Licences to harm flying-foxes

The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment currently grants licences to commercial orchardists to shoot flying-foxes as a last resort and only where flying-foxes are impacting crop yield. These licences are a class of biodiversity conservation licence granted under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

An independent review was commissioned in 2008 to assess the validity of the NSW licensing policy for the legal harm (including killing) of flying-foxes. The key findings of the NSW Flying-fox Licensing Review Panel released in 2009 were that:

• the animal welfare issues arising from shooting flying-foxes are ethically and legally unacceptable
• shooting is ineffective at reducing crop damage when large numbers of flying-foxes visit orchards. Full exclusion netting provides the most effective protection against flying-fox damage
• the NSW fruit-growing industry could rely solely on exclusion netting as the means of flying-fox crop damage mitigation.

Since 1 July 2015, licences have only been granted under special circumstances, subject to strict limits.

The Department will maintain a register of all licences granted under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and will publish these on the Department website.

Special circumstance conditions

From 1 July 2020, the Department only grants licences to shoot flying-foxes where it considers that flying-fox damage to orchards is the result of the following special circumstances: 

• the orchard is established before 1 July 2011 (new orchardists should be aware of potential flying-fox impacts)
• flying-foxes are impacting on crop types never previously impacted in Australia
• there are topographical or physical constraints preventing the installation of exclusion netting
• there has been fewer than three licences granted for a particular orchard within the last ten years.

These special circumstance conditions will expire on 30 June 2021. From 1 July 2021, licences to commercial orchardists to shoot flying-foxes will no longer be issued. 

Definitions

Crop types never previously impacted in Australia exclude the crop types in Table 1, for which there are existing reports that flying-foxes may feed on them.

Table 1: Crops known to be impacted by flying-foxes

Crop type	Scientific name	Reference
Peach, apricot, plum, nectarine, cherry, hybrids	Prunus spp.	Eby 1995, NPWS 1999
Apple	Malus spp.	Eby 1995, NPWS 1999
Pear, Australian paradise pear, nashi	Pyrus spp.	NPWS 1999, Ullio 2002
Banana	Musa spp.	Eby 1995, NPWS 1999
Grape	Vitis spp.	Eby 1995, NPWS 1999
Citrus	Citrus spp.	Eby 1995, Ullio 2002
Mulberry	Morus spp.	Eby 1995, NPWS 1999
Guava	Psidium spp.	Eby 1995, NPWS 1999
Avocado	Persea americana	NPWS 2001
Fig	Ficus spp.	NPWS 2000
Persimmon	Diospyros spp.	Eby 1995, NPWS 2002
Mango	Mangifera spp.	Eby 1995, NPWS 1999
Papaya	Carica papyra	Eby 1995, NPWS 1999
Loquat	Eriobotrya japonica	NPWS 1999
Lychee	Litchi chinensis	Eby 1995, NPWS 1999
Longan	Dimocarpus longan	Ullio 2002
Rambutan	Nephelium lappaceum	Ullio 2002
Custard apple	Annona reticulata	Eby 1995, Ullio 2002
Coffee	Coffea spp.	NPWS 2001, Waples 2002
Passionfruit	Passiflora edulis	DECC 2008
Jackfruit	Artocarpus heterophyllus	Lim et al. 1993
Breadfruit	Artocarpus altilis	Lim et al. 1993
Starapple	Chrysopyhllum cainito	Lim et al. 1993
Hogs plum	Spondias mombin	Lim et al. 1993
Cashew	Anacardium occidentale	Lim et al. 1993
Sapodilla	Manilkara zapota	Lim et al. 1993
Peach palm	Bactris gasipaes	Lim et al. 1993
Waterapple	Syzygium samarangense	Lim et al. 1993

Topographical or physical constraints are situations where installing exclusion netting is not practical due to the following physical constraints. Applications claiming topographical constraints preventing exclusion netting are required to be supported by letters from two netting contractors and photographic evidence.

Table 2: Topographical or physical constraints and thresholds

Constraint	Threshold for consideration
Steep slope	20° or more, or professional opinion of netting contractors
Obstructions from powerlines	Unable to achieve minimum clearance of 3 m between netting and overhead powerlines, or professional opinion of netting contractors
Obstructions from pipes and other infrastructure	Professional opinion of netting contractors

Procedure

• Orchardists will notify their local National Parks and Wildlife Service Area Office that fruit trees (including fruit and/or branches and twigs) have been damaged by flying-foxes. Orchardists will need to provide evidence of this damage.
• The Department may issue a shooting licence if there are reasonable grounds that meet the special circumstances outlined in this document.
• Orchardists may consider modifying orchards to resolve topographical or physical constraints that prevent installing exclusion netting.
• If a licence application is received for a crop type that has not previously been affected by flying-foxes, the crop type and date of application will be added to the above table and published on the Department website. The Department may grant a shooting licence to the orchardist for that crop type, as well as other orchardists who planted this crop type before it was added to the table.
• If a local council declines a development application for installing full exclusion netting, a letter from council detailing the reasons must accompany the licence application.

Technique	Method	Success/comments
Netting – full exclusion netting	Netting held firmly in place by a rigid structure of poles and tensioned cables over the entire orchard.	Very high. Method is initially expensive to set up and may be damaged by cyclones, high wind and hail.
Netting – tunnel netting and throwover netting	Netting that is supported by light frames or draped directly over trees and vines. Nets are reusable and removed after harvest. See Wildlife Friendly Netting.	Less successful than full-canopy. Often suitable where full exclusion netting is not, due to ease of set up. Fruit touching the net can be damaged by flying-foxes on the outside of the net. Initial outlay may be less expensive than full-exclusion, however set-up time must be repeated each year.
Bags	Fruit protection bags placed over fruit.	Reasonably successful. Has been used on banana crops. Labour intensive and costly. Not feasible for most commercial farmers.
Sound	Replaying recorded sounds including loud sudden noises, natural predator calls or sonic sounds.	Reports of medium success in the short-term. However flying-foxes may become accustomed to the sound if no danger presents. May be more successful if combined with other methods such as light and radar detection systems (e.g. Phoenix Wailer). Also more successful if sound, light and scaring options localities are rotated around the property (avoiding deterrent desensitisation).
Lights	Flashing strobe lights and bright light grids over orchards; long wavelength lasers.	Medium success in the short-term. However flying-foxes can become accustomed to the sound if no danger presents. May be more successful if combined with other methods. Also more successful if sound, light and scaring options localities are rotated around the property (avoiding deterrent desensitisation).

The NSW Government commissioned an independent review panel to determine whether the current Department licensing policy for the legal harm (including killing) of flying-foxes in NSW remains valid (environmentally, economically and socially), particularly for the threatened grey-headed flying-fox. The review panel considered whether:

• the animal welfare issues that result from shooting are acceptable legally and ethically
• shooting of the threatened grey-headed flying-fox is impacting on the viability of the species
• shooting is effective in reducing levels of crop damage, compared with other available, nonlethal techniques (including full exclusion netting)
• industry has the capacity to solely rely on netting

The panel concluded that:

• the animal welfare issues that result from shooting as a method of mitigating crop damage caused by flying-foxes are unacceptable ethically and legally
• it is highly probable that the Grey-headed Flying-fox population is in decline and that any additional mortality can only increase the rate of decline. No matter what the causes, all death, mortalities are additive. Therefore any orchard shooting will hasten decline of the flying fox population, albeit by only a relatively small amount
• shooting is ineffective when larger numbers of flying fox visit orchards. Full exclusion netting provides the most effective protection against damage from flying fox
• the industry could rely solely on exclusion netting, as the means of Grey-headed Flying-fox crop damage mitigation. It is considered unlikely that netting would be erected to any large extent, in the Sydney area, without adequate government grants

Download

• NSW Flying-fox Licensing Review Panel report

• 2016-17 and 2017-18
• 2014-2016
• Annual Report 2013-2014 (including data since 2011)
• 2010-2011
• 2009-2010
• 2008-2009
• 2007-2008
• 2006-2007
• 2005-2006
• 2004-2005
• 2003-2004
• 2002-2003
• 2001-2002
• 2000-2001
• 1999-2000
• 1998-1999