Summary of responses

Question 1

Background

Accepted Answer

In September 2019 Defra launched a review to consider the legislative arrangements around the release of the common pheasant and red-legged partridge on and around SACs and SPAs and whether there are ways in which their effectiveness could be improved. As part of that review, an independent report - Ecological Consequences of Gamebird Releasing and Management on Lowland Shoots in England - was commissioned jointly by Natural England and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. This took the form of a rapid evidence assessment, published on August 20, 2020.

The report summarises the impacts of gamebird release on habitats and species and identifies several key issues that influence the impacts (notably overall number of birds, the density at which they are released, and siting of their release pens), as well as a number of evidence gaps. To manage any potential impacts while the current evidence gaps are addressed, the Secretary of State decided to put in place an interim licensing regime for 2021 to regulate the releases of common pheasant and red legged partridge within Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protected Areas (SPAs) and within a 500m buffer zone around the sites.

Defra worked up, in consultation with interested parties, a proposal for a general licence that is applicable to all relevant users without the need for a specific application provided the conditions included within it are met. With the ability of individuals to apply for a single application if the conditions are not met. The details of the proposed conditions were explored within the consultation which closed on 15th March 2021.

Question 2

Overview of proposed policies

Accepted Answer

The key elements of the proposed general licensing regime set out in the consultation document included:

the need for an individual licence for any releases on two specific sites that are already subject to enforcement action by Natural England due to adverse impacts of gamebird releasing
exclusion of eighty-seven of the relevant sites from the need to have a licence where either marine or estuarine sites wholly below the mean high-water mark or terrestrial sites with designated features considered not to be sensitive to non-native gamebird releases
licence conditions for the protect sites and their buffers - maximum release densities for both species on SACs and SPAs and within the 500m buffer zone, along with some additional conditions
expiry of the interim licensing regime after three years

In addition to views on the proposed conditions, the consultation sought information on the operational and financial impact of the proposed conditions on gamekeepers.

The consultation also clarified that anyone relying on the general licence to release gamebirds on a SAC or SPA must still comply with any existing requirements. For example, where relevant activities are listed as an operation requiring Natural England consent to damage on the SSSI notification, they must have a SSSI consent from Natural England.

Question 3

Who responded to the survey?

Accepted Answer

We received a total of 2,192 responses – 2,179 responses were received online via Citizen Space and 13 via email. The breakdown of the category of respondents is below.

Category	Number	% of respondents
Gamekeeper/Shoot	298	13.6
Conservationist	206	9.4
Organisations	31	1.4
Public body	6	0.3
Member of public	1,493	68.1
Other	154	7.0
Not answered	4	0.2

Table 1: survey respondents by category

A number of respondents in the ‘other’ category identified as farmers and landowners. Approximately 45% of respondents were identified as part of a publicised Wild Justice campaign. About 5% of responses were identified as part of a similar campaign by shooting interests albeit not publicly advertised.

Question 4

Summary of responses

Accepted Answer

Most of the questions posed to respondents required Yes or No answers, followed by a free text question to provide more in-depth reasoning. Two questions requested additional suggestions or recommendations from respondents.

The sharpest contrast in responses were largely between those who principally identified as shooting/gamekeeping and those who identified as conservationist, recognising that many may share a dual interest.

Scope of general licence

Exclusions

We proposed that sites in the following categories would be excluded from the general licence.

Group 1: Sites requiring individual licences: The general licence would not apply to any gamebird releases on two sites that are already subject to enforcement action by Natural England due to adverse impacts of gamebird releasing. Any releases on these sites would instead require an individual licence from Natural England.

Group 2: Sites that would be excluded from the need for a licencing regime: We proposed that 87 sites be excluded from the need for a licencing regime. The list comprised marine sites, estuarine sites below the mean high-water mark and terrestrial sites where the designated features are considered not to be sensitive to non-native gamebird releases.

Responses

More than 70% of respondents were opposed to the exclusion of these sites. Much of the follow up free text option focused on Group 2 sites. There were also some broader comments around a desire for bespoke licensing arrangements rather than a general licence at all.

For group 1 sites, most respondents were supportive of requiring individual licences for releases on sites subject to enforcement action. However, their preference was for a general exclusion for any sites where enforcement action is taking place rather than listing named sites.

For group 2 sites, the majority of respondents opposed the exclusion of the sites on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to do so and it does not follow a precautionary approach.

500m Buffer Zone

We asked if a 500m buffer zone around SACs and SPAs will ensure that releases do not cause deterioration or significant disturbance of protected features of the sites and whether this was a feasible measure.

Responses

The vast majority of respondents were opposed to the inclusion of a 500m buffer zone with only 16% in agreement with the proposed measure. Of those opposed, these were mainly divided into two opinions. The first responded that the buffer zone should be at least 1km stating that studies and anecdotal evidence shows that birds travel further than 500m. Some also advocated that the level of dispersal is largely dictated by site specific factors so should be determined on a site by site basis.

The second group of respondents were of the view that the buffer zone should ideally be 15m and no greater than 300m as the range of distances covered by studies as cited in Defra’s Witness Statement 3 was between 15m and 300m.

There were also general concerns expressed about precedent-setting and impact on land prices from restrictions to releases. Some individual shoots who operate at a small scale entirely within the buffer zone felt that they would be left with limited flexibility to operate.

Despite contrary views on the inclusion of a 500m buffer zone, over 60% of respondents were of the view that it was feasible. Other respondents stated that the 500m buffer zone was impractical and would be impossible to enforce or monitor.

General licence conditions

Stocking Density Limits

We asked if the following density limits for common pheasant or red legged partridge would minimise negative impacts of gamebird release on SACs and SPAs:

Common pheasants: no more than 1,000 birds per hectare of release pen within the 500m buffer zone and either no more than 700 birds per hectare of pen or the release density stipulated by a SSSI consent (whichever is the lower) within an SAC or SPA.

Red legged partridges: the density of red legged partridges released into a pen within an SAC or SPA and the 500m buffer must not exceed 3 birds per square metre of pen or the release density stipulated by a SSSI consent (whichever is the lower).

Seasonal Limit: Single and trickle releases of the common pheasant must not exceed these limits during the entirety of one season cycle and gamebirds must not be released to replenish or replace any that have already been released and shot or otherwise killed in that season, except within the limits as stated.

Responses

Approximately 75% of respondents were not in agreement with the proposed density limits on the sites and within the buffer zone. Respondents identifying with shooting interests were not in favor of the interim licensing regime and conditions, citing the adequacy of existing regulations. However, they were supportive of using industry best-practice standards (which states a density of 1000 pheasants / ha) if the licence proceeds on both the sites and within the buffer zones. Some respondents in this category also indicated that the proposed red-legged partridge density did not reflect the current partridge releases methods and expressed a preference for the use of overall numbers rather than densities

Other respondents were mainly of the opinion that there should be no releases permitted in both the protected site and the buffer zone which they advocated should be increased to 1km. There were also submissions that density limits should be imposed via individual licences.

Data collection

We asked if users of the general licence should be required to supply information on the location and number of birds being released under it, along with information on their SSSI consent for releases on SACs and SPAs.

Responses

Over 70% of respondents were in favor of the data collection condition. These respondents supportive of the proposal as the first step towards better understanding of the scale and impact of gamebird releasing on the environment. Some respondents also wanted all the information to be publicly available.

Respondents opposed to this condition expressed very strong concerns about data protection and shoots being targeted by activists and poachers in the event of a data breach. There were also concerns about administrative burden with the information already provided under the SSSI consenting regime.

Additional conditions

SACs and SPAs

We asked respondents if there were other conditions they would like to see in the general licence for releases on SACs and SPAs.

Responses

Approximately 15% of respondents proposed further conditions that they would want to see on SACs and SPAs. These included penalties for breaching licensing conditions, conditions on shooting activities, and conditions on the siting of pens, feeders and cover crops. The majority of these respondents were members of the public and conservationists.

500m Buffer Zone

We sought opinion on the condition that activity in the buffer zone, including the siting of pens and feeding of birds, must not encourage the released birds towards, or over, the boundary of the adjacent SAC or SPA. We also asked for suggestions on any additional conditions for the 500m buffer zone.

Responses

Approximately 70% of respondents expressed views on the proposed condition and suggestions for any additional conditions. About 12% of respondents opposed the conditions stating various reasons. They highlighted that the proposed condition was unrequired as the infrastructure that would facilitate movement of birds to a SAC or SPA would already be subjected to the consenting regime. There were also concerns that the condition was impractical and unenforceable, along with requests for additional clarity on the activities in scope. The remaining respondents reiterated their position on banning releases within the buffer zone.

General licence non-mandatory recommendations

500m buffer zone

We asked for views on the recommendation for pens and feeding stations located within the buffer zone to be placed on level ground and not within 50 metres of a watercourse flowing towards an SAC or SPA designated for its river or wetland habitat.

Responses

About 74% of respondents offered views on the proposed recommendation and additional suggestions. Conservationists and members of the public made up over 82% of this group. They reiterated their view for a complete ban in the buffer zone and if any releases were to take place in the buffer they would want this component to be a mandatory condition.

The remaining respondents highlighted that it would be difficult to implement the recommendation due to sloping land was sloping and other site-specific peculiarities. They also saw the condition as unnecessary and stipulated that it should be clearly identified as advisory if included in the general licence.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Part 1 Schedule 9 of the WCA 1981

We asked if respondents had any objections and or representations with respect to the addition of the red-legged partridge and common pheasant to Part 1, Schedule 9 of the WCA 1981.

Responses

51% of respondents responded they had objections and representations to the proposed inclusion of the red-legged partridge and common pheasant species to Part 1, Schedule 9 of the WCA 1981. However members of the public constituted about 70% of this group and simply highlighted that the measure was essential and urgent. About 16% of this group identified as gamekeepers and opined that the current consenting regime was adequate and cited a lack of evidence to justify the introduction of the proposed general licence which they considered would be unenforceable.

Sunset clause

We asked if respondents agreed with the proposed inclusion in the statutory instrument of the three year sunset clause and a requirement that the Secretary of State carries out a review after two years of the need for these statutory restrictions on gamebird releases on SACs and SPAs and in a 500m buffer zone around them.

Responses

19% of total respondents did not agree with the proposed sunset clause and review requirement. The views were mainly in two camps. The first group whilst disagreeing in principle with the interim licensing regime proposed a 2-year general licence in tandem with a 2-year sunset clause. The second group advocated that the sunset clause should be 5 year to allow for adequate research into the impact of gamebird releases.

Both groups recommended that Natural England should be adequately resourced to undertake timely review of the consents to facilitate a return to the status quo and also ensure they could carry out effective monitoring of the sites.

Question 5

Alternatives to interim licensing regime

Accepted Answer

In this section, we sought feasible alternatives to the proposed interim licensing regime that Defra could implement prior to the 2021 shooting season.

Approximately 66% of respondents indicated they had feasible alternatives with about 75% of this group made up of members of the public and 8% conservationists. These respondents recommended an outright ban of releases on protected sites, increasing the buffer zone to at least 1km and a prohibition of releases for five years within both the site and proposed 1km buffer zone. The remaining respondents suggested that the current SSSI consenting regime offered adequate protection to sites and appealed for Natural England to focus on monitoring and evaluation for site specific assessment and evidence.

If you have any queries regarding this publication please contact us at: GLTeam@defra.gov.uk

Summary of responses

Background

Overview of proposed policies

Who responded to the survey?

Table 1: survey respondents by category