Back in the spring and summer we were lobbying for set-aside to be replaced with a mandatory set of actions for farmers to implement to benefit wildlife. That didn't happen, instead Defra went for a voluntary option for farmers.
The NFU's and CLA's Campaign for the Farmed Environment, their response to that challenge from Defra, will be launched at the farm of NFU President Peter Kendall later today.
We wish the CFE every success - in fact we have been working hard with lots of others to make it a success.
A key target will be the doubling of the area of in-field options implemented under agri-environment measures. This includes options such as beetle banks, skylark patches and nectar-rich field margins. If implemented then such measures will do a great deal of good for farmland wildlife. We know skylark patches work very well on our own Hope Farm in Cambridgeshire.
But these possibilities have been open to farmers all along, so the question is - how will the CFE encourage more and more farmers to join in? Well, Peter Kendall will have to be using his persuasive talents to the full (it's a good job he is very persuasive), travelling to NFU groups around the country no doubt, to sell the messages to his membership. He will be backed up with advice from many other organisations and regional coordinators that have cost the taxpayer £1.5m (there - you didn't know that the voluntary approach meant that you had volunteered the money did you?). In fact, as a taxpayer and consumer you have many stakes in this - I hope you want wildlife to flourish in the farmed environment, you are paying farmers their Single Farm Payments, you are funding agri-environment schemes, you have now funded regional coordinators and you go out and buy British food (I hope).
But Peter must be a bit worried about whether he can pull this off. It was he and the CLA President, Sir Henry Aubrey-Fletcher, who persuaded Defra down the voluntary route - now the ball is in their court. If they don't manage to enthuse farmers and land owners then they know that government might impose stricter and more onerous measures which would apply to all farmers.
But let's look to the bright side - the farming industry have been given a chance to shine. A chance to deliver the goods without being forced. Many farmers are doing their bit already - will they be able to transmit their enthusiasm to those farmers who have stood outside the agri-environment schemes or who, so far, have implemented the schemes in a minimalist way? Let's hope so, because our countryside wildlife is a precious and threatened resource.
What a shame to have such a negative approach. Many farmers who are not part of agri-environment schemes still do their bit for birds and wildlife - just as many gardeners who are not part of a "scheme" provide wildlife habitat. The issue is balance - food production and taking land out of food production for wildlife. It is right that this is funded and £1.5 million is a drop in the ocean to do so. As the CFE is being launched on your farm today a more positive approach needs to be taken, not alienation. FWAG is already promoting and encouraging farmers - would be lovely to see a similar approach.
Wiggled - thanks for your comment. But do read the blog again - we wish the CFE every success and have been working hard with others to make it a success. But success isn't guaranteed is it? The NFU and CLA have bravely shouldered the burden of increasing farmland bird numbers - that's great! Let's hope that farmers rise to the challenge and the RSPB is there to share our experience and knowledge with them.
Here's a Tweet from an Australian Farmer with reference to your reply: "bit condescending in his reply to @wiggled... (and I agree)
FWAG farmers are already working on all the issues.
You are not being positive or encouraging in this post. It is negative and it is patronising. Please remember that every acre taken out of production is a cost and the environment schemes are there to mitigate this loss of income. If you want to wish farmers luck, then congratulate LEAF. Congratulate FWAG. Encourage people to support these groups - not just your own and stop wishing folks well on one hand whilst beating them up with the other.
In the past the RSPB have been involved in two open days here where they raised their profile but also sold more local membership at that point than any other local event. We have done all sorts of things for wildlife but have not been compensated as we have not joined ELS, or any other scheme. Just because farmers are not in a scheme does not mean they are not working for a balanced environment.
In my experience farmers in general care a lot about their land and their wildlife and their future. To harp on about the past is a mistake as lessons in farming have been learnt in just the same way as lessons in industry and charities have been learnt.
The RSPB itself has many many opportunities to help farmers in a positive way. In its attitude, in its publicity, in it's buying policy and in this blog. I thank you for taking the time to reply and hope we can move this positively forward.
Yes, it is about balance - but the balance has shifted far too far against farmland birds. RSPB has done a great job celebrating the marvellous farmers who have done so much for wildlife - but overall for each step forward it is still two steps back. Sadly for every wildlife champion there is another farmer pressing for even more intensive farming. This is not about birds vs food: the loss of production from the proposed environmental measures is tiny, 1,2,3% set against the almost total loss of once familiar species from whole regions - and a countryside without birds is little more than a factory floor. RSPB is serving us all - Government and farmers including by calling for the admirable aims of the Campaign for the Farmed Environment to be turned into real actions for birds and wildlife.
Yes
Wiggled - I'm sorry if my post seemed negative and patronising to you. It wasn't meant to be either. I'm very happy to congratulate LEAF, FWAG, the Soil Association, many individual farmers, the NFU and the CLA, and others on what they are doing and have done for the farmed environment BUT we do need more - that's why the CFE is happening. And I was trying to say that the NFU and CLA leadership have a tricky job ahead of them - but they have our support. If you look at tmy later blog on this subject you'll see Peter Kendall quoted using much harsher words about some farmers than I did. Anyway - thank you for your comments - keep them coming.
Nightjar - thanks! Yes we need to see enough action on the ground to make a real difference.
Well Mark you have found a way to get more comments,just come in and couldn't wait to have a go,my first reaction was wow how provocative but can only assume you didn't mean to be.Instead of answering as a retired working farmer I will answer as if I Was still a working farmer.Lets point out that RSPB farm has very little relevance to small farms,grassland farms, hill farms and doesn't even have as first concern making a living for one family,probably no bank fees of any sorts,bought with subs etc crikes I could go on if I could have those things I WOULD HAVE BEEN AS HAPPY AS THE PROVERBIAL PIG IN****.How the RSPB can buy a farm and think they know more than people who have spent their life farming is so patronising.Quite a lot of farmers do not belong to NFU anyway as it is a rubbish thing anyway and lots only belong out of loyalty thinking they should so don't bank on Peter Kendall having much influence.How does anyone think you can force farmers to do anything I assure you it would have the opposite effect.It sounds as if you begrudge the 1 and half million but farmers didn't want it and didn't go in their pockets the whole idea surely was to help nature you should be for it.You even seem to be having a go about single farm payment.It costs farmers as much to apply as what they claim and it is for the benefit of environment.Well I have probably said too much but just think of this I am a supporter of RSPB and moderate in my views GOD only knows what those against RSPB and extreme in their views are thinking.Best wishes anyway.
Sooty, as an ex-RSPB employee and someone who has visited Hope Farm I would like to chip in here with my thoughts. I am pretty sure no one involved with Hope Farm thinks they know more than not only farmers with a lifetime's experience but many with generations behind them. However, Hope Farm was set up with the intention of doing things that would not be practical for most commercial farmers and in the beginning, it was a high risk strategy. It could have been a nightmare had the farm implemented all the green options but the yield was so low as to be commercially unviable. Happily (and probably with an enormous amount of relief), whilst yields were down compared with typical high-production methods, they were not lowered beyond what would be seen in year-to-year variations meaning the overall effect was acceptable commercially.
Unfortunately, several decades of bad blood between various countryside factions has spilled over to make the RSPB look worse than it is. I am afraid to say that this has certainly led to some farmers not adopting suggestions simply because the initiative came from the RSPB and that is a desperately sad situation to see. Like everything in conservation, not everything that is suggested will work for everyone or everywhere but it is unfortunate when there are individuals who are opposed to change for the sake of it. Just five miles from The Lodge on the Wrestlingworth Road the landowners are replanting roadside hedges on a very exposed hill. This is not just reversing a non-green trend but sensible reversal of a bad practise to stop the soil blowing away and we only need to look at examples elsewhere in the world to see what can go wrong.
You are correct that many of the initiatives are not applicable to certain types of farms but as these are low-impact (mostly) from a conservation point of view, it is a case of realising what the RSPB is trying to say and not taking some bits too personally (I hope that comes across OK but I did not know how else to word it). The RSPB's hard-hit strategy is simply to get through entrenched ideas if only to make the concept of change a more familiar thought. You never know, someone who has opposed making changes previously might just remember something that was said and put unsown plots in for skylarks in the future. To quote 'from tiny acorns...'
Yes IanP think I agree with what you say but what seems to get lost in criticism of farmers is that they are probably bread winners for that family and any responsible person does their best for their children and sometimes that limits what they can do for wildlife as outsiders see it.Now here is something for RSPB and Peter Kendall to sort out and help conservation and dairy farmers but will they,you bet they won't.Dairy farmers are hounded by well paid little hitlers to go to terrible lengths to keep swallows out of buildings
remember swallows would have been going in for decades
this is supposedly to make the premises perhaps only barns more hygenic
in actual fact there is no need of them as milk is probably the most vigorously tested thing in the world
the point being no one dare let the milk have the slightest thing wrong with it as the penalties are so draconian like no payment,if it contaminates the tanker load they are then fined for the tanker load,if it gets into what they term the silo they are then fined for the silo.you can see from this that farmers don't need policing to make sure milk is clean lets save a lot of money and pollution with them running round in cars.So RSPB and Peter Kendall help the Swallows and then you might influence a few more farmers.TAKE UP THE CHALLENGE.I can assure all these bodies that go by initials they will not do any good with farmers by force and am very surprised they don't understand that.Peter Kendall's influence at best is minimal as lots of farmers don't even belong to NFU.I don't suppose it reads like it but I happen to think RSPB do a great job which is why I find it difficult to understand why they are so out of tune with majority of farmers.WHYEVER DON'T THEY CONSULT A BUNCH OF ORDINARY WORKING FARMERS I FEEL SURE THEY WOULD READILY GIVE THEIR TIME FREE REPEAT FREE.
Interesting and thought-provoking stuff, Sooty. Interestingly, I suggested a possible solution to the swallow dilemma a few years ago but I think it is time I give it a public airing. The easiest solution would be artificial nest sites although this is not as simple as putting up a nest box/platform in an existing building. The answer would be to build a standalone car port-type structure and then install the swallow nests to take the birds away from active buildings. Now, this would not be cheap and would be out of the range of any or at least, most individual farmers so it would need financial input from a body with enough money to start the ball rolling. Potentially, the idea could even be developed to help house sparrows and other species to with an adaptation fo the design. The idea came to me after helping with some advice about the roof design of a visitor centre (not an RSPB site) to separate the unused (by people) roof area from the shop etc below. I came up with the idea of leaving gaps at the eaves for the swallows whilst having a false ceiling to protect the visitors. I thought the idea through and came up with the simplest (OK, I know it is not that simple compared to a blue tit nest box) idea that was potentially workable. As you can see, the biggest hurdle would be cost but tio go back to one of Mark's earlier posts (I may be stretching what he actually said), what cost conservation?
On a wider note, I know what you mean about the blanket criticism that sometimes seems to come across, as it was something I mentioned to my colleagues on more than one occasion. However, the RSPB's comments on farming policy are sometimes manipulated by anti-conservationists to read ' the RSPB's criticism of farmers'. At first glance and to most people, there probably does not seem to be much difference but if you look at the wrods more carefully, they really do mean something completely different. Sadly, there is very little that can be done about this because the antis often use scattergun opposition and engaging them on a point of interest risks being dragged in to other trivial arguments that have nothing to do with the overall topic.
Excellent IanP we mustn't hog this site but Swallows are definitely suffering and on dairy farms mostly unnecessary and farmers are forced into it.My point really was force and stick waving would have the opposite effect of helping things.Badgers are a typical case as on the farm we rented had a sett and loved it never had any problems with TB but I have no doubt that Badgers that carry TB then infect cattle although people who I doubt know much about things really make a case of the opposite,can you imagine the anguish seeing your life's work a herd of cattle all slaughtered and restocking knowing almost certainly same thing going to happen.I think I might take the law into my own hands.Don't know if you saw in one of my previous comments how crazy that I belonged on a Stewardship scheme just scraping on by a really narrow margin as ironically DEFRA make these conservation schemes not easy to get on,that in itself sounds strange surely they should encourage.Well they would allow me points towards entry for barbed wire fence round pond but not one point for pond itself and fighting did not one bit of good so perhaps these things might get people understanding sometimes things are not what they seem on the surface.Ministry can always take away your license to produce milk which means bankruptcy but of course I can now shout from the highest building and I don't think there is much they can do.Sometimes the threats are horrific and against conservation and human health which probably sounds unbelievable.
Sooty has brought out some of the things that always happen in this debate, first 'but of course its not relevant to this, this and this sort of farm and second swithcing from the broad policy to specific farmers. How is it that farming is a vital thriving industry when NFU are talking nationally but individual farmers cannot afford even the smallest concessions to wildlife ? The truth is that farmers are struggling and affordability is a real issue: farm incomes have been dropping - but not the food industry (which includes retailers and processors) which continue to go up and up. Supermarket buying policies came within an inch of collapsing the GB dairy industry which is crazy as what of all products should you be producing closer to home than milk where freshness is everything ? Press scares about rises in food prices need to be set against the fact that we spend a smaller proportion of our incomes on food than ever in history - and can rely (most of the time) on safe food that contains what it says on the packet.
However, the price of this in environmental terms has been spectacular - it has only been allowed to happen because you8 can't see it in any one place at any one time, and a lot of the changes (eg grassland intensification) simply don't show to anyone but farmers & expert ecologists. Farmers have been forced to adapt by intensification - but unfortunately that cuts both ways - when food prices go up there is a call to intensify to combat shortages, when they go done to increas profitability. The countryside is far too important to all of us for farmers and foresters to have the overwhelmingly dominant say in how the land produces - especially as they need our help more than ever in the face of plummeting prices & incomes.
Yes Nightjar afraid I am getting off the subject but it is a fact that I find astonishing that we spend less on food than anytime in the past and of course farmers have been made to run to stand still and of course one consequence of this is that nature,environment,birds and other things have suffered and of course during last war farmers were forced to up production or the farm taken away.One thing that amazes me and I do realise people spend money however they like but they moan like mad about water bills and food which are necessities and good value and make out they can't afford things and yet probably spend lots of money on mobile phones and computer games etc what people managed quite well without probably only 30 years ago,astonishing.