Policy paper

Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) (includes Annex A and B)

Published 29 June 2021

This policy paper was withdrawn on 31 May 2022

This page has been withdrawn because it’s out of date. You can read the decision to issue the gamebird release general licence for 2022 to 2023.

Applies to England

Defra is the competent authority in issuing a new interim general licence for the release of gamebirds onto European Sites - Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – in England.

Defra recently consulted on a proposed interim licensing regime for the release of common pheasants and red-legged partridges within SACs and SPAs and within a 500m buffer zone around them in England and whether there were ways in which its effectiveness could be improved. Defra has now considered the responses and finalised the details of the proposed interim gamebird general licence (GGL) – see Annex A.

The interim GGL is a plan or project under regulation 63(3) of the Habitats Regulations 2017. Defra commissioned Natural England (NE) to prepare a shadow Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) of the initially proposed new licence to assist Defra, as the competent authority for this project, in accordance with the assessment provisions set out in the Habitats Regulations 2017. This has been augmented by additional advice that NE has provided as the details of the proposed licensing regime have been firmed up. Defra has considered all this advice when making its final assessment and decision.

This document is the note of that final assessment and decision in the undertaking of Defra duties as competent authority. It follows the structure of NE’s shadow HRA and responds to it, explaining how Defra has considered the evidence and arrived at its decisions. NE’s sHRA parts 1 and 2 are considered together in this document.

Defra’s HRA comprises of a set of documents:

• this decision document
• summary of final licence proposals (Annex A)
• NE advice following the key findings of the Rapid Evidence Assessment (Annex B)
• NE Shadow HRA:
  • part 1: SPAs and Ramsar sites with bird features in England (Annex C)
  • part 2: SACs and non-bird Ramsar sites in England (Annex D)
• subsequent NE advice, including:
  • detailed rationale for advice on the buffer zone conditions and the treatment of terrestrial SPAs and SACs below the mean high-water mark (estuarine sites) GGL proposals now apply to all SPAs and SACs and estuarine sites are not excluded (Annex E)
  • list of SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites provisionally assessed and screened out of further assessment by NE in the sHRA (Annex F)

Scope

The plan or project being covered under this HRA is the proposed interim gamebird general licence (GGL) itself. The HRA will focus on the impacts associated with the release of gamebirds (the activity that is being authorised by the GGL) and will not stray into wider impacts such as those relating to the shooting of birds post-release which are outside the scope of the licence.

Methodology and use of evidence

As part of the review into the impact of the release of gamebirds on SACs and SPAs Natural England and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation jointly commissioned an independent report - “Ecological Consequences of Gamebird Releasing and Management on Lowland Shoots in England”. The report took the form of a rapid evidence assessment and was published on August 20, 2020. The report summarises the impacts of gamebird release on habitats and species and identifies several key issues that influence the impacts (notably overall number of birds, the density at which they are released, and siting of their release pens). There do, however, remain several evidence gaps and different interested parties draw strongly diverging conclusions from the evidence that is available. Natural England’s advice to Defra following key findings of the Rapid Evidence Assessment is summarised in Annex B.

The evidence available for this HRA is considered in the context of this being an interim licensing regime that will exist until the SSSI consenting regime is sufficiently robust. That is, when it is able to provide adequate reassurance that the impact of releases on European Protected Sites or their surrounding areas to be able to confidently meet the Habitats Directive Article 6(2) requirement to ‘take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species’.

In parallel, Defra is working with Natural England to define and address those evidence gaps that will make a difference to the decisions they make in consenting activities and any wider management of a vulnerable area

Assessment: Part 1 (European sites notified for bird features: SPAs and Ramsar sites with bird features in England) and Part 2 (SACs and non-bird Ramsar sites in England)

Part A: Introduction and information about the plan or project and an initial assessment of credible risk to European Sites

A.2: Details of the plan or project

Location of the project: The GGL applies to all SPAs and SACs in England and a 500m buffer zone around them. The GGL does not apply to Ramsar sites though Ramsar sites are screened as part of this assessment.

NE undertook their assessment on the conditions of the GGL that were proposed at the time. The conditions for releasing under the GGL have since been updated and the finalised proposals are shown at Annex A of this assessment. Defra also proposes to require GGL users to provide information on the numbers (overall number) and densities (birds/ha) of the common pheasant and red-legged partridge releases and locations of release pens (grid reference) within SACs and SPAs and the 500m buffer zones, in addition to details of the SSSI consent under which the release activity is operating. A SSSI consent is an existing legal requirement where gamebird releasing occurs on a SSSI so the requirement to obtain consent does not form a specific condition of the GGL.

The GGL is interim in nature. The SI that adds pheasant and red-legged partridge to Schedule 9 is due to come into force on 31 May 2021 and expire after four years. In practice the licence will only be used between 1 June (the earliest that birds are released) and 1 February each year when the open season for game birds ends.

A.3: Initial assessment of risks to Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar sites with bird features

NE consider that entirely pelagic (marine) SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites, where the entire site is seaward of the mean low water mark, to be out of the geographical scope of the assessment and so have not been screened further. Defra agrees that the 15 marine / pelagic sites identified by NE at Annex F are not capable of being affected by the project in any way and are therefore eliminated from any further assessment in this HRA.

Defra confirms NE’s assessment ‘With reference to the information above and before undertaking a more detailed screening assessment, Natural England advises, on the basis of its professional judgment, that there is or may be a credible risk that the plan or project subject to an assessment might undermine the conservation objectives of a European Site. Further Habitats Regulations assessment is therefore necessary.’

Part C: Screening of the plan or project for appropriate assessment

C1. Is the plan or project directly connected with or necessary to the (conservation) management (of the European Site’s qualifying features)?

Defra agrees with NE’s assessment that the project is not wholly directly connected with or necessary to the management of European or Ramsar Site(s)’s qualifying features, and therefore further Habitats Regulations assessment is required.

C2. Is there a likelihood (or a risk) of significant adverse effects (‘LSE’)?

Defra agrees with the assessment and screening decisions made at C2 and C3 of the shadow HRA: ‘Natural England has concluded that as the project is likely to have significant effects (or may have significant effects) on some or all of the Qualifying Features of SPA, SAC or Ramsar Site(s), an appropriate assessment of the project is required’.

Assessment of Likely Significant Effect

Given the strategic nature of the HRA (England wide), the ‘stage 1’ assessment of likely significant effect has applied a relatively coarse filter. The HRA considers both the impact of the specific operations allowed under the GGL and the associated ancillary activity (e.g. offroad vehicle use to undertake operations permitted by a GL). Defra believes that the HRA should focus on those impacts directly related to the release of gamebirds as explored in the Rapid Evidence Assessment.

Defra notes that NE have included “shooting gamebirds” as a “human activity to manage gamebird release” as a risk pathway/activity combination that is Likely to have a Significant Effect (LSE) on the designated features of the protected sites. The GGL is concerned only with the release of gamebirds. Defra considers the shooting of gamebirds to be outside of the scope of the project and therefore also outside of the scope of this HRA.

Defra notes the list of 19 specific terrestrial SAC, SPA or Ramsar sites (Annex F) that NE has assessed can be wholly screened out from further assessment because they are only designated for features considered to be at no risk of a significant effect from the proposed GGL. These sites are not assessed further in this HRA.

Part D: Appropriate Assessment and Conclusions on Site Integrity

D2. General statement on the current status, influences, management and condition of the European Sites and those Qualifying features as potentially relevant to the plan or project.

Defra notes that NE “consider that gamebird releasing, in general, is currently having a limited effect on the designated sites network in England”. Defra also notes that NE highlight that an “EU funded Improvement Programme for England’s Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS5), which concluded in 2015, sought to assess the current and predicted pressures and threats on each European site” did not “identify the management of non-native gamebirds as a significant or widespread pressure or threat on England’s European protected sites as a whole.” and that “Pheasant rearing was identified as a risk or issue that is, or could potentially, threaten the condition of the site’s features at just 7 European Sites. This represents 2% of all terrestrial European Sites. At the time of writing, a further 2 additional European Sites are currently known to be experiencing adverse effects from activity associated with gamebird releasing.”

D3. Assessment of potential adverse effects, considering any incorporated and additional mitigation measures

Licensing arrangements for releases within European Protected Sites

Table D3b - NE outlines two options for mitigating the potential impacts of gamebird releasing within European protected sites:

• Option A: not permit any gamebird releases within European Sites under the GGL and
• Option B: permit releases under certain conditions, but to require individual licences on seven European Sites where NE consider that pheasant rearing could be a risk and on two European Sites which NE know are experiencing adverse effects from activity associated with gamebird releasing.

Since the sHRA was undertaken by NE, the GGL proposals on the requirement for individual licences have developed further. Rather than identifying specific sites that would require individual licences, the proposal is now to require an individual licence where the releasing activity is already subject to enforcement action by NE. This is so that site-specific individual licences can be targeted at releases where damage from the activity is known to have occurred. Any new instances of damage resulting in enforcement activity during the lifetime of the licence would also require an individual licence. Gamebird releasing on and around European Sites is not a new activity. The introduction of the proposed GGL will be regulating an existing activity rather than permitting a new activity to take place. Defra considers that the proposed GGL is appropriate for all releases except those where damage from the activity is known to have occurred.

Defra has adopted Option B in its proposals for releases within European Sites and has adopted all the recommended conditions (as revised).

The specification of who can use the licence is a general and universal provision of all general licences and not specific to the GGL. The shooting of gamebirds is considered by Defra to be outside the scope of this assessment so the recommended conditions pertaining to this activity have not been adopted by Defra in the GGL.

Licensing arrangements for releases within a 500m buffer zone around a European Protected Site

Defra notes NE’s range of recommended conditions for releases within the 500m buffer zone. The purpose of the buffer zone is to protect the European Site from damage by gamebird releases around the site boundary. Defra considers that the condition relating to the protection of ancient semi-natural woodland or another semi-natural habitat type within the buffer zone is not required for the protection of the European Site. These recommended conditions have therefore not been adopted in the proposed GGL conditions.

Defra has incorporated NE’s recommended buffer zone conditions - stipulating a maximum of 1000 pheasants / ha and 3 partridge / m2, including the specification that these densities must not be exceeded through trickle releases or replenishment / replacement over the entirety of one season cycle – into the GGL proposals.

Since the sHRA was undertaken by NE, Defra’s proposals on the GGL conditions for the buffer zone have developed further. NE’s recommended condition to reduce the density for pheasant releases in the buffer zone around European Sites that require individual licences from 1000 birds / ha to 700 birds / ha no longer relates to the current GGL proposals on individual licencing as there is no buffer zone around specific releases. This condition can therefore no longer be applied to the current GGL proposals.

NE identify two ways in which releases on the buffer zone could potentially impact the adjacent European Site:

Direct: Movement of birds from the buffer zone to the adjacent European Site: Defra agrees that it is beneficial to limit the likelihood of birds moving from the buffer zone onto the adjacent European Site in numbers that would result in the density of birds on the European Site exceeding those permitted by the GGL or by a SSSI consent. Existing evidence does not point to any particular approach for limiting this risk due to the highly site-specific factors that determine bird dispersal. Given the broad application of the GGL across all European Sites, which cover a wide variety of topography and habitats, Defra considers that an 6 outcome-focused condition is the most appropriate way to mitigate this risk. Defra has therefore included a condition in the GGL proposals that stipulates “Activity in the buffer zone, including the siting of pens and feeding of birds, must not encourage the released birds towards or over the boundary of the adjacent European Protected Site.” This is considered to be more appropriate for a general licence than stipulating a specific distance which might not be as effective in all situations. Defra proposes to include guidance for licence users on this condition to assist in their decision making.

Indirect: Potential for nutrient run-off from release activity into watercourses flowing onto adjacent sites designated for sensitive features: NE’s advice to Defra on the key findings of the Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) (Annex B) identified eutrophication in and around feeding stations and pens as a known negative effect of gamebird releasing. Defra notes that NE also concluded that available evidence indicates that releases at the densities proposed in the GGL have little or no discernible eutrophication or vegetation depletion effects beyond a relatively limited distance (up to 15m) from release pens and feeding stations. Based on the available evidence, Defra considers that a specific condition on nutrient run-off is not required. Instead a non-mandatory recommendation is proposed which is worded in line with NE’s recommendation in the updated advice in Annex E: “Any pens and feeding stations located within the buffer zone must be placed on level ground and should not be placed within 50 metres of a watercourse flowing towards a SAC or SPA designated for river, wetland or intertidal habitats.” This recommendation would sit alongside the mandatory conditions limiting the scale of releasing in the buffer zone.

D4. Assessment of potentially adverse effects considering the project ‘in combination’

with other proposed plans and projects

Defra considers that the in-combination assessment has been addressed adequately in the shadow HRA and that Defra’s proposed changes to the mitigating measures do not change the assessment and it is therefore adopted in this HRA.

D5. Conclusions on Site Integrity

Natural England’s advice is that their shadow assessment can ascertain that the project (the proposed GGL) will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of SAC, SPA and Ramsar site(s), either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, taking into account its limited duration and subject to the incorporation of the measures outlined in section D3 of their assessment as general restrictions and/or conditions to be attached to the project. Defra has incorporated the majority of measures recommended by NE in the proposals and is content that where Defra is proposing alternative measures (as described in D3 of this HRA) that a conclusion of no adverse effect on the integrity of SAC, SPA and Ramsar site(s), either alone or in combination with other plans and projects can still be made. Natural England have also advised that for releases where these conditions cannot be complied with, it has not been ascertained by this assessment that there will be no adverse effect. In these instances, individual licences from Natural England will need to be applied for to allow case-by-case technical assessment of each proposal. Defra concurs with this assessment.

Decision – Defra adopts NE’s shadow HRAs Parts 1 and 2 with modification relating to the density and management of releases in the buffer zone.

Annex A: Gamebird General Licence proposals on which Defra’s HRA is based.

Scope of the GGL

• the Gamebird General Licence will apply to releases on all European Sites (SAC and SPA) in England and on a 500m buffer zone around them

Application of the GGL

• any gamebird release activity subject to enforcement action by Natural England cannot operate under the Gamebird General Licence. Releases in such circumstances would require an application for an individual licence to be made to Natural England.
• anyone who is unable to comply with the conditions of the Gamebird General Licence is required to apply for an individual licence from Natural England.

Conditions for releases on a European Site

• common pheasants: no more than 700 birds per hectare of pen or the release density stipulated by a SSSI consent (whichever is the lower) within an SAC or SPA
• Red legged partridges: the density of red legged partridges released into a pen within an SAC or SPA must not exceed 3 birds per square metre of pen or the release density stipulated by a SSSI consent (whichever is the lower)
• seasonal limit: Single and trickle releases of the common pheasant must not exceed these limits during the entirety of one season cycle and gamebirds must not be released to replenish or replace any that have already been released and shot or otherwise killed in that season, except within the limits as stated

Conditions for releases within the 500m buffer zone of a European Site

• common pheasants: no more than 1000 birds per hectare of pen or the release density stipulated by a SSSI consent (whichever is the lower) within a SAC or SPA
• Red legged partridges: the density of red legged partridges released into a pen within a SAC or SPA must not exceed 3 birds per square metre of pen or the release density stipulated by a SSSI consent (whichever is the lower)
• seasonal limit: Single and trickle releases of the common pheasant must not exceed these limits during the entirety of one season cycle and gamebirds must not be released to replenish or replace any that have already been released and shot or otherwise killed in that season, except within the limits as stated
• activity in the buffer zone, including the siting of pens and feeding of birds, must not encourage the released birds towards or over the boundary of the adjacent European Site

Non-mandatory recommendations

• any pens and feeding stations located within the buffer zone must be placed on level ground and should not be placed within 50 metres of a watercourse flowing towards a SAC or SPA designated for river, wetland or intertidal habitats’

Annex B: Natural England advice to Defra following key findings of the Rapid

Evidence Assessment “Ecological Consequences of Gamebird Releasing and Management on Lowland Shoots in England”

i. The negative effects from gamebird pre-release and release that are supported by the strongest evidence relate to eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) of soil and the depletion of vegetation immediately within and around release pens and feeding stations. These effects are density dependent. The available evidence indicates that smaller releases (≤1000 birds/hectare) in line with existing ‘good practice guidelines’ (i.e. the ‘Guidelines for sustainable gamebird releasing published by Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust) have little or no discernible eutrophication or vegetation depletion effects beyond a relatively limited distance (up to 15m) from release pens and feeding stations.

ii. Negative effects tend to be localised and studies indicate minimal or no effects beyond 500m (on a precautionary basis) from the point of release. Most studies tend to be within 300m of the point of release or within pens thus there is no direct evidence of the effects at or beyond this distance. However, Natural England concluded that negative effects beyond 500m are likely to be minimal because studies also show that dispersal of birds tends to be less than 500m from the release sites and the negative effects in consideration are linked to the presence of birds.

iii. There is strong evidence of associated benefits for biodiversity from general woodland management associated with shooting but a limited evidence base on the positive effects of general habitat management associated with gamebird management which may benefit native biodiversity.