In the previous blog I explained that DEFRA will put Pheasant and Red-legged Partridge on Schedule 9 of the WIldlife and Countryside Act – as non-native problem species.
However, they will do other things too. DEFRA intends to limit the operation of the Schedule 9 listing to areas that are important wildlife sites or within 500m of those sites by means of a general licence (see Witness Statement paras 28 and 29).
This, in principle but not in detail, is fair enough. The Wild Justice legal challenge was to protect sites of high nature conservation importance because 1) they are sites of high nature conservation importance (so their protection should make the most difference) and 2) they have higher legal protection which DEFRA was not taking enough into account.
The 500m buffer zone is contentious, and was not agreed by Wild Justice – we agreed that DEFRA had brought in some measures which might help and that they had agreed to ensure that the measures as a whole would protect nature conservation sites from damage.
DEFRA will have to consult on these measures and it is as sure as eggs is eggs that the shooting industry will seek to reduce or remove the 500m zone. Wild Justice believes that it should be at least 1km and we will argue that. You will be able to argue whatever you want, and we have already had promises from other conservation organisations to take a full part in this consultation.
So there will be a big argument about the size of the buffer zone. The thing is, that DEFRA is committed to take measures that protect high nature conservation sites so shouting that the 500m should be 0m will not hold any weight in DEFRA’s decision-making and if they err then Wild Justice will be ready to take further legal action.
Wild Justice does not believe that DEFRA regards us as their best mates – and that’s fine by us. There is evidence that DEFRA regards the shooting industry as their mates. But this, as explained in an earlier post, is not about persuading DEFRA to think differently, it’s about the necessity for them to be legal themselves and ensure that environmental legislation is implemented. So, mates or not, the shooting industry has no great sway here.
DEFRA may end up being between a rock and a soft place where Wild Justice is a rock, and the shouty, uninformed unscientific shooting industry will be a noisy soft place.
But we’ll see. We’ve made a lot of progress. Tomorrow i will concentrate on the science which shows that 500m is not a big enough buffer zone for DEFRA to be meeting its legal responsibilities under environmental legislation. But today, there’s more to say about what DEFRA must do.
[registration_form]
Mark, re
DEFRA will put Pheasant and Red-legged Partridge on Schedule 9 of the WIldlife and Countryside Act – as non-native problem species.
Is that agreed and written in any document owned by DEFRA or just your understanding?
John – they say that in their witness statement which forms part of the court order which ended the case. See here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-gamebird-releases-on-and-around-european-protected-sites
According to the GWCT website, not all releases of pheasant and rlp will require a licence, only releases on or within 500m of a n2k site. They also claim that the licence, where required, will be a general licence, so shoots will not have to apply for individual licences provided they can comply with the terms of the general licence. But S14 of wc&a requires licencing for the release of everything listed on sch9. So who’s right? Or are Defra not committed to listing pheasant & rpl?
Andrew – no this is one area where GWCT is right, and I see that I wasn’t crystal clear about it so I have added a link to this post so that you can go and read the relevant section. DEFRA has chosen to license releases through a general licence – it’s quite an imaginative and, if the details are correct, potentially workable solution. For most species on Schedule ( you’d need a specific licence to authorise r3elease of the species but in this case it is envisaged that there will be a general licence.
If there is going to be a general rule for distance from a Natura site then that rule has to be adequate for the most sensitive site or sites, or habitats or species because the precautionary principle applies here and as releasing these birds is deemed a project, the proposer had to demonstrate beyond reasonable scientific doubt that no harm will occur. A ‘blanket’ 500m seems at this stage like a wet finger in the wind and an ‘aye, that’ll be okay’ and I’m not clear that approach is good enough.
Bimbling – I’m with you!
I would note that there are SSSI Risk zone layers available on Magic.gov that organisations are meant to use to help assess if there is a potential impact on a SSSI, and NE will regularly push for screening on 1 or 2 km buffers from a site depending on the scale of the impact. Given in this case, it seems they know there is an impact but are uncertain of the scale, the 500 m does seem quite arbitrary.
Thinking further about this I’m unclear who the proposer is in this Project. It seems as if the taxpayer is picking up the tab for research work to enable an assessment, when the proposer should come to the Appropriate Authority with all that information.
And going back to the General Licence if within a certain distance of a sensitive site; it seems to me, at least with Natura sites that almost the reverse should apply: a General Licence is available if further than 5km and within 5km the proposer – perhaps some of those august ‘Interested Parties’ in the case – would need to research the impacts of their proposal in order to demonstrate beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there will be no likely significant effect.
Why should SAC and SPA sites be given this extra protection but not SSSI?
SSSI are not a lower class of wildlife site. Many are of exceptional wildlife interest, but their key features just didn’t fit into the EU criteria for SAC.
Stuart – you may make that point in the consultation that will follow. There is of course a large overlap but most SACs and SPAs are SSSIs, but nowhere near all SSSIs are SPAs/SACs. The answer is that the law protecting SACs and SPAs affords more protection than the laws protecting SSSIs and therefore a legal challenge was able to get this protection for them because of what the environmental legislation says.
Through all of this is the lack of clarity about how this will be enforced. NE has been hollowed out; hence the lack of scrutiny of the humaneness of licensed badger killing.
Compliance is key to this change being a success. The shooting ‘industry’ does not have a good record in this regard and independent inspection is essential. How will this be done when the responsible organisation is a shadow of its former self?
It’s quite simple. Levy a charge to cover the cost of enforcement and the additional staff required. I would prefer site specific licences and a simple charge per licence granted would allow for the cost to be collected. If, as appears likely, a general licence is the solution, levying, say, 0.5p per bird released would cover the cost.
Why should taxpayers bear this cost? I don’t expect taxpayers to subsidise the cost of my passport. Why should I subsidise shooting?