The question in the title of my blog on Monday stands – will farming deliver? On the basis of the NFU’s new report, the jury is still out.

In fact, after having had the chance to peruse the document Farming Delivers for Britain, at the heart of the NFU’s new campaign, I am left a little confused – both as a consumer, keen to make environmentally and welfare friendly choices, and as a conservationist, acutely aware of the ongoing environmental challenges facing us in the UK countryside.

I was pleased that Peter Kendall, NFU President, noted in his introduction that the industry now faces the challenge of ”making optimum use of scarce resources and of producing in ways which enhance, rather than damage, the environment”.  This is one of the great challenges we face this decade. 

It was perhaps disappointing that there was little sign of how this is going to be achieved. Instead, much of the focus is on why production needs to increase.

We have certainly seen some environmental improvements over the last decade, in both efforts of farmers and outcomes for the environment.  And the NFU is right about how important environmental protection and enhancement is to consumers and the public generally.  But progress has fallen far short of what’s needed, and we need to work hard to secure the policies and support for farmers to make the changes needed on the ground.

The report does include a very welcome recognition of the significant and ongoing declines of priority ‘specialist’ farmland species.  There is a lot of noise about whether declines in some groups of species can be compensated for by increases in others.  This is a side-show – the conservation challenge is to stop the common becoming rare and the rare becoming extinct. 

We need to be open and honest about the scale of the challenges and then work out how, together, we will rise to tackle them.  I would hope that we and the NFU would be aligned in wanting to see agri-environment schemes bolstered and better designed to reward farmers to help save threatened wildlife. 

Yesterday I expressed the hope that the NFU’s new campaign will put wildlife and real environmental sustainability at the heart of its vision for the future of farming.  The campaign stops short of doing this.  But I hope that this will not stop the NFU and the thousands of farmers we work with every year still wanting to deliver more for wildlife and the environment.

Have you read the NFU's report?  What did you think?

It would be great to hear your views.

Today the NFU launches a new campaign called Farming Delivers.   At the time of writing, I know little about the campaign but I have a feeling that there is a clue in the title and the staging posts of the website: farming delivers for the economy, Britain, the environment, clean energy, animal welfare, food security, world peace etc.

I jest.  I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

Centuries of farming helped create the wildlife and landscapes which we love. But changes in agriculture practice led to wildlife declines. We trust the NFU's new campaign will put wildlife at the heart of its vision for the future of farming. The stakes have never been higher, some farmland species such as turtle dove and corn bunting are on the brink. Farmers are working with us to help put the wildlife back and the NFU's campaign should strive to support those farmers who want to put food on the table and wildlife in the landscape.

I started this year at the Oxford Farming Conference, talking about how to find a better balance between agricultural production and conservation.  Several reports have come out in recent years highlighting the unprecedented challenges facing the food system, including IAASTD’s Agriculture at a Crossroads (2009), the Government Office for Science Foresight report on The Future of Food and Farming (2011) and the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on Sustainable Food (2012).

All of these reports conclude that action will be needed on many fronts simultaneously if we are to end hunger and build a more sustainable food system. This includes action on biodiversity loss and ecosystem services, climate change, poverty and livelihoods, governance of the food system, health and nutrition, equity (including reducing consumption in rich countries), investment into agricultural research and development and reducing waste in all parts of the food chain.

These reports also emphasise the environmental degradation that has resulted and is resulting from intensive agriculture. Other reports have reinforced this point. The National Ecosystem Assessment (UNEP-WCMC, 2010) showed that increases in UK agricultural production to date have been associated with an increase in external environmental costs and have been at the expense of other ecosystem services. The European Nitrogen Assessment (European Science Foundation, 2010) concluded that the overall environmental costs of nitrogen pollution in Europe outweigh the direct economic benefits of nitrogen fertiliser in agriculture.

We need to work out what all this means for food and farming in the UK. What changes need to happen to ensure a sustainable future for the countryside, with profitable farming businesses, thriving rural communities, and healthy soils, clean water and flourishing wildlife? At the same time, how can we best play our part in the challenge of feeding the world’s growing population?

To help find the answers to some of these questions, the RSPB is participating in Defra's Green Food Project. In the Natural Environment White Paper the Government made a commitment to bring together stakeholders to discuss how to reconcile the aims of increasing food production and improving the environment. The RSPB is one of these stakeholders, taking part alongside other environmental, food and farming organisations.

We have been leading one of the working groups looking at case studies in different parts of the country. In each case study area we looked at conflicts and synergies between producing food and taking care of the environment, and discussed how land management could change to improve the balance. The conclusions of the Green Food Project are due to be published in July.

From our group’s work, I think it comes back to what I talked about at the Oxford Farming Conference: there isn’t a “one size fits all” solution to the challenges facing farming. We have a diverse landscape in terms of soil, climate and other factors, so the way we farm also has to be diverse. This will help us to get the best our of our land – the full range of services including food, clean water, biodiversity and carbon storage – and to stay within environmental limits so that farming is sustainable for the long term.

Of course, it’s one thing to talk about how farming needs to change – actually achieving these changes on the ground brings a whole new set of challenges. Society expects a lot out of farming – safe, nutritious food; a healthy countryside; thriving farmland wildlife – and farmers have to perform a complicated juggling act every day to try to meet all their different objectives. They are supported and influenced by regulations, agri-environment schemes, advice and information. Farmers and wider society will need to work together to find the best ways of making sure farming delivers what we all need.

I wish the NFU well with its campaign.

Have a look and tell me what you think.

It would be great to hear your views.

This evening I am thawing out after taking the boy to Lords for the first time.  Crikey it was cold.

This time next week I shall be recovering from the Bupa 10K run and calculating the fine that I shall have to pay to the RSPB - a fiver for every minute over 45 minutes.

Not sponsored me yet?

You still have time.

And to if you want to predict my time and have a chance of winning a prize, simply visit my Just Giving site here.  And here you'll find the rules.

To make it easy, I've listed the times that folk have already proposed - from the ridiculous to the downright rude...

14.14
41.42
42.30
42.30
42.31
42.38
42.48
43.00
43.00
43.48
43.59
44.36
44.37
44.44
44.59
45.30
46.10
47.02
47.30
48.23
48.39
48.59
49.47
99.00
120.00

Please dig dip and Good luck!

This week I am focusing on the conservation challenges facing birds of prey.

Yesterday I talked about the parlous state of England’s hen harrier population. A very important but unfortunately somewhat depressing topic, so I thought I would (in honour of my daughter's fifth birthday) try to balance things up with a more positive harrier story.

A century or so ago, the marsh harrier was in an even worse position that hen harriers are in today.  A variety of factors including persecution (not illegal in the 19th century of course) and large scale drainage of their wetland habitat led to marsh harriers being lost as a breeding species in the UK. Fortunately, they recolonised our islands and thanks in no small part to the legal protection gained in their absence, the population was able to recover.  There are now approaching 400 pairs.

That’s not to say there weren’t some huge challenges along the way.  Marsh harriers were one of several species which were the unintended victims of new organochlorine pesticides introduced to British farms after World War II. These pesticides, such as DDT, had been developed during the war to kill mosquitos in order to protect soldiers from malaria and were introduced in the 1950s to help kill of pests. But they also built up in the food chain and had a devastating impact on many top predators.

Fortunately people began to notice that birds of prey were disappearing, as famously highlighted in Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring (have you bought Conor's book yet?) and they began to be voluntarily removed from use during the 1960s, until eventually being almost totally banned in 1982.

I mention this not just because it’s a great example of conservationists and landowners working together, but because it highlights a perhaps surprising fact about birds of prey – they might look rather fierce, but they’re actually very vulnerable (a bit like my little girl).

Marsh harrier in flight over Leighton Moss, Ben Hall (rspb-images.com)

Many contaminants, like DDT, concentrate as you go up a food chain, meaning that it's top predators like marsh harriers which are hardest hit. This isn’t just true for pesticides. Lead is a well known toxic substance, which has been in the news recently. Its continued use can cause problems for birds of prey who can accidentally ingest ammunition fragments in their food. Some work carried out a number of years ago found that marsh harriers in France had elevated blood lead levels which could be causing them problems.

In other parts of the world, lead poisoning is a major conservation problem. It's the main problem facing the very rare Californian condor in Arizona, Utah and, yes, California. Shooting is obviously practiced every differently in France and America than it is in the UK, and marsh harriers are clearly doing very well now, but I wonder if our British marsh harriers have some of the same problem?

Basic ecology means birds of prey will always be much rarer than most other species and you only have to read my last two blogs to see how vulnerable they are. As Simon Barnes said in our Birds of Prey in the UK report we produced a few years ago, “Birds of prey are the ultimate contradiction of conservation: what we celebrate as the most wild and fierce creature of them all is the one that most desperately needs our protection – not because the birds are inadequate but because we are: we are inadequate at looking after our own planet”.

Couldn’t have put it better myself!

What do you think? What has made marsh harrier conservation so successful?

It would be great to hear your views.

I wrote last year that Biodiversity Minister, Richard Benyon, might lose sleep over known threatened species which might be committed to extinction on his watch.  The parlous state of Hen Harrier as a breeding species in England ought to force the Minister to jump out of bed and take action immediately.

It is clear that Hen Harrier is on the verge of extinction as a breeding bird in England.  This season there has been just one known breeding attempt.  This compares to four successful attempts in 2011. While it is early in the season to draw conclusions, the signs are not good.

If we lose Hen Harrier, the Government will have failed in its England Biodiversity Strategy commitment to avoid human-induced extinctions of threatened species in England. 

Government-commissioned research 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.

The Government has identified raptor persecution as one of six UK wildlife crime priorities, focussing on golden eagle, white-tailed eagle, hen harrier, red kite, peregrine and goshawk.

The RSPB is doing its best to protect hen harriers in England, with the support of HLF, United Utilities, Northern England Raptor Forum and other partners, including many volunteers.  We have initiated our Skydancers programme and you can read more about it here.

We have now written to Defra and Natural England to urge them to lead and fund a comprehensive conservation plan for hen harriers, endorsed by stakeholders including landowning and shooting organisations.

We think that years of talking must now translate into action. 

Adult hen harrier in flight with twig (Andy Hay rspb-images.com)

I accept that this is challenging for the shooting/landowning community.  It is, of course, the case that hen harriers can be a problem for game managers by eating grouse. However, long-term declines in grouse bags are related to land use practice and habitat condition.

Our point is simple - grouse moor owners and managers should comply with wildlife law, protect hen harriers and adopt legal approaches to minimising predation of grouse, such as diversionary feeding which has been shown to effective in places such as Langholm.

There has been much talk about an approach termed 'a brood management scheme' which would involve translocation of eggs away from moors and establishment elsewhere to remove the conflict with grouse.  We have said to Defra that this could be included in a recovery plan and may merit experimental investigation in England in the future, but only once hen harrier numbers have recovered to an acceptable level and diversionary feeding has been widely trialled.

Finally, we are pleased that the Law Commission is seriously considering the introduction of vicarious liability for birds of prey persecution.  We think that this is an appropriate measure to help take to tackle the problem.  It has been introduced in Scotland and we think that it is timely for it to be adopted in England and Wales.

If you agree, please do sign the petition here and then please tell your friends and family to do the same.

One last point, I want the UK Government to lead the world in tackling climate change and halting biodiversity loss.  I want Mr Clegg and Mrs Spelman to play strong leadership roles at the Rio +20 Summit in June this year and make the case for urgent global action to decouple economic growth from unsustainable exploitation of the natural world.  Losing Hen Harriers as a breeding species in England would seriously blot their copybook.

How do you think the Government should respond?

It would be great to hear your views.