The latest annual RSPB reserve report is out – with a very attractive black guillemot on the cover.
Right up front, the first article, is an account of the numbers of various bird species on RSPB nature reserves in 2010 and their target populations in 2012 – the year when this RSPB nature reserve conservation strategy expires. Do you remember any other organisation doing this? Have you seen similar figures, with or without targets, for the other large NGO land-owning nature conservation organisati0ns? the National Trust? the Wildlife Trusts? the Woodland Trust? No, neither have I.
But how wise were the RSPB to report on these figures every year, in public? I’ve always been rather keen on targets myself. Particularly ‘ends’ targets rather than ‘means’. If you are managing land for nature conservation then you ought to have some idea of what nature you’d expect to find there in the future as a result of your management. But you do have to get your targets right – too low and it’s no challenge, too high and you look a bit of a Charlie when you fail to meet them all.
Things aren’t looking too good for this set of targets unless 2011 and 2012 do a bit of catching up! There are more species which are currently below target than on target. However, because the RSPB gives us these figures for all years from 2005-2010 inclusive it’s possible to see that 2010 was generally a poorer year than was 2009. And there is a commentary on all the species – the increasing ones and decreasing ones.
There are some species that were never going to be easy and they have indeed proved to be difficult – capercaillie is a good example. Others are remaining stable rather than making the hoped-for increases – lowland waders are the example here, and unless things improve there might need to be increased ingenuity or effort in the next strategy. Other species look as though they are probably influenced by factors outside the RSPB’s control (so maybe a bit foolish to set targets for them?) and these include little terns (whose numbers are probably influenced by marine factors) and Dartford warblers (where two cold winters are responsible for a recent drop in numbers).
But then again there are some great successes documented here. Bitterns have increased on RSPB nature reserves from 18 booming males in 2005 to 34-37 booming males in 2010 – phenomenal. And cranes have gone from 0 pairs in 2005 to 3 pairs in 2010. And stone curlews have increased from 7 pairs in 2005 to 17 in 2010.
So it’s a mixed bag. And that’s what land management is usually like. But the RSPB deserves credit on two accounts – for those species which are increasing or remaining stable in numbers, and for being very honest about those species which are decreasing too.
[registration_form]
Like the RSPB, predicting numbers of birds can have its problems. Just like the Langholm project, targets have been set with public money. The only difference being they want lots off Red Grouse to earn Buccleugh’s estate £100,000 a year. Sadly other species have to decline to get those figures. Black Grouse, once the commonest game bird here, have had their habitats destroyed even though the area is an SSSI. Peregrine Falcons have had all their nests robbed and now they are complaining about the Ravens taking the rats off their bird tables. I wonder how many Hen Harriers the RSPB predicted for 2012 nesting on their land!
John – I’m not sure what public money you mean.
I think targets are great for managers: done right , and that means simple, without too many caveats, they provide direction and motivation. End game targets can sweep aside impenetrable barriers – for almost the first time I can remember when the SSSI target clashed with FC grant rules it was the power of a headline, Government target that changed the rules, not the delivery having to conform to a probably spurious rule.
However, I think one of the problems facing the NGO sector was that it fumbled the 2010 target – casting a rather vague atmosphere of gloom. Theres only so much negative politicians will put up with before they lose interest – we’re probably seeing a bit of that now.
For me, yes we missed the target – BUT rather than a fuzzy grey I think it was a game of two parts because, actually, (and this is where RSPB’s clear, honest reporting is absolutely crucial) the things we’d focussed on ranging from individual birds species to groups like butterflies to habitat like the SSSI target overall had actually done rather well – you point up a few exceptions, which emphasise that not everything is in conservation control, nor do we always have the answers even when we have the will. Successes even spread into deteriorating habitats – Cirl Bunting on farmalnd, for example. The conservation targets contrasted starkly, white against black, with the wider countryside of declining farmland & woodland birds (accounting for 80% of England’s habitats). There’s a clear message there; we need to first consolidate the gains (turning unfavourable improving SSSIs into favourable) and then apply their lessons to the wider countryside. Our thinking needs to be as clear and sharp as RSPB’s targets – and the sort of impassioned but objective, forensic work that, for example, led to the increase in Bitterns.
Interesting comments. If you would like to read the report for yourself, the link is here:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/reservesreview
Another comment only remotely connected to this blog but maybe it will make you reconsider your attitude to farmers SFP as after visiting Mull it made me think that without SFP Mull would just be trees and bracken and not the wildlife haven it is at the moment and of course farmer from Mull was the winner of the recent competition,perhaps of course you recognise the importance of SFP and just write provocatively for the blog in which case I obviously do you a disservice.
Feel sure if no SFP farmers in such places as Mull and many other places would not survive and certainly it would not be a case of more efficient farmers taking over as some conservationists believe.
Dennis – thanks. Three things – the SFP money would do much more good if it were directed towards environmentally friendly farms – and It would make more sense too. The farmers on Mull might get more money if they could get some of the money going to SFP payments to wildlife-unfriendly farmers. Second, the sea eagles would probably be just fine with a change in land use as you describe. Third, glad to see you aren’t claiming SFPs make me food cheaper any more.
Most of your comment accurate Mark but Sea Eagles although the well known Mull resident there are lots almost as important such as anyone wanting to regularly see Hen Harriers then probably no better place than Mull and think they would not be happy with only Pines and Bracken.