Policy paper

Annex E – rationale for advice on the buffer zone conditions and the treatment of terrestrial SPAs and SACs below the mean high-water mark (estuarine sites)

Published 31 May 2022

This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government

Applies to England

This document was published as part of Defra’s decision to issue the gamebird release general licence for 2021 to 2022.

Read about Defra’s decision to issue the gamebird release general licence for 2023 to 2025.

1. Rationale for option of not releasing within 250m of a site boundary within a buffer zone around Protected Sites

In its consultation, Defra proposed the inclusion of the following condition in the general licence for the 500m buffer zones; ‘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 Special Area of Conservation or Special Protection Area’. Although this sought to provide flexibility to the user on how to comply, consultation feedback was that this may be too ambiguous to operate effectively. One alternative option being considered is to introduce a certain zone around a site boundary within the 500m buffer wherepens and feeding cannot take place.

Recognising that Defra will wish to be confident that the licence is able to minimise the risk of significant harm to the features of the neighbouring protected site, and given a SSSI consent cannot control activity within a buffer zone, Natural England’s shadow HRA proposed an alternative more specific measure: ‘release pens or feeders located within the buffer area must not be placed within 250m of a designated site’s boundary’.

This was proposed to give greater confidence in a HRA that birds released in the buffer do not disperse on to protected sites in sufficient numbers and / or densities to have negative effects. It was proposed on the basis that the negative effects in consideration are linked to the available evidence which shows that:

• that large numbers and/or high densities of game birds can cause significant damage to sensitive habitats and
• birds will disperse away from release pens but that, on balance, most birds do not disperse further than 500m from their release area and their numbers decline with increasing distance (informed by the tracking studies referenced in the Rapid Evidence Review (Beardsworth et al, Ferretti et al, 2012, Sage et al, 2001 see p77-79)

Therefore, the closer to a site that releases take place the greater the risk of negative effects from large numbers of birds dispersing into and congregating within that site.

If the vast majority of pheasants/red-legged partridge disperse up to about 500 m and the licence does not limit the total number of pens or total number of birds released in the buffer, then it is important that there is a sufficient distance between pens and feeders and the neighbouring protected site so that only a small number of the released birds are likely to reach the protected site.

Based on this logic and given the necessary generality of the licence, we suggest a (mid) point of 250m from a site boundary as a precautionary but also common-sense and practical (i.e. easily measurable) distance that could be adopted. This would limit the likelihood of a large number of birds released in the buffer zone directly moving and roosting within an adjacent protected site. It would be in keeping with the original spirit of the buffer concept as a protective measure that could avoid off-site releases that could result in significant dispersal of birds onto sites. It could also be reviewed should further evidence be presented with a more accurate bird dispersal profile.

Between 250 –500m of the buffer zone, releasing and feeding would be able to take place subject to other conditions of the GL.

2. Rationale for Group 2 sites excluded from the GL

The consultation proposed that a number of terrestrial and estuarine sites could be excluded from the GL on the basis of there being no direct risk of a significant effect. A HRA provides a screening process to consider risk and justify exclusions. The shadow HRA recognised that releases and the placement of release pens are highly unlikely to take place directly within intertidal habitats such as saltmarsh and mudflat. Nor is it likely that pheasants and red-legged partridges released onto adjacent land will freely feed on or roost in these habitats in any significant number. Given the recent confirmation that shooting activity within 500m of a site is out of scope of the GL, the wider consideration of likely disturbance effects from this activity is also out of scope of the assessment. Those SACs/SPAs where all their features are wholly below the mean high-water mark might therefore be at little or no direct risk. Sites with more terrestrial features, such as dune systems, where interactions may occur have not been excluded and remain in scope.

2.1 Would these intertidal sites still require a buffer zone?

Given the risk of high densities of gamebirds creating bare ground within and around the confines of pens, the consultation proposed the following general recommendation for the buffer zone. Any pens and feeding stations located within the buffer zone must be placed on level ground and should not be placed within 50 metres of a watercourse flowing towards a SAC or designated for its river or wetland habitats

This would act alongside conditions limiting the scale of releasing in the buffer zone. The proposed measure of limiting release pens away from watercourses that flow into these sites mitigates the risk of any nutrient-rich water or sediment finding a path into those sites and detrimentally affecting its water’s quality. This measure, set at a precautionary distance of 50 metres given the protection afforded to European Sites, is consistent with the general measures contained in the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 (‘farming rules for water’) to reduce the risk of diffuse agricultural pollution arising from the management of livestock more generally.

This principle will also be applicable to intertidal orestuary sites. The wider context is that eutrophication of estuary habitats is a particular issue in some areas, for example, in the south coast of England where eutrophic estuaries are characterised by the growth of dense macroalgae on mudflats which frequently smothers saltmarsh vegetation. There are also ongoing legal obligations to protect and improve water quality of estuarine and coastal waters, which reference saltmarsh as a higher sensitivity habitat.

However, it is recognised that increased eutrophication in estuaries is largely driven by catchmentwide diffuse pollution. Whilst nutrient inputs from gamebird rearing are unlikely to be a major contributor (noting an absence of evidence to this effect), this could arise as an exacerbating factor and alocalised issue.

On balance, the following option is therefore suggested:

• exclude intertidal sites themselves as listed, but retain a landward 500m buffer zone around them
• retain the recommendation as proposed but amend (in red) to read: ‘Any pens and feeding stations located within the buffer zone must be placed on level ground and should not be placed within 50 metres of a watercourse flowing towards a SAC or SPA designated for river, wetland or intertidal habitats’