Rethinking Barn Owl Licensing: A Proportionate, Tiered Approach

Photo Credit: Connor Pimm Photography

Why England needs a two-tier barn owl licensing system to support good ecology, better development outcomes and resilient expertise.

Barn owls (Tyto alba) are one of the UK’s most iconic and well-loved bird species. They are also afforded strong legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), including Schedule 1 protections relating to disturbance during breeding. These protections are entirely appropriate given historic declines and the species’ sensitivity to disturbance at nest sites.

However, the way in which barn owl survey and disturbance licensing is currently structured in England risks becoming a bottleneck, not just for development projects, but for the long-term resilience of barn owl expertise within ecological consultancy.

At present, Natural England offers a single barn owl licence for survey and disturbance in relation to development work. To obtain this licence, applicants must demonstrate extensive experience seeing and handling barn owls at different life stages and disturbing birds at multiple nest sites. In practice, this sets a very high bar, one that is often disproportionate to the activities most ecological consultants are required to undertake.

This blog sets out the case for a two-tier barn owl licensing system, broadly aligned with the approach already taken for bats (for example, CL17 and CL18), and invites discussion and support from the wider ecological community.

The current challenge

For most ecological consultants, barn owl work is focused on:

• Assessing the suitability of buildings and structures for barn owl nesting or roosting
• Identifying evidence of presence (for example pellets, nesting material or feathers)
• Establishing whether breeding is likely or confirmed
• Advising on risk, avoidance and mitigation in relation to development proposals

Very few projects require the handling of barn owls, direct manipulation of nests, or close physical interaction with eggs or young. Yet the current licensing route effectively requires all applicants to demonstrate these higher-risk activities before they can legally undertake even relatively low-risk survey work.

This creates several problems:

1. A shrinking pipeline of licensed ecologists

Only a small number of courses are available, and barn owl monitoring coverage is uneven across counties. Opportunities are therefore restricted, which could lead to increases in unnecessary disturbance which in itself raises welfare issues. Opportunities are further constrained by factors beyond ecologists’ control, such as annual variation in breeding success; for example, 2025 was a poor breeding year across much of the UK. Despite this, ecologists’ professional progression depends on access to these opportunities.

As a result, many capable consultants, including those with strong ornithological skills, may never realistically be able to meet the current criteria.

2. Disproportionate barriers to low-risk work

Correctly identifying whether a building is suitable for barn owls, or whether breeding evidence is present, does not require the same level of competence or risk as close nest inspection or repeated nest monitoring. These initial assessments are typically limited to visual checks for suitability and field signs and do not involve handling birds or prolonged disturbance at the nest. Requiring the same level of experience and accreditation for these low-risk surveys as for higher-risk nest monitoring or conservation monitoring work is therefore not proportionate to the ecological risk involved.

Risk associated with presence or absence surveys can be further reduced through clear methodological and timing constraints. For example, access to structures confirmed as suitable for, or likely to support, breeding barn owls could be restricted during the most sensitive stages of the breeding season, when disturbance carries the greatest risk of nest abandonment. Outside of these periods, presence or absence surveys can be undertaken with minimal risk, without the need for the higher level of expertise required to safely disturb active nests.

3. Pressure on a small pool of specialists

A limited number of licensed individuals are repeatedly relied upon to cover large geographic areas, often at short notice. This can create delays for projects, increased costs for clients, and unnecessary pressure on both consultants and regulators.

Learning from bat licensing

Natural England already operates a tiered licensing model for bats, recognising that different activities carry different levels of risk.

In broad terms:

• Lower-level licences allow competent ecologists to undertake identification, assessment and low-risk survey activities
• Higher-level licences are required for handling, more invasive survey methods, and complex mitigation

This approach has helped to:

• Maintain high welfare standards
• Ensure proportionate regulation
• Support skills development across the profession

There is no obvious reason why barn owls should not benefit from a similar structure.

A proposed two-tier barn owl licensing model

Level 1 Barn Owl Licence: Survey and Assessment

A Level 1 licence would cover low-risk activities that are fundamental to good ecological practice and informed decision-making, including:

• Assessing the suitability of buildings and structures for barn owl nesting or roosting
• Identifying evidence of barn owl presence, including pellets, nesting material, discarded eggs, feathers and signs of breeding
• Determining likely breeding status
• Undertaking low-level disturbance through visual inspections
• Use of non-intrusive methods such as camera traps

This licence would not permit direct and prolonged interaction with nests, or handling of birds, eggs or young.

Competence requirements could reasonably focus on:

• Demonstrable ornithological knowledge
• Proven experience with barn owl ecology and field signs
• Understanding of legal protections and disturbance thresholds
• Evidence of mentored experience or structured training

Level 2 Barn Owl Licence: Handling and High-Risk Activities

A Level 2 licence would retain the current high standards for:

• Handling barn owls at different life stages
• Direct interaction with nests, eggs or young
• More invasive survey or mitigation activities

This level would be appropriate for specialist practitioners, researchers and those leading complex mitigation projects.

Benefits of a tiered approach

A two-tier system would:

• Improve proportionality between risk and regulation
• Increase the number of competent, legally licensed ecologists able to identify and protect barn owls
• Reduce delays and uncertainty in the planning system
• Support succession planning and skills development within the profession
• Maintain and potentially improve welfare outcomes for barn owls by ensuring the right people undertake the right tasks

Crucially, it would not weaken protection. Instead, it would better align licensing with real-world ecological practice.

What this means for developers and clients

While this discussion is primarily about ecology and regulation, there are clear and legitimate commercial benefits for clients operating within the planning system:

• Earlier certainty and risk reduction: A broader pool of appropriately licensed ecologists would allow potential barn owl constraints to be identified accurately at an earlier project stage, reducing the risk of late surprises.
• Proportionate survey effort: Low-risk assessment activities could be undertaken lawfully without escalating immediately to specialist intervention, helping ensure survey design is aligned with actual ecological risk.
• Fewer programme delays: Reduced reliance on a very small number of highly specialised licence holders would improve availability, particularly where works are seasonally constrained.
• More robust decision-making: Better access to competent, licensed assessment improves the quality of information provided to planners and regulators, supporting defensible outcomes for all parties.

Importantly, these benefits arise because ecological protection is applied more effectively and proportionately, not because standards are lowered.

A call for discussion

We believe this proposal represents a constructive, evidence-led way forward and aligns with Natural England’s wider move towards proportionate, risk-based regulation.

We are keen to hear from:

• Ecological consultants
• Licensed barn owl workers
• Ornithologists and researchers
• Professional bodies and regulators

If you support the idea of a tiered barn owl licensing system or have refinements to suggest please join the discussion on the British Ecologist Facebook page. By sharing professional experience and building consensus, we can help shape a licensing framework that works for barn owls, ecologists and development alike.