Yesterday’s blog was about the media coverage of the GWCT’s farmland bird survey.
I was struck by the quotes, in The Times, of Jim Egan saying that the survey had been set up ‘partly to counter claims by green groups that farmers were doing little to protect birds‘.
Ben Webster’s piece also said that Jim Egan ‘…added that some wildlife groups had over-emphasised the decline in farmland birds.’ and quoted him uttering these words “A lot of environmental NGOs fund-raise on bad news. They say, ‘Look what farmers have done, isn’t it bad?’ That puts people off.”
NGOs rarely criticise each other in public so I was surprised to see this. And I was guessing that it was aimed at the RSPB – but that’s just a guess. I thought there was just a chance that there had been some misreporting so I asked GWCT about it on Twitter.
I asked: @Gameandwildlife Was Jim Egan misquoted by @thetimes or do you stand by your remarks?
GWCT replied: Think Jim was trying to highlight benefit of being positive rather than negative when discussing issues
You’ll note that doesn’t answer the question.
So I also asked:
Which NGOs does @Gameandwildlife think have exaggerated farmland bird declines then please?
…but that got no answer at all.
Jim Egan tweeted me as follows: How often have comments from you been misconstrued? Hear Farming Today for our view http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b040hhn5
Well, the answer to that is ‘hardly ever’ because journalists are quite careful about this type of thing.
So I asked: Was your direct quote in @thetimes inaccurate then? Or not?
…but that got no answer either.
So GWCT, through Jim Egan, apparently feels comfortable about being quoted making derogatory remarks about unidentified green groups but doesn’t believe they have to back up these claims. Is that acceptable behaviour?
There are three things that GWCT could do and retain, in my opinion, their dignity:
1. Stand by the views that were quoted: If GWCT really does think that wildlife groups have over-emphasised farmland bird declines then surely they should say so. Perhaps they should name those groups? Maybe they should point us to where that over-emphasis occurred so that we can all be shocked by it (because it has passed me by).
2. Deny having said it: GWCT could claim that they were misquoted, which appears to be what they are doing in private. See the comment by Richard Winspear on yesterday’s blog (Richard works for the RSPB) where it seems that Jim Egan told Richard Winspear that he hadn’t said the words quoted by The Times. Funny then that he won’t repeat that denial in public.
3. Apologise for having said it and say it was a mistake.
…but GWCT has chosen a fourth option. They haven’t said they said it, and they haven’t said they didn’t say it; they haven’t said they believe it and they haven’t said they don’t believe it; they haven’t backed it up and they haven’t repudiated it.
They probably hope that it will all just go away – it might not.
[registration_form]
Mark – a few thoughts. First that GWCT should perhaps be congratulated on highlighting yet again the perilous state of farmland birds. To quote your example, of the farmers taking part (and from the examples quoted these appear to be some of the good guys who are prepared to take time out to help wildlife), 37% saw skylarks during the survey. This might suggest that about 63% of farms are skylark free zones – which would be a disgraceful situation when we’ve known for years that skylarks are in trouble and there are now ready made solutions (e.g. skylark plots) that can help them at negligible or no cost. Is there any reason why the skies above each and every farm shouldn’t be alive with skylarks and why 100% of farmers in GWCT’s survey ought to have seen at least one?
Another observation that struck me is among the ‘green’ measures (GWCT’s quote marks not mine) the emphasis on supplementary feeding – the good guys again, “supplementary over-winter food ” and “supplementary grain min through scatter feeding”. Does this mean our countryside is now so impoverished that kind hearted farmers are having to chuck seed around to keep depleted populations of yellowhammers, corn buntings et al going at all?
This seems to back up all the work done through the established surveys by BTO and RSPB and the State of Nature report etc. Not that you’d know that from the GWCT press release – but then it was about the GWCT’s survey and whilst there’s a time and a place for collaboration perhaps there’s a time and place for blowing your own trumpet, so perhaps that’s fair enough.
One thing we can surely all agree on is that the current situation is bonkers – both for farmers and wildlife. Yes farmers need to earn a living – and deserve to earn a good one, not be driven to leave the business altogether. And there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be able to do so in a healthy countryside. The Big Farmland Bird Count, if interpreted carefully, might be a contribution to “the most efficient and practical methods of targeting wildlife recovery” but I agree with you that it seems highly misleading to misconstrue the results as suggesting ‘everything’s alright now’. The results might suggest that if you adopt certain practices that help wildlife you get more wildlife. Now there’s a revelation! So why isn’t everybody doing it?
GWCT are still suffering from the latest Buzzard report that these birds are no threat to Red Grouse moors!! They were hoping for the opposite so the killing can begin. The only good thing to come out of the new Langholm project so far!!
Just for the avoidance of doubt GWCT has a very clear understanding of the problems faced by farmland birds. We have been studying them for nearly a hundred years and were identifying the problems and some of the solutions long before many others were interested. We are still researching those problems and still trying to find practical solutions that farmers can use increase bird numbers whilst doing what is necessary to feed, water, and fuel a nation of 62 million profligate consumers.
Jim Egan has spent his adult life trying to get farmers to improve their environmental performance and he has a history of outstanding success, as have many others who worked or work for FWAG and GWCT. He and they do not deserve your venom.
You know perfectly well that people, sometimes people in NGO’s, make remarks that are both generalist and extremely derogatory. We have both heard them and they even appear in this blog. It is lazy shorthand to blame ‘farmers’ but they do it far to often.
Of course farmland bird numbers have declined, but there are shining examples of what can be achieved to turn that round whilst still running a profitable farming enterprise. One of the practical hurdles to spreading this more widely is the feeling of being under constant attack experienced by people trying to farm. What ever they do they get it in the neck. Even someone winter feeding farmland birds to get them through the hungry gap is in some strange way blame worthy.
You carry on being angry and we will carry on building bridges and helping people of goodwill do better. It is only sensible to stick to what you are good at.
Ian
Thank you.
There is no doubt that GWCT has a distinguished past.
You avoid answering the question of whether Jim and GWCT believe that farmland bird declines have been over-emphasised (and by whom).
You avoid answering the question of which NGOs say ‘Look what farmers have done – isn’t it bad?’
You don’t claim that GWCT was misquoted, so I am beginning to think that it wasn’t.
Slagging off other NGOs and not being able to back it up – which appears to be what GWCT has done (as you haven’t told me otherwise) – is a bit shoddy isn’t it? An interesting bit of architecture – that bridge you claim to be building.
But thank you for responding here. I’ll probably shut up about it now.
Ian – just for the avoidance of doubt, I wasn’t attacking farmers for feeding birds during the ‘hungry gap’ in winter, I was suggesting that if they are finding it necessary to do this might be symptomatic of the wider countryside being unable to support sustainable populations of once common species – presumably lack of suitable food, habitat, shelter etc. I’m thinking that to support a stable population of say, yellowhammers, there should be enough food around to support, *on average*, the survival of one adult and one juvenile per brood – doesn’t sound like it should be too much to ask. I described those farmers who are supplementary feeding as ‘the good guys’ – so they shouldn’t feel they are getting it in the neck, should they?
I don’t seek to ‘blame’ farmers and tried hard to make that clear so I am sorry if anything in my comment could have been construed otherwise, (I agree with your point about profilgate consumers by the way). For what it’s worth I think farmers are amazing and I’m sure the overwhelming majority of the readers of this blog would probably think the same. I am however quite happy for you to assume that I am angry about the state of the countryside – that I live near, walk in and pay for through my taxes – and will carry on being angry about it until we see farmland birds and other wildlife back in the numbers that they should be.
PS If you’re interested in building bridges, why did the GWCT press release about the Farmland Bird Count not mention the other monitoring undertaken by others, apart from a tiny footnote about BBS? Should it be seen in glorious isolation or as an important contribution to a significant body of population monitoring work undertaken by a number of organisations who all want more famland wildlife?
I reckon GWCT should be praised for trying to encourage farmers to (a) take an interest in the birds on their farms and (b) do something to help them. What I find harder to understand is why a project whose main purpose was presumably to promote these commendable aims was dressed up as a “survey” when it was nothing of the sort in any meaningful sense. On reflection, I guess the brains of GWCT decided that the best way of getting the message across was by means of a survey, as opposed to something like an empty press release or appeal. I can also see why, for political reasons, they might have felt it would be counter-productive simply to encourage farmers to take part in the existing proper surveys run by BTO, RSPB, etc. I am prepared to concede that there is some (political, though not scientific) merit in organising a survey “specially for farmers”. But in that case, let’s have a proper survey, with defined aims and reproducible methods, not the half-baked and meaningless nonsense that was trotted out as a “survey” this year – especially when the media are going to pick it up and quote its “results” as if they meant something.
I don’t know if it was a misquote, it doesn’t really matter to most people. Unless I’m missing something you are no longer a spokesman for an NGO and it is not clear why you find it necessary to single this tiny issue out for so much rage. Grown ups know that things get muddled up by the media and get over it.
On the main point that ‘ A lot of environmental NGO’s fund raise on bad news’, it is difficult to argue. That is what we all do. When you were still working, I don’t remember a lot of rspb campaigns that were based on everything being great. We all exist to make things better and so fund raising must be based on there being a problem in the first place. Recognising that obvious fact is hardly criticism.
It becomes difficult when the problem is characterised as an identifiable group of people, in this context farmers, or apparently in your case farmers and GWCT. This is because in reality, the problems are far more complex and nuanced, relating to particular farming practices, government policy, EU policy, climate change, etc., etc. However what comes out of the media mincer is ‘Farmers’ and sadly that is what a lot of people who should know better also say in both public and private.
If you don’t think that many farmers, including those that are doing all the right things are fed up being used as short hand for every environmental problem in the countryside that is your prerogative. If you stopped shouting and listened you might change your mind.
Ian – oh, I thought we’d finished.
If being misquoted (or not) doesn’t matter to you then that’s very interesting. Thank you.
Of course the NGO’s campaign on the back of bad news….usually seeking change…but I have to say (and I’m not a member of the RSPB) the RSPB do a ferocious amount of community engagement and education work on top of the bread an butter conservation work. Positive work promotes and engages just as much as negative reaction. Its a lesson the that the GwCT could learn…but trying to kill wee animals for fun is a hard thing to promote to the public in this enlightened centuary!
I know Jim well and I have to admit to being very suprised to hear these comments being attributed to him. This really doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that Jim would say. I think anyone who knows Jim professionally will tell you that he’s normally very measured in his comments and certainly very diplomatic, as he’s had to be in his role of Chair of the CFE delivery group.
I know from experience that is easy to be misquoted by the press, to my annoyance it has happened to me twice, although thankfully not in a publication as large as The Times.
I think Ian Coghill makes a valid point regarding the fact that nearly, if not all environmental NGO’s seek to fund raise on the back of bads news, so not sure what the issue is there.
I think in this instance it’s best just to focus on the official views of the GWCT, which as you say rightly say Mark, are much more measured.
If it wasn’t for bad news they wouldn’t need to raise funds.
Peter,
I know, I do get that and I would never criticism NGO’s for doing so.
“A lot of environmental NGOs fund-raise on bad news.”
To me that’s just a statement of fact.
I really don’t understand why you’re so sniffy about the work of the GWCT. In your earlier post you dismissed this initiative as “pointless”. Yesterday you damned it as “a one-off survey by a self-selecting bunch of farmers”. Well, it’s the only one there’s been so far, but it’s going to be an annual event. Yes, the farmers who participated were self-selecting, but isn’t that the case too with those who take part in the RSPB’s Big Garden Birdwatch? I don’t remember you being so dismissive about that. Quite the opposite; you report on your findings every year, and even dragged your MP out this year.
To have got over 500 farmers volunteering to take part in the scheme in its first year, covering nearly half a million acres, strikes me as pretty remarkable. And its value will increase each year, as it becomes “a useful, though rough, barometer of bird fortunes” on our farms. (cf https://markavery.info/?p=2568).
Lazywell – you and Ian keep missing the point and since you aren’t, either of you, daft, I suspect that you may be doing it on purpose (but who knows?).
The survey is OK, not brilliant but OK, and when it has run for many years then it may tell us a bit. It cannot, after one year, tell us that skylarks are soaring though.
However, GWCT have not restricted themselves to commenting on what a great turn-out of farmers there was, they have commented on the motives of other NGOs in a disparaging way (unless they have been misquoted but nobody seems prepared to say that they were misquoted).
See comments by others here on the value of the survey as a survey.
If one, as an individual or as an organisation, is going to slag off the work and motives of others then one should be prepared to defend those views – something that Jim Egan, Ian Coghill and yourself have not yet done. Ian appears not really to care whether GWCT staff were misquoted or not. That is a very strange position for your chairman to take. Is that your position too? How misquoted would GWCT have to be before they wished to correct the pubic record?
I’m quite happy to talk about this all night (although I am happy to stop too (and I have to go out a bit later))
but the question that you will keep being asked here is whether GWCT were misquoted in The Times or not?
Were you misquoted in The Times or not?
I honestly don’t know whether anyone from the GWCT was misquoted in The Times or not. And yes, I do think that accurate reporting and attribution is important.
However, I was frankly more concerned that this was just another of your regular swipes at the Trust. I remember being struck by the snide terms in which you rubbished this scheme when it was launched. Now that its results have been produced you have duly found a further gripe.
That said, I note your grudging concession about the potential value of the survey as a survey.
MK,two points,(1 )I don’t think that perhaps Ian was having a go at you with the point about feeding birds.
(2)there just has to be a reason why farmers do not go for Skylark patches which Mark and lots of others have on a wish list,so you have to consider that the reason maybe or even certainly is because farmers are sick of hearing how bad they are for wildlife while producing food for over 60 million people and have come to dislike the rspb intensely.I feel that sadly they consider they will not adopt Skylark patches while the carping goes on.
Anyone who belittles this case needs to say why seeing as it is a paying proposition to have Skylark patches they have never got popular among what are often described as money grabbing farmers.
Of course sadly Skylarks are the losers not the rspb and I wish that farmers would ignore the insinuations put out by rspb and some conservationists,of course they never really say outright but just insinuate how bad farmers are.
What a waste of time the rspb telling us who complain oh we love farmers we give award once a year to a very good farmer.
Rubbish there must be 95% at least of farmers they routinely criticise but expect them to do things for bird life.
Life does not work like that,they are after all really intelligent people who will not grasp that they are not getting farmers onside.
That only leaves lots of us to think rspb care less about farmland birds than getting more subs br carping about bad farmers.
Hi Dennis – firstly thanks for responding and secondly my views are my own not the RSPB’s. However in twelve years or so as a member I haven’t interpreted what I’ve read from the RSPB as insinuating that all farmers were bad for wildlife – expressing concerns about declines in farmland wildlife yes but how could they not? They’ve also praised the many farmers doing great things for wildlife. With the majority of the public naturally instinctively well disposed towards farmers I’d be amazed if that any organisation would try to generate support by upsetting them for the sake of it. I could go on but with three longish comments here already I suspect I’ve had my share of airtime…
Regarding supplementary feeding, all it is doing is to replace spilt grain and weed seeds which have been removed as we have become more efficient. We would have a lot more farmland birds if we became less efficient again, but no other industry would be expected to become less efficient. There are options in stewardship which seek to do this such as herbicide free headlands, and these are very good habitats for grey partridge and other birds, however these are very difficult to manage. It is a fine line between having a crop with a nice understorey of uncompetitive weeds, or finding your crop choked out at harvest and the stress associated with unblocking the combine when you’re trying to get the grain in the barn in a wet harvest. This kind of deliberate inefficient husbandry requires a lot of patience and is not for everyone.
It suits most people better to keep stewardship options out of the harvested crop, such as with designated wild bird crops and unharvested headlands. That way farmers can continue to farm efficiently in the crop. Supplementary feeding is essentially an extension of this. The wheat in the mix can be grown by the farmer himself, and the small seed mix added to it grown by specialist growers with the relevant expertise. Whereas wild bird cover crops can sometimes not get the attention they deserve, crops grown to provide seed for other farmers will always be managed well. Supplementary feeding should however not replace other measures, but should sit along side them to compliment them by extending the provision of food for birds in late winter/early spring.
Andy – thank you.
Well its touched a raw nerve in Scotland too…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27070046
I’m really surprised at Des Thomson turning his back on science in favour the diplomatic SNH drivel. You cant support research that proves the connection one day and then support anecdotal nonsense the next and expect to retain a trusting audience.
The right will always find useful idiots to exploit. Their standard technique is to attack their opponents greatest strength, in this case robust evidence, and produce some headlines which appear to the uninitiated to point to a different outcome.
Nobody blames farmers for becoming more efficient; they work within a system where they are not responsible for their external costs. But it is important that Government recognises the long term consequences and that is that our countryside has steadily become a much less diverse and beautiful place.
Then welcome to the beauty of all the towns,industrial buildings and and industrial estates etc etc,think I will stay in the countryside that lots of people seem to want to rubbish.
These days spring sown crops will not compare with autumn sown crops so no overwintered stubbles,they probably went out more or less with the horses,it was not possible to plough large acreages in autumn with horses whereas nowadays with modern tractors it is a piece of cake.
Part of the answer must be to make it worthwhile for farmers to provide alternative feeding.