March, 2015

Our work

Our work
You might be surprised to read that our work is far broader than nature reserves and Big Garden Birdwatch. Read more about what else we do.

Martin Harper's blog

I’ve been the RSPB’s Conservation Director since May 2011. As I settle into the job, I’ll be blogging on all the big conservation topics and providing an inside view of our conservation projects. I hope you enjoy reading it and feel inspired to join in t
  • Vote for Bob and ask the nature question

    A few days ago, I had a conversation on my doorstep with a prospective parliamentary candidate.  They asked me which issues interested me.  I said that I wanted to know what they were going to do to help wildlife.  Their response was impressive, showing good knowledge of both national and international issues.  We chatted about a few other issues, I was given a leaflet and then they were on their way to knock on my neighbour's door.

    There will be tens of thousands of conversations like these taking place across the UK over the next 36 days during the election campaign.

    So my challenge to you, your family and your friends is this.  When a prospective parliamentary candidate comes calling, ask them the nature question, 'what are you going to do help nature?'

    And, if you don't get the knock on the door, why not go along to the many hustings events that will taking place in most constituencies and then you can put your question to all the candidates.

    And finally, if neither of these appeal, why not Vote for Bob and get in touch with each of the candidates in your constituency via email. Nearly 600 prospective parliamentary candidates are supporting Bob - will yours?

    We need politicians to care about wildlife, be informed and be accountable for their actions to their constituents. This is your opportunity to put them on the spot.

    Go on, Vote for Bob and ask the nature question.

  • The RSPB and shooting: separating fact from fiction (2) - 29/03/2015

    There has been a bit of a hullabaloo over the blog that I wrote ten days ago and subsequent interview I gave to the Observer.  For much of the past year I have been castigated for being anti shooting and the ultimate insult for some was me being seen alongside the Chief Executive of the League Against Cruel Sports at the December Rally for Nature.  So, it was rather bemusing to see another headline writer misunderstand our position and the inevitable uproar on social media.

    I think I shall continue to disappoint everyone and say that we are neither anti nor pro shooting. We are neutral on the ethics of shooting.  And, guess what, we have been for over a hundred years. 

    As I wrote in the original blog and on many previous occasions, we will continue to condemn bad practice associated with shooting such as burning on peatland to increase the shootable surplus of red grouse.  Moreover, when this is illegal (such as the killing of birds of prey) we will work with the police to catch the criminals.  I am proud of the track record of our investigations team - no other organisation has done more than the RSPB to try to stamp out illegal killing and this effort continues.

    But, there are people who are doing some good things and what I was trying to do was give praise where it is due.  60% of UK species for which we have data is in decline.  Nature needs all the friends it can get especially those who invest in managing their land in a sensitive and thoughtful way.  And we will continue to work with those that try to do good.

    We have a rich and diverse charity sector which includes those that champion animal welfare causes and those like the RSPB whose charitable objectives focus on conservation. 

    Both causes take action for public good and the distinct approaches should be respected.

    And, one final thought.  Today's little storm has, if anything, reinforced the point I was trying to make - a simplistic interpretation of our position is not only wrong but unhelpfully divisive.

  • Defra Dealing Part 2: the bad and the ugly

    I’ve blogged several times about the so-called “brood management” of hen harriers, including setting out two big unanswered questions and 25 more specific ones raised by the idea of brood management.

    To be honest, I’d rather hoped not to have to write another blog on brood management this soon. I’d much rather be talking about the positive work RSPB and our partners are doing for hen harriers, for example through our Life project on the species.

    But the Hawk and Owl Trust have now elaborated on their apparent plans for a Brood Management Scheme, with two pieces on their website covering the “conservation” and “science” around the idea, so it feels necessary to comment.

    It’s worth saying I have a huge amount of respect for the Hawk and Owl Trust and a lot of the work they’ve done over the years. While we all make bad judgements from time to time, in this case the consequences could be extremely serious.

    I also think it is unedifying that Defra have left it to another conservation organisation to try to justify a brood management scheme.

    This is not the way to instill confidence from those sceptical that the brood management scheme is anything other than a sop to those running the most intensive driven grouse moors.

    There is one section on the Hawk and Owl Trust website that exemplifies all that is wrong with this scheme.

    “The six point plan has been agreed in principle by all parties but has yet to be ratified as one member believes that the brood management trial should be delayed until Hen Harrier numbers have recovered to a pre-determined number.

    This is a worthy but sadly unrealistic objective, as it is not always understood or appreciated that Hen Harriers, as colonial or semi-colonial nesters, will become concentrated on a small number of individual moors. The fact of this concentration places these birds at huge risk of further persecution.”

    I object to the implication that a brood management scheme is essential to prevent further illegal killing of birds of prey.

    Let’s call it what it is. The brood management scheme is a persecution avoidance scheme. And its supporters primarily come from the shooting community including the Moorland Association, the Countryside Alliance and the National Gamekeepers’ Association. Its only support from the conservation sector has been the Game and Wildlife and Conservation Trust and now the Hawk and Owl Trust – an organisation that was not part of the talks which have taken place over the past two years.

    These proponents and especially Defra will have to do more to explain how it be justified legally.

    The brood management scheme is a project involving a European protected species. As such it would be subject to a series of tests under European law. These aren’t arbitrary bureaucratic tests – they are the embodiment of smart nature conservation decision-making.

    The first test is to demonstrate that there are no alternative ways of meeting the objectives of the project.

    There are clearly alternative ways of stopping illegal killing either through better enforcement or through the proven technique of diversionary feeding.

    There are no imperative reasons of overriding public interest for intervening in this way. What is so peculiar is that Defra itself recognises that the alternative measures are necessary and appropriate components of the draft Hen Harrier action plan. By including these measures, it has essentially shot its own fox – or should I say, grouse.

    Even if the alternatives test was somehow past, I struggle to see how it could be justified to issue the necessary licence under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

    I could offer a point by point rebuttal (I really could - I have a piece of paper sitting on my desk that does exactly that) but I cannot see how that helps anyone.

    I don’t want the Hawk and Owl Trust to be set up as the fall guy by being Defra’s champion of an ill-conceived and potentially unlawful scheme.

    For now, I simply want to reiterate publicly what I have said privately on many occasions. Let’s get on with the non-contentious parts of the Hen Harrier Action Plan and consult more widely on the concept of the brood management scheme.