Tag: Conservation

Farmers are not the problem: I am, and you might be too

The recent State of Nature report paints a bleak picture of modern Britain. One in which wildlife populations tumble and wild spaces are hemmed in, degraded and destroyed. Unfortunately, most of us will recognise this as the norm and at a relatively youthful 26-years old, it worries me that this is all I have ever known.

I do not remember the halcyon days of old when verdant meadows buzzed with insect life; nor when the haunting cry of the Curlew was commonplace over farmland and hedgerows chimed with the song of countless farmland birds. These things are alien to me: a factor of life before my time. Truly, I wish I could recall such sights and sounds but the reality is that I have grown-up in a landscape denuded of its wildlife. A countryside in crisis, altered beyond recognition.

A whopping 72% of land in the UK is managed for agriculture, and changing agricultural practice is regarded as having the ‘single biggest impact upon nature in recent decades’. Changes which have seen meadows ripped up, root and stem, invertebrates annihilated with odious pesticides and larger fauna left bereft of habitat or adequate food supply. The blame for the demise of Britain’s natural heritage often falling squarely on farmers – those who alter the land, plant, plough and, if you listen to some commentators, continue to pillage what remains of our ‘wild’ land until this day.

It is very easy to blame farmers for the woes afflicting our countryside. To many, those of us dwelling contently in towns and cities, they are an alien race: found in the far-flung reaches of our land, seldom encountered yet responsible for providing the food we demand.  They are easily stereotyped and, as the hands that tend the land, are easy to label public enemy number one in times of crisis. They are, after all, those whom do the dirty, so to speak, and transform the landscape. Often to the detriment of wildlife.

Scouring social media in the wake of the aforementioned report, I noted a large number of people openly criticising the farming community. Not everyone, of course – and it was nice to observe some positive examples of cooperation between conservation bodies and farmers – but a fair few. I was tempted to join in, I confess; although upon further thought, I have come to realise that the issue is not so black and white.

The reality for farmers is that they are slaves to demand. They run businesses, large and small, which must compete and yield a profit in order to survive. When we demand cheap food in large volumes, farmers must comply or risk someone else filling the void. Our supermarkets play a sizeable role too, with rival brands competing to launch the latest ‘hot deal’ as a way to entice thrifty consumers. A cycle with knock-on effects for farmers who must then produce intensively to meet demand and ultimately, stay afloat.

It is wholly appropriate to say that it is our own shopping choices that have lead to the intensification of agriculture in the UK, and by default, our demand that directly drives the use of pesticides, the removal of hedgerows and replacement of wildlife-friendly meadows with miles upon miles of sterile crops. Looking inward, it is clear that I, as an irresponsible consumer, have played a part in the ecological crisis facing this country. And doubtless, some of you will have too.

Like a great many people I suspect, I am guilty of treating food as an afterthought. I buy what I can with what I have left, my weekly budget determined by the amount of spare money left over from the purchase of a whole manner of trivial goods – things I could likely go without. I buy as much as I can with what I have, which often means buying cheap and in bulk: meat, vegetables, fruit and grain-products all included.

clouds-194840

Part of me would like to claim that my stingy shopping habitats are born of necessity and that I simply cannot afford to pay extra for quality or ethics. It would be all-too-easy to use a modest wage in defence of my choices, as I suspect many others would too. Whether that line would hold up under scrutiny, however, is another story entirely.

Whilst I possess only a modest sum of money each month on which to ‘get by’ it is what I spend it on that really counts. Like many people my age, I splash out on leisure – nights out, restaurants, cinema trips and ridiculous, frothy coffee – and, without doubt, spend way too much on odds and ends I could really go without. Books and homeware, jeans and magazine subscriptions, even takeaways, god forbid. Whilst I make little, if I were to cut down on these expenditures, it is clear that I would have a surprising sum leftover.

The average Briton spends a relatively small portion of their income on food, at least compared to their combined spend on culture, recreation and ‘treat’ items. A trend which simply does match up with our oft-stated desire to protect and conserve nature. It would be disingenuous, farcical even, for me to sit at a computer screen, tucking into the cheap ham and cheaper bread of my favourite sandwich, while lambasting those working the far off fields.

It is clear that farming practices (and some farmers) need to change in this country, and that change they must before what little biodiversity we have left is pushed further towards the brink. Equally, however, it is apparent that for this to happen we, the thrifty consumers of this country, must change too. We must place a growing emphasis on our food and in doing so, incentivise the change we wish to see from sellers and producers alike.

Will I change? It will be difficult, but I will try. For a part of me is ashamed of the role I have played in looming [some may say ongoing] environmental catastrophe. If forsaking the odd bottle of wine, trip abroad, hotel stay or concert is the price I must pay to contribute to the preservation of nature in this country, I am ready and willing. I may not be willing to go vegan, or even vegetarian in pursuit of a clean conscience just yet, but this represents a way for me to make a small yet real difference. It may not be much but regardless, it counts.

The State of Nature report has taught me that whilst it is easy for an economical Millenial content to snatch a three for £10.00 offer on cheap meat in Asda, to condemn those producing my food for the wrecking of nature, doing so would be dishonest. In reality, I should be looking inwards. And others should too.

The answer to the climate crisis isn’t reusable coffee cups, by Sophie Johnson

We’ve got 12 years to prevent irreversible climate damage.

If we don’t see drastic change by 2030, our children will be immersed in persistent heatwaves, flooding, and increased poverty. By the end of this century, we will most likely lose all rainforests, coral reefs, and 50% of all plant and animal species on this planet.

There may be more electric vehicles on the world’s roads than ever before, but there are also more internal combustion engines. There may be more bicycles, but there are also more planes. It doesn’t matter how many good things we do, we absolutely must cease the bad things entirely if we are to reverse climate damage.

The micro consumer nonsense

We’re led to believe through both the government and the media that the root of the climate change crisis is consumerist, and if we all use reusable coffee cups and switch up our plastic cotton buds we will eventually change the world for the better.

Nice idea, but sadly that’s hugely far fetched.

Don’t get me wrong, some consumer solutions will inevitably make a huge difference – transportation and animal farming for example. Raising livestock for meat, eggs and milk generates 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the second highest source of emissions and greater than all transportation combined. It also uses about 70% of agricultural land and is one of the leading causes of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution.

So, you can probably guess that if all of us switched to a plant-based diet, we’d be taking a large step in the right direction.

Easier said than done, however.

A graph from the Guardian demonstrating the significant impact of livestock on our planet

Micro-consumer solutions such as the switch to reusable coffee cups and paper cotton buds is obviously a positive, small step in the right direction, but let’s be honest they themselves won’t get us anywhere in solving the colossal climate crisis.

The solutions

I’m no climate change, expert or scientist. I don’t claim to have the correct solution but I do have a good idea of what I believe the steps are in ensuring we get ourselves out of this mess before it’s too late.

Education

At the forefront, we need to educate our decision makers on the urgency of the climate crisis. Until we do this, we will not see change. Economies are so focused on the power of markets and short term profits that they don’t even recognize longer-term issues like climate change and environmental destruction.

Radical protests like that from extinction rebellion recently is a fantastic way of doing this – it’s sad that people are having to go to the extremes of glueing themselves to the floor and getting arrested to gain climate change the attention it deserves, but it works.

Educating the next generation is of the upmost importance

Of course, we also need to educate our young people. The youth of today care far more about climate change than our elders because we have no choice. We will be more radical than our elders because we have no choice.  Those before us have left us, and future generations, to deal with a catastrophic future if nothing is done.

Climate education must be on every school curriculum. I’m currently teaching English in Vietnam and Global warming, pollution and bleaching of coral reefs are all topics in their syllabus but this equates to less than 1 page of a 200 book. It just sadly won’t be that memorable.

If we make Climate education a core school subject, our kids will fight for change and take action. But, for this to happen however, we have to educate the decision makers first and foremost.

Scrap GDP as a sensible measurement of human welfare

The current capitalist system of perpetual growth needs to be overthrown.

Traditional ways of economic thinking have been based on the assumption we will continue to have access to cheap and plentiful sources of energy and materials to grow, which we don’t. You don’t have to be Einstein to know that.

Our current measurement of human welfare is GDP, Gross Domestic Product. It’s a measure of the market value of all the final goods and services produced. If we are to climb out of irreversible damage, GDP as a measure of human welfare needs to be put in the bin and incinerated. Currently, all government decisions aim to do is boost GDP. It’s taking precedence time and time again even against a backdrop of fires, floods and hurricanes.

The cost of wildfires is crippling

We are at an ecological crunch point and we don’t have the economic tools at present to deal with it. We need a better way of measuring human welfare than perpetual growth and we need to find new ways of thinking about the economy. We should not in any circumstance still be aiming for growth and more consumption – that’s bananas.

We absolutely must aim for liveable environments in the future or there will be no future.

Make the protection of nature a political priority

Destruction to nature accounts for more global emissions than every car and truck on this planet. So long as the rainforests of the Amazon and Sumatra are burning, we will have failed on a solution to prevent irreversible damage.

However, if we make rewilding a priority and let forests recover from deforestation and the sea floor recover from trawling, we could dramatically bring down the carbon dioxide levels we’ve already produced. The world’s vegetation could hold up to 450 billion tonnes of carbon. That’s staggering.

Deforestation equates to more global emissions than transport

Rewilding would represent 30% of what needs to be done to get us out of this mess. Therefore, we need to include nature in every corporate, state and national climate goal. We need to invest in forests and mangroves the same way we are investing in renewable energy. We need to respect and ensure the rights of indigenous people who make a living out of these habitats.

Time is ticking

We still have time, but we can’t do it by tapping at the micro consumerist stuff, we have to go straight to the heart of the problem.

We need to educate and elect leaders who believe in science.

We need to rethink our current measure of human welfare.

We need to put nature first because if we don’t protect nature, we can’t protect ourselves.

My inspiration for this post came from a) a segment on Frankie Boyle’s New World Order featuring Environmental and Political activist, George Monbiot. b) A speech by Harrison Ford at the 2018 Global Climate Action Summit.

 

 

Nets Down for Nature: when people power works for wildlife

There is rarely any cause for hope in the environmental field. Indeed, everywhere we look, habitats are being erased, ecosystems dismantled and vulnerable species pushed ever closer to the brink of annihilation. It can be grim, at times, and outright depressing at others.

Every once in a while, however, something bucks the trend – the airwaves this week rife with positivity and triumph, as opposed to shock and sorrow. I am of course talking about the successful campaign launched against the damaging bird netting used all too frequently by developers and local councils to spare them the inconvenience of nesting birds.

The uproar centred on this issue has been unprecedented, taking the airwaves and internet by storm in little over a week. In that time, 330,000 people have signed a petition demanding the netting of trees and hedges by developers be made illegal; countless individuals have bombarded the inboxes of MP’s and councillors [to great effect], and others have resorted to direct action – to the tracking, reporting and even removal of nets – in order to spare nature this latest bout of agony. People across the country have rallied together in disgust and concern and, thankfully, it seems to have worked!

All across social media, examples of people power successfully landing a victory for nature have been apparent. First, there were the tweets of numerous MP’s, including the Environment Secretary, keen to hop aboard the bandwagon and support the campaign. Next, there were the developers, leaping into action to spare themselves the wrath of the infuriated public: nets came down, apologies were issued and promises with regards to best practice were abruptly made. Finally, there was the resounding defeat of North Norfolk Council who, after a failed attempt to justify the exclusion of Sand Martin’s from a large expanse of breeding habitat at Bacton, backtracked remarkably and set about removing nets.

All of this may not seem particularly important in the long run – netting is, after all, a relatively small issue in the grand scheme of things, at least when compared to habitat loss, agriculture, pesticides, persecution and the like. However, like these, netting is a symptom of our societies widespread disregard for the natural world – a sorry sign of the low-value we place upon nature and our tendency to bend it to our will whenever it poses the slightest inconvenience. With that in mind, a victory for those at the heart of the #NetsDownForNature campaign is a victory not just over greedy developers and ignorant councils, but over the prevailing attitude towards wildlife.

The recent uproar over netting has displayed people power at its finest and represents a triumph for those seeking to alter the collective mindset with regards to the natural world. All involved should be immensely proud and I, for one, am grateful to those who took a stand.

 

Adventures in Conservation, by Andrew Gorton

Moving to the North Norfolk coast from London in 2007, I realised how little I knew about the beautiful countryside I found myself in. Fortunately, this part of the country is not lacking in opportunities to explore and develop a burgeoning passion for conservation and wildlife. I’d also begun a degree in natural sciences with the Open University, and the various projects I took part helped me decide on an environmental focus for the degree, as well as providing lots of practical experience.

In 2010 I was handed a flyer by my step-mother, produced by a group run by the Trust for Conservation Volunteers (or BTCV as it was then). This group, the North Norfolk Workout Project (NNWP), carried out habitat management such as clearing rhododendrons and other invasive species, wildlife surveys and planting trees, all at a number of sites around the county. The group was partly funded by BTCV, the NHS and the local district council, with the aim of improving the physical and mental health of the volunteers taking part, while doing construction work for the environment and the community. The work certainly benefitted me, as the low mood I was suffering from at the time really began to improve.

One of the first sessions I did with the NNWP was clearing bracken some public woodlands outside North Walsham, in an effort to encourage wildflower meadows to develop. This kind of work would be a mainstay of the NNWP over the years I was involved with – the removal of invasive plants to create or improve habitats such as meadows, heathland and woodland. A particular favourite of mine was tree planting at various during the winter to improve biodiversity. It is a nice thought that after an afternoon of this there will be a patch of woodland that will hopefully be around and growing after you are gone.

As rewarding as the work was, I also had the pleasure of working with a good crowd of people, both the two paid members of staff on the project and the volunteers who came from a wide range of backgrounds. We also worked with several different site owners who were knowledgeable and passionate about their particular patches and were glad for our help in realising their goals for the site.

At that first session at North Walsham, I also took part in an OPAL soil and earthworm survey. The results would be added to a national database of soil types and earthworm numbers. We didn’t actually find any earthworms that day, but in science, not getting a result is still a result. The survey did inspire me to carry out a number of different OPAL surveys such as water quality, insect surveys and examining the biodiversity of hedgerows. As with any citizen science project, it is good to know you are contributing actual data to a scientific project.

In the last couple of years, I have begun focusing in species ID and monitoring. Alongside national surveys such as the Wider Countryside Butterfly Survey, I have been taking part in the fairly recently established Norfolk Bat Survey with the British Trust for Ornithology. This involves picking a 1km Ordnance Survey grid square from the survey website and booking a bat detector from one of a number of bat centres around the county (my nearest is National Trust Sheringham Park). You then set up the bat detector overnight, for three consecutive nights at different locations in the kilometre square. Bat calls are recorded on an SD card in the detector, which is then sent back to the BTO headquarters in Thetford for analysis. They are able to determine the number of bat passes recorded as well as the species present. Participants are encouraged to repeat surveys every year to detect any changes in bat numbers. One of the sites I have surveyed – Sustead Common – is run by the Felbeck Trust, a small conservation charity in Aylmerton. This dedicated group has been carrying out habitat restoration at Sustead and a number of other sites. I carried out a survey in May 2017, and 124 bat passes, split between six species, were recorded. A survey at about the same time the following year detected 280 passes (more than double last years’), split between eight species. We hope this is the result of bat boxes put up between the survey dates, and of habitat restoration activities increasing the number of prey insects. It will be interesting to see what further surveys reveal.

A third major project I’m involved in is the Norfolk Ponds Project, part of University College London’s wider pond restoration programme. This project aims to restore ponds, especially in areas of farmland, to provide biodiversity hotspots in otherwise species poor landscapes. In 2017 I joined a small group in Bodham, focusing on four ponds in the farmland there. These marl pits were initially dug to extract the calcium-rich clay (marl) for use in stabilising the surrounding soil to better grow crops. Over time, water levels rose in the pits, and soon well-developed aquatic ecosystems developed. However, trees and other dense undergrowth have grown around the ponds, blocking out the light. Falling leaves have also created thick layers of sediment, reducing the biodiversity there. To begin with, my group were taking readings of the water quality, including pH, alkalinity, conductivity and temperature every two weeks. Any wildlife seen during the surveys were also recorded. Towards the end of 2017, the trees and undergrowth on two sides of two of the ponds were removed by chainsaw teams, helped by my group with loppers. The sediment was also dredged with JCBs, providing some free fertiliser for the nearby patches of farm field. The two other ponds were left as controls. In the spring and summer of 2018, we repeated the water measurements and wildlife recordings over the spring and summer and sent the results to UCL. It will be interesting to see if the restoration will have any effect.

I’ve had the privilege to take part in a (bio)diverse range of environmental projects over the years, and it has been a great experience, and hopefully of benefit to the wider environment.

Andrew is a Natural Sciences graduate with the Open University, and has several years experience in the voluntary sector, in areas as diverse as wildlife conservation, habitat management, heritage and maritime safety with the National Coastwatch Institution.

There is no need to choose between Monbiot and Attenborough: the ways of both are vital.

I am part of a generation that idolises David Attenborough and, like many younger conservationists, have long extolled the virtues of his breathtaking documentaries for their stark impact on my life. From the Life of Birds to Planet Earth, these are the shows that ignited and then nurtured my passion for the natural world and, truthfully, I owe them a great deal. As do many others, I suspect.

It is little wonder then, that like the vast majority of people on my timeline, I cringed this week when Guardian columnist, George Monbiot, chose to berate Attenborough [and the BBC] in a recent, incendiary article. One claiming that the veteran broadcaster had, through years of inaction on environmental issues, betrayed the living world he loves. A bold claim, and one which takes a great amount of courage to make, I will admit, which also appears to have triggered many people to align themselves one way or the other.

I find this intensely frustrating. For decades, Attenborough has created a false impression of the health of the living world, and repeatedly *failed* to highlight the realities. Now he makes a doctrine of this failure. pic.twitter.com/MbyWSwNKYa

— GeorgeMonbiot (@GeorgeMonbiot) 4 November 2018

I confess, upon reading this article, my first thought was “you can’t say that, he is David Attenborough“. The precursor to a mental scramble to justify my undying devotion to the man as the worlds most prominent natural history broadcaster, as an inspiration to countless people [young and old] and a purveyor of spectacular, educational documentaries. I fell into the trap of being precious about a “national treasure” absent consideration, as is often the case when criticism falls on one we hold in high regard.

Curiosity peaked, I re-read Monbiot’s article shortly after. More carefully this time and trying, difficult as it may be, to keep an open mind – only to find that by doing this, disagreement surged. What exactly has David Attenborough done for the natural world he holds so dear? Well, that’s easy: he has educated the masses, inspired multiple generations of conservationists, brought nature into the homes and lives of millions and doubtless, triggered further thought in some people previously unconcerned about the fate of biodiversity. He also did a fine job of bringing to light the problem of plastic pollution (Monbiot would disagree here) and has preached, on a number of occasions, the threats posed by a surging human population. Few in this world boast the deeds or moral high ground to cast shade in his direction.

In my opinion, David Attenborough has done more than most in defence of the natural world. Thus, to claim betrayal seems like a frightful exaggeration. Although, when one changes the assertion and asks “has he done enough for nature” the lines begin to blur somewhat.

Attenborough has an almost unprecedented platform from which to express his views. He boasts unimaginable clout and influence and, although he alone is not responsible for the content of his documentaries [the BBC come into play here], has both the support and heft to alter his broadcasts on a whim. With all of this comes power: the power to speak up and make a real difference. Has he used this to whip up a storm about environmental issues? No, he has not. Blue Planet II aside, you seldom see Sir David on the campaign trail and rarely do his documentaries depict the ugly state of nature in the modern-day.

In one sense, Monbiot is right. Attenborough has not done all he could to hammer home the plight of our planet, for reasons he recently discussed. He has not attempted to instigate protests, has shied away from lobbying ministers and never, not once, has attempted to turn public opinion against individual organisations, companies or people. All of this sits fine with me, for Attenborough’s power has been used to great success in a far softer, less abrasive, but no less significant manner: to inform, educate, inspire and yes, entertain. We cannot all do everything and the broadcaster has undoubtedly done a great deal with the talents he possesses, as we all should.

To dismiss the contribution of David Attenborough outright is incredibly ignorant for one simple reason: there is room for both the Attenborough and Monbiot approaches to nature conservation. Both are equally important and each hinges on the success of the other. To reach the stage of direct action, as Monbiot and others advocate, you first need to be interested. You need to boast an affection for nature prior to delving into the serious, technical and often bland ins and outs of environmentalism. To reach the point of action, you need to be inspired, plain and simple, and no one inspires quite like Britain’s most trusted broadcaster.

Absent Attenborough and his efforts to highlight the beauty and diversity of nature, few people would give a hoot about the fate of our planet. Okay, some would – those privileged enough to be exposed to nature from an early again –  but not nearly the number required to make any real difference. The conservationists, naturalists and environmentalists who work to achieve great deeds in the field and yes, tirelessly support the causes championed by George Monbiot and others, would be fewer in number absent, Attenborough, as a catalyst for their devotion. Sure, he has not single-handedly brought about the salvation of our planet [no one can do so alone] but he has put boots on the ground in defence of nature.

Once you look past the potshots and sniping generated by this article, you will see that we desperately need both approaches to nature conservation. We need the Attenborough approach to ensnare, captivate and pave the way, and we need the Monbiot approach to bring about the next steps. Both are dependant on one another, and both are equally vital.

It would have been easy to rebut Monbiot’s article, as others have, by asking what difference he and the approach he advocates have made for nature. It would have been easy to give in to the comparison of feats and achievements but, in my opinion, doing so would be reductive. We need both the Monbiot’s and Attenborough’s of this world to make any real difference.

If activists such as George Monbiot are the engine that drives change for the natural world, then educators like David Attenborough are the gasoline – their work and influence the fuel that powers the whole vehicle. No campaign can succeed absent public affection for the natural world and without doubt, no one fosters affection quite like Sir David. 

If you liked this post, please consider casting a vote for me in the UK Blog Awards 2019 by following this link. All you need to do is select the ‘love heart’ beside Common By Nature.

Driven Grouse Shooting: the Bluff’s Been Called, by Les Wallace

This post was originally written for  Bowland Raptor Politics. The thoughts expressed here are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent my own.

Well with clockwork regularity another season’s fledged hen harriers ‘disappear’ over grouse moor. They’re not even making an effort to throttle back in the face of growing censure in fact they seem to be giving conservationists, the public and the law a bigger two finger salute than ever.  Time to return the gesture, but the thing is we don’t have to resort to breaking the law or raw insult we just have to ask as members of the public for what we always should have had. Given that it’s our taxes and too often politicians that are already supporting driven grouse shooting – we need an independent, comprehensive economic analysis to see if we are giving subsidies to something that actually deserves them.

What’s really keeping grouse moors afloat politically is not the phoney conservation case they put forward with more holes than a Swiss cheese; it’s the phoney jobs one. I know genuine environmentalists who detest driven grouse shooting (DGS) but cannot bring themselves to campaign against it because they truly believe rural communities will be devastated by job losses  –  the threats that families will lose their homes, schools will close and villages die hit home although they are almost certainly not true, but  jobs blackmail works.

Common sense and history, especially of industrial areas that were dependent upon the local steel mill, coal mines or shipyards, tell us that economically as well as ecologically it’s best to be ‘diverse’ – a strong local economy with many elements that can shift and adapt to knocks rather than collapse from one foul stroke of misfortune. This year’s ‘poor’ grouse shooting season where local businesses suffered because grouse chicks haven’t done too well really underlines this. How idiotic it is to depend upon the intensive and extensive ‘management’ of vast swathes of land for something that compromises virtually every other activity that could take place there. Something that can never, ever be for anything other than a tiny minority and doesn’t even have the saving grace of being a spectator sport, something which countries across northern Europe, Asia and America could do with the willow grouse – but no other country in the world will touch with a ten foot barge pole.

To this end government petition 226109 ‘An Independent Study to find if Driven Grouse Shooting is of Economic Benefit’ has been set up. If it reaches 10,000 signatures an official government response will be required which will be very interesting indeed. Official responses to government petitions wanting to ban DGS would typically include some reference that it is a vital contributor to the rural economy – how can it say that in response to a petition asking if that’s true? The Scottish Government is already conducting a wide-ranging review of driven grouse shooting which includes an economic study so it would be very difficult to justify not having one south of the border given the dearth of comprehensive, up to date and independent studies currently – obviously the various ones produced by the grouse shooting sector don’t make the grade except perhaps as comedy material or toilet paper.

To get to the 10,000 mark and hopefully beyond by the closing date of Feb 2nd 2019 is doable, but challenging. Rather ironically (but understandably) it ‘s much, much easier to get lots of signatures  for petitions against animal cruelty and loss of wildlife than it is for an economic study, but if we prove DGS is driving away jobs as much as it is wildlife then it will lose political support and with that its capacity to ‘cull’ mountain hares, get dodgy licenses for killing ravens, to snare, trap and build stink pits, to blame ramblers and raptor workers for scaring off birds of prey while the accusers are killing them illegally, to bulldoze hill tracks to get fat stock brokers on to the moors, to create a fire-prone landscape then say they’ve got to maintain it to reduce fire risk, to pollute and degrade watercourses with muir burn and exacerbate flooding downstream. If they lose the capacity to apply jobs blackmail they lose the grouse moors and with it will go every single one of its cruelties and absurdities.

This might sound like wishful thinking, but the petition isn’t just about getting signatures it’s about making a political point. Considering that pro-DGS organisations repeatedly claim that without it communities will die etc should they not absolutely cock a hoop at the opportunity to get official verification that no one could effectively challenge? Makes you wonder why they didn’t initiate this petition themselves. So it was with great surprise that when I contacted the Moorland Association, National Gamekeepers Organisation, GWCT, BASC and four English moorland forums with the news they now had a petition for an independent study they could and should promote to their heart’s content not only did they not do so, they didn’t even acknowledge my communications! It was if they wanted to pretend the petition didn’t exist. Of course in any subsequent statements, they make re the positive economics of DGS I (and now you) can point out this anomaly – their bluff’s been called.  I also contacted the constituency parties of four of the MPs who stood up in support of DGS at the notorious parliamentary ‘debate’ on the 31st of October 2016 that resulted from Mark Avery’s petition to ban DGS. It was pointed out that they now had the chance to back up their MPs’ assertions by supporting the petition, again absolutely no reaction from any of them. What would the public make of that? Would we be right in saying they are all frightened of the petition, do they believe it’s the DGS nemesis?

If we’ve identified the Achilles Heel of DGS, which for years they’ve tried to make ours, let’s hammer the nail into it just as remorselessly as they kill hen harriers.  Nowhere in the north of England can be very far from a driven grouse moor, we need ‘petition champions’ who will do what they can to raise the issue in the local papers, ask local conservation and environmental groups to support the petition, contact the local branches of the political parties, councillors, ramblers clubs – and in fact anybody that might spend time on the moors, local businesses that might like to know if they’d do better without DGS and might think their family income shouldn’t be dependent on grouse chick productivity, animal welfare charities obviously and no doubt many more you can think of. And if there’s more than one person in a locality doing this – all the better. There cannot possibly be any legitimate objection to a proper economic study of something which receives public subsidy and effects so many directly and indirectly – in fact, all rational individuals should sign it.

Of course getting the public interested in grouse moors when most have very little to do with them is difficult, but rather the point too – they mean so very little to most when they should mean a lot – the places where you really can get away from the big smoke and see amazing wildlife and a genuinely stunning landscape – places where fell runners don’t get caught in snares. Places so much better to visit and live in with more jobs and more wildlife. We could use everything from peat bog restoration to riparian tree planting, and yes even beavers (wouldn’t they draw people into the hills!) in the right places to reduce the effects of flooding and drought downstream, improve water quality and reduce fire risk. With proper ecological restoration, you’d start getting wildlife back including the dramatic raptors, that means far greater scope for wildlife photography, bushcraft and foraging classes – how many people could do these rather than shooting grouse, hundreds, thousands? Better business plus far, far more of us genuinely benefitting from OUR heritage. Imagine a place which still has red grouse, but also hosts bat walks? Then there are conservation working holidays like the two I did in the Forest of Bowland after the end of the grouse shooting as it happens – we spent a fair amount in the local shops, pubs and even the local pantomime, and had a great time!

There are families who don’t want a wood stove because it would look nice and make them ‘carbon neutral’ but because they don’t have access to mains gas – that’s what’s called a legitimate need for woodlot forestry. I’ve stood in Fort William after interviewing families in dire fuel poverty, spending more than 10% of their income trying to heat their homes in a particularly cold and damp climate, looking up at the surrounding hills seeing miles and miles of heather being burnt off – for grouse or sheep or both I’m not sure, but that could have at least been producing logs for people who really struggled to keep their kids warm – that I have to say pissed me off. Better fire in the hearth than fire on the hill – another option for the new mix.

It’s not only about fully-fledged ecotourism it’s also just being better places to walk and picnic in where you’re not a second class citizen because you have nothing to do with grouse shooting. Do any grouse moors have pony trekking on them, even offseason? Not dramatic or original, but I imagine a nice change or opportunity for many people. In my mind’s eye, I’m trying to visualise a group of pony trekkers going across what was a grouse moor, so much nicer than a line of shooters. Of course, the public should be asked to make suggestions, emphasizing the need not to compromise wildlife or the environment, and we can look abroad for ideas too.

We need people to get signatures for the petition and to use it as a catalyst to raise awareness and stimulate debate – we’ve been getting shortchanged for a long, long time. No matter how powerful, pampered and influential the grouse moor owners are they can’t ignore public opinion; for one thing their on a leash MP friends still need to get voted in. As long ago as the 1930s the Kinder Scout trespass showed that people with dedication and right on their side could give the grouse moor owners one hell of a bloody nose. I’m positive that no amount of raptor persecution or mountain hare massacres will ever be enough to get DGS stopped as long as people think doing so means a young family in the street, but turn that round to mean all children are missing out on the chance to see real wildlife and that jobs helping to make that happen are being lost among so many other things due to DGS then it has really had it – and ‘they’ know it.

There’s the story, now cliché really, that Al Capone wasn’t chucked behind bars because he was nabbed for bootlegging, extortion or murder, but for income tax evasion. I think there’s quite a lot of relevance there for DGS and all the missing raptors, damaged moor and lies. Please, please, please get behind the petition at local level – remember the lost harriers, get stuck in and have fun doing it! Thanks.

Links

The petition – https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/226109

The 2017 petition to get the Scottish Government to commission an independent economic study of DGS (carries far more background information than the Westminster one) – http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01663

Labour MP Sue Hayman shadow secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – her statement regarding the need for full ecological and economic analysis of DGS – https://labourlist.org/2018/08/sue-hayman-its-time-to-end-grouse-moor-practices-that-harm-the-environment/

Glen Tanar –  a rare, but brilliant example of a grouse shooting estate that is genuinely diversifying – the other estates hate it! – https://www.glentanar.co.uk/about

 

Well with clockwork regularity another season’s fledged hen harriers ‘disappear’ over grouse moor. They’re not even making an effort to throttle back in the face of growing censure in fact they seem to be giving conservationists, the public and the law a bigger two finger salute than ever.  Time to return the gesture, but the thing is we don’t have to resort to breaking the law or raw insult we just have to ask as members of the public for what we always should have had. Given that it’s our taxes and too often politicians that are already supporting driven grouse shooting – we need an independent, comprehensive economic analysis to see if we are giving subsidies to something that actually deserves them.

What’s really keeping grouse moors afloat politically is not the phony conservation case they put forward with more holes than a Swiss cheese; it’s the phony jobs one. I know genuine environmentalists who detest driven grouse shooting (DGS) but cannot bring themselves to campaign against it because they truly believe rural communities will be devastated by job losses  –  the threats that families will lose their homes, schools will close and villages die hit home although they are almost certainly not true, but  jobs blackmail works.

Common sense and history, especially of industrial areas that were dependent upon the local steel mill, coal mines or shipyards, tell us that economically as well as ecologically it’s best to be ‘diverse’ – a strong local economy with many elements that can shift and adapt to knocks rather than collapse from one foul stroke of misfortune. This year’s ‘poor’ grouse shooting season where local businesses suffered because grouse chicks haven’t done too well really underlines this. How idiotic it is to depend upon the intensive and extensive ‘management’ of vast swathes of land for something that compromises virtually every other activity that could take place there. Something that can never, ever be for anything other than a tiny minority and doesn’t even have the saving grace of being a spectator sport, something which countries across northern Europe, Asia and America could do with the willow grouse – but no other country in the world will touch with a ten foot barge pole.

To this end government petition 226109 ‘An Independent Study to find if Driven Grouse Shooting is of Economic Benefit’ has been set up. If it reaches 10,000 signatures an official government response will be required which will be very interesting indeed. Official responses to government petitions wanting to ban DGS would typically include some reference that it is a vital contributor to the rural economy – how can it say that in response to a petition asking if that’s true? The Scottish Government is already conducting a wide ranging review of driven grouse shooting which includes an economic study so it would be very difficult to justify not having one south of the border given the dearth of comprehensive, up to date and independent studies currently – obviously the various ones produced by the grouse shooting sector don’t make the grade except perhaps as comedy material or toilet paper.

To get to the 10,000 mark and hopefully beyond by the closing date of Feb 2nd 2019 is doable, but challenging. Rather ironically (but understandably) it ‘s much, much easier to get lots of signatures  for petitions against animal cruelty and loss of wildlife than it is for an economic study, but if we prove DGS is driving away jobs as much as it is wildlife then it will lose political support and with that its capacity to ‘cull’ mountain hares, get dodgy licenses for killing ravens, to snare, trap and build stink pits, to blame ramblers and raptor workers for scaring off birds of prey while the accusers are killing them illegally, to bulldoze hill tracks to get fat stock brokers on to the moors, to create a fire prone landscape then say they’ve got to maintain it to reduce fire risk, to pollute and degrade watercourses with muir burn and exacerbate flooding downstream. If they lose the capacity to apply jobs blackmail they lose the grouse moors and with it will go every single one of its cruelties and absurdities.

This might sound like wishful thinking, but the petition isn’t just about getting signatures it’s about making a political point. Considering that pro DGS organisations repeatedly claim that without it communities will die etc should they not be absolutely cock a hoop at the opportunity to get official verification that no one could effectively challenge? Makes you wonder why they didn’t initiate this petition them selves. So it was with great surprise that when I contacted the Moorland Association, National Gamekeepers Organisation, GWCT, BASC and four English moorland forums with the news they now had a petition for an independent study they could and should promote to their heart’s content not only did they not do so, they didn’t even acknowledge my communications! It was if they wanted to pretend the petition didn’t exist. Of course in any subsequent statements they make re the positive economics of DGS I (and now you) can point out this anomaly – their bluff’s been called.  I also contacted the constituency parties of four of the MPs who stood up in support of DGS at the notorious parliamentary ‘debate’ on the 31st of October 2016 that resulted from Mark Avery’s petition to ban DGS. It was pointed out that they now had the chance to back up their MPs’ assertions by supporting the petition, again absolutely no reaction from any of them. What would the public make of that? Would we be right in saying they are all frightened of the petition, do they believe it’s the DGS nemesis?

If we’ve identified the Achilles Heel of DGS, which for years they’ve tried to make ours, let’s hammer the nail into it just as remorselessly as they kill hen harriers.  Nowhere in the north of England can be very far from a driven grouse moor, we need ‘petition champions’ who will do what they can to raise the issue in the local papers, ask local conservation and environmental groups to support the petition, contact the local branches of the political parties, councillors, ramblers clubs – and in fact anybody that might spend time on the moors, local businesses that might like to know if they’d do better without DGS and might think their family income shouldn’t be dependent on grouse chick productivity, animal welfare charities obviously and no doubt many more you can think of. And if there’s more than one person in a locality doing this – all the better. There cannot possibly be any legitimate objection to a proper economic study of something which receives public subsidy and effects so many directly and indirectly – in fact all rational individuals should sign it.

Of course getting the public interested in grouse moors when most have very little to do with them is difficult, but rather the point too – they mean so very little to most when they should mean a lot – the places where you really can get away from the big smoke and see amazing wildlife and a genuinely stunning landscape – places where fell runners don’t get caught in snares. Places so much better to visit and live in with more jobs and more wildlife. We could use everything from peat bog restoration to riparian tree planting, and yes even beavers (wouldn’t they draw people into the hills!) in the right places to reduce the effects of flooding and drought downstream, improve water quality and reduce fire risk. With proper ecological restoration you’d start getting wildlife back including the dramatic raptors, that means far greater scope for wildlife photography, bushcraft and foraging classes – how many people could do these rather than shoot driven grouse, hundreds, thousands fold? Better business plus far, far more of us genuinely benefitting from OUR heritage. Imagine a place which still has red grouse, but also hosts bat walks? Then there are conservation working holidays like the two I did in the Forest of Bowland after the end of the grouse shooting as it happens – we spent a fair amount in the local shops, pubs and even the local pantomime, and had a great time!

There are families who don’t want a wood stove because it would look nice and make them ‘carbon neutral’ but because they don’t have access to mains gas – that’s what’s called a legitimate need for woodlot forestry. I’ve stood in Fort William after interviewing families in dire fuel poverty, spending more than 10% of their income trying to heat their homes in a particularly cold and damp climate, looking up at the surrounding hills seeing miles and miles of heather being burnt off – for grouse or sheep or both I’m not sure, but that could have at least been producing logs for people who really struggled to keep their kids warm – that I have to say pissed me off. Better fire in the hearth than fire on the hill – another option for the new mix.

It’s not only about fully fledged eco tourism it’s also just being better places to walk and picnic in where you’re not a second class citizen because you have nothing to do with grouse shooting. Do any grouse moors have pony trekking on them, even off season? Not dramatic or original, but I imagine a nice change or opportunity for many people. In my mind’s eye I’m trying to visualise a group of pony trekkers going across what was a grouse moor, so much nicer than a line of shooters. Of course the public should be asked to make suggestions, emphasizing the need not to compromise wildlife or environment, and we can look abroad for ideas too.

We need people to get signatures for the petition and to use it as a catalyst to raise awareness and stimulate debate – we’ve been getting short changed for a long, long time. No matter how powerful, pampered and influential the grouse moor owners are they can’t ignore public opinion; for one thing their on a leash MP friends still need to get voted in. As long ago as the 1930s the Kinder Scout trespass showed that people with dedication and right on their side could give the grouse moor owners one hell of a bloody nose. I’m positive that no amount of raptor persecution or mountain hare massacres will ever be enough to get DGS stopped as long as people think doing so means a young family in the street, but turn that round to mean all children are missing out on the chance to see real wildlife and that jobs helping to make that happen are being lost among so many other things due to DGS then it has really had it – and ‘they’ know it.

There’s the story, now cliché really, that Al Capone wasn’t chucked behind bars because he was nabbed for bootlegging, extortion or murder, but for income tax evasion. I think there’s quite a lot of relevance there for DGS and all the missing raptors, damaged moor and lies. Please, please, please get behind the petition at local level – remember the lost harriers, get stuck in and have fun doing it! Thanks.

Links

The petition – https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/226109

The 2017 petition to get the Scottish Government to commission an independent economic study of DGS (carries far more background information than the Westminster one) – http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01663

Labour MP Sue Hayman shadow secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – her statement regarding the need for full ecological and economic analysis of DGS – https://labourlist.org/2018/08/sue-hayman-its-time-to-end-grouse-moor-practices-that-harm-the-environment/

Glen Tanar –  a rare, but brilliant example of a grouse shooting estate that is genuinely diversifying – the other estates hate it! – https://www.glentanar.co.uk/about

 

 

Bumper breeding season for rare waders

It was uplifting to learn that Black-tailed Godwits, the elegant wading birds at the heart of the outstanding Project Godwit initiative, have enjoyed a bumper breeding season in Southern England. Below you will find a news release from the organisations involved in the PG scheme for you to peruse at your leisure – surely we all welcome a dash of good news in our age of perpetual, environmental negativity. 

Despite spring flooding and a summer heatwave, this years’ flock of black-tailed godwits has enjoyed a bumper year thanks to a dedicated team of conservationists working as part of Project Godwit. A scheme which combines the expertise of teams from both the RSPB and the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT).

When black-tailed godwits returned to the Fens to nest in March weather conditions were less than ideal: in fact, spring flooding covered most of the land the birds normally use at the RSPB Nene Washes nature reserve in Cambridgeshire. Desperate to begin their breeding season some of the birds resorted to laying their eggs in a field near to their traditional nesting grounds but conservationists found that some of the eggs quickly became stuck in the wet mud. Fortunately, Project Godwit already had plans to remove a number of eggs to raise chicks in special bird rearing facilities, boosting the birds’ chance of survival. So, working with the farmer who owned the field, the team collected 32 precious eggs from the farmland (in addition to 23 from the nature reserve as planned) and incubated them at WWT Welney Wetland Centre.

Project Manager Hannah Ward writes:

“When we rescued the eggs from the fields we were very worried that the chicks might not survive due to the muddy conditions of some of the eggs so it was quite a nerve-wracking wait to see if any of them would hatch. Meanwhile, our team on the nature reserve worked hard to make sure that when the water receded, there were areas where more godwits could nest in safety away from the flood.”

An amazing 38 leggy little chicks were released at Welney and the Nene Washes once they were ready to fend for themselves. Soon joining wild flocks which included 18 wild-hatched chicks and nine of the black-tailed godwits which were released as youngsters in 2017.

Nicola Hiscock, Senior Aviculturist from WWT says

“We’re thrilled with the progress the birds have made this year. In fact, two of the godwit chicks raised at Welney last year had families of their own which is a really good sign that the method we’re using, headstarting the young birds to give them the best chance in the wild, is working.”

The team were also delighted to find godwits breeding at the RSPB Pilot Project site next to the Ouse Washes, a site they’ve only bred at once before, in 2012.

Some of the birds involved in the scheme were fitted with geolocators allowing researchers to learn more about where the birds travel to in the winter. Research like this means that UK-based conservation teams can work with their equivalent organisations in other countries to ensure the birds have safe places to fly through or spend the colder months. This year ten new geolocators were fitted and two were collected from birds tagged in 2017. One of these showed that a female godwit went all the way to West Africa and back, stopping off in Spain, Portugal and Norfolk on her way before returning back to the Fens to breed.

As the godwits begin to depart for the winter, Project Godwit are calling on birdwatchers to send in sightings of the released birds, which all have a unique combination of colour leg rings. It’s easy to do this on the Project Godwit website: projectgodwit.org.uk and will help the team build up a picture of the important areas the birds need.

One of the major funding sources for Project Godwit is the EU LIFE Nature Programme. As we prepare to leave the EU, Project Godwit partners look forward to seeing how the UK Government will replace this vital source of funding for future conservation projects.

Cover image: Earith at RSPB Ouse Washes, the first headstarted bird to successfully breed.  © Jonathan Taylor RSPB.

RSPB criticised for protecting birds… fancy that?

This week, the depths of social media have been filled with grumblings of discontent aimed at the RSPB for their use of lethal control as a conservation tool on their land: to protect threatened curlew (and other ground-nesting birds), to restore woodland and to protect a suite of native fauna from damaging invasive species.

To their credit, the RSPB have acted with commendable transparency on this issue: releasing their annual report of vertebrates controlled on RSPB owned reserves and issuing a frank take on Curlew conservation, penned by Conservation Director, Martin Harper.

Criticism of the RSPB has been rife, not least from compassionate conservationists, and based on a scan of various platforms, it is safe to say that more than a few RSPB members have been left questioning their commitment to the organisation. By all accounts, it seems like the RSPB simply cannot get it right: receiving flack for ‘not doing enough’ to protect our wildlife and then, when they do take action, finding themselves lambasted for their chosen methods. It’s all rather tedious, and frustrating; especially as in this instance, the RSPB have done the right thing entirely.

Take Curlew for example. We all know that to truly save this species from extinction in the UK, landscape-scale change is required – I do not dispute that. Neither do the RSPB and as I write this, they are working to achieve just that by conducting vital research into Curlew-friendly land management options. However, we also know that in areas where changes in habitat have left birds vulnerable, and where generalist predator numbers have increased, the impact of habitat loss is drastically amplified. With corvids and foxes, in particular, greatly reducing Curlew breeding success and thus, creating the potential for localised extinctions. The final nail in the Curlew’s coffin, so to speak.

The RSPB acknowledge the need for landscape-scale change to protect Britain’s Curlew and are working to inform and enact this; though they also recognise the need for action to halt Curlew declines while long-term plans are formulated. Essentially, they are not content to merely wring their hands and wait as Curlew numbers plummet and instead have opted for a science-based approach they know runs the risk of alienating some of their members. In doing so, prioritising the protection of birds – through necessary and entirely justified means – instead of profits. Is that not what critics have pushed for all along? It is certainly what I want to see as a paying RSPB member. Action as opposed to apathy.

As I stated in a blog post a few weeks ago, whether we like it or not, the act of killing is, in many cases, the only thing which stands between a plethora of wildlife populations and collapse. It should never be undertaken lightly and absent scientific justification – as is widely available in the case of the Curlew – but is, in fact, a necessity in response to wildlife populations forced out of kilter due to long-term mismanagement of the countryside.

It is also worth pointing out that the RSPB only enact lethal control of wildlife once all other viable options have been exhausted. Demonstrated by this quote pulled from the aforementioned post by Martin Harper:

Non-lethal methods, whilst always our preferred way of doing things, are not always practical. Lethal vertebrate control on RSPB reserves is only considered where the following four criteria are met:

  • That the seriousness of the problem has been established
  • That non-lethal measures have been assessed and found not to be practicable
  • That killing is an effective way of addressing the problem
  • That killing will not have an adverse impact on the conservation status of the target or other non-target species.

There is no magic wand available that will restore the countryside to a natural state of equilibrium. There are things we can do on a case by case basis, sure: rewilding were we can and pushing for legislative change that incentivises sympathetic habitat management. We should do both of these and in the long-term, they are vital; though both take time. Time many species currently teetering on the brink simply do not have. Whether we’re talking the control of foxes to protect Capercaillie, the control of surging deer populations to protect woodland or indeed, the killing of corvids and foxes to safeguard Curlew, in many cases, action is required now.

Such action may, from time to time, be hard to swallow but ultimately, is preferable to the losses that may be incurred otherwise. At least in my opinion.

Cover image: By Charles J Sharp – Own work, from Sharp Photography, sharpphotography, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42805097

If you enjoyed this blog, please consider voting for James in the Terra Incognita ‘Wildlife Blogger of the Year’ competition. The form for which can be found beneath the article here – please enter number 13. 

The North-West Rare Plant Initiative, a guest blog by Joshua Styles

The concept of island biogeography was first laid out by MacArther & Wilson (1967) in a book entitled ‘The Theory of Island Biogeography’. The concept was relatively simple in its key principles; that ‘islands’ that are small are capable of supporting fewer species than larger ‘islands’, and that the further away these ‘islands’ are from each other, then the less likely it is that a species is able to re-colonise once it becomes extinct.

Since the industrial revolution and Second World War, semi-natural habitats including our flower-rich meadows, heathlands, mosslands and woodlands have been lost, predominantly due to agriculture and forestry. This has left many of our plants in a rather awful predicament; huge expanses of our once flower-rich habitats have been lost, and remaining flower-rich places are in generally very isolated and small pockets of our countryside. In this case, the concept of island biogeography could be said to apply; isolated and small floristically-rich islands are both prone to extinction events, and things that are extinct, are unlikely to re-colonise. The sheer level of habitat loss that has occurred over the past century, and rate at which our flower-rich habitats are still being lost, has meant that one in three wildflowers in Britain are under threat of extinction. Additionally, per county, on average one-two species goes extinct every year in England!

Growing up as a child, one of the most infuriating memories I had each year, was to look at my county’s rare plant register which gives information on the very rarest plants in the county. Almost every year there were new extinctions; it has always been a devastating prospect that the rare, and even some of the more common plant species, could be utterly gone from the region when I am an old man…given the often immense distances other sites are where the species is present, it often will not re-colonise and will be extinct for good.

I now have over 15 years botanical cultivation and recording experience, and this same devastating prospect was the rationale for the beginnings of an initiative for my region (north-west England), the North-West Rare Plant Initiative; to put back & reinforce species on suitable sites that are on the very cusp of extinction in the region.

The North-West Rare Plant Initiative (NWRPI): aims & objectives

The NWRPI is an initiative that I formalised in August 2017 operating across Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and South Cumbria. There are just under

50 target species for my initiative for which I want to reintroduce and reinforce throughout the region; this isn’t a quick process and involves lots of steps including suitability assessment, consideration of biosecurity concerns, feasibility, etc. (to view an overview of the reintroduction protocol I follow, see www.nwrpi.weebly.com). Additional to my aims involving reintroducing and reinforcing species, the NWRPI aims also to work with landowners of sites with these rare species, to incorporate more favourable management practices. It also aims to establish a national network of propagators for target species to assist in cultivation effort and to act as back-up in the very worst scenarios.

Priority Species

Although extinctions of plants at a regional level doesn’t necessarily equate to extinction at a national level, it is often a precursor to such; thus, conservation at a regional level is of paramount importance, in addition to looking at species in a national context. As well as conserving rare plants because we need to maintain a level of biodiversity, plants offer us a lot…They are the fundamental basis of all life on earth; they give us food, building materials, medicine and are shown to improve aspects of our mental health. Aside from these qualities and products plants offer, they’re just downright AMAZING…

An example of one of the species I am cultivating is Oblong-Leaved Sundew (Drosera intermedia). It is one of the more spectacular things I grow and is a carnivorous plant in the family Droseraceae. It grows on very wet, acid, nutrient-deficient peat bogs and wet heaths throughout Britain and Ireland & has fantastic tentacle-like structures with terminal mucus-producing glands. Once small invertebrates land on these mucus-covered tentacles, the plant is able to digest the organism and absorb the nitrogen content which is otherwise unavailable in the nutrient deficient peat bogs. Oblong-Leaved Sundew has unfortunately declined substantially in the region due to these peat bogs being formerly drained for forestry and excavated for peat; it now exists in often very isolated pockets of wet heath and peat bog that remain across the North-West region.

Olong-Leaved Sundew courtesy of Steven Barlow.

Into the not-so-distant future!

Within the next year of my initiative, a lot of prospective reintroductions are planned many thanks to the assistance provided by funding from individual donors and Chester Zoo. An example of one up-and-coming introduction would be the introduction of Sheep’s-Bit (Jasione montana) onto Freshfield Dune Heath, Sefton Coast. This fantastic place is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and is currently under the management of Lancashire Wildlife Trust, dominated by expanses of acid heathland and grassland. Sheep’s Bit is a species doing rather poorly in the region given its poor ability to disperse and loss of heathland and acid grassland; so bad in fact, that in 2017, the entire S. Lancashire population was down to two individual plants. Following 2017 sampling of seed from Cheshire and North Wales and permission granted by the trust, I now have a substantial number of plants ready for introduction onto Freshfield Dune Heath, close to where it had recently disappeared from.

On a final note, it should be noted that all species introductions are well justified by a stringent protocol and with the permission of relevant landowners and statutory bodies. It is important not to take any rare plant or plant things onto nature reserves. All sampling and introductions are done in strict accordance with IUCN guidelines and the BSBI code of conduct.

 

UK’s most endangered butterfly thrown a lifeline by the National Trust

The enigmatic High Brown Fritillary, the UK’s most endangered butterfly, has been thrown a vital lifeline in 2018 through the creation of a new conservation project led by the National Trust and partners. With the charity now embarking on an ambitious plan to develop 60 hectares of lowland heath and wood pasture – the butterfly’s principal habitat – to give it a fighting chance for the future. The project has been made possible as part of a £750k award made to the Trust by players of People’s Postcode Lottery.

 Over the last 50 years, the UK population of High Brown Fritillaries has declined rapidly due to changes in woodland management and, more recently, the abandonment of marginal hill land. Butterflies, including the High Brown Fritillary, need large areas of the countryside to survive in good numbers, and their populations have struggled where these habitats have been overwhelmed by pressures from agriculture and development. Additionally, it is thought that climate change and nitrogen deposition from the atmosphere are almost certainly contributing to the High Brown’s demise. Overall, the UK population has declined by 66% since the 1970s.

 The £100k project will focus on restoring parts of the natural landscape along the Exmoor and North Devon coast to make it more suitable for the butterfly. Other wildlife including the Heath Fritillary, Nightjar and Dartford warbler will also benefit, it is thought.

 Matthew Oates, National Trust nature expert and butterfly enthusiast, said, “We’ve witnessed a catastrophic decline of many native butterfly populations in recent decades but initiatives like this can really help to turn the tide. Combined with increased recording and monitoring efforts, there is significant hope for some of our most threatened winged insects.

 The support we have from players of People’s Postcode Lottery for nature conservation, alongside continued support for Heritage Open Days, is a wonderful boost to our work in 2018.”

 Jenny Plackett, Butterfly Conservation’s Senior Regional Officer, said: “We’ve been working with the National Trust for many years to reverse the declines in the High Brown Fritillary on Exmoor, and I’m thrilled that players of People’s Postcode Lottery are supporting important management work in this landscape. Exmoor’s Heddon Valley supports the strongest population of High Brown Fritillary in England, but even here the butterfly remains at risk, and ongoing efforts to restore habitat and enable the butterfly to expand are crucial to its survival.”

As well as helping secure the future of High Brown Fritillaries, the £750k award from players of People’s Postcode Lottery will be used to fund several other National Trust conservation projects, along with continuing support for Heritage Open Days. They include:

  • Woodland management, pond creation, building bat boxes and installing infra-red cameras to monitor bat populations in the South Downs.
  • Restoring wildflower meadows along the Durham coast to help ground nesting birds such as skylarks and lapwings.
  • Planting hornbeam, beech and field maple trees at Woodside Green near Hatfield Forest.
  • Restoring grasslands and wildflower meadows along the North Pembrokeshire coast, helping birds including chough.
  • Protecting and restoring chalk grasslands at the White Cliffs of Dover, following players’ support towards the acquisition of land immediately behind the cliff face in 2017.

Header Image: Matthew Oates, courtesy of National Trust images.

A tentative step in the right direction | Some thoughts on the 25-year Environment Plan

This past week, and to an equal mix of fanfare and apprehension, the government released its long-awaited 25-year plan to improve the environment. A full outline of which can be found here, for those interested. I would advise all to have a read.

The plan, launched in style by the PM herself, sets out a long-term plan designed to help the natural world regain and retain good health; aiming to deliver clean air and water, protect and restore threatened wildlife populations, provide better habitat and cut pollution. Altogether it calls for an approach to agriculture, forestry, fishing, land-use and, of course, Brexit that emphasises the value of a healthy natural environment. Even going as far as to stress the importance of engaging people in their natural ecosystem and making a number of promises with regards to international conservation.

Now, despite the (arguably) good intentions underpinning the plan, many people – hailing predominately from the environmental field – have been quite critical of it. Some, like young conservationist and campaigner Georgia Locock, have branded it underwhelming. Highlighting the government’s avoidance of controversial (yet important) issues such as illegal wildlife crime, the current badger cull and fracking. Others, notably Ben Stafford, head of campaigns at WWF, have pointed out the absence of any mention of the hard legislation necessary to enforce new measures, a sentiment echoed by Stephanie Hilborne, Cheif Executive of the Wildlife Trusts. This view of the plan, as fundamentally lacking in substance and a tad vacuous, appears to summarise the general reception of the strategy, with others also taking issue with the time-span at the heart of it.

All of these concerns are perfectly valid and I, personally, share many of them. Particularly the worries regarding time-span – how likely are we to have a Tory government in two years, nevermind twenty-five? Who is to say the plan, in its entirety, will not be abandoned upon the next general election? I cannot say for certain, nor can anyone else. Similarly, the lack of mention of any specific legislation raises some question and, until such is given, the plan itself is only hypothetical. Perhaps the omission of such is due to the uncertainty surrounding Brexit, but either way, the lack of anything concrete leaves environmentalists two choices: wholeheartedly believe the promises of reigning politicians (fat chance), or view the plan with scepticism. Most will air on the latter side, as will I.

I also have some serious reservations regarding the creation of the New Northern Forest mentioned in the plan; though I discussed this at length in a previous blog post.

While I share the worries voiced regarding the government’s plan, I still cannot help but feel somewhat positive following its publication. The fact that the Tory party has dedicated the time and effort to form a relatively comprehensive report on nature can be viewed as a monumental leap in the right direction. Especially given their track record on the environment – ignorance towards wildlife crime and peat degradation, the flawed nature of the UK badger cull, fracking, HS2, failure to manage our forests and the like. The fact that the environment, an issue consistently overlooked during election campaigns, is now garnering such attention is outstanding. Heck, even the involvement of our embattled Prime Minister is positive – normally these things are left to the secretary of state or the various minions associated with him/her. Is this increased emphasis on the environment merely a tactic to appeal to voters, particularly younger ones? Undoubtedly, but it works for me and long may it continue.

While some of the report gives cause for concern, it would be remiss of me not to highlight its positive aspects – there are an awful lot and, as such, I could not possibly outline them all. However, for me, perhaps the most important aspect of the plan is the apparent realisation that nature is, in fact, important to a great many people – providing benefits to both physical and mental health. There is mention of natural therapies for, a (sort of) plan for urban greenspaces – vital for those within the population confined to an urban setting – and even a note on the importance of engaging young people with nature. All of this focuses on the human side of nature and, if implemented correctly, may well play a pivotal role in changing societies view of the natural world. Painting the great outdoors as an important part of daily life, as opposed to a mere fringe interest.

Additionally (as I touched upon in last weeks post on Michael Gove) I am also quite taken with the governments apparent commitment on tackling plastic pollution. This has been much discussed elsewhere so I will refrain from talking too much on the matter; though I will say that plastic pollution, namely in our oceans, is one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. I welcome any and all attempts to curb our reliance on non-biodegradable refuse and recognise the value of the government’s suggestions on this issue. It will not be easy – we do, after all, rely heavily on plastics – but I am at least optimistic given recent developments.

Some other points of the plan worthy of a mention include the vaguest hint that a new environmental watchdog could be formed to monitor environmental decisions post-Brexit. This, in my opinion, is a necessity; though I will not hold my breath. As writer Ben Eagle points out, the government has only suggested that they will consult on the matter. Not exactly a firm promise but mildly encouraging. As is mention of creating room for species reintroductions and talk of biosecurity measures designed to halt the spread of invasive species. Non-native, alien plants, animals and diseases are an issue I care very strongly about – having witnessed the collapse of the Red Squirrel population in my local area and the rampant spread of damaging botanicals – and I really do welcome any and all action on this front.

So yes, I find myself torn on the May governments 25-year Environment Plan. On one hand, it lacks substance and omits much with regards to just how ministers intend to enact the bold plans set out in the document. It also fails to mention a number of issues close to my heart and does not really do all that much now to tackle many of the problems listed. Focusing too heavily on the prospect of future action without taking into consideration the possible demise of the party behind the plan. Similarly, it is clearly an attempt to bolster the Tory parties public image and relies heavily on the outcome of Brexit in order to deliver any and all of the promises included. I agree with the sentiments of others than the plan is lacking; though I don’t think I can go as far as to brand it underwhelming.

On the other hand, the plan paints a picture of positivity by showing that the environment is, in fact, an issue that should find itself at the heart of politics. The very existence of the plan shows a shift in governmental attitudes and a realisation that voters, from all backgrounds, care for nature. The previously mentioned aspects regarding our own relationship with the world around us likewise provide cause for optimism, while the mention of issues ranging from soil degradation and biosecurity to reintroductions and habitat enhancement at least show that the government is on the right track. They are saying the right things, promising to tackle many of the issues which I, as an environmentalist, care about and prioritising approaches that will actively benefit our countryside. Whether these things come to pass is another story – it could all be bluster – though, given the tendency for things like this to fall somewhere in the middle, it at least looks as if nature will, in some capacity, benefit from the plan.

Like many, I am sceptical of this plan, but I do feel a palpable sense of hope which, only a few weeks back, did not exist at all.

(Image: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-backing-25-year-environment-11835666)

Want to inspire more young naturalists? Then its time to celebrate those we already have

There is an awful lot of negativity in the environmental field. Little wonder really, given the sorry state of the wider countryside, the downward trends displayed by many wildlife populations, climate change and the continued prominence of issues such as land mismanagement and plastic pollution. Indeed, everywhere we look another ecosystem faces ruin, and both species, habitats and treasured wild spaces slip [or tumble] ever closer to oblivion. The news these days dominated by extinction, degradation and grave warnings of coming catastrophe.

It should come as no surprise then, that life for an environmentalist can be a dreary affair: disheartening, as we fight on myriad fronts and do what we can, where we can, to combat the seemingly inevitable depletion of the natural world. Blinkered by our struggle and sometimes unable to take note of positivity when it is staring us in the face.

For me, as both an optimist and a conservationist, one of the few glimmers of light in the perpetual darkness of environmentalism comes from the rise of younger naturalists and the ascent of youthful, energetic advocates for the natural world. This is something that, as the founder of New Nature magazine, I wish to promote and celebrate, and something from which I, as a conservationist now straddling the divide between “young” and formerly so, derive great joy and hope. Although, too often do I see others, purveyors of a glass half empty mentality, promoting the opposite.

Nature deficit disorder, we have all heard of it, we all know it and we all we see it to varying degrees in our daily life. A trend in a modern society defined by our growing disconnect from the natural world – manifested in individuals of all ages but, it would seem, particularly prominent in the younger generation. As children, teens and young adults forgo the outdoors in favour of TV screens and games consoles. A worrying trend if ever there was one, and something which we must combat in order to raise awareness of, and inspire action on behalf of nature. It is, however, not the end of the world, and in my opinion, dwelling on the issue – worrying though it is – and in doing so consolidates a mostly negative view of generation z (and millennials, for that matter) and does little to encourage greater involvement in environmentalism.

As it stands, many young people are actively taking a stand for the natural world: individuals breaking the mould, defying stereotypes and consistently surpassing the expectations of a pessimistic older generation. It only takes one look at social media: at the ranks of blogging platforms and the swelling membership of community groups to see that now, more than ever, young people are really making a difference. Indeed, off the top of my head right now I can list many of these pioneering individuals: Dara McAnulty, Mya Craig, Georgia Locock, Findlay Wilde, James Miller to name but a few. Young conservationists poking their heads above the proverbial parapet and making a real difference for wildlife and the public perception of today’s youth. Though, of course, these names merely represent those lucky enough to have the spotlight cast upon them. There are many, many more out there quietly pushing, in their own unique way, for the betterment of the world around us.

It is easy to bemoan the lack of young people involved in nature conservation – more people working to the benefit of nature would be preferable, of course. Though giving further thought to the issue, it is clear to me that nature has always been a minority sport. A career in conservation has always (and doubtless always will) play second fiddle to those in other fields, and that is okay because crucially, there are still people who aspire to help nature. There are still young people inspired and motivated to such an extent that they wish to pursue environmentalism on a professional basis. As well as many more who dedicate their free time, usually while juggling a plethora of other commitments, to making a real, positive difference for the natural world.

Nature conservation has always been a fight against social norms and individuals, groups and organisations with very different priorities, it always will be. While we can and should work to change this, I believe we should do so in a positive manner and not lose touch with what we already have: a flourishing movement of motivated young people ready and willing to enact change.

Negativity does not encourage. You can berate the younger generation for being disinterested, selfish and idle until you are blue in the face but this will not encourage them to roll up there sleeves and get stuck in. Support and embolden those already waiting in the wings, however, and you ensure a future for nature and conservation. More importantly, you ensure a future generation of conservationists ready and willing to do the same and encourage others to get involved just as they, themselves were nurtured and guided. Instead of focussing on the negative aspects of modern life, how about celebrating what we have presently: thousands of incredible young people ready and willing to make a difference who, with our support, will surely soar to great heights in the future. Contrary to the popular image, things are not as bleak as they seem.

During my younger years, there were few about who encouraged my interest in nature and fewer still to guide me towards a career in the environmental field. In fact, if it were not for my Grandmother, I doubt I would be where I am now, and I fear that without her support, I would have walked a far different path. It is this guidance and support that shaped who I am today and, without a doubt, it is this support of young naturalists that will be our greatest asset going forward. It is up to all of us, old, young and middling alike to focus on the positives and to support young environmentalists in any way possible. Something which, in turn, will ensure the wildlife we watch and the ecosystems we cherish are placed in safe hands in the future.

While it is important to extend our message to as many people as possible and to encourage new individuals to join the fold, I cannot help but feel it is more important to facilitate the development of the promising young people we have already. And to consolidate their interest in environmental pursuits by creating a sense of community, by rewarding diligence and, most important of all, by acknowledging the great deeds they commit. Who knows, if we, as environmentalists, reward commitment, others may feel inclined to commit themselves. Positive reinforcement has a habit of working as, after all, no one wants to hop aboard what they view as a sinking, negative and self-deprecating ship.

We, as nature lovers, seldom have cause to smile in current times; though the rise of the Youth Nature Movement and its members provides a rare glimmer of hope.

 

It’s time to ban balloon releases

A new petition has been launched calling on the government to outlaw the release of ecologically damaging balloons and sky lanterns. The unnecessary practice of releasing both items is widespread in Britain, despite the fact that both cause harm to the environment. Causing death when ingested by both terrestrial and marine species, littering the countryside with plastics and, in the case of the latter, causing fires which threaten both animal and human life. I would urge everyone to take a moment, read the summary below and to sign the petition. It can be found here.

“Balloon releases may look pretty, but they have to end up somewhere. They land in our seas & countryside where birds get tangled up in the ribbons, or the balloons & ribbons are eaten by other wildlife causing slow & painful death. Sky lanterns are even more dangerous. Sometimes landing early before the flame has extinguished, causing fire & damage with the possible risk to life. We wouldn’t accept people littering our streets, so why accept littering our countryside?”

Three Peaks for Curlew – Success!

I am delighted to announce that yesterday, following an exhausting day of trekking in the Yorkshire Dales, myself, Sacha Elliot and Tiffany Francis (otherwise known as the Curlew Crusaders) concluded our three peaks for Curlew challenge. Hooray!

Taking in the peaks of Pen-y-ghent, Whernside (in my opinion, the worst of the three) and Ingleborough, we completed the twenty-six-mile hike in a total of 11.5 hours. That is within the time limit necessary to successfully complete the challenge. While our walk was far from easy – quite the opposite, in fact, and each of us woke up unable to move properly this morning – I am glad to say it was a success. Not least because it provided an opportunity to enjoy spectacular scenery and wildlife in the company of great friends, but because the money we raised as a team will go directly to the British Trust for Ornithology in support of the dedicated Curlew appeal. With every penny raised going towards the betterment of our understanding surrounding one of Britain’s fastest declining yet most iconic bird species. I couldn’t be happier.

Together, the three of us raised a grand total of £2065 for our chosen cause – the result of numerous, generous online donations and further aid given at the first annual Curlew festival back in June. I know I speak for all on our team when I say we are incredibly grateful for each and every penny donated and have been bowled over by the enormously positive response we have received on social media. Thank you all!

I, personally, find myself in serious need of a long and uninterrupted nap at present – it appears I selected a rather uncomfortable tent – but hope that our walk, coupled with other similar schemes running at present, may inspire others to get out there and undertake something similar for themselves. It need not be something physical, but it is up to each of us, as individuals, to get out there and do whatever we can, wherever we can in support of the causes we, personally, care for. Whether that involves a single species (Curlew are a good place to start but perhaps I am a little biased) or our NGO’s and charities whose tireless work said species depend on.

Not sure what is going on with my face in this one…