1.    Introduction
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) published its formal opinion for restricting lead in ammunition in March 2023. It proposed that the EU should restrict the use of lead ammunition in hunting and sport shooting. This will also affect EEA countries and Northern Ireland. Indoor shooting disciplines and non-civilian uses are excluded from the scope of the proposed restriction.  
The following restrictions are proposed by ECHA:
•    Lead shot: Ban placing lead shot on the market together with a ban on its use for hunting. A transitional period of 5 years. However, ECHA’s committees (RAC and SEAC) consider the proposed 5 years too long and propose 18 months.
•    Centrefire lead ammunition for rifles: Ban the use of lead bullets for hunting (seal hunting and full metal jackets excluded). A transitional period of 18 months.
•    Rimfire lead ammunition for rifles: Lead rimfire bullets can be used for hunting for 5 years. This transitional period is combined with a review to consider whether good alternatives are available before the end of 5 years.
•    Lead shot in shooting ranges: Ban on the use of lead shot for sport shooting, with a transitional period of 5 years. However, a very narrow use of lead shot can continue if shooting ranges have extensive risk management measures in place (for example, annual lead recovery of at least 90%).
•    Bullets in shooting ranges: Ban the use of lead rifle and pistol ammunition for sports shooting. A transitional period of 5 years. The use of lead bullets can continue if ranges have specific risk management measures in place as defined by ECHA (‘the specific derogation conditions’).
As regards the specific derogation conditions, ECHA has proposed that lead bullets can be used at civilian outdoor rifle and pistol shooting ranges provided that they are equipped with: EITHER (1) trap chambers;  OR (2) ‘best practice’ sand traps consisting of a sand berm with (a) an impermeable barrier to soil; (b) an overhanging roof or a permanent cover; and (c) a water management system.  
The European Commission (EC) is presently assessing the ECHA’s opinion. The EC may publish its legal proposal in the second half of 2024 to advance discussions in the EU REACH Committee (between Member States and the EC). These discussions could take several months before a vote is cast (depending on the level of debate). After the REACH Committee, the legal proposal will be subject to 3 months “scrutiny” in the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 
If enacted, the proposed restriction would become effective five years after the Commission regulation is published and would cover both centrefire and rimfire ammunition.
Reason for the ESSF survey
Following concerns about the ability of outdoor rifle/pistol “bullet” shooting ranges to comply with ECHA’s proposed derogation conditions and the lack of detailed information at hand for ECHA, the European Shooting Sports Forum (ESSF) decided to gather more information . The survey questions are in Annex I .
Specifically, ESSF believed this survey was necessary because ECHA highlighted many uncertainties/assumptions/sensitivities in its assessment. For example, ECHA states: 
“Despite extensive efforts by the Dossier Submitter (including the conduct of a Member States authority survey in 2020), it was not possible to obtain a detailed overview of the presence of risk management measures (RMMs) already in place at shooting ranges in the EU”. 
During ECHA’s consultations, ESSF member organisations attempted to flag the complexities of shooting ranges in Europe and the already existing risk management methods and techniques, but those concerns were not properly assessed in the development of ECHA’s opinion. 
The survey, with 29 responses from EEA countries and the UK, was designed to gather data on the socio-economic impact of ECHA’s proposal (Annex I).  The survey aims, amongst other things, to gather information on the percentage of “bullet” shooting ranges in which the ECHA’s proposed derogation conditions are in place. 
The results show that a very low number of shooting ranges (less than 6% outside Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) are already complying with the proposed derogation conditions.
Hence, the survey results raise serious concerns about ECHA’s derogation conditions for the continued use of lead ammunition at bullet shooting ranges. More specifically, the results show that the current proposals from ECHA would have a detrimental effect on European civilian outdoor rifle and pistol shooting ranges and shooters. In this context, we foresee that the survey results will be very helpful for the EC, which is currently assessing ECHA’s opinion. 
The following sections provide updated information and cost estimates based on the information gathered from the member representatives of ESSF. 

2.    Common features of rifle and pistol shooting ranges
Civilian outdoor rifle and pistol shooting ranges, which vary considerably in size and type, typically consist of various firing lines and targets, backstops (to contain bullets and fragments), side berms (to contain ricochets), and noise absorbers. Targets are placed in front of either soil/sand walls or trap chambers to catch the bullets safely. 
Shooting ranges are complex structures consisting of various individual disciplines, like 30 metres wide running moose/boar/deer; 10, 25 and 50 m pistol ranges; 50-1000 m rifle ranges; and ranges for practical shooting (dynamic shooting or action shooting). The actual number of shooting disciplines and stands is typically significantly higher than the number of shooting ranges as such. 
For those multiple discipline shooting ranges, which the majority of those are, their modification to the ECHA’s derogation conditions would, therefore, entail the cumulation of various updating and reconstruction costs. For example, most existing shooting ranges in France are based on sand traps without running water management. 
All in all, civilian outdoor rifle and pistol shooting ranges have different constructions and designs, use and climatic conditions in various parts of Europe, meaning that different solutions are applied in terms of safety, maintenance and the environment. As an example, the number of best practice sand traps with roofs, as proposed by ECHA, is low in the Nordic countries due to the climate and magnitude of snowfall during winter. In fact, the overwhelming reason why structures proposed by ECHA have not been installed in many countries is that they are not necessarily suitable and that there are more efficient and cost-effective ways to manage risks at shooting ranges. 
Considering the above, the best solution for a specific shooting range against environmental risk will vary greatly from one situation to another in terms of safety, need for maintenance, environmental factors and climatic conditions and, not least, finances. 

3.    Survey results
3.1    Number of shooting ranges
According to the survey results from 29 responding European countries, there are at minimum 19 514 civilian outdoor rifle and pistol shooting ranges varying from 1 in Liechtenstein to 10 000 in Germany (Annex II).  
As stated, shooting ranges are complex and normally provide a combination of various shooting disciplines, such as a 30 m running moose/boar/deer track; 10, 25, and 50 m pistol ranges; 50-1000 m rifle shooting ranges; and ranges for practical shooting. 
Consequently, those 19 514 shooting ranges have more than 32 000 rifle (18 410) and pistol (13 924) shooting stands (Annex II). 

​

3.2    Shooting ranges fulfilling the derogation conditions
The number of outdoor civilian rifle and pistol shooting ranges already fulfilling the proposed derogation conditions is low (Annex III). 
However, some countries (Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) have indicated that 75-100% of their ranges fulfil the proposed trap chamber and/or the best practice sand trap requirements. 
For decades, Germany has applied strict regulations on new and established shooting ranges. Ranges are, from the outset, individually planned, budgeted and implemented due to the existing regulations (German Shooting Range Guidelines based on the German Weapon Law).  This process has taken decades, which is a relevant point in terms of the timelines proposed by ECHA.
Luxembourg does not have traditional outdoor civilian shooting ranges, and all ranges are “semi-outdoor” with covered trap chambers and firing points. Those installations are a requirement for the opening and continuation of a shooting range. 
As regards the Netherlands, the proposed derogation conditions have been applicable for a long time, and the number of outdoor ranges is very limited, as almost all rifle and pistol shooting ranges are indoors. 
Out of 19 514 civilian outdoor rifle and pistol shooting ranges in the responding countries, 10 033 are in Germany (10 000), Luxembourg (8) and the Netherlands (25), and thus 9 481 in the rest of Europe.
Right from wrong, the calculations below are based on the presumption that all those ranges in Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands already comply with the proposed derogation conditions.
The implementation of the ECHA’s proposal, if enacted as proposed, would however cause major challenges for the rest of 9 481 civilian outdoor rifle and pistol shooting ranges in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Estonia, France, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, UK, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Liechtenstein, Ireland, Belgium, Cyprus, Slovenia, Austria, Czech, Greece, Latvia, Italy, Hungary, Portugal and Spain.  
Notably, some responding countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Poland, Slovenia, Czech, Hungary, Austria and Spain) indicate that some but “less than 5% of their shooting ranges are complying with the proposed derogation conditions”.  
As there appear to be some shooting ranges in those countries complying with  the derogation conditions proposed by ECHA and for ensuring that the calculations are on a conservative side, the respective “less than 5%” have been counted as “5%”: Finland (34), Sweden (160), Norway (65), France (40), Poland (25), Slovenia (1), Czech (20), Hungary (10), Austria (25) and Spain (7). Moreover, Denmark (31-154) and Ireland (1-4) have estimated that 5-25% of their ranges align with the proposed derogation conditions. 
In total, it is estimated that 418 to 544 (4.4 to 5.7%) of the shooting ranges in the responding countries (outside Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) are already complying with the proposed derogation conditions.
The above can be criticised as being an overestimation of the shooting ranges already fulfilling the proposed derogation conditions. This criticism is correct but “less than 5%” cannot be quantified because of the inherent variability between “none” and 5%”. Thus, the estimates are deliberately based on “5%” which is admittedly too high but anyway a method to replace the said data gap.  
Therefore, it could be estimated that the number of bullet shooting ranges not complying with the ECHA’s derogation conditions in the responding countries (without Germany, Luxemburg and the Netherlands) to the ECHA’s derogation conditions is at least 9 000 [[(9 481-418) + (9 481-544)]/2]. 

​

3.3    Installation of water management systems
Water management systems (diverting runoff water, drainage, filtering, treatment, discharge and maintenance) can be expensive. For example, Norway estimates that the cost of building such a system is €100 000 per shooting range.  
As the number of non-complying shooting ranges in the responding countries (without Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) is at least 9 000 and presuming that all those ranges must install a full water management system, the total cost of such installations would be at least €900 million.

​

3.4    Upgrading running target silhouette tracks
A running track is a rifle shooting sport and practice based on running a moose/wild boar/deer silhouette moving sideways. The survey shows that there are 2 080 to 3 025 of those tracks in the responding countries (outside Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands). 
Norway estimates that the cost of building a sand trap with a roof (without water management system) will be around €1 830 per metre, which would be around €54 900 for each 30 metre running moose/wild boar track.  
The compliance cost to the ECHA’s proposal would thus be between €114 to 166 million for constructing a complying running target sand trap with a roof (without water management system).
It is to be noted that running target silhouette tracks are in addition to and separate from other rifle and pistol shooting disciplines at the same shooting ranges. 

​

3.5    Installation of trap chambers
The survey results show that shooting ranges in the responding countries (outside Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) either do not have trap chambers installed or have them installed in less than 5% of the ranges. 
Trap chambers are expensive solutions, like steel and rubber bullet traps, bullet trap cassettes, and vertical steel plates. High-quality steel is costly, so it cannot normally be installed using volunteer labour, and the costs of operation/maintenance are high. 
Sweden has estimated that the installation cost of installation trap chambers (STAPP) for 20 shooting positions will be €200 000, excluding excavation work.  It has also pointed out that the cost of constructing a military rifle range for 20 shooting stands in terms of the ECHA’s derogation conditions is €700 000 including excavation work. Additional annual maintenance cost is €10 000 – 30 000. 
As purchase of trap chambers, their installation and maintenance are expensive, it is presumed that only 10% (900) or 20 % (1 800) of the respective shooting ranges (9 000) will install them for 20 shooting stands with the cost of €200 000.
The total installation cost (excluding excavation work) of trap chambers would be around €180 to €360 million. 

​

3.6    Upgrading soil/sand traps
Out of at least 9 000 non-compliant shooting ranges in the responding countries (without Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands), it is presumed that around 900 (10%) or 1 800 (20%) of those would resort to trap chambers, and therefore the task of upgrading soil/sand traps concerns at least 7 200 to 8 100 shooting ranges.
Various kinds of sand/soil bullet traps are used on almost all the ranges in the responding countries, and those traps operate properly in terms of safety, cost, and maintenance. 
However, the proposed derogation conditions require an impermeable barrier to soil, an overhanging roof or a permanent cover, and a water management system. 
Upgrading shooting ranges to the proposed derogation conditions requires, at least, removing the existing sand/soil by heavy earthmoving equipment and labour, installing the insulation, and building up a roof or permanent cover. As regards drainage water systems, different environmental conditions bring different challenges with hot, cold, watery environments all presenting unique technical and design problems.
The cost of the proposed best practice sand traps (including excavation works) is estimated at €341 000 for a rifle range with a sand trap of 39 metres, €253 000 for a pistol range with a sand trap of 28 metres and €789 000 for practical shooting range with a sand trap of 94 metres.  
As noted above, there remains 7 200 to 8 100 existing shooting ranges which do not comply with the proposed derogation conditions, and where the ECHA’s proposed best practice sand trap must be installed. 
The total cost of upgrading a rifle range with a sand trap of 39 metres (€341 000) to the ECHA’s derogation conditions would be €2 455 to €2 762 million.
The total cost of upgrading pistol ranges with a sand trap of 28 metres (€253 000) to the ECHA’s derogation conditions would be €1 822 million to €2 049 million.
As the number of practical shooting ranges is unknown, we cannot estimate the cost of upgrading those with a sand trap of 94 metres to the proposed derogation conditions. However, the French Shooting Federation (French Fédération Française de Tir) has estimated that one stand of practical shooting costs €50 000, and thus the cost of 10 stands would be €500 000. Finland has also estimated that the cost is €789 000 for a practical shooting range with a sand trap of 94 metres. However, the total number of practical shooting tracks in the responding countries has not been estimated.

​

3.7    Funds available
As regards funds available for upgrading outdoor civilian rifle and pistol shooting ranges to the proposed derogation conditions, almost all responding countries indicated that none or less than 5% of their shooting ranges have finances available for such an operation (Annex IV).
Without changes to those conditions, namely the bullet trap specifications and/or the strictly defined best practice sand traps, most shooting ranges will not be able to cater to the continued use of lead bullets because they do not have the capital needed to invest. 
It is important to note that average civilian outdoor rifle and pistol shooting ranges are entities that do not normally operate at scale to enable business-like operations.

4.    Comparison with the data used by ECHA
ECHA has estimated that there are 16 000 rifle and pistol shooting ranges in the EU. Half of those (8 000) are in Germany and equipped with bullet trap chambers which are legal requirement in the country. 
As regards bullet containment within the rest of the EU rifle and pistol shooting ranges (8 000, excluding Germany), ECHA estimates that 5% of those have sand traps with impermeable layer to soil (400), 35% have sand traps without impermeable layer to soil (2 800), and 10% have soil berms (800).  
As noted above, ECHA does not have data related to the existing risk management measures at rifle and pistol shooting ranges, and thus cannot estimate whether they are equipped with an impermeable barrier to soil, an overhanging roof or a permanent cover, and a water management system. 

5.    Concerns
5.1    Underestimated costs
ECHA estimates that costs for upgrading the current risk management measures at bullet shooting ranges to meet the proposed derogation conditions are €1 094 million. 

However, the current calculations based on the survey of 29 responding countries show that the estimated costs of the proposed measures would be around six times higher than that of the cost figure used by ECHA: €5 481 to €6 237 million.

Cost figures based on the survey are thus differing significantly from the ECHA’s total of €1 094 million for upgrading all shooting ranges in the EEA States either by trap chamber or by best practice sand trap with impermeable barrier, roof or permanent cover, and water management system. 

Difference between the figures may be explained by the ECHA’s admission that the proposed derogation conditions have been set without knowing the existing risk management measures in place at shooting ranges in Europe.  

As that central aspect of the restriction proposal is not known, it seems obvious that ECHA has greatly underestimated the cost associated with the proposed restriction.
ECHA has also proposed that the owner of a shooting range must ensure that no agricultural activities occur at that location. 
Some herbivores are grazing freely and migrating between different seasonal pastures. Regarding shooting ranges within those pastures, ECHA has neither assessed the risk management measures needed for animals to stop herding at those locations nor the economic consequences.
This is a major gap in ECHA’s opinion because fencing costs, if a consequence of the proposed prohibition, would be one of the most expensive aspects of the whole proposal. 

5.2    Availability of non-lead ammunition
It may be argued that observance of the proposed derogation conditions is not mandatory, as shooting at civilian outdoor rifle and pistol shooting ranges could continue using non-lead ammunition. 

However, such an argument is incomplete. There are few, if any, properly functioning non-lead alternatives available in rimfire and small centrefire calibres, and the ammunition industry is far from being able to produce such ammunition at all or in sufficient quantities in terms of market demand. This is a fact, which was admitted by ECHA.  

Moreover, there are thousands of different cartridges utilising hundreds of different bullet diameters (‘calibres’). Although non-lead centrefire ammunition is made for sport shooting, those are more expensive for training and available only for the most popular cartridges and calibres. 

When non-lead centrefire ammunition for sport shooting and training are neither affordable nor even available for some cartridges and calibres, shooters would either stop shooting or must replace their firearms with the associated extra costs.

​

5.3    No unacceptable risk
Non-civilian uses of lead ammunition have been excluded from the ECHA’s restriction proposal. However, it is a fact that police, custom forces, frontier guards, national intelligence agencies, and army reservists frequently use civilian outdoor rifle and pistol shooting ranges for training in certain countries. 

Excluding the non-civilian use of lead ammunition would lead to a situation whereby, for example, police and custom forces train at a shooting range with lead rifle and pistol bullets on certain days per week, while sport shooters and hunters are required to practice with non-lead bullets on other days of the week.

If civilian outdoor rifle and pistol shooting ranges cannot fulfil the proposed strict risk management measures, which is likely, it is doubtful whether the ECHA’s proposal could fulfil the stated environmental objective.

The restriction process under REACH allows for the targeting of substances and their use that pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.  For the risk to be ‘unacceptable’ and to justify a restriction, it must be substantial and ‘acceptable’ risks may not be countered by means of a restriction.  

It would also be intrinsically controversial to claim that the use of the same lead rifle and pistol ammunition at the same shooting range would pose an unacceptable risk when used by civilians but an acceptable risk when used by non-civilians.
 

5.4    Unreasonable transitional period

As regards the continued use of lead bullets at rifle and pistol shooting ranges, ECHA has proposed that the derogation conditions must be in place within five (5) years from the entry into force of the measure. 
Unfortunately, such measures cannot be achieved within the proposed transitional period. The process including planning, permitting and construction would take for a minimum 1,5 years per one shooting range. In view of the high number of ranges to be reconstructed and the limited availability of planning consultants, permitting officials and construction companies then a significantly longer transition is needed.