The continuing decline of farmland birds in our countryside (red line) is a clear sign that we are farming unsustainably (there are plenty of other signs – but this is a pretty good one). Yes 2012-13 was a pretty bad period for resident birds (and we are mostly talking residents here) but hardly one out of the range of many previous years. maybe we will see an increase in next year’s figures – but then, we always hope that and the overall trend is solidly down.
The graph is at its lowest point since 1970 – but then, it often has been (particularly if you take the smoothed curve in the graph above (which I never do – as it adds nothing to the data)). That line has been going down under all administrations and in times of economic success and hardship. And yet we know that it needn’t do so as the same graph (over a shorter period) for the RSPB’s Hope Farm looks like this:
What the publication of last year’s BBS data does to the graph just above is add another point to the blue All-England line (a point a bit lower than all the others).
So it’s not a law of nature that wildlife must decline on farms – it’s just that not enough farmers are doing the things that would make the graph go up.
It wouldn’t be so bad, but it would be almost as bad, if you and I weren’t pouring millions, in fact hundreds of millions, of pounds into farming that are supposed to stop the graph going down and put it on an upward path. we are paying for this failure not only in a less beautiful countryside but also through our pockets.
Imagine that the red line in the top graph were a measure of educational achievement, or of health levels in the population – wouldn’t we all be moaning like hell? So should we be that Defra cannot produce enough graphs like Hope Farm’s a cross the country so that the farmland bird index rises.
So Ms Truss – what’s your plan?
[registration_form]
Hello Mark
How sad that once again the farmland bird figures show a disturbing decline. However when the figures for the 19 species that make up the farmland bird index are examined a bit more closely it can be seen that whilst the farmland bird generalists are not doing too badly, the steepest declines are with the specialist farmland birds. Amongst which the quintessential farmland bird, breeding lapwing continue their tragic fall. A desperately sad situation.
The one thing that you fail to mention is that it is now widely recognised that for a specialist farmland bird like the lapwing the decline is caused by a lack of chick productivity (reproductive success).
Hence for the last five years we have commissioned independent, experienced field workers who have monitored large numbers numbers of lapwing adult pairs and the numbers of chicks fledged on four sites. Please see an abstract below of a presentation that I gave at the recent International Wader Study Group conference. It should be self explanatory:-
Lapwing breeding productivity research programme
South Sheppey Marshes (North Kent) 2010 – 2014
Abstract
It is now widely accepted that reproductive failure is the main driver for the continuing fall in numbers of several species of breeding waders throughout lowland UK. There is also general acceptance that, in the case of the Northern Lapwing, a minimum of 0.7 chicks need to be fledged per year from each breeding pair in order to maintain a stable population.
A comprehensive search of the literature has revealed that, remarkably there is very little published research on reproductive success (chick fledging) of Lapwing. One exception is a paper (Bolton et al) which sets out a reliable methodology for measuring lapwing chick productivity. This is the study by RSPB on 25 breeding Lapwing sites in 2003/4/5 which revealed that 23 of the 25 sites monitored were producing less than the biologically viable number of 0.7 fledged chicks per adult pair – Bolton et al. 2011: Assessment of simple survey methods to determine breeding population size and productivity of a plover, the Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus; Wader Study Group bulletin 118 (3): 141 – 152. (This study recorded 291 total adult pairs and 83 total fledged chicks).
Hence, with the support of Natural England, experienced, independent field workers were contracted in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2014 to monitor firstly, numbers of pairs of breeding adults and close-to-fledging chicks using the Bolton et al methodology and secondly, to assess the rigour of management of the components of conservation management that are thought to determine reproductive success – ie grassland and grazing management, water availability, micro-topographical features and effective predator control. This was undertaken on four breeding Lapwing sites on the South Sheppey marshes in North Kent. Over this five year period, the field workers recorded 2190 adult pairs and 1786 fledged chicks.
Conclusions
This research revealed that on these lowland wet grassland sites, it is necessary for each and every component of conservation management which determines reproductive success, to be in place to enable Lapwing to produce a biologically viable number of chicks in order to maintain stable populations.
Results from this five year research programme reveal that sites are unlikely, even in naturally good years, to produce sufficient fledged chicks to maintain stable populations if effective management of just one of these components of conservation management is omitted. Hence failure to fully implement all components of conservation management is likely to create an ecological trap leading to sink populations.
So Mark to answer your question to Mrs Truss, it is clear that she should ensure agri-environment prescriptions take account of the biological need for chick productivity. That is the elephant in the room. For the sake of one our most loved farmland birds, action is needed.
Philip – you do go on about this don’t you? That comment is longer than my blog.
Much of what you say is more or less right. Although you keep banging on about declines being caused by ‘lack of productivity’ and that isn’t strictly speaking true. The rise or fall of a population has to be ’caused’ by a combination of survival and productivity (in the absence of immigration and emigration). It’s not the most important thing in the world but every time you mis-speak on this subject the biologist in me gets a little irritated.
Interesting, isn’t it, that lapwings used to be common all over the farmed landscape of southern England when I (and you) were lads. We can’t be satisfied that they should have to be almost restricted to nature reserves these days, can we? Though I commend what you have achieved at Elmley. Hardly the solution for the wider countryside though is it?
And there are some other birds on the index too – but if 10% of farmers did what you do, and 50% of farmers did what the RSPB have done at Hope Farm (affecting the whole index through many species) then we would be in a much better place. And, of course, you have the benefit of HLS (and SSSI?) payments I guess, whereas Hope Farm is running on ELS payments that are available to almost every farmer in the country (in this case, England).
Excellent comment. Churlish and patronising response.
Well said. Great work
Well said Mark. a good question to Liz Truss. However I am sorry to say that whatever her plan, if indeed she has one at all, will almost certainly be a damp squib. Currently I do not think Defra has the capability of producing any meaningful plans to help our widlife. The irony is, as you point out Mark, that so much can be done to help nature on farms by simply following the examples set by the RSPB’s Hope Farm where both farm productivity and wildlife are booming. However I suspect, for Defra to simply encourage farmers to follow the examples from Hope Farm is asking for far too much of them.
Look at what have been identified as ‘specialists’ within each of those habitat groupings, and plummet is a descriptor than can be handily applied to the numbers of individual species, although I seem to recall reading that Liz Truss took comfort from recent increases in Goldfinches and Linnets. Then again, I also seem to recall reading that Defra thought the numbers of successfully hatched Hen Harriers to be encouraging. Perhaps clutching at enough straws will be a first step towards spinning them into gold, or at least Goldfinches.
In many ways the indicators used by Defra are doomed from the outset. Even if the farms in all the land followed the Hope Farm practice we wouldn’t be likely to see the those coloured lines heading north of what the figures were when, in a pre-Life on Earth period Saturday evening BBC One telly featured childrens’ entertainers such a Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville. Of course, now that we’re all so much wiser (Why does it always have to wait until after the event?) and rely on the application of Science to guide us, surely we can find a way to do better (as the assorted red cards from the Environmental Audit Commission say that this ‘most gangrenous government ever’ needs to do). Perhaps there’s a way to help them – although they and Defra officials certainly need to do better on the how to ‘Listen and Learn’ front and having a Chancellor who has not the vaguest concept of the WORTH of Natural Capital doesn’t really help. But let’s be optimistic and pragmatic (‘Show them and they might listen’? – Well, it’s no worse than slogans others have adopted).
I don’t know about the accuracy, but it was good to see figures being used for the number of Hen Harriers that ought to be flapping about the English Landscape in this ‘Home Fit for Heroes’ (Sadly, there are a lot fewer now than when that particular slogan was fresh minted). It would be good to set target (figures) for other species (whether numbers of breeding pairs, number of 1km squares or sites of a sustainable threshold size being identified) which actually take account of the degraded state of the Natural Environment and the likely impacts of climate change. Perhaps Hen Harriers cold be the poster child for this.
What you’d end up with, as a result of discussions between an expanded State of Nature Partnership and Government at national level and the (still do do something vaguely useful for Nature in most cases because of the way the MGGE undermined the BAP process) Local Nature Partnerships on your doorstep. It wouldn’t take a vast amount to do (Well, actually it would take a lot, but it is presently doable by 2020 and would provide something that would make much more sense than the handwashing {Out damn Spot! -Tricky stuff, badger blood} over failed targets [speaking of which how well/badly are we doing with those first stage Water Framework Directive obligations?]. It would also tie a lot of things that have been done or are already going on together much more effectively. Who knows perhaps a Second Conference for Nature might actually announce something along those lines.
So, reporting could actually be set against what we agree as acceptable minima and maxima for breeding willow warblers or sites with yellow ants or 1 km squares with Species Y as well as the extent of Ancient woodland/meadows (bit late on that one). Are we staying within these parameters? Can how the next CAP agreement is administered in the UK be modelled (e.g. based on what Hope Farm and all those other individual studies have revealed) accordingly. The Defra Indicators are hugely interesting and should continue but they utterly fail to link monitoring with effective action. Something better and of more practical use is needed.
“Pish!” and “Tush!” you cry. (Who knew that Stephen Fry read this Blog). Yet even in the middle of the Second World War (which was probably a little harder economically than the present situation – although one probably didn’t have to resort to logarithmic scales to compare the best and worst off then – people (working for the government yet) were making plans for the creation of National Parks, National Nature Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest which then actually happened, just four years after the war, amidst all the rebuilding, the rationing and the lack of children’s entertainers on the TV or Birdtrack on your Smartphone. We don’t have quite the quantity of records available for the 1930-50 period as we do for the 1970’s. I suspect that there would have been rather more of the majority of Defra indicator species around then (with some notable exceptions). Having created their version of a ‘Home Fit for Heroes’ and all ignorant the perils of DDT, rampant climate change affecting the whole planet and reducing economic capacity et al we can forgive them.
We on the other hand have no excuse. Neonics, fracking, CBeebies and an utterly appalling record on the Natural Environment. I’d be happy to live in a land “Fit for Nature” yet the evidence shows we’re increasingly far from that and accelerating further away. There are lots (and lots and lots) of champions for nature now (and some true Heroes) and if I had a quid for every comfy-seated Autumnwatcher tonight… but concerted and sustained effort and collaboration are what is needed and an effective plan for Nature.
I expect that there will be a new report on the government’s environmental failings from Wildlife and Countryside Link soon. I expect it will have lots of traffic lights. That’ll be helpful. There was a real lack of traffic lights in the 1949 Act.
So, there’s very definitely more than one thing Liz Truss needs to be doing. Meaningful talks about an effective Plan for Nature supported by the whole of Government and across all parties would be a good start. In the meantime, if you want to take the long way round, supporting calls for a Nature and Well-being Bill are probably the way YOU could have an impact (Who knows, perhaps 38 Avaazs , or whatever it’s called will have one of those handy online petitions for you to sign). Otherwise, asking the conservation organisations why they aren’t doing more to work together with each other and with government, industry et al more effectively might actually be even more useful. Your country needs you – the country needs Nature.
What was the question again?
Haematopotamus – brilliant. thank You.
I believe there may actually be something called “proof-reading”. I shall have to investigate.
One of the best comments on the website this year I think.
Great stuff Haematopotamus. Thanks.
I’m very sorry to say to any optimist that believes Elizabeth Truss will ever do anything helpful for wildlife is living in cloud cuckoo land. Sorry to be so negative.
…with ever fewer cuckoos
Mrs T merely fronts up Defra having been parachuted in to replace Paterson as a perceived safe pair of hands to hold the line until next May, as he was attracting too much flak – a sure sign he was over the target. In an interview with Andrew Neil ont’ telly last weekend (it’s now on You-Tube) she evaded and obfuscated and deflected all Neil’s best efforts to stick one on her, so to speak, on the subject of Green Blobbiness. Despite the frustration for us, in terms of a meejar grilling she came out of it unscathed, having given nothing away except some dignity, IMHO, ending the interview with a self-satisfied smirk. A result – for her and her department. She is only the parrot, after all, and she had learned her lines quite well in a short time. Which is what she needed to do for her ascent of the greasy pole.
I would not be too optimistic about Liz Truss doing anything effective, given her performance with Andrew Neil on Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/rb4vh0mcFK4?
Andrew Neil asked 3 very good questions and she failed to answer any of them. A masterclass in evasion and weasel words.
Thanks Mark. And thanks for your comment that “much of which I say is more or less right”.
And of course thanks for pointing out that declines are caused by the twin factors of adult mortality and chick productivity. I had not mentioned the factor of adult mortality as it well understood by scientists from an analysis of ringing data that lapwing adult survival has remained broadly unchanged for many years.. Hence the only meaningful cause of the decline is lack of reproductive success.
Re your last point – at Hope Farm the RSPB have done a lot more than just apply the ELS prescriptions. Just as at Elmley NNR we have done a lot more than just follow the HLS prescriptions.
Re your last point – No, we don’t receive any environmental payments apart from HLS which is available to all farmers and land managers in targeted areas. And indeed we we receive no environmental payments for the 15,000 visitors that we welcome to Elmley National Nature Reserve each year.
No one with a full tummy can say we are farming unsustainably—Fact.
Dennis – no, that’s nonsense. Honestly, it is.
Dennis, can I respectfully suggest you research the term “sustainable”. The folks on Easter Island had full tummies right up until they didn’t and turned to cannibalism.
Truss’ speech at the Tory party conference was something to behold.
I finished watching it and genuinely feared for her state of mind.
(it’s probably on you tube if you google it).
QT might be interesting tonight.
PATSY (of climate change denialist fame not to mention “goalposts” and “green blobs”) Vs LUCAS (who always reminds me of a smiley cat) in the county with some of the most extensive flooding during last winter’s storms.
Its a great shame that reading through this blog no one seems to be able to move beyond critics of the status quo and illustrations of how extraordinary examples compare. Neither argument is original nor very relevant since both have been purported as solutions for some time and the situation remains the same.
Stewardship payments and schemes have obviously been beneficial, I don’t think that’s in question, but as a whole they have failed to align with the needs of running a commercial business in the majority of cases and have failed top bring about the sea change required. I think it is fair to say that HLS and the old Countryside Stewardship Scheme were the most successful with ELS being rather disappointing. From the farming side Stewardship has evolved into a highly bureaucratic and complicated scheme where the payment rates have remained unchanged since its conception in 2005. Certainly the majority of farm business see this as a very minor part of their overall business and it shouldn’t be underestimated how many remain in the schemes purely as “doing the right thing”. Overall its rather unlikely that the ELS/HLS, or its replacement, will result in anything else regardless of funding if it remains in its present form. A more overall approach from within the CAP namely “Greening” also looks rather unlikely to have any effect.
Going back to my first point and trying to avoid the trap of constantly criticising the current situation (as per the previous point !) a new approach is needed. I must say I am not very optimistic given the entrenched positions of both farmers, bureaucrats and Ngo’s. I think in this regard one of the greatest challenges is the ability to share knowledge between the different sectors involved in what has become an increasingly specialised area. My opinion, for what its worth, is that the approach has got to be a combination of market value (Conservation grade etc.) and targeted funds as with the current situation.
Ultimately we all know the base reason for the decline namely that social expectations and lifestyles have changed dramatically over the last five or so decades and that the links between lifestyles, agriculture, food and wildlife are perceived as tenuous by the majority of the population. The reality is that this is unlikely to alter.
“Ultimately we all know the base reason for the decline namely that social expectations and lifestyles have changed dramatically over the last five or so decades and that the links between lifestyles, agriculture, food and wildlife are perceived as tenuous by the majority of the population. The reality is that this is unlikely to alter.”
Bang on. I’d go as far as to say it’s indicative of most people reading this blog too.
And all we get is yet more imploring for a politician to “solve it” instead of changing what we do ourselves.
After all, someone’s buying what’s being farmed.
“Liz Truss do one good thing” well I guess she did today:-
http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/04/11/2014/147406/green-scheme-cash-boost-for-farmers-who-help-bees.htm