Blogs

Abigail Bunker writes:

The RSPB is very concerned that the economic incentives for growing palm oil for biofuels and other oil-based products are encouraging increased rainforest destruction.

We welcome Sainsbury's denunciation of the outrageous practice of razing tropical rainforests - on which critically endangered species such as the Sumatran tiger depend - to plant oil palm, and their pledge to use only oils derived from 'sustainable sources' in their own-brand foods and cosmetics.

So, should the RSPB withdraw products containing oil palm from our own few retail outlets? We honestly find it very difficult to know! It is currently impossible to discriminate between sustainably and unsustainably produced palm oil. An internationally agreed system for delivering sustainable palm oil is still being developed - but creating robust verification and chain-of-custody processes are challenges still to be overcome. And the social and economic impacts of withdrawing food products containing palm oil from sale overnight are also tricky to evaluate.

Palm oil is grown predominantly in developing countries and can be critical to the livelihoods of local people and a major income stream for their governments.

We would not want to sell any product that had led to rainforest destruction, but how can we tell if we are? In a world where there is greater emphasis on trade being 'free' than either 'fair' or 'sustainable' it is very difficult to know if one is making the right choices.

We need a global trade agreements and robust and verifiable standards and certification schemes that take account of the ecology and fairness of production trade as well as the economics.

In the meantime, the RSPB, like others, is working hard to develop and implement policies to help us, our staff and our supporters to make the most sustainable decisions possible. 

It's well known that everything's bigger in the States. And when it comes to big, few come bigger than billionaire property developer, Donald Trump - a man with big plans for a big golf complex on on the Scottish coast.

And when you're that big I guess everything - and everyone - else looks rather small and insignificant. So we probably shouldn't be too surprised to see one of his spokesmen describe last week's decision to reject his big golf complex as the result of ‘smaller minds' being unable to grasp the benefits of his big proposal.
 
Too often big business feels able to ride roughshod over rules and regulations. When this poses a major threat to wildlife and the environment - as with Mr Trump's plans for development on a Site of Special Scientific Interest - the RSPB speaks out. We represent a million voices for nature, which makes us big enough to be heard.

By the way Mr Trump, we've nothing against well-designed golf courses in sensible locations. And we're as passionate as anyone when it comes to albatrosses and eagles.

Fred Landeg, Defra’s acting chief vet, has all but told the world that migrating wild birds have brought bird flu to Britain.

His report, published last week, is very, very bad news because these birds will be more or less continually on the move, flying long and short distances, over and over again. With them, they will carry a virus as virulent as any we have known, spreading it to defenceless poultry flocks across East Anglia and beyond.

That could mean the end of poultry farming as we know it. A terrible blow to the farmers involved in this multi-million pound industry, and to the UK economy.

But that hasn’t happened. Instead, only a handful of farms owned by the same company are affected and on three of those five farms, bird flu was not found in company birds.

Millions of wild birds fly into Britain every autumn, spend the winter here then return north to breeding sites in mainland Europe, Siberia, Iceland and Scandinavia. Some birds can carry bird flu without showing symptoms never mind keeling over but the chances are that at least some will die en route and that others will die once they get here.

Despite widespread surveillance, no live wild birds carrying H5N1 bird flu have been found in the UK. Dead birds were not found in large numbers either during the recent migration period or during the recent outbreak at a poultry farm. There is no strong evidence that wild birds carried bird flu to Suffolk.

H5N1 has been found in Britain four times in the last two years. First, a parrot and other exotic birds died at an Essex quarantine centre after being imported for the pet trade. That discovery led the EU to ban the import of wild birds.

In March 2006, a swan was found floating dead in Cellardyke harbour in east Scotland. Officials wrongly identified this bird, blaming the mistake on the extent of its decomposition. That suggested the bird had died days or weeks before, out at sea.

Thirdly, earlier this year, thousands of turkeys were culled at Bernard Matthews farms in Suffolk after bird flu was found on his premises. Wild birds were blamed despite the lack of evidence against them. Transfer via lorry, staff or, most likely, imported poultry or meat were other potential explanations so it was odd that Defra delayed by four days its admission that partly processed turkey meat had been imported from Hungary, where bird flu had been found.

Now, Mr Landeg says, in his report on the outbreak at Redgrave Park Farm in Suffolk, that the proximity of the farm to an ornamental lake that attracts wildfowl is probably the cause of bird flu in Redgrave’s poultry. In other words, migrating birds brought the virus, mixed with the farm birds and passed it on. In other words, the ample evidence of poor biosecurity by Redgrave staff was not significant. Yet bird flu symptoms were found in Redgrave’s birds but none, so far, have been found in the birds on the lake or elsewhere. Those birds live on, in good health.   

If wild birds are such a threat why is it that the extensive monitoring of wetland areas, which started more than a year ago, has found no wild birds suffering from bird flu?

If wild birds are important carriers of bird flu, why is it that Defra was so incredibly slow to force Redgrave Farm to do all it could to prevent the virus - which can survive in soil - from being picked up by wild birds foraging on deserted Redgrave land? Measures including the ploughing and disinfecting of fields, and bird scaring guns to keep wild birds away, should have been in place weeks ago but weren’t.

As a result, wild birds have had an open invitation to feed on land potentially infected with the bird flu virus. That is inexcusable and put wild birds at risk in their hundreds if not in their thousands. 

Yesterday’s report does not say which species could have brought bird flu from which European country nor when. It does not say how many more cases of bird flu we should expect this winter.  The fact is, that despite the possibility that wild birds can carry this disease across Europe, there is no evidence to link wild birds to this outbreak at all. 

Mr Landeg has been consulting with many ornithological experts, including the RSPB, but none were shown the report before its publication and could therefore give no advice on species, their movements, their habits and habitats.

Part of Defra’s remit is to protect and encourage wildlife yet its veterinary staff appear overly keen to lay the blame for bird flu at wildlife’s door.

Defra's report is here