29.03.2013 Views

Wildlife Management in England - ARCHIVE: Defra

Wildlife Management in England - ARCHIVE: Defra

Wildlife Management in England - ARCHIVE: Defra

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

www.defra.gov.uk<br />

<strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>England</strong><br />

A policy mak<strong>in</strong>g framework for resolv<strong>in</strong>g<br />

human-wildlife conflicts<br />

February 2010


Cover images:<br />

Cormorant © Environment Agency courtesy of Terry Heathcote<br />

Grey Squirrel © Crown Copyright courtesy of GBNNSS<br />

Roe Deer – image courtesy of CJ Wilson<br />

Mole © Crown Copyright<br />

Document images:<br />

Page 6 – Fallow Deer – image courtesy of NM Turner<br />

Page 7 – Cormorant © Environment Agency courtesy of Terry Heathcote<br />

Page 11 – Rabbit – image courtesy of CJ Wilson<br />

Page 12 – Badger damage image courtesy of Fera<br />

Page 22 – Mole © Crown Copyright<br />

Page 26 – American Bullfrog © Crown Copyright courtesy of GBNNSS<br />

Page 27 – Roe Deer – image courtesy of CJ Wilson<br />

Page 30 – Peregr<strong>in</strong>e Falcon © Crown Copyright<br />

Page 31 – Cormorants image courtesy of Fera<br />

Page 32 – Fox – image courtesy of CJ Wilson<br />

Page 33 – Rabbit fenc<strong>in</strong>g image courtesy of Fera<br />

Page 35 – Cage traps image courtesy of Fera<br />

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs<br />

Nobel House<br />

17 Smith Square<br />

London SW1P 3JR<br />

Telephone 020 7238 6000<br />

Website: www.defra.gov.uk<br />

© Crown copyright 2010<br />

Copyright <strong>in</strong> the typographical arrangement and design rests with the Crown.<br />

This publication (exclud<strong>in</strong>g the royal arms and departmental logos) may be re-used free of charge<br />

<strong>in</strong> any format or medium provided that it is re-used accurately and not used <strong>in</strong> a mislead<strong>in</strong>g<br />

context. The material must be acknowledged as crown copyright and the title of the publication<br />

specified.<br />

Information about this publication is available from:<br />

<strong>Defra</strong><br />

European and UK Species Policy<br />

<strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Team<br />

Room 108, Temple Quay House<br />

2 The Square<br />

Temple Quay<br />

Bristol<br />

BS1 6NE<br />

Email: wms@defra.gsi.gov.uk<br />

Tel: 0117 372 8003<br />

This document is available on the <strong>Defra</strong> website:<br />

www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/management/<br />

Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs<br />

PB13384


Contents<br />

1. Introduction 3<br />

The purpose of this document 3<br />

What is wildlife management? 3<br />

The need for a policy mak<strong>in</strong>g framework 4<br />

A vision for wildlife management 6<br />

2. Strategic Approach 7<br />

3. Scope 9<br />

Exclusions 11<br />

4. Strategic Aims 12<br />

5. The Policy Mak<strong>in</strong>g Process or ‘Process Tree’ 13<br />

Process Tree Stage 1: Should it be for Government to <strong>in</strong>tervene? 13<br />

Process Tree Stage 2: Gather<strong>in</strong>g and consider<strong>in</strong>g evidence and advice 15<br />

Process Tree Stage 3: Consider<strong>in</strong>g and decid<strong>in</strong>g on an appropriate policy 17<br />

Process Tree Stage 4: Communicat<strong>in</strong>g the f<strong>in</strong>al decision and the reason<strong>in</strong>g beh<strong>in</strong>d it 18<br />

Process Tree Stage 5: Implement<strong>in</strong>g the policy 18<br />

Process Tree Stage 6: Monitor<strong>in</strong>g the outcome and review<strong>in</strong>g the policy 18<br />

6. Roles and Responsibilities 19<br />

Stakeholder engagement 19<br />

Work<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> partnership 19<br />

Interface with members of the public, sector representative organisations and expert groups 20<br />

Scientific evidence and advice 20<br />

Work<strong>in</strong>g groups 20<br />

Other government policies and strategies 21<br />

Delivery 21<br />

Co-ord<strong>in</strong>ation across GB/UK 21<br />

7. Tak<strong>in</strong>g the Framework Forward 22<br />

Develop<strong>in</strong>g future wildlife management policies 22<br />

Communications strategy 22<br />

Annex A: Process Tree show<strong>in</strong>g the stages <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g Government 23<br />

policies with respect to wildlife management.<br />

Annex B: List of Related Strategies and Initiatives 24<br />

Annex C: <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Examples 26<br />

Conservation of biodiversity 26<br />

Susta<strong>in</strong>able exploitation and management 27<br />

Socio-economic impacts 31<br />

Welfare of managed wildlife 32<br />

Annex D: Legislation Relevant to <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Issues 36<br />

1


1. Introduction<br />

The purpose of this document<br />

1.1 This document sets out a framework for how Government will develop future policy on<br />

wildlife management. Its <strong>in</strong>tended readership goes beyond <strong>Defra</strong> and its delivery bodies,<br />

extend<strong>in</strong>g to a wide range of stakeholders with an <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> wildlife management<br />

–particularly with regard to how policy is made. It aims to set out <strong>in</strong> a clear and concise way,<br />

the decision mak<strong>in</strong>g process that <strong>Defra</strong> and its delivery bodies will be us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> order that the<br />

wider public can better understand when and why Government <strong>in</strong>tervenes <strong>in</strong> wildlife<br />

management situations.<br />

1.2 Sections one to four set out the context and parameters under which the framework will<br />

operate, whilst sections five to seven set out the policy mak<strong>in</strong>g process, stakeholder roles and<br />

how we <strong>in</strong>tend to take the framework forward, once it is launched. A visual summary of the<br />

policy mak<strong>in</strong>g process can be found at Annex A.<br />

1.3 The framework roll out is centred on three key actions:<br />

1. The <strong>in</strong>troduction of a consistent, proportionate, transparent, targeted and accountable<br />

approach to future policy development.<br />

2. Establish<strong>in</strong>g mechanisms for effective co-ord<strong>in</strong>ation and co-operation with other UK<br />

national authorities regard<strong>in</strong>g wildlife management issues, and ensur<strong>in</strong>g that all relevant<br />

national authorities are consulted on decisions with cross border implications (e.g. species<br />

re-<strong>in</strong>troductions).<br />

3. The development of a communications strategy that will ensure that reasons for<br />

<strong>in</strong>tervention are better communicated and understood.<br />

What is wildlife management?<br />

1.4 <strong>Wildlife</strong> management is the manipulation of wild (i.e. free liv<strong>in</strong>g) plant and animal species<br />

behaviour or abundance for a specified goal.<br />

The reasons for such action <strong>in</strong>clude:<br />

• conservation of vulnerable or rare species and habitats<br />

• exploitation of wildlife resources such as harvest<strong>in</strong>g game and fish stocks<br />

• control of species to address impacts such as preserv<strong>in</strong>g public health and safety, and<br />

prevent<strong>in</strong>g serious damage to property <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g impacts on agriculture<br />

1.5 For the most part mank<strong>in</strong>d and wildlife are able to co-exist successfully. However, <strong>in</strong>evitably<br />

conflicts do sometimes arise between compet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terests. Human <strong>in</strong>terests will <strong>in</strong>clude those<br />

of a social, economic and environmental nature.<br />

1.6 This framework primarily focuses on conflict resolution concern<strong>in</strong>g wildlife impacts on human<br />

<strong>in</strong>terests and should therefore be seen as complementary to other measures which contribute<br />

to the broader def<strong>in</strong>ition of wildlife management (see section 3).<br />

1.7 Conflict resolution <strong>in</strong>volves purposeful <strong>in</strong>tervention to reduce or avoid (mitigate) impacts.<br />

In many cases, this can be achieved through non lethal measures or, where lethal control is<br />

necessary, by remov<strong>in</strong>g only a limited number of <strong>in</strong>dividuals. It can also <strong>in</strong>clude susta<strong>in</strong>able<br />

control or, <strong>in</strong> the case of <strong>in</strong>vasive non-native species, even eradication of populations.<br />

3


4<br />

Introduction<br />

1.8 <strong>Defra</strong>’s general policy is that <strong>in</strong>dividuals should be free to manage wildlife with<strong>in</strong> the law, and<br />

government should only <strong>in</strong>tervene when there is good reason to do so. <strong>Defra</strong> supports the<br />

follow<strong>in</strong>g step wise approach to address<strong>in</strong>g wildlife impacts on human <strong>in</strong>terests:<br />

• Avoidance and tolerance – <strong>Wildlife</strong> conflicts are often m<strong>in</strong>or and tolerable, especially if<br />

basic avoidance measures are employed. If the problem is significant enough to warrant<br />

action, options should be explored that avoid harmful impacts on the species concerned<br />

while still resolv<strong>in</strong>g the problem (e.g. the when, how and where of operations and the<br />

consideration of alternative solutions).<br />

• Us<strong>in</strong>g legal methods – Where a conflict is <strong>in</strong>tolerable and unavoidable, direct action<br />

aga<strong>in</strong>st the problem species may be justified. In the first <strong>in</strong>stance, legal non-lethal<br />

measures (e.g. habitat management, proof<strong>in</strong>g to keep animals out or <strong>in</strong>, us<strong>in</strong>g deterrents<br />

and repellents) should be considered. Only if these fail, are impractical or deemed<br />

<strong>in</strong>effective, should available legal lethal options be considered (e.g. if applicable, shoot<strong>in</strong>g<br />

animals <strong>in</strong> the Open Season or us<strong>in</strong>g certa<strong>in</strong> traps and pesticides).<br />

• Licensed action – In some conflict situations the best or only effective course of remedial<br />

action may be prohibited by law and <strong>in</strong> such situations, to act lawfully necessitates a<br />

licence derogat<strong>in</strong>g the protective provisions (e.g. trapp<strong>in</strong>g, exclusion, translocation, kill<strong>in</strong>g<br />

dur<strong>in</strong>g prohibited periods or by prohibited means).<br />

1.9 In summary, the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples that should apply to management are:<br />

• the conflict must be sufficiently serious to warrant such action<br />

• the least severe solution should be applied <strong>in</strong> order to resolve the conflict<br />

• all other less severe methods of resolv<strong>in</strong>g the conflict should be shown to be <strong>in</strong>effective or<br />

impractical and not just difficult to implement<br />

• the action is cost effective and proportionate to the actual or potential level of conflict<br />

• such action would reduce, or prevent from <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g, the scale of the conflict<br />

• welfare, disease control and conservation obligations are met<br />

The need for a policy mak<strong>in</strong>g framework<br />

1.10 Currently, many species are protected by legislation and/or are covered by Government<br />

strategies, <strong>in</strong>itiatives or policies. However, many policies and their delivery mechanisms<br />

were developed at times when <strong>Defra</strong>’s predecessor departments had very different aims<br />

and priorities.<br />

1.11 <strong>Wildlife</strong> management has changed greatly over past decades. Previously, it concerned itself<br />

entirely with quarry species, with sett<strong>in</strong>g hunt<strong>in</strong>g and fish<strong>in</strong>g regulations, habitat modification<br />

such as burn<strong>in</strong>g and clear<strong>in</strong>g, and the control (sometimes exterm<strong>in</strong>ation) of predators and<br />

crop damag<strong>in</strong>g species. Whilst these issues are still relevant, its practice has changed to focus<br />

more on conservation. Among many other th<strong>in</strong>gs, this means that formerly <strong>in</strong>digenous species<br />

are be<strong>in</strong>g re<strong>in</strong>troduced or allowed to return, and <strong>in</strong>troduced species are be<strong>in</strong>g removed.


Introduction<br />

1.12 Due to such historic <strong>in</strong>fluences there has been an ad hoc approach to manag<strong>in</strong>g wildlife,<br />

reflect<strong>in</strong>g priorities at the time the policy was developed. Such policies are likely to have<br />

changed or evolved over time. For example, due to food shortages <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong> after World War<br />

II, a policy decision was taken to enhance protection of crops from wildlife <strong>in</strong> order to <strong>in</strong>crease<br />

food production. This policy was implemented through the Agricultural Act 1947 and the<br />

Pests Act 1954. With an <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g global population, the focus is now to produce enough<br />

food while protect<strong>in</strong>g and enhanc<strong>in</strong>g the farmed environment. Recently, the issue of food<br />

security has also come to the fore with the publication of the UK’s first food security<br />

assessment on 10 August 2009.<br />

1.13 This is reflected <strong>in</strong> the Government’s new food strategy ‘Food 2030’ which sets out the<br />

Government’s vision for a susta<strong>in</strong>able and secure food system for 2030, and the steps we will<br />

take to get there. ‘Food 2030’ describes how UK farm<strong>in</strong>g should produce as much food as<br />

possible, as long as it is responsive to demand, and recognises the need to protect and<br />

enhance natural resources. This framework for wildlife management sits with<strong>in</strong> this broader<br />

context for farm<strong>in</strong>g and food production.<br />

1.14 Ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a legislative framework that is fit for purpose <strong>in</strong> terms of deliver<strong>in</strong>g today’s<br />

priorities (see paragraph 2.4), is crucial to reconcil<strong>in</strong>g conflict<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terests. Failure to do so<br />

can affect the target<strong>in</strong>g of Government resources with the result that they may not always<br />

be focused on areas where they can achieve the most benefit. And there is now a need to<br />

look at how our approach to <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> fits with the core pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of<br />

Better Regulation.<br />

1.15 Furthermore, this piecemeal approach fails to reflect the <strong>in</strong>tegrated approach to biodiversity<br />

now embraced by <strong>Defra</strong>, illustrated for <strong>in</strong>stance by the strategic framework; Conserv<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Biodiversity – The UK Approach 1 and the Ecosystems Approach Action Plan 2 , the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of<br />

which are reflected <strong>in</strong> the Government’s Public Service Agreement (PSA) for the natural<br />

environment, as reproduced below:<br />

“The Government’s vision is to secure a diverse, healthy and resilient natural environment, which<br />

provides the basis for everyone’s well-be<strong>in</strong>g, health and prosperity now and <strong>in</strong> the future; and<br />

where the value of services provided by the natural environment are reflected <strong>in</strong> decision mak<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

It wants to see:<br />

• The air that people breath free from harmful levels of pollutants;<br />

• Susta<strong>in</strong>able water use which balances water quality, environment, supply and demand;<br />

• Land and soils managed susta<strong>in</strong>ably;<br />

• Biodiversity valued, safeguarded and enhanced;<br />

• Susta<strong>in</strong>able, liv<strong>in</strong>g landscapes with best features conserved;<br />

• Clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas; and people enjoy<strong>in</strong>g,<br />

understand<strong>in</strong>g and car<strong>in</strong>g for the natural environment.”<br />

1 www.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/uk/uk-biostrat.htm<br />

2 www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/policy/natural-environ/eco-actionplan.htm<br />

5


6<br />

Introduction<br />

A vision for wildlife management<br />

Our Vision<br />

The over-arch<strong>in</strong>g vision for this framework is to ensure a proper balance between the need to<br />

conserve and enhance biodiversity, the <strong>in</strong>terest of the public at large, and the <strong>in</strong>terests of those<br />

directly affected by wildlife issues. This will be achieved by ensur<strong>in</strong>g:<br />

• wildlife management policy takes <strong>in</strong>to account the Government’s vision of the environment as<br />

a whole, balanced aga<strong>in</strong>st its social and economic objectives<br />

• policies are developed that make best use of available evidence<br />

• a consistent, proportionate, transparent, targeted and accountable approach to policy development<br />

is <strong>in</strong> place so that stakeholders and the public can understand why policy decisions have been made<br />

• that wildlife management policies deliver proportionate, effective and humane solutions


2. Strategic Approach<br />

2.1 An ‘ecosystems approach’ is a more strategic approach to policy-mak<strong>in</strong>g and delivery on the<br />

natural environment. The Ecosystems Approach Action Plan is seek<strong>in</strong>g to embed a new way<br />

of th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g and work<strong>in</strong>g by:<br />

• Shift<strong>in</strong>g the focus of our policy-mak<strong>in</strong>g and delivery away from look<strong>in</strong>g at natural environment<br />

policies <strong>in</strong> separate ‘silos’ (e.g. water, air, biodiversity, etc) towards a more <strong>in</strong>tegrated, holistic<br />

approach based on whole ecosystems; and<br />

• Seek<strong>in</strong>g to ensure that the value of the services provided by the natural environment<br />

(ecosystems services) are fully reflected <strong>in</strong> policy and decision mak<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

2.2 To address this, as well as ensur<strong>in</strong>g that policies reflect today’s priorities, this framework<br />

<strong>in</strong>troduces a ‘process tree’ (see section 5 and Annex A) based on a number of pr<strong>in</strong>ciples that<br />

are flexible enough to cater for priorities that may change over time.<br />

2.3 Our research <strong>in</strong>to public attitudes on <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 3 revealed broad support among<br />

the general public for wildlife to be managed for a range of reasons. However, it also showed<br />

that the public requires greater evidence to be conv<strong>in</strong>ced of the seriousness of issues before<br />

action was taken. In some cases resistance was more philosophical – e.g. cormorants prey<strong>in</strong>g<br />

on fish was seen by some to simply be nature at work and therefore not requir<strong>in</strong>g the<br />

<strong>in</strong>tervention of man. The highest levels of support were voiced when management is to<br />

protect human health and safety. More qualified support and some resistance was expressed<br />

when it is to protect habitats, crops, <strong>in</strong>frastructure and, <strong>in</strong> particular, developments. This<br />

clearly demonstrates a need for a more transparent, evidence based approach 4 and a more<br />

effective communications strategy which this framework seeks to address.<br />

3 www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/management/non-native/<strong>in</strong>dex.htm<br />

4 www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/policy/evidence/<strong>in</strong>dex.htm<br />

7


8<br />

Strategic Approach<br />

2.4 This framework helps deliver the follow<strong>in</strong>g 7 of <strong>Defra</strong>’s 9 Strategic Objectives:<br />

• An economy and a society that are resilient to environmental risk<br />

This is delivered through ensur<strong>in</strong>g that flood<strong>in</strong>g and coastal erosion risks are managed<br />

susta<strong>in</strong>ably, through the economy, human health and ecosystems be<strong>in</strong>g protected from<br />

environmental risks and emergencies, and through public health and the economy be<strong>in</strong>g<br />

protected from animal diseases<br />

• Champion<strong>in</strong>g susta<strong>in</strong>able development<br />

<strong>Defra</strong> is the Government’s champion for susta<strong>in</strong>able development – domestically and<br />

<strong>in</strong>ternationally. Ensur<strong>in</strong>g that policy and delivery at all levels of Government observe the five<br />

pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of susta<strong>in</strong>able development set out <strong>in</strong> the 2005 Susta<strong>in</strong>able Development strategy<br />

“secur<strong>in</strong>g the future”<br />

• A thriv<strong>in</strong>g farm<strong>in</strong>g and food sector with an improv<strong>in</strong>g net environmental impact<br />

Mak<strong>in</strong>g the farm<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dustry more <strong>in</strong>novative, self-reliant, profitable and competitive and with<br />

better environmental management throughout the whole food cha<strong>in</strong><br />

• A susta<strong>in</strong>able, secure and healthy food supply<br />

Work<strong>in</strong>g across Government and with stakeholders for susta<strong>in</strong>able production, distribution<br />

and consumption of food, ensur<strong>in</strong>g that it is available and affordable for all sectors of society,<br />

and consider<strong>in</strong>g the susta<strong>in</strong>ability impacts of meet<strong>in</strong>g global food needs<br />

• Socially and economically susta<strong>in</strong>able rural communities<br />

Tak<strong>in</strong>g an overview of the effects of Government policies <strong>in</strong> rural areas and help<strong>in</strong>g<br />

departments understand better the rural dimension, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g by improv<strong>in</strong>g the evidence base<br />

• A society that is adapt<strong>in</strong>g to the effects of climate change, through a national<br />

programme of action and a contribution to <strong>in</strong>ternational action<br />

Cutt<strong>in</strong>g greenhouse gas emissions is a priority. But some climate change is now <strong>in</strong>evitable and<br />

all of us – as <strong>in</strong>dividuals, bus<strong>in</strong>esses, Government and public authorities – will need to adapt<br />

to respond to the challenges of climate change<br />

• A healthy, resilient, productive and diverse natural environment<br />

To protect and enhance the natural environment, and to encourage its susta<strong>in</strong>able use with<strong>in</strong><br />

environmental limits


3. Scope<br />

3.1 This framework deals with when and how Government may need to <strong>in</strong>tervene to resolve<br />

conflict concern<strong>in</strong>g wildlife impacts on human <strong>in</strong>terests and is complementary to other<br />

measures which contribute to the broader def<strong>in</strong>ition of wildlife management. It needs to be<br />

seen as be<strong>in</strong>g complementary to non-species specific measures such as the biodiversity duty<br />

placed on public bodies 5 , agri-environment 6 and other <strong>in</strong>centive schemes and the <strong>England</strong><br />

Biodiversity Strategy 7 and Natural <strong>England</strong>’s framework for deliver<strong>in</strong>g priority habitats and<br />

species <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong> 8 . This framework will therefore contribute to the Government’s high level<br />

goal of ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and enhanc<strong>in</strong>g our natural asset base by establish<strong>in</strong>g/ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the<br />

boundaries with<strong>in</strong> which species protection takes precedence over compet<strong>in</strong>g needs. Where<br />

we <strong>in</strong>tervene, we do so for specific reasons us<strong>in</strong>g best available evidence.<br />

3.2 This framework will provide a tool for decid<strong>in</strong>g wildlife management policies regardless of the<br />

situation requir<strong>in</strong>g Government <strong>in</strong>tervention. For this reason it is expressed <strong>in</strong> general terms<br />

rather than focus<strong>in</strong>g on specific situations or species. However, for illustrative purposes a<br />

number of example situations are used <strong>in</strong> the document. The form that any Government<br />

<strong>in</strong>tervention takes will depend on the specific situation <strong>in</strong>volved. In most cases any<br />

Government <strong>in</strong>tervention is likely to be of an <strong>in</strong>direct nature (e.g. advice or regulation). Only<br />

<strong>in</strong> exceptional circumstances is Government itself likely to <strong>in</strong>tervene directly.<br />

3.3 Annex B lists a number of strategies and <strong>in</strong>itiatives which relate to this policy mak<strong>in</strong>g framework.<br />

Some of these have a direct impact on its scope:<br />

<strong>England</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> Health Strategy (WHS) 9<br />

This provides a strategic approach to wildlife health <strong>in</strong> order to balance wildlife and other<br />

<strong>in</strong>terests appropriately. It <strong>in</strong>cludes management of species as vectors or reservoirs for wildlife<br />

disease and aims to co-ord<strong>in</strong>ate and prioritise policy and <strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong> a consistent manner.<br />

There will be a relationship between the WHS and this policy mak<strong>in</strong>g framework when disease<br />

<strong>in</strong> wildlife requires species to be managed <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>terests of human or livestock health or<br />

biodiversity and species conservation.<br />

Animal Health and Welfare Strategy 10<br />

This was developed as a route map for work to improve the health and welfare of kept<br />

animals <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong>, Scotland and Wales and forms the framework for all <strong>Defra</strong>’s work on<br />

animal health and welfare. Its coverage of wildlife is limited to: where there is a risk of<br />

zoonotic diseases be<strong>in</strong>g transmitted to man; where wildlife populations may pass on, harbour<br />

or recycle diseases of farmed livestock (see WHS above); where welfare issues arise <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g<br />

protection from cruelty or the role of rehabilitation/rescue centres; and where wildlife is<br />

affected by disease controls for farmed livestock and other animals (see WHS above).<br />

5 www.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/uk/legislation.htm<br />

6 www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farm<strong>in</strong>g/fund<strong>in</strong>g/default.aspx<br />

7 www.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/uk/e-biostrat.htm<br />

8 www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/framework.aspx<br />

9 www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/vetsurveillance/species/wildlife/strategy/<strong>in</strong>dex.htm<br />

10 www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/<strong>in</strong>dex.htm#key<br />

9


10<br />

Scope<br />

Invasive Non-native Species Framework Strategy 11<br />

Problems caused by <strong>in</strong>vasive non-native species can be serious, transform<strong>in</strong>g our eco-systems,<br />

harm<strong>in</strong>g economic activity, alter<strong>in</strong>g natural habitats and threaten<strong>in</strong>g native species. Invasive<br />

non-native species are considered one of the greatest threats to wildlife worldwide. Issues<br />

around non-native <strong>in</strong>vasive species will come under the GB strategy on <strong>in</strong>vasive non-native<br />

species. There will be a relationship between the GB strategy and this policy mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />

framework when actual or potential impacts require a non-native species to be managed <strong>in</strong><br />

the <strong>in</strong>terests of native habitat and species conservation or protect<strong>in</strong>g economic activity.<br />

Natural <strong>England</strong>’s regulatory strategy 12<br />

This is a broad over-arch<strong>in</strong>g strategy which sets out Natural <strong>England</strong>’s approach to regulation.<br />

It outl<strong>in</strong>es the Hampton and better regulation agenda and sets out some proposed ‘next<br />

steps’ that will guide the <strong>in</strong>tegration of the core regulatory bus<strong>in</strong>ess and drive service<br />

improvements. The Strategy, and the documents and projects that underp<strong>in</strong> it, will enable the<br />

bus<strong>in</strong>ess and customers that NE regulate to broadly understand the objectives and basis for<br />

regulation with<strong>in</strong> Natural <strong>England</strong>. A key element of the strategy and this policy mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />

framework is ensur<strong>in</strong>g they are compliant with Hampton and better regulation pr<strong>in</strong>ciples,<br />

which will require an element of regulatory review. It is essential that both are compatible and<br />

duplication of effort is avoided.<br />

Evidence Investment Strategy: 2010-2013 and beyond 13<br />

This strategy will help <strong>Defra</strong> respond effectively to the big <strong>in</strong>terl<strong>in</strong>ked challenges of climate<br />

change adaptation and mitigation, ensur<strong>in</strong>g a susta<strong>in</strong>able food supply and protect<strong>in</strong>g<br />

ecosystem services. Help<strong>in</strong>g to deliver evidence where it is needed most, ref<strong>in</strong>e processes and<br />

<strong>in</strong>crease partnership work<strong>in</strong>g to share knowledge and expertise. <strong>Defra</strong> is work<strong>in</strong>g with others<br />

<strong>in</strong>side and outside of Government to jo<strong>in</strong> up the evidence base, so that we have as full as<br />

possible understand<strong>in</strong>g of issues.<br />

Secur<strong>in</strong>g Biodiversity – A new framework for deliver<strong>in</strong>g priority habitats and species<br />

<strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong> 14<br />

This framework has been developed to enhance the recovery of priority habitats and species<br />

<strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong> (published under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities<br />

Act (2006)) and contributes to the delivery of the <strong>England</strong> Biodiversity Strategy. It is the<br />

start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t for a more <strong>in</strong>tegrated approach to biodiversity conservation <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong>, build<strong>in</strong>g<br />

on the strengths of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan process. There will be a relationship<br />

between both frameworks where wildlife needs to be managed <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>terests of priority<br />

habitats and species conservation.<br />

11 www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/management/non-native/uk-action.htm<br />

12 www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/betterregulation/nestrategy/default.aspx<br />

13 www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/science/how/strategy.htm<br />

14 www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/framework.aspx


Exclusions<br />

Scope<br />

3.4 <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> <strong>in</strong> the UK is a devolved issue and <strong>England</strong>, Wales, Northern Ireland and<br />

Scotland may implement different approaches. This framework is for <strong>England</strong> only but there<br />

will be close liaison with the other UK national adm<strong>in</strong>istrations and the relevant agencies <strong>in</strong><br />

these countries.<br />

3.5 This strategy does not currently apply to the mar<strong>in</strong>e area (below mean low water mark),<br />

although it may extend to the mar<strong>in</strong>e area <strong>in</strong> due course.<br />

3.6 The policy mak<strong>in</strong>g framework should address welfare issues associated with human<br />

<strong>in</strong>tervention whilst be<strong>in</strong>g m<strong>in</strong>dful that some will be covered by <strong>Defra</strong>’s Animal Health and<br />

Welfare Strategy. The policy mak<strong>in</strong>g framework will exclude welfare issues which are solely<br />

the consequence of animals liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the wild state, except where to do so may threaten the<br />

conservation status of the species concerned. This recognises that Government and society<br />

are not responsible for suffer<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> wildlife aris<strong>in</strong>g from naturally occurr<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>jury, privation or<br />

death (associated for <strong>in</strong>stance with predation, disease or starvation).<br />

11


12<br />

4. Strategic Aims<br />

4.1 The overarch<strong>in</strong>g aim of the policy mak<strong>in</strong>g framework is to provide a consistent, transparent<br />

and susta<strong>in</strong>able approach to manag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>teractions between wildlife and people.<br />

4.2 More specific aims and outcomes <strong>in</strong>clude:<br />

• Help ensure that we are able to deliver our biodiversity targets under the UK Biodiversity<br />

Action Plan and the <strong>England</strong> Biodiversity Strategy;<br />

• Ensure our approach to wildlife management is <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with better regulation pr<strong>in</strong>ciples<br />

(proportionate; accountable; consistent; transparent; targeted15 );<br />

• To <strong>in</strong>troduce a logical, evidence-based framework for decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> which timely<br />

decisions can be made when required;<br />

• Consider and balance socio-economic factors with the conservation and welfare of species;<br />

• Evaluate any animal welfare issues associated with Government <strong>in</strong>tervention;<br />

• Explore the rationale for cost shar<strong>in</strong>g with stakeholders and/or beneficiaries;<br />

• A flexible approach to wildlife management so that emerg<strong>in</strong>g or evolv<strong>in</strong>g issues and<br />

changes (such as land use changes associated with the reform of the Common Agricultural<br />

Policy) can be taken <strong>in</strong>to account <strong>in</strong> a timely manner and without difficulty. This particularly<br />

applies to the draft<strong>in</strong>g of legislation 16 ;<br />

• Sufficient surveillance and monitor<strong>in</strong>g to determ<strong>in</strong>e success of management measures and<br />

facilitate early detection of beyond horizon or emerg<strong>in</strong>g conflicts so that they can be<br />

addressed proactively, develop<strong>in</strong>g solutions before the conflict arises (prevention rather<br />

than cure) or reaches levels which are both unacceptable and impractical to address;<br />

• Periodical review of policy and management measures aga<strong>in</strong>st chang<strong>in</strong>g aims and priorities;<br />

• Recognise the cont<strong>in</strong>ued contribution made by the environment and its management to<br />

mitigat<strong>in</strong>g the effects of climate change and provision of an evidence based approach that<br />

allows for timely <strong>in</strong>terventions which, where it is appropriate to do so, assist species to<br />

adapt to climate change;<br />

• Ensure wildlife management policy is properly l<strong>in</strong>ked and, where appropriate, <strong>in</strong>tegrated<br />

with, other Government policies and <strong>in</strong>itiatives;<br />

• Ensure that direct Government <strong>in</strong>tervention should only be carried out where it is essential<br />

and is likely to have a beneficial outcome.<br />

15 Enabl<strong>in</strong>g better target<strong>in</strong>g of f<strong>in</strong>ite resources by careful cost-benefit analysis. This will ensure better alignment with departmental strategic objectives<br />

16 This flexibility will be necessary to allow policies to respond to unforeseen future events or priorities, and not just those on the horizon or closer


5. The Policy Mak<strong>in</strong>g Process or ‘Process Tree’<br />

5.1 It is important for the Framework to have enough flexibility to be of use <strong>in</strong> a range of different<br />

wildlife management situations and for resolv<strong>in</strong>g a range of issues, from situations and issues<br />

relat<strong>in</strong>g to just one particular species (i.e. “species-specific”) to those of a more wide-rang<strong>in</strong>g<br />

or general nature.<br />

5.2 The Framework will also need to be able to respond to both short and long-term emerg<strong>in</strong>g<br />

issues, hav<strong>in</strong>g either a direct or <strong>in</strong>direct effect on wildlife management. These might be, for<br />

<strong>in</strong>stance, new or emerg<strong>in</strong>g diseases or outbreaks of notifiable diseases <strong>in</strong> animals or the<br />

effects of climate change (both climate change itself and/or any proposed means of deal<strong>in</strong>g<br />

with climate change which itself may impact upon wildlife).<br />

5.3 While we need to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> enough flexibility to deal with many different scenarios, as<br />

outl<strong>in</strong>ed above, to ensure consistency of approach we also need to establish a structured<br />

framework around which to base the decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g process.<br />

5.4 The Process Tree (Annex A) will provide this framework. The Process Tree outl<strong>in</strong>es the<br />

fundamental processes <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> review<strong>in</strong>g a situation and development of a policy, show<strong>in</strong>g<br />

the stages <strong>in</strong>volved as well as provid<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts for review and reassessment.<br />

Process Tree Stage 1: Should it be for Government to <strong>in</strong>tervene?<br />

5.5 In light of matters aris<strong>in</strong>g, the first step is to decide whether or not Government <strong>in</strong>tervention<br />

is appropriate. In many circumstances wildlife management may more appropriately be carried<br />

out by other bodies or <strong>in</strong>dividuals. For Government to <strong>in</strong>tervene it must be for specific reasons<br />

and will often be <strong>in</strong> response to the need to resolve or prevent conflict between wildlife and<br />

one or more areas of human activity, such as conservation and property development. In some<br />

cases, there may be legal obligations or b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g commitments which drive government<br />

<strong>in</strong>tervention.<br />

5.6 Circumstances where Government might consider <strong>in</strong>tervention are 17 :<br />

Conservation of biodiversity: Government must be able to meet its biodiversity objectives and<br />

<strong>in</strong>ternational obligations for habitat and species conservation. Where the conservation status of<br />

rare or vulnerable biodiversity is at risk from a destructive species, there may be a need for<br />

Government to allow <strong>in</strong>tervention or to <strong>in</strong>tervene itself. Conversely, conservation “success stories”<br />

may need to be reviewed to ensure that levels of protection rema<strong>in</strong> appropriate to conservation<br />

status and levels of conflict. Resolv<strong>in</strong>g conservation issues may require longer term <strong>in</strong>tervention<br />

such as habitat management or protective legislation. For example:<br />

a) Susta<strong>in</strong>able control of deer to conserve woodland habitat and species protected under<br />

European or domestic legislation. Deer brows<strong>in</strong>g pressure <strong>in</strong>hibits natural regeneration of<br />

native tree and plant species and leads to impoverished ground flora with<strong>in</strong> woods, reduc<strong>in</strong>g<br />

their conservation value.<br />

b) North American Bull frog eradication programme. A rapid response policy of ‘hit it hard and<br />

hit it early’ appears to have paid dividends, avoid<strong>in</strong>g the cost of eradicat<strong>in</strong>g more established<br />

species such as the Ruddy duck, the eradication of which is major high cost government and<br />

EU <strong>in</strong>itiative to conserve white-headed duck.<br />

17 A more detailed account of the examples given, can be found <strong>in</strong> Annex C<br />

13


14<br />

The Policy Mak<strong>in</strong>g Process or ‘Process Tree’<br />

Socio-economic impacts: there are circumstances where wildlife can impact upon society, public<br />

health and safety or economic <strong>in</strong>terests and vice versa. <strong>Management</strong> of these impacts should not<br />

harm native biodiversity. Examples <strong>in</strong>clude where wildlife (both animals and plants) may harbour<br />

or transfer diseases which are harmful to people, livestock (and other kept animals), other wildlife<br />

or crops; or where species protected by law (such as bats, great crested newts etc) must be<br />

safeguarded from proposed build<strong>in</strong>g works whilst allow<strong>in</strong>g appropriate developments to go<br />

ahead. Achiev<strong>in</strong>g a balance is not always straightforward. For example:<br />

a) Susta<strong>in</strong>able control of cormorants: employ<strong>in</strong>g adaptive management and modell<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>in</strong>form<br />

licensed control to protect fisheries. Cormorant numbers have been <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> recent<br />

decades. These fish-feed<strong>in</strong>g (piscivorous) birds come <strong>in</strong>to conflict with <strong>in</strong>land anglers and fish<br />

farmers, who need to manage these birds to reduce economic losses. Measures <strong>in</strong>clude issu<strong>in</strong>g<br />

licences to cull a limited number of birds at specific sites to deter the presence of others. S<strong>in</strong>ce<br />

we do not want to adversely affect the population status of the cormorant, we need to know<br />

how many licenses it is safe to issue <strong>in</strong> any one year.<br />

b) <strong>Wildlife</strong> disease (e.g. rabies) modell<strong>in</strong>g and cont<strong>in</strong>gency plann<strong>in</strong>g to protect the UK public and<br />

economy <strong>in</strong> the event of an outbreak. Disease is a natural part of the ecosystem. However,<br />

various wildlife diseases may <strong>in</strong>fect people (zoonotic disease), such as rabies, and other<br />

diseases may cause substantial economic losses, such as Foot and Mouth disease. The effects<br />

of such diseases should therefore be m<strong>in</strong>imised. For example successful elim<strong>in</strong>ation of endemic<br />

rabies would be economically beneficial, purely <strong>in</strong> terms of reduced rates of human prevention<br />

and treatment.<br />

Susta<strong>in</strong>able exploitation and management: the exploitation or management of native wildlife<br />

may require Government <strong>in</strong>tervention to ensure that the activity is susta<strong>in</strong>able <strong>in</strong> terms of the<br />

population of the species concerned, the wider habitat and rural economy. Gett<strong>in</strong>g the balance<br />

wrong could result <strong>in</strong> an adverse affect on the conservation status of that species if exploitation<br />

or management rema<strong>in</strong>s unchecked, or significant economic difficulty for those <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the<br />

particular activity if exploitation is overly restricted. For example:<br />

a) Contrast<strong>in</strong>g management regulation of two deer species a) Roe (native) and b) Muntjac (nonnative)<br />

allow<strong>in</strong>g susta<strong>in</strong>able use of both but regulat<strong>in</strong>g release of the latter. Government<br />

support for deer management <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong> is channelled through the Deer Initiative, a broad<br />

partnership of statutory, voluntary and private stakeholders with the policy aim to “ensure the<br />

delivery of a susta<strong>in</strong>able, well-managed wild deer population <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong> and Wales.”<br />

b) Falconry licences to allow susta<strong>in</strong>able hunt<strong>in</strong>g of certa<strong>in</strong> non game bird species. All wild birds<br />

are protected under Article 5 of Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild<br />

birds (the Birds Directive). Falconry is a traditional sport, which is recognised as a legitimate<br />

form of susta<strong>in</strong>able use and permissible under Article 7.<br />

The Directive allows under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the judicious<br />

use of certa<strong>in</strong> birds <strong>in</strong> small numbers” where there is no other satisfactory solution.


The Policy Mak<strong>in</strong>g Process or ‘Process Tree’<br />

Welfare of managed wildlife: Government <strong>in</strong>tervention may be necessary to regulate/prevent<br />

<strong>in</strong>humane practices and ensure any methods used to manage the impacts of wildlife, are the least<br />

severe necessary with a view to m<strong>in</strong>imis<strong>in</strong>g any unnecessary suffer<strong>in</strong>g. This might <strong>in</strong>volve, for<br />

example, the Government develop<strong>in</strong>g criteria aga<strong>in</strong>st which to measure the humaneness of traps<br />

and only allow<strong>in</strong>g the use of those found to be humane. For example:<br />

a) Spr<strong>in</strong>g traps approval work to ensure humaneness of techniques. The Pests Act 1954 prohibits<br />

the use of spr<strong>in</strong>g traps that are not approved and makes provision for the Secretary of State<br />

to approve specific traps by way of an Order. As our understand<strong>in</strong>g of how animals may or<br />

may not experience pa<strong>in</strong> and stress, and as trap technology improves so our potential to<br />

improve the humaneness of wildlife management techniques and devices, such as traps,<br />

<strong>in</strong>creases. However without the power to prohibit less humane methods, the <strong>in</strong>centives may<br />

not be there for operatives to use new methods or change established practices.<br />

b) Research and development of non lethal management tools such as fenc<strong>in</strong>g to exclude or<br />

conta<strong>in</strong> and fertility control to limit population numbers. There is little commercial <strong>in</strong>centive for<br />

develop<strong>in</strong>g non-lethal, humane methods of conflict resolution, particularly as the wildlife<br />

management area is a small niche market for the relevant commercial sectors <strong>in</strong> terms of<br />

develop<strong>in</strong>g and supply<strong>in</strong>g novel wildlife management products. The development of new tools<br />

thus requires Government <strong>in</strong>vestment to meet public demands for humane approaches to<br />

wildlife management.<br />

5.7 This stage of the Process Tree therefore considers whether one or more of the above cases apply.<br />

If not, then Government <strong>in</strong>tervention would not normally be appropriate. This would not,<br />

however, preclude other organisations or <strong>in</strong>dividuals from tak<strong>in</strong>g lawful action themselves.<br />

Process Tree Stage 2: Gather<strong>in</strong>g and consider<strong>in</strong>g evidence and advice<br />

5.8 Hav<strong>in</strong>g decided that Government <strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong> manag<strong>in</strong>g wildlife is appropriate, (provided<br />

that an <strong>in</strong>tervention is possible, effective and that the benefits of <strong>in</strong>tervention outweigh the<br />

costs) the nature of that <strong>in</strong>tervention should then be considered. This decision should be made<br />

on the basis of appropriate levels of evidence and/or expert advice based on sound science,<br />

so the first consideration must be whether this is available. If not, then action may need to be<br />

taken (such as commission<strong>in</strong>g research or seek<strong>in</strong>g other advice) to address this.<br />

5.9 The level of required evidence will take <strong>in</strong>to account the level of actual or potential risk to the<br />

conservation status and welfare of the affected species and to human <strong>in</strong>terests.<br />

5.10 In some limited circumstances it may not be possible to obta<strong>in</strong> the ideal level of <strong>in</strong>formation<br />

to develop or change a policy, or the amount of resources <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> obta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the<br />

<strong>in</strong>formation required may be disproportionate to the scale, impact or importance of the<br />

situation <strong>in</strong> question. In such circumstance Government will proceed based on the best<br />

available evidence.<br />

5.11 A range of evidence or advice may be needed depend<strong>in</strong>g on the particular management issue<br />

at hand. It is therefore not possible to pre-def<strong>in</strong>e as part of the Process Tree exactly what should<br />

be considered. This will have to be decided <strong>in</strong> relation to each specific case. However, the<br />

pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of the Ecosystems Approach should be borne <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d when gather<strong>in</strong>g the evidence.<br />

When mak<strong>in</strong>g policy decisions we need to ensure we are tak<strong>in</strong>g a more holistic approach and<br />

that we consider the wider ramifications of the actions we take, particularly how the policy<br />

15


16<br />

The Policy Mak<strong>in</strong>g Process or ‘Process Tree’<br />

impacts on ecosystem services. We therefore need to ensure that we collect, as far as is<br />

practicable and proportionate to do so, the evidence to <strong>in</strong>form our decisions. This could be<br />

undertaken through an appropriate impact assessment which could <strong>in</strong>clude evidence on or<br />

deriv<strong>in</strong>g from:<br />

Other government strategies<br />

Government has a range of strategies and <strong>in</strong>itiatives which apply to the natural environment as<br />

well as other strategies such as the Better Regulation Initiative. The implications of such must be<br />

taken <strong>in</strong>to consideration.<br />

International commitments and obligations<br />

Much of <strong>Defra</strong>’s domestic biodiversity work is based on legally b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g European Community Law<br />

(e.g. EC Wild Birds and Habitats Directives), or <strong>in</strong>ternational Conventions (e.g. the Bern<br />

Convention) under which the UK, along with many other countries, has made specific<br />

commitments to conserve and protect wild fauna and flora. The impacts of such b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />

agreements must be taken <strong>in</strong>to consideration when develop<strong>in</strong>g policies.<br />

Climate change<br />

As climate change and measures taken <strong>in</strong> response impact upon native biodiversity it will be<br />

necessary to consider how these affect wildlife and how negative impacts can be mitigated. The<br />

2009 Climate Projections produced by the UK Climate Impacts Programme will be important <strong>in</strong><br />

help<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>form these decisions.<br />

<strong>Management</strong> methods, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g welfare issues<br />

Evidence or advice on management methods and the most suitable control technique(s) available,<br />

and whether options under consideration are practical, effective and economically viable or have<br />

welfare implications (for both target and non-target species), <strong>in</strong> which case additional evidence on<br />

suitability and humaneness may be needed.<br />

Risks<br />

Evidence or advice on the risks <strong>in</strong>volved (for all proposed options, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g “do-noth<strong>in</strong>g”) and<br />

any associated mitigation issues. For example these risks might <strong>in</strong>clude any risk of caus<strong>in</strong>g or<br />

spread<strong>in</strong>g animal or human disease, or risks to other species or their habitat.<br />

Social implications<br />

Evidence or advice on the social implications of a wildlife management situation and any proposed<br />

actions, and whether and to what extent they should <strong>in</strong>fluence the proposed management action.<br />

For example, fail<strong>in</strong>g to control a species may adversely affect some communities; conversely,<br />

controll<strong>in</strong>g it (or the method by which it is controlled) may adversely affect other communities<br />

which have come to rely on it (e.g. for tourism revenue).<br />

Cost-benefit analysis<br />

Evidence or advice on the costs and benefits of proposed options, to <strong>in</strong>clude not just the costs<br />

themselves of any proposed action(s) <strong>in</strong> itself and its economic impacts, but also the impacts of<br />

the different options on the environment, the provision of eco-system services and on wider<br />

society. Ideally the cost-benefit analysis would br<strong>in</strong>g together all the available evidence gathered<br />

under the above and/or other areas.


The Policy Mak<strong>in</strong>g Process or ‘Process Tree’<br />

5.12 Recognis<strong>in</strong>g that generic tools for carry<strong>in</strong>g out cost-benefit analyses <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g variables that<br />

are measured <strong>in</strong> different currencies (e.g. the economic, environmental and animal welfare<br />

consequences of <strong>in</strong>tervention) are only recently emerg<strong>in</strong>g and are the subject of ongo<strong>in</strong>g<br />

debate,the cost-benefit section of the impact assessment should acknowledge that reach<strong>in</strong>g<br />

transparently objective conclusions based on such analyses may often be problematic and may<br />

require <strong>in</strong>dependent review.<br />

Process Tree Stage 3: Consider<strong>in</strong>g and decid<strong>in</strong>g on an appropriate policy<br />

5.13 Tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account all the evidence, advice and underly<strong>in</strong>g factors outl<strong>in</strong>ed above,<br />

consideration will then need to be given to what policy it would be appropriate for<br />

Government to adopt which is balanced, proportionate and practical, tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account the<br />

significance of the situation or problem or its capacity for escalation. Such policy might <strong>in</strong>clude<br />

one or more of the follow<strong>in</strong>g actions:<br />

Do noth<strong>in</strong>g/ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> the status quo<br />

If it is considered that an <strong>in</strong>tervention by Government, while desirable, is unlikely to produce an<br />

effective result and/or the benefits do not outweigh the costs, then <strong>in</strong>tervention should not be<br />

undertaken. Legal obligations or b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g commitments may rule this out as an option.<br />

Develop new or review and adjust current approach<br />

Consideration should <strong>in</strong> all cases be given to whether the evidence, advice and underly<strong>in</strong>g factors<br />

all po<strong>in</strong>t to a gap <strong>in</strong> current policy concern<strong>in</strong>g a particular issue or problem, either due to it not<br />

be<strong>in</strong>g covered at all or because circumstances or situations have changed sufficiently to render<br />

current policies <strong>in</strong>effective or <strong>in</strong>appropriate. If so, the appropriate action will be to review our<br />

approach and adjust it as appropriate.<br />

Develop (or amend) a communications strategy<br />

Consideration should be given to this <strong>in</strong> all cases and action taken if required. The success or<br />

failure of any policy and subsequent action (or <strong>in</strong>action if appropriate) rests on effective<br />

communication, expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g why action is/is not appropriate and enabl<strong>in</strong>g any delivery bodies and<br />

others to effectively carry it forward and understand the th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g beh<strong>in</strong>d our approach.<br />

Develop (or amend) and issue guidance<br />

Consider whether any guidance is needed or, if already available, whether it needs clarify<strong>in</strong>g,<br />

updat<strong>in</strong>g or amend<strong>in</strong>g. If so, the action will be to develop this (<strong>in</strong> consultation with relevant<br />

experts, stakeholders, others with an <strong>in</strong>terest, etc), and ensure it reaches the right people<br />

responsible for act<strong>in</strong>g under it and implement<strong>in</strong>g/enforc<strong>in</strong>g the policy.<br />

Facilitate and co-ord<strong>in</strong>ate action by others<br />

In most cases, action on the ground (e.g. follow<strong>in</strong>g on from any of the above actions) will be for<br />

others to take forward. However, there may be situations where several organisations,<br />

stakeholders and/or <strong>in</strong>dividuals need to be <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> this, requir<strong>in</strong>g co-ord<strong>in</strong>ation to ensure<br />

effective policy delivery.<br />

17


18<br />

The Policy Mak<strong>in</strong>g Process or ‘Process Tree’<br />

Deliver<strong>in</strong>g through partners/agents<br />

In decid<strong>in</strong>g the most appropriate action, it will be essential to identify and liaise with the<br />

appropriate delivery body and other stakeholders to decide on the most appropriate approach and<br />

establish responsibilities for policy delivery. These negotiations are likely to cont<strong>in</strong>ue <strong>in</strong>to stage 5.<br />

Develop new or amend exist<strong>in</strong>g legislation<br />

Where evidence and advice <strong>in</strong>dicates that other options are <strong>in</strong>sufficient, consideration may also<br />

need to be given to whether new, or amend<strong>in</strong>g, legislation is required. This might be due, for<br />

<strong>in</strong>stance, to a failure of exist<strong>in</strong>g legislation to “deliver” (perhaps because of compliance<br />

difficulties), new <strong>in</strong>ternational obligations, changes to particular species’ conservation status<br />

(either requir<strong>in</strong>g more or less protection), or developments <strong>in</strong> control techniques necessitat<strong>in</strong>g new<br />

m<strong>in</strong>imum welfare standards to be set.<br />

Initiate direct Government <strong>in</strong>tervention at operational level<br />

In certa<strong>in</strong> circumstances, such as a disease outbreak, direct Government <strong>in</strong>tervention may be<br />

appropriate.<br />

5.14 If Government has any doubt about the proportionality and practicality of the proposed policy,<br />

it will either be reconsidered <strong>in</strong> order to identify a more appropriate policy, or a decision<br />

made that Government should take the ‘no further action/ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> the status quo’ option.<br />

This would not necessarily preclude others from tak<strong>in</strong>g lawful action themselves.<br />

Process Tree Stage 4: Communicat<strong>in</strong>g the f<strong>in</strong>al decision and the reason<strong>in</strong>g<br />

beh<strong>in</strong>d it<br />

5.15 Once the policy decision has been made, this will be communicated to the public via an<br />

appropriate policy document, through appropriate channels such as the <strong>Defra</strong> website,<br />

delivery bodies and sector representative organisations. Guidance documents, such as<br />

technical advice notes and codes of practice through delivery partners will further expla<strong>in</strong><br />

implementation of the policy.<br />

Process Tree Stage 5: Implement<strong>in</strong>g the policy<br />

5.16 <strong>Defra</strong> will, as part of the stage 3 process, have already considered the practicalities of<br />

implement<strong>in</strong>g policy options. <strong>Defra</strong> will work closely with its delivery partners to ensure the<br />

adopted policy is implemented effectively. Sometimes the consequences of <strong>in</strong>tervention may<br />

not be clear until that <strong>in</strong>tervention beg<strong>in</strong>s. In these circumstances, monitor<strong>in</strong>g will identify any<br />

need for modify<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>in</strong>tervention.<br />

Process Tree Stage 6: Monitor<strong>in</strong>g the outcome and review<strong>in</strong>g the policy<br />

5.17 Once the policy decision has been made and its implementation is <strong>in</strong> progress, monitor<strong>in</strong>g<br />

should then take place and a report<strong>in</strong>g mechanism be put <strong>in</strong> place. This will ensure that the<br />

desired policy outcome, as identified at stage 1, is achieved and rema<strong>in</strong>s relevant <strong>in</strong> light of<br />

chang<strong>in</strong>g aims and priorities. The method of monitor<strong>in</strong>g and period of review will depend on<br />

the issue or action <strong>in</strong> question. Depend<strong>in</strong>g on the reported outcome, the policy may or may<br />

not need to be amended.


Stakeholder engagement<br />

6. Roles and Responsibilities<br />

6.1 There are a wide variety of stakeholders (both groups and <strong>in</strong>dividuals) with an <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><br />

manag<strong>in</strong>g wildlife and considerable expertise <strong>in</strong> this field. The success of any policy mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />

framework will be enhanced by their engagement with the process. In addition to tak<strong>in</strong>g<br />

forward various delivery aspects we see at least three key roles for stakeholders <strong>in</strong> the<br />

framework’s policy development process:<br />

As catalysts for policy <strong>in</strong>itiation<br />

Key stakeholders’ views are rout<strong>in</strong>ely and pro-actively sought, and will cont<strong>in</strong>ue to be sought, on<br />

policy proposals <strong>in</strong>itiated by Government. However, we also envisage stakeholders themselves<br />

mak<strong>in</strong>g representations, rais<strong>in</strong>g issues of concern and mak<strong>in</strong>g suggestions for policy development.<br />

As providers of evidence and expert advice<br />

Whilst policy decisions must rema<strong>in</strong> the responsibility of Government, we rely on evidence and advice<br />

from experts. We recognise that key stakeholders are often well placed to provide elements of that<br />

advice and envisage this framework’s evidence-gather<strong>in</strong>g elements draw<strong>in</strong>g extensively on this.<br />

As policy delivery partners<br />

As is currently the case, a number of policies will be delivered <strong>in</strong> partnership between <strong>Defra</strong>, <strong>Defra</strong><br />

agencies and other stakeholders.<br />

Work<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> partnership<br />

Stakeholder<br />

Consultation<br />

and<br />

Representation<br />

Monitor<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Research and<br />

Development<br />

Scientific Evidence and<br />

Advice<br />

<strong>Defra</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong><br />

<strong>Management</strong><br />

Policy<br />

Other <strong>Defra</strong> Policy<br />

Teams and Government<br />

Departments/Agencies<br />

Work<strong>in</strong>g Groups<br />

Other UK National<br />

Adm<strong>in</strong>istrations<br />

(<strong>in</strong>form<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g)<br />

Delivery Partners<br />

19


20<br />

Roles and Responsibilities<br />

6.2 In formulat<strong>in</strong>g wildlife management policy, <strong>Defra</strong> works <strong>in</strong> partnership with many<br />

organisations and <strong>in</strong>dividuals. Ensur<strong>in</strong>g that policy:<br />

• makes best use of available scientific evidence and advice;<br />

• takes <strong>in</strong>to account and <strong>in</strong>terfaces with other UK government policies, strategies, aims and<br />

objectives and vice-versa;<br />

• is co-ord<strong>in</strong>ated and, where appropriate, consistent throughout the UK;<br />

• is delivered, effectively and efficiently;<br />

• achieves the desired outcome <strong>in</strong> an effective and proportionate manner;<br />

• pays due consideration to welfare, socio-economic and environmental needs.<br />

Interface with members of the public, sector representative organisations<br />

and expert groups<br />

6.3 <strong>Defra</strong> and its m<strong>in</strong>isters receive correspondence from members of the public, recreation and<br />

<strong>in</strong>dustry sector representative organisations and expert groups, look<strong>in</strong>g to government to<br />

address conflicts between human activities and wildlife or to ensure wildlife management<br />

policy is humane, effective and proportionate.<br />

6.4 The Department is reciprocal <strong>in</strong> that engagement, rout<strong>in</strong>ely and pro-actively seek<strong>in</strong>g views on<br />

policy proposals <strong>in</strong>itiated by Government. It is through this feedback process that policy is<br />

developed, reviewed and adjusted as appropriate.<br />

Scientific evidence and advice<br />

6.5 Science is at the heart of good policy mak<strong>in</strong>g at <strong>Defra</strong>, contribut<strong>in</strong>g to the evidence base<br />

which <strong>in</strong>forms our decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g, help<strong>in</strong>g us f<strong>in</strong>d new policy solutions and help<strong>in</strong>g us to<br />

identify and tackle future issues. <strong>Defra</strong> works closely with Natural <strong>England</strong>, its statutory nature<br />

conservation adviser, its own team of scientific advisors and other expert organisations and<br />

groups such as the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera), to ensure wildlife<br />

management policy is <strong>in</strong>formed by evidence and advice through sound science.<br />

6.6 Where there are knowledge gaps and a policy need, <strong>Defra</strong> will commission research and<br />

development projects to address those gaps. Monitor<strong>in</strong>g and surveillance is vital to ensure<br />

wildlife management is susta<strong>in</strong>able and successful, especially where success is realised on a<br />

long term basis. It also provides some ability to be proactive where conflicts are emerg<strong>in</strong>g. For<br />

example develop<strong>in</strong>g solutions before the conflict reaches levels which are both unacceptable<br />

and impractical to address. This is most readily evident with controll<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>vasive non native<br />

species impacts, where prevention and rapid <strong>in</strong>tervention are key, but is also applicable to<br />

native species which are recover<strong>in</strong>g to historic population levels, for example otters and birds<br />

of prey.<br />

Work<strong>in</strong>g groups<br />

6.7 Sometimes a specific technical issue requires the sett<strong>in</strong>g up of a work<strong>in</strong>g group. They have<br />

different remits but generally advise <strong>Defra</strong> on next steps, seek agreement on good practice<br />

guidel<strong>in</strong>es and produce codes of practice or reports suggest<strong>in</strong>g solutions and way forward<br />

options. Their composition can vary, depend<strong>in</strong>g on their remit, but often consist of technical<br />

experts, sector representatives and delivery bodies. The <strong>in</strong>dependent work<strong>in</strong>g group on snares


Roles and Responsibilities<br />

recently produced a report and a suggested code of practice regard<strong>in</strong>g the use of snares.<br />

Previously, the UK Raptor Work<strong>in</strong>g Group was formed to consider issues aris<strong>in</strong>g from<br />

perceived conflicts between the recovery of some bird of prey populations and their impacts<br />

on game birds and rac<strong>in</strong>g pigeons. They produced a report which set out those issues and put<br />

forward solution options to the sectors <strong>in</strong>volved or further actions to be undertaken by<br />

government to better <strong>in</strong>form its policy.<br />

Other government policies and strategies<br />

6.8 Many <strong>Defra</strong> policies and strategies which arise from the department’s overarch<strong>in</strong>g Biodiversity<br />

Programme, such as those concern<strong>in</strong>g biodiversity, species and habitat conservation, have<br />

either an element of wildlife management to them or could be impacted by a specific wildlife<br />

management policy. For example the UK Biodiversity Action Plan may require wildlife<br />

management to protect a priority species or habitats. Other policy areas, such as wildlife<br />

health and welfare, also <strong>in</strong>fluence wildlife management policy, for example the welfare of<br />

wildlife <strong>in</strong> traps or the control of wildlife as a disease vector.<br />

6.9 Other government departments have policy agendas which need to consider <strong>Defra</strong>’s wildlife<br />

management policy and vice-versa. For example the Department of Communities and Local<br />

Government’s plann<strong>in</strong>g regime and the need to address conflicts between the need for<br />

development and the need to protect wildlife, as well as the need to protect development<br />

from wildlife, such as ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g structural <strong>in</strong>tegrity of build<strong>in</strong>gs and embankments.<br />

Delivery<br />

6.10 Natural <strong>England</strong> is our key delivery partner and the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple regulatory authority <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong><br />

for species control and protection. It is the licens<strong>in</strong>g authority for nearly all licences relat<strong>in</strong>g to<br />

wildlife management and has a team dedicated to provid<strong>in</strong>g wildlife management advice to<br />

the public, both through written material and directly by telephone or <strong>in</strong> the field. Sector<br />

representative organisations are also very important <strong>in</strong> publicis<strong>in</strong>g and expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g government<br />

policy to their members and <strong>in</strong>terest groups and for produc<strong>in</strong>g sector specific guidance <strong>in</strong> light<br />

of that policy.<br />

Co-ord<strong>in</strong>ation across GB/UK<br />

6.11 This framework relates to <strong>England</strong> only, as policy on wildlife management is a devolved<br />

matter. Priorities and approaches to deal<strong>in</strong>g with issues are likely to vary between the different<br />

constituent countries, but clearly species do not respect our boundaries. Therefore crossborder<br />

co-operation between the adm<strong>in</strong>istrations and associated statutory conservation<br />

bodies with<strong>in</strong> GB/UK is essential for a sound ecological and ecosystem approach to wildlife<br />

management. We will achieve this by <strong>in</strong>form<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g the devolved adm<strong>in</strong>istrations<br />

on relevant policy issues and ensur<strong>in</strong>g this is reciprocated.<br />

21


22<br />

7. Tak<strong>in</strong>g the Framework Forward<br />

Develop<strong>in</strong>g future wildlife management policies<br />

7.1 This document provides the framework for how future policy will be developed on wildlife<br />

management. Future wildlife management policy will be developed <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with our vision<br />

and <strong>in</strong> accordance with the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples and procedures set out <strong>in</strong> the process tree. In some<br />

<strong>in</strong>stances this will <strong>in</strong>volve review<strong>in</strong>g and adjust<strong>in</strong>g current policies <strong>in</strong> the light of chang<strong>in</strong>g<br />

circumstances.<br />

Communications strategy<br />

7.2 Where, <strong>in</strong> our public attitudes research (see section 2.3), concerns were raised about the<br />

stated reasons for manag<strong>in</strong>g/controll<strong>in</strong>g wildlife, these tended to be because more<br />

<strong>in</strong>formation was needed to demonstrate the seriousness of the problem or <strong>in</strong> some cases,<br />

because conflicts are seen to simply be nature at work and therefore not requir<strong>in</strong>g the<br />

<strong>in</strong>tervention of man. Most concerns related to the choice of method and this is where most<br />

resistance is likely to be met.<br />

7.3 The research highlighted a number of pr<strong>in</strong>ciples that the public feel should be used when<br />

consider<strong>in</strong>g the most appropriate choice of method of control:<br />

• The cost of the solution needs to be proportionate to the size and nature of the problem<br />

• Where appropriate, preventative measures should be adopted<br />

• Where possible, non-lethal control methods should be used <strong>in</strong> preference to lethal<br />

methods<br />

• When lethal methods are the most appropriate solution, humane methods should be used<br />

that result <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>stant, pa<strong>in</strong>less death and which m<strong>in</strong>imise the chances of non-target<br />

species be<strong>in</strong>g killed<br />

7.4 These pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are all ones supported by this framework (see paragraphs 1.8 and 1.9) and it<br />

is therefore important that we develop a communications strategy that clearly demonstrates<br />

the rationale for both why wildlife management is necessary and why the proposed methods<br />

are be<strong>in</strong>g used and are deemed appropriate.


Annex A: Process Tree show<strong>in</strong>g the stages <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Government policies with respect to wildlife management.<br />

Stage 1 – sift<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Problem is identified<br />

Is Government <strong>in</strong>tervention justified to help resolve the problem?<br />

Do noth<strong>in</strong>g/ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> status quo<br />

NO<br />

Communicate decision and reason<strong>in</strong>g beh<strong>in</strong>d it<br />

Stage 2 – <strong>in</strong>form<strong>in</strong>g (through sound science)<br />

YES/DON’T KNOW<br />

Identify who is best placed to lead<br />

Does the level of available evidence/<strong>in</strong>formation reflect the level of risk to the conservation<br />

status or welfare of the affected species or level of risk to human <strong>in</strong>terests?<br />

Obta<strong>in</strong> further<br />

evidence/<strong>in</strong>formation<br />

Stage 3 – decid<strong>in</strong>g<br />

YES<br />

Are the resources required to obta<strong>in</strong> further<br />

evidence/<strong>in</strong>formation proportionate to benefits?<br />

NO<br />

NO<br />

YES<br />

Tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account the available evidence/<strong>in</strong>formation, decide on one or more of the follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />

policy actions:<br />

• Do noth<strong>in</strong>g/ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> status quo<br />

• Develop new or review current policy approach<br />

• Develop new or review current communications strategy<br />

• Develop new or review current legislation/other regulatory mechanisms<br />

• Develop new or review current guidance and issue it<br />

• Initiate direct Government <strong>in</strong>tervention at operational level<br />

• Facilitate/co-ord<strong>in</strong>ate delivery through partners/agents, stakeholders and <strong>in</strong>dividuals<br />

• Any other appropriate action<br />

Tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account the evidence/<strong>in</strong>formation, is the response balanced, proportionate and<br />

practical <strong>in</strong> light of the degree of significance of the problem?<br />

Stage 4 – communicat<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Stage 5 – implement<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Stage 6 – monitor<strong>in</strong>g<br />

YES<br />

Communicate decision and reason<strong>in</strong>g beh<strong>in</strong>d it<br />

Implement actions<br />

Monitor outcome and report. Were actions successful and do<br />

they reflect current aims and priorities?<br />

NO<br />

OR<br />

NO<br />

Stake Holder Engagement<br />

23


24<br />

Annex B: List of Related Strategies and Initiatives<br />

UK Biodiversity Action Plan<br />

(www.ukbap.org.uk/). This is the Government’s response to the Convention on Biological Diversity<br />

(CBD) signed <strong>in</strong> 1992. It describes the UK’s biological resources and establishes a detailed plan for<br />

the protection of these resources. The new UK List of Priority Species and Habitats has been<br />

published and the conservation approach for these 1150 species and 65 habitats is be<strong>in</strong>g<br />

developed by the statutory and non-statutory sectors. In addition there are <strong>in</strong> the region of 190<br />

Local Biodiversity Action Plan with targeted actions across the UK.<br />

<strong>England</strong> Biodiversity Strategy<br />

(www.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/uk/ukbap.htm). This strategy is the approach taken <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>England</strong> to conserv<strong>in</strong>g biodiversity under the framework of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, and<br />

comprises a comb<strong>in</strong>ation of protect<strong>in</strong>g the best wildlife sites, promot<strong>in</strong>g the recovery of decl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />

species and habitats, embedd<strong>in</strong>g biodiversity <strong>in</strong>to all sectors of policy and decision mak<strong>in</strong>g, enthus<strong>in</strong>g<br />

people and develop<strong>in</strong>g the evidence base.<br />

Secur<strong>in</strong>g Biodiversity – A new framework for deliver<strong>in</strong>g priority habitats<br />

and species <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong><br />

(www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/framework.as<br />

px). This framework has been developed to enhance the recovery of priority habitats and species<br />

<strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong> (published under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act<br />

(2006)) and contributes to the delivery of the <strong>England</strong> Biodiversity Strategy. It is the start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t<br />

for a more <strong>in</strong>tegrated approach to biodiversity conservation <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong>, build<strong>in</strong>g on the strengths<br />

of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan process.<br />

Ecosystem Approach Action Plan<br />

(www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/policy/natural-environ/eco-actionplan.htm). This develops a more<br />

strategic framework for policy-mak<strong>in</strong>g on the natural environment. It aims to embed a more<br />

<strong>in</strong>tegrated, holistic approach to policy and decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g based on whole ‘ecosystems’. It also<br />

seeks to ensure that the value of the ecosystem services provided by a healthy natural environment<br />

is fully reflected <strong>in</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g across Government. The action plan sets out actions and<br />

priorities for <strong>Defra</strong>, delivery partners and other key stakeholders.<br />

Strategy for Susta<strong>in</strong>able Farm<strong>in</strong>g & Food<br />

(www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/susta<strong>in</strong>farmfood/<strong>in</strong>dex.htm). This built on the work conducted<br />

by the Policy Commission <strong>in</strong> 2001 (reported <strong>in</strong> 2002) on the Future of Farm<strong>in</strong>g and Food and<br />

provides a comprehensive and long-term plan for the future development of the farm<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dustry.<br />

The Strategy’s key aims are to secure a more competitive and susta<strong>in</strong>able <strong>in</strong>dustry with a stronger<br />

market-orientation; reduce agriculture’s reliance on subsidies based on production and <strong>in</strong>stead l<strong>in</strong>k<br />

these to compliance with environmental and animal health and welfare standards; and encourage<br />

restructur<strong>in</strong>g for long-term economic and environmental susta<strong>in</strong>ability.<br />

Food 2030 – the Government’s new food strategy<br />

(www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/strategy/<strong>in</strong>dex.htm) This strategy, the first of its k<strong>in</strong>d for more<br />

than 50 years, is a response both to the big food challenges – susta<strong>in</strong>ability, security and health –<br />

and to the call for more jo<strong>in</strong>ed up food policy. It sets out the priorities for the UK Government on<br />

food. In the future, farmers and fishermen will need to cont<strong>in</strong>ue to produce more with fewer<br />

resources but have less impact on the environment.


Annex B: List of Related Strategies and Initiatives<br />

Animal Health and Welfare Strategy<br />

(www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/<strong>in</strong>dex.htm#key). This was developed as a route<br />

map for work to improve the health and welfare of kept animals <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong>, Scotland and Wales<br />

and forms the framework for all <strong>Defra</strong>’s work on animal health and welfare. It <strong>in</strong>cludes all animals<br />

which for one reason or another are under people’s control, and covers the health and welfare of<br />

farmed livestock, companion animals, fish and shellfish used <strong>in</strong> aquaculture and game animals. Its<br />

coverage of wildlife is limited to: where there is a risk of zoonotic diseases be<strong>in</strong>g transmitted to<br />

man; where wildlife populations may pass on, harbour or recycle diseases of farmed livestock;<br />

where welfare issues arise <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g protection from cruelty or the role of rehabilitation/rescue<br />

centres; and where wildlife is affected by disease controls for farmed livestock and other animals.<br />

Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy<br />

(www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/management/non-native/uk-action.htm). Problems caused<br />

by <strong>in</strong>vasive non-native species can be serious, transform<strong>in</strong>g our ecosystems, harm<strong>in</strong>g economic<br />

activity, alter<strong>in</strong>g natural habitats and threaten<strong>in</strong>g native species. Invasive non-native species are<br />

considered to be a ma<strong>in</strong> direct driver of biodiversity loss across the globe. The GB strategy on<br />

<strong>in</strong>vasive non-native species was published on 28 May 2008.<br />

<strong>England</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> Health Strategy<br />

(www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/vetsurveillance/species/wildlife/strategy/<strong>in</strong>dex.h<br />

tm). This provides a strategic approach to wildlife health <strong>in</strong> order to balance wildlife and other<br />

<strong>in</strong>terests appropriately. It <strong>in</strong>cludes management of species as vectors or reservoirs for disease and<br />

help coord<strong>in</strong>ate and prioritise policy and <strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong> a consistent manner. The WHS<br />

implements the wildlife elements of the Veter<strong>in</strong>ary Surveillance Strategy, which is an <strong>in</strong>tegral part<br />

of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. The Strategy also fits <strong>in</strong>to other activities carried out<br />

with<strong>in</strong> <strong>Defra</strong>, such as Biodiversity Action Plans and associated strategies developed by the Scottish<br />

Executive and the National Assembly for Wales.<br />

Natural <strong>England</strong>’s Regulatory Strategy<br />

(www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/betterregulation/nestrategy/default.aspx). This is<br />

a broad over-arch<strong>in</strong>g strategy which sets out Natural <strong>England</strong>’s approach to regulation. It outl<strong>in</strong>es<br />

the Hampton and better regulation agenda and sets out some proposed ‘next steps’ that will<br />

guide the <strong>in</strong>tegration of the core regulatory bus<strong>in</strong>ess and drive service improvements. The<br />

Strategy, and the documents and projects that underp<strong>in</strong> it, will enable the bus<strong>in</strong>ess and customers<br />

that NE regulate to broadly understand the objectives and basis for regulation with<strong>in</strong> Natural<br />

<strong>England</strong>. A key element of both strategies is ensur<strong>in</strong>g they are compliant with Hampton and<br />

better regulation pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, which will require an element of regulatory review. It is essential that<br />

both strategies are compatible and duplication of effort is avoided.<br />

Evidence Investment Strategy: 2010-2013 and beyond<br />

(www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/science/how/strategy.htm). This strategy will help <strong>Defra</strong> respond<br />

effectively to the big <strong>in</strong>terl<strong>in</strong>ked challenges of climate change adaptation and mitigation, ensur<strong>in</strong>g<br />

a susta<strong>in</strong>able food supply and protect<strong>in</strong>g ecosystem services. Help<strong>in</strong>g to deliver evidence where it<br />

is most needed, ref<strong>in</strong>e processes and <strong>in</strong>crease partnership work<strong>in</strong>g to share knowledge and<br />

expertise. <strong>Defra</strong> is work<strong>in</strong>g with others <strong>in</strong>side and outside of Government to jo<strong>in</strong> up the evidence<br />

base, so that we have as full as possible understand<strong>in</strong>g of issues.<br />

25


26<br />

Annex C: <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Examples<br />

Conservation of biodiversity<br />

American Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus<br />

The American Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus is native to<br />

eastern North America, but has been <strong>in</strong>troduced west of the<br />

Rocky Mounta<strong>in</strong>s and to around 25 countries worldwide dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />

the past two centuries. At least 25 separate <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />

attempts have been made <strong>in</strong> Europe. The first s<strong>in</strong>gle Bullfrog <strong>in</strong><br />

Brita<strong>in</strong> was found <strong>in</strong> East Sussex <strong>in</strong> 1996, and breed<strong>in</strong>g was first<br />

noted at the same site <strong>in</strong> 1999. Bullfrogs have been deliberately<br />

released as unwanted pets and have also escaped from garden<br />

ponds where they had been conf<strong>in</strong>ed as tadpoles. Others have<br />

been imported accidentally with fish stock.<br />

The American Bullfrog is listed by IUCN as one of the most harmful <strong>in</strong>vasive species. American<br />

Bullfrogs are up to twice the length of the native common frog, and feed on a wide range of prey<br />

<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g amphibians, fishes, small mammals, duckl<strong>in</strong>gs and small bird species. Both predation and<br />

competition may adversely affect populations of native frogs, toads and newts. American Bullfrogs<br />

and other non-native amphibians may also carry the chytrid fungus Bactrachocytrium dendrobatidis,<br />

and can spread the disease chytridiomycosis to native amphibians. This disease has contributed to<br />

worldwide amphibian decl<strong>in</strong>e and to several global ext<strong>in</strong>ctions. The UK is a signatory to the<br />

Convention on Biological Diversity and the Bern Convention, both of which oblige it to take action<br />

aga<strong>in</strong>st non-native species which threaten native fauna. Thus action was <strong>in</strong>itiated by Government to<br />

address the threat that the presence of the American Bullfrog represented to native fauna.<br />

The East Sussex population was successfully eradicated by 2004 follow<strong>in</strong>g prompt action by the<br />

forerunner of Natural <strong>England</strong>, but only after the removal of at least 9,000 animals. In 2006, a<br />

further breed<strong>in</strong>g population was discovered <strong>in</strong> Essex. Aga<strong>in</strong>, Natural <strong>England</strong> reacted quickly and<br />

control measures started almost immediately - 100 animals were shot there <strong>in</strong> 2007 but only five <strong>in</strong><br />

2008, suggest<strong>in</strong>g that the population had already been greatly reduced by the range of control<br />

methods employed (egg collection, tadpole trapp<strong>in</strong>g and the shoot<strong>in</strong>g of juvenile and adult animals).<br />

Presence, but not breed<strong>in</strong>g, has been noted at a further handful of sites <strong>in</strong> SE <strong>England</strong>.<br />

The cost so far of control measures and monitor<strong>in</strong>g for American Bullfrogs has been put at over<br />

£100,000. This compares very favourably to the cost of Ruddy Duck control and reflects both the<br />

benefits of early recognition that a potential problem exists, and of a rapid reaction to deal with a<br />

potentially harmful non-native before it can become established and before it can spread. As with<br />

Ruddy Ducks, it is difficult to envisage any other organization fund<strong>in</strong>g such work, especially at very<br />

short notice. This is partly because of the cost, but also because it is the Government that has the<br />

obligation to act under <strong>in</strong>ternational treaties. It is also easier for Government to persuade site owners<br />

to co-operate because it has more <strong>in</strong>fluence and expertise <strong>in</strong> the area of controll<strong>in</strong>g non-native<br />

species than any other <strong>in</strong>terested party.<br />

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis<br />

The non-native Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis became established <strong>in</strong> the UK <strong>in</strong> the 1960s follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />

escapes and releases. It subsequently spread throughout the UK and was seen with <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g<br />

frequency <strong>in</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>land Europe, where it is now known to hybridise with the native and endangered<br />

White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala. It became clear that the UK was the most likely source of<br />

the Ruddy Ducks appear<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Europe. The UK is a signatory to several <strong>in</strong>ternational agreements<br />

under which it is obliged to take action aga<strong>in</strong>st non-native species such as the Ruddy Duck which<br />

threaten native fauna.


Annex C: <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Examples<br />

Initial small-scale research <strong>in</strong>to Ruddy Duck control concluded that eradication was feasible (with<br />

shoot<strong>in</strong>g the most effective method), but that larger scale work was required to better def<strong>in</strong>e the<br />

timescale and costs <strong>in</strong>volved. S<strong>in</strong>ce that work, two tranches of larger-scale research have been<br />

carried out. An eradication programme is now underway, jo<strong>in</strong>tly funded by <strong>Defra</strong> and the EU LIFE-<br />

Nature programme, and implemented by the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera).<br />

The total cost of the research and eradication programme could have been much reduced if there<br />

had been a process to identify the Ruddy Duck as a potential problem earlier, before the species<br />

became more numerous and widespread <strong>in</strong> the UK. In addition, gaps between the periods of<br />

research and between the research and eradication phases allowed the population to recover and<br />

grow from these periods of control, which has prolonged the time required for full eradication.<br />

Realistically, <strong>in</strong> most cases, no other organization is likely to fund or implement such work because<br />

of the cost and because cull<strong>in</strong>g is unpopular amongst certa<strong>in</strong> members of the public. As a result,<br />

charities and private companies are often unwill<strong>in</strong>g to be too closely <strong>in</strong>volved, especially if the work<br />

is on a large scale. Charities are particularly vulnerable to adverse reaction from members and the<br />

resultant effect on <strong>in</strong>come.<br />

The Ruddy Duck control work has shown the importance of provid<strong>in</strong>g reassurance to landowners by<br />

means of a PR strategy backed by an experienced Press Office at <strong>Defra</strong>. Similarly, the fact that the<br />

control work is be<strong>in</strong>g carried out by Government provides reassurance to site owners that it will be<br />

implemented safely and effectively. It is therefore easier for Government to persuade site owners to<br />

co-operate because it has more <strong>in</strong>fluence and expertise <strong>in</strong> the area of controll<strong>in</strong>g non-native species<br />

than any other <strong>in</strong>terested party.<br />

Control work <strong>in</strong> the case of Ruddy Ducks is licenced by Natural <strong>England</strong>, and assents are required to<br />

carry out shoot<strong>in</strong>g on most SSSIs and Special Protection Areas. These licens<strong>in</strong>g procedures have been<br />

facilitated by the already exist<strong>in</strong>g close l<strong>in</strong>ks between <strong>Defra</strong>, Natural <strong>England</strong> and the Food and<br />

Environment Research Agency.<br />

References<br />

BirdLife International. 2008. Oxyura leucocephala. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened<br />

Species. Version 2009.1. . Downloaded on 11 August 2009.<br />

Hughes, B., Criado, J., Delany, S., Gallo-Orsi, U., Green, A J, Grussu, M., Perennou, C. and Torres, JA<br />

1999. The status of the North American Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis <strong>in</strong> the Western Palearctic:<br />

towards an action plan for eradication, 1999-2002. Council of Europe Publication T-PVS/Birds (99)9.<br />

Council of Europe Publish<strong>in</strong>g, Strasbourg. 40pp.<br />

Susta<strong>in</strong>able exploitation and management<br />

Deer management<br />

Six species of deer range freely across <strong>England</strong>. Of the two<br />

native species, European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) has the<br />

greatest national range, whereas among non-natives, Reeves’<br />

muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) has the greatest range, cover<strong>in</strong>g<br />

70% and 28% respectively, of GB dur<strong>in</strong>g 2002 (Ward 2005).<br />

Both species have cont<strong>in</strong>ued to expand their ranges, at 5.2%<br />

and 11.6% per annum respectively between 2002 and 2007<br />

(Ward et al. 2008). Numbers of these species are likely to have<br />

<strong>in</strong>creased <strong>in</strong> tandem with range expansion (Battersby 2005).<br />

27


28<br />

Annex C: <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Examples<br />

Wild deer can impact on agriculture, forestry and conservation <strong>in</strong>terests (Gill 1992) and may also<br />

impact on human health and well-be<strong>in</strong>g, particularly when <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> collisions with motor vehicles<br />

(Langbe<strong>in</strong> and Putman 2006). Impacts are commonly perceived as negative when deer populations<br />

atta<strong>in</strong> high densities, or when they occupy particularly sensitive areas. For example, among<br />

woodland Sites of Special Scientific Interest <strong>in</strong> the east of <strong>England</strong> (where deer densities are locally<br />

high), 40% have been described as be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> unfavourable condition, with 24% of these cit<strong>in</strong>g deer<br />

brows<strong>in</strong>g and graz<strong>in</strong>g impacts as a contribut<strong>in</strong>g factor (White et al. 2004).<br />

Nevertheless, impacts may also be positive. For example, people generally positively value the<br />

presence of wild deer <strong>in</strong> the countryside and wildlife-related tourism has doubled <strong>in</strong> Scotland<br />

s<strong>in</strong>ce the late 1990’s provid<strong>in</strong>g 3000 jobs <strong>in</strong> 2001 (Tourism and the Environment Forum 2002 <strong>in</strong><br />

Macmillan and Phillip 2008). Moreover, the total economic value of deer management <strong>in</strong> Scotland<br />

may be £105 million per year (Macmillan and Phillip 2008). However, attitudes may also vary<br />

accord<strong>in</strong>g to the provenance of species and stakeholder priorities. For example, conservationists<br />

may perceive roe deer as a welcome component of native biodiversity, whereas they may<br />

perceive muntjac as a damag<strong>in</strong>g, un-welcome alien. In contrast, recreational hunters may perceive<br />

both as highly valued quarry, but the market for their venison may be very different<br />

(www.thedeer<strong>in</strong>itiative.co.uk/html/muntdeer.htm 27/08/2009).<br />

‘Deer management’ may encompass a range of activities, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g preventive measures (e.g.<br />

fenc<strong>in</strong>g), non-lethal impact management (e.g. habitat management), population control (us<strong>in</strong>g<br />

shoot<strong>in</strong>g and non-lethal methods, such as fertility control), and sport shoot<strong>in</strong>g. Across much of<br />

<strong>England</strong>, roe deer and muntjac probably constitute the greatest proportion of deer culled, but<br />

statutory cull data are not available to support this claim, as they are for Scotland.<br />

Given the scale and complexity of deer management issues and the broad range of stakeholders<br />

Government <strong>in</strong>tervention is needed to develop national policies and their coord<strong>in</strong>ated<br />

implementation. Government support for deer management <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong> is channelled through the<br />

Deer Initiative, a broad partnership of statutory, voluntary and private stakeholders with the policy aim<br />

to “ensure the delivery of a susta<strong>in</strong>able, well-managed wild deer population <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong> and Wales.”<br />

‘Susta<strong>in</strong>able’ and’ ‘well-managed’ may well be def<strong>in</strong>ed differently for native and non-native species.<br />

In contrast to the Deer Commission for Scotland, the Deer Initiative has no regulatory or<br />

enforcement powers, and <strong>in</strong>stead encourages good deer management by produc<strong>in</strong>g best practice<br />

guidel<strong>in</strong>es and facilitat<strong>in</strong>g the establishment and cont<strong>in</strong>uation of collaborative deer management<br />

groups (DMGs).<br />

DMGs are typically comprised of landowners and managers from with<strong>in</strong> the range of one or more<br />

wild deer populations, and who perceive the need for some form of deer management. The Deer<br />

Initiative encourages population and impact monitor<strong>in</strong>g and record keep<strong>in</strong>g by DMGs, but there is<br />

no statutory requirement for these, and they may not be available from a central repository.<br />

Consequently, although it may not currently be possible to determ<strong>in</strong>e whether DMGs are nationally<br />

deliver<strong>in</strong>g a susta<strong>in</strong>able, well-managed wild deer population, the policy mak<strong>in</strong>g framework will help<br />

make these issues explicit and engage stakeholders <strong>in</strong> their resolution.


Annex C: <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Examples<br />

Many methods have been developed to monitor abundance, population change and impacts of deer<br />

<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g roe (Ratcliffe and Mayle 1992) and muntjac (Cooke 2006) at the local scale, but none have<br />

been robustly tested to reliably monitor changes at the landscape or national scales. Suitable novel<br />

approaches for the detection of changes <strong>in</strong> population range and abundance at these scales have<br />

recently been developed (Makenzie et al. 2002, 2003) and are currently be<strong>in</strong>g tested on wild boar<br />

<strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong>. However, the most appropriate surveillance methods and strategies for their effective<br />

deployment may require further development before they could be used to reliably <strong>in</strong>form<br />

Government of the need, or otherwise, to <strong>in</strong>tervene <strong>in</strong> deer management. Aga<strong>in</strong> the policy mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />

framework will facilitate the identification of such specific knowledge gaps and prioritise the use of<br />

available resources to fill them.<br />

References<br />

Battersby, J. (ed) (2005) UK mammals: Species status and population trends. JNCC/Track<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Mammals Partnership, Peterborough.<br />

Cooke, A. S. 2006. Monitor<strong>in</strong>g muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi and their impacts <strong>in</strong> Monks Wood<br />

National Nature Reserve. English Nature Research Report 681. English Nature, Peterborough.<br />

Gill, R. M. A. (1992) A review of damage by mammals <strong>in</strong> north temperate forests: 3. Impacts on trees<br />

and forests. Forestry 65: 363-383.<br />

Langbe<strong>in</strong>, J. & Putman, R. J. (2006) Collision cause. Deer 13: 19-23.<br />

Macmillan D. C. & Phillip, S. (2008) Consumptive and non-consumptive values of wild mammals <strong>in</strong><br />

Brita<strong>in</strong>. Mammal Review 38: 189-204.<br />

Mackenzie D. I., Nichols J. D., Lachman G. B., Droege S., Royle J. A & Langtimm C. A. (2002)<br />

Estimat<strong>in</strong>g occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 82: 2248-2255.<br />

Mackenzie D. I., Nichols J. D., H<strong>in</strong>es J. E., Knutson M. G. & Frankl<strong>in</strong> A. B. (2003) Estimat<strong>in</strong>g site<br />

occupancy, colonization, and local ext<strong>in</strong>ction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 83:<br />

2200-2207.<br />

Ratcliffe, P. R. & Mayle, B. A. (1992) Roe deer biology and management. Forestry Commission<br />

Bullet<strong>in</strong> 105. Forestry Commission, Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh.<br />

Ward, A., Ether<strong>in</strong>gton, T. & Ewald, J. (2008) Five years of change. Deer 14: 17-20.<br />

Ward A. (2005b) New population estimates for British mammals. Deer 13: 8.<br />

Ward A. I. (2005a) Expand<strong>in</strong>g ranges of wild and feral deer <strong>in</strong> Great Brita<strong>in</strong>. Mammal Review 35:<br />

165-173.<br />

Quarry Licences for Falconry<br />

All wild birds are protected by section 1 of the <strong>Wildlife</strong> and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA), which<br />

transposes Article 5 of Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds<br />

Directive). Falconry is a traditional sport, which is recognised as a legitimate form of susta<strong>in</strong>able<br />

use and therefore permissible under the Birds Directive Article 7 (the cultural argument is raised <strong>in</strong><br />

Article 2). The Directive allows the UK “to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a<br />

selective basis, the capture, keep<strong>in</strong>g or other judicious use of certa<strong>in</strong> birds <strong>in</strong> small numbers” where<br />

there is no other satisfactory solution.<br />

29


30<br />

Annex C: <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Examples<br />

Certa<strong>in</strong> species of wild birds may be hunted for sport under derogation permitted by Article 9 of the EC<br />

Birds Directive. This is enacted by Section 16(1)(e) of the <strong>Wildlife</strong> and Countryside Act 1981, which allows<br />

licences to be issued for the purpose of falconry.<br />

In relation to licences granted under section 16(1)(e) – (h) of WCA,<br />

Natural <strong>England</strong> only grant licences with respect to wild birds (i.e.<br />

those not shown to have bred <strong>in</strong> captivity) on a selective basis and <strong>in</strong><br />

respect of a small number of birds. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to guidance issued by<br />

the European Commission “strictly supervised conditions and on a<br />

selective basis” should be understood to imply a system of <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />

authorisations (or narrow category authorisations <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g a high<br />

degree of accountability), and should imply strict territorial, temporal<br />

and personal controls. The Commission guidance also considers<br />

“small numbers” to refer to less than 1% of the annual natural<br />

mortality of the population of the species concerned.<br />

A quarry licence allows a named <strong>in</strong>dividual to kill or ‘take’ a<br />

maximum of 50 specimens of wild birds <strong>in</strong> the course of falconry<br />

with<strong>in</strong> a def<strong>in</strong>ed area of the UK. It does not allow the hunt<strong>in</strong>g of any<br />

other species, birds or otherwise. The <strong>in</strong>dividual licence allows<br />

falconers to hunt the specified species provided by the licence from<br />

the 1 September until the 28 February.<br />

Licens<strong>in</strong>g therefore provides a methodology that permits falconry to be undertaken, monitors its<br />

conservation impact via return report<strong>in</strong>g, and allows Natural <strong>England</strong> the opportunity to control its<br />

application via limit<strong>in</strong>g the number of licenses granted or limit<strong>in</strong>g the numbers of quarry species<br />

permitted on each licence.<br />

Returns submitted with<strong>in</strong> the licens<strong>in</strong>g statistics for 2007, for example, show that licenses for1699<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividuals of 19 quarry species were granted but only 406 <strong>in</strong>dividual birds were taken. Four of the species<br />

for which licenses were issued, Common Gull, Jay, Fieldfare and House Sparrow, had nil returns. One<br />

species, Redw<strong>in</strong>g, had a greater number of returns than were licensed with 3 <strong>in</strong>dividuals taken when only<br />

2 birds were licensed. The licens<strong>in</strong>g approach therefore allows the number of birds taken to be specified,<br />

whilst also provid<strong>in</strong>g a feedback route that enables the actual numbers of birds taken to be evaluated.<br />

The majority of falconry activity may, however, be undertaken aga<strong>in</strong>st ‘pest’ bird and mammal species<br />

under the general wildlife management licenses for prevent<strong>in</strong>g serious damage to agriculture, fisheries or<br />

public health and air safety. It is unclear whether all falconers submit full returns under this license. The<br />

majority of species targeted under this remit <strong>in</strong>clude ‘corvids’, large gulls, Woodpigeon and Collared<br />

Dove. Other species taken are dealt with via game licens<strong>in</strong>g legislation.<br />

The overall management of the licens<strong>in</strong>g of falconry is therefore split across different licens<strong>in</strong>g<br />

requirements. They all, however, allow the impact of the activity of falconry to be properly recorded,<br />

monitored and evaluated to ensure the conservation impacts are appropriately managed.<br />

The Commission has recognised the need to start a new dialogue with a view to develop<strong>in</strong>g<br />

co-operation between governmental and non-governmental organisations concerned with the<br />

conservation and wise and susta<strong>in</strong>able use of our wild birds. A ‘Susta<strong>in</strong>able Hunt<strong>in</strong>g Initiative’ was<br />

launched by the Commission <strong>in</strong> 2001 aim<strong>in</strong>g at improved understand<strong>in</strong>g of the legal and technical<br />

aspects of the Directive’s provisions on hunt<strong>in</strong>g as well as develop<strong>in</strong>g a programme of scientific,<br />

conservation and awareness rais<strong>in</strong>g measures to promote susta<strong>in</strong>able hunt<strong>in</strong>g under the directive.<br />

In order to develop such a dialogue a series of ten measures was suggested for consideration. These have<br />

broadly the ma<strong>in</strong> aims to improve the legal and technical <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the Directive’s provisions


Annex C: <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Examples<br />

relat<strong>in</strong>g to hunt<strong>in</strong>g, to develop a programme of scientific, conservation and tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g/awareness<br />

measures, and to draw a charter on Susta<strong>in</strong>able Hunt<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> the framework of the Birds Directive.<br />

Further details can be found on the Commission’s DG Environment ‘Nature conservation and<br />

susta<strong>in</strong>able hunt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> EU’ webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds<br />

/hunt<strong>in</strong>g/<strong>in</strong>dex_en.htm#hunt<strong>in</strong>gguide<br />

References<br />

Commission guidance – Guide to Susta<strong>in</strong>able Hunt<strong>in</strong>g Under the Birds Directive<br />

Socio-economic impacts<br />

Susta<strong>in</strong>able cormorant management to protect fisheries<br />

The number of cormorants, particularly those liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>land, has been <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> recent decades.<br />

These fish-feed<strong>in</strong>g (piscivorous) birds come <strong>in</strong>to conflict with <strong>in</strong>land anglers and fish farmers, who<br />

require methods to manage these birds to reduce economic losses. These approaches have <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />

issu<strong>in</strong>g licences to cull a limited number of birds at specific sites to deter the presence of others. S<strong>in</strong>ce<br />

we do not want to adversely affect the population status of the cormorant, we need to know how<br />

many licenses it is safe to issue <strong>in</strong> any one year.<br />

Data obta<strong>in</strong>ed from the Wetlands Birds Survey (WeBS) gives an <strong>in</strong>dication of changes <strong>in</strong> population<br />

size (generally with a one-year delay) and the number<br />

of birds killed under licence gives the control effort. By<br />

us<strong>in</strong>g historical data on annual changes <strong>in</strong> the total<br />

population we can produce a simple computer model<br />

to estimate future changes <strong>in</strong> population size (Smith et<br />

al. 2008). To this we can add the effects of different<br />

levels of theoretical future licensed cull<strong>in</strong>g and then see<br />

the effect of this on the overall population size. By<br />

compar<strong>in</strong>g the population size two or three years <strong>in</strong>to<br />

the future between (1) no licensed cull<strong>in</strong>g and (2)<br />

higher levels of cull<strong>in</strong>g, we can estimate the amount of<br />

licensed cull<strong>in</strong>g that would stabilise the population size<br />

or cause given levels of reduction. To <strong>in</strong>clude the uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty <strong>in</strong> the projected future population<br />

growth, the model is run thousands of times choos<strong>in</strong>g a new value for the annual growth chosen<br />

randomly from historical growth rates.<br />

This then gives us an estimate of the likely decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> the population compared to the status quo.<br />

From this risk distribution, a level of licensed cull<strong>in</strong>g can be determ<strong>in</strong>ed for the future year. This<br />

process is then repeated every year, so the model predictions should become more accurate over<br />

time, and the level of licensed cull<strong>in</strong>g can be amended every year to account for any unexpected<br />

change <strong>in</strong> population size as recorded by the WeBS data.<br />

This iterative approach is referred to as Adaptive Resource <strong>Management</strong>, as it annually revisits and<br />

updates the evidence, ensur<strong>in</strong>g that the level of response (number of licences) is adapted each year<br />

to respond appropriately to changes <strong>in</strong> circumstances.<br />

Reference<br />

Smith G.C., Parrott D. & Robertson P.A. (2008) Manag<strong>in</strong>g wildlife populations with uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty:<br />

cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 1675–1682.<br />

31


32<br />

Annex C: <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Examples<br />

<strong>Wildlife</strong> disease control to protect public and economy <strong>in</strong> the event of an outbreak<br />

Disease is a natural part of the ecosystem. However, various wildlife diseases may <strong>in</strong>fect people<br />

(zoonotic disease), such as rabies, and other diseases may cause substantial economic losses, such<br />

as Foot and Mouth disease. The effects of such diseases should be m<strong>in</strong>imised. For <strong>in</strong>stance, classical<br />

rabies is not present <strong>in</strong> Great Brita<strong>in</strong>, and if attempts to prevent its entry fail, then it should be<br />

quickly elim<strong>in</strong>ated.<br />

Analyses have shown that successful elim<strong>in</strong>ation of<br />

endemic rabies is economically beneficial, purely <strong>in</strong><br />

terms of reduced rates of human prevention and<br />

treatment. Thus, for rabies elim<strong>in</strong>ation to occur as<br />

quickly as possible, follow<strong>in</strong>g any <strong>in</strong>troduction <strong>in</strong>to<br />

British wildlife, it is beneficial to know how quickly the<br />

disease will spread, which species it will affect and<br />

what the likely consequences are of any <strong>in</strong>tervention<br />

strategy. Isolated outbreaks of rabies have been<br />

elim<strong>in</strong>ated with the use of cull<strong>in</strong>g, and oral vacc<strong>in</strong>ation,<br />

and we need to know which technique and how much<br />

effort is required to control the disease for any specific<br />

outbreak. We should not rely entirely on the experience from the European ma<strong>in</strong>land, s<strong>in</strong>ce rabies<br />

elim<strong>in</strong>ation there was that of endemic disease <strong>in</strong> a lower density of foxes.<br />

Computer models have been produced that can simulate the specific geographical distribution of the<br />

host species (primarily the red fox) <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong> and Wales, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the higher densities of animals<br />

recorded <strong>in</strong> many urban areas (e.g. Smith & Wilk<strong>in</strong>son 2003). These models simulate the births and<br />

deaths of animals <strong>in</strong> a heterogeneous landscape of vary<strong>in</strong>g density. The epidemiology of rabies is well<br />

understood, and thus the spread of disease <strong>in</strong> this population is relatively easy to <strong>in</strong>clude. On top of<br />

this we can simulate the effects of different control strategies, look at the likelihood of disease<br />

elim<strong>in</strong>ation and compare their relative cost of implementation. From these results we can<br />

recommend a small number of strategies that would elim<strong>in</strong>ate a specific outbreak of rabies from<br />

wildlife <strong>in</strong> Brita<strong>in</strong>, and also determ<strong>in</strong>e the projected cost of each. These can then be <strong>in</strong>terpreted and<br />

compared and an overall recommendation made.<br />

Reference<br />

Smith G. C. & Wilk<strong>in</strong>son D. (2003) Model<strong>in</strong>g control of rabies outbreaks <strong>in</strong> red fox populations to<br />

evaluate cull<strong>in</strong>g, vacc<strong>in</strong>ation, and vacc<strong>in</strong>ation comb<strong>in</strong>ed with fertility control. Journal of <strong>Wildlife</strong><br />

Diseases. 39, 278-286.<br />

Welfare of managed wildlife<br />

Humaneness of spr<strong>in</strong>g traps with respect to the Spr<strong>in</strong>g Traps Approval Order<br />

The Pests Act 1954 prohibits the use of spr<strong>in</strong>g traps that are not approved and makes provision for<br />

the Secretary of State to approve specific traps by way of an Order.<br />

The Act does not state on what basis traps should or should not be approved, but it is believed that<br />

the humaneness of traps was one issue that was be<strong>in</strong>g considered at the time and society is certa<strong>in</strong>ly<br />

concerned with the humaneness of the treatment of wild animals now. Humaneness of a trap is now<br />

the key element upon which approvals decisions are made.


Annex C: <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Examples<br />

The approvals system is how we have implemented our European obligation to ban leg-hold traps,<br />

such as g<strong>in</strong> traps, which it is now unlawful to use as they are not approved. The use of leg-hold traps<br />

was prohibited on the basis of the severe <strong>in</strong>juries they caused.<br />

Def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g humaneness and how to set appropriate standards aga<strong>in</strong>st which traps can be assessed,<br />

poses several challenges. The European Commission is currently consider<strong>in</strong>g this issue and is<br />

expected to produce a European Directive which details welfare standards which traps must meet.<br />

There is therefore a European consensus that government <strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong> order to improve or<br />

ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> humaneness standards is appropriate and necessary. Furthermore some countries outside<br />

the EU have signed up to the Agreement on International Humane Trapp<strong>in</strong>g Standards which means<br />

that governments, such as Canada and Russia, have acknowledged that the humaneness of traps is<br />

an issue requir<strong>in</strong>g government regulation.<br />

As our understand<strong>in</strong>g of how animals may or may not experience pa<strong>in</strong> and stress, and as trap<br />

technology improves so our potential to improve the humaneness of wildlife management<br />

techniques and devices, such as traps, <strong>in</strong>creases. However without the power to prohibit less<br />

humane methods, the <strong>in</strong>centives may not be there for operatives to use new methods or change<br />

established practices.<br />

Reference<br />

European Commission (2004) Directive Of The European Parliament And Of The Council <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g<br />

humane trapp<strong>in</strong>g standards for certa<strong>in</strong> animal species;<br />

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/animal_welfare/hts/pdf/com_04_532.pdf<br />

Research and development of non lethal management tools<br />

Traditionally the resolution of conflicts<br />

between human and wildlife <strong>in</strong>terests has<br />

often <strong>in</strong>volved lethal control to reduce<br />

problem wildlife populations. However, lethal<br />

methods can be <strong>in</strong>effective, environmentally<br />

hazardous and uneconomic while also<br />

compromis<strong>in</strong>g animal welfare (Fagerstone et<br />

al. 2002, Delahay et al. 2003). At the same<br />

time, grow<strong>in</strong>g public antipathy towards lethal<br />

methods places <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts on<br />

management options, particularly for those<br />

species which have a high public profile<br />

(Jackson 2001, Barr et al. 2002, Deigert et al.<br />

2003).<br />

However, there is little commercial <strong>in</strong>centive for develop<strong>in</strong>g non-lethal, humane methods of conflict<br />

resolution, particularly as the wildlife management area is a small niche market for the relevant<br />

commercial sectors <strong>in</strong> terms of develop<strong>in</strong>g and supply<strong>in</strong>g novel wildlife management products. The<br />

development of new tools thus requires Government <strong>in</strong>vestment to meet public good demands for<br />

humane approaches to wildlife management. One example of successful development, through<br />

Government <strong>in</strong>vestment, of effective tools that are <strong>in</strong> current practice is the use of both physical and<br />

electric fences as barriers to prevent wildlife from ga<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g access to vulnerable resources such as food<br />

crops. This approach is now widely used <strong>in</strong> the UK particularly with respect to rabbits but also<br />

badgers and technical reference material is available on best practice (<strong>Defra</strong> 2001, Natural <strong>England</strong><br />

2007a,b)<br />

33


34<br />

Annex C: <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Examples<br />

Non-lethal approaches such as exclusion by fences are appropriate <strong>in</strong> some contexts. However, <strong>in</strong><br />

others the overabundance of a species, for example rabbits, drives the conflict and problem<br />

populations must be reduced <strong>in</strong> size. Cull<strong>in</strong>g is generally still advocated <strong>in</strong> these circumstances but<br />

is becom<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly controversial. However, fertility control offers a potential alternative or<br />

complementary approach to resolv<strong>in</strong>g such conflicts. Furthermore, <strong>in</strong> some circumstances fertility<br />

control may have some <strong>in</strong>herent advantages over cull<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g:<br />

a. Cull<strong>in</strong>g immediately reduces population size and thus immediately relaxes biological constra<strong>in</strong>ts<br />

imposed by population density on population growth e.g. through competition for food or<br />

disease transmission etc. However, with fertility control, <strong>in</strong>fertile animals rema<strong>in</strong> to contribute to<br />

such biological constra<strong>in</strong>ts, hence slow<strong>in</strong>g subsequent population <strong>in</strong>crease. Fertility control could<br />

be very effective at ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g populations at acceptable levels after they have been reduced by<br />

cull<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

b. Cull<strong>in</strong>g can result <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased movement and contact between <strong>in</strong>dividuals result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased<br />

risk of disease transmission. Fertility control would, <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple, cause less short-term social<br />

perturbation than cull<strong>in</strong>g and thus be less likely to <strong>in</strong>crease disease transmission.<br />

c. Fertility control could reduce problems specifically associated with breed<strong>in</strong>g activity such as<br />

burrow and nest construction or expansion.<br />

d. Fertility control might encourage long-term dispersal and divorce aris<strong>in</strong>g from reproductive failure<br />

<strong>in</strong> species exhibit<strong>in</strong>g site and mate breed<strong>in</strong>g fidelity thus reduc<strong>in</strong>g local breed<strong>in</strong>g populations.<br />

e. Fertility control could potentially reduce vertical transmission of disease (mother to offspr<strong>in</strong>g)<br />

which may reduce the probability of disease ma<strong>in</strong>tenance with<strong>in</strong> a wildlife population.<br />

f. Fertility control might <strong>in</strong>crease the body condition and general health of <strong>in</strong>fertile animals thereby<br />

reduc<strong>in</strong>g their susceptibility to disease and thus reduc<strong>in</strong>g disease transmission and <strong>in</strong>cidence<br />

Interest <strong>in</strong> and Government funded strategic research <strong>in</strong>to fertility control for wildlife is on the <strong>in</strong>crease<br />

<strong>in</strong>ternationally which has already led to significant advances <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>jectable<br />

immunocontraceptive vacc<strong>in</strong>e, with immediate prospects for practical evaluation at the population<br />

level <strong>in</strong> species for which capture, vacc<strong>in</strong>ation and release is a feasible management option (Massei<br />

et al. 2007). The next technical breakthrough would be the advent of non-species-specific oral<br />

immunocontraceptive vacc<strong>in</strong>es that generate long-term <strong>in</strong>fertility after delivery via species-specific<br />

bait<strong>in</strong>g systems, thereby broaden<strong>in</strong>g the scope of potential applications. To exploit these opportunities<br />

strategic research will mature <strong>in</strong>to applied studies, potentially <strong>in</strong> partnership with stakeholders, to<br />

realise the potential of fertility control as a practical new wildlife management option.


Annex C: <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Examples<br />

References<br />

Barr J. J. F., P. W. W. Lurz, M. D. F. Shirley and S. P. Rushton. (2002) Evaluation of immunocontraception<br />

as a publicly acceptable form of vertebrate pest species control: The <strong>in</strong>troduced grey squirrel<br />

<strong>in</strong> Brita<strong>in</strong> as an example. Environmental <strong>Management</strong> 30:342-351.<br />

<strong>Defra</strong> (2001) Electric fence reference manual. Research and Development Surveillance Report 607.<br />

www.naturalengland.gov.uk/Images/electric-fence-manual_tcm6-11352.pdf<br />

Deigert F.A., A. E. Duncan, K.M. Frank, R.O. Lyda and J. F. Kirkpatrick (2003)<br />

Immunocontraception of captive exotic species. III. Contraception and population management of<br />

fallow deer (Cervus dama). Zoo Biology 22, 261-268.<br />

Delahay R. J., G. Wilson, L. M. Rogers and C. L. Cheeseman. (2003) Bov<strong>in</strong>e tuberculosis <strong>in</strong> badgers:<br />

Can cull<strong>in</strong>g control the disease? Pp.165-171 <strong>in</strong>: F. Tattersall and W. Manly (Eds.), Conservation and<br />

conflict: mammals and farm<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Brita<strong>in</strong>. Westbury Press, L<strong>in</strong>nean Society of London.<br />

Fagerstone K.A., M. A. Coffey, P. D. Curtis, R. A. Dolbeer, G. J. Killian, L. A. Miller and L. M. Wilmot.<br />

2002. <strong>Wildlife</strong> Fertility Control. The <strong>Wildlife</strong> Society Technical Review 02-2.<br />

Jackson D.B. (2001) Experimental removal of <strong>in</strong>troduced hedgehogs improves wader nest success <strong>in</strong><br />

the Western Isles, Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology 38,:802-812.<br />

Massei G., Cowan D. P., Coats J., Gladwell F., Lane J.E. and Miller L.A. (2008) Effect of the GnRH<br />

vacc<strong>in</strong>e GonaConTM on the fertility, physiology and behaviour of wild boar. <strong>Wildlife</strong> Research<br />

35, 540-547.<br />

Natural <strong>England</strong> (2007a) Natural <strong>England</strong> Technical Information Note TIN027 Badger problems: use<br />

of electric fenc<strong>in</strong>g to prevent agricultural damage<br />

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/Natural<strong>England</strong>Shop/product.aspx?ProductID=35e05487-<br />

7a0f-4986-ba18-f17182b81b04<br />

Natural <strong>England</strong> (2007b) Natural <strong>England</strong> Technical Information Note TIN023 Rabbits: use of fenc<strong>in</strong>g<br />

to prevent agricultural damage<br />

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/Natural<strong>England</strong>Shop/product.aspx?ProductID=dadef3c2bd7e-43d3-9826-b66eaa55aff5<br />

35


36<br />

Annex D: Legislation Relevant to <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Issues<br />

There is numerous legislation relevant to wildlife management issues. Below is a list of the ma<strong>in</strong><br />

legislation relat<strong>in</strong>g to wildlife management <strong>in</strong> <strong>England</strong>. Full text of the legislation can be obta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

from the Office of Public Sector Information 18<br />

Agriculture Act 1947<br />

Agriculture Act 1986<br />

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act<br />

1972<br />

Animal Welfare Act 2006<br />

Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.)<br />

Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 2716)<br />

Conservation of Seals (<strong>England</strong>) Order 1999<br />

Conservation of Seals Act 1970<br />

Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986<br />

Control of Pollution (Anglers’ Lead Weights)<br />

Regulations 1986<br />

Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3254/91prohibit<strong>in</strong>g<br />

the use of leghold traps <strong>in</strong> the<br />

Community etc.<br />

Coypus (Prohibition on Keep<strong>in</strong>g) Order 1987<br />

Coypus (Special Licence) (Fees) Regulations<br />

1997<br />

Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976<br />

Deer Act 1991<br />

Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932<br />

Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use<br />

of Lead Shot)(<strong>England</strong>) Regulations 1999 (SI<br />

1999 No 2170)<br />

Environmental Protection Act 1990<br />

Food and Environment Protection Act 1985<br />

Fur Farm<strong>in</strong>g (Prohibition) Act 2000<br />

Game Act 1831<br />

Grey Squirrels (Prohibition of Importation and<br />

Keep<strong>in</strong>g) Order 1937<br />

Grey Squirrels (Warfr<strong>in</strong>) Order 1973<br />

Ground Game (Amendment) Act 1906<br />

Ground Game Act 1880<br />

18 www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/about_legislation<br />

Hares (Control of Importation) Order 1965<br />

Hares Preservation Act 1892<br />

Hunt<strong>in</strong>g Act 2004<br />

Local Government Act 1972<br />

M<strong>in</strong>k (Keep<strong>in</strong>g) Regulations 1975<br />

M<strong>in</strong>k Keep<strong>in</strong>g (Prohibition)(<strong>England</strong>)<br />

Order 2004<br />

Musk Rats (Prohibition of Importation and<br />

Keep<strong>in</strong>g) Order 1933<br />

Natural Environment and Rural Communities<br />

Act 2006<br />

Night Poach<strong>in</strong>g Act 1828<br />

Night Poach<strong>in</strong>g Act 1844<br />

Non-<strong>in</strong>digenous Rabbits (Prohibition of<br />

Importation and Keep<strong>in</strong>g) Order 1954<br />

Pests Act 1954<br />

Poach<strong>in</strong>g Prevention Act 1862<br />

Poisons Act 1972<br />

Poisons Rules 1982<br />

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949<br />

Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act 1939<br />

Protection of Animals Act 1911<br />

Protection of Badgers Act 1992<br />

Rabbit Clearance Order No. 148<br />

Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other<br />

Mammals) Order 1974<br />

Small Ground Verm<strong>in</strong> Traps Order 1958<br />

Spr<strong>in</strong>g Traps Approval Order 1995<br />

Weeds Act 1959<br />

Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996<br />

<strong>Wildlife</strong> and Countryside Act 1981


Published by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.<br />

© Crown copyright 2010<br />

Pr<strong>in</strong>ted on recycled paper conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 80% post-consumer waste and<br />

20% totally chlor<strong>in</strong>e-free virg<strong>in</strong> pulp. Please recycle if possible.<br />

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs<br />

Nobel House, 17 Smith Square<br />

London SW1P 3JR<br />

Telephone: 020 7238 6000<br />

Website: www.defra.gov.uk<br />

PB13384 February 2010

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!