Martin Harper's blog

Why the state of nature matters

2013-05-22T04:59:00Z

Today is a big day.

For the first time, all the UK wildlife organisations have joined forces to compile a health check of nature in the UK and its overseas territories. This evening Sir David Attenborough will help us launch a new State of Nature report. We expect it will serve as a wake-up call to all of us to do more to help us live in harmony with nature.

The report comes in my favourite month of May. A time to reflect on the wonder of those birds that have migrated from Africa to breed here– species such as swift and swallows – a time to take pleasure in seeing our woodlands carpeted with bluebells and to enjoy seeing butterflies again after the long, dark days of winter. But there are real fears that the things we take for granted may not be part of our children's lives when they grow up.

In my lifetime, once common species like the turtle dove has declined by more than 90%. Cuckoos down by 73% and nightingales down by nearly 50%. And my former employers,Plantlife, has shown that we are losing, on average, one plant every year from counties in England.

In preparing State of Nature, we have used new and innovative analyses include trend assessments for over 3000 species, and red-list assessments of over 6000 species; mostly derived from data collected by the UK's army of dedicated and skilled volunteer naturalists. Our analyses conclude that 60% of the species for which data are available have declined over recent decades; 31% strongly so. Nature is in flux. Over one in ten of the species assessed are threatened with extinction in the UK.

Understanding the state of the natural world is the foundation for nature conservation. We need to know what's in trouble and what progress we have made. This report reinforces the conclusions reached in 2010: that nature is continuing to decline, the pressures on the natural world are growing, and our response to the biodiversity crisis is slowing.

We know that we all need to do more to inspire moral, political and practical support for nature conservation.

And this is why, following the publication of the report we shall challenge all sectors of society to do more for nature.

Politicians that have repeatedly committed to recovering threatened wildlife populations need to think about the natural world when they make big decisions about where to cut and where to invest.
Developers need to respect and protect the special places that people love.
Landowners should manage their land with wildlife in mind.
Businesses must find ways to make a profit without trashing the environment.
And all of us can do our bit by taking action for wildlife in our gardens and in our communities.

We are not claiming to have all the answers but we're determined to do much more. We hope that the report, produced in this time of austerity, stimulates a public debate about what else we need to do to live in harmony with nature.

If you have thoughts on this or any aspect of the report, I'd be delighted to hear from you.

The Wet, Wild and Wonderful North-West

2013-05-20T04:39:00Z

I have just returned from an excellent, if wet, weekend away in the north-west of England with our council of trustees, management board and regional staff. It was a chance to see for ourselves the work we are doing with others in some big landscapes in a fabulous part of England. It was great fun, with lots of wildlife (including otter, orchids, osprey and another 94 bird species) and lots of good conservation conversation.

We explored two of our Futurescapes: the Lake High Fells and Morecambe Bay (the latter also a Nature Improvement Area).

At Haweswater, we are working in partnership with United Utilities as part of our Sustainable Catchment Management Programme to restore water catchment habitat at a landscape scale. This should be good for biodiversity and should provide a cost effective way for UU to improve water quality for the two million people who depend on Haweswater for their drinking water. We also hope to be able to demonstrate that sheep farming in the uplands can be compatible with the wider range of public goods. You'll note that the weather failed to dampen our enthusiasm for the project.

At Bassenthwaite Lake, we have demonstrated the economic value of majestic species such as the osprey. Working with the Forestry Commission, Lake District National Park Authority and one hundred volunteers we have helped to protect ospreys, to highlight the conservation challenges in the region, to attract over one million visitors in a decade which, in turn, has generated £2 million annually to the local economy.

In the Lyth Valley floodplain, we are working with the National Trust, Cumbria Wildlife Trust the Environment Agency and many farmers to deliver major habitat recreation to help recover threatened species such as bittern, lapwings and redshank. We saw the fabulous work that Cumbria Wildlife Trust has done restoring Foulshaw Bog and debated how best to realise our shared vision for a sustainable future for farming in the Lyth valley whilst restoring floodplain meadows and reedbeds.

Finally, at one of our iconic reserves, Leighton Moss, we saw the progress that we have made to create two new satellite reedbed sites to help bittern conservation, to make the site more welcoming to the 100,000 visitors we get each year and to improve our understanding of the eel population. Our long-serving warden, David Mower, has been monitoring daily the number of elver (baby eels) entering the site for the past sixteen years. It is a remarkable endeavour and the data have underpinned the Environment Agency’s eel recovery plan in the north of England.

As ever, I came away incredibly impressed of the work our teams are doing, with many questions about how best to rise to some of the challenges we face, but equally reassured by the maturity of the many partnerships we have forged in the region. This is bound to result in better environmental outcomes. I look forward to our next Council weekend in Scotland next May...

Greening our pleasant land

2013-05-17T04:59:00Z

I have, at last, found the time to watch Roger Harrabin's Newsnight special on the Common Agricultural Policy.

The overall message came through loud and clear: the policy is a huge taxpayer investment (some £400 p/year per family) but there are serious questions over what this money is actually buying.

The CAP has a dark past: grotesque over-production driven by production related payments and profound negative impacts on the environment and developing countries.

But the CAP has changed a lot in the last 20 years. A series of reforms has established a clear (if somewhat slow moving) trajectory towards reducing negative impacts (environmental and social). The policy now also uses a small proportion of its vast budget to reward land managers who produce environmental public goods, things like wildlife, healthy soils and water.

But as Newsnight revealed, attempts to further ‘green’ the CAP look set to be scuppered. And who’s responsible? Perhaps those pesky (and deep pocketed) vested interests who’d like the policy to stay largely as it is – lots of [public] money doled out with virtually no strings attached?

One key issue that Newsnight didn’t cover is that of modulation. This mechanism allows Member States to move money from Pillar I, which funds direct payments, into Pillar II, which funds things like agri-environment schemes and wider rural development measures. It has been part of the CAP for over 10 years.

The good news is that this flexibility will remain a part of the next CAP. Member States will be allowed to move up to 15% of their Pillar I budget into Pillar II and each of the UK’s agriculture Ministers will decide how much they want to move later this year.

But modulation is a hot political topic now and one which has raised the ire of a number of farming unions, here and across the EU (see here and here) who claim that it would put UK farmers at a competiveness disadvantage. Their latest contribution is to argue that modulation should be subject to mandatory co-financing by national treasuries – put simply governments would have to put their own money in too.

Now I’m all for extra money in Pillar II but co-financing is just not an option for most countries, including our own – we just don’t have the money. Perhaps the NFU and others have not noticed the economic downturn? So in straitened financial times, I’d much rather have modulation without co-financing than no modulation at all. As would many farmers.

The fact of the matter is that without modulation Defra, and the devolved administrations, will not be able to invest properly in Pillar II schemes – schemes which not only reward farmers for producing environmental public goods but also help farmers to modernise, diversify, in other words become more competitive and market orientated – something Pillar I payments just don’t help them to do. And without a well funded agri-environment programme, it is widely accepted that Defra will fall woefully short of meeting its ambitions in the Natural Environment White Paper and its own biodiversity strategy for England.

To a logical mind the modulation issues should be a no-brainer. It’s therefore extremely reassuring that Owen Paterson, Defra’s Secretary of State, is continuing to maintain such a firm position on the importance of moving money into Pillar II.

But rather than espouse the RSPB position, I think it would be more apt to quote one of the many farmers we work with – evidence that the big farming unions’ position on modulation is out of touch with what many farmers think.

“As an arable farmer in Suffolk and receiving high prices for wheat and other commodities I can afford to rely less upon direct payments from the CAP, of course I have always taken the view as a farm business I should not rely upon my single farm payment. I have many poor yielding areas of the farm that I have placed into arable stewardship options, making the best of this land for wildlife means I not only provide benefits for wildlife but also demonstrate I am good value for the public investment I receive. Therefore, I can only view a transfer of funds from pillar one at 15% to agri-environment budget as a good and sensible way forward. Taking out these less productive areas has little impact on yield, little impact on my ability to feed people but big impact on my farm sustainability. My agri-environment options produce a range of benefits but without or with reduced agri-environment funding I as well as other arable farmers have no market for this, which is quite different to how my single farm payment works.”

James Bucher, Hall Farm, Suffolk Arable Farmer

Salty stories

2013-05-16T15:34:00Z

Here are the latest chapters in two salty stories: polyisobutene pollution in the English Channel and reform of the Common Fisheries Policy...

Yesterday, I shared on my blog a statement about the nasty, sticky substance polyisobutene (aka PIB), to be read at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’s current meeting of its environmental subcommittee. Due to delays in the agenda, the statement was delivered this morning. It will be formally included in full in the record of the meeting, which is an important first step in getting the status of this material reviewed, as well as bringing the recent PIB disaster to the attention of the full global maritime community.

In response, the UK Government highlighted work being done on the carriage of so-called “high-viscosity” substances, which would presumably include PIB, and highlight the need to wait until the results of the MCA’s investigations into the incidents are released.

Those responsible for releasing PIB into our seas must of course be identified and, if illegal, brought to justice. However, regardless of the eventual outcomes of MCA’s investigations, our view is clear: PIB should have no place in any quantity in our seas. This is why we joined forces with other NGOs and the UK shipping industry to call for an urgent review of PIB’s legal discharge status. If all PIB was removed at ports under strict controls, ships would have no legitimate reason to carry any PIB back out to sea.

There is no quick fix here. It will take time to achieve a formal review of PIB at international level, and a review does not guarantee an ultimate ban. But we have made good progress in a short amount of time, and have the support of key players in the maritime industry.

This week has also seen 36 hours of talks by European Fisheries Ministers, as they made crucial decisions about reform to the Common Fisheries Policy. The UK’s Richard Benyon fought hard for the radical reform needed, but key aspects of the plan have been watered down. The discard ban – already long overdue – has been rolled back yet another year and will not start until 2015, and Ministers voted not to close gaping loopholes which will allow some discarding to continue.

The CFP is in desperate need of reform on bycatch, not just to revive our dwindling fish stocks, but other marine life killed as bycatch too. Today a new study has revealed that a staggering 400,000 seabirds are killed each year in gillnet fisheries. This number exceeds the estimated toll of bird deaths documented in longline fisheries. This is the first time the massive scale of this problem has been laid bare - making it clear that urgent action is needed to tackle it.

This is not quite the end of the road – each member state will take their counter-proposals back to the European Parliament and try and reach a compromise. But there is no guarantee that MEPs will back proposals, which will further extend the protracted negotiations, and threaten any chance of the much needed reforms in 2013.

If you want updates on either of these salty sagas, watch this space or please do follow our excellent safeguard our sealife blog.

Stuck for answers (2)

2013-05-15T08:30:00Z

While we await the full outcome of the meeting of European Fisheries Ministers (details remain patchy at the moment) attention turns to the International Maritime Organisation's environmental subcommittee. Today, we have stepped up efforts to prevent pollution incidents such as the discharge of polyisobutylene which has had such a devastating effect on seabirds in the English Channel.

This morning, the following statement will be read out from the Clean Shipping Coalition...

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to address the meeting this morning.

This year, over 4,000 seabirds have been recorded washed up dead or dying along the south coast of England, covered in the substance polyisobutylene, alternatively polyisobutene or PIB. This substance, when discharged into the sea, coalesces into a glue-like consistency, coating birds’ wings and bodies and preventing them from feeding or flying.

The impact on populations at sea is likely to have been far higher, possibly affecting up to 40,000 birds. The longer term impacts of releasing PIB on other parts of the marine ecosystem are currently not well studied or understood.

The cause of this tragedy is still being investigated. However, the exact origin of previous PIB incidents has rarely been found and to our knowledge there have been no successful prosecutions against breaches of the MARPOL Convention in relation to PIB.

Mr Chairman, Under Annex II of the MARPOL Convention, the various forms of PIB are classified as Category Y, where although it is deemed to be a hazard that justifies a limitation on its release, it remains legal for a ship to discharge PIB under certain conditions.

It is our understanding, however, that the testing of these substances to determine Annex II classification does not take place in realistic marine conditions, and in PIB’s case does not sufficiently consider the full range of potential impacts of PIB upon marine ecosystems when mixed with seawater, beyond whether the substance floats or sinks.

We also simply do not know how much PIB is released into the marine environment as part of routine tank-washing operations, and the cumulative impacts of these chronic releases.

As such, Mr Chairman, it is our opinion that the risks of releasing PIB into the marine environment in any quantity are underestimated, both alone and with potentially corrosive cleaning agents, and that an urgent review is needed of PIB’s classification status under MARPOL Annex II, for presentation at a future meeting of MEPC. We are also concerned that when legal discharges of a harmful substance are allowed it becomes more difficult to stop illegal discharges, as ships have a legitimate reason for proceeding to sea with the waste on board.

This week, leading UK wildlife charities also signed a joint statement with the UK Chamber of Shipping, supported by the UK ports and maritime business sectors, strongly supporting such a review. There are copies of this statement on the table outside this meeting room and here at the CSC desk .

We would like to urge IMO Member States to respond swiftly to this serious issue and take a proactive approach to such a review.

PIB has no proper place in our precious oceans and seas, and we must ensure that the classification of PIB under MARPOL fully reflects its impacts on marine life.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Richard Benyon: your time is now

2013-05-13T04:59:00Z

You might be interested in this advert that will appear in today's paper. It is timed to coincide with a crucial EU Council of Fisheries Ministers. Our Biodiversity Minister has been leading the charge for radical reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and it is vital that his counterparts across the negotiating table realise the strength of public support for the stance he has been taking. Read here to find out more and then (if you do this sort of thing) please show your support for Richard Benyon by tweeting for a strong CFP deal @RICHARDBENYONMP #CFPREFORM.

Reforming duties...

2013-05-10T04:59:00Z

I don't know whether you manged to catch the Channel 4 News nature conservation special last night. I couldn't watch it all as the opening section was so dramatic that my boy ran out of the room screaming "I don't want the hedgehogs to disappear". I thought that was probably a rational response to the crisis we face.

Anyway, I promised an assessment of the environmental assessment of the Queen's Speech. Sorry it's a day late. And I cannot blame the sunshine this time.

There are four notable bills proposed and I thought I'd give a quick view on each. I've given a "nature-rating" for each where 5 stars suggests that this could give nature conservation a great boost and 1 star suggests the interests of wildlife could be seriously undermined.

1. Deregulation Bill (**)
The Bill (which was unexpected) aims to “reduce the burden of excessive regulation on businesses”, in particular via the introduction of a “growth duty” on statutory regulators such as Natural England. While we strongly support the principle of identifying opportunities for more efficient and effective regulation, and agree that regulatory bodies should carefully consider the impacts that their activities have on those that they regulate, we are mindful of the considerable risks associated with a new duty that weakens the focus on safeguarding the natural environment. As I wrote here, we need agencies to be free from political interference or requirements to boost short-term economic growth.

The ground-breaking 2011 UK National Ecosystems Assessment clearly highlighted the wide variety of significant benefits provided by the natural environment in terms of economic prosperity, human health and well-being; the risks posed to the delivery of these benefits through inadequate protection and management; and the importance of regulation in safeguarding and enhancing the delivery of key services. Therefore, when regulators are faced with situations where protecting the natural environment may result in short-term costs to regulated bodies, we do not believe that economic factors should be given priority over social and environmental factors in deciding the best course of action.

I would have given this one star, but for the fact that the wording proposed for the duty "is have regard to" rather than "further" growth. That said, we shall be looking to ensure the pre-legislative scrutiny considers the implications of this new duty on the role of agencies in protecting the environment.

2. Energy Bill (***)
The Energy Bill (which carries over in to this sessiono of Parliament) will introduce sweeping changes to the way the UK energy market is regulated and to how different energy sources, including renewable energy is subsidised. It aims to bring about the investment needed to replace the fossil fuel and nuclear power plants that are coming to the end of their operating lives, and to meet our renewable energy and climate targets. The Bill should have been a seminal moment for the ‘greenest government ever’, but instead it has failed to establish a clear commitment to a near-zero carbon electricity sector by 2030, in spite of overwhelming support from businesses and NGOs. What’s more, the complex changes that the Bill will introduce are causing confusion and a hiatus in investment in clean green energy, just when we need it the most.

I have given this one three stars because there is still a chance that this Bill steers us confidently down a path towards a low carbon future. This will however require a change of heart from the Coalition Government.

3. High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill and the HS2 Hybrid Bill (The HS2 Preparation Bill will authorise expenditure to build a High Speed Rail network, while the Hybrid Bill will provide the Government with the legal powers to construct and operate the High Speed 2 railway. ) (***)
Few would argue that the UK's strategic transport infrastructure does not need improving. The question is whether HS2 is the right solution. There’s two tests it will have to pass before we would agree that it is. Firstly, it must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. A report last year for the RSPB, CPRE and Campaign for Better Transport showed that this is by no means a given; it will only help the climate if its part of an overall strategy that ensures passengers are get out of their cars and planes and on to public transport, including HS2 itself. Secondly, the route must minimise any damage to wildlife. Like many others, we are concerned about the damage likely to be caused to special sites for wildlife and want to see Government do much more to avoid impacts. Where impacts are unavoidable, however, we expect proposals that replace the losses on a like for like basis.

4. Water Bill (**)
The Water Bill aims to “improve the water industry” by making the water sector more resilient to droughts and floods, increasing customer choice and encouraging investment and innovation. We are disappointed to see that Defra appear to have discounted a primary sustainability duty for Ofwat. Instead, they are promoting the idea of a resilience duty. This raises the question of what resilience is. At one end of the spectrum, resilience might be seen as a mandate to maintain business as usual in the face of ever greater economic, social and environmental pressure. At the other end of the spectrum resilience could mean building environmental and socio-economic limits into how we manage water, fundamentally changing the way we organise land management, water supply and demand controls. Where Defra sit on this spectrum will determine how useful the resilience duty will be for the environment, but it’s clear that if we continue to lurch from drought to flood, maintaining the status quo won’t be enough. The Draft Water Bill, which received pre-legislative scrutiny by the EFRA select committee, focussed on competition within the water industry as an end in itself, with no evidence that progress on abstraction licensing, water allocation and management will be accelerated. I fear we have some way to go before we can describe the way we manage our water resources as either sustainable or resilient - hence two stars.

That's it for this session of Parliament. And then there's just one more opportunity for a five-star bill for nature before the General Election in 2015...

The offset offering (part 2)

2013-05-08T04:59:00Z

I had a good morning with Biodiversity Minister, Richard Benyon, yesterday. While the weather was a little disappointing, Old Hall Marshes was looking great, hooching with waders and marsh harriers. We discussed some of the challenges we face on the site and set it into the wider Essex/national context. The reserve provided a much better backdrop for our discussion compared to the usual office environment.

Mr Benyon's attention, like all his parliamentary colleagues, will turn today to the Queen's Speech: a moment for pageant and political intent. I'll offer a view on its content tomorrow.

In the meantime, I promised to pick up the offsetting theme continued by Sam Vine yesterday. Sam outlined some of the challenges they are dealing with as biodiversity offsets are rolled out at state and national level (link here). Much of what Sam said resonates with the RSPB’s thoughts, particularly the need to adopt a principled, robust and pragmatic approach to the development of any offset system to ensure that nature does not lose out.

Our interest in offsets is not to facilitate economic growth per se, but to see if they offer a way to stem decades of gradual biodiversity loss to development that has gone on outside our protected areas, with little or no redress. Our starting point is that compensation (or offsetting) is an absolute last resort, once all measures to avoid and reduce possible impacts have been taken, and there is a clear need for the development that justifies damage to our steadily eroding natural capital. We are not alone in wanting to avoid short cuts being taken – the Government’s own National Planning Policy Framework agrees, as does its Natural Capital Committee.

A well regulated, mandatory national system of offsets could offer one possible way of making those fine words a reality. This could ensure, as the NCC’s report suggests, that development no longer leads to the erosion of our natural capital. Designed properly, it could offer more effective ways to provide habitat and species compensation when it is considered necessary, while complementing wider landscape scale conservation and lowering overall costs through economies of scale. However, we do agree with the NCC this should not be rushed in to headlong – that it should be ‘carefully explored after a clear set of principles and a policy framework has been developed.’ Scratch the surface of the biodiversity offset issue and you reveal a complex web of interrelated issues that all need to be got right if the goal of no net loss of biodiversity is to be achieved for real, rather than on paper. Careful thought and real political will, based on robust science, is needed to implement an offset system worthy of the lofty ambitions often claimed for it.

Comparing the situations here and in Australia reveals some interesting similarities and some real differences. The first is that a successful offsets scheme relies upon there being the political and social will to meet no net loss of biodiversity. This means having strict rules about what has to be offset, when, and how it is done. At the same time, accepting that it will often not be possible to replace a lost habitat or species, so damaging development in the wrong place should not proceed.

But there are real differences that, in some ways, makes developing and implementing offsets in here more complex. For example, unlike Australia, we do not have significant areas of native vegetation where little intervention and cost would be required beyond getting the habitat to a point where it can be left alone. Our rich heritage of semi-natural habitats means knowledge of how to restore or create the conditions required by many habitats and species is still in its infancy and largely experimental. As in Australia, sound science is essential. Simply increasing the area of replacement habitat by five or ten fold and hoping it will work cannot make up for the permanent loss of valued biodiversity. Even where we do know how to guarantee success, there is normally a need for continuing active intervention which brings with it associated costs over the course of decades.

So, we wait to see how the Coalition Government wishes to take forward its current work on biodiversity offsets in England. The RSPB will continue to give serious thought to this issue that at one and the same time offers real opportunity for, and considerable risk to, the conservation of the natural world around us.

The offset offering: a guest blog from Sam Vine, Head of Conservation, Birdlife Australia

2013-05-07T04:59:00Z

I trust you had a fine Bank Holiday weekend. Mine included a couple of excellent dawn(ish) choruses and feels as though it has extended a bit as this morning I shall be hosting Biodiversity Minister, Richard Benyon, at one of our reserves, Old Hall Marshes in Essex. I am looking forward to it. Lots of sunshine and lots of wildlife will help us both. Which is good as there is a lot to discuss!

Here is one issue.

Back in January, I set out some of our views about this issue after the Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, revealed to The Times his interest in establishing a scheme that offers planners the powers to ‘offset’ the impacts of development, thus removing apparent barriers to economic growth. Since then, the pressures to remove environmental barriers to economic growth have only increased (see here and here). It’s also apparent that interest in offsets is unabated. Over the last few months, the Government’s Ecosystems Markets Task Force and its Natural Capital Committee have both recommended serious consideration be given to the idea. The Environment Secretary’s enthusiasm to learn more has recently taken him half way round the world to find out about Australia’s approach to offsets.

So, I thought it was time to return to the subject again. Given the Environment Secretary’s recent trip to Australia, I’m really pleased to welcome Sam Vine, Head of Conservation at BirdLife Australia, to reflect on their experience of the offsets debate with their national and state governments. Tomorrow, I’ll set out some more of our views.

----------------------------

Globally, biodiversity is in crisis. Bird species are in decline all around the world. The task of arresting, and ultimately reversing, this decline is urgent.

At the same time, governments are increasingly promoting biodiversity ‘offsets’ as a way to enable both conservation and development. They claim that offsets can achieve ‘no net loss’, or even ‘net gain’, in biodiversity or species habitat. Sounds good in theory, but does it work? And are our policy makers and developers really up to the challenge?

The idea that we can create new habitat to replace what will be lost as part of a development is an appealing one. We know it is at least possible to create some habitat for some species some of the time. Many recovery programs for threatened species focus on restoring lost habitat. However, in most circumstances the process of delivering full and valid ‘offsets’ for species habitat are often untested, require long lag times for habitat to ‘come online’, and are too costly to recreate habitat at an appropriate scale.

So even where it is theoretically feasible, history demonstrates that offset programs rarely benefit nature. In fact, there are many documented cases where offsetting has been used to justify the destruction of irreplaceable natural habitat. Qualitative assessments of biodiversity-offset programs demonstrate that they rarely meet the objectives they were established to achieve.

To effectively counter-balance a development impact, a biodiversity offset must deliver the same amount of the same biodiversity or habitat values as are to be lost. But the entire range of natural values and processes on any given piece of earth are complex and are not fully understood. When devising offset schemes, the natural processes need to be understood not just in the “here and now” but well into the future. The complexity and uncertainty involved make it very difficult to plan and to verify offsets in a way that ensures a true ecological counter-balance.

Nonetheless, a vogue for market-based approaches to biodiversity conservation is driving the development of offset schemes around the world. Here in Australia, our Commonwealth and state governments are increasingly trying to implement their policy goals of reversing biodiversity decline by ‘offsetting’ damage to threatened species habitat.

This approach sends the wrong message that our most threatened species and special places are tradable commodities. Furthermore, offset programs will inevitably lead to the loss of genetic diversity. Genetic diversity provides threatened species critical adaptation possibilities and resilience to the impacts of climate change. These issues have been largely ignored by governments in the ardent hope that they can have their cake and eat it too.

Our governments are taking up offsets schemes with gusto. BirdLife Australia have responded pragmatically. We have engaged with policy makers with the objective of improving policy and processes. We have developed a list of criteria for an offset proposal to be considered a valid offset. These criteria are based on the best available science and expertise within the Australian context. They are technically prescriptive and complex, but we make no apologies for this. If governments are serious about achieving their stated objective of conserving biodiversity, offset programs must meet these robust criteria and ensure ‘no net loss’. Anything less will amount to the facilitation of habitat destruction at the expense of environmental protection.

Image captions and credits:

Top: Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo – habitat offsets are required for this endangered species’, yet monitoring indicates it has declined by 40% since 2010, probably due to continued habitat loss and degradation. [Image: Robyn Pickering]

Bottom: Plains Wanderer – offsets are problematic for this vulnerable species as it relies on specialised grassland habitat that cannot be replicated [Image: Chris Tzaros]

Slowed down by sunshine

2013-05-03T07:58:00Z

I woke again to blue skies. It's something I could get used to. Shame that so much of my life is spent indoors looking out.

But I have a confession to make. All this sunshine has slowed me down a bit. At home, at the Lodge and even in London where I was yesterday, spring is a wonderful distraction. Seeing wood anemone, bluebells, lesser celandines while the migrants provide the soundtrack to spring is an absolute joy. In the last ten days or so, the migrants have returned to the Lodge with whitethroat, chiffchaff, willow warbler and blackcap all now singing. Tree pipit, firecrest and ring ouzel have also been recent reported highlights (which I have sadly missed). But from where I sit, the green woodpecker on the lawn looks looks resplendent and I can boast about the two red kites which flew past my office window in the past month - something I can take for granted today but would have been an astonishing site for a Conservation Director of the RSPB just a few years ago.

This weekend, I am off to north Norfolk with the family, so I shall have no reason to feel guilty and, amazingly for a Bank Holiday weekend, it seems that the sun will shine.

So, as the local political map of the UK changes today, my mind may drift to the weekend.

But before I go, here are two bits of unfinished business:

First, have a listen to my colleague Tony Whitehead on the Today programme (at about 6.40 today) talking about the death toll from the south west England marine pollution incident. We've stepped up our call for the discharge of the sticking substance PIB into the sea to be banned. You can help by signing this petition.

Second, remember the Battle of Hastings around the proposed relief road? Well, recently released papers from the Department for Transport has shown that the rationale for deciding to go ahead with the scheme may not have been entirely in DfT's gift to give. The great clunking fist of economic growth seems to have won through again.

I hope the sunshine slows you down this weekend.

Europe throws a lifeline to our bees

2013-04-30T04:59:00Z

In the end, the European Commission won the day and new restrictions will soon be placed on the use of the class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids.

Much of the comment in our press has focused on the fact that the UK, with seven other Member States, voted against a ban. In fact, despite the recent campaigning effort from a number of NGOs, the UK hardened its position as in March they had abstained.

Here are the details of yesterday's agreement:

Three chemicals (clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid) will now be banned on all crops attractive to pollinators, including both seed treatment and foliar sprays.
Treated seeds cannot be used or put on the market from 1 December. Member States must amend or withdraw existing product authorisations by September 30th. Any period of grace granted by Member States must end by 30 November.
The ban will lasts for two years then the European Commission will review the situation.
Member State governments are still free to impose additional/more rigorous restrictions than these in their own countries.

Behind the headlines, two interesting debates that have at times been colliding. One has been on the strength of the evidential link between neonics and bee declines. Avid followers of this blog will note that we took our time to support calls for a ban on flowering crops - we had been worried about the environmental consequences of farmers switching to more harmful chemicals. In the end though, the conclusion we reached, having weighed up all the evidence available to us, was that the risk from neonics to pollinators probably outweighs the risks from the alternatives.

The second debate focused on how much environmental harm we are prepared to inflict if we are to grow enough food to feed the world. Some highlighted the potential loss in yield if neonic use was banned. Putting aside the spurious debates about the the UK's capability to feed the world (for a reminder of our views on the subject see here), I think that concern has been growing amongst the farming community that neonicotinoids were really bad news. The last thing that farmers want is for their own pesticide regime to lead to a loss of pollinators. The value of bees to the economy is estimated at about £500m yet replacing those free services would cost nearly four times that amount - £1.8bn - but that assumes that this level of pollination by hand is feasible. To be honest, like many debates about the utilitarian value of wildlife, priceless might be a better description (as captured by the banner at last Friday's march of the beekeepers).

So what should happen next?

First, we need the ban to be in place as quickly as possible.

Second, we should use the two year period to improve our understanding of neonicotinoid use so that the 2015 review is informed by the best science. Equally, we also need to monitor the impacts of the ban - including the use of alternative pesticides - on populations of pollinating insects.

Third, we need to use this opportunity to develop and promote safer alternatives to neonicotinoids – including non-chemical techniques. We've long argued that pest control in the EU should follow the principles of integrated pest management.

Finally, we hope that our government will now strive to get the best result for UK farmers: helping them manage pests successfully and safely as part of wildlife-friendly systems of farming, without the need for neonics.

So a good day for wildlife and a good day for anyone who wants the value of nature to be recognised in decision-making.

Challenging times

2013-04-29T04:59:00Z

Last week, the UK Government announced plans to cut the ‘soaring’ number of Judicial Review applications being made in England and Wales’. These include proposals to halve the time limit for applying for a review of a planning decision.

We joined forces with WWF-UK, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to express our concerns. Why?

First, because this is another example of the triumph of anecdote over evidence. The 2012 consultation bemoaned JRs as “stifling innovation and frustrating much needed reforms, including those aimed at stimulating growth and promoting economic recovery” yet the proportion of JRs for cases other than asylum or immigration (such as planning) is tiny has not changed since 2005.

Second, we are concerned because JR is a key tool for civil society to challenge the State when it gets things wrong. This is particularly important at a time of increased development pressure and when there is a political desire to get the economy moving.

The RSPB comments on hundreds of planning applications a year. We speak up for nature when special places of important populations are threatened by inappropriate development and when necessary make our views heard at public inquiries. We win some (such as Dibden Bay or 2011 battles to save heathland wildlife at Crowthorne, Talbot Heath and Hurstleigh) and we lose some (such as the recent decision to expand Lydd airport in Kent). But if we feel that the law has not been respected then we will take steps to challenge the decision.

We did this, most famously, over Lappel Bank. Here, Medway Ports Authority were granted permission for the reclamation of Lappel Bank for a car and cargo park. In 1993, the Secretary of State for the Environment designated the Medway Estuary and Marshes as a SPA, but decided to exclude Lappel Bank on the grounds that the economic need for port expansion outweighed the site’s nature conservation value. The RSPB took the bold decision to challenge this on the grounds that the Birds Directive did not allow economic considerations to be taken into account in the designation of an SPA. The RSPB brought a judicial review against the Secretary of State, which was eventually referred by the House of Lords to the European Court of Justice. The European Court ruled in our favour and although the development had already gone ahead and the site was lost, this case established the principle of compensatory habitat for damage to an internationally important site. This led to new habitat being created on Wallasea Island, now the site of a much greater habitat recreation scheme of which we are rather proud.

The process of judicial review is a part of good governance enabling civil society to challenge when they believe the law has not been upheld. Government's new proposals will make it harder for citizens and NGOs to have their voices heard. My fear is that will lead to bad decision-making and projects which cause needless harm to the natural environment.

And that is not a great legacy for any government to leave.

Knowledge is power?

2013-04-25T04:59:00Z

The debate about the future of our marine wildlife intensified this week when 86 scientists called on the UK Government to inject some urgency into their plans to establish Marine Conservation Zones. The fear is that unless ministers act quickly we shall be condemning our seas to over-exploitation and, as I wrote on Monday, marine wildlife needs more protection to help withstand pressures posed by human activity. This latest intervention comes hot on the heels of the recent report of the Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology which also pressed for immediate action.

Ministers have said that the current suite of zones is proportionate and will protect economic interests. We disagree. We vehemently argued against the consideration of socio-economics in the selection of Marine Conservation Zones. On land, SSSIs are selected based on science alone (hence Natural England making the right decision to notify Lodge Hill a SSSI because of the importance of its nightingale population) and we felt that a similar approach was appropriate at sea. We lost this argument with the then Labour Government. But the political issue is this - if your stated ambition is to establish an ecologically coherent network, then you should be judged on the adequacy of that network.

The decline in the Kittiwake is being driven by a slump in the availability of sand-eels. Image by Genevieve Leaper (rspb-images.com)

The role of science in policy making and decision taking was brought into focus by two other events in the last week.

First, the new Chief Scientist, Sir Mark Walport, outlined his approach in his first speech and first broadcast interview last week. He sees his role as ensuring that the best available evidence is available to inform political decisions. Yet, he also notes the importance of addressing issues from all perspectives. I have no problem with this unless, as a result of the decision, political commitments are ignored or, much worse, we fail to respect environmental limits such as the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases or we condemn species to long term decline or even extinction. History suggests that the pendulum of decision-making swings against the environment.

Second, following the death of Margaret Thatcher two weeks ago, I dipped into her autobiography (the copy was borrowed not owned). In that she writes, "For me, the proper staring point in formulating policy towards [global environmental problems] was science ". We agree! Which is why we invest so much in our scientific research: we monitor what is happening to the natural world, we diagnose problems and then test solutions. Just last week, our science programme was subjected to an independent review from four distinguished academics: Professor Sir John Lawton, Professor David MacDonald, Professor Valerie Brown and Dr Jenny Gill. While we await their formal report, I wasn't surprised that they went away impressed by the quality and breadth of our science.

We try to act on evidence to help make a difference and urge others to do the same. We intend to continue to invest in our science capacity and capability. This will, I argue, help us remain credibly and authorative. While it will never be enough to win every argument (a good dose of public pressure is often needed), having the evidence to back up an argument sure helps. And when it comes to protecting marine wildlife, we shall continue to make available the data we gather from our ground-breaking sea-bird tracking programme and we shall expect better from our politicians.

What do you think should be the role of science in decision-making?

It would be great to hear your view.

Stuck for answers

2013-04-22T04:59:00Z

The images of seabirds covered in a gluey substance known as polyisobutene (PIB) are horrendous. This pollution incident is yet another reminder of the many and varied threats wildlife faces from human activity. And it ought to act as a kick up the backside of those responsible for trying to improve protection of our seabirds and other sealife.

We now know hundreds of seabirds have died on the south coast of England from two pollution incidents involving PIBs this year. My colleague, Pete Exley, was down at Lantic Bay on Friday filming with BBC news on a beach that has borne the brunt of this disaster. He didn't mince his words...

“My first thought when I saw birds covered in PIB was what an absolute b*****d of a substance. One of the locals who has been documenting the unfolding tragedy was helping us with filming. She’d gone down to check a neighbouring beach and found scores more bodies - a fresh influx. The birds were all guillemots, and smothered - imagine a very thick PVA glue, white and lumpy, and very adhesive. Everything sticks to it, so the birds were plastered with bits of rubbish, seaweed, flotsam. Imagine diving into a tub of PVA then rolling along the high tide line - you'll get the picture.”

BTO Image Library

While our short term priority is to help others with the clean up operation, we've also joined forces with the RSPCA and The Wildlife Trusts to call on Transport Minister, Stephen Hammond MP, to ban the discharge of PIBs. It can be legal to discharge PIB when ships wash out their tanks at sea, but these permissions are based on tests carried out under laboratory conditions. Bizarrely, there is no consideration of what happens when the chemical meets sea water, beyond whether the substance floats or sinks. In the sea, however, the polyisobutene transforms into a glue-like, ‘waxy’ formation, coating the feathers of birds, preventing them from diving and finding food. The longer-term effects of legal PIB releases on other parts of the marine environment are largely unknown.

The natural world is bombarded by threats we describe as the five horsemen of the apocalypse: habitat destruction, overexploitation/persecution, introduction of non-native species, pollution (especially climate change) and everything else!

We should, of course, be banning ships from discharging PIBs at sea and tackling other threats to marine wildlife. But we should also ensure the best places are properly protected. Successive governments have promised a network of marine protected areas yet the current suite of sites is woefully inadequate. These MPAs won't in themselves prevent pollution incidents. But what they will do is provide safe havens for marine species buying them time to adapt to whatever environmental changes come their way.

As the weather warms up and our minds turn to days spent ambling on the beach, spare a thought for what may be happening beneath the waves. Expect better and help us do something about it.

GUEST BLOG BY DR JENNIFER SMART: Where have all the breeding waders gone and how are we going to get them back?

2013-04-19T04:59:00Z

I wrote yesterday about our approach to predators and what we do when science shows that predation affects populations of threatened species. Today, I am delighted to host a guest blog from one of our great team of conservation scientists, Dr Jennifer Smart. Here, she reports on the results of research project designed to help the conservation of lapwings. The results have implications for conservation policy and practice. I would be delighted to hear your views.

---------------------------------------

I am a bit of a wader fanatic and my favourite bird is a redshank. I am fortunate to work for the RSPBs Conservation Science department, and I live and work in the fantastic wetland landscape of the Norfolk Broads. BUT, I am increasingly saddened by the fact that many parts of the Broads no longer have breeding waders like lapwings and redshanks, a picture which is mirrored across wetlands in the UK. I am optimistic that things will improve, because we have been working hard to understand the pressures faced by these waders and what conservation solutions work.

What are the pressures faced by these waders?

Waders were once widespread and common. They declined because changes in wet grassland management meant they became less suitable for breeding. These days some species, like snipe, hardly ever breed outside nature reserves. As numbers have declined, they are more vulnerable to predation, especially as predator populations have also been increasing. Scientific evidence tells us that the populations of ground nesting species, such as lapwing and redshank, can be limited by high predation levels.

What are the conservation solutions?

Early on, there was much focus on how to manage grasslands for breeding waders. Lapwings like very short vegetation while redshanks need taller vegetation, so fields should have a mosaic of vegetation heights. Both species choose fields with wet features and the more wet features there are, the more lapwings and redshanks you get. Although this is simplistic, this is the fundamentals of wader management and because of this research, wet grassland restoration and recreation from arable land, particularly within nature reserves, has been very successful at increasing wader populations.

We also need more land managed for waders outside nature reserves. Fortunately, farmers can receive payments through agri-environment schemes, for sympathetic management, but does this approach work? New research published yesterday in Journal of Applied Ecology, asked whether habitat management funded through these schemes, improved conditions for lapwings breeding on grasslands in the uplands. The places where these lapwing breed, was in better condition where land was being managed through agri-environment schemes, and the number of young lapwings fledged was also higher. Unfortunately, the numbers of breeding lapwings were still declining because these improvements were not sufficient to halt the declines. It is very likely that not enough lapwings benefited from the improved conditions to effect the whole population and, given evidence from other upland research, that breeding success was also being reduced by predation.

We are also working on the problem of predation. Where foxes and badgers have been excluded using electric fences, lapwings fledge many more young than unprotected pairs. On reserves where predators such as crows and foxes are at high densities, controlling these predators produces more young lapwings. Some very recent research on RSPB reserves has found some promising habitat management techniques that reduce the number of wader nests that are taken by predators, but you will have to watch this space, as new work funded by Defra, is underway to test whether this also applies to waders breeding on land outside reserves.

What does this all mean for the future of wader conservation?

Our future vision is of landscapes where breeding waders are once again widespread and common. RSPB recently hosted a workshop to discuss how to achieve this and some key things emerged from those discussions. Time and money for conservation is always limited and this means we need to identify landscapes where there are still breeding waders and opportunities to improve management around and between those places. At the heart of these targeted landscapes, nature reserves should act as a source of birds with best practise habitat and predator management in place. We recognise that this will take time and we are already working in many of those landscapes but by continuing to use our reserves to trial novel methods and co-operating with other land managers to deliver great wader management, I am confident that there is a future for breeding waders in the British countryside.