Wildlife Management in England - ARCHIVE: Defra
Wildlife Management in England - ARCHIVE: Defra
Wildlife Management in England - ARCHIVE: Defra
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