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
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:
Study team
•
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 question 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.
The following team has contributed to the solving of this assignment: Erik
Hansen (Project Manager), Carsten Lassen and Adam Elbæk-Jørgensen, COWI
A/S.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
4
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
5
Table of Contents
Preface
3
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Executive summary
Lead ammunition
Lead fishing equipment
Lead candle wicks
2
Potential environmental and health impact of the
use of lead in shot and sinkers
Environmental impact
2.1.1 Effects on waterfowl and other birds by direct
ingestion
2.1.2 Secondary poisoning
2.1.3 Effects of dissolved lead on the biota
Health impact
2.1
2.2
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
Ammunition
Application of lead in cartridges
Markets of cartridges
3.2.1 Available information
3.2.2 Lead consumption by shooters and hunters
3.2.3 Lead consumption by ammunitions
manufacturing
3.2.4 Structure of shooting and hunting ammunition
industry in Europe
3.2.5 Ammunition trade patterns in Europe
Legal or voluntary use restrictions on lead ammunition
Rules on hunting and shooting which govern
consumers' access to and demand for lead
ammunition
Available measures to recover used lead ammunition
Availability of substitutes for lead cartridges
3.6.1 Technical issues
3.6.2 Environmental and health issues
Impact of potential marketing and use restrictions on
lead ammunition
3.7.1 Impact on business and users
3.7.2 Impact on the environment and health
3.7.3 Discussion of the need for a community wide
approach
Summary and conclusion
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
7
7
12
17
19
19
19
20
20
24
27
27
28
28
29
33
37
41
43
46
47
50
50
55
59
59
69
75
77
.
6
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Fishing sinkers
Application of lead in fishing sinkers
Markets of fishing sinkers
4.2.1 Angling
4.2.2 Commercial fishing
Legal or voluntary use restrictions on lead fishing
sinkers
4.3.1 Effectiveness of the restrictions
Availability of substitutes for lead fishing equipment
Impact of potential marketing and use restrictions on
lead fishing sinkers
4.5.1 Impact on business and users
4.5.2 Impact on the environment and health
4.5.3 Discussion of the need for a community wide
approach
Summary and conclusion
Candle wicks
Application of lead in candle wicks
Markets of candle wicks
Legal or voluntary use restrictions on lead wicks
Availability of substitutes for lead wicks
Impact of potential marketing and use restrictions on
lead wicks
Summary and conclusion
84
84
86
86
97
103
104
106
109
109
114
118
119
123
123
123
128
129
129
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
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 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 ammunition to the individual countries.
Based on this approach the total consumption of lead about 2003 as ammunition 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 tonnes 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 estimated for Hungary, Lithuania and Poland as representatives of the new Member States.
Apart from the countries in which restrictions have been introduced, the consumption of lead as ammunition as well as for manufacturing of ammunition
should be taken as reasonable stable.
Existing restrictions
and rules
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 specified shooting ranges. However, a ban on lead shot for several shooting disciplines 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
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
8
restrictions have been introduced neither for hunting nor sports shooting. However, in Sweden a ban on lead for this purpose will take effect from 2008.
Options of substitution
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 being 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 consequences 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. Experiences from other countries have not been available.
Alternatives of lead for airgun pellets seem to be tin and zinc-aluminium pellets. 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 drawback 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 pellets. Non-lead ammunition claimed to be appropriate is being marketed. Development 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.
Recovering of lead
from shooting ranges
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
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
9
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 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 depends 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 collection 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.
Environmental impacts of lead compared to substitutes
The potential environmental and health impact of lead compared to the substitutes 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 comprehensive 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.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 related 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 improvement 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.
Business impacts of
restrictions on ammunition.
The impact of potential restrictions to business and users are assessed as follows:
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 hunting. 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. However, 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 estimated 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 ammunition was to be completely banned for all shooting. For shotgun ammunition is assumed that lead is substituted by a mix of steel, tin, bismuth and tungsten 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 consumption of shot gun cartridges. The same picture applies to a competitive pistol, 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 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 weapons. Assum-
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 estimated 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 possible 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. However, as the companies in question to the best of knowledge are relatively small,
the transition costs should be expected to be limited.
The need for a community wide approach
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 primary environmental problem in this context seems to be the issue of soil contamination, and it is unclear whether the substitutes available in all cases represent an improvement in the soil environment compared to lead. Soil contamination 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 restrictions, 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 drawback for European shooters compared to their competitors outside the EU.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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
Total costs per tonne
lead substituted (€/t) 1)
Total costs in EU-15
(mill.€/year) 1)
Reduced load to the
environment in EU-15
(tonnes lead/year)
Lead shot for
hunting in wetlands 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
12,200 - 20,600
12,200 - 20,600
1,200 - 10,300
10,100 - 19,700
1,850 - 18,500
10,500 - 19,900
44 - 74
176 - 296
0.18 - 1.5
180 - 350
5 - 50
405 - 770
3,400 - 3,600
13,700 - 14,400
140 - 150
? - 17,800
3)
? - 2700
3)
17,240 - 38,600
3)
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 wetlands 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 remains 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.
Cost and consequences of selected
measures
The cost and consequences in terms of reduced contribution of lead to the environment 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 minor 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-
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 consumption 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 countries for which no data is available. As manufacturing of lead sinkers is relatively 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.
Existing restrictions
and rules
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 below 28.35 in fresh waters.
In Sweden voluntary restrictions on lead fishing sinkers exist in some rivers.
Options of substitution
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 special equipment also tin, tungsten composites and bismuth are utilised. The development 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 necessarily 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 alternative material used. Bismuth and tungsten substitutes are typical high end substitutes, while zinc and iron are the cheap alternatives. For several types of
sinkers the products formerly produced in Denmark from lead is now manufactured in China based on zinc or iron. This outsourcing has effectively reduced
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 equalling or slightly exceeding the price level of lead equipment.
Environmental impacts of lead compared to substitutes
The potential environmental and health impact of lead compared to the substitutes 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 waterfowl 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 ammunition.
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 environment 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 sediments. 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 manufactured 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 content 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
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 assessment 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 research is initiated that can eliminate the current lack of data.
Business impacts of
restrictions on lead
sinkers.
The impact of potential restrictions to business and users are assessed as follows:
Sinkers and other lead equipment for angling and commercial fishing are manufacturers 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 homecasting. 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 materials 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 handling 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 sinkers 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.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
16
Restriction options
and the need for a
community wide approach
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 particularly 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 migratory 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 alternatives suffers from one or more drawbacks inclusive of lack of data. Furthermore, 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 significant home casting takes place, and these activities may increase as a consequence 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 restriction 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 welldocumented apart from that a restriction will reduce the amount of lead emitted
to marine waters covered by international sea conventions as the OSPAR Convention.
The commitment of the EU related to sea conventions as the OSPAR Convention 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 contribute 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
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 waters
Total phase-out of lead
sinkers for angling
Phase-out of lead sinkers
for commercial fishing
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
Total costs to anglers/the fisheries in the
EU15 (million €/year) 1)
18-110
23-198
0.57-11.6
Reduced lead load to the environment in
the EU15 (t lead/year)
850-2,520
1,700-5,040
95-1,740
Total costs to anglers/the fisheries per
tonne lead substituted (€/t) 1)
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 Candle Makers (AECM) are known to be engaged in production or use of lead candle 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 estimated 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.
Existing restrictions
and rules
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 candles in the UK has existed since the 1970's.
Options of substitution
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
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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.
Environmental and
health impacts of
lead and substitutes
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 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 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. Regarding environmental and health impacts of substitutes no reports are available indicating concerns related to any of the substitutes in question.
Business impacts of
restrictions on lead.
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 restriction. 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 restriction should - in principle - eliminate this risk completely.
Relevance of a
community wide approach
To the best of knowledge a community wide approach may benefit all stakeholders in all Member States of the EU apart from those companies importing
and selling candles with lead wicks on the European market.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 International (LDAI). In a comprehensive risk assessment the actual and projected 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:
•
•
•
Waterbirds
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
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 instances of die-offs have been recorded in the United States and Canada. Although 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 AfricanEurasian 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.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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].
Terrestrial birds
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 ecological risk assessment was performed by [Kendall et al. 1996]. The risk assessment 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 sufficiently wide variety of birds to consider all birds as being susceptible to intoxication 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 consequently carry lead shot pellets embedded in their bodies, or consumes the gizzard of a bird that has ingested lead shot. Research done in various countries
over the past 5–10 years has demonstrated that secondary poisoning, particularly 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 example, secondary lead poisoning accounts for 10-15% of the recorded postfledging 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 (Accipiter 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 mortality 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 factors. Of particular concern is clay target shooting ranges in which significant
quantities of lead is deposited.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
21
Fate of lead shot and
sinkers in soil
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 pellets. 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 result in local lead concentrations in soils and water far in excess of normal concentrations, which can form a risk factor for all trophic levels: lead transferred
to soil and sediment invertebrates and terrestrial and aquatic plants will ultimately 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 northern 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 usually 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 relates to ammunition (reference is made to section 3.7.2).
Effects in the terrestric environment
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 uncontaminated and contaminated soils. At higher soil lead levels, however, plant uptake
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
22
has been found to decline with increasing soil lead concentrations and a curvilinear 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 concentrations [WHO 1989].
Ingestion of lead-contaminated bacteria and fungi by nematodes leads to impaired reproduction. Caterpillars that are maintained on a diet containing lead
salts show symptoms of toxicity leading to impaired development and reproduction. The information available is too meagre to quantify the risks to invertebrates 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 [ScottFordsmand et al 1995].
Fate of lead shot and
sinkers in the aquatic
environments
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 atmospheric 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 dependent on the chemistry of the water and mechanical disturbances. Highest corrosion rates are expected in rivers with acidic water and high velocity whereas
low rates are expected in sedimentation areas in the marine environment. Relatively 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 & Bystöm 1995]. The study does not demonstrate to what extent the sinkers contribute 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 significantly 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
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
23
be available for the biota or be released to surface waters or ground water resources.
Effects of lead in the
aquatic environment
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 contamination. 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 soluble species of inorganic lead has been determined for several species under different conditions and results ranging from 0.04 mg/litre to 0.198 mg/litre. Organic compounds are more toxic to fish than inorganic lead salts. There is evidence 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 systems; 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 accumulated 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 contamination. 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 caudal 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 compounds are more toxic to fish than inorganic lead salts.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
24
There is evidence 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 flowthrough systems; 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.
2.2
Health impact
Human health issues related to the use lead in shot and sinkers can be divided
into two aspects:
•
•
Effect of lead
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 enzymes to the production of marked morphological changes and death. Such
changes occur over a broad range of doses. For neurological, metabolic and behavioral reasons, children are more vulnerable to the effects of lead than adults.
Signs of serious lead intoxication include paralysis of the hands, anaemia, wasting 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 central 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 children 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 humans. Consumption of game killed with lead shot can result in lead exposure
and intoxication. This can happen either through ingestion of tissues from leadexposed 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.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 concentrations 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 increased 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 [Scheuhammer 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, vegetables 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. Biomagnification seems limited to phytoplancton or to filtering organisms such as mussels or
oysters. In aquatic organisms, more lead is found in benthic organisms and algae than in upper trophic level predators.
Concern about the potential environmental and health effects of a general increase 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.
Lead intake from soil
and dust
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-
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
26
sure pathway and this exposure has been one of the main concerns as to the exposure 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.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
27
Application
3
Ammunition
3.1
Application of lead in cartridges
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 bullets, for which military purposes, however, also is an important application.
Pellets are used primarily for amusement and competition, but in a few countries 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).
Consumption of lead
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 illustrated in Figure 3.1. Lead is formed into spherical lead shot to be used as ammunition, 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 ammunition 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 20002003).
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
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
28
Lead consumption (t/year)
Figure 3.1
Consumption of lead for production of shot and ammunition in France,
Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. 1993-2001
70000
UK
60000
Spain
Italy
50000
Germany
40000
France
30000
20000
10000
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
3.2
No detailed records
available
Markets of cartridges
3.2.1 Available information
The statistical data available for the EU regarding production, export and import of ammunition by Member States is presented in Annex 3 (table A3.1A3.17). 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 information, 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 ammunition 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 cartridges produced by the individual members of the Association as this information is considered confidential. As the Association among its members includes
the dominant part of European manufacturers of ammunition - the list of members 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-
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 countries.
Aggregate consumption
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 ammunition 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)
Lead content, shotgun cartridges
According to AFEMS hunters and shooters consume an equal amount of shotgun cartridges annually. Some 6% of the total consumption is based on substitute metals (nonlead 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 international competitions must not exceed 24 grams. A survey of European manufacturers 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 sometimes 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 compared 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].
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
30
Lead content, rim
fire cartridges
Rim fire cartridges are, according to [AFEMS 2004a], only used for sporting
purposes and mainly cover ammunition for calibre .22 (5.6 mm) guns. According 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.
Lead content, centre
fire cartridges
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 cartridge in this category is 7 grams (125-185 grains) and is based on weight distributions of 6.5 mm, 7.65 mm and WIN 308 rifle cartridges. A similar estimate
is made for centre fire cartridges used for hunting.
Lead content, pistol/revolver cartridges
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 average 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)
Shotgun (shooting)
Lead content, air gun
pellets
Lead content (grams) per cartridge
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]
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 shooting. The estimates are summarised in table 3.3 above.
Number of users
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 selected 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
1,450,000
326,000
Germany
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
100,000
1,000,000
70,000
320,000
550,000
625,000
2,602,500
6,210,700
Hungary
2,000
50,000
Lithuania
10,000
27,000
Poland
20,000
107,000
Spain
Sweden
UK
EU15 total
Estimated consumption of lead
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
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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
Total 4)
Air gun
shooting
Pistol shooting
Centre fire
hunting
Centre fire
shooting
Rim fire
shooting
Shotgun
hunting
Shotgun
shooting
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
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
256
2,885
18
4
23
19
18
3,200
26
7
2
0
0
2
2
50
211
0
15
3
1
16
15
250
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
3,517
1,560
254
49
15
264
254
5,900
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
128
334
9
2
3
10
9
500
Germany
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands 1)
Portugal
UK 2)
EU15 total
Poland 3)
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 ammunition for hunting (wetlands areas, national reserves or other especially dedicated areas). Information 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 correct 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-
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 indicate 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].
Model calculations
3.2.3 Lead consumption by ammunitions manufacturing
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 figures 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
Weight distribution,
lead component to
overall cartridge 1)
AFEMS nomenclature
Corresponding nomenclature of COMEXT
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]
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
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 outlines 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 packaging.
Table 3.7
Estimated relative weight of lead content in items covered by the relevant COMEXT classifications
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%
EU nomenclature
1)
Adjustments for
hunting shotgun
ammunition
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 shotguns 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 relative share can be applied to the import/export figures (the part, which specifically 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.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
35
Use of lead for ammunitions manufacturing
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 breakdowns 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 selected new Member States, average for 2000-2003, breakdown by
COMEXT nomenclature, all figures in tonnes lead per year
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
10,440
616
776
11,900
Greece
712
9
-7
750
Ireland
195
8
4
200 2)
13,098
1,097
-24
14,150
Luxembourg
24
-2
-9
0 2)
Netherlands
211
-18
6
200 2)
Country
Germany
Italy
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
Portugal
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 figures in reality represents calculation "noise" and statistical "errors" more than actual manufacturing.
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.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
36
Calculations like this are naturally subject to calculation "noise" caused by
partly incorrect assumptions and statistical "errors" caused by incorrect reporting 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 production 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 selected new Member States, average for 2000-2003, breakdown by totals
for all COMEXT classifications, all figures in tonnes lead per year
Total consumption
1)
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
12,500
1,223
1,849
11,900
Greece
1,000
54
316
750
Ireland
450
0
248
200 2)
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
Country
Germany
Italy
Sweden
1,400
401
106
1,700
UK
5,900
1,897
1,305
6,500
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
Total EU15
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 figures in reality represents calculation "noise" and statistical errors more than actual manufacturing.
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:
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
37
!
The total consumption of lead for manufacturing of ammunition for shooting and hunting in EU15 comes up to about 50,000 tonnes of lead yearly.
!
Shotgun ammunition is the dominant type of shooting and hunting ammunition manufactured and consumed in EU15 (follows from table 3.5 combined 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 seemingly a dominant country of manufacturing with respect to centre fire ammunition. However, according to AFEMS there is no production in Spain of
centre fire ammunition [Grodzki 2004], and the observation must be assumed 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
Overview of the
European manufacturing industry
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 manufacturing 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 cartridges);
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 ammunition components and assembling of the final cartridges). The overall picture is, however, rather complex (see table 3.10 below).
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Lead - Anvantages and Drawbacks Draft Final Report-2rev.doc
.
38
Name of manufacturer
Coun
try
Components
propellant
pri
mer
bullets
wad
case
lead
shot
steel
shot
Bullets ammunition
loaders
AFEMS member list by activities
Shotgun Ammunition loaders
Table 3.10
Machinery
Distributors
Clay
targets
zinc
shot
Company
turn-over
4)
Number of
Employees
4)
mill. EUR
Browning International
BEL
X
53
Indusys Technologies
BEL
X
?
?
New Lachaussée
BEL
X
?
68
P. B. Clermont
BEL
16
123
G&L Calibers
CYP
22
22
Explosia
CZE
?
?
Sellier&Bellot
CZE
Nammo Lapua
FIN
Nastakiekko
FIN
Eurenco Vihtavuori
FIN
Cheddite France 2)
FRA
Decathlon
FRA
Laporte Ball Trap
FRA
ETS Colombi Sarl
FRA
MR Equipment
FRA
Nobelsport S. A. 2)
FRA
X
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
35
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
3)
3)
60
3)
1420 3)
23
250
?
?
?
?
36
200
?
?
?
?
?
14
?
?
?
190
.
Coun
try
Components
propellant
RUAG Ammotec 1)
DEU
FROHN
DEU
GRILLO
DEU
Metallwerk Elisenhütte
DEU
Metplast
GRE
Sotirios Nafpliotis ABEE
GRE
Nike-Fiocchi Sporting ammunition
HUN
Baschieri & Pellagri
ITA
BSN International
ITA
Cheddite S.r.I. 2)
ITA
Eurotarget
ITA
Fiocchi Munizioni
ITA
Locatelli
ITA
Nobelsport Martignoni 2)
ITA
STAS
ITA
Team Italia
ITA
Norma AS
NOR
Fabicaca LDA
POR
Corsivia
SPA
pri
mer
bullets
X
x
wad
case
Shotgun Ammunition loaders
Name of manufacturer
lead
shot
steel
shot
Bullets ammunition
loaders
39
Machinery
Distributors
Clay
targets
zinc
shot
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
?
?
40
?
>1000 3)
16
101-250
11
60
x
?
?
x
X
x
6
86
X
X
X
15
86
?
?
18
25
?
?
56
430
5
5
25
151
?
?
?
?
6
12
?
?
1.5
10
X
x
X
x
X
x
x
X
X
X
?
x
X
X
Number of
Employees
4)
mill. EUR
X
x
Company
turn-over
4)
x
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
x
X
.
Coun
try
Components
propellant
Montorretas
SPA
Nobel Sport Espana 2)
SPA
UEE Cartucheria Deportiva
SPA
Gyttorp
SWE
Eurenco Bofors
SWE
Norma Precision AB
SWE
RUAG Ammotec 1)
SWI
CCI International
UK
ELEY Limited
UK
Lyalvale Express
UK
Total number EU15
pri
mer
bullets
wad
case
Shotgun Ammunition loaders
Name of manufacturer
lead
shot
steel
shot
Bullets ammunition
loaders
40
Machinery
Distributors
Clay
targets
zinc
shot
Company
turn-over
4)
mill. EUR
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
11-20
?
?
?
?
22
X
x
7
17
140
X
X
8 3)
300 3)
3-7
21-50
7-15
101-250
5-15
21-50
X
5
190 3)
X
X
x
8
10
3)
X
X
7
6
1
X
x
Number of
Employees
4)
X
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
AFEMS representation
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 cartridge 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, %
Comp: Propellant
95
Comp: Primer
100
Comp: Wad
60
Comp: Lead shot
90
Comp: Steel shot
50
Comp: Zink/bismuth
shot
50
Loaders bullets
100
Loaders shotgun
70
Machinery
75
Specific characteristics to the industry sector outside AFEMS
Typically small family-owned businesses (e.g. Gualandi Italy)
The brands that are known to end users (sport shooters and hunters) are typically 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 everywhere, 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.
Cartridges
3.2.5 Ammunition trade patterns in Europe
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).
.
42
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 seemingly 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 statistical 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
26
290
54
43
16
20
1,406
1,339
85
126
107
112
14
470
6
83
10
60
Finland
2
419
125
28
90
57
France
1,059
1,374
6
311
10
171
613
1,129
223
440
387
280
Greece
54
303
0
2
0
10
Ireland
0
247
0
0
0
1
10,835
897
1,122
66
17
59
Luxembourg
1
11
0
4
0
11
Netherlands
4
20
0
38
0
9
108
932
0
14
0
6
4,703
606
2,350 1)
158
0
48
401
106
0
0
0
0
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
1,610
1,172
29
39
258
94
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
10
84
0
35
0
17
Total EU15
Poland
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 reference is made to table A3.12-A3.17 in Annex 3.
Ammunition components
AFEMS has informed that there is a widespread trade across borders of ammunitions components, although no detailed data in this issue has been provided.
This is apparent when browsing websites of manufacturers (cartridge loaders).
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
3.3
43
Legal or voluntary use restrictions on lead
ammunition
International agreements
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].
Use restrictions in
old and new Member
States
Information on legal use restrictions on lead shot and other ammunition 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 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 answering, questionnaires were further addressed to the ministry responsible for environmental 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 associations 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 regulation is still not in force. Use of lead shot in forests and other terrestrial environments 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.
Use restriction on
lead-shot for shooting
Only Denmark and Sweden have a general restriction on the use of lead shot
for clay target shooting.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table 3.13
Country
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)
Type of instrument
Wetlands or
waterfowl
hunting
Hunting in
forests
Other hunting
no
no
no
- 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)
Austria
44
Belgium
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 JagdshutzVerband e.V. and Bundesministerium für
Verbrauchershutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft from
1993
Greece
no
no
no
Hungary
yes (2002)
no
no
Ireland
no
no
no
Italy
no
no
no
Latvia
partly (in nature reserves)
no
no
Lithuania
no
no
no
Luxembourg
no
no
no
Malta
no
no
no
Netherlands
yes (1995)
yes (1995)
yes (1995)
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
yes (1998)
yes (2006)
yes (2006)
SFS 1998:944
Parliament Resolution 55/2002 and Law XXXIII of 2003
Regulations of the Cabinet of the Ministers No 415 of July
22, 2003
Flora and Fauna Act
Spain
Sweden
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Country
Legal or voluntary use restrictions (year of entry into
force)
Wetlands or
waterfowl
hunting
Hunting in
forests
Other hunting
partly
partly
partly
Romania
no
no
no
Turkey
no
no
no
UK
45
Type of instrument
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
* "no info" indicated in questionnaire response
1) According to Mr. Lecocq [Lecocq 2004] use of lead shot is restricted in the Flemish region of Belgium 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 competition in 'jaktstigskytte' (a Swedish training exercise simulating hunting with targets 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 Environment of 4 April 2000 on special requirements concerning construction and
use of riffle-ranges in regard to protection of the environment). The questionnaire 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.
Use restriction on
lead in rifle cartridges
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 environmental and health perspective. In Greece the use of rifles for hunting is according to Hellenic Hunters Confederation not allowed (questionnaire response). In Cyprus hunting may be carried out only with shotguns (questionnaire response).
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
3.4
Rules of hunting
46
Rules on hunting and shooting which govern
consumers' access to and demand for lead
ammunition
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 established 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 subregional 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 (local and national levels) to compete under the same rules that are applied for upper-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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 ammunition 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 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 (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 focused 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.
Containment measures - ranges for bullet shooting
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 available free of stones, rocks, debris and other items, that could cause ricochet and
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 removed 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 hazardous 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 deceleration chamber and finally into a collection tray/box. Several different designs 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.
Containment measures - ranges for clay
pigeon shooting
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 unpredictable movements of clay pigeons [Winther 2004].
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Recovery measures
49
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 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.
Experience of the US
Army
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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
50
It is noted by [Streitberger 2004] that contaminated soil from existing shooting
ranges may be used for constructing earthen berms when renovating and improving 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 published.
3.6
Availability of substitutes for lead cartridges
Several substitutes for lead are available based e.g. on the materials steel, bismuth, tungsten, tin, copper and zinc/aluminium. Basic characteristics of these
substitutes compared to lead are presented below.
Substitutes for lead
shot for hunting
3.6.1 Technical issues
The substitutes generally available for lead shot for hunting includes steel, bismuth/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 regarding 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/cm
3
Hardness
HV (Vickers) 2)
Price of shot relative
to lead shot 1)
Lead
11.3
20
100%
Iron/Steel
7.9
100
120%
9.6 - 9.8
20
300-500%
~10 - 12.5
~8
300-1000%
7.3
15
150-250%
Bismuth
Tungsten alloy/polymer 3)
Tin
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. Furthermore 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.
.
51
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 established 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 potential substitutes
Chemical
formula
Weight
Price
g/cm3
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
Different ballistic
properties
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 molybdenum 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 reserves).
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 pellet 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-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
52
creasing the efficiency of the shot. According to the Danish Hunters Association [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 anticipated 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 depend strongly on local habits and in reality differ between the European countries. 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. Furthermore, it is beyond the scope of this project to assess the potential organisational 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 consequences 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 confirmed 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 experts 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 lifetime of 3,000 to 10,000 rounds. This assessment is based on investigations discovering micro-cracks inside the barrel surface - micro-cracks that in the long
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
53
term could lead to serious damage. It is assumed that the increased wear of barrels 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].
Impact on wood industry
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 Denmark, 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 furniture 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 alternatives 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 giving 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 problem, 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 bismuth 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 varying the alloy composition. Tungsten/polymer shot is based on the polymer nylon 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 alternative can be described as the perfect substitute recognising that all alternatives in their characteristics represent some kind of trade-off compared to lead
shot.
Substitutes for lead
shot for shooting of
clay pigeons
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 dominant 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 assuming that all competitors are using steel shot . Furthermore, there are no
problems related to the use of steel shot in modern guns. Focusing on weaknesses of steel shot compared to lead shot the following issues could be noted:
Substitutes for airgun
lead pellets
•
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 Federation has decided to warn its members of this problem.
•
Cartridges should generally be stored at a temperature of 10-25 ûC. Cartridges 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 zincaluminium alloys and tin based pellets. Tin based pellets are claimed to be as
accurate as lead pellets [Airgun 2004; Airgunpellets 2004] and possess softness
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 pellet 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].
Substitutes for lead
bullets
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 cartridge and very few final cartridge alternatives to lead bullets are actually marketed. 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].
Substitutes for military and hunting
ammunition
Inter alia motivated by the costs of cleaning up shooting ranges for lead pollution, considerable efforts have been invested in developing lead free ammunition for military purposes. It may e.g. be noted that a Nordic ammunition company today is supplying Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish defence forces with
non-lead ammunition. The company has furthermore recently established a licensing 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 depending 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:
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
•
•
•
56
Toxicity to birds when ingested;
Toxicity of shot in the tissue of wounded animals;
General environmental toxicity of the substances.
Toxicity to birds
when ingested
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, tungstenpolymer shot, tungsten-matrix shot (in reality also tungsten-polymer), and tungsten-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 accordance 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 nontoxic shot in the USA or Canada
Toxicity of shot in
the tissue of
wounded animals
For many species of waterfowl sampled in many locations it is common for 2030% 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 influence the health of the wounded animal.
The potential effects on wounded animals of embedded shot pellets of alternative materials have still not been investigated in detail.
General environmental toxicity of
alternatives
Comparison of the general environmental toxicity of substances implies a review 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 quality 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]).
Soil quality criteria
and target values
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 environmental 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 ecotoxicological data underlying the Danish criterion is rather scarce and a reevaluation 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 Pedersen 1995]). Inorganic tin is considered low-toxic to humans, for which reason
WHO has decided not to recommend a specific guideline value for drinkingwater [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 nontoxic 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-
.
58
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
muth nor tungsten should be of concern with respect to the water environment.
However, this assumption has actually not been documented and no water quality 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 developments effects as well as possible neurological effects has caused tungsten and
several tungsten compounds to be nominated to the US Toxic Substances Control 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
Other environmental
aspects
Danish ecotoxicological soil and water quality criteria and soil target
values from the Netherlands
Soil quality criteria
Target values
Netherlands
Denmark
3)
mg/kg dry weight
mg/kg dry weight
Water quality criteria
µg/l
4)
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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Summary
59
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 toxicity 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 regarded as an improvement 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. 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
Fundamentals of cartridge manufacturing
3.7.1 Impact on business and users
A shotgun or bullet cartridge is made from five main components:
•
•
•
•
•
Consequences for
manufacturing process
Impact of potential marketing and use restrictions
on lead ammunition
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 bismuth, 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).
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
60
Table 3.17 Consequences for processes in ammunitions manufacturing
[AFEMS 2004a]
Type of manufacturer
Description
Comp: Propellant
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 produce 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 unchanged. Hence, incremental costs relate only to research and development
Comp: Wad
The wad is uniquely designed for each single product type (different calibres, different 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 unchanged. Incremental costs relate to research and development and to new injection 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 consequences 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 machines 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 actually 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 manufacturing 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
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
General costs for the industry in case the use of lead in ammunition is completely 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 alternative metals. The companies in question are typically specialised in lead processing, and therefore would have no basis for entering new markets (e.g. production 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 assembling 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 ammunitions 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.
Costs for research
and development
Estimated costs for research and development in accordance with the needs indicated in table 3.17 above have been outlined in table 3.18 below.
Table 3.18
Estimated costs for research and development [AFEMS 2004a]
Unit costs in €
Applies to
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 (integrated cartridge design)
10,000 per cartridge
type
10,000 articles 2)
142,900,000 €
150
10,000 articles 2)
2,100,000 €
Item
New packaging
Total R&D (rounded)
Total 1)
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].
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
62
Costs for machinery
adaptation
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.
Costs of a complete
or partial industry
conversion
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 ammunition 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 ammunitions 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]
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 designed 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 reasons 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 €
Item
Total machinery adaptation (rounded)
Note 1
120,000,000 €
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 ammunition 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 ammunition. To the extent manufacturing activity is taken over by other European
companies, the economic impact is minimized, but social costs related to the
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 transition costs depend heavily on the conditions in the region in which the company 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 ammunition costs or a status quo. The possibility of an increase following the
status of being a more environmentally friendly sport may not be excluded, 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 customers outside the EU still requesting lead ammunition.
Consequences for
hunters and shooters
The end users - sports shooters and hunters - will eventually pay for any increased 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 production 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.
Incremental costs for
hunters
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 information 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 assumption 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 regarded as the authors' 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).
On average it is assessed that the prices of cartridges based on alternative metals 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-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 imply 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 alternative 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 average 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 hunters would be approximately 220 - 370 mill.€ annually.
Other consequences
for shooters
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 parallel to hunters [ISSF 2004a]:
•
Alternatives to lead, most notably steel, imply higher safety risks at shooting ranges due to ricocheting pellets; a ban on the use of lead based shotgun ammunition could require reengineering of many existing shooting
ranges;
•
A ban on the use of lead based ammunition for sporting purposes will imply that European shooters must compete on unfair terms when participating 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 cartridges (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 substitute 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 (wetlands for example) or where modification has not been deemed feasible, facilities have been shut down.
Incremental costs for
sports shooters
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 corresponding 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% tungsten alloy, 7% bismuth and 7% tin. This basket should be regarded as the authors' 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
.
66
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 assess 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 cartridges 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
AUSTRIA
60,000
BELGIUM
25,000
Overlapping (shooters also
listed as hunters)
DANEMARK
FINLAND
40,000
40,000
FRANCE
150,000
100,000
1,450,000
50,000
GERMANY
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
SLOVENIA
2,700
SPAIN
SWEDEN
6,000
100,000
50,000
70,000
40,000
SWITZERLAND
552,000
UNITED KINGDOM
550,000
300,000
3,133,700
636,000
Total
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 European 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
67
With a retail price of lead shot cartridges of 0.13 - 0.27 €/piece, bullet cartridges 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 ammunition 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 ammunition. 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 weapons 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 competitive 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 corresponding to an annual incremental cost of 30 -50€ as average for all sport
shooters.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 process 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.
Manufacturing costs
versus hunters and
shooters costs
In principle as described earlier the ammunition users would cover the industry's increased manufacturing costs. More specifically this would include costs
for industry conversion (development of new products and machinery adaptation) and the incremental costs of manufacturing a substitute metal shot
(changed prices for the raw material and for the detailed pellet/shot manufacturing process). It is assessed that all subsequent steps in the manufacturing process (manufacturing and handling of other ammunitions components as well as
loading, packaging etc) would be similar to a regular lead ammunition production 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 cartridge 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% bismuth 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 particular individual cost component, however. And finally, would come the onetime conversion cost for the industry, which could amount to additional 1020% 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 ammunition estimated above (which is mainly driven by price developments for shotgun 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 substitute metals, thereby over time probably lowering average prices somewhat below the 190% mark.
Timing
In case an EU-wide regulation on the use of lead ammunition is introduced sufficient 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 nonlead cartridges already exist on the market (of which some are imported from
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 EUarea.
Also users will need time to adapt properly to new types of ammunition, in particular 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 releases 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 compared 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 perspective only substitution of lead by iron (steel) can be considered advantageous.
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.
Use of lead shot for
hunting in wetlands
The effects of lead shot on waterfowl are well-documented and generally recognised.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 generally are limited to 1-2 years after the shot has been discharged [Brønnum &
Hansen 1998]. However, investigations in the UK indicate that waterfowl poisoned by lead can be found many years after the use of lead shot has been prohibited [Perrins et al 2003]. The cause is not known for sure, but several explanations 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 allowed 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 assumed 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 converted 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.
Use of lead shot for
other hunting activities
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 constitute 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 increase 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
71
Based on an assessment of the loss of lead shot in the environment and the corrosion 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 concentration 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 concludes 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 collected 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 contamination 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 concentration to some extent reflect differences in mobility (and thus bioavailability) 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 estimated 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 between regions in the individual countries.
So far no documented environmental or health impacts related to a general increase 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 observed (reference is made to table 3.16) and could eventually cause these levels
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 environment of hazardous substances like lead should be avoided to the extent possible.
Of the 18,000 tonnes lead used annually in the EU for shotgun hunting, approximately 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 dependence 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.
Use of lead rifle bullets for hunting
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 projectile 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 projectiles by birds are in general not considered a significant problem.
The same considerations regarding a general increase of lead in the environment 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.
Use of lead shot for
shooting
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 surroundings is a very slow process.
A comprehensive survey of the present situation of soil contamination of shooting 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 "considers 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 developed 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 Secretary General of IFFS and the President of ESC express "that we will do everything possible to only permit competitions on shooting ranges which guarantee 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 comprehensive 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 recycling, though a minor part used in households may be released to the environment.
A significant part of this is assumed to be recovered for recycling, but as mentioned above no actual data on recovery rates has been obtained.
Lead rifle and pistol
shooting
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 created 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
74
The estimated impacts of different use restrictions on the release of lead to the
environment is summarised in table 3.21.
Cross-national perspectives within the
EU
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 crossnational 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 belonging to the environment 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 relevant for upland birds as well. The issue may thus justify a coordinated effort within the EU related to the use of lead shot in wetlands and to a limited extent also to the use of lead shot for hunting in general.
!
The issue of soil contamination which fundamentally is a local and thus national issue apart from contamination taking place in border zones. The issue 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table 3.21
Reduced lead consumption and release to the environment by restricting the use of lead in EU15
Application for which lead is restricted
Reduced lead consumption
Reduced release of lead to the
environment
Tonnes/year
Tonnes/year
Lead shot for hunting in wetlands
3,600 1)
3,400-3,600
Lead shot for other hunting activities
14,400 1)
13,700-14,400
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)
Rifle bullets for hunting
Alternatives to lead
75
1)
The precise amount used in wetlands is not known. The figures should be regarded as a first estimate and are mutually interdependent. The total is estimated at 18,000 t.
2)
Released on shooting ranges, no data on recovery rates available
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 managed 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 marketing 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 meaning that in reality a common market for hunting and sports shooting ammunition exist in EU. It is obvious that any restriction introduced in a member
state will have some effect on companies in other member states considering the extensive trade across EU (reference is made to section3.2.5). As-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
76
suming that appropriate time will be allowed for companies to adapt to restrictions, 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 conditions 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 ammunition 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 operation of shooting ranges, as some Member States naturally may feel a
need to be more restrictive on lead than other Member States.
Discussion of restriction options available
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 regarding 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 complicated, 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, furthermore, not be allowed in forest areas where the wood is utilised for industrial production. However, the data available on soil toxicity for other substitutes 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 discussion above for lead shot for other hunting activities apart from that substitutes for lead riffle bullets are less developed and tested than substitutes for lead
shot.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 supported by the fact that the potential benefits related to substitution of lead ammunition 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 allowing 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 substitution of lead ammunition. In case substitution turns out to be more costeffective 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 community 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
Existing market
overview
The European (EU15 area) market for sporting and hunting ammunition can be
characterised by the following key figures:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Existing regulation
overview
Summary and conclusion
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 manufacturing 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 welldeveloped common internal market; this is even more evident for the separate 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 400500 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:
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
•
•
•
•
•
Impact on industry,
direct costs
78
Full bans on the use of lead shotgun ammunition are applied in the Netherlands 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 Denmark and Netherlands; selected shooting ranges are exempted for international 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 almost 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 Sweden).
Direct costs cover required investments for conversion of lead based ammunitions 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 development) and cost for adaptation of existing machinery, thus allowing the machinery 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 conversion 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 materials. An exemplary calculation indicates that retail prices of an average hunting
shotgun cartridge may increase by 25-50% due to higher expenses for raw materials alone. To this will be added additional costs for more costly manufacturing 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).
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Impact on industry,
indirect costs
79
Indirect costs cover consequences for the manufacturers regarding competitiveness 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 particular 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 Spanish) have been identified as specialist suppliers of lead shots/pellets, implying
that these five are not engaged in manufacturing of other ammunition components 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 companies. 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 employees and the turnover of these companies are not known.
Other lead shot manufacturers will probably to a varying extent be able to diversify 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 transitional period until production lines have been fully converted as described
above.
Social costs of transition
To the extent manufacturing activity is taken over by other European companies, 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 depend 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 limited.
Impact on hunters
The end users - sports shooters and hunters - will eventually pay for any increased 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 hunting. 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 problem does not exist. These other alternatives are however significantly more expensive 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 order 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 having 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 areas 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 tungstenpolymer.
Alternatives for other types of hunting ammunition like in particular bullets are
not as developed as alternatives for lead shotgun cartridges. Non-lead ammunition claimed to be appropriate is being marketed. Development efforts addressing non-lead bullet ammunition seem, however primarily to be related to military ammunition.
Impact on sports
shooters
The incremental cost of ammunition to the average European shooter is estimated 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 ammunition was to be completely banned for all shooting. For shotgun ammunition is assumed that lead is substituted by a mix of steel, tin, bismuth and tungsten ammunition, while for airguns tin pellets is assumed to be an acceptable
alternative. The alternatives regarding bullets are not that developed, and developments 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 weapons. Assuming 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.
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 existing 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 collection 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 developed. 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 ammunition.
Impact of lead and
substitutes on environment and health
The main environmental and health issues related to lead ammunition is as follows:
!
Poisoning of waterfowl and other birds by ingestion of lead split shot and
sinkers and the following secondary poisoning of raptors. Poisoning of waterfowl 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-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
82
hensive assessment of the effects of this increase exists. However, a continued increase will narrow the gab 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 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 related 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 improvement 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.
The need for a community wide approach
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 primary environmental problem in this context seems to be the issue of soil contamination, and it is unclear whether the substitutes available in all cases represent an improvement in the soil environment compared to lead. Soil contamination 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 restrictions 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 restrictions, 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 collection and recycling of lead. In case substitution turns out to be more costeffective the option always remains to restrict the use of lead on the individual
shooting ranges or nationally. Also for shooting ranges specific national restrictions may be considered justified by national environmental conditions. Thus
the only argument in favour for a community wide approach in this context
.
83
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 critical to more than very few companies.
Cost and consequences of selected
measures
The cost and consequences in terms of reduced contribution of lead to the environment 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 environment from lead containing ammunition, EU-15 area
Phase-out regime
Total costs per ton lead
substituted (€/t)
1)
Total costs in EU-15
(mill.€/year) 1)
Reduced load to the
environment in EU-15
(tonnes lead/year)
Lead shot for
hunting in wetlands
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
12,200 - 20,600
12,200 - 20,600
1,200 - 10,300
10,100 - 19,700
1,850 - 18,500
10,500 - 19,900
44 - 74
176 - 296
0.18 - 1.5
180 - 350
5 - 50
405 - 770
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 wetlands areas.
3)
Some collection and recycling is taking place already today. However, no exact data on
the amount of lead recycled is available.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
4
Fishing sinkers
4.1
Application of lead in fishing sinkers
84
Fishing sinkers are uses for both angling (recreational fishing) and commercial
fishing. In this context the term sinkers is used as anonymous for all applications 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
Split shot
Jigs
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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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.
Commercial and artisanal fishing
For commercial and artisanal fishing (small-scale semi-commercial and recreational 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 typically designed as a woven rope with a thin lead wire woven into the filaments 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 pelagic 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 statistics 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.
Production and trade
statistics
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 reported 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 statistics 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 statistics (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 extra-community import totalled 85 million €.
The total import to EU15 countries of line fishing tackle n.e.s. in tonnes increased from 4,700 tonnes in 1993 to 14,000 tonnes in 2003 (Figure 4.2). Pro-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 (exclusive rods, reels and hooks) (CN 95.07.90.00) to EU15 Member States
1993-2003
16,000
14,000
Import (tonnes/year)
12,000
Extra EU15
Intra EU15
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
According to a leading European wholesaler of fishing tackle, the leadcontaining 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.
Fishing tackle companies
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.
.
88
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table 4.1
Turnover of European fishing tackle companies in 2001 (EFTTA 2004)
Total domestic turnover
Total export turnover
Million US$
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 confidential.
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 manufacturers 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 foundries, 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 specific 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 foundries, 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Common market
89
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, indicate that for the simple sinkers the manufacturers mainly supply to the local/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 comprehensive 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
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
Total
Lead consumption
35
3
159
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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
90
(LDAI) have been contacted, but none of the organisations hold any information 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 fishing tackle trade fair EFTTEX and registered in the catalogue as manufacturers
of sinkers could be regarded major manufacturers potentially supplying an international 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 trolling sinkers, and 50-70 t with pirks, jigs, wobblers, etc. The consumption is expected 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 manufacturers 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 consumption 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
91
- France
The national association of manufacturers and wholesalers of fishing tackle,
GIFAB and a major manufacturer of sinkers were contacted. GIFAB has informed that they are in the process of collecting information from manufacturers, 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 manufacturers 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 include any Lithuanian manufacturers. Sinkers are only produced in small workshops 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 exhibiting on EFTTEX, were contacted. The contacted manufacturers confirm that
lead is used for manufacturing of sinkers in Italy, but that sinkers based on alternatives 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 articles 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 values" [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 manufacturers produce mainly for the domestic market. The consumption of lead with
sinkers in Poland is, based on information from the Polish Angling Association,
.
92
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
estimated at 1,000-1,500 t/year in inland waters and 20-40 t/year in marine water (Baltic Sea). The estimate is based on information from the Polish Association 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 fishing expeditions as follows [Andruszkiewicz et al 2004]:
Number of
anglers
Lost per expedition
(weight per sinkers x
number of sinkers
lost
Numbers of fishing expeditions
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
Technique
Total
Total lost
(t Pb/year)
1,290
It has not been possible to confirm the consumption estimate by actual information 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 angler 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 production". 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 fishing tackle is organised in the association, Spofa Spöfiske. The association has
for the present study collected information from its members. The recent assessment 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
- UK
93
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 production 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 majority of lead sinkers of all types are less than 2 cm in any direction [Scheuhammer 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 consumption 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 consumption. However, a major French manufacturer indicates that the lead consumption 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 differences 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-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 consumption 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 estimated 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 consumption 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 perangler 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 considerably, the per-angler estimate is considered most appropriate.
Table 4.3
Country
Consumption
t Pb/year
Annual consumption of lead for fishing sinkers for angling in
Total
Population
Million
Number of
active anglers Million
1)
Consumption
Consumption
g Pb/capita/year
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
80-100
10.2
0.325
8-10
0.2-0.3
28
15.9
1.5
2
0.02
Poland
1,020-1,530
38.6
0.6
26-40
1.7-2.6
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
500-1,000
59.6
4
8-17
0.1-0.3
2004
This study
388-559
32.5
0
12-17
-
1995
Scheuhammer and
Norris 1995
Hungary
Netherlands
UK
Canada
1)
This study
This study
1993
Annema et al. 1995
This study
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-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 previously based on the Dutch and Danish data been estimated at 1,000-3,000 t
[TNO 2001].
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table 4.4
96
Numbers of anglers in EU15 and EU25
Active recreational anglers 1)
% of population
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
Netherlands
1,500,000
9.4
15,900,000
230,000
2.3
10,000,000
Portugal
Spain
no data
1
400,000
-
39,400,000
Sweden
2,020,000
22.7
8,900,000
UK
4,000,000
6.7
59,600,000
Total EU15
Cyprus
18,705,000
376,200,000
3,000
0.4
800,000
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
Czech Republic
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.eaaeurope.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 consumption corresponding to 200-600 t/year and it is consequently estimated that 8002,400 t is the uses for other lures (small sinkers, jigs, etc.) used in inland waters
in EU25.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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, because 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 market 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 contacted, revealed that none of them were actually manufacturing made-up fishing
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 manufacturers of made-up fishing nets who use the lines
directly or sell the lines to minor manufacturers
or fishermen
Manufacturing of madeup fishing nets
By manufacturing of the made-up nets, the leadlines are sewn onto the netting. The netting is
usually manufactured by other companies specialised 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 artisanal 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 provided by one German company. The company was contacted but declined to
participate in the study.
Production and trade
statistics
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 individual 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 consumption 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 leadbead 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 project 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.
Estimating lead consumption on the basis of number of vessels
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 fishing fleets are obtained from the concerted action "Economic performance of
selected European fishing fleets" [EAEF 2003]. The report provides very specific 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 assessment. The EU25 fleet consists of about 84,000 vessels (table 3.6) and employ 206,000 fishermen [EAEF 2003].
For a first estimate we will distinguish between three segments: trawlers, seiners and 'other'.
It general trawl seem not contain lead (confirmed from Denmark, the Netherlands, 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 Poland 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 commercial 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
- Seine ropes in Danish seines
200-300
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 consumption is thus 100-350 kg whereas the average for gilnetters (<15 GRT) is 30-180
kg (Lassen et al 2002, background information).
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
- Spain
101
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 information 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 Organizaciones pesqueras (FEOPE, member of Europêche), Federación Española
de Armadores de Buques de Pesca (FEABP, member of Europêche) and Asociación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas (ASPE). Further two regional associations, 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 Spanish producers 10-12% is lost or disposed of per year giving an annual consumption per vessel of 25-138 kg per vessel. The 10% replacement per year is relatively 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
- Poland
102
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 waters. 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 information on the European fishing fleets shown in table 4.6.
Model estimates of
lead consumption
In order to make a first estimate of the lead consumption for commercial fishing 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 fishing 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, because 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 calculated values for Sweden and Finland are somewhat below the reported consumption (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.
.
103
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table 4.6
Belgium
Denmark
Fishing fleet of selected Member States (in 2002)* and calculated lead
consumption for commercial fishing
Total fishing fleet
Trawlers/dredgers
Seiners
Number of vessels
Number of vessels
Number of
vessels
130
119
1,409
613
95
Other
Number of vessels
Calculated lead consumption
t Pb/year
11
0-2
701
47-181
Finland
357
86
271
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
15,915
3,193
12,542
287-1,398
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
722
72,960
1,921-8,666
Italy
Netherlands
Total EU15
180
-
11-41
-
81,826
8,144
Estonia
736
136
600
24-90
Latvia
191
131
60
2-9
Lithuania
148
124
24
1-4
1,426
85
1,341
54-201
84,327
8,620
74,985
2,002-8,970
Poland
Total EU25
*
4.3
722
Source: [EAEF 2003]
Legal or voluntary use restrictions on lead fishing
sinkers
Information on legal use restrictions on lead sinkers 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 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.
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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 Pollution (Anglers' Lead Weights) Regulation since 1986.
In Sweden voluntary local prohibitions on the use of lead sinkers in some river
systems exist.
Denmark
4.3.1 Effectiveness of the restrictions
The sale of lead-containing fishing sinkers has in Denmark been banned since 1
December 2002. For commercial fishing equipment an exemption until December 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 products 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 extent, whereas home casting of sinkers has increased significantly after the regulation 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 answers have been obtained yet.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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)
Austria
105
Instrument
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
Estonia
no
Finland
no
France
no
Germany
no **
Greece
no
Hungary
no
Ireland
no
The sale on lead sinkers is prohibited by Statutory Order no 1012 on
prohibition of import and marketing of products containing lead
Italy
Latvia
no
Lithuania
no
Luxembourg
no
Malta
no
Netherlands
no
Poland
no
Portugal
no
Slovakia
no
Slovenia
no
Restrictions may according to questionnaire response be applied by
means of voluntary code of good conduct for sport fishing and professional fishing
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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
4.4
106
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).
Price indication
(retail level in Denmark) 2)
Type of equipment
Alternative material
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
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)
~0%
+?
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 illustrates 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 substitutes 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-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 substitutes 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 alternative 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 behaviour 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 1020% 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 sinkers/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 [BulletWeights 2004].
- pirks and
downriggers
Considering pirks and downriggers, the situation of substitutes in many ways
resemble the situation for sinkers and weights. The alternative materials in favour 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 highend and costly alternative.
Some wobblers and floats may contain a small quantity of lead in order to optimise the position of the equipment in water. Wobblers with tungsten or bismuth 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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)
Iron, zinc
~0%
Coated iron, iron?, zinc?
~0-33% *
zinc
~0 % *
Sinkers/weights
Lead lines
Seine ropes
*
108
Alternatives are not available today.
Internationally only limited efforts have been invested in developing alternatives, 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 alternatives 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 developing substitutes to lead equipment. The effort is aimed at developing alternatives 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 development 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 substitutes 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 developed. 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 alternatives. 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
- sinkers
109
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 alternative sinkers for commercial fishing that are actually being marketed in Denmark 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 production 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 casting 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
Consequences for
manufacturing industry
Sinkers and other
lures for angling
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 assessment 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).
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 restriction of the use of lead.
- experience from the
UK
Since January 1987 the use of lead shot above 0.06 grams and lead sinkers below 1 ounce (28.35 grams) has been prohibited in the UK. According to a leading 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 demand was unaffected by increases prices and that home casting and crossfrontier 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 extrapolated 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 manufacturers of split-shot and small sinkers in the UK decreased from about 10 to 4.
- experience from
Denmark
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 produced in Eastern Asia. The changes in the market introduced by the ban may
have speeded up a tendency already taking place.
Sinkers, commercial
fishing
Sinkers for commercial fishing is most probably produced by hundred to several hundred companies all over Europe, some of the companies also manufacturing sinkers for angling.
Based on the experience with development of substitutes for commercial fishing 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 equipment for commercial fishing, and companies seem to be ready for manufacturing 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 restriction of the use of lead.
Lead lines and seine
ropes
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 machinery 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 assessed 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 restriction 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.
Consequences for
anglers
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.
Incremental costs for
anglers
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 expensive 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
112
of tin equalled 333 €/kg. Comparing these prices with the price of the raw materials 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 angling 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 waters. 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.€ corresponding 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 leadcontaining 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 establish 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 24207 mil.€ corresponding to approximately 1.2-10.4 €/year per angler.
In a Canadian assessment it was estimated that the incremental costs per anglers by replacement of lead in 1995 would be 0.6-10.1 CA$/year (0.4-6.3
€/year) [Scheuhammer and Norris1995].
Consequences for the
fisheries
Besides the increased price of the equipment discussed below, the consequences 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 sinkers will increase with about 60%. It means that the equipment will take up more
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
113
space in the fishing vessels and it will be more difficult to handle. To what extent the consequences of the increased volume of the equipment are of significance 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 significance 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 consequence 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
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 dependent 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 influenced 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 sinkers, 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 decrease 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 replaced.
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 containing 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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.
Timing
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 manufacturers 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 releases 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 sinkers 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 produced 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 insufficient emission abatements technology. In addition the casting may have significant health impact of the persons involved. The emission to air from homecasting 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 advantageous 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 application iron without heavy metals as alloying elements can be used. The data for
zinc indicate that zinc is significantly less problematic in the aquatic environments than lead (see section 3.6.2), while no water quality criterion or other
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 considered advantageous.
Use of split shot and
small lead sinkers in
inland waters
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 waters corresponding to 900-2,700 t.
Use of large sinkers
for angling in the sea
or in large lakes
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 simple 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.
Use of sinkers in
equipment for commercial fishing
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 bottom 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 estimated 2,000-9,000 t/year.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 indicated that in total 5-20% of the lead applied for fishing equipment for commercial 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 estimated 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 crossnational 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 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. This perspective 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 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 primary 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 assessment covering toxicity in water environments have been established for tin,
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 research 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.
Table 4.10
Reduced lead consumption and release to the environment by restricting the use of lead in EU25
Restriction option
Reduced lead consumption
Tonnes/year
Reduced release of lead to the
environment
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 angling 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
Table 4.11
Reduced lead consumption and release to the environment by restricting the use of lead in EU15
Restriction option
Reduced lead consumption
Tonnes/year
Reduced release of lead to the
environment
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 angling in sea and large lakes.
950-2,800
850-2,520
1,900-8,700
95-1,740
Lead in equipment for commercial
fishing
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 comparative assessment of toxicity in water environments is available for tin, bismuth
and tungsten.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 marketing 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 effect on companies in other member states. Assuming that appropriate time
will be allowed for companies to adapt to restrictions, it is, however, difficult based on the knowledge available to assess the extent to which restrictions 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 local 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 content 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 regarding the use of lead sinkers.
In principle a conflict could exist between arguments 2) and 3). However, argument 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.
Discussion of restriction options available
Compared to the restriction options presented in table 4.10 and 4.11, it is obvious that reasonable solid arguments related to migratory birds exist for a community 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
119
wide approach would be the commitments for the EU related to sea conventions as the OSPAR Convention. It is noted that the EU is a party to this convention 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 combustible 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 discarded 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
Existing market
overview
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 industry 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 exist;
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;
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
•
•
Existing regulation
overview
Fishing sinkers for angling is to a large extent produced for the domestic
markets hence there appears to be a well-developed common internal market 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:
•
•
•
Impact on industry,
direct costs
120
Full ban of the sale of lead sinkers in Denmark with a derogation for commercial 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 operating and administrative costs. Investment costs relate to costs of converting
the industry (so-called conversion costs), and consist of two separate cost components: 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 nonferrous 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 nonferrous foundries to industries based on ferrous metallurgy.
Impact on industry,
indirect costs
Indirect costs cover consequences for the manufacturers regarding competitiveness 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 smallscale 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 market introduced by the ban may have speeded up a tendency already taking
place.
Social costs of transition
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.
Impact on anglers
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-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
121
als and the price may decrease as the market for lead-free alternatives mature
and the actual incremental costs may then be lower.
Impact on the fisheries
Three main consequences have been identified for commercial fishing: Increased volume of fishing equipment, increased noise by applying the equipment 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.
Impact on environment and health
It has been demonstrated that split shot and small sinkers are ingested by waterfowl 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 content 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.
Considerations regarding a common
market
Sinkers and made-up fishing nets are to a large extent produced for the domestic 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, current, 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 application of lead for commercial fishing, there seems to be a common European
market.
Summary
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 arguments related to migratory birds exist for a community wide approach. However, 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 environmental 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 significant home casting takes place, and these activities may increase as a conse-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 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. It should be noted that the differences between 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 welldocumented 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 contribute 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
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
Total costs to anglers/the fisheries in the
EU15 (million €/year) 1)
18-110
23-198
0.57-11.6
Reduced lead load to the environment in
the EU15 (t lead/year)
850-2,530
1,700-5,040
95-1,740
Total costs to anglers/the fisheries per ton
lead substituted (€/t) 1)
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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Technological rationale
5
Candle wicks
5.1
Application of lead in candle wicks
123
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 possible to use a smaller flame, that keeps the jar cooler, and still melt the wax to the
edge.
Environmental and
health impacts
The technology has traditionally been applied for certain specific product types
(container candles, mostly outdoor applications). When a lead wick based candle is burned in indoor conditions, considerable amounts of lead may be released 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
Industry structure
Markets of candle wicks
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 (except 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 represented by AECM, which according to the AECM is due to the fact that no national associations of candle makers are known to exist in these particular countries. 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 production 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.
.
124
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Most wicks today are made by specialist companies, who then supply the regular candle makers.
Production and consumption
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 represents 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 extrapolated using the relevant COMEXT figures (that record volumes in monetary 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 20002002, tonnes finished candles
Production
Consumption
8,567
27,826
na
na
Denmark
17,879
27,212
Finland
11,371
12,226
France
48,421
54,315
176,617
183,015
Austria
Belgium
Germany
Greece
na
na
Ireland
6,880
11,196
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
Italy
UK
57,492
51,182
Total EU15
423,325
466,894
Hungary 1)
16,498
6,444
Lithuania 1)
789
2,612
53,110
26,318
Poland 1)
Experience with lead
wicks
Source
Annex 3 table A3.33 and table A3.34
1)
Production figures for Hungary, Lithuania and Poland is based on 2002 figures. For Lithuania 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle 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 candle 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 import 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 possible 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 governments 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 markets. 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 arithmetic 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 candle. 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 consumption 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 involved 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).
Eastern Europe
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 specific investigations undertaken in Poland, Hungary and Lithuania.
Poland was the second largest exporter of candles to the EU15 area, and therefore of course also plays an important role on the newly enlarged internal market. 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 Polish 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 therefore 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 usage of lead candlewicks is rather limited in the Hungarian market, all the market leaders produce lead-free candles. The number of producers of lead candlewicks 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
128
market for candles is not deemed to be significant. Interviews made with representatives of the Hungarian industry have revealed that some candles with lead
wicks are imported from Croatia into Hungary. The extent of that import, however, is unknown [Varkonyi 2004].
There are thus indications in the available information that production of candles 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
AECM Voluntary
agreement
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% threshold). The minimum threshold is recommended because zink naturally may contain up to 0.06% lead. Zink is one of the likely substitutes to lead cored wicks
[AECM 2004].
National regulation
identified
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 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.
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 campaign 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).
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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.
Experience from
abroad
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
Alternative technologies
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 performance 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].
Experience from
abroad
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].
Environmental and
health impacts
Neither zinc nor tin wicks are considered to emit metals at concentrations causing 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. Regarding the other option of using thicker wicks, no studies are available indicating specific health or environmental problems related to this option.
5.5
Business impacts
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-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 available 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 consumers 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 potential restriction must be assumed marginal or in reality non-existing.
Environmental and
health impacts
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 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 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 cleaning. For candles used outdoor,
lead will similarly settle in the surroundings and thus add to the general level of
lead in the surroundings.
Relevance of a
community wide approach
To the best of knowledge a community wide approach may benefit all stakeholders 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
Market overview
Summary and conclusion
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 difference is covered by a net import of candles, of which more than 50% is coming from the Far East.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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. However zinc and tin wicks may be used as substitutes as well. The available substitutes 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 exporters in the Far East to increase their export to the EU.
Restriction on marketing and use of
lead wicks
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 restriction. 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 restriction 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 importing and selling candles with lead wicks on the European market.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle 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 MarchSeptember 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 Czepelski, 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, Bilthoven.
BASC. 1993. Problems with lead shot. Extract from BASC paper by head of
Research, 29th July 1993. British Association for Shooting and Conservation, 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
133
Begley, M. 2004. Environmental impact of new materials: The tungsten experience. 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 Conservation Committee and the African – Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement, 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 Restricting 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 910, 2004.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 Environment Related to the Use of lead in products" (TNO report, STB-01-39 final). 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 Environmental 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, søer 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 tungsten and tungsten alloys. Environmental Forensics, 5:5-13, 2004
EAEF 2003. Economic performance of selected European fishing fleets. Annual Report 2003. Economic Assessment of European Fisheries, Concerted 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 Italiana Produttori e Operatori Articoli da Pesca Sportiva.
Geocities 2004. Information available on www. geocities.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. Environmental 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 Environmental 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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
136
ISSF 2004a. E-mail dated 23 June 2004 and letter dated 21 June 2004 from
Secretary General Horst. G. Schreiber, International Sports Shooting Federation.
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 fishing. 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.unepwcmc.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 potential sources of indoor air pollution: Market analysis and literature review. 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, Federation 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-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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/0/33D13BCA948DA8B785256B0050E
CA2? OpenDocument
Lyalvaleex-press 2004. Information available on www.lyalvaleex-press.com. June 2004
Netherlands 2000. Circular on target values and intervention values for soil remediation. 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 Ammunition 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.
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
138
Potera, C. 2000. The Core of the Candle Problem. Environmental Health Perspectives 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 Rinkevicius, 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 Enterprise.
Scheuhammer, A.M. and S. L. Norris. 1995. A review of the environmental
impacts of lead shotshell ammunition and lead fishing weights in Canada. 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. Projekt om jord og grundvand Nr 13/1995. The Danish EPA.
Scott-Fordsmand, J.J. and M.B. Pedersen. 1995. Soil quality criteria for selected 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. Norvegian EPA., Oslo
Skenco 2004. Information available on www.skenco.com/pellets.html. September 2004.
Streitberger, J. 2004. Range design. Paper presented at the WFSA World Symposium 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-
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
139
sity of Massachusetts Annual International Conference on soils, sedimanets 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 Enterprise. Available at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/chemicals/markrestr/studies/studies.ht
m)
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-v50-1standard.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. Recommendations. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1993. p. 56.
http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/GDWQ/Chemicals/ti
nsum.htm
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
140
WHO 1995. Inorganic lead. Environmental Health Criteria 165. World Health
Organisation, International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), Geneva, Switzerland.
Winther, B. 2004. Personal communication with Mr. Bent Winther, Chairman
of the clay pigeon section within the Danish Shooting Federation. Copenhagen, July 2004.
Working Group. 1998. Soil contaminations at shooting ranges. Report by the
Work Group of the Conference of the (Laender) Ministers for the Environment. Germany. Available at: http://www.wfsa.net/SoilReport.pdf
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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: info@face-europe.org
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: afems@afems.org
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: admin@issf-shooting.org
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: unic@powertech.no
FISHING SINKERS
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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: info@eftta.com
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@eaa-europe.org
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: europeche@skynet.be
A questionnaire has been circulated by EUROPÊCHE to their national member
associations.
Further, a request regarding the presence of national associations of manufacturers of fishing equipment for commercial fishing has been circulated to national 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: bougies@fncg.fr
Website: http://www.europecandles.com
USE OF LEAD IN GENERAL
LDAI
Lead Development Association International
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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: root@ilzsg.org
Website: http://www.ilzsg.org
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
146
Annex 3 Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this report:
AECM
AFEMS
ASPE
CA$
CIP
CN
COMEXT
CWS
DKK
EAA
EFTTA
EFTTEX
EPA
ESC
EU15
EU25
EUROPÊCHE
EUROSTAT
FACE
FEABP
FEOPE
FIPO
GIFAB
GRT
ILZSG
ISSF
LDAI
Mill.
OSPAR
Pb
PRODCOM
t
UNICE
USFWS
€
US$
Association of European Candle Manufacturers
The Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting
Ammunition
Asociación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas
Canadian dollars
Permanent international Commission for the Proof of Small
Arms
Common Nomenclature (statistical commodity codes)
An Eurostat database on commodities
Canadian Wildlife service
Danske kroner (Danish currency)
European Anglers Alliance
The European Fishing Tackle Trade Association
The European Fishing Tackle Trade Exhibition
Environmental Protection Agency
European Shooting Confederation
The European Union with 15 Member States i.e. before 2004
The European Union with 25 Member States i.e. from 2004
Association representing professionals in the fisheries sector
in the EU
The Statistical Agency of the European Union
Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of
the E.U.
Federación Española de Armadores de Buques de Pesca
Federación Española de Organizaciones pesqueras
The Italian association of manufacturers and wholesalers of
fishing tackle.
The French association of manufacturers and wholesalers of
fishing tackle.
Gross Register Tonnage
International Lead and Zinc Study Group
International Shooting Sport Federation
Lead Development Association International
Million
The OSPAR Convention on the protection of the marine
environment of the North-East Atlantic.
Lead
An Eurostat database on commodities
Tonne/tonnes
Union des Industries de la Communauté Européenne
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Euro
US dollars
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
148
(To national environmental authorities)
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
COWI A/S for the European Commission, DG ENT
Please return before March 30, 2004 to crl@cowi.dk 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
No use restriction
Use restriction
Legal use restriction
1)
Voluntary use restriction 2)
Date of entry into force
Use of lead for sport fishing in seawater
Use of lead for sport fishing in fresh water
Use of lead for professional fishing
Other (please specify under comments)
1)
Name of instrument for legal use restriction:
2)
Description of voluntary use restriction (name of agreement, partners, etc.):
Comments:
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
149
Restrictions on the use of lead for candle wicks
Please mark with an X
No use restriction
Use restriction
Legal use restriction
1)
Voluntary use restriction 2)
Date of entry into force
Use of lead for production
of candle wicks
Use of lead in marketed
products
1)
Name of instrument for legal use restriction:
2)
Description of voluntary use restriction (name of agreement, partners, etc.):
Comments:
Restrictions on the use of lead for ammunition
Please mark with an X
No use restriction
Use restriction
Legal use restriction
1)
Voluntary use restriction 2)
Date of entry into force
Use of lead shots over
wetlands (or for waterfowl
hunting)
Use of lead shots in forests
Use of lead shots for target shooting and sporting
Other uses of lead shots
Use of lead for rifle ammunition
(please specify under
comments)
Other
1)
Name of instrument for legal use restriction:
2)
Description of voluntary use restriction (name, partners, etc.):
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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: crl@cowi.dk
Tel: +45 7642 6412
Fax: +45 7642 6401
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 crl@cowi.dk 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:
No restriction
or ban on the
use
Use restriction or ban
Legal use
restriction
1)
Voluntary use
restriction 2)
Date of entry
into force
Region
Use of lead shot over wetlands (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 ammunition
Other (please specify under comments)
1)
Name of instrument for legal use restriction:
2)
Description of voluntary use restriction (name of agreement, partners, etc):
Comments:
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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
E-mail: crl@cowi.dk
Tel: +45 7642 6412
Fax: +45 7642 6401
.
153
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
(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 crl@cowi.dk
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:
Put a cross
Manufactured
in the country
Used in the
country
Lead is used in the equipment in the form of:
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)
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
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
<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:
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 chambers, 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 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 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.
Please address questions regarding the questionnaire to:
Carsten Lassen
COWI A/S
Havneparken 1
DK-7100 Vejle, Denmark
E-mail: crl@cowi.dk
Tel: +45 7642 6412
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 crl@cowi.dk
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):
Put a cross
Produced
in the
country
Used in the
country
lead is used in the equipment in the form of:
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:
How much lead is annually used for production of fishing equipment in the country (put a cross)?
.
157
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
<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/
equipment
Ring
net
Seines
Trawl
Pound
nets
Fyke/
hoop
nets
Set
nets
Lines
Other
No effects expected
The production would be concentrated 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):
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 chambers, 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.
Please address questions regarding the questionnaire to:
Carsten Lassen
COWI A/S
Havneparken 1
DK-7100 Vejle
Denmark
E-mail: crl@cowi.dk
Tel: +45 7642 6412
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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 database), 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 Nomenclature (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
.
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table A5. 1
All figures in
Million €/year
Production, import and export of cartridges and parts thereof for shotguns, revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and military firearms, slugs,
pellets and darts (excl. for captive-bolt humane killers) 2000-2002*
2000
Prod.
2001
Import
Export
Prod.
2002
Import
Export
Prod.
Import
Export
Austria
-
5.9
3
-
8.7
5.3
-
10.5
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
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
Italy
4.5
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 humane killers)'
**
Total import/export from EU 15 to other countries
-
No data
Source: Europroms database. Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat).
.
162
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
All figures in
2000
1000 p/st per year
2001
2002
Prod.
Import
Export
Prod.
Import
Export
Prod.
Import
Export
Austria
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Belgium
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Denmark
Finland
4863000
-
-
5847000
-
-
5498000
-
-
France
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Germany
370369000
-
-
386074000
-
-
-
-
-
Greece
101536430
-
-
238435435
-
-
-
-
-
Ireland
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
1506482000
-
-
1275652000
-
-
1261583000
-
-
Luxembourg
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
Netherlands
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
84135559
-
-
54679704
-
-
42440479
-
-
Italy
Portugal
Spain
-
-
-
2070508000
-
-
1968172000
-
-
58220948
-
-
40509644
-
-
36135272
-
-
1111163867
-
-
959432077
-
-
1282108815
-
-
Bulgaria
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
Croatia
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
Czech Republic
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Estonia
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
Hungary
-
-
-
111632682
-
-
91698147
-
-
Latvia
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lituania
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
Poland
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Romania
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Slovakia
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Slovenia
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
Sweden
UK
*
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 humane killers)'
**
Total import/export from EU 15 to other countries
-
No data
Source: Europroms database. Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat).
.
163
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table A5. 2
EXPORT,Intra EU15
1993
1994
Import and export of cartridges for smooth-barrelled shotguns
(93.06.21.00) to/from EU 15, 1993-2003, in tonnes
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1
1
1
6
1
3
4
0
1
1,578
2,953
2,255
2,016
2,600
3,461
1,945
1,074
0
3
tonnes
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
3,520
1,342
1,731
31
1
41
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
-
0
0
0
17
France
207
324
296
146
487
149
174
152
93
119
757
Germany
717
734
646
816
992
951
572
296
254
830
586
4,400
7,116
8,054
Greece
Ireland
Italy
0
6
2
5
-
3,245
3,740
4,494
4,689
25
3,658
4,108
Luxembourg
4,460
4,720
-
Netherlands
28
2
9
0
-
-
-
Portugal
37
11
55
83
47
50
54
35
58
30
16
161
572
202
263
369
295
417
805
982
986
872
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
21
16
34
17
15
31
46
42
25
Spain
Sweden
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
7
69
121
135
25
8
74
155
151
73
71
55
74
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
1
21
30
26
96
119
88
61
40
70
122
9,170
10,240
9,005
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Ireland
Italy
54
45
83
4
23
65
73
32
50
10
3,257
3,722
4,529
6,743
8,225
9,623
10,113
11,493
0
0
4
0
1
2
42
3
0
20
51
92
60
96
100
102
132
120
123
127
316
503
860
2,387
3,811
2,375
4,163
5,290
4,535
7,376
7,018
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
Luxembourg
3
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
**contimued
.
164
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
IMPORT,Intra EU15
tonnes
1993
1994
1995
422
499
2,605
2,247
2,535
2,098
3,611
2,649
4,314
995
456
757
64
287
754
1,282
1,544
1,061
1,266
1,407
1,083
1,556
386
557
384
422
625
510
410
420
444
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
513
527
467
419
362
292
341
3,491
3,235
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
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
52
63
74
85
405
191
24
78
30
651
617
123
21
17
10
16
Italy
Luxembourg
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
243
203
386
246
248
203
121
146
142
Sweden
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
50
74
135
142
46
105
104
77
19
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
43
103
21
18
56
111
99
151
37
98
94
33
57
2
8
18
2
5
3
46
19
72
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
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Ireland
Italy
7
3
2
1
4
6
21
19
2
6
10
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
67
8
2
9
8
12
7
1
57
41
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
Spain
Sweden
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 secret)
.
165
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table A5. 3
EXPORT,Intra EU15
1000 €
1993
1994
1995
6
17
8,543
3,669
4,273
5,476
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Import and export of cartridges for smooth-barrelled shotguns
(93.06.21.00) to/from EU 15, 1993-2003, in 1000 €
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
11
28
5
12
17
2
5
7,982
6,438
5,631
7,363
9,816
5,483
3,077
3
13
Belgium
Denmark
87
5
Finland
138
-
0
1
9
2
215
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
11,141
18,059
19,529
77
81
Greece
Ireland
3
22
10
15
15
7,149
9,001
9,579
10,840
Netherlands
68
12
41
Portugal
96
24
138
334
1,259
Italy
54
1
9,653
10,609
4
0
0
0
113
147
155
129
132
Luxembourg
Spain
1
9,123
11,810
0
Sweden
184
36
564
710
840
837
930
1,790
2,087
2,071
1,987
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
EXPORT,Extra EU15
tonnes
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
116
139
251
97
85
140
238
226
169
262
254
317
313
65
218
253
160
206
19
115
31
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
578
511
Finland
298
282
219
259
269
281
150
205
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
3
72
37
229
235
278
361
188
100
181
269
20,869
21,550
26,146
22,080
24,144
21,519
12
26
Greece
Ireland
Italy
1
7,320
8,499
9,279
15,386
18,083
Luxembourg
31
Netherlands
1
1
65
5
6
5
106
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
756
364
553
461
544
722
747
860
951
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
TotalEU15
7,205
6,677
8,478
6,976
6,869
4,527
4,589
4,613
6,232
5,413
3,644
21,602
21,901
25,619
33,051
39,157
36,620
41,706
50,346
47,667
53,894
47,417
Continued
.
166
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
IMPORT,Intra EU15
1000 €
1993
1994
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1,994
1,764
1,894
2,084
2,941
1,381
1,294
1,051
1,238
6,706
5,327
5,289
5,454
9,201
8,276
2,392
2,028
4,397
3,839
5,127
6,639
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
4,414
4,048
4,327
3,495
2,525
3,358
2,193
2,529
2,457
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
9,140
6,978
9,821
2,638
1,898
4,167
6,022
6,683
6,272
6,576
4,014
3,231
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
244
396
586
658
6,653
2,832
155
1,001
181
1,443
1,396
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
2,099
2,224
1,927
2,071
2,173
1,544
2,190
2,004
2,363
2,049
3,508
758
647
1,204
827
800
628
364
583
344
Italy
Luxembourg
Spain
Sweden
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
161
237
316
351
147
294
297
290
64
157
252
59
83
187
644
603
1,258
179
419
421
458
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
223
571
Finland
France
Germany
16
61
191
14
55
42
101
213
524
716
755
677
437
684
669
542
499
970
655
540
262
437
139
348
291
563
334
353
1,128
1,648
1,115
1,161
1,512
1,810
1,434
1,584
1,583
1,783
1,925
Greece
429
273
206
319
314
261
168
249
182
290
350
Ireland
11
28
18
20
105
111
103
37
69
160
167
308
547
749
590
176
652
829
2,841
3,084
1,986
1,700
5
82
40
17
1
84
59
135
3
8
272
45
86
106
48
162
49
408
87
252
44
271
209
74
85
103
121
196
111
12
139
86
18
27
12
11
23
34
123
27
113
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
1
Sweden
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
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 secret)
.
167
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table A5. 4
EXPORT,Intra EU15
Import and export of centre fire cartridges (93.06.30.91) to/from EU 15,
1993-2003, in tonnes
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
84
26
85
75
75
106
8
28
9
7
9
17
7
122
116
2
2
-
-
0
-
111
143
165
102
122
0
-
-
4
2
90
95
112
2
7
5
21
8
121
139
113
96
64
88
8
1
1
0
0
92
110
155
182
2
200
179
136
80
151
253
197
3,905
4,031
4,516
3,830
4,860
4,717
3,991
3,341
2,605
204
1
6
2
1
1
0
1
0
73
-
0
343
696
794
1,211
1,264
tonnes
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
-
Portugal
Spain
15
211
-
1
0
1,301
1,718
2,438
2,741
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
EXPORT,Extra EU15
tonnes
0
0
13
11
8
8
1
4
2
0
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
11
16
54
21
19
34
60
88
122
11
3
2
3
0
1
5
1
2
2
2
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
24
24
Finland
France
Germany
34
19
22
20
14
12
9
7
7
241
217
190
79
51
96
71
136
124
60
53
35
48
7
8
10
12
6
7
12
224
287
340
332
397
273
1,266
360
133
140
95
438
318
465
144
27
Greece
149
Ireland
Italy
392
370
1,467
1,498
986
396
1
2
2
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
2
1
0
-
718
1,169
2,151
1,129
2,312
2,889
1,804
1,207
2,116
1,608
1,744
-
41
11
2
5
4
17
212
3
22
1
154
1,469
1,916
4,282
3,267
4,124
3,705
3,820
2,043
2,884
2,135
2,286
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
Total EU15
**contimued
.
168
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
IMPORT,Intra EU15
tonnes
1993
1994
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
21
25
85
16
14
18
22
80
29
94
160
30
20
15
60
59
96
202
105
157
112
52
41
32
13
8
21
31
39
44
54
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
4
1
1
3
1
0
0
6
-
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Ireland
Italy
0
0
0
-
2
0
3
0
1
37
14
73
51
109
58
33
51
44
67
52
15
6
5
4
7
24
Luxembourg
1
Netherlands
11
30
30
30
15
6
9
11
53
39
Portugal
36
69
3
18
10
8
22
14
21
6
5
Spain
87
45
81
33
59
147
59
102
63
51
402
10
41
39
74
52
88
46
15
26
15
14
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
67
17
89
31
34
48
43
17
13
184
175
94
142
161
13
31
9
19
2
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
IMPORT,Extra EU15
tonnes
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
68
18
19
13
26
83
74
53
14
18
11
7
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
1
8
4
6
1
0
0
0
1
3
44
49
58
32
31
16
9
32
48
42
0
-
0
4
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
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
79
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
Total EU15
68
17
45
80
42
153
106
60
30
64
23
784
751
593
645
1,412
833
886
1,014
744
864
883
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 secret)
.
169
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table A5. 5
EXPORT,Intra EU15
1000 €
1993
1994
989
928
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Import and export of centre fire cartridges (93.06.30.91) to/from EU 15,
1993-2003, in 1000 €
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
268
275
346
435
198
1,688
2,316
3,072
2,220
2,550
2,868
537
225
233
982
1,510
1,488
1,774
Belgium
Denmark
14
13
Finland
France
Germany
1
0
3
0
3
1
0
16
7
1,481
1,491
2,087
1,929
2,720
1,910
3,896
1,446
1,915
15
74
61
82
66
16
7
19
7
5
30
2,312
2,863
3,765
4,228
4,524
3,929
2,914
1,524
2,061
4,918
4,429
9,166
9,467
9,394
9,845
12,383
11,689
9,959
8,319
6,493
471
6
63
24
10
25
3
11
11
646
1
5
781
1,496
1,763
2,546
2,695
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
16
Portugal
Spain
28
459
0
14
1
2,901
3,745
4,780
5,648
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
EXPORT,Extra EU15
1000 €
13
15
160
115
87
75
14
79
53
9
5
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
280
350
736
377
493
953
956
1,772
2,282
152
35
24
56
2
18
155
18
29
44
62
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
474
434
Finland
France
Germany
701
415
610
451
388
303
240
221
214
2,198
2,168
3,365
1,425
925
1,764
1,481
2,709
2,765
493
306
342
302
69
214
99
166
155
171
229
2,339
3,227
2,321
2,303
3,021
2,321
5,765
2,506
2,035
2,747
2,059
1,055
994
1,232
378
103
Greece
233
Ireland
Italy
959
778
3,286
3,580
2,512
1,106
10
105
18
2,582
5,869
6,598
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
1,660
2,331
4,343
368
2
0
0
4,063
2,896
5,363
0
3,234
3,821
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
Total EU15
492
129
58
108
119
481
963
251
164
35
550
6,569
7,242
13,552
11,874
16,641
13,010
13,908
9,851
11,655
11,680
12,086
Continued
.
170
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
IMPORT,Intra EU15
1000 €
1993
1994
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
420
426
562
325
336
421
481
630
1,017
423
1,474
892
543
516
907
814
1,175
1,785
1,614
780
738
348
443
346
270
134
208
510
761
936
1,017
189
219
148
49
173
82
1,840
767
340
2,756
1,727
2,829
3,556
2,528
2,898
2,776
4,070
3,445
3,962
4,558
844
1,091
2,498
2,541
3,700
3,198
2,120
3,954
4,539
3,112
2,743
55
10
4
30
13
1
4
230
7
5
23
5
29
3
65
3
10
322
236
1,030
611
884
747
480
715
673
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
104
431
519
988
722
1,541
1,394
395
588
792
529
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
567
187
858
455
359
396
332
338
282
732
294
176
188
323
1,214
1,987
2,726
1,236
2,150
2,188
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
1
14
1,239
1,488
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
IMPORT,Extra EU15
1000 €
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
879
713
Finland
98
173
121
107
147
184
169
162
64
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
5
71
22
129
25
588
408
Greece
Ireland
2
5
3
13
330
421
659
284
360
248
187
169
447
7
1
15
49
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
582
357
466
502
416
872
979
828
443
929
413
8,542
9,083
5,830
5,623
7,826
8,038
8,643
10,436
9,304
11,470
11,012
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
916
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
Total EU15
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 secret)
.
171
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table A5. 6
EXPORT,Intra EU15
1993
1994
Import and export of rimfire cartridges (93.06.30.93 to/from EU 15,
1993-2003, in tonnes
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
5
6
0
0
0
28
1
2
2
97
89
219
210
173
185
195
131
112
-
65
tonnes
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
134
121
Belgium
Denmark
-
Finland
France
Germany
61
69
70
83
107
92
74
60
31
13
15
32
10
4
1
10
7
0
0
109
117
216
241
290
222
255
228
251
372
214
6
3
18
18
Greece
Ireland
Italy
0
0
124
96
0
1
7
Luxembourg
Netherlands
22
1
Portugal
Spain
-
-
-
-
-
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
EXPORT,Extra EU15
tonnes
270
252
343
324
308
291
257
270
192
229
162
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2
13
20
10
9
36
19
6
3
9
15
25
16
0
1
11
5
5
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
0
Belgium
Denmark
9
15
Finland
France
Germany
13
13
16
15
19
23
14
11
10
21
3
2
46
48
73
54
61
62
35
42
16
11
8
17
4
31
6
5
4
179
260
232
185
314
279
179
294
276
316
378
977
1,629
189
327
134
89
0
15
12
11
19
-
-
-
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
1
Portugal
Spain
0
0
-
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
510
273
Total EU15
261
242
225
202
170
149
152
189
207
2
13
20
10
9
36
19
6
3
**contimued
.
172
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
IMPORT,IntraEU15
tonnes
1993
1994
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
58
50
63
40
46
29
27
29
19
51
27
37
73
29
45
33
45
78
115
277
285
131
35
71
63
74
62
73
43
59
France
137
87
108
124
110
125
153
143
146
211
155
Germany
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
23
20
21
19
22
68
57
130
79
60
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
6
12
22
16
20
31
59
157
81
31
15
9
16
30
4
15
17
19
72
26
14
10
8
5
7
9
8
2
3
1
1
0
4
5
20
4
6
25
41
71
89
47
22
22
42
99
63
85
9
50
21
38
82
122
25
47
38
23
20
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
19
5
15
12
8
5
2
2
8
36
32
66
68
31
137
138
187
99
184
124
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
IMPORT,ExtraEU15
tonnes
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
9
5
Finland
11
1
5
5
11
7
9
9
7
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
27
22
39
29
1
3
5
18
20
20
15
Netherlands
7
34
16
8
24
1
1
9
0
6
11
Portugal
5
3
1
1
Italy
Luxembourg
Spain
11
11
32
33
24
21
2
0
1
47
96
37
123
42
105
64
69
71
153
145
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
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
Total EU15
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 secret)
.
173
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table A5. 7
EXPORT,Intra EU15
1000 €
1993
1994
1995
54
96
759
794
692
554
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Import and export of rimfire cartridges (93.06.30.93 to/from EU 15,
1993-2003, in 1000 €
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
33
37
43
264
36
51
80
1,331
1,486
1,230
1,328
1,567
1,171
941
Belgium
Denmark
1
Finland
0
0
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
871
698
51
47
169
209
5
7
Greece
Ireland
Italy
1
21
Luxembourg
Netherlands
93
3
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
47
84
191
138
168
223
237
100
49
84
328
637
446
2
9
63
35
46
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1
Belgium
Denmark
164
241
Finland
France
Germany
230
190
267
223
276
355
318
227
175
232
60
30
633
653
1,447
1,083
1,086
985
390
510
161
80
43
132
43
136
61
41
47
1,485
2,150
1,902
1,653
2,294
2,193
1,842
2,717
2,648
2,969
3,839
2,781
3,968
449
834
586
261
4
204
144
153
327
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
9
Portugal
Spain
0
0
4
1
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
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
IMPORT,IntraEU15
1000 €
1993
1994
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
760
637
838
682
1,002
394
443
499
302
409
207
514
521
267
315
283
311
685
355
549
726
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
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
154
160
158
174
196
670
635
1,217
693
595
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
41
64
410
53
98
125
156
437
162
108
63
63
37
66
94
146
15
28
5
2
1
15
20
41
29
27
118
140
198
219
225
146
52
281
379
270
248
97
309
242
484
880
1,150
485
417
438
633
324
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
114
25
117
72
50
86
26
24
59
199
149
297
281
148
791
948
1,211
727
1,290
789
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
IMPORT,ExtraEU15
1000 €
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
47
37
Finland
67
17
26
58
105
97
90
104
82
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
112
100
182
91
18
22
25
138
119
103
101
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
Italy
Luxembourg
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
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 secret)
.
175
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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
Total
EXPORT, NON-EU 15, tonnes
0
0
701
946
874
768
1.749
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
381
331
498
455
289
1,658
1,393
1,355
1,339
1,211
10
3
2
1
1
3
2
69
65
44
1
4
1
0
Hungary
186
Latvia
3
Lituania
0
Malta
Poland
377
92
Rumania
Slovakia
1
Slovenia
Turkey
0
2
Total
2,420
1,826
1,928
1,868
1,735
EXPORT, total , tonnes
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0
0
0
0
0
627
642
717
724
538
1,904
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
2,100
2,011
1,997
1,823
Estonia
0
-
-
-
-
Hungary
-
-
-
-
979
Latvia
3
10
3
2
1
Lituania
0
-
1
3
2
Malta
-
-
-
-
-
390
110
82
80
59
Rumania
-
-
-
-
-
Slovakia
1
-
1
4
1
Slovenia
-
-
-
-
-
Poland
Turkey
Total
0
0
2
-
-
3,120
2,773
2,801
2,636
3,484
Continued…
.
176
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
IMPORT, EU 15, tonnes
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Cyprus
105
192
1,596
186
1,169
Czech Republic
162
Bulgaria
172
67
141
181
Estonia
8
34
31
26
53
Hungary
99
129
127
163
194
Latvia
30
31
32
27
29
Lituania
19
25
30
23
24
-
-
-
-
-
100
92
113
168
167
9
16
9
47
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
Malta
Poland
Rumania
Slovakia
Slovenia
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
5
14
33
0
0
1
4
107
92
87
95
61
66
98
88
119
129
Latvia
Lituania
Malta
Poland
2
11
-
Rumania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Turkey
459
19
117
Total
733
221
357
343
371
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0
0
0
0
0
Cyprus
116
196
1,727
247
1,189
Czech Republic
206
84
180
203
163
IMPORT, total , tonnes
Bulgaria
Estonia
17
44
34
36
58
Hungary
132
130
131
164
197
Latvia
32
31
38
41
61
Lituania
31
25
31
24
28
-
-
-
-
-
207
185
200
263
228
Malta
Poland
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
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
EXPORT, EU 15, 1000 €
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Cyprus
554
685
482
576
498
Czech Republic
886
1,357
1,412
1,112
1,649
Bulgaria
Estonia
Hungary
1,488
Latvia
Lituania
Malta
Poland
0
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
180
10
10
3
3
13
12
204
227
105
3
11
2
Estonia
0
Hungary
Latvia
Lituania
1,006
24
0
Malta
Poland
863
256
Rumania
Slovakia
2
Slovenia
Turkey
0
6
Total
5,333
4,695
4,682
4,023
4,419
EXPORT, total , 1000 €
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
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
Bulgaria
Estonia
0
-
-
-
-
Hungary
-
-
-
-
2,495
24
180
10
10
3
12
Latvia
Lituania
0
-
3
13
Malta
-
0
-
-
-
893
312
241
267
134
Rumania
-
-
-
-
-
Slovakia
2
-
3
11
2
Slovenia
-
-
-
-
-
Poland
Turkey
Total
0
1
6
-
-
6,804
6,793
6,614
5,751
8,084
Continued…
.
178
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
IMPORT, EU 15, 1000 €
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Cyprus
285
567
719
507
619
Czech Republic
470
Bulgaria
366
171
337
495
Estonia
31
199
98
70
141
Hungary
214
305
308
393
482
98
138
122
75
108
Lituania
156
141
114
84
94
Malta
265
449
538
263
434
Poland
275
201
283
408
511
33
37
21
111
Turkey
13,259
15,379
4,907
10,130
5,969
Total
14,984
17,588
7,425
12,445
8,939
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Latvia
Rumania
Slovakia
Slovenia
IMPORT, NON-EU 15, 1000 €
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
379
387
483
692
530
133
185
190
289
320
Poland
Rumania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Turkey
112
591
Total
1,825
719
888
1,282
1,722
IMPORT, total , 1000 €
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0
0
0
0
0
Cyprus
327
600
817
550
680
Czech Republic
435
212
408
539
483
Bulgaria
991
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
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 secret)
.
179
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
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
262
93
2.8
495
207
2.4
679
234
2.9
1,177
469
2.5
298
131
2.3
11
7
1.6
68
27
2.5
3,074
1,571
2
348
147
2.4
125
42
2.9
tonnes/year
1000 €/ton**
New Member States and Candidate countries (NMSCC):
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
90
28
3.2
465
219
2.1
271
120
2.3
Romania
398
183
2.2
Slovakia
34
11
3.2
312
128
2.4
8,948
4,476
2.0
Malta
Poland
39
Slovenia
44
14
7
2.7
6.3
Turkey
Total NMSCC
4,840
2,275
2.1
12,298
5,838
2.1
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
1,721
541
3.2
Other:
USA
Venezuela
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
976
427
2.3
965
394
2.5
841
304
2.8
Morocco
Chile
38
17
2.2
Guinea
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
310
117
2.6
New Zealand
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
3,139
375
8.4
38,124
13,865
2.8
Total non-NMSCC
Source:
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
*
Export and import as registered by EU Member States
**
Calculated from non-round basic data
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
180
Advantages and drawbacks of restricting the marketing and use of lead in ammunition, fishing sinkers and candle wicks
Table A5. 10 Import and export of centre fire cartridges (93.06.30.91) 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**
55
24
2.3
174
26
6.6
21
8
2.7
New Member States and Candidate countries (NMSCC):
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
1,810
188
9.6
227
31
7.3
215
24
9
257
22
11.7
Latvia
234
16
14.8
Lithuania
136
8
16.9
55
9.5
Estonia and Malta
Hungary
Poland
2
0
6.7
525
47
9
5.3
Slovakia
124
21
5.9
91
3
28.9
Slovenia
79
5
17
108
4
28.2
9
0
18.9
49
16
3.1
2,293
262
8.7
1,867
198
9.4
6,279
378
16.6
1,496
475
3.1
1,277
487
2.6
26
9
2.8
1,063
351
3.0
8
0
24.5
874
56
15.7
470
21
22.5
680
34
20.1
347
147
2.4
320
19
16.6
Equat.Guinea
292
131
2.2
Greenland
263
10
27.3
Brunei
236
7
31.8
210
29
7.2
162
6
28.3
Romania
Turkey
Total NMSCC
Other:
USA
Ghana
Japan
Norway
Switzerland
Guinea
Russia
74
South Korea
7
16
0
4.6
20.3
U.A.Emirates
New Zealand
Ukraine
1
0
4.8
19
7
2.9
Andorra
Canada
Tunisia
Brazil
76
7
10.8
147
59
2.5
134
36
3.7
132
4
29.8
88
14
6.3
78
4
18.6
20.9
75
4
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
Source:
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
*
Export and import as registered by EU Member States
**
Calculated from non-round basic data
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
181
Table A5. 11 Import and export of rimfire cartridges (93.06.30.93) from EU 15, average of 2000, 2001 and 2002.
Import from:
1.000 €/year
tonnes/year
Export to:
1000 €/ton **
1.000 €/year
tonnes/year
1000 €/ton**
48
3
13.9
207
26
8
38
4
9.7
87
7
12.6
New Member States and Candidate countries (NMSCC):
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
144
24
6.0
Estonia
Hungary
10
2
4.0
Latvia
45
6
7.8
Lithuania
40
3
12.4
212
25
8.6
16
1
15.1
Malta
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
68
8
8.6
Slovenia
43
4
10.4
Turkey
Total NMSCC
27
27
1
5.8
830
114
7.3
471
7.1
2,034
142
14.3
0.1
14.8
887
79
11.2
525
60
8.8
154
27
3,321
2
Other:
USA
Switzerland
Norway
Japan
450
23
19.5
China
22
433
16
26.6
South Korea
324
12
28.1
Greenland
305
16
18.7
Yemen
288
46
6.3
206
19
10.7
12.6
Australia
815
1
109
20.2
7.5
New Zealand
159
13
Malaysia
84
4
22
India
78
4
18.8
Egypt
65
3
21.5
Canada
Brazil
153
23
6.7
Vietnam
South Africa
191
11.9
19.3
41
4
9.7
20.5
39
2
38
2
20.5
Belarus
33
1
22.7
Total non-NMSCC
10.8
5
2
Qatar
Other
18
63
42
210
43
4.9
610
48
12.7
4,714
665
7.1
6,703
502
13.4
Source:
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
*
Export and import as registered by EU Member States
**
Calculated from non-round basic data
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
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
Export from (1000 €/year) *
to *
EU 15
1000 €/year
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
237
Austria
Finland
8
Germany
Greece
IE
529
89
PT
ES
SE
35
46
461
2,193
89
718
2,190
3,195
1
184
261
693
117
38
124
1,417
393
88
7,039
74
8
196
3,952
698
1,157
56
775
952
60
22
25
45
31
228
631
4
2,746
609
2,475
253
994
66
5
32
1,077
1,545
59
103
1,074
435
18
7
43
420
11
242
220
0,3
99
42
11
254
230
1
724
215
58
1,951
0.3
Total EU 15
11
New Member
States and Candidate Countries
93
Other countries
65
2
1,330
109
7,554
129
212
113
218
25
94
1,334
200
98
1,983
861
5
680
1,737
18
13,670
140
310
89
8,255
14
3,230
1,885
68
15,869
113
10
3,164
48
455
10,349
249
1,143
637
12
8
3,068
28
529
49
3,269
508
4,691
31,323
1,840
226
12,298
235
5,194
38,337
1,667
176
43
213
12
20
96
0,3
United Kingdom
1,009
174
Portugal
Sweden
13
NMS/
CC**
1,583
Netherlands
Spain
UK
1
46
Luxembourg
NL
15
1
1
LU
188
Ireland
Italy
IT
6
2,821
France
GR
23
Belgium
Denmark
DE
776
Source:
*
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
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
Export from (tonnes/year) *
to *
EU 15
Tonnes/year
AT
BE
Austria
DK
FI
FR
60
Belgium
DE
GR
IE
IT
LU
<0.5
61
223
21
4
641
NL
PT
ES
<0.5
SE
UK
NMS/
CC
14
3
360
19
168
854
7
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
Denmark
Germany
2
Greece
298
16
3
3
Ireland
Italy
62
1,478
374
34
2
426
29
<0.5
178
16
425
619
23
25
319
57
382
11
2
18
Netherlands
<0.5
122
3
96
105
Portugal
<0.5
33
3
3
96
97
7
21
728
13
98
15
68
38
559
95
41
1
121
460
8
5,412
924
352
3
70
100
23
3,966
<0.5
1,261
343
34
6,335
245
Sweden
<0.5
United Kingdom
Total EU 15
<0.5
546
2
New Member
States and Candidate Countries
25
Other countries
14
Source:
*
19
2,669
44
52
50
8
3
210
Spain
2
116
11
<0.5
Luxembourg
1
980
293
31
41
41
1
1,589
15
125
4,145
263
232
3
2
1,045
12
32
178
23
1,348
226
1,410
11,400
819
61
5,838
235
1,233
13,865
1,667
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
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.
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
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
Export from (1000 €/year) *
to *
EU 15
1000 €/year
AT
BE
DK
FI
138
Austria
FR
143
5
Denmark
5
12
52
908
149
545
France
Germany
6
Greece
8
Ireland
IE
IT
LU
<0.5
409
79
4
223
318
251
1,014
456
723
3,404
383
1,489
299
104
1
107
41
94
15
193
422
41
25
969
64
48
22
<0.5
62
4
1
25
<0.5
29
264
2
38
Total EU 15
New Member
States and Candidate Countries
387
10
Other countries
722
20
Source:
*
1
146
327
136
198
31
<0.5
113
493
<0.5
745
5
79
1
316
<0.5
142
903
6
2,417
10
2,834
5,094
4
351
1
710
53
123
1,358
94
1,708
815
255
893
16
80
103
3,158
4
6
NMS/
CC
905
6
12
46
2,536
4
14
22
Netherlands
2
136
2
19
Luxembourg
352
UK
102
104
United Kingdom
SE
365
327
Sweden
ES
96
49
Spain
PT
2,981
Italy
Portugal
NL
392
3
12
Finland
GR
116
31
Belgium
DE
106
379
674
766
<0.5
3
2,199
733
5
<0.5
934
1,036
166
3,809
47
17,115
230
4
1,867
3,602
145
8,720
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
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.
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
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
Export from (tonnes/year) *
to *
EU 15
tonnes/year
AT
BE
Austria
DK
FI
7
Belgium
<0.5
Denmark
<0.5
Finland
FR
DE
4
2
<0.5
<0.5
18
1
France
2
53
Germany
4
29
7
1
Greece
Ireland
<0.5
Italy
9
GR
1,217
<0.5
147
172
1
111
123
41
197
343
642
177
271
<0.5
50
<0.5
1
<0.5
6
53
1
<0.5
20
45
1
67
28
1
84
4
3
10
2
1
15
3
<0.5
1
14
1
2
32
<0.5
4
10
Total EU 15
11
137
New Member
States and Candidate Countries
19
1
Other countries
35
1
91
<0.5
1
16
71
3
NMS/
CC
128
<0.5
7
2
Source:
*
UK
10
<0.5
9
SE
8
Netherlands
1
ES
70
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
PT
27
33
1
NL
1,202
4
Sweden
LU
5
17
Spain
IT
20
1
Portugal
IE
60
20
<0.5
51
69
326
330
5
177
5
<0.5
<0.5
81
120
9
370
379
771
161
2,050
<0.5
32
22
1
178
286
<0.5
<0.5
199
1,819
2
4,273
106
1
198
1,537
8
2,129
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
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.
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
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
Export from (1000 €/year) *
to *
EU 15
1000 €/year
AT
BE
DK
39
Austria
73
Denmark
DE
France
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Total EU 15
New Member
States and Candidate Countries
Other countries
UK
355
194
115
<0.5
327
225
741
13
6
36
<0.5
290
3
43
381
385
4
212
1,068
1,200
2,454
28
<0.5
8
8
34
17
124
179
78
81
370
<0.5
76
135
32
29
61
<0.5
229
6
102
1
14
3
1
42
3
<0.5
22
117
1,356
62
27
125
8
NMS/
CC
123
<0.5
89
426
29
81
32
1
42
27
110
293
307
5
99
527
2,315
7,701
119
830
2,655
6,703
<0.5
93
270
3
133
<0.5
1,670
54
2,100
89
83
9
497
34
1,122
70
2,282
133
300
SE
11
36
68
ES
85
829
United Kingdom
PT
6
249
70
Sweden
NL
15
112
Spain
LU
75
31
Luxembourg
IT
242
437
1
Ireland
IE
6
<0.5
Greece
GR
10
44
Finland
Source:
*
FR
57
2
Belgium
FI
475
<0.5
3
<0.5
3
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
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.
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
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
Export from (tonnes/year) *
to *
EU 15
tonnes/year
AT
BE
Austria
DK
FI
4
Belgium
FR
DE
3
<0.5
1
<0.5
Denmark
7
Finland
4
France
56
1
31
34
4
1
1
Germany
10
5
Greece
Ireland
<0.5
Italy
10
GR
NL
PT
ES
SE
UK
<0.5
1
34
2
6
21
25
85
45
48
<0.5
6
55
50
<0.5
20
128
112
193
3
1
<0.5
3
2
1
18
21
6
10
7
33
4
1
10
33
<0.5
15
2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Spain
LU
27
Netherlands
<0.5
IT
12
Luxembourg
Portugal
IE
4
15
<0.5
11
59
3
9
31
10
3
Sweden
2
5
United Kingdom
8
14
<0.5
12
10
171
75
6
284
9
230
785
4
5
7
1
65
3
30
114
16
1
56
13
235
10
155
502
Total EU 15
New Member
States and Candidate Countries
Other countries
Source:
*
16
NMS/
CC
5
3
9
44
<0.5
12
63
35
<0.5
<0.5
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
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.
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
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)*
All figures in
million €/year
2000
Prod.
Austria
2001
Import
0.0
Export
2.8
Prod.
2002
Import
0.3
0.0
Export
2.9
Prod.
Import
0.4
0.0
Export
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
16.2
Italy
11.4
6.2
16.4
8.8
6.4
15.7
8.8
5.3
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
0.0
1.3
3.0
0.0
1.4
3.7
0.0
2.0
4.6
Sweden
UK
16
4.8
13.9
22.4
4.9
12
25.5
4.5
10.1
75.4
80
57.1
-
83.6
70.5
-
90.1
65.6
Bulgaria
-
-
-
0.0
-
-
0.0
-
-
Croatia
-
-
-
0.0
-
-
0.0
-
-
Czech Republic
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
-
-
EU 15 **
Estonia
0.0
-
-
0.0
Hungary
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
0.7
-
-
Latvia
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
-
-
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lituania
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 .
**
Total import/export from EU 15 to other countries
-
No data
Source: Europroms database. Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat).
.
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
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
-
0
98
8
10
14
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
44
21
433
777
682
634
498
475
12
10
15
8
12
6
6
7
8
175
162
175
136
154
272
458
474
397
325
349
14
1
-
1
3
5
5
4
1
27
tonnes
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
11
12
5
5
21
403
755
390
433
465
Greece
1
3
1
0
3
2
58
4
21
Ireland
76
97
85
182
145
89
46
82
124
11
5
508
582
602
674
736
920
986
1,303
1,040
906
761
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
1
4
2
2
1
1
2
6
2
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
0
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
EXPORT,Extra EU15
tonnes
296
152
238
320
254
82
92
34
24
63
16
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0
3
2
1
4
0
2
1
0
1
7
0
1
2
0
0
1
1,700
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
497
710
Finland
730
1,129
1,440
1,401
1,385
1,531
1,659
1,507
56
74
68
59
68
77
68
54
51
France
172
225
225
282
253
428
447
382
439
261
474
Germany
139
132
167
170
156
225
203
98
186
227
152
Greece
25
12
20
17
11
28
19
59
92
70
47
Ireland
22
41
108
152
204
114
143
174
80
23
113
173
198
274
347
399
259
496
1,058
1,242
582
840
64
68
182
113
178
289
199
136
161
167
204
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
532
617
869
915
986
1,124
1,257
1,331
1,380
1,349
1,524
1,545
1,468
1,946
1,741
1,210
1,524
735
1,041
1,053
935
1,231
28
13
11
16
10
9
36
16
44
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
Total EU15
314
227
193
421
146
205
176
262
74
194
163
3,476
3,734
4,807
5,362
5,132
5,653
5,036
6,247
6,510
5,312
6,531
**contimued
.
191
IMPORT,Intra EU15
tonnes
1993
1994
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2
3
3
1
34
38
37
19
1
116
179
136
86
117
269
220
191
230
440
786
880
6
5
8
17
4
20
8
14
6
630
409
437
602
627
749
721
821
830
1,036
1,029
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
121
158
142
177
153
1,106
1,254
1,213
1,115
942
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
33
25
19
49
78
68
42
146
80
87
89
-
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
60
73
78
16
36
58
39
46
58
Italy
Luxembourg
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
IMPORT,Extra EU15
tonnes
486
832
844
897
866
669
1,177
832
599
556
490
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
-
-
0
0
0
6
1
1
1
9
4
1
2
10
2
3
3
3
1,876
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
98
Belgium
Denmark
513
729
963
987
1,257
1,068
1,184
1,530
1,622
1,585
128
114
90
113
121
124
172
167
181
427
535
582
492
619
837
719
695
782
903
Finland
France
Germany
622
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
Netherlands
46
29
52
76
74
48
142
151
204
212
223
Portugal
26
9
17
4
32
65
61
88
55
35
41
289
330
546
787
1,083
1,222
1,199
809
1,080
1,104
1,193
90
79
64
59
58
53
35
54
59
Luxembourg
Spain
Sweden
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
Total extra EU15,
tonnes
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
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 secret)
.
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
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1,648
1,307
1996
1997
1998
1999
140
143
128
772
2,444
2,826
5,021
10,177
Belgium
Denmark
96
1,127
Finland
2000
2001
2002
2003
429
304
398
282
254
9,246
3,617
4,924
3,204
5,744
507
838
552
810
1,665
6,633
5,785
4,592
3,226
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
9
22
56
8
1
22
36
Greece
Ireland
Italy
1
725
1,637
3,345
4,466
5,016
4,628
4,474
2,537
4,783
5,285
6,299
9,528
12,020
11,799
15,690
15,417
18,578
17,411
16,388
15,699
16,774
16,545
1,946
1,165
0
1
0
3,891
3,898
3,748
7,574
13,266
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
2,401
3,425
2,511
3,065
4,601
4,037
2
87
64
70
169
69
85
75
135
75
123
883
1,110
1,479
2,741
2,287
2,345
2,868
5,358
4,060
7,819
5,859
1,021
1,294
2,429
3,115
2,194
3,010
3,694
4,612
5,340
Sweden
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
285
773
600
720
764
924
852
560
692
33
64
31
13
54
101
31
21
19
71
164
879
1,046
343
1,186
1,204
803
909
978
595
476
517
9,768
11,280
7,963
7,972
6,719
9,678
15,456
12,799
6,310
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
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
3
3
2
0
2
799
1,085
993
1,473
781
1,049
552
1,327
1,576
2,906
4,719
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
962
146
114
133
155
813
359
281
649
361
279
1,190
1,351
1,300
1,367
747
978
1,058
1,201
1,092
1,522
2,531
1,663
1,753
1,895
2,330
2,326
2,154
3,443
2,872
1,901
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
Total EU15
6,913
7,030
6,318
4,900
6,075
4,256
4,057
5,312
6,196
4,877
4,345
29,276
31,643
36,611
50,629
62,378
48,285
39,283
57,138
70,497
65,567
49,221
**contimued
.
193
IMPORT,Intra EU15
1000 €
1993
1994
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2,061
3,076
2,762
2,423
2,871
3,304
3,820
2,855
3,572
6,073
6,596
7,768
8,079
7,784
7,926
3,525
3,842
4,173
6,080
5,648
6,154
3,105
3,379
5,924
6,318
France
13,865
17,660
17,246
20,082
21,479
29,219
Germany
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
6,901
8,063
8,237
7,372
10,615
4,625
4,151
5,841
5,320
5,774
5,928
9,369
11,628
10,642
7,115
27,848
25,874
23,147
21,377
25,674
21,506
18,993
21,119
19,391
15,381
15,733
17,542
21,075
22,471
21,148
18,297
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
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
4,309
5,722
7,347
7,658
6,963
7,425
8,198
8,607
8,452
Luxembourg
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
8,284
11,087
13,750
13,231
15,836
17,395
17,476
18,816
21,851
25,442
26,461
IMPORT,Extra EU15
1000 €
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1,746
2,409
2,467
1,954
2,401
2,795
2,875
2,209
2,905
5,227
5,448
6,485
6,793
6,523
6,406
5,675
6,750
6,702
5,383
7,775
2,001
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
1,443
1,505
Finland
2,408
3,956
4,399
4,481
2,961
2,107
3,745
3,025
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
2,692
2,751
3,384
3,879
4,692
3,936
5,296
6,162
6,352
5,455
4,075
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
1,268
1,596
1,856
1,331
1,362
1,266
1,371
1,961
2,199
Italy
Luxembourg
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
2,505
4,289
8,282
5,320
5,501
6,670
5,017
4,837
4,854
4,473
4,252
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
Total EU15
Total extra EU15,
tonnes
.
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
50.8
30.6
30.5
35.1
42.6
0.4
1.8
Latvia
Lituania
1.7
2.1
0.2
Malta
0.2
0.4
0.6
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
Poland
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
2.8
1.2
0.9
6.9
10.9
-
-
-
29.9
18.6
21.7
Bulgaria
Cyprus
CzechRepublic
62.0
21.0
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
131.2
131.1
Malta
Poland
0.3
105.4
94.4
89.3
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
0.2
0.4
0.9
234.0
235.9
228.6
310.3
320.3
Malta
Poland
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
Total
26.4
2.0
3.8
4.2
4.2
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
-
-
-
-
-
32.1
44.5
49.4
78.8
104.8
Cyprus
CzechRepublic
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
143.8
140.5
126.1
279.7
301.0
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
Lituania
Malta
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
-
-
-
-
-
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
170.5
159.5
139.4
313.8
311.6
20.0
31.8
51.2
135.7
98.3
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
Cyprus
CzechRepublic
Lituania
Malta
Poland
Turkey
Total
37.7
46.9
14.5
22.3
972.0
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
2.2
2.8
Cyprus
CzechRepublic
4.7
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
265.8
281.3
211.9
278.3
214.0
37.1
77.5
9.8
10.3
41.2
3.1
4.5
1.1
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
Latvia
Lituania
Malta
Poland
Turkey
0.8
1.6
1.0
2.5
12.4
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
1.8
0.2
0.2
183.1
313.0
285.0
292.3
Total
Cyprus
CzechRepublic
6.1
214.0
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
74.3
35.7
129.5
171.9
401.1
2,937.7
2,773.9
Lituania
Malta
Poland
0.8
1,450.4
1,702.1
2,121.7
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
Total
42.7
1.3
3.7
12.0
3.9
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
1.8
2.4
3.0
1,334.5
1,561.5
1,501.1
1,375.0
Cyprus
CzechRepublic
10.8
1,117.4
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
3.1
4.5
1.9
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
Malta
Poland
Turkey
Total
51.4
13.4
11.6
20.2
28.9
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
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
178.5
Estonia
Rumania
39.7
36.4
84.3
114.0
Slovakia
148.4
177.7
223.4
217.3
230.0
Slovenia
123.9
169.1
147.7
181.3
162.5
Turkey
Total
167.3
304.0
74.4
210.4
279.3
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
CzechRepublic
48.2
49.4
108.1
139.2
125.7
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
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
Poland
Turkey
Total
307.7
388.0
218.7
163.2
397.8
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
390.3
506.4
595.4
617.6
775.4
1,161.2
1,070.8
781.8
1,275.4
1,107.1
406.0
446.1
538.1
889.5
550.1
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
Latvia
Lituania
Malta
Poland
Turkey
Total
475.0
697.1
293.2
373.6
677.0
10,702.6
15,802.7
16,016.4
15,503.0
15,983.4
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 secret)
.
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 ((exclusive rods, wheels and hooks) (95.07.90.00), average of 2000, 2001 and 2002
Export from (1000 €/year) *
to *
1000 €/year
AT
BE
Austria
DK
33
Belgium
FI
458
426
Denmark
7
Finland
<0.5
France
Germany
1,810
180
98
152
210
21
<0.5
PT
44
302
3
45
122
45
367
3,749
65
1,099
1
32
1,388
6,406
65
2
24
1
981
229
1,800
110
1,074
102
<0.5
11
89
1,478
98
3,348
6,483
1,189
5,470
67
379
3,653
97
2,634
17,674
436
661
1,858
27
2,352
116
284
2,437
13,466
3,683
61
592
9
21
8
14
1,021
17
43
211
1
67
9,762
101
49
9
173
2
1,646
179
125
23
73
33
28
728
272
99
680
553
335
402
22
8
13
21
47
504
53
86
1,200
2
284
36
406
144
1,857
459
381
2,232
22
15
<0.5
1,095
489
125
85
127
159
2
22
117
28
5
22
68
18
<0.5
8
552
10,681
72
104
53
1,622
4,091
177
1
22
365
3
1
19
2,346
5,486
523
1,616
1
45
3,880
38
44
95
5,771
57
169
2,317
141
20
3
194
530
112
1,104
240
104
2,288
123
570
Total EU 15
328
3,915
5,137
11,048
12,752
5,397
10
4,200
16,287
389
5,073
New Member
States and Candidate Countries
292
13
64
5,191
1,187
1,531
50
97
4,704
Other countries
488
24
1,153
7,454
4,773
1,893
70
13,478
10,551
Source:
*
NMS/
CC
189
187
8
1
EU 15
UK
1,308
3
2
SE
66
25
99
ES
43
4,207
2
1,002
<0.5
NL
46
Spain
United Kingdom
31
74
264
2,290
LU
226
Luxembourg
Sweden
151
IT
237
<0.5
Portugal
11
IE
1,139
Ireland
Netherlands
GR
56
3
Italy
DE
2,712
283
Greece
FR
71
41
95
729
2
1,208
431
83
727
6,079
299
5,715
3,772
12,018
86,136
12,225
39
97
629
14,622
1,263
2,726
4,832
50,345
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
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.
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
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, average of 2000, 2001 and 2002
Import from:
1.000 €/year
Export to:
1.000 €/year
t/year
t/year
New Member States and Candidate Countries (NMSCC):
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
247
8
450
2
0
327
28
16
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
Poland
2
0
272
13
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
12,411
1,018
14,622
1,109
15,006
503
23,130
819
47
0
3,622
102
1,043
71
3,400
150
Total NMSCC
Other:
USA
Russia
Norway
Canada
Tunisia
Switzerland
Croatia
Japan
Serb. Monten.
Algeria
804
59
2,033
54
1,952
169
2,029
342
215
12
1,904
86
9
0
1,775
185
6,130
95
1,612
63
237
13
906
73
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
13
Andorra
50
3
442
South Africa
198
14
398
14
Madagascar
150
4
383
17
14
Ukraine
1
0
373
Taiwan
4,707
267
316
4
-
-
282
23
53
10
257
13
23,129
2,821
37
2
Cuba
Iceland
China
South Korea
8,573
361
16
1
India
4,942
471
98
98
Other
Total non-NMSCC
Source:
4,351
235
4,535
4,288
72,207
5,132
50,345
6,578
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
*
Export and import as registered by EU Member States
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
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
in million €/year
Import
Rods
Hooks
Export
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
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.6
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
Portugal
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.
P:\59284A\3_PDOC\DOC\Annex statistics.DOC
.
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*
All figures in
Million €/year
2000
Prod.
2001
Import
Export
Prod.
2002
Import
Export
Prod.
Import
Export
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
24.2
1.4
6.2
46.1
0.4
5.8
45.2
0.6
4.2
Italy
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
13.2
35.6
4.6
9.9
35.2
5.5
13.1
40.8
7.1
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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Czech Republic
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hungary
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Latvia
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
Lituania
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Poland
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Romania
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Slovakia
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Slovenia
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Estonia
*
**
-
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 individual countries' export/import)
No data or insufficient data (the figure for reported commodity codes = 0)
Source: Europroms database. Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat).
.
202
Table A5. 26 Production, import and export of made-up fishing nets 2000-2002*
All figures in
Tonnes/year
2000
Prod.
2001
Import
Export
Prod.
2002
Import
Export
Prod.
Import
Export
Austria
-
38
-
-
37
-
-
19
-
Belgium
-
158
12
-
142
5
-
178
5
433
Denmark
763
1,254
755
556
1,213
390
633
1,115
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
758
Italy
3,967
146
1,303
7,947
80
1,040
7,823
87
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
2,449
9,312
3,649
2,187
8,396
1,191
2,571
9,793
1,784
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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Czech Republic
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
169
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hungary
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Latvia
-
-
-
61
-
-
-
-
-
Lituania
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Poland
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Romania
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Slovakia
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Slovenia
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Estonia
*
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 individual countries' export/import)
-
No data or insufficient data (the figure for reported commodity codes = 0)
Source: Europroms database. Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat).
.
203
Table A5. 27 Import and export of made-up fishing nets (56.08.11) EU 15, 19932003, in tonnes
EXPORT,Intra EU15
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
tonnes
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
98.3
8.4
10.3
14.2
44.4
20.6
433.0
776.7
681.6
633.6
497.8
475.1
11.5
9.7
15.4
7.8
12.2
5.9
6.4
7.4
8.4
175.0
162.1
174.8
136.1
154.3
272.4
458.1
474.3
397.0
324.5
349.2
13.5
0.9
-
1.3
3.2
4.8
5.2
4.1
1.0
27.4
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
10.6
12.3
4.7
4.9
21.2
402.8
754.8
389.9
433.2
465.1
Greece
1.0
2.8
1.1
0.2
3.1
1.9
57.5
3.5
21.1
Ireland
75.7
96.8
84.6
181.6
145.1
88.8
45.9
81.9
123.8
10.8
5.3
507.7
581.6
601.6
673.5
736.1
920.1
986.1
1,302.7
1,039.9
906.1
761.2
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
0.8
3.9
2.3
1.9
0.5
0.9
1.7
5.7
1.9
296.0
151.8
237.8
319.9
254.4
81.8
91.8
34.1
24.4
62.9
15.8
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
0.3
2.6
2.1
1.0
4.0
0.1
1.7
0.7
0.4
1.1
7.3
0.4
0.5
2.2
0.2
0.1
1.1
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
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
138.6
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
0.1
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
Total EU15
EXPORT,Extra EU15
tonnes
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
132.4
167.1
170.2
156.0
224.9
203.2
97.6
186.2
226.5
151.5
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
172.7
198.1
273.8
347.3
399.2
259.0
495.6
1,057.8
1,241.7
582.2
839.6
63.6
68.4
181.7
112.8
177.5
289.4
198.7
135.9
161.1
166.8
204.1
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
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
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
28.3
13.3
10.7
15.9
10.4
9.3
36.3
15.8
43.7
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
Total EU15
313.7
226.9
192.6
420.5
145.5
205.3
176.2
261.7
74.0
194.0
163.2
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
IMPORT,Intra EU15
tonnes
1993
1994
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2.0
3.0
2.8
1.2
33.7
37.6
37.3
18.9
0.7
116.3
178.8
135.6
85.8
117.0
268.5
220.2
191.4
229.9
439.6
786.0
880.4
5.9
4.8
8.3
17.3
3.7
19.7
7.5
14.2
5.7
630.2
408.9
437.4
601.6
627.4
749.2
720.7
821.1
830.3
1,036.1
1,028.5
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
120.5
158.2
141.5
177.2
152.9
1,106.3
1,253.5
1,212.8
1,114.5
942.4
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
33.1
25.2
19.1
49.3
78.1
67.7
42.4
146.3
80.2
87.3
88.9
-
0.1
1.1
2.0
0.2
249.2
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
259.8
250.2
45.8
44.3
55.8
229.1
224.1
184.6
334.7
392.8
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
59.7
73.0
77.5
16.2
36.0
57.8
38.6
45.9
57.5
485.5
832.0
844.1
896.5
865.8
669.4
1,176.9
831.8
598.7
555.5
489.5
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
0.3
6.1
0.5
1.1
0.6
10.0
1.9
2.9
3.3
3.1
1,875.8
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
Total EU15
IMPORT,Extra EU15
tonnes
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
98.1
-
-
0.2
0.3
9.3
3.7
0.6
2.3
Belgium
Denmark
513.1
728.7
Finland
France
Germany
622.0
426.9
963.0
986.6
1,257.3
1,068.0
1,184.1
1,529.9
1,622.2
1,584.7
127.7
114.2
89.9
112.9
120.5
123.5
171.9
166.6
181.0
535.2
582.0
492.3
619.2
837.0
719.3
694.8
782.3
902.9
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
46.4
29.1
51.7
76.2
73.9
48.1
141.8
151.1
203.8
211.7
222.8
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
26.1
8.8
17.0
3.8
31.9
64.8
60.5
87.9
55.3
35.4
41.1
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
90.3
79.3
64.3
59.3
58.3
52.7
34.5
53.6
58.6
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
Total EU15
186.1
236.6
339.8
274.0
312.9
274.1
258.9
380.5
310.7
304.9
341.5
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
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 secret)
.
205
Table A5. 28 Import and export of made-up fishing nets (56.08.11) EU 15, 19932003, in 1000 €
EXPORT,IntraEU15
1000€
1993
1994
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0
2
3
0
1
2
2
3
1
148
64
117
107
164
312
3,197
4,670
6,607
6,446
5,110
4,745
115
119
123
117
155
81
115
89
109
731
706
884
918
1,079
1,080
2,168
2,677
2,366
2,904
2,234
69
34
10
39
65
95
157
101
11
84
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
34
51
27
31
90
3,625
5,614
3,102
3,362
3,315
Greece
9
22
5
2
22
17
294
24
161
Ireland
523
1,118
960
2,462
2,115
1,112
559
929
1,542
99
49
3,319
3,509
3,691
4,553
4,598
5,580
5,478
6,225
5,756
5,081
4,461
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
13
80
61
61
3
4
15
45
58
2,747
1,039
1,179
2,054
1,495
924
876
318
1,103
1,653
348
22,675
23,048
29,032
34,006
33,623
34,934
34,483
39,375
43,420
40,932
31,816
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
4
7
13
11
21
1
19
9
8
8
44
9
4
15
2
2
8
4,048
5,081
4,544
6,503
8,385
7,549
6,820
7,702
8,691
6,958
6,476
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
1,258
Italy
Luxembourg
3
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
TotalEU15
EXPORT,ExtraEU15
1000 €
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
1,404
1,674
1,793
1,464
1,860
1,759
831
2,042
2,610
1,543
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
1,064
894
1,456
1,848
2,031
1,316
2,457
4,690
5,705
2,643
3,717
Italy
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
231
172
133
166
126
151
241
261
435
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
TotalEU15
3,255
1,870
1,534
2,518
1,355
2,020
1,423
1,866
1,598
1,925
1,369
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
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
72
46
70
30
177
190
211
74
21
936
881
800
541
590
1,087
1,056
846
1,110
2,087
3,651
4,094
87
69
109
165
43
109
77
93
66
3,346
3,009
2,566
3,338
2,747
3,484
3,429
4,347
4,868
5,387
5,033
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
676
870
854
958
875
5,103
6,276
6,047
5,544
4,970
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
1
4
32
5
5
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
2,301
2,582
2,584
2,455
2,855
4,064
3,396
4,620
5,543
7,111
6,251
673
713
1,091
314
412
754
619
670
929
Luxembourg
Spain
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
TotalEU15
IMPORT,ExtraEU15
1000€
2,260
3,672
3,267
3,738
4,442
3,008
6,170
4,293
2,852
2,652
2,357
14,409
15,137
15,182
18,813
21,688
23,905
26,085
29,758
29,586
30,872
27,971
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
7
3
5
8
6
28
8
12
7
122
1
84
40
6
53
39
18
29
55
17
3,414
3,830
4,177
5,055
5,753
5,915
5,760
7,861
7,253
6,610
7,657
846
788
701
755
659
640
863
824
705
4,853
Austria
Belg,-Luxbg
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
4,804
2,915
3,853
3,959
3,690
4,507
5,982
5,444
5,163
5,128
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
1,448
1,683
1,891
2,330
2,476
2,966
2,765
2,248
2,635
2,283
2,735
355
240
429
600
757
452
696
520
765
823
685
Germany
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
111
43
112
45
345
460
364
4,744
476
248
214
1,575
1,599
2,485
4,170
4,537
5,994
5,754
4,612
5,473
5,540
5,903
756
754
714
620
613
583
417
625
598
Sweden
Utd,Kingdom
TotalEU15
1,084
1,369
2,130
1,806
2,331
1,721
1,434
2,101
1,494
1,473
1,780
17,644
17,089
21,849
25,666
27,573
28,425
29,655
34,838
30,551
28,757
29,904
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 secret)
.
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
Bulgaria
Cyprus
CzechRepublic
Estonia
Hungary
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.6
1.6
0.2
0.5
0.4
1.7
3.4
1.5
119.6
122.5
416.9
473.9
364.2
-
0.0
0.3
Latvia
Lituania
Malta
Poland
26.0
0.0
0.7
1.9
22.5
32.8
150.2
348.1
356.3
358.4
341.5
301.8
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
280.3
Rumania
0.0
Slovakia
0.0
0.1
Slovenia
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
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
Turkey
Bulgaria
Cyprus
CzechRepublic
3.4
6.7
Estonia
13.6
20.0
Hungary
0.2
Latvia
1.2
0.2
6.0
4.2
8.4
6.3
30.9
3.2
0.9
5.0
5.7
20.0
3.2
1.6
3.0
84.2
69.1
61.4
90.2
83.3
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
0.1
0.2
Lituania
Malta
Slovakia
0.3
Slovenia
0.1
0.3
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
1.1
1.1
0.6
0.7
0.8
Bulgaria
Cyprus
CzechRepublic
Estonia
0.1
0.1
-
2.7
0.4
3.9
7.1
6.8
9.4
5.7
133.2
142.5
425.3
480.2
395.2
3.5
1.0
Hungary
0.2
Latvia
5.7
20.0
3.2
2.3
4.8
110.2
104.7
94.2
240.3
431.4
0.6
0.6
495.9
419.3
5.8
4.9
Lituania
Malta
Poland
Rumania
8.5
0.2
378.9
392.8
324.9
2.7
5.5
6.2
0.1
0.2
Slovakia
0.4
Slovenia
0.1
0.3
17.9
7.4
5.8
22.7
16.3
774.9
707.9
921.1
1,166.4
1,186.0
Turkey
Total
0.1
0.1
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
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
Poland
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
1.2
17.7
0.3
1.6
0.9
11.9
CzechRepublic
Estonia
7.2
7.8
7.3
12.6
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
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
0.0
0.3
0.8
0.1
Poland
Slovenia
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
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
11.9
7.6
81.5
83.3
37.6
CzechRepublic
Latvia
Lituania
9.1
85.8
76.9
143.6
27.6
10.9
25.3
13.3
22.5
15.4
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
Malta
Poland
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
Estonia
Hungary
18.7
7.8
22.4
25.1
28.2
738.2
742.1
1,687.5
1,858.5
1,524.4
3.2
0.2
0.5
Latvia
Lituania
Malta
Poland
77.4
4.3
7.6
87.5
204.3
789.9
2,192.0
1,165.4
1,034.2
966.4
965.3
0.2
0.1
5.4
0.0
840.1
Rumania
0.0
Slovakia
0.5
2.0
Slovenia
Turkey
Total
EXPORT to NON-EU15, 1000 €
Bulgaria
0.5
1.8
30.3
3.9
2.1
1,682.4
2,010.2
2,984.8
3,652.2
4,730.1
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1.1
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.4
Cyprus
CzechRepublic
34.1
68.0
Estonia
41.4
27.0
Hungary
4.2
Latvia
Lituania
5.9
1.0
50.9
68.1
43.6
121.4
59.7
20.1
20.5
6.3
25.5
33.2
16.2
7.4
5.1
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
Slovenia
0.5
Turkey
3.1
0.4
0.2
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
CzechRepublic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
6.7
1.5
52.8
75.8
73.3
93.2
71.8
779.7
769.1
1,747.2
1,878.6
1,645.8
23.6
6.5
4.6
25.5
33.2
16.2
11.7
12.7
388.8
480.2
563.1
1,243.5
2,656.8
1.3
3.1
1,669.0
1,494.8
Rumania
26.4
31.5
Slovakia
4.1
Slovenia
0.5
Lituania
Malta
Poland
Turkey
Total
67.0
0.1
1,228.6
1,475.6
1,182.8
18.7
51.6
31.2
2.3
1.2
3.1
2.5
0.2
17.4
18.1
37.3
30.9
51.4
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
Bulgaria
1.5
82.4
34.3
46.4
1.5
Cyprus
84.7
109.1
55.6
31.7
59.6
CzechRepublic
2003
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
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
Poland
Turkey
321.0
534.4
684.5
1,160.4
1,713.9
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
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
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
0.0
3.1
10.4
1.2
Total
CzechRepublic
Poland
Slovenia
Turkey
Total
469.2
83.8
267.9
514.7
1,493.3
1,882.4
1,436.1
2,120.1
2,167.4
2,900.1
2003
IMPORT, total, 1000 €
1999
2000
2001
2002
Bulgaria
16.1
111.2
84.1
95.3
38.8
Cyprus
363.4
257.8
275.5
225.0
330.5
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
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
CzechRepublic
Poland
Turkey
Total
790.1
618.2
952.4
1,675.1
3,207.1
2,895.6
3,186.7
3,983.1
4,435.2
5,930.3
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 secret)
.
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 €
Export from (1000 €/year) *
to *
1000 €/year
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
<0.5
Austria
<0.5
78
Belgium
DE
Denmark
GR
IE
IT
9
145
2
<0.5
2
13
25
80
32
416
<0.5
695
2
Greece
2
<0.5
Ireland
422
21
France
2
Germany
<0.5
2
<0.5
937
1
<0.5
Netherlands
3
478
56
23
761
<0.5
2
1
40
191
<0.5
4
Spain
1,512
Sweden
Total EU 15
2
New Member
States and Candidate Countries
4
Other countries
3
36
6
ES
SE
244
50
121
435
<0.5
177
2,253
2,242
3
13
EU 15
NMS/
CC**
83
1
UK
9
662
-
<0.5
23
5,157
1,924
11
<0.5
95
761
-
239
1,621
4,413
27
7,493
301
89
553
13
1,860
27
2,075
22
10
48
30
2,188
11
217
576
60
577
78
1,950
-
10
18
665
2
1,696
-
24
3
3,241
4
659
1
63
1
22
1,399
24
108
18
10
8
712
3
4,951
120
4
14
94
314
United Kingdom
<0.5
PT
55
204
<0.5
<0.5
Portugal
4
1
Luxembourg
Italy
NL
18
68
Finland
LU
1,083
11
734
<0.5
56
1
1,526
-
25
5,935
103
761
2,505
2
247
1,843
1,494
6,154
23
1,845
12,308
11,986
22
1,025
40,569
2,860
530
8
228
250
59
260
5,489
3,805
1,793
6,799
4,383
157
1,537
29,310
537
1
2
634
1,083
4,026
95
2,649
37
153
696
5,687
3,705
178
3
53
151
60
3,829
262
2,601
1,980
689
1,466
1
Source:
*
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat), commodity code 56.08.11.
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 EU 15 countries.
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
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
Export from (tonnes/year) *
to *
1000 tonnes/year
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
Austria
Belgium
8
DE
GR
IE
IT
<0.5
<0.5
3
26
<0.5
2
Denmark
<0.5
Finland
2
10
France
7
Germany
55
16
89
Greece
<0.5
Ireland
55
<0.5
128
Luxembourg
1
10
<0.5
Sweden
6
182
United Kingdom
New Member
States and Candidate Countries
Other countries
7
1
<0.5
1
16
495
463
1
<0.5
<0.5
2
109
1
26
1
1
98
EU 15
NMS/
CC**
UK
<0.5
20
0
1
113
-
2
1,055
617
11
111
1
14
374
824
2
1,377
-
45
29
24
108
1
297
6
425
2
1
10
6
445
2
65
12
118
15
307
-
2
3
161
<0.5
300
-
4
0
2
593
1
<0.5
255
15
6
7
69
Total EU 15
77
40
1
SE
17
4
50
Portugal
Spain
ES
24
<0.5
<0.5
Netherlands
PT
12
85
<0.5
NL
41
<0.5
2
Italy
LU
<0.5
15
302
208
2
3
2
129
<0.5
939
1
1,104
34
<0.5
2
10
235
0
27
414
315
1,200
5
197
2,578
2,388
3
40
7,316
757
<0.5
56
221
<0.5
141
526
7
399
2
25
61
1,083
991
34
1
5
20
5
101
1
50
51
5
26
1,290
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.
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 EU 15 countries.
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
213
Table A5. 32 Import and export of made-up fishing nets EU 15, average of 2000,
2001 and 2002
Import from:
1000 €/year
Export to:
1000 €/year
Import from:
t/year
Bulgaria
10
9
2
2
Cyprus
2
167
0
18
All figures in 1.000 €/year
Czech Rep.
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Export to:
t/year
112
141
41
27
3,044
2,721
892
777
2
14
0
2
13
280
4
34
178
505
29
84
312
230
210
Malta
914
Poland
893
21
23
Romania
Slovakia
0
Slovenia
43
Turkey
Total NMSCC
4
6
5
481
129
84
4,280
5,489
1,410
1,290
1,830
4,454
331
702
Other:
Norway
USA
342
3,420
17
430
Morocco
21
2,036
13
421
Canada
6
1,904
0
360
Chile
Faroe Isles
4
1,735
1
346
17
1,488
10
241
Seychelles
1,177
South Korea
502
Secr.Extra
1,121
145
173
1,032
Croatia
874
Iceland
93
126
223
905
812
U.A.Emirates
0
627
0.2
Australia
0
612
0.1
N.det.Extra
4
525
2
511
0
77
12
490
2
91
Argentina
106
1
517
Ivory Coast
Uruguay
136
87
153
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
26,952
29,310
3,990
4,481
Total non-NMSCC
Source:
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat)
*
Export and import as registered by EU Member States, commodity code 56.08.11.
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
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 database 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*
All figures in
Million €/year
2000
Prod.
Austria
2001
Import
Export
Prod.
2002
Import
Export
Prod.
Import
Export
14.0
32.7
6.3
12.3
37.2
6.0
12.8
37.5
7.2
-
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
262.6
92.7
91.6
261.8
96.2
88.1
281.7
93.1
73.1
Belgium
Germany
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
53.4
21.8
16.5
79.0
17.7
14.5
78.1
16.7
12.3
Italy
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
-
-
Czech Republic
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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 .
Source: Europroms database. Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat).
.
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
Bulgaria
Import from:
1000 €/year
Import from:
tonnes/year
Export to:
1000 €/year
5
454
Export to:
tonnes/year
1
160
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
5,042
1,104
2,263
492
370
120
177
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
180
20
444
6
267
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
410
851
311
340
80,163
17,128
51,946
8,800
147,834
128
76,949
66
11,175
Malta
Poland
Turkey
Total NMSCC
Other:
China
USA
14,756
32,944
2,371
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
38
Morocco
521
111
157
N.det.Intra
312
84
100
27
Bangladesh
276
4
53
1
2
91
0
Vietnam
258
Macao
220
0
107
0
South Korea
160
363
44
62
Egypt
145
32
68
9
Other
Total non-NMSCC
Source:
1,003
16,133
400
3,706
199,831
98,857
95,222
68,332
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat), Commodity code 34.06
*
Export and import as registered by EU Member States
Empty cells = no registered export or import, may indicate that the figure is 0 or the data are kept secret)
.
216
Table A5. 35 Import of candles and the like from China, average of 2000, 2001 and
2002
Austria
Import
Import
1.000 €/year
tonnes/year
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
5,054
2,914
Greece
Ireland
595
321
18,799
9,476
Luxembourg
146
92
Netherlands
21,379
12,349
Italy
Portugal
817
457
Spain
9,756
6,362
Sweden
3,048
1,640
32,457
16,356
147,834
76,949
Utd. Kingdom
EU 15
Source:
COMEXT, Commission of the European Communities (Statistical Office/Eurostat), Commodity code 34.06.
.