Sky lanterns and helium balloons: an assessment of impacts on livestock and the environment

Preparedas a joint report for: Preparedby: Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs ADAS Livestock Policy Division PendefordHouse Ergon House Wobaston Road London Wolverhampton SW1P 2AL WV6 8TQ

Welsh Government May 2013 Department for Environment andSustainableDevelopment Cathays Park Cardiff CF103NQ

0936648

ADAS Project Team

DavidMoorhouse, project manager

StevenTompkins, project leadon evidencefrom stakeholders

RebeccaCarter, project leadondeskreview of literature

Yiying Cao, market evaluationof sky lanternand helium balloon supply industry

Specialist colleagues havealsoprovidedexpert support ingathering and evaluating evidenceonimpacts on animal healthandwelfareand marineecology.

Acknowledgements

Theauthors wouldliketothank all thosewho helpedthem preparethis report, inparticular the stakeholders andrepresentatives of the sky lanternand helium balloonindustry.

Finally, grateful thanks to Defra and Welsh Government for their cooperation, help and assistance, particularly withproviding access details for stakeholders.

Contents

1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1

2. Introduction and Methodology................................................................................ 4

2.1 Background .................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Objectives of study ...................................................................................... 4

2.3 Methodology................................................................................................. 5

3. Review of Impacts.................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Livestock and animal health (including marine animals) ......................... 9

3.2 Fire risk and damage to crops and property ........................................... 11

3.3 Impacts on environment, littering on land and at sea............................. 13

3.4 Risks to aviation......................................................................................... 15

3.5 Risks to coastal rescue services .............................................................. 17

3.6 Risks to consumer safety.......................................................................... 19

3.7 Helium resources ....................................................................................... 20

4. Sky lantern and helium balloon industry ............................................................. 21

4.1 Consumer base and structure of the industry......................................... 21

4.2 Industry response to addressing safety, environmental and other

impacts........................................................................................................ 22

4.3 Industry regulation of product quality...................................................... 23

4.4 Market size, value and numbers employed.............................................. 24

5. Control measures for sky lanterns and helium balloons in England and

Wales and in other EU Member States ................................................................. 27

5.1 Local initiatives .......................................................................................... 27

5.2 National initiatives ..................................................................................... 28

6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 31

6.1 Review of Impacts...................................................................................... 31

6.2 Sky Lantern and Helium Balloon Industry Representation .................... 33

6.3 Scale, Turnover and Number of Employees ............................................ 33

APPENDIX 1 Introductory project letter sent by Defra and Welsh Government to stakeholders on 15 January 2013............................................................................................... 34

APPENDIX 2 Follow up letter sent by Defra and Welsh Government to stakeholders on 4

February 2013 .............................................................................................................................. 35

APPENDIX 3a Interview Guidance Form for Stakeholders .............................................................. 36

APPENDIX 3b Interview Guidance Form for Sky Lantern and Helium Balloon Suppliers and Distributors .................................................................................................................................. 41

APPENDIX 4 List of Stakeholders Consulted ................................................................................... 45

APPENDIX 5 Literature and Interview Evidence Summary Tables.................................................. 46

APPENDIX 6 Member State Information ............................................................................................ 62

APPENDIX 7a Sky Lantern Release Product Safety Guidelines...................................................... 65

APPENDIX 7b Guidelines and Code of Conduct for Balloon Releases (NABAS) .......................... 67

APPENDIX 8 List of References ......................................................................................................... 69

1. Executive Summary

Thereis increasing concern, from awiderangeof stakeholders about thepossibleimpacts of sky lanterns and helium balloons on livestock and the environment. Particular concerns include the perceived risks to animal welfare through ingestion of debris, litter in the countryside, theseaandon thecoastline, risks toaviation and impacts oncoastal rescue services. Sincesky lanterns containanakedflame, thereare additional concerns about the firerisk tobuildings, property andcrops from uncontrolledlanding.

Todate, muchof the evidencepresented has beenlargely anecdotal in nature. This study, jointly commissionedby EnglishandWelshGovernments aimed toestablisha robust and dependable evidence base to help inform any future decisions that may bemade on sky lanterns and helium balloons, for example restrictions on sale and / or use. Risks were identified and assessed in relation to livestock health and welfare, the environment (withparticular reference to litter), firerisk, damage to marinelife andconsumer safety.

The following workingdefinitions are usedin this report:

Sky lanterns (also known as Chinese lanterns): small hot air balloons typically around 100cm high and with a diameter of approximately 60cm; they aremade of paper withanopening at the bottom whereasmall fire is suspended;

Helium balloons: madeof latex or foil, inflatedwithhelium gas and typically 25cm to 30cm inheight. Larger balloons, oftenused for commercial or advertising purposes arenot withinthescopeof this report.

To gather evidence, the project team carried out a deskbased literature review and telephoneinterviews withkey stakeholder groups.

The aim of the literature review was to identify and critically appraise evidence on the impacts of sky lanterns and helium balloons on livestock health and welfare and the environment. An online scientific research database was used to identify peerreviewed journals. In addition, nonscientific literaturewas reviewed from the popular farming press andfrom national, regional and local news websites. Material from key lobby organisations and special interest groups was also appraised. The focus of the review was primarily on EnglandandWales, but additional evidencewas collected from other EU Member States, particularly whereabanor restrictionontheuseof sky lanterns andmass releaseof helium balloons has already beeninstigated.

In preparation for the telephone interviews, an official letter from Defra and the Welsh Government was sent to interested parties (a total of 92 recipients), encouraging them to contact theproject team if they wishedtoprovide evidence. A structuredtelephoneinterview form was designed and finalised in agreement with Defra and theWelsh Government. A secondform was developedspecifically for usewithrepresentatives of thesky lanternand helium balloon sectors, to enable additional information to be collected on market size, trends andthevalueof theseproducts inEnglandandWales. Overall, 10stakeholders gave evidence via a telephone interview and 23 provided written information following an initial telephonecontact.

The results of thedesk review and the telephone interviews were summarised inamatrix format. A numberbased scoring system was used, so that data were assessed for independence, reliability androbustness. Intotal, over 150 references wereconsidered but only 74 of thesewereeventually selectedas evidencerelevant tothis study. Sevenpotential impacts werereviewedandfor each, the evidencecollectedwas consideredseparately for

1

sky lanterns andhelium balloons. Themainconclusions inrelationtothepresent situationinEnglandand Wales are as follows:

1 Risksto livestockand animal health (including marineanimals) Anecdotal reports andmedia coverage suggest widespread concern from farming groups and others over the impacts of sky lanterns on the health and welfare of livestock and horses. However, theevidencereviewed indicates that thenumber of cases reportedeach year of animals affectedthroughpanic andfright andof ingestionof sky lanterndebris is very small. It is recognisedthat theremay beasignificant level of underreporting andthat some businesses may bemorevulnerableif they areclosetoanddownwindof anevent location. On thebasis of the evidencepresented, it is difficult toconclude that theoverall impact is anything other than of minor significance.

Themain concern regarding helium balloons is in relation to ingestion by animals. Whilst theremay againbeasignificant level of underreporting, thecurrent evidenceindicates that theimpact is very small andconfined to only isolatedincidents.

Any harm to marine life often goes unseen, given the inaccessibility of habitats. Moredetaileddiagnosis and improvedrecording of landbasedincidents infuturewouldenablethe extent of the risks tobe more accurately quantified.

2 Firerisk (sky lanterns only) Incidents inwhichsky lanterns weresaidtobedirectly implicatedinstarting fires havebeen reported from a variety of sources, including the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA). Giventhat any of theseindividual incidents has thepotential tocausesignificant disruption, loss of property andrisk tohumanandanimal life, theproject team has concludedthat fire risk associated with theuseof sky lanterns is significant. Further consideration is required regarding potential mitigationoptions, whichshouldconsider boththeuse andthedesign of sky lanterns. Whilst somemanufacturers havesought toimprovesky lanterndesignandthus reducetheassociated firerisk, others havebeenless proactive.

3 Impactson the environment, littering on land and at sea The project team concluded that the contribution of sky lantern debris to overall environmental littering is small and less significant than potential fire risks and risks to aviationandcoastal rescueservices. However, thelocalisedeffects of littering canbelarge in certainareas. Recent surveys haveenabledevidence tobecollected in relation to litter from helium balloons andfrom thesetheproject team has againconcludedthat this is only of minor significance. Speed of degradation of balloon debris is an important factor and the currentlyavailable evidence on the rate of latex degradation is considered inconclusive. Clarification would provide useful evidence of the extent to which balloon litter is likely to contribute to theoverall environmental impact.

4 Risksto aviation The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has provided quantifiable evidence of 48 incidents reported tobedue to sky lanterns and helium balloons between2001 and2012, with sky lanterns accounting for 40of theseandonly four of theremaining eight being duetosmall helium balloons (thefocus of this report). Whenairborne, sky lanterns poseasafety risk to aviationdue topossibleingestionintoengines. Whenaircraft areonthe ground, sky lanterndebris can pose a risk to taxiing aircraft and cause delays to takeoff and landing. CAA guidelines state that sky lanterns should not be released within 10 nautical miles of an airfield, but it is unlikely that the casual user is aware of this. Furthermore, there is an inconsistency between these guidelines and typical product guidance provided with sky lanterns. We conclude that there is a clear need for better consumer information from suppliers that is consistent withCAA guidelines.

2

Therisk toaviationfrom helium balloons is duetoaircraft manoeuvring toavoidthem. Mass releaseof balloons is seenas apotential problem but industry codes of conduct stipulatethe needfor compliancewithCAA guidelines. Noinformationwas presentedtotheproject team tosuggest that additional control measures are needed.

5 Risksto coastal rescue services Theproject team has concluded, onthebasis of welldocumentedevidencereceivedthat sky lanterns pose a significant risk to the proper and effective operation of coastal rescue services. The risk is due to sky lanterns, particularly when red sky lanterns aredeployed, being mistakenfor distress flares. It is concludedthat themost practical mitigationtoreducethe risk of false callouts would be the introduction of a voluntary ban on the sale of red lanterns. Data from the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) indicates that the number of falsecallouts likely tohavebeencausedby sky lanterns increasedtoa peak in 2010. Incidents insubsequent years havebeenlower. Noevidencehas beenfoundof any adverseimpacts of helium balloons on coastal rescueservices.

6 Risksto consumer safety There is very little evidence to link either sky lanterns or helium balloons with risks to consumer safety at present. This is in marked contrast to the welldocumented risks associatedwithfireworks.

7 Helium resources(helium balloons only) Public concerns over the possible depletion of helium reserves to inflate balloons are countered by industry insistence that the helium is sourced from recycled gas previously usedinthemedical industry, subsequently mixed withair. It has not been possibletomake aninformedassessment of theimpact onhelium reserves, but widelyreportedincreases in themarket priceof helium may havea selflimiting effect onnonessential uses, including balloonfilling, inthefuture.

TheSky Lantern and Helium Balloon Sectors The sky lantern sector does not haveadedicated tradebody to represent and coordinate theactivities of suppliers andfacilitatesectorwideinitiatives. Improveddesigns whichcould reduce risks are already widelyavailable but have not been universally adopted by all manufacturers. In contrast, the helium balloon sector is wellrepresented by trade organisations and is able todemonstrateconsideredand tangibleevidenceof thesectors commitment tominimisingrisks.

Thecurrent annual turnover of theUK sky lantern market is variously valuedat between6m and16m, basedonanestimatedaverageretail priceof 2per unit. Thereis evidencethat thesizeof themarket has recently contracted. Thecompanies supplying sky lanterns tendto besmall in terms of the number of employees and it is concluded that thereareprobably fewer than100individuals directly employedwithinthesector intheUK. Theretail valueof theUK market for helium balloons was estimated to be around 150m in 2012. Data has beenprovidedonthenumber of businesses involvedandpeopleemployedbut theremay be adegreeof duplicationandit is not clear that thenumbers quotedrelate tobusinesses that are solely engagedwith the balloon sector. Nevertheless, this sector is associatedwith asignificant level of economic activity.

3

2. Introduction and Methodology

2.1 Background

Thereis increasing concernabout thepossibleimpacts of sky lanterns andhelium balloons onlivestock andtheenvironment. Particular concerns includetheperceivedrisks toanimal welfare through ingestion of debris, litter in the countryside, the sea and on the coastline, risks toaviationandimpacts oncoastal rescue services. Sincesky lanterns containanaked flame, thereare additional concerns about thefirerisk tobuildings, property andcrops from uncontrolledlanding.

Theseconcerns havebeenexpressedby awiderangeof stakeholders, including thefarming andaviation sectors, theUK fireandrescueservices andcharity organisations suchas Keep Wales Tidy, theMarineConservationSociety andtheRSPCA. Issues relating tosky lanterns and helium balloons have been givenmedia coverage in recent years, particularly in theagricultural press andon television.

Todate, muchof the evidencepresentedtoGovernments inbothEnglandandWales about theimpacts of sky lanterns andhelium balloons onlivestock and theenvironment has been largely anecdotal innature andit has beendifficult toquantify therisks becauseof thelack of reliableandrobust information.

2.1.1 Working definitions

Sky lanterns: also knownas Chinese lanterns are small hot air balloons typically usedat celebratory or commemorative events. They are made of paper with an opening at the bottom whereasmall fire is suspended. They are typically 100cm highwitha diameter of approximately 60cm.

Helium balloons: a coloured latex or foil balloon inflatedwithhelium gas andsealedat the neck typically used as a childrens toy, party accessory or decoration. They are typically 25cm 30cm in height. Thescopeof this report does not include larger balloons used incommercial applications, for example weather balloons andlargetetheredballoons (oftenin excess of 5m long) used for advertisingpurposes.

2.2 Objectives of study

This study was jointly commissionedon9January 2013by EnglishandWelshGovernments in order to establish a robust and dependable evidence base to help inform any future decisions that may be madeonsky lanterns and helium balloons, for example restrictions on saleand / or use.

Overall, the study aimed to identify andassess the risks associatedwith sky lanterns and helium balloons tolivestock healthandwelfare, theenvironment (withparticular referenceto litter), fire risk, damagetomarinelifeand consumer safety.

Inparticular, thekey objectives of theproject wereas follows:

4

Objective 1

Togather evidence, through a deskbased literature review and telephone interviews withkey stakeholder groups (as listedin2.3.2).

Objective2

To evaluate theevidencegathered inObjective1, developa robust and indepth evidencebase on the impacts of sky lanterns and helium balloons and draw conclusions as appropriate. This will helpinform theGovernments responsetoany call for actioninEngland and/or Wales.

Objective3

Toprepare anddeliver afinal report inEnglishwithanExecutiveSummary translated into Welsh.

2.3 Methodology

Thestudy was carriedout during January toApril 2013andtheapproachis set out below. Table1 summarises thetimingof key inputs:

Table1 Overview of key project inputs

Input Key Dates2013

Project start date 9January Project inceptionmeetingwithDefra, WG 11January Introductory letter sent out tostakeholders 15January Followupletter to stakeholders 4February Completionof structured telephoneinterview form 30January Undertake literaturereview 4February to21 MarchCarry out stakeholder interviews 11 February to5 MarchAnalysis andreport drafting 26February to12 April Meeting withDefra, WG todiscuss preliminary findings 8March Preparation of first draft report 15March Preparation of final report 16April

Objective 1 Evidence Gathering

2.3.1 Deskbased literaturereview

The aim was to identify, review and critically appraise evidence on the impacts of sky lanterns and helium balloons on livestock health and welfare and the environment, withparticular referenceto littering anddamagetomarinelife. Thescopeof thereview includedpeerreviewed journals and grey literature, i.e. nonscientific literature websites such as thoseof the popular farming press, andnational, regional andlocal news websites. Material from thekey lobby organisations andspecial interest groups was alsoreviewed.

Thefocus for theliteraturereview was primarily onevidencerelating toEnglandandWales, but reference is also made to evidence from other EU Member States where a ban or restrictionontheuseof sky lanterns andmass releaseof helium balloons has already been instigated.

5

Key references that havebeenassessedinclude:

Scientific literature from researchdatabases;

General positionstatements releasedby local authorities;

Farming industry related sources such as: National Farmers Union (NFU), Womens FoodandFarming Union(WFU), Farmers Unionof Wales, Farmers Guardian, Farmers Weekly;

Government agency sources, such as Environment Agency, Food Standards Agency, Animal Healthand Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA);

Key association publications e.g. Local Government Association, Country Land andBusiness Association (CLA), Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); and

Local/regional news articles.

To carry out the scientific section of the literature review, the online scientific research databaseScopus was initially used. Other researchdatabases wereusedat thediscretion of theproject team togiveawider overview of available literature. Thereview includedalist of search terms including (but not restricted to), sky lanterns OR Chinese lanterns OR helium balloons AND mass release, litter, environment, fire, cropdamage, aviation, human healthandlivestock healthandwelfare. Thereview alsoincludedasearchon theeffects of other litterbasedhazards tolivestock andtheenvironment usingsearch terms including (but not restricted to), fireworks andplastic bags.

2.3.2 Telephoneinterviewswith key stakeholders

Theaim was toseek informationandevidenceof impacts inrelationtohelium balloons and sky lanterns from a range of different stakeholders, including suppliers, relevant authorities andother sectors whichmay beaffected.

Planning anddelivering thetelephoneinterviews involvedanumber of steps:

a) Preparationof anofficial letter by Defraand theWelshGovernment, dated15th January 2013 (Appendix 1). The objective was to inform interested parties that the project was underway andthat they might becontactedby ADAS toget their views onthesubject. The letter was sent by DefraandtheWelshGovernment, toatotal of 92recipients using existing key stakeholder lists heldby them under thefollowing categories:

Local authorities inEnglandandWales;

Veterinary andfarminggroups, e.g. theBritishVeterinary Association(BVA) andNational Farmers Union(NFU);

FireServices andHM Coastguard;

Charities, for example Marine Conservation Society (MCS), KeepWales Tidy (KWT), RSPCA, RSPB;

Sky lantern and helium balloonsuppliers anddistributors;

Other government departments witharelatedinterest e.g. Business InnovationandSkills (BIS), Department for Communities andLocal Government (DCLG); and

Other EU Member States.

6

b) This initial letter was followedup by a further reminder letter (Appendix 2) on the 4th

February 2013 to actively encourage interestedparties to contact ADAS if they wanted to provideevidencetotheproject team. A list of interestedparties for subsequent interviews by ADAS was compiled.

c) A structuredtelephoneinterview form (Appendix 3a) was designed andfinalisedby ADAS inagreement withDefra andtheWelshGovernment. A key objectivewas toensurethat the form captured as much empirical evidence as possible from stakeholders. A second stakeholder interview form (Appendix 3b) was designedspecifically for thesky lanternand helium balloon industry. This was sent principally to the recognised associations for the leisure, hospitality and party industries including NABAS (The National Association of BalloonArtists and Suppliers, commonly referredtoas theBalloonAssociation) andBAPIA (TheBalloonandParty Industry Alliance).

d) Telephone interviews were carried out between 11th February and 5th March 2013. Stakeholders either provided verbal information by telephone interview or, following atelephone discussion, they completed the interview framework in the form of a written response or providedwrittenevidenceas apersonal response. Overall 10stakeholders gaveevidence viaa telephone interview and23providedwritten information, following an initial telephonecontact. Theorganisations consultedarelistedinAppendix 4andincluded:

Farming groups including theNational Farmers Union (NFU), Farming Unionof Wales (FUW), Country Landowners and Business Association (CLA), Womens Food and Farming Union (WFU) andthe Rural Farming Networks (RFN) across thecountry;

Veterinary groups including BritishVeterinary Association(BVA), British CattleVeterinary Association (BVCA), British Veterinary Zoological Society (BVZA) and the Goat Veterinary Society (GVS);

Nominatedlocal authority contacts;

Nominatedfireservicecontacts such as the Chief Fire Officers Association(CFOA);

MarineandCoastguardAgency (MCA);

Aviationauthorities including theCivil AviationAuthority (CAA) andselectedairports;

Sky lantern retailers and distributors;

Helium balloonmanufactures and distributors;

Charities and vested interest groups such as Marine Conservation Society and KeepWales Tidy;

Other government departments, including theDepartment for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the Department for Communities andLocal Government (DCLG);

Selected EU Member States with an interest in the subject, confirmed from the desk review; and

Insurance companies.

The telephone interviews with stakeholders (excluding those from the supply industry), providedan indicationof thenumber of incidents associatedwith sky lanterns andhelium balloons, their impact on livestock and theenvironment andwhether or not thenumber of incidents has increased in recent years. They also provided information on possible seasonal, regional and geographic links or trends.

Thetelephoneinterviews withthesky lanternandhelium balloon industry helpedtobuild apictureof theestimated market sizeandvalueof theseproducts inEnglandandWales, and

7

to provide background information on trends, trade implications, sales outlets and any regional differences in use.

Objective2 Evaluation of evidence

2.3.3. Evidenceevaluation tool

Thesearchresults from boththedesk review and thetelephoneinterviews weresummarised in a matrix format (see Appendix 5). To assist the evaluation of data, a numberbased scoringsystem was usedsothat data were assessedfor:

Independence thequality of the evidencebasedontheindependence of theauthor;

Reliability the quality of the evidence based upon the information behind it, i.e. anecdotal or study based; and

Robustness thequality of theevidencebased on whether thereare clear causal links withsky lanterns or helium balloons.

Key factors consideredincluded thedate published, references cited, accuracy of information andpotential bias. Intotal, over 150 references wereconsideredbut only 74 of thesewereeventually selectedas evidence relevant to this study. Thesearesummarised inAppendix 5.1 5.7.

Information gathered from the literature review and telephone interviews was used by theproject team as the basis for assessing the impacts of sky lanterns and helium balloons. These are set out in Section 3. Where possible, this includes a quantitative assessment, otherwiseaqualitativenarrative is provided.

3. Review of Impacts

The following impacts were reviewed:

3.1 Livestock and animal health (includingmarineanimals); 3.2 Firerisk anddamageto crops and property; 3.3 Impact on theenvironment, including littering on landandat sea; 3.4 Risks to aviation; 3.5 Risk tocoastal rescue services; 3.6 Risk toconsumer safety; and 3.7 Threat to helium resources.

For each impact, the evidencecollected was reviewed separately for sky lanterns andhelium balloons and themain findings are set out below. Whereappropriate, these impacts were compared to those relating toother devices suchas fireworks, as requested in the ITT for this project.

Tables summarising all theinformationcollatedareshowninAppendix 5. Where therelevant informationwas available, numbers andtypes of incidents reportedandrecordedhavebeenincluded.

8

3.1 Livestock and animal health (including marine animals)

3.1.1 Livestock and horses

Whilst airborne, bothsky lanterns andhelium balloons havepotential tocausewelfareissues to animals most notably by causing panic and fright. On falling to earth, there is the possibility that debris from lanterns and balloons will be consumedby livestock and other animals.

Evidencegatheredfrom articles, reports andpersonal interviews is collated inTables 5.1.1 and5.1.2. Whenreviewing theevidencecollected, it becameclear tothe project team that thereappearedtobeadegreeof overlapbetweensome individual reports i.e. thesame incident being reported inseparate articles and/or being referred to inpersonal interviews. Simply totalling thenumber of specific incidents citedmay thereforegiveafalseimpression as to the true extent of the issue and so for this reason the project team paid particular attention to crossreferencing reports in an attempt to determine the most representativeoverview.

Sky lanterns

Impacts onanimal behaviour

It has beensuggested that airbornesky lanterns cancreatefear and panic inanimals as they pass overhead. From theevidenceavailable, this issuewas moregenerally associatedwiththe impact onhorses. For example, therewerenineanecdotal accounts1 postedby BritishHorseSociety (BHS) members over theperiod20102013of horses that werereportedto have been spooked (althoughnot injured) as aresult of sky lanterns flying nearby. ADAS understands that theBHS has amembershipof around75,000from approximately 550,000horseowners / careers andanestimatedpopulationof almost onemillionhorses andponies inGreat Britain. This evidencefrom theBHS was theonly sourcethat specifically referredto the impact of sky lanterns onanimal behaviour althougha number other reports alluded to this as apossibleoutcomeof lanterns landinginfields containinglivestock.

It is important to note however that this potential impact may not be solely related to sky lanterns. Other flying objects most notably fullsizehot air balloons (althoughnot withinthescopeof this report) havebeenreportedanecdotally tocausealarm to horses.

Ingestionof lantern debris

In recent years there have been reports of livestock or other animal loss, including cattle, horses, sheepandgoats as aresult of ingestionof parts from sky lanterns. This couldoccur either as aresult of ingestionof lanterndebris left onthefieldor throughingestionof wireor bamboo fragments in forage, due to lantern debris being picked up in forage harvestingequipment. The possible consequences of sky lantern ingestion (as highlighted by thesources in each case), include: penetration of the reticular/rumen wall, penetration of theheart, initiationof infectionwithinthechest cavity, ruptureof anabdominal bloodvessel anddevelopment of chronic localisedperitonitis, causingfurther chronic digestiveproblems.

Themost reliableevidenceof wireingestionbeing thecauseof animal deathis that providedby post mortem examinationby aveterinary surgeonandanumber of suchcases arecitedin Table 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. Establishing a clear link between the wire recovered on post mortem andthesource (inthis casesky lanterns) is problematic andhas beenlargely done

1 www.horseaccidents.org.uk

9

onthebasis of wiregauge. That is, lanternwire is muchhigher gauge(thinner) thanother potential sources suchas fencing wire. Althoughthetechniqueis not infallible, theevidencesuggests that cases reported via post mortem can be used as an accurate reflection of animal losses due to ingestionof sky lanternwiredebris.

Theevidencepresented tothe project team of specific cases of injury or deathto livestock andhorses came from 11separatesources (twopress articles andninepersonal interviews) andspanned theperiod 2010 to 2013. Of these reports, a total of 16 cases were citedof injury or death to cattle, sheep or horses which were attributed towire from sky lanterns. Twelve of these cases (75%) were reported to have been confirmed by post mortem examination. Whilst the latter is helpful in establishing the veracity of the majority of the reports inquestion, it is important tonotethat the total number of cases actually reportedto theproject team was very small. It is possible however that there may beasignificant level of under reportingby veterinary surgeons andothers.

In recent years therehavebeenattempts by somemanufacturers toproduce lanterns that are less likely to lead to ingestion problems for livestock. For example, lanterns are now availablewherethewire usedtoholdthefuel cell in placehas beenreplacedwithstring or similar material. Similarly, some designs now use bamboo instead of wire to providestructure to the lanterns. However thesedesignenhancements havenot beenuniversally introducedand in the caseof bamboo, it has beensuggested that sharpsplinters may beproduced if the bamboo is choppedup in forage harvesting equipment. Thesemay pose risks to livestock health and welfare, although there were no reported incidents in the evidencereviewedby theproject team.

Another approachto addressingtheproblem of ingestion, as reportedby theBBC (February 2013), is to insert amagnet intothestomachof cattle. Therationalewas that themagnets would attract wire fragments as well as other metal debris such as nails and fencingmaterials, thereby preventing damageto thestomachwall. It is not however clear whether this approachhas beeneffectiveor not.

Insummary, despitewhat appears tobewidespreadconcernover behavioural impacts and possible ingestion, theevidenceprovided to theproject team indicates that thenumber of cases reportedeach year (whether anecdotal or supported by post mortem) is very small in thecontext of the wider livestock population. It is however recognisedthat theremay beasignificant level of underreporting at present andthat thetrueimpacts may be muchhigher. Notwithstanding thepossibility of underreportingof incidents, onthebasis of theevidencepresentedhereit is difficult toconcludethat theoverall impact onthelivestock sector of sky lantern use is anything other than of minor significance. However, local effects may beimportant for someindividual businesses, e.g. if downwindfrom an event location.

Helium balloons

Themainhealth andwelfareconcernassociated withhelium balloons is therisk of animals choking(and potentially dying), following ingestionof balloondebris.

Only four reports wereprovidedtothe project team (twopress/TV reports andtwopersonal communications) and of these, only two reports actually cited cases which resulted in choking and/or deathof theanimal. Onereport (verifiedby post mortem) involved choking and death of a pedigree cow and the second (anecdotal) related to choking in a goat, although it is unclear whether this resulted inthedeathof theanimal concerned.

Whilst theremay beasignificant level of underreporting (as was alsonotedabovefor sky lanterns), the project team has concluded from the evidence provided that the impact of helium balloons onlivestock andhorse healthandwelfare is very small.

10

3.1.2 Marine animals

Concerns relatetodirect ingestionof sky lanterns or helium balloons by marineanimals and alsotheir potential contributiontomarinedebris bothinwater andalong theshoreline. The main sources of information were peerreviewed journals, news articles and information providedby environmental organisations. A total of 18reports werereviewedandthese are shown inAppendix 5.1. Therewas some specific mention of sky lanterns and balloons inthese, although the informationwas more concernedwithplastic debris ingeneral.

It is clear that, given the inaccessibility of habitats, any harm tomarine life, from whatever source often goes unseen and cases can usually only be recorded when marine life is washedashore andtheimpacts can beseen.

Sky lanterns

Therewerenoreportedincidences of sky lanterns affecting thehealthandwelfareof marine life. It is unclear whether species of marinelifewouldingest parts of asky lanternif it landed nearby.

Helium balloons

Therehas beenone recordeddeath in theUK, this related toa juvenile green turtle near Blackpool in2001. Post mortem examinationrevealedaballooninthestomachof the animal but this was inaddition toother pieces of plastic litter, whichmakes determining theexact causeof death difficult. Noother cases in the UK werereported whichresulted in injury or death.

3.2 Fire risk and damage to crops and property

Sky lanterns contain a fuel source that keeps an exposed flamealight, allowing hot air to build up inside the lantern and causing it to float. This flame could pose a fire risk. Theproject team evaluated 19 separate pieces of evidence 13 from press articles and TV reports and the remaining six from stakeholder contributions. This evidence spanned theperiodfrom 2006to 2013andis documentedin Appendix 5.2.

Sky lanterns

Sky lanterns float upinto theair andremainairborne for as long as they arefilledwithhot air. Therefore, they shouldonly fall back tothegroundwhenthefuel cell flameis extinguished. Inpractice, the evidencesuggests that this is not always thecase, andlanterns sometimes drift back to land whilst still alight. This can be due to inherent design and construction weaknesses and/or toineffectivelaunching procedures or releaseinhighwinds. Theresult is that thelanterncould fall tothegroundwhilst still alight andcouldset firetothecanopy particularly if thelantern is not made of flameretardant material. This could thenbecome asignificant firehazard.

Muchof thereportedevidenceof fire impacts from sky lanterns is anecdotal or reported in news articles, validatedinsomecases by evidencefrom theChief FireOfficers Association (CFOA). The risks aremainly withrespect to:

Fires inagricultural crops;

Fires inbuildings; and

Wildfires on moorlandor similar land.

11

Themost definitivesourceof evidencefrom the19 of those providedtotheproject team was from the CFOA. They conducted a survey between 2009 and mid 2011 to evaluate theimpact of sky lanterns on fire risk incidents, in response to a feature on aBBC television programme. This UKbasedstudy was conductedamong 60 fireand rescueservices (FRS) and42responded(70% participation). Among the findings from this survey were:

186call outs (121incidents; 65falsealarms) tosky lanternrelatedincidents, reportedby 26FRSs, representing 62% of thoseresponding tothe survey; and

26out of the 42FRSs that respondedhad issued warnings on sky lantern use(62%).

The frequency of FRS callouts thought tobe related to sky lanterns was reported to haveincreasedover theperiodof thesurvey, with17callouts reportedin2009and82cases in 2011. Whether this was due to an increase in the use of sky lanterns over the period in questionor to increased awareness from thepublic of thepotential risks is not certain. In addition, the project team werenot abletoestablishwhether there wereany seasonal trends in reported cases. It could be that sky lantern releases peak at certain times, such as Halloween, New Year. Theissueof sky lanterns is not believedtobeakey focus for CFOA at present, and it is understoodthat they haveno plans toconduct any follow upresearchonthesubject.

Fourteenof the remaining 18 reports (from the19 in total) cited cases wheresky lanterns were said to be directly implicated in starting fires in a variety of agricultural and nonagricultural settings. Croprelated damage has been reported to both standing and stored crops and to fields after harvesting. Examples include 10 hectares of standing cereals reported to have been set alight in Oxfordshire in August 2009 (interview) and seven hectares of barley inOxfordshireset alight in2010(literature).

A number of wildfire incidents (uncontrolled fire in an area of vegetation) have beenreported tobecausedby sky lanterns. These includeeight fires inDorset over theperiod 20082011 and an incident in Northumberland, caused by a lantern which took 20 fire fighters four hours to extinguish (according to local press). Wildfires represent adanger to humanlifeandbiodiversity (e.g. risks torarenesting birds inheathandmoorland). Concern about wildfires is growing, duetotheincreasing frequency of extremeweather events such as drought, whichleads todrier vegetation that is more prone to ignition.

Because of the risk of doublecounting of individual incidents, it is difficult to quantify the exact number of fires or nearmisses that may have been attributed to sky lanterns. However, on the basis of the available evidence, an estimated (minimum) of 81 separate events have been identified over the period 2009 to 2013. Given that any one of these individual incidents has thepotential tocause significant loss of property andrisk tohuman andanimal life, the project team haveconcludedthat firerisk associated withtheuseof sky lanterns is significant and one that warrants further consideration regarding potential mitigationoptions.

Discussions with sky lantern suppliers confirmed that they have been working with manufacturers todevelopproducts that areconsideredto besafer andpresent areducedfire risk. This has largely focussed on the increased use of flame retardant materials in the constructionof thecanopy and theinclusion of nondripfuel cells. Thesearenow widely (but not universally) available through internet suppliers and other sources and are generally advertised as being ecofriendly. Whilst this development can be viewed as being very positive; further mitigations mostly associatedwithuse rather thandesignstill needtobe identified and implemented. During discussions with two lantern suppliers a number of possiblemitigationmeasures weresuggested. Thesewere:

12

Improveduser launchinstructions indicating windspeeds over whichlanterns shouldnot bereleased(oneproduct guidancenotesuggests 5mphmax).

Not launching lanterns with damaged canopies, as this will lead to premature landingwhilst still alight.

A goodexampleof consumer adviceonthe useof sky lanterns is includedas Appendix 7a. At thepresent time, thereis nosingletradebody representing andcoordinating theactivities of sky lantern suppliers whichmeans that developing and implementing improved lantern designand/or better consumer guidanceis left to thediscretionof theindividual supplier.

Helium balloons

No incidents of damage to crops or property from helium balloons were reported to the project team.

3.3 Impacts on environment, littering on land and at sea

Whensky lanterns andhelium balloons fall back to land or on to thesea, they areusually somedistanceaway from their point of release, and they are thengenerally describedas litter. There is arangeof evidenceonthepossibleimpacts of sky lanternandhelium balloon litter on the environment including scientific journals, information released by independent bodies andqualitativeinformationgatheredthroughinterview. These haveall contributedto theevidencebase gatheredand are summarisedinAppendix 5.3.

Theproject team reviewedevidence from 11separatesources (7 literaturesources and4 from personal interviews). Themajority of theevidencefocusedexclusively ontheimpact of helium balloons (7out of the11 reports) whichprobably reflects thegreater concerns over balloonlittering, comparedto that associated withsky lanterns.

Sky lanterns

The evidence provided in both the literature and from personal interviews was largely anecdotal and in the case of the personal interviews, respondents described sky lantern debris being pickedupona(more) regular basis from horticultural landandfrom hedges and roadsides. However in both cases, it was not described as being a problem of major significance or concern.

Although specific evidence was not available, it is likely that sky lantern debris will be intermittent andlocalisedandmore likely toaffect agricultural holdings andwildlifehabitats onthefringes of urbanareas wherereleaseof lanterns is morelikely. Inaddition, litteringina given area would probably be greater following mass release of sky lanterns that subsequently follow the same flight path. This means that farms closer to venues that regularly host events wherelanterns are released may beaffected morefrequently by lanterndebris than others inmoreremote areas.

Onthebasis of theevidencepresented, the project team concludedthat thecontributionof sky lanterndebris to overall environmental littering is small. By comparison, other potential impacts of sky lanterns most notably potential firerisks andrisks toaviation areof much greater significance.

13

Helium balloons

Concerns regarding balloon litter per se are largely associated with the negative visual impacts tobeaches, amenity areas andwildlifehabitats, etc. and withtheassociated cleanupcosts. Thewider impacts of balloonlittering, suchas risks toanimals, wildlifeandmarinelife, are discussed inan earlier sectionof this report.

The balloon and party industry organisations including the National Association of Balloon Artists andSuppliers (NABAS), theBalloon andParty Industry Association(BAPIA) andthe European Balloon and Party Organisation (EBPA) are aware of the potential impacts of helium balloons as litter. They advocatethe useof 100% natural latex balloons for races and similar mass launches, becausethis is claimedto biodegrade morerapidly thanfoil (seealso Section 4.3) and no ribbon or string attached. Where foil balloons are used (normally for party decorations andas childrens toys), it is recommendedthat theseshouldbeattachedto asuitableweight to ensurethey arenot releasedintotheenvironment.

Evidenceof theextent of balloon littering has beendrawnfrom twoseparatesources. The Marine Conservation Societys Beachwatch survey provides valuable and quantifiable information on balloon litter onUK beaches. This survey is conducted by volunteers on arepresentativesampleof beaches intheUK onthethirdweekendinSeptember every year. Whilst balloonlitter rose from anaverageof 3.4items/km beach surveyedin1996, toapeak of 11.5 items/km beachsurveyedin2007, it has subsequently fallenback inrecent years to 9.5 items/km recorded in2011 (MCS, 2012). In themost recent survey, rubber items as a whole(including balloons, tyres, gloves, etc) constituted2.3% of all litter, of whichballoons madeup 0.5%.

Further independent investigation on balloon litter is provided from surveys undertaken by KeepWales Tidy (KWT) andtheMarineConservationSociety MCS). KWT conduct regular litter surveys within local authority areas of Wales as part of theLocal Environmental Audit andManagement System (LEAMS). Thesesurveys involveanalysing 50metresections of randomlyselectedadoptedhighways, representing 8% of the total highways inWales. Inone local authority areain the2008/09survey year, balloonlitter was foundon17% of surveyedstreets. Inthe2010/11survey, balloonlitter was foundon1% of all streets surveyedfor litter. It is worthnotingthat the LEAMS survey does not includeany greenareas suchas parks or gardens.

The potential impacts of helium balloon debris have long been recognised, and work by Burchette (1989) suggested that latex rubber balloons degrade about as fast as oak tree leaves under a wide range of exposure conditions in the environment including sunlight, weathering, soil, and water exposures. Burchette further suggested that from a typical releaseof 500balloons, only 10% wouldfall back toearthas litter andas suchthedensity of balloonfall wouldbenogreater thanoneballoon inover 15square miles. This evidencehas beenusedpreviously to suggest that latex balloons donot posea significant threat to the environment in terms of littering. The evidence provided by Burchette has since been evaluated by KWT in a policy paper (2008). The critique raises concerns over themethodology of the original work and casts doubt over the speed at which balloon litter degrades. Thelatter finding was supportedby work doneby theMCS, whichsuggests that evenbiodegradable latex balloons cantake several months or evenyears to break down.

Onthebasis of theevidencepresented, there havebeen someincreases in balloonlitter inrecent years. However when compared toother forms of litter (e.g. plastic bags, etc.), the number of items found is relatively small, withballoons making up less than1% of all litter found. As asourceof litter per se, theproject team has concludedthat helium balloons are thereforeof only minor significance. Speedof degradationof balloondebris is important both from the perspectiveof littering but moreparticularly from thestandpoint of risks toanimals,

14

wildlifeand marinelife. Currently availableevidenceonspeedof latex balloondegradationis considered inconclusive, in view of the doubts cast by KWT on the work reported by Burchette.

Marine debris

Evidence from outside the UK suggests that the presence of marine debris can lead to movement of invasive species into new marine ecosystems which could in turn causepotential damage to the species already established there (Derraik et al., 2002). Marine debris may alsohaveanimpact on parts of delicateunderwater habitats suchas coral reefs that arecritical tothesurvival of many species. Althoughthis is not directly applicabletoUK seas, it is possible that marinedebris of any kindcouldpotentially have anegative impact uponmarineecosystems.

Becausemuch of the focus of theavailable informationwas on theeffects of plastics and other marinedebris ingeneral, it is difficult todraw robust andspecific conclusions for sky lanterns andhelium balloons. For example, Schuyler et al. (2012) highlighted studies whereover 267 species worldwide have become entangled or have ingested marine debris, theoretically including debris from sky lanterns and helium balloons. A Belgian study by Cuykens et al. (2011) reportedthat around95% of thecorpses of all northern fulmars found along theBelgianbeaches containedplastics, likely to have originated from domestic and commercial sources. Party balloons weredescribedas commonly floatinglitter inthesurvey area, and whilenospecific mentionwas made of sky lanterndebris, this couldnot beentirely ruledout.

Overall, the contribution of sky lanterns and helium balloons to marine litter is not well documented, although the evidence suggests that any contribution to the overall mix of marine and shoreline litter material, which surveys indicate has a high plastic content, is likely tobesmall.

3.4 Risks to aviation

Evidence on the possible risks to aviation from sky lanterns and helium balloons was compiled from a number of sources including news articles, scientific journals and informationreleased by theCivil AviationAuthority (CAA) andindividual airports. Thesehaveall contributed to the evidencebase andareincludedinAppendix 5.4.

According to theCAA, sky lanterns poseasafety risk toaviationdue topossible ingestion into engines whilst airborne. On the ground, sky lantern debris can delay departures or potentially cause damage to aircraft. The risks from helium balloons are considered to be from manoeuvring aircraft toavoidconcentrations of theseobjects; ingestionintoanengine is considered to be unlikely to cause damage. TheCAA maintain that the risks from sky lanterns andhelium balloons, althoughsmall, shouldbe takenintoaccount whenmaking an assessment for any release (see CAA, 2011 Operation of directed light, fireworks, toy balloons andsky lanterns withinthe UK).

TheCAA has providedquantifiableevidence tothestudy. This is in the form of Mandatory OccurrenceReports (MORs) filed by airports with theCAA. The scope of these includes light aircraft, helicopters andlargepassenger planes. Theobjectiveof the MOR schemeis to contribute to the improvement of aviation safety by ensuring that relevant information on safety is reported, collected, stored, protected and disseminated. Any incident which endangers anaircraft, or which, if not corrected, wouldendanger anaircraft, its occupants or

15

any other person should be reported to the CAA as an MOR2. MORs are filed by all airports/airfields by individual operators althoughthey tendtodiffer intheir level of detail anddescriptionof theincident reported.

Overall, there have been a total of 48 MORs involving sky lanterns and helium balloons reportedby theCAA over theperiodfrom 2001 to 2012. Of theeight MORs involving helium balloons, four were confirmed as being attributed to toy balloons, as opposed to weather balloons or similar (the latter being outsidethescopeof this study).

Sky lanterns

Since 2001, 40MORs have been filed with the CAA in relation to incidents involving sky lanterns (seeAppendix 5.4). Some18% of theserelatedtosky lanterns passing over or near an airfield, 54% wereinrelationtotherecovery of debris ontheairfield, whilst theremaining 28% wereincidents of sky lanterns passing closetoan aircraft inflight. Incidents relating to lantern debris on runways and taxiways are classed in CAA reports as Foreign Object Debris (FOD).

Reports relatingtosky lanterns passing closeto aircraft inflight mainly relatetotakeoff or the final approach to landing. None of the MORs reported any actual collisions betweenaircraft andlantern(s). Incidents of sky lanterns passing over or near anairfieldweresimply recorded as observations.

The CAA recognises sky lanterns as a specific risk to aircraft safety whether they are airborne, or as FOD onanairfield. Giventhat theMOR is an incident whichcouldendanger thesafety of anaircraft andits passengers, it follows that all 40 MORs involving sky lanterns are deemed to beevidence of a potential risk to aircraft safety. To reduce the risk of sky lanternincursions, CAA guidelines3 statethat sky lanterns shouldnot bereleasedwithin10 nautical miles of an airfield. Whilst these requirements are covered in the Operation of directedlight, fireworks, toy balloons andsky lanterns withintheUK (CAA), it is unlikely that thecasual user of sky lanterns will haveaccess tothis document andany guidancethey may havereceivedwill inevitably bethat providedwiththelanternwhenpurchased.

The number of MORs linked to sky lantern use also indicates that the10mile separation distance is not being met consistently for lantern release. This may not however reflect blatant disregard of CAA guidance by consumers because current product guidance provided with sky lanterns (Appendix 7a) states that CAA permission should be sought if lanterns aretobereleasedwithin5miles of anairport or landing strip. This apparent mismatch betweenCAA guidelines andinstructions providedby lanternsuppliers clearly points to the need for better consumer information from suppliers that is consistent with theCAA position.

2 Information on MORs can be found in CAA (2011) Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme:

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=214

3 Sky lanterns and toy helium balloons are not specifically covered within the Air Navigation Order 2009 and

therefore minimum distances between launch of lanterns or balloons are guidance and not legal requirements.

However all activities of this type are likely to be covered by paragraph 137 that deals with Endangering safety of an aircraft. This states that a person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an

aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.

16

Helium balloons

The releaseof heliumfilled toy balloons near airfields is deemed by theCAA topresent a risk to aircraft safety, hence it is coveredwithin theCAA guidelines Operationof directed light, fireworks, toy balloons andsky lanterns withintheUK. Therisks relatespecifically to therisk of pilots havingtomanoeuvreaircraft to avoidconcentrations of balloons. Although ingestion into aircraft engines is recognised as a possible outcome of contact between helium balloons andaircraft gas turbineengines, theCAA donot consider this to present a risk tosafety.

MORs filedsincetheyear 2000confirm atotal of eight incidents relatedtohelium balloons. Of these, four aredescribedas childrens toy balloons (within thescopeof this project), two aredefinedas met balloons (outside thescopeof this project) and for the remaining two incidents the type of helium balloon is not described. All of these are summarised in Appendix 5.4. The four events involving toy balloons all related toairborne incursions, the incidents involving collisionwiththeaircraft and/or ingestionintoan engine. However noneof theevents resulted indamagetoaircraft.

Whilst thenumber of MORs related tohelium balloons since2000is very small innumber, mass release of balloons is recognised as posing a particular risk to aviation safety and releases near to airports (within 5 nautical miles as stipulated by the CAA) should be restricted. Industry codes of conduct for balloonreleases stipulatetheneedfor compliance withCAA guidelines for balloon releases (BAPIA), or that theCAA shouldbeconsultedfor all balloonreleases over 5,000balloons, or any releasenear to anairport (NABAS). Giventhe very small number of MORs reportedinrelationtohelium balloonincursions, it wouldappear that CAA guidelines andsupplier advice is largely being followed, whether inadvertently or otherwise.

On the evidence presented to the project team, it is concluded that current measures to managethereleaseof helium balloons seem tobe largely effective inminimising collisions withaircraft andincursions ontoairfields. Larger numbers of incidents involving sky lanterns may indicatealack of adequateandappropriate guidancetoconsumers onsafereleaseand this is an area that warrants further consideration.

3.5 Risks to coastal rescue services

Sky lanterns

The risks to coastal rescue services from sky lanterns arise from them being incorrectly identified as distress flares, particularly whenred sky lanterns are deployed. This cantrigger false callouts, diverting essential emergency resources away from real emergencies and placing emergency services personnel at unnecessary risk. In addition, there can be significant financial costs associatedwithlifeboat launches and/or helicopter deployment and from diversionof merchant or navy vessels toprovideemergency support.

Theproject team receivednineseparateresponses onthis subject, from avariety of sources most notably the Royal National Lifeboat Institute (RNLI), and the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). This information is summarised in Appendix 5.5. The MCA, responsiblefor HM Coastguard, providedinformationonthenumbers of incidents likely to becausedby sky lanterns. This is showninTable2below.

17

Table2 Thenumber of reported incidents likely to havebeen caused by sky lanterns

Year Number of incidents

2007 72008 49 2009 347 2010 754 2011 315 2012 207

Source: UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency

The incidents reported above range from those where the emergency operator has determinedthat the(supposed) redflarewas actually asky lanternandabortedany further action, to thosewhere full deployment of search and rescue (SAR) vehicles was initiated. Following apeak number of incidents in 2010, numbers appear to havedeclinedover the period20112012.

Evidence from interviews andproduct informationsuggests that reddistress flares typically burnfor around 40seconds, whereas sky lanterns may bevisiblefor amuchlonger period. In theory, this should make it easier to differentiate between the two. However correct identificationmay be dependent on prevailing weather conditions. For example, a red sky lantern that disappears into cloud couldmore easily bemisinterpreted for a distress flare thana lantern that stays visibleinclear skies.

Whilst most of the evidence presented relates to sky lanterns causing false callouts, the converseis that real distress flares may beignored becausetheobserver mistakes them for sky lanterns andfails toreport theincident. Interms of risk tohumanlife, this scenariois of greater significance than the risk of falsecallouts. This risk is mitigated tosomeextent at sea, because the default position under international maritime law is for ships at sea to divert toinvestigateany form of reddistress flare. Thegreater risk is inrelationtoanincident whichis just offshoreandspottedby an individual onland.

Thecost associatedwithfalsecallouts includes thetimetakenby theoperator toanswer acall, through to deployment of lifeboats or helicopters. Costs for deploying vehicles range from 1,000 2,000per hour for alifeboat to between7,000and10,000per hour for an SAR helicopter to be deployed (excluding manned team costs). There can also be other costs associatedwithships diverting to respond toapotential distress call. This economic loss canbe substantial if for example, the shipfails to reach port whenexpected.

Theproject team concluded, on thebasis of the welldocumented evidenceavailable, that sky lanterns doposeasignificant risk totheproper andeffectiveoperationof coastal rescueservices. This is based on the relatively largenumber of documented incidents where sky lantern use has given rise to false callouts (although numbers may be decreasing) with associatedimpacts to humansafety and financial costs of deploying rescueservices.

Perhaps the most obvious mitigation to reduce the risk of false callouts would be the introduction of a voluntary ban on the sale of red lanterns. Whilst this may not solve the problem entirely, it should bring about a significant reduction in false alarms. Increasingconsumer awareness of the potential risk would undoubtedly help to reduce risks further irrespectiveof lanterncolour. Somesky lanternsuppliers already providedetailedconsumer adviceonthereleaseof lanterns withinfivemiles off thecoast (see Appendix 8). However, given the number of cases still being recorded by the MCA, the indications are that this

18

information is not being provided universally to consumers and/or the guidance is not implemented consistently by thoselaunchinglanterns

Helium balloons

No evidence has been found, either though a literature search or by interview, of any adverseimpacts on coastal rescueservices from helium balloons.

Comparativeimpact of fireworks

Fireworks being discharged incoastal areas clearly have thepotential to initiate falsecallouts of theemergency services. Theproject team werenot, however, abletogather specific informationon thenumbers of these false callouts and soareunable to comment on the scaleor extent of this particular risk or compareit directly tothenumber associatedwithsky lanterns.

Notwithstanding the lack of empirical informationinthis report, the fact that fireworks arewell recognisedas aparticular risk has ledtoavariety of mitigationmeasures (bothvoluntary andstatutory) being introduced. Amongst themost important aretherequirements set out inthe Firework Regulations 2004, SI no.1836. Includedinthese arestatutory restrictions onwhen fireworks can be purchased and discharged. The most significant clause (paragraph 7) specifies abanonfirework useduring night hours (11pm to7am) except oncertaindays of the year, such as November 5th and the Chinese New Year. Certain exceptions to this requirement areallowed, mainly inrespect of professional operators andlocal authorities. In most situations, these requirements shouldsignificantly reducetherisk of falsecallouts.

Without being able to directly compare the number of false callouts associated with sky lanterns and fireworks, it is difficult to form aview as towhether statutory controls onsky lantern discharge (equivalent to those for fireworks) might be appropriate. However, the project team concluded that themost appropriate and proportionate approach to reducing this particular risk inthecaseof sky lanterns wouldbeavoluntary banonuseof redlanterns andbetter consumer guidance.

3.6 Risks to consumer safety

Sky lanterns

Thereis very littleevidencelinking sky lanterns and helium balloons withrisks to consumer safety. The project team wereonly abletoidentify oneaccount from theBBC (2010) wherea childsufferedburns as aresult of dripping hot oil andwax whilst standing underneatha lit sky lanternprior torelease. The childsufferedno lasting injuries.

The potential risk to human safety from a naked flame is recognised by the project team, emphasising the importance of carefullyworded product safety guidelines. Appendix 7a provides anexampleof instructions whichstress theneedfor adults tosupervisehandling of thelanternand ignitionof thefuel cell. Some sky lantern retailers havealsodevelopednondripfuel cells for lanterns for safer lighting.

Overall, therisk toconsumer safety as aresult of direct contact withsky lanterns is minimal. This is in marked contrast to the welldocumented impacts of firework use on consumer safety whicharesummarisedbelow.

19

Helium balloons

The project team were unable to find any reports impacts on consumer health caused by helium balloons.

Comparativeimpact of fireworks

The dangers of fireworks are wellrecognised and have been extensively reported in the mediaandavariety of journals over many years. Appendix 5.6 includes asmall number of references onthesubject. Anecdotal evidencepresentedby BBC News in2000 suggested that almost 830peopleinBritainweretreatedfor firework injuries in1998. In2005, areport by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents stated that some 990 injuries wereattributableto fireworks.

Over time, successive governments have introduced legislation4 in an effort to reduce therisks toconsumer safety andto property posed by the useof fireworks, for example:

The Firework Regulations 2004

Manufacture and Storageof Explosives Regulations 2005

The Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2010

Whilst there is clear justification for legislative intervention in the case of firework use, by contrast, the evidence suggests that the risks to consumer health from the use of sky lanterns (andhelium balloons) aresosmall as tomakea similar approach inappropriate and unnecessary.

3.7 Helium resources

Helium is a finite resource which is used in a variety of medical, scientific and industrial

applications. Oneof the mainmedical applications is inMRI scanners, althoughthe largest

consumer of helium is reportedtobeNASA who useit inhugequantities topurgepotentially

explosivefuel from its rockets5.

Therearean increasing number of reports inthe mediathat warnof thedepletionof helium

reserves andtherisks that this will posetoits futureuseinMRI scanners (for example). In

addition, the useof this valuable finite resource in toy andparty balloons has been widely

questioned. It has been reported that theuseof helium resources for filling party balloons

constituted up to 10% of global helium consumption in 2009 (Wothers, Royal Institute

Christmas lectures, 2012). Therehavebeencalls for party balloons tousehydrogen, rather

thanhelium; whilst hydrogenis cheaper and morebuoyant, helium is preferredbecauseit is

nonflammableand therefore safer.

In response to these concerns, the balloon industry has recently insisted that the helium

used in party or toy balloons is recycled gas previously used in themedical industry and

subsequently mixedwithair. For this reason, the industry describes the material as balloon

gas rather than helium.

4 Further information is available at https://www.gov.uk/fireworksthelaw:

5The Independent, August 20102: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/whytheworldisrunningoutofhelium2059357.html

20

Theproject team has not beenable toobtaina total figure for theuse of balloongas by the

UK industry, to compare with helium use in other applications. It has not been possible

therefore tomake an informed assessment of the impact on helium stocks from its current

use in toy and party balloons. However, widely reported increases in themarket price of

helium, coupledwith forecast reductions inavailability may haveaselflimiting effect on its

useinnonessential applications inthe future.

4. Sky lantern and helium balloon industry

4.1 Consumer base and structure of the industry

Sky lanterns

Sky lanterns arewidelyavailable via the internet (a simple internet search provided some 1,100links). Sky lanterns arealsosuppliedthrough individual retailers, ranging from event and party suppliers to budget 'pound' stores and similar outlets. They tend to be sold inmultiple packs, rather than single units. The project team was not able to determine the relative importance of the two main sources of lanterns, although anecdotal informationstrongly points towards internet suppliers as beingthe major source.

As part of this study, five specialist sky lantern suppliers were contacted. Of these, three companies provided information to the project team. Two of the companies sold lanterns solely viatheinternet, thethirdsoldproducts tostores andwholesalers inadditiontowebsite sales. A review of the respective websites of these three businesses revealed that one company soldsky lanterns inadditionto other products, whereas the other twotradedsolely insky lanternproducts. Thecompanies describedtheir maincustomer baseas largely beingindividuals purchasingsky lanterns for particular events.

Thesky lanternmarket is a relatively new one in theUK, and the industry is not currently representedby any particular bodies. Theoretically, sky lanternsellers wouldbeeligible to joinorganisations such as the BalloonandParty Industry Alliance(BAPIA) and the BalloonAssociation(NABAS) as they are part of the'party industry' but evidencesuggests that few havedoneso.

Helium balloons

Helium balloons are used at individual parties and events, for business purposes (e.g. product advertising), and by charities raisingawareness or funds.

TheUK has anestablishedmarket for helium balloons andtheindustry is well represented by memberbased associations that respond to issues and lobby on behalf of members. Helium balloons are sold by a range of retailers, from large high street chain stores to individual party planners whoprovideballoons as part of their overall service. Therearea number of other businesses that rely (at least in part) on the helium balloon sector for a portionof their revenue. Theseincludesuppliers of helium (balloon) gas andcompanies that print designs onto balloons.

21

4.2 Industry response to addressing safety, environmental and other impacts

Sky lanterns

Findings from this study indicate variable levels of awareness among sky lantern manufacturers and suppliers of the impacts of theseproducts onhealthandsafety andthe environment.

The project team are aware of efforts made by some sky lantern suppliers to respond to environmental concerns linked to their products. For example, one of the companies surveyedworkedwith representatives of theNFU to respond to the impact of lanterns on livestock health. After dialogue, the company removedmetal wire from all its lanterns andreplacedit withfireretardant string.

Thelack of aspecific tradeassociation for thesky lanternsector means thereis nocentral and coordinating body to represent the interests of suppliers or to coordinate the development and implementation of standards of manufacture and consumer guidance across the sector. In practice, this is left toindividual companies.

Those who are actively attempting to make their products more environmentallyfriendly report frustration that cheaper lanterns (which incorporatemetal wire for example) createa poor imagefor theindustry. Lanternsellers ontheinternet oftenstatethat their products are '100% biodegradable', although theexact meaning of this is not precisely defined, and the timetaken for them to degradeis not quantified.

Helium balloons

Helium balloonindustry responses toenvironmental issues havebeenlargely undertakenby therepresentativeindustry associations, BAPIA andNABAS intheUK andby the European Balloon& Party Council (EBPC) on a European scale. Responses to concerns on animal healthandwelfare, safety risks andenvironmental issues appear tohavebeenaddressed muchmore effectively thaninthe sky lanternsector.

These industry associations have produced codes of conduct, or best practice guides for their members. For example, all members of the EBPC haveto comply with Europeansafety measures withregardto:

Labelling andsafety warnings

The Toy Safety Directive 2009/48/EC

BritishStandardfor Toy Safety BS EN71, now harmonisedwithinEuropeanstandards

EU National regulations andenvironmental standards6

BAPIA alsoprovidecomprehensiveguidance to members via their codeof practice7 whichcovers all aspects of responsibledeployment of balloons.

6 Taken from Report on Helium Balloons in the UK and European Markets, compiled by The European Balloon

and Party Council (2013)

7 http://bapiaonline.com/codeofpractice

22

The project team concluded that the helium balloon sector is wellrepresented by trade associations that demonstrateconsideredandtangibleevidenceof thesectors commitment tominimising all forms of risk from the useof toy andparty balloons. What was less clear however was how effectively themeasures containedintherespectivecodes of practiceare being communicated to thefinal user.

4.3 Industry regulation of product quality

Whilst no specific product safety standards exist for sky lanterns or helium balloons, Europeanlegislation suchas theToy Safety Directive(2009/48/EC) and BritishStandardfor Toy Safety EN71provides overarching safety requirements andtheguiding principles canbe applied. Sky lanterns andhelium balloons must alsocomply withtheGeneral Product Safety Regulations 2005. This means that they must be safe whenused 'normally'. A meeting of theEuropeanCommissionConsumer Safety Network (2011) concludedthat there was littlesupport from major stakeholders in Germany, UK, France, Austria or Spain for the development of aEuropeanstandardfor sky lanterns.

TodemonstratecompliancewithEU toy safety legislation, aCE mark is affixedtoaproduct by amanufacturer, importer or authorisedrepresentative. A leadingsky lanternretailer inthe UK reported to theproject team that they had recently helddiscussions on this issuewiththeir local Trading Standards department. They wereadvisednot tousetheCE mark for sky lanterns since they are not considered to bea toy, although they may betestedtoapart of theToy Safety Standards.

Sky Lanterns

Of the three sky lantern retailers interviewed, two indicated a desire to see increased regulation of product quality in order to raise standards, improve safety and eliminate or reducerisks.

Specific design issues that werecitedas having scopefor improvement include theuseof fireproof paper / improvedflameresistanceandbetter fuel cells. Whilst improveddesigns of sky lanternarealready widely availablethat incorporatethesefeatures, thesehavenot beenuniversally appliedby manufacturers or specified by all UK suppliers. It is difficult toseehow consistent standards of construction and consumer guidance will be achieved without concerted and collective efforts by UK suppliers, mediated through a representative trade body.

Helium balloons

Becausetherearefewer risks associatedwithhelium balloons, issues of product designand quality are generally less relevant than they arewithsky lanterns.

The key industry bodies (seeSection3.3) arehowever consistent intheir requirement that all helium balloons intendedfor releaseshouldbemanufactured from 100% natural latex since this is claimed tobiodegrademore rapidly thannonlatex equivalents. The industry bodies arealsoconsistent intheir requirement that foil balloons shouldnot bereleased, becauseof thelong term littering andenvironmental impacts of thefoil material.

23

4.4 Market size, value and numbers employed

Sky lanterns

The market value of sky lanterns has been estimated from consultations with the three companies that providedinformationtothe study. All evidencesuggests that sky lanterns are manufacturedoverseas (usually theFar East), andthenimportedtotheUK, wherethey are marketedand distributed.

Of thethreecompanies interviewed, twowereabletoprovidedetailedsales figures, bothof whichsuggested adeclineinrecent years:

Company 1has sufferedasustaineddecline insales since2009(when they startedto operate). Their turnover for sky lantern products decreasedsharply from 450k in2009to 68k in 2012. The company reported a focus on reducing fire andenvironmental risks andensuring goodquality products;

Company 2startedoperating in2005 andtheir sales reacheda peak in 2010/11whensome 1.56million sky lanterns were sold. However, in 2011/12 only 1.25million weresold, whichrepresents a20% decrease innumbers sold, equivalent toafall insales of about 0.6m, basedon anaverage lantern priceof 2 per unit.

Company 3startedoperating inApril 2010andreported that they hadseennochanges insales or consumer behaviour sincethen.

It was estimated by the businesses interviewed that between three and eight million sky lanterns are sold each year in the UK. It should be noted that these sales estimates are considerably inexcess of previous figures reported, for example200,000 lanterns released per year (RSPCA, 2012).

Theretail priceof sky lanterns arereportedtovary from as littleas 50pupto10per unit. Averageretail pricehowever is reportedtobearound2for agoodquality lantern. Basedonsales figures reported by the threecompanies interviewed, this wouldvalue theannual turnover of theUK market at between6millionand 16millionbasedonanaverageretail priceof 2 per balloon. Whilst these estimates vary substantially, they doat least providean insight intotheannual valueof theUK market. Toput this turnover intoperspective, it would bebroadly equivalent tothat of abusy petrol stationat thelower end(6m) andtoamedium sizeengineeringcompany at the other (16m).

Thereis evidencefrom sky lanternsuppliers that themarket, having expandedtoapeak in 2009/10, has contracted in subsequent years. Whilst this may be purely coincidental, it mirrors the decline in the number of false callouts reported by the UK Maritime andCoastguard Agency (see Section 3.5). The reasons for the decline in sales are unclear. Increasedconsumer awareness of theproblems causedby sky lanterns, highlightedinpress articles and through campaigns has been cited as a possibility. One sky lantern importing/retailing company specifically mentioned that the negative press is having adramatic effect (declineinsales) onthesky lanternmarket.

Evidence provided totheproject team suggestedthat thecompanies supplying lanterns tend to be very small in terms of the number of employees. One of the three companies interviewed only employed one person, the second employed five people and the third employed four full timeemployees, plus some occasional parttimestaff. Thecompany withfiveemployees estimatedthat their market share is around15% of theindustry withannual sales of over one million lanterns. Whilst empirical information on the total numbers employedwas not available, it is clear that thesky lanternsector is not amajor employer of staff inthe UK, accountingfor (perhaps) fewer than100individuals across theentiresector.

24

Helium balloons

The market value of helium balloons has been estimated and based on figures and information provided by EBPC (TheEuropeanBalloon& Party Council), which represents more than 30key players in the balloonandparty industry inEurope.

According toEBPC, theestimatedretail sizeof theballoonand party industry inEuropewas 2.5billion in2012, with theUK having the largest market share. TheestimatedUK retail market sizewas 500million in 2012. Balloons account for some60% of this market and helium balloons account for about 30%. Thecurrent UK market valuefor helium balloons is estimatedtobe 150million. TheEBPC has estimatedthenumber of businesses reliant on thehelium balloonmarket intheUK andthis is showninTable3.

Table3 Businessesassociated with the helium balloon market in theUK8

Typeof business Number of businesses

Balloonmanufacturers 8Gas suppliers 4Distributors 25 Printers 23 Online >100 Independent retailers >3,000 Retailers withmultiplestores >20 Decorators/party planners 900 Ancillary e.g. training, media, accessories

Table4 Numbersemployed within thehelium balloon sector in theUK

Typeof business Numbersemployed

Balloonmanufacturers 300 Gas suppliers 500 Distributors 200 Printers 250 Online 400 Independent retailers 14,000 Retailers withmultiplestores 4,000 Decorators/party planners 2,000 Ancillary e.g. training, media, accessories 100

Total 21,750

Source EBPC

TheEBPC estimatedthat four groups of retailers couldbeaffected by any futurechanges in thesector:

Independent party stores: This is the largest group of retailers of helium balloons and thereareover 3,000suchstores intheUK. It is estimatedby EBPC that a typical store employs about four people. Balloons, nearly all of whichare inflatedwithhelium, account for 3060% of their business. It is reported that very few of these stores wouldbeableto survivewithout sales of helium balloons (based onpersonal communications withEBPC).

Independent card stores: This is the second largest group of retailers and there are around1,000of thesestores intheUK. Many haveturnedtoballoons in response to an increasingly competitivemarket for greetingcards. Balloons typically account for 1025% of turnover andare describedby EBPC tobe their fastest growing product line. Fillinghelium balloons is labourintensive and some of the larger businesses in this group employ additional staff at busy times for this purpose.

Multipleretail groups: Thesestores arereportedby EBPC tosell highvolumes of helium filled balloons. The labourintensive nature of filling balloons suggests that some jobs wouldbevulnerableif this servicewas not provided.

Events and party planners: These are usually small family businesses that aremainly homebased. They supply balloons for corporate events, the hospitality market and privatefunctions most notably weddings. Therearearound 2,000 activebusinesses intheUK. Without helium balloon sales, theEBPC view is that many of thesebusinesses wouldnot beabletoadapt or todiversify intodifferent products or services andwouldnot therefore beabletosurvive.

Shouldaban onhelium balloons beimposed(as has beenproposedby somelobby groups) therewouldinevitably be aloss of revenuetothe Exchequer. TheEBPC has estimatedthat over 1.5million of corporationtax per year wouldbe lost from the manufacturingandgas companies alone, together withover 25millionof VAT.

Muchof theevidenceprovidedtotheproject team inrelationtoindustry value, staff numbers andimpacts of possible future controls onhelium balloons has beenprovidedby theEBPC. As a lobby group representing the balloon industry, the project team recognise that they inevitably haveavestedinterest inprotecting theinterests of their members. That said, the evidenceprovidedwas deemedto berelevant andlargely empirical and demonstratedthat thesector makes animportant contribution totheUK economy andemploys (either fully or inpart) a significant number of staff.

26

5. Control measures for sky lanterns and helium balloons in England and Wales and in other EU Member States

Various measures have been taken at local, national and international level to control the release of sky lanterns and helium balloons and/or to reduce the risk of negative impacts associatedwiththeir release. InEnglandandWales, any controls are currently voluntary as existing legislationdoes not prohibit thedeployment of sky lanterns or helium balloons. CAA guidance provides details of minimum distances from airfields that should be met whenlaunching sky lanterns andhelium balloons. Whilst thesearenot statutory requirements they areunderpinnedby the Air NavigationOrder 2009 (paragraph137) that covers endangering thesafety of an aircraft.

Muchof theexisting relevant guidancefrom theCAA (for example) has beenincorporatedto agreater or lesser extent intoconsumer adviceprovidedwithlanterns and helium balloons.

Elsewhere across the EU, anumber of countries haveintroducedlegislativecontrols on the deployment of sky lanterns andhelium balloons.

5.1 Local initiatives

Across EnglandandWales, 179 local authorities (15inEngland; 2inWales) haveapplieda voluntary banon thereleaseof helium balloons from councilownedland. Inmany cases, this voluntary banalso includes sky lanterns. These controls areonly activeon councilowned land(i.e. recreationgrounds andparks) andthey are describedby councils as being purely voluntary bans they arenot abletotake legal actionagainst infringements. Under current legislation set out in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (2005) or the Environmental ProtectionAct (1990), wastefrom balloons or sky lanterns is not classifiedas litter and as such, no specific legal actioncanbe taken against releases.

Basedondiscussions withanumber of local authorities that havealready instigatedaban, it seems that this actionhas beenmost successful inpreventing mass releases of balloons. The evidence suggests that where local authority bans are in place, they have served to raise public awareness of the risks associated with the release of both sky lanterns and helium balloons as well as targeting specific stakeholders likely to be involved in themass release of balloons or lanterns as part of specific events. These typically include charity fundraising groups, community groups andbusinesses promotingsales or products.

Making consumers aware of the risks associated with sky lanterns and helium balloons appears to be the key to achieving amore responsible approach to their deployment and from theevidenceavailable to theproject team, this seems tohavebeenoneof themain benefits of individual local authority action to date. Whilst acknowledging the positiveoutcomes of these existing initiatives, thepotential weaknesses arethat they arepurely local, they rely on cooperation from the public and professional operators and appear to focus largely on massrelease of helium balloons. Potential ways of extending the benefits of current initiatives are as follows:

9 District Councils in England (6) Braintree, Maldon, Rochford, South Hams, Thanet, Windsor & Maidenhead

City and Borough Councils in England (10) Carlisle, Ipswich, Lancaster, Oxford, Plymouth, Redbridge, Reigate & Banstead, Swindon, Tonbridge & Malling, Wandsworth County Councils in England (1) Worcestershire Welsh local authorities (2) Cardiff City Council, Conwy Council

27

By encouraging all local authorities inEnglandandWales to review their policies onthe use of sky lanterns and helium balloons against nationallyagreed objectives, inconsultationwithrelevant stakeholders (e.g. CAA, MCA andtheindustry). It is suggested that these shouldbe riskbased reviews rather than (for example) blanket bans on the release of sky lanterns or helium balloons. It is accepted that as there is currently no representative body, methods of engagement with the sky lantern industry will not bestraightforward.

After individual riskbasedassessments, encouraging all local authorities topublishclear guidelines for thedeployment of sky lanterns andhelium b