689 7,252

Spain 7,766 7,586 9,138 8,508 5,665 7,174 3,622 4,934 4,965 4,141 5,952

Sweden 231 172 133 166 126 151 241 261 435

Utd,Kingdom 3,255 1,870 1,534 2,518 1,355 2,020 1,423 1,866 1,598 1,925 1,369

TotalEU15 22,504 23,016 27,524 31,015 30,312 32,797 28,988 36,524 38,383 30,077 33,712

Continued

206

.

IMPORT,Intra EU15 1000�

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 72 46 70 30 177 190 211 74 21

Belg,-Luxbg 936 881 800 541 590 1,087

Belgium 676 870 854 958 875

Denmark 1,056 846 1,110 2,087 3,651 4,094 5,103 6,276 6,047 5,544 4,970

Finland 87 69 109 165 43 109 77 93 66

France 3,346 3,009 2,566 3,338 2,747 3,484 3,429 4,347 4,868 5,387 5,033

Germany 626 869 996 905 732 566 392 815 741 759 433

Greece 1,224 1,249 1,302 2,117 2,265 2,612 2,826 2,348 2,369 1,702 1,984

Ireland 872 543 989 1,942 2,112 2,729 1,523 2,006 1,907 1,464 1,750

Italy 352 146 252 297 460 366 260 1,412 420 580 443


Netherlands 996 1,032 214 278 199 916 1,116 1,118 1,810 1,903 1,411

Portugal 441 306 270 289 366 471 561 597 1,235 1,969 1,444

Spain 2,301 2,582 2,584 2,455 2,855 4,064 3,396 4,620 5,543 7,111 6,251

Sweden 673 713 1,091 314 412 754 619 670 929

Utd,Kingdom 2,260 3,672 3,267 3,738 4,442 3,008 6,170 4,293 2,852 2,652 2,357

TotalEU15 14,409 15,137 15,182 18,813 21,688 23,905 26,085 29,758 29,586 30,872 27,971

IMPORT,ExtraEU15 1000�

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Austria 7 3 5 8 6 28 8 12 7

Belg,-Luxbg 122 1 84 40 6 53

Belgium 39 18 29 55 17

Denmark 3,414 3,830 4,177 5,055 5,753 5,915 5,760 7,861 7,253 6,610 7,657

Finland 846 788 701 755 659 640 863 824 705

France 4,804 2,915 3,853 3,959 3,690 4,507 5,982 5,444 5,163 5,128 4,853

Germany 443 483 538 873 873 744 901 1,174 720 821 437

Greece 3,466 3,870 3,238 3,956 4,608 3,108 3,121 3,163 3,490 3,277 3,158

Ireland 822 1,055 1,303 1,285 778 1,123 1,562 1,703 1,765 1,037 1,154

Italy 1,448 1,683 1,891 2,330 2,476 2,966 2,765 2,248 2,635 2,283 2,735

Luxembourg

Netherlands 355 240 429 600 757 452 696 520 765 823 685

Portugal 111 43 112 45 345 460 364 4,744 476 248 214

Spain 1,575 1,599 2,485 4,170 4,537 5,994 5,754 4,612 5,473 5,540 5,903

Sweden 756 754 714 620 613 583 417 625 598

Utd,Kingdom 1,084 1,369 2,130 1,806 2,331 1,721 1,434 2,101 1,494 1,473 1,780

TotalEU15 17,644 17,089 21,849 25,666 27,573 28,425 29,655 34,838 30,551 28,757 29,904



207

.

Table A5. 29 Import and export of made-up fishing nets (56.08.11) to/from New Member States and Candidate Countries 1999-2003

EXPORT to EU15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.6

Cyprus - 1.6 0.2

CzechRepublic 0.5 0.4 1.7 3.4 1.5

Estonia 119.6 122.5 416.9 473.9 364.2

Hungary 0.0 0.3 0.0

Latvia 0.7 1.9

Lituania 26.0 22.5 32.8 150.2 348.1

Malta 0.0

Poland 280.3 356.3 358.4 341.5 301.8

Rumania 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

Slovakia 0.0 0.1

Slovenia

Turkey 0.2 0.2 3.2 0.6 0.4

Total 427.5 503.0 814.0 972.6 1,020.0

EXPORT to NON-EU15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

Cyprus 1.2 0.2

CzechRepublic 3.4 6.7 5.0 6.0 4.2

Estonia 13.6 20.0 8.4 6.3 30.9

Hungary 0.2 3.2 0.9

Latvia 5.7 20.0 3.2 1.6 3.0

Lituania 84.2 69.1 61.4 90.2 83.3

Malta 8.5 0.2

Poland 2.2 1.9 4.9 6.6 1.9

Rumania 5.8 4.9 2.6 5.5 5.0

Slovakia 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1

Slovenia 0.1 0.3 0.1

Turkey 5.5 3.4 1.5 22.1 15.7

Total 121.3 126.3 90.4 149.1 144.7

EXPORT total, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.8

Cyprus - 2.7 0.4

CzechRepublic 3.9 7.1 6.8 9.4 5.7

Estonia 133.2 142.5 425.3 480.2 395.2

Hungary 0.2 3.5 1.0

Latvia 5.7 20.0 3.2 2.3 4.8

Lituania 110.2 104.7 94.2 240.3 431.4

Malta 0.6 0.6 8.5 0.2

Poland 495.9 419.3 378.9 392.8 324.9

Rumania 5.8 4.9 2.7 5.5 6.2

Slovakia 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1


Turkey 17.9 7.4 5.8 22.7 16.3

Total 774.9 707.9 921.1 1,166.4 1,186.0

Continued�

208

.

IMPORT from EU15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 0.1 20.2 13.9 14.3 0.2

Cyprus 9.5 12.2 12.9 6.6 6.9

CzechRepublic 8.3 20.3 28.1 20.3 17.6

Estonia 51.2 50.7 241.2 207.8 263.1

Hungary 6.2 1.2 25.2 16.4 6.1

Latvia 2.8 0.2 1.9 0.4 0.2

Lituania 5.9 10.1 3.9 36.7 10.6

Malta 2.2 11.6 2.2 2.8 2.7

Poland 74.1 106.8 122.9 130.6 155.2

Rumania 0.3 1.0 0.7 3.2 8.5

Slovakia 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.9

Slovenia 1.4 1.4 1.3 2.2 0.5

Turkey 54.2 93.6 122.3 142.0 409.9

Total 216.5 330.1 577.1 583.7 883.5

IMPORT from NON-EU15, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 8.1 5.9 11.5 21.7 13.5

Cyprus 31.1 14.4 27.0 25.6 37.5

CzechRepublic 1.2 17.7 0.3 1.6 0.9

Estonia 7.2 7.8 7.3 12.6 11.9

Hungary 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.9 1.0

Latvia 9.1 7.4 79.6 83.0 37.4

Lituania 3.2 75.6 73.0 106.9 17.0

Malta 8.7 13.7 11.1 19.6 12.7

Poland 136.6 121.3 147.7 160.7 152.9

Rumania 25.3 54.8 62.8 71.3 52.1

Slovakia 2.2 3.0 4.4 4.5 8.1

Slovenia 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.1

Turkey 69.6 26.4 58.8 104.4 290.1

Total 302.4 348.1 484.4 613.6 635.2

IMPORT, total, tonnes 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 8.1 26.1 25.5 36.0 13.7

Cyprus 40.5 26.6 39.8 32.1 44.4

CzechRepublic 9.5 38.0 28.4 21.9 18.5

Estonia 58.4 58.6 248.5 220.4 275.0

Hungary 6.3 1.2 25.8 17.3 7.1

Latvia 11.9 7.6 81.5 83.3 37.6

Lituania 9.1 85.8 76.9 143.6 27.6

Malta 10.9 25.3 13.3 22.5 15.4

Poland 210.7 228.1 270.6 291.3 308.1

Rumania 25.5 55.9 63.5 74.5 60.6

Slovakia 2.6 3.6 5.0 4.9 10.0

Slovenia 1.4 1.4 1.6 3.1 0.6

Turkey 123.8 120.0 181.1 246.3 700.0

Total 518.9 678.2 1,061.5 1,197.3 1,518.7

Continued�

209

.

EXPORT to EU15, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 3.5 5.5 2.8 2.9 2.5

Cyprus 3.1 0.9 0.5

CzechRepublic 18.7 7.8 22.4 25.1 28.2

Estonia 738.2 742.1 1,687.5 1,858.5 1,524.4

Hungary 0.5 3.2 0.2

Latvia 4.3 7.6

Lituania 77.4 87.5 204.3 789.9 2,192.0

Malta 0.0

Poland 840.1 1,165.4 1,034.2 966.4 965.3

Rumania 0.0 0.2 0.1 5.4

Slovakia 0.5 2.0

Slovenia

Turkey 0.5 1.8 30.3 3.9 2.1

Total 1,682.4 2,010.2 2,984.8 3,652.2 4,730.1

EXPORT to NON-EU15, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.4

Cyprus 5.9 1.0

CzechRepublic 34.1 68.0 50.9 68.1 43.6

Estonia 41.4 27.0 59.7 20.1 121.4

Hungary 4.2 20.5 6.3

Latvia 25.5 33.2 16.2 7.4 5.1

Lituania 311.4 337.4 358.9 453.6 464.8

Malta 67.0 0.1

Poland 18.7 21.7 65.2 72.8 19.4

Rumania 26.4 31.5 18.5 51.6 25.8

Slovakia 3.6 2.3 1.2 0.4


Turkey 6.9 12.2 6.2 27.0 47.5

Total 473.9 534.8 598.3 780.9 729.6

EXPORT, total, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 4.6 6.2 2.8 3.0 2.9

Cyprus 3.1 6.7 1.5

CzechRepublic 52.8 75.8 73.3 93.2 71.8

Estonia 779.7 769.1 1,747.2 1,878.6 1,645.8

Hungary 4.6 23.6 6.5

Latvia 25.5 33.2 16.2 11.7 12.7

Lituania 388.8 480.2 563.1 1,243.5 2,656.8

Malta 1.3 3.1 67.0 0.1

Poland 1,669.0 1,494.8 1,228.6 1,475.6 1,182.8

Rumania 26.4 31.5 18.7 51.6 31.2

Slovakia 4.1 2.3 1.2 2.5


Turkey 17.4 18.1 37.3 30.9 51.4

Total 2,977.8 2,915.2 3,713.1 4,869.6 5,659.6

Continued�

210

.

IMPORT from EU15, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 1.5 82.4 34.3 46.4 1.5

Cyprus 84.7 109.1 55.6 31.7 59.6

CzechRepublic 68.5 99.2 133.1 96.7 109.0

Estonia 284.5 294.8 482.8 393.4 506.3

Hungary 10.6 15.1 22.5 43.1 26.3

Latvia 12.3 5.7 9.2 2.8 0.7

Lituania 47.0 98.0 44.2 120.2 106.9

Malta 43.4 244.0 27.7 37.0 38.1

Poland 121.5 238.0 343.1 289.2 408.1

Rumania 3.5 10.2 10.6 22.1 44.4

Slovakia 0.6 4.9 3.6 7.8 11.1

Slovenia 14.1 15.0 11.7 17.2 4.4

Turkey 321.0 534.4 684.5 1,160.4 1,713.9

Total 1,013.3 1,750.7 1,863.0 2,267.8 3,030.2

IMPORT from NON-EU15, 1000� 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 14.6 28.9 49.8 48.9 37.3

Cyprus 278.6 148.6 219.9 193.4 270.8

CzechRepublic 8.0 39.9 4.3 15.2 5.1

Estonia 38.1 99.6 94.8 15.4 16.6

Hungary 2.7 0.2 6.5 5.5 6.1

Latvia 62.8 36.6 131.0 75.9 133.3

Lituania 30.1 61.2 123.1 219.7 44.3

Malta 48.7 81.9 73.1 95.5 56.4

Poland 869.8 788.5 1,074.1 891.5 724.3

Rumania 36.0 37.9 37.2 34.9 40.9

Slovakia 23.6 29.0 35.3 46.5 70.3

Slovenia 0.0 3.1 10.4 1.2

Turkey 469.2 83.8 267.9 514.7 1,493.3

Total 1,882.4 1,436.1 2,120.1 2,167.4 2,900.1

IMPORT, total, 1000 � 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bulgaria 16.1 111.2 84.1 95.3 38.8

Cyprus 363.4 257.8 275.5 225.0 330.5

CzechRepublic 76.6 139.1 137.4 111.9 114.2

Estonia 322.6 394.4 577.6 408.8 522.9

Hungary 13.3 15.4 29.0 48.6 32.4

Latvia 75.1 42.2 140.2 78.7 134.0

Lituania 77.1 159.2 167.2 339.8 151.2

Malta 92.0 325.8 100.9 132.5 94.5

Poland 991.3 1,026.5 1,417.2 1,180.7 1,132.4

Rumania 39.5 48.1 47.9 57.1 85.4

Slovakia 24.3 33.9 38.8 54.3 81.4

Slovenia 14.1 15.0 14.9 27.5 5.6

Turkey 790.1 618.2 952.4 1,675.1 3,207.1

Total 2,895.6 3,186.7 3,983.1 4,435.2 5,930.3



211

.

Table A5. 30 Intra and extra community trade of made-up fishing nets of man-made materials, average of 2000, 2001 and 2002, 1000 �



CC**

Austria <0.5 <0.5 9 18 55 83 1

Belgium 78 145 2 13 <0.5 244 50 121 9 662 -

Denmark <0.5 2 25 435 177 2,253 2,242 <0.5 23 5,157 1,924

Finland 68 3 13 11 <0.5 95 761

France 32 416 2 80 4 659 1 239 1,621 4,413 27 7,493 -

Germany 2 <0.5 695 2 1 204 301 89 553 13 1,860 27

Greece 2 <0.5 <0.5 2,075 22 10 48 30 2,188 11

Ireland 422 21 217 576 60 577 78 1,950 -

Italy <0.5 <0.5 937 <0.5 63 10 18 665 2 1,696 -

Luxembourg <0.5 1 <0.5 22 1 24 3

Netherlands 3 478 56 23 24 108 1,399 1,083 11 56 3,241 4

Portugal 761 <0.5 2 18 10 734 1 1,526 -

Spain 1 40 191 <0.5 4 8 712 3 4,951 25 5,935 103

Sweden 1,512 94 120 4 14 <0.5 761 2,505 2

United Kingdom 314 537 1 2 634 1,083 247 1,843 1,494 6,154 23

Total EU 15 2 36 4,026 95 2,649 37 153 696 5,687 1 1,845 12,308 11,986 22 1,025 40,569 2,860


4 3,705 178 3 53 151 60 530 8 228 250 59 260 5,489

Other countries 3 6 3,829 262 2,601 1,980 689 1,466 3,805 1,793 6,799 4,383 157 1,537 29,310

Source: COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat), commodity code 56.08.11.


** As registered by the New Member States and Candidate Countries. For some countries export data are missing although import from the countries is registered by the EU 15 countries.


212

.

Table A5. 31 Intra and extra community trade of made-up fishing nets of man-made materials, average of 2000, 2001 and 2002, tonnes


1000 ton-nes/year AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK

EU 15 NMS/CC**

Austria <0.5 <0.5 3 17 20 0

Belgium 8 26 <0.5 2 41 12 24 1 113 -

Denmark <0.5 2 77 16 495 463 <0.5 2 1,055 617

Finland 10 1 <0.5 1 11 111

France 7 55 16 <0.5 85 <0.5 14 374 824 2 1,377 -

Germany 89 <0.5 <0.5 45 29 24 108 1 297 6

Greece <0.5 <0.5 425 2 1 10 6 445 2

Ireland 55 2 40 65 12 118 15 307 -

Italy 128 6 2 3 161 <0.5 300 -

Luxembourg <0.5 4 <0.5 4 0

Netherlands 1 50 10 1 2 15 302 208 2 2 593 1

Portugal 109 1 3 2 141 <0.5 255 -

Spain <0.5 6 26 1 1 129 <0.5 939 1 1,104 15

Sweden 182 7 34 <0.5 2 10 235 0

United Kingdom 69 98 <0.5 56 221 27 414 315 1,200 5

Total EU 15 7 526 7 399 2 25 61 1,083 <0.5 197 2,578 2,388 3 40 7,316 757

New Member States and Candi-date Countries 1 991 34 1 5 20 5 101 1 50 51 5 26 1,290

Other countries <0.5 1 538 24 341 179 56 98 857 176 1,261 936 15 151 4,633

Source: COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat), commodity code 56.08.11.


** As registered by the New Member States and Candidate Countries. For some countries export data are missing although import from the countries is registered by the EU 15 countries.


213

.

Table A5. 32 Import and export of made-up fishing nets EU 15, average of 2000, 2001 and 2002

All figures in 1.000 �/year

Import from:

1000 �/yearExport to:

1000 �/year Import from:

t/yearExport to:

t/year

Bulgaria 10 9 2 2

Cyprus 2 167 0 18

Czech Rep. 112 141 41 27

Estonia 3,044 2,721 892 777

Hungary 2 14 0 2

Latvia 13 280 4 34

Lithuania 178 505 29 84

Malta 210 21

Poland 914 893 312 230

Romania 23 4

Slovakia 0

Slovenia 43 6

Turkey 5 481 129 84

Total NMSCC 4,280 5,489 1,410 1,290

Other:

Norway 1,830 4,454 331 702

USA 342 3,420 17 430

Morocco 21 2,036 13 421

Canada 6 1,904 0 360

Chile 4 1,735 1 346

Faroe Isles 17 1,488 10 241

Seychelles 1,177 145

South Korea 502 1,121 173 93

Secr.Extra 1,032 126

Croatia 874 223

Iceland 905 812 106 136

U.A.Emirates 0 627 0.2

Australia 0 612 0.1

N.det.Extra 4 525 1 87

Argentina 517 153

Ivory Coast 2 511 0 77

Uruguay 12 490 2 91

New Zealand 455 92

Secr.Intra 418 22

Angola 316 57

China 5,186 24 889 2

Thailand 5,097 99 612 10

Japan 3,546 254 144 14

Indonesia 2,750 28 382 2

Other 6,729 4,381 1,308 496

Total non-NMSCC 26,952 29,310 3,990 4,481


* Export and import as registered by EU Member States, commodity code 56.08.11.


214

.

Production and extra-community trade of candles and the like Statistics on production, import and export by old and new Member States and Candidate Countries retrieved from the Europroms database of Eurostat is shown in table A5.33. Data on extra community trade from the COMEXT da-tabase is shown in table A5.34, and table A5.35 shows the import from China by Member State.

Table A5. 33 Production, import and export of candles and the like 2000-2002*



Austria 14.0 32.7 6.3 12.3 37.2 6.0 12.8 37.5 7.2

Belgium - 22.6 30.8 - 21.4 29.6 - 23.0 28.2

Denmark 27.2 24.2 16.0 26.2 28.6 12.7 28.2 34.3 15.8

Finland 16.8 6.0 5.5 18.5 6.1 5.1 16.6 6.9 4.5

France 72.3 26.0 19.1 69.0 29.1 18.6 79.7 25.8 16.3

Germany 262.6 92.7 91.6 261.8 96.2 88.1 281.7 93.1 73.1

Greece - 3.6 0.0 - 2.4 0.1 - - -

Ireland 9.1 5.9 0.2 10.3 6.3 0.2 12.0 8.3 0.4

Italy 53.4 21.8 16.5 79.0 17.7 14.5 78.1 16.7 12.3

Luxembourg 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.0 2.6 0.2 - - -

Netherlands - 23.5 118.6 - 24.1 110.6 - 28.2 78.3

Portugal 24.4 6.4 17.9 26.6 6.2 21.0 26.9 9.3 21.2

Spain 16.8 6.6 2.1 17.0 6.7 3.0 17.8 7.0 3.2

Sweden 30.1 11.6 6.8 35.9 14.3 6.9 32.6 18.6 7.1

UK 80.0 24.2 36.3 104.2 30.7 37.1 78.2 29.9 40.2

EU 15 ** - 289.4 118.3 861.7 263.3 113.1 - 286.4 116.6

Bulgaria - - - - - - - - -

Croatia - - - - - - 1.5 - -


Estonia - - - - - - - - -

Hungary - - - 22. - - 25.1 - -

Latvia - - - - - - - - -

Lituania - - - - - - 1.2 - -

Poland - - - - - - 80.8 - -

Romania 0.4 - - 0.2 - - - - -

Slovakia 5.1 - - 4.5 - - - - -

Slovenia - - - - - - - - -

* PRODCOM commodity code 13.66.37.500.

** Total reported import/export of EU 15 from/to other countries

- No data .


215

.

Table A5. 34 Import and export of candles and the like, EU 15, average of 2000, 2001 and 2002

All figures in 1.000 �/year

Import from:

1000 �/year Export to:

1000 �/year Import from:

tonnes/year Export to: tonnes/year

Bulgaria 5 454 1 160

Cyprus 8 658 3 172

Czech Rep. 5,339 4,155 3,608 2,173

Estonia 2,707 1,448 2,473 632

Hungary 17,547 1,211 10,586 532

Latvia 5,042 1,104 2,263 492

Lithuania 180 370 120 177

Malta 20 444 6 267

Poland 44,731 4,729 29,931 3,139

Romania 741 820 458 395

Slovakia 2,063 209 1,204 82

Slovenia 1,370 674 982 239

Turkey 410 851 311 340

Total NMSCC 80,163 17,128 51,946 8,800

Other:

China 147,834 128 76,949 66

USA 14,756 32,944 2,371 11,175

Israel 8,179 443 5,085 174

Norway 3,627 17,812 2,000 9,117

Sri Lanka 3,460 66 1,147 4

Thailand 2,881 24 593 18

Switzerland 2,697 26,627 1,341 24,827

Hong Kong 2,577 417 832 64

Croatia 1,789 363 1,362 105

India 1,668 28 354 8

Indonesia 1,469 9 706 1

South Africa 1,417 93 467 11

Taiwan 1,313 315 350 51

Philippines 889 36 218 3

Guatemala 799 53 74 11

Canada 796 2,514 182 1,131

Mexico 788 257 172 124

Morocco 521 111 157 38

N.det.Intra 312 84 100 27

Bangladesh 276 4 53 1

Vietnam 258 2 91 0

Macao 220 0 107 0

South Korea 160 363 44 62

Egypt 145 32 68 9

Other 1,003 16,133 400 3,706

Total non-NMSCC 199,831 98,857 95,222 68,332

Source: COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat), Com-modity code 34.06



216

.

Table A5. 35 Import of candles and the like from China, average of 2000, 2001 and 2002

Import

1.000 �/year Import

tonnes/year

Austria 1,510 730

Belgium 4,952 2,682

Denmark 3,133 1,908

Finland 1,580 751

France 12,196 15,484

Germany 32,414 5,425

Greece 5,054 2,914

Ireland 595 321

Italy 18,799 9,476

Luxembourg 146 92

Netherlands 21,379 12,349

Portugal 817 457

Spain 9,756 6,362

Sweden 3,048 1,640

Utd. Kingdom 32,457 16,356

EU 15 147,834 76,949

Source: COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat), Com-modity code 34.06.

advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of

Documents