Tim Bonner: RSPB or gamebirds – which is the bigger risk?

Last week the Alliance and other interested organisations received an email from Defra relating to the overdue re-publication of general licences for the release of pheasants and partridges on and around Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protected Areas (SPA). The issue is the possibility that gamebirds are a vector in spreading avian influenza (AI) amongst wild bird populations. The evidence for this is at best thin, but organisations like the RSPB have been trying to weaponise AI in their campaigns against game shooting since it appeared as a major threat to wildlife.

The email stated that Ministers have not approved the general licence for releasing gamebirds in and around SPAs “as it is currently not possible to rule out the risk of HPAI (which remains very high) spreading to the internationally protected birds present”. Nobody can have an issue with actions that address the spread of AI, but the idea that it is possible to rule out any risk of spreading the disease is for the birds. 

This approach goes far beyond the ‘precautionary principle’ which has applied as far as SPAs are concerned, which suggested that if there was not evidence that serious damage might result from an activity that it should be prohibited. The new government approach suggests that it must be possible to “rule out” the possibility that an activity might possibly contribute to the spread of AI. That is a ludicrous standard which is almost impossible to meet and if it is to be applied to the release of gamebirds it must equally be applied to other activities carried out in SPAs. 

For instance, there are a large number of nature reserves in SPAs which encourage visitors to come from all over the country. There is an obvious benefit from engaging the population in conserving rare and threatened species, but there is also an obvious risk of spreading diseases like AI from inviting people into vulnerable habitats. If Ministers really want to “rule out” the possibility that any activity might spread AI then they will need to ban almost any activity in an SPA. This is clearly not feasible and the approach the government is currently taking is unsustainable. Restricting the release of gamebirds whilst completely ignoring the risks of numerous other activities carried out in SPAs is inconsistent and suggests a worrying prejudice against game shooting. 

Unless there is a consistent approach and nature reserves in SPAs run by organisations like the RSPB and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust are asked to meet the same standards as those who are involved in releasing pheasants and partridges there will be a justified concern that AI is simply being used as a vehicle to attack shooting. There are risks in every part of life and we support reasonable proposals to limit the impact of AI on wildlife and the countryside. This must, however, address all activities, not just those of which Ministers might disapprove.