What puzzled me was that I hadn’t seen anything like this at airports in other countries.. There were questions in my head. First, what was the risk of bird-strikes in Beijing? As I could see, there were very few gulls, geese or other large birds close to the airport.. Second, even if the risk was high, was it really necessary to use mist-nets – an indiscriminate killer of mostly small birds – to mitigate that risk? And finally, how did other countries tackle the risk of bird strikes?
After living in China for 5 years, I now realise that it is not only in Beijing where these nets are deployed but at almost every airport I have visited in mainland China (there are now more than 300 of them!). A rough calculation of just how damaging these nets are to wild birds provides some alarming results. Nets are typically 20m long and set about 5m apart. If we consider 300+ airports with an average 3km of runway each, protected by strings of nets down one or both sides, we can estimate there are at least 900 x 40 = 36,000 mist nets operating 365 days a year. This computes to more than 13 million net days. If each net catches only one bird per day (a rather conservative estimate – some will catch many more, especially during the spring and autumn migration seasons) this would mean a minimum of 13 million birds killed each year!
It’s an issue I have been meaning to look into for some time and, prompted by the discussion in a recent Sinica podcast and conversations with John Mackinnon and Patrick Haverman at UNDP in the last few weeks, I have taken some time to research the issue.
The Risks
It is clear that bird-strikes are a serious risk to aircraft and passenger safety. According to the Airports Council International, in the USA alone, there have been 119,917 strikes involving wildlife reported between 1990 and 2011, with damage costing approximately USD 480 million (Federal Aviation Administration 2012). And since 1988, 231 people have been killed as a result of bird strikes and over 220 aircraft have been destroyed. It is no surprise, therefore, that airport authorities take very seriously the risk to aircraft from bird-strikes.
The danger of small birds causing serious damage to aircraft is very low. Single small birds weighing less than 50 g (e.g. a skylark or pipit) – species most likely to be caught in mist nets – pass right through jet turbines with usually no damage to the aircraft or passengers. The risk is with heavier birds. As a guide, birds that tend to flock and weigh more than 1.8 kg can cause the most severe damage to aircraft. Hitting unusually large flocks of migrating birds, especially large geese, swans, ducks, gulls, eagles and vultures can cause serious damage. Lines of mist nets at ground level will be ineffective at mitigating this risk.
The precise nature of the risk will be different for each individual airport according to the species recorded in and around the airport. This, in turn, will depend on the location of the airfield, the proximity of habitat attracting large birds and how the habitat within the airport perimeter is managed.
Assessing the risk
Fortunately, after some basic research, I found out that there is help out there for airport authorities. The Airports Council International has published a Wildlife Hazard Management Handbook that outlines the recommended approach to assessing and managing the risk of wildlife strikes at airports. Interestingly, the handbook DOES NOT mention mist nets as a recommended form of bird control.
The Handbook recommends that every airport produces a risk assessment. This involves identifying the species present and their potential damage should they be struck by an aeroplane. Once this list is compiled, there should be a review of past wildlife strikes to assess the likelihood of each species being involved in a collision. The product of these two steps gives the risk for each species. The Risk Assessment ranks the risk of each species and highlights those that should be prioritized for risk mitigation.
Next comes a habitat management plan to reduce the attractiveness of the airport and the surrounding area to the species identified as the greatest risk.
Finally, the airport authorities should develop a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP). The WHMP sets out the actions required to reduce wildlife hazards in and around critical aircraft operating areas, and therefore decrease the risk of a strike, based on the risk assessment.
The Wildlife Hazard Management Handbook recommends the following (in priority order):
Location: Position airports and align runways away from known bird concentrations, nature reserves and known migration pathways
On-site habitat management: For example, keep grass short so as to provide little cover or food for birds and cover any water collection/run-off to avoid attracting large water birds.
Off-site habitat: As far as possible, ensure land-uses around airports are not major attractions for birds such as attractive wetlands, fruit orchards, bird attractive agricultural crops or bird roosts, rubbish tips and nesting trees or beaches.
Patrols: Regular surveillance of the airfield is necessary to spot hazardous wildlife. The use of binoculars, spotting scopes and possibly night vision equipment by trained staff allows for optimum observation.
Intervention techniques: Most intervention techniques rely on scaring wildlife with an audible or visual threat. According to the Handbook, these can include the following:
- Movement of the patrol vehicle to the vicinity of the target species
- Noise to scare wildlife such as sound generators, pistol or gun shots, and pyrotechnics or firecrackers.
- Noise to deter wildlife such as recorded distress or alarm calls.
- Visual repellents including lasers, kites, balloons, scarecrows and small models.
- Trained predators such as falcons and dogs used to chase wildlife.
- Trapping, tagging and relocation, especially for larger animals and protected species.
- Culling or killing (this is a last resort, as a dead animal is not a trained animal.)
- In some situations chemical repellents and pesticides might have a role to play, although the use of poisons and environmental pollutants should be discouraged.
The Wildlife Hazard Managament Handbook clearly states that “It is the responsibility of the aerodrome operator to deliver solutions that maintain aviation safety whilst conserving the species in question”
The Situation In Beijing
Unfortunately, at present, the Chinese authorities use a rather blunt (and likely ineffective) technique to reduce the risk of bird-strikes – lines and lines of mist nets. These nets may reduce numbers of certain smaller species such as pipits, larks and wagtails – all representing a very low risk to aircraft safety – but they do very little to impact the species that provide the highest risk, for example swans, geese, gulls etc. In fact, in the case of Beijing, large birds are very scarce near to the airport.. there are no flocks of feral geese, large gulls, ducks or any other large bird in the vicinity. It seems so unnecessary to erect kilometres of mist nets.
Perhaps appearances can be deceptive and a robust risk assessment has been made and the nets are a product of the specific risks that Beijing, and other Chinese airports, face. If so, the airport authorities should publish that information and explain why this cruel practice is necessary. It is, perhaps, significant that the airport in Hong Kong, a part of China that enjoys greater transparency, does not employ mist nets but instead uses non-lethal intervention measures such as flares and sound-based techniques.
I’ll be discussing this issue with the China Birdwatching Society to explore whether they would be willing to approach the airport authorities. As well as setting a terrible example which surely makes it more difficult to tackle illegal poaching, the practice of using mist nets at airports appears inconsistent with President Xi Jinping’s more environmentally-friendly rhetoric and a stronger focus on environmental issues expected in the next Five Year Plan. Using mist nets seems to be a risk mitigation method that is unnecessary, out of touch and inconsistent with the new, modern China.
Update March 2019: See this post for a welcome step forward.
Reblogged this on enemymindcontrol.
Another superb blog Terry. The massive overkill of these miles & miles of mist nets is so staggering as to be beyond belief…
Thanks Paul.. I agree. Hopefully the Hong Kong precedent will lead the way to a more enlightened policy.
Hi Terry
Good article.
HKIA indeed has never used nets, but focuses on the methods set out in your summary above. We have a very low bird strike rate and ahve never had a serious incident associated with a strike since airport opened in 1998.
Please let me know if you want more info about the approach at HKIA. I have materials that have already been publicly shared which may prove useful should opportunities for engagement emerge.
Hi Mike. Thanks for this.. We are beginning a conversation here in Beijing with officials which, we hope, will materialise into something positive. Would love to see anything you have that supports the case for removing the mist nets… The Hong Kong example must have some influence here.. Thanks again, Terry
Hi Terry,
The old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong had a problem with Black Kites and Black-headed Gulls – both attracted by a sewer outfall at the end of the runway promontory that discharged a lot of slaughter house offal as well as sewage – the problem was largely solved by extending the outfall c1 km away from the flight path into deeper water (it was not possible to ‘treat’ the sewage due to salt water being used for flushing). Prior to that shooting had been used, but was of limited value as birds continued to be attracted to the airfield as there was still a food source – something that will be the case at Chinese airports using mistnets if there is no habitat management.
When it came to designing the new Chek Lap Kok airport we were able to be involved at the initial design stage which was very good – this ensured that we did not have a repeat of sewers under the flight path!
I had experimented with growing ‘long’ (c20 cm) grass at Kai Tak with limited success and the fill material used at Chek Lap Kok proved a challenging environment for any grass! (tho when I passed through there recently things seemed to have improved).
‘Long’ grass has proved very effective on many British airports, but it does depend on your hazard species – also it can be a bit difficult to maintain (most airport managers prefer short grass as its easy to maintain). In some areas of China rodent populations would need to be considered when assessing options for ground cover species and management
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICASO) sets out standards for airports and has ICAO Doc 9137. Airport Services Manual Part 3 – Wildlife Control and Reduction. 4th ed. 2012 which can be downloaded at:
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3185.pdf
This sets international standards and guidance.
David Melville
Thank you, David. I appreciate your comment and the link. I am involved with a project to develop a position paper on mist nets at Chinese airports that will be fed into the Chinese government. We are hopeful that we can at least begin formal discussions about alternatives to mist-netting. With more than 300 airports on the Chinese mainland, everyone one of which uses mist-nets, the death toll for birds must be horrendous. I will, of course, report any progress on this website. Thanks again and best wishes, Terry
I have just returned from my second trip to China – first time with a window seat. I was shocked to see the extensive use of mist nets at both airports I visited (Beijing and Harbin). I found the above article when I returned, but surprised there was not protest on-line.
I am a bird ringer in the UK and so am familar with the use of these nets for the safe trapping of birds. As the excellent article above states these nets can only capture small birds which have no impact on aircraft safety. The current practice is indisriminate and grotesque and ultimately pointless.
It seems ironic that within the terminal the airport plays a video describing the history of the airport and extolling its virtues – one of which is its environmental credentials, this seems laughable given the cruel massacre happening on its grounds.
I would be keen to know if there has been any progress on this issue since the article was posted.
Thank you Paul. We’ve just completed a comprehensive report into the practice of using mistnets at Chinese airports and international best practice to manage the risk of bird strikes. The report includes recommendations to the Chinese airports authority on how to manage the risk of bird strikes without resorting to the barbaric practice of blanket mistnetting and we are beginning to engage with the government about these recommendations. I very much hope to be able to report some progress soon. Thanks again for your interest in the issue and your comment on this post. Terry