CSM EDITORIAL
In the complex world of UK farming, managing land, livestock, and crops is an already Herculean task. Yet, as if these responsibilities weren’t challenging enough, farmers now face an additional layer of bureaucracy with the latest updates to the licence to kill, take or disturb by Natural England. This licence, which permits the control of wild birds for essential purposes like preventing agricultural damage or ensuring public health and safety, is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain.
The recent changes require farmers, pest controllers and other land managers to navigate a convoluted process just to apply for a licence. Initially, they must submit a screening form, an A08—a preliminary step where they are required to provide detailed information about the species, the number of birds on site, and the specific location. This process demands considerable time and effort, diverting attention from their primary responsibilities. Worse, the delays are causing danger to the public – a pest controller operating in London was in touch telling the Squires about children getting attacked by carrion crows but that he was waiting to be able to legally destroy the birds causing the trouble. This has happened before, in Hull and elsewhere in London.
If, and only if, the screening form indicates that it is “possible” a licence could be granted, farmers are then invited to complete a more detailed application (A09). This two-step process adds layers of red tape, making it an uphill battle, especially for farmers who already juggle numerous challenges in their daily operations, many of whom still cannot get a decent internet connection.
The bureaucracy surrounding these licences seems profoundly disconnected from the practical realities faced by those working in agriculture or in other careers which require them.
Wild birds can cause significant damage to crops and pose risks to both livestock and human health. For instance, species like herring gulls and jackdaws can wreak havoc on farms, impacting productivity and leading to substantial financial losses. The stringent controls now in place seem to ignore these urgent concerns.
Moreover, the expectation that farmers must provide evidence of the problems caused by these birds before even starting the full application process is particularly unreasonable. Gathering such evidence often requires time and resources that many farmers simply do not have. This burden of proof appears to be an unnecessary obstacle, especially when the need for bird control is often glaringly obvious to those on the ground.
Natural England’s new requirements highlight a growing disconnect between policymakers and the agricultural community. They are already warning that ‘expected changes are to follow’ – hopefully they are listening to those caught up in the current chaos and those changes will be improvements.
Farmers need to manage their land effectively to ensure productivity and sustainability, but these updated licensing procedures seem to suggest that their practical needs are being sidelined by excessive bureaucratic demands.
While conservation and animal welfare are undoubtedly important, there must be a balanced approach that also considers the needs of those who produce our food. The current system places an unfair burden on farmers, making it harder for them to protect their livelihoods and the environment they work so hard to maintain.
Simplifying the application process and reducing unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles would not only help farmers but also ensure that wildlife management is handled in a way that benefits all stakeholders. In the end, the goal should be to create a fair and efficient system that supports the agricultural community, rather than complicating their efforts with unwarranted and impractical demands.
The current chaos is down to Natural England. This body could be well-run and beneficial to land managers and operators, as well as pest controllers. Too often it is not. Overregulate and they’ll just get ignored.