May, 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
  • Bad news from Bowland

    I’m afraid to be the bearer of extremely bad news regarding one of our rarest birds of prey.  I’ve just received confirmation that three male hen harriers have disappeared from active nests in the Forest of Bowland.

    The disappearances have happened over the last three weeks. At one nest the male disappeared three weeks ago, with males at two other active nests not being seen since last Thursday.  Fortunately, a juvenile male appeared at the first nest almost immediately and was accepted by the female, so thankfully her eggs have been saved.  However, the other two nests have not been so lucky.  In the absence of males to provide them with food, the hungry females were forced to abandon their eggs or face starvation, resulting in the failure of both nests.

    Andy Hay's image of a male hen harrier

    All three of the nests affected are on the United Utilities Bowland Estate.  We have a fantastic relationship with the water company, United Utilities and their shooting and farming tenants, built up over decades of partnership working. The United Utilities estate has for many years been the hen harriers last stronghold in England.  I’m sure all of their staff and tenants will be as saddened as RSPB’s staff on the ground and I am disheartened by this news.

    Male hen harriers disappearing while part of an active nesting attempt is exceptionally unusual in most habitats.  A 2008 Natural England report “A Future for the Hen Harrier in England?”, found that it was almost never recorded in most habitats, while nearly 70% of nesting attempts which failed on grouse moors, did so because an adult disappeared (see figure 4 on page 14).  

    Obviously it’s very early days and there will certainly be more to come on this case.  In the meantime, anyone who thinks they may have any information relevant to the disappearance of these three harriers should contact the local police.

    What’s been happening to our hen harriers?

    We mean to find out.

  • Beyond A Joke

    The news of three hen harriers vanishing in as many weeks has rightly received a lot of media interest and concern (for example see here and here). History* tells us that the most likely reason is illegal persecution but, unfortunately, not everyone seems as intent on helping us and the police find out what happened.

    Hay fever, summer colds, England’s search for an opening batsman to partner Alastair Cook. Some things just will not go away. It appears we can add the steady stream of Ian Botham fronted “You Forgot the Birds” press releases to that list.

    When a press release (now covered in the Daily Telegraph, see here) landed on my desk yesterday announcing that England's second-highest Test wicket-taker had decided to wade into hen harrier conservation, I honestly thought it was a joke. My suspicions were raised still further when I read the release and discovered Mr Botham was offering £10,000 to anyone who could take the eggs from one of the failed Bowland hen harrier nests into an aviary, raise the chicks and release them back into the wild. These would be the eggs which had been abandoned and were no longer viable. The RSPB is committed to bringing the hen harrier back from the brink of extinction, but we’ve not yet worked out how to bring them back to life. I can only assume Mr Botham is getting a little too excited about the new Jurassic Park film and is confusing fact and fiction again.

    I could go on, poking fun at some of the surreal suggestions set out (I really could, I’ve had references to Monty Python from colleagues), but I’m not going to. It would be wrong to make light of what is in reality a very serious issue – hen harriers remain on the brink of extinction as a breeding species in England and three birds have disappeared from their last stronghold in a matter of weeks.

    Nor am I going to go through and offer yet another point by point rebuttal of why brood management scheme isn’t justified on legal, moral or conservation grounds. I’ve done that plenty of times before (see here, here and here).

    Instead I’m going to respond to one of Mr Botham’s points and one point only. I try to respond rationally to almost every situation and, away from sport, I’m not given to spasms of emotion. But the statement from Mr Botham that the RSPB are “rubbish at conservation” is just egregiously wrong.

    At the end of last year, I was delighted to report on a huge range of RSPB achievements on and off our nature reserves (see here). These are not the achievements of a "rubbish" organisation. To come out with such offensive, ill-informed comments as that, I can only assume Mr Botham has never met any of the staff and volunteers I am honoured to work with.  Indeed, my offer to show Ian Botham the work we do on and off our reserves has yet to be accepted.

    One final thought. Buried at the bottom of the list of editor’s notes in the press release is this gem – “The You Forgot The Birds Campaign is funded by the British grouse industry”. Now many of us may have suspected this, but I don’t think they’ve claimed this in public before and who knows if they really do represent the whole industry.

    It’s also interesting to note grouse shooting being referred to as an ‘industry. In many ways this seems right – after all, on some intensive grouse moors of northern England and southern and eastern Scotland, red grouse are produced on an industrial scale for shooting. Yet, any industry's licence to operate is in part dependent on social and environmental impact. This is why I have repeatedly said that the industry representatives should have a zero tolerance of illegal killing of birds of prey and do more to restore our uplands. Standards of social responsibility and delivering for the public good are concepts which seem notably absent from the You Forgot the Birds rhetoric.

    The cause of hen harrier’s continued rarity and the solution to tackle this is clear. The RSPB will continue to focus on ending illegal persecution, rather than Ian Botham's dubiously legal nest-interference scheme based on half-truths and prejudices.

    *Male hen harriers disappearing while part of an active nesting attempt is exceptionally unusual in most habitats.  A 2008 Natural England report “A Future for the Hen Harrier in England?”, found that it was almost never recorded in most habitats, while nearly 70% of nesting attempts which failed on grouse moors, did so because an adult disappeared (see figure 4 on page 14).  Government-commissioned research (here) has shown that the English uplands could support more than 300 pairs of hen harriers. The authors conclude that persecution, associated with the practice of managing moors for driven grouse shooting, is to blame for the harrier’s plight.  What's more, Natural England has previously stated that there is compelling evidence that persecution, both during and following the breeding season, continues to limit hen harrier recovery in England.  

  • Economics and joy

    Happy International Biodiversity Day!

    Last night, I spoke at the launch of Professor Dieter Helm’s new book, Natural Capital: Valuing the Planet.  It came a day after the launch (which I sadly missed) of another excellent book by Michael McCarthy, The Moth Snowstorm.  One is about the economics of nature the other about the joy of nature.  It seems entirely apt that these two contrasting books were launched in the same week.  Nature conservation is part joy part economic necessity.  What binds them is an imperative for urgent action.

    I was asked to offer a challenge back to Dieter.  To be honest, knowing Dieter, being a supporter of the work he has been doing with the Natural Captial Committee and having read the book, I think my challenge broadened away from Dieter and became more of a critique of the societal and political response to the parlous state of nature.  And in that, I was partly inspired by Mike’s new book.

    This is an expanded version what I said...

    At about half-past four this morning, I had the pleasure of watching black grouse lekking at the RSPB Geltsdale reserve in the northern Pennines.  Watching these birds dance for their mate is a special experience.  It might not be for everyone but it is a reminder of the wonder of nature.

    Memory of Thursday morning thanks to a smart phone and a scope

    Black grouse conservation can feel a million miles away from economic concepts such as valuing natural capital.  Watching nature to me is about joy and that joy comes from my love of wildlife.  It is what informs my values and my belief that conservation is a moral imperative – for humans to act as stewards of the natural world. 

    So, can economics help me and others have more joy?

    Dieter’s book outlines a blueprint for how it can.  Its approach is not without challenges – which I shall highlight - but I also want to explain why Dieter’s analysis is so important and is worth taking seriously.

    I am not an economist, so my comments should be seen through the lens of someone with 20 years of experience in and a passion of nature conservation.

    So what does nature need? 

    We want to keep common species common and prevent threatened species from becoming extinct.  To do that we need bigger, better and more connected protected areas, targeted action to recover threatened species and action to address the four horsemen of the ecological apocalypse – habitat destruction, invasive non-native species, pollution (especially that which results in climate change) and over-exploitation. 

    In short, we (and I mean all of us as consumers, business leaders and decision-makers) need to learn to live in harmony with nature. 

    This ambition is at the heart of the CBD global plan for nature expressed through the 2020 Aichi targets.

    Yet, the state of nature statistics are so dire that some are beginning to argue that we have just one generation left to prevent half of the world’s species from being committed to extinction.  Given the relationship between biodiversity and the free but critical services that nature gives us that, of course, would spell disaster for humans.

    So should we follow Dieter’s lead and embrace natural capital?  Does the natural capital approach, offer a practical means of mainstreaming and enhancing biodiversity considerations into public policy? 

    Dieter, in his new book, addresses most of the key issues that need attention – ambition, the policy and regulatory framework, financial and institutional arrangements.

    There is much to applaud within this package.  He deserves credit for proposing a 25 year plan to restore our nature which the current government embraced through its manifesto.  He rightly argues that the current millions (estimated as c£100b over next 6 years) spent on land and water management could work harder to enhance natural capital – a public good  He then goes further in offering some innovative financing options which together could create an aggregate natural capital fund.  He calls this ‘the prize’.

    He is bullish about the need to embrace a regulated system for compensating loss of natural capital and makes a strong case for statutory underpinning of the Natural Capital Committee to complement the work of existing environmental agencies.

    If government was to accept the entirety of this package, we should be delighted.  You could imagine a scenario at Geltsdale for example, where natural capital payments look after the carbon locked in the blanket bog and guarantee the water quality while agri-environment payments help provide the management for fussy bits of wildlife like black grouse.

    But the hard-nosed economics needs something else to make it fly.

    Because some societal considerations are beyond the bounds of economic calculus – we cannot reduce the importance of wildlife to a single monetised figure.  Now, I don’t think Dieter is saying this.  But some might.  Many believe there is an ethical imperative to care about the fate of the millions of other species with which we share this planet.  That ethical consideration is beyond any economic rationale.

    So, for me and I think many involved in nature conservation, we see the natural capital agenda outlined by Dieter as essential to reframing the fundamental importance of the natural world to our wellbeing – it gives us legitimacy to engage in the big economic conversations about growth and prosperity. 

    But we need more.  We need to understand what motivates people to act and inspire more to do so.  I see the Wildlife Trusts do this through their “My Wild Life” campaign, National Trust through their “50 things to do before you are 11 ¾” campaign and also through RSPB’s “Giving Nature a Home” and “Vote for Bob” campaigns.  From engagement, comes motivation to act.

    The natural capital agenda is about making nature relevant to economics and therefore essential if we want the Treasury to evolve its thinking. 

    Public pressure can create space for politicians to act.  The more people calling for change, may encourage civil servants and economists to think and act differently.  And this is when I think Dieter’s agenda will get real traction.

    Let’s assume it does, here then are five challenges that we will inevitably have to address...

    1. We need to integrate the longer term natural capital perspective with the short term imperatives for  jobs and growth.  What reform of HMT would be required to enhance its focus on longer term economic planning relative to its short-term budgetary function?
    2. Natural capital assets do not align with administrative boundaries and businesses that affect them, like water companies, are not encouraged by policy or legislation to operate coherently with ecological systems.  What will need to change in order to make operational a natural capital approach?
    3. As Dieter acknowledges, biodiversity is particularly difficult to value and not amenable to pricing yet biodiversity often acts as the glue that binds ecosystem services together.  Can natural capital accommodate this ecological value?
    4. When it comes to valuation, Dieter often calls for valuation that it is better to be roughly right rather than precisely wrong.  But what if we get perverse unintended consequences for example if it makes economic sense to trade away a natural service (eg for flood defence) for an artificial one (eg  one made of concrete)?  Is there a danger that more weight is given to what we can measure compared to what we cannot?
    5. And finally, Dieter seems a bit sceptical about the role that regulation can play, but to me, the laws that protect our nature (especially the EU Nature Directives), are the foundation for nature conservation in this country and across Europe – and help deliver huge value for humans.  I, for one, through experience have limited appetite for voluntary measures and market mechanisms seem a long way off.  What needs to be done to ensure the current deregulatory push in the UK and across EU doesn’t end up trading away essential legislative protection?

    These challenges are real, but they should not be seen as a reason to depart from the agenda and direction that Dieter has outlined.  I commend his book to all of you.  Who knows, it may even lead to more black grouse and ultimately more joy.

    Andy Hay's slightly more impressive photo of two lekking male black grouse