Natural England Review Finds Limited Ecological Impact From Coastal Wildfowling

A new evidence review commissioned by Natural England has added an important technical reference to the debate over recreational waterfowl hunting on England’s protected coasts.

The review examines the ecological impacts of wildfowling, the traditional hunting of ducks, geese and other waterbirds in coastal areas, and concludes, according to the European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE), that the activity makes a limited contribution to both disturbance and bird mortality.

Natural England, the public body that advises the UK Government on nature conservation in England, commissioned the review, identified as NEER160. It was co-funded by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC).

According to the official summary, the work reviews available evidence on two of the most sensitive issues in the management of protected coastal sites: direct mortality from hunting and disturbance caused by wildfowling activity among waterbirds.

A review built around three evidence blocks

Natural England says the report is structured in three main parts, in addition to an executive summary.

The first assesses the overall strength and relevance of the available evidence. The second reviews peer-reviewed scientific literature. The third brings together grey literature, unpublished sources and contextual data on wildfowling in the United Kingdom.

FACE has stressed that the review does not find strong evidence that wildfowling causes significant population-level consequences through disturbance.

The organisation also notes that, while gunshots may cause greater short-term disturbance than some other recreational activities, wildfowling occurs relatively infrequently compared with far more common uses of coastal sites, such as recreational walking.

Among the examples cited by FACE is Poole Harbour, where walking pressure was reported to account for most disturbance events recorded in certain studies.

FACE also refers to the Exe Estuary, where total recreational disturbance was interpreted as having a limited effect on the feeding and resting time of waterbirds.

Proportionate management and site-by-site assessment

For the hunting sector, the most significant message is not that wildfowling has no impact, but that the review points toward proportionate management based on local evidence.

The recommendation highlighted by FACE is that disturbance should be assessed on a site-by-site basis, using methods adapted to the species present, the intensity of human use and the specific conditions of each protected area.

According to FACE, the review also concludes that the contribution of coastal wildfowling to total mortality is limited, at less than 5%, and that significant effects on the ecological integrity of protected sites are unlikely.

That conclusion should be read against the full report before publication decisions are made, particularly because the issue is both scientifically sensitive and relevant to regulation.