Building Trust Around Contentious Wildlife Policy: ‘Wild Take’ Licensing Review 

The Challenge 

Natural England was reviewing its licensing policy for the wild take of birds of prey for falconry and aviculture. 

The topic was highly sensitive, bringing together conservation organisations, animal welfare interests, falconers, breeders, statutory bodies and legal specialists. 

Stakeholders brought considerable expertise but strongly differing viewpoints. There was a risk that the policy review could reinforce existing divisions rather than enable constructive discussion. 

Natural England needed a process that would be seen as transparent, fair and credible by all involved. 

Our Approach 

Dialogue Matters proposed a Consensus Building approach rather than a conventional consultation process. 

We designed and facilitated: 

• Two structured online stakeholder workshops 

• Participation from conservation, welfare, falconry, aviculture, legal and statutory interests 

• Shared examination of evidence 

• Joint exploration of policy options 

• Independent facilitation and reporting 

Rather than asking participants to defend organisational positions, the process helped them explore underlying concerns and interests, examine evidence together and work constructively on the policy options.

The Outcome 

The dialogue created a more constructive environment for discussing a highly contentious issue. 

Participants developed greater understanding of one another’s perspectives, constraints and priorities. 

Areas of common ground emerged, alongside opportunities for future collaboration that may not otherwise have been identified. 

Impact 

The policy review was informed not only by evidence and technical analysis, but by a transparent and structured stakeholder dialogue. 

Natural England gained a fuller understanding of stakeholder concerns, knowledge and expertise, providing a stronger basis for policy development.   

By the end of the second workshop, participants reported higher levels of trust in the process and greater confidence that it would lead to evidence-based outcomes than they had at the start. 

The process demonstrated that even where agreement is difficult, well-designed dialogue can build understanding and help policymakers navigate complex and contentious decisions.

Why It Worked 

Environmental conflicts are rarely resolved through evidence alone. 

People also need opportunities to understand different perspectives, share knowledge and explore the implications of different policy options. 

By focusing on dialogue rather than debate, the process enabled different forms of expertise to be heard and helped participants move beyond defending positions towards exploring the issue together.