An RSPB -led study demonstrates that well-designed agri-environment schemes can help farmland birds to recover towards their previous levels. This information is important at a time when the UK may be escaping the constraints of the EU Common Agricultural Policy and will be free to do a better job (or indeed a worse one) in designing schemes where public money prevents agriculture from wiping out all wildlife in the countryside.
The study compared farmland bird numbers over the period 2008-2014 on 60+ farms which were signed up for the Higher Level Stewardship scheme (in England) with farms not participating in the bird-friendly options of Environmental Stewardship. The HLS farms produced more birds over the period (see paper for the twists and turns of that story – but that is the headline, Effects of higher-tier agri-environment scheme on the abundance of priority farmland birds. L. K. Walker, A. J. Morris, A. Cristinacce, D. Dadam, P. V. Grice & W. J. Peach. Animal Conservation. 2017).
Environment Secretary Michael Gove said ‘Our farmers are the original friends of the earth and these results clearly demonstrate the vital role they play in protecting our wildlife and boosting biodiversity. Leaving the EU gives us the opportunity to do more to protect our environment and wildlife, supporting farmers to manage the rich habitats and precious species under their stewardship in a more sustainable way.
These results show that with the right management, and more targeted support for farmers, we can reverse the decline in numbers of our birds.’.
Well, up to a point, Secretary of State. These results do show that agri-environment schemes can work well with very little on-farm advice to land-owners and the HLS farmers deserve lots of credit for having entered the schemes in the first place.
But the real heroes here are those, say it softly, experts, who have been studying farmland bird ecology for decades and designing schemes to recover farmland bird populations. Those heroes are in the RSPB, BTO, Natural England (or probably English Nature) and the GWCT. Without the experts there would be no schemes and even more of our countryside would be like those farms which were the controls in this study!
Other heroes include civil servants, in Defra and NE, who designed these schemes with the boffins. And then they spent the money on studies such as this to see whether the schemes were working or not. That is somewhat heroic and quite expert of them.
And there are tens of millions of us who are paying for these results – these are schemes which cost all of us money. The taxpayer is too often taken for granted, but she and he pay the bills. For my part I pay them gladly when you see results like this.
So let’s not give all the credit to the farmers – it was a joint effort.
And the paper goes into some detail about how much more effort will be needed to prevent declines in farmland bird populations by these means – it’s a lot of land and therefore a lot of money. the estimate is that about a third of arable areas would have to follow HLS prescriptions to prevent overall declines. This seems to be a worst case scenario because it is based on the comparison of comparing the best with the worst case options. So, for greater success we need even more effective options and even more land in the options.
Dr Will Peach, RSPB head of research delivery section said ‘The UK has experienced a massive loss of farmland wildlife since the 1970s, and Defra’s Wild Bird Indicators published only last month shows this loss has continued during the last 5 years. Our latest study shows that when farmers are supported to adopt wildlife-friendly approaches, then bird life will rapidly bounce back. Many farmers are doing great things for wildlife, and without their efforts, the countryside would undoubtedly be in a much worse position. We have the knowledge and the tools to reverse farmland bird declines, what we need now is the political will to implement them more widely.‘.
Jenna Hegarty, the RSPB’s head of land use policy, said ‘To achieve the UK Government’s promise of leaving the environment in a better state for the next generation, governments across the UK must move away from agricultural payments based on the size of land holdings towards a model that recognises the unique role our farmers must play in helping nature. This means investing the existing budget in a better system that works for nature, underpins farm livelihoods and benefits everyone in the UK.’.
[registration_form]
This looks like some unusually good news in a post-Brexit Britain. There is another article by Damian Carrington, the excellet environment correspondent of the Guardian, in today’s edition. Gove will outline the plans at today’s Oxford Farmer’s Conference.
Why the continued focus on ‘farmland’ birds, we need the most effective spatial targeting of agri-Env payments to support resilience of threatened multi-taxa Biodiversity. Buffering semi-natural SSSIs not throwing millions at low grade prescriptions in the arable deserts.
Paul – a fair point.
You’re right Ian. I’m trying to get papers out of my PhD now, and I was surprised just how much open access costs. However, many universities have policies on open access now.
Ian – Mark has corrected the link now. The paper is open access after all! My apologies to the authors!!!!
Entirely my fault for a dodgy link
Accepted that farmers need to maximise output a) to feed the country and b) to increase their own profits.
Trouble is they are drenching crops with pesticides, insecticides and fungicides which has had a devastating impact on farmland birds, butterflies and other wildlife.
Unless there are controls on use of chemicals, the trend will continue whatever countryside-tweaking is proposed by Michael Gove.
Which is the greater imperative – low-cost food or wildlife-rich countryside?
It’s an unhappy choice, and very difficult to see much prospect of finding a middle-ground solution.
That isn’t entirely true, research has shown that many farms could reduce pesticide use without reducing productivity and often actually increasing profitability.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/06/farms-could-slash-pesticide-use-without-losses-research-reveals
Sometimes productivity even goes up such as in the case of neonics on oilseed rape – less pesticide meant more pollinators and therefore more rape seed being set.
Pesticides have been seriously over-promoted by the big agrochemical companies
Jim,this study actually does exactly what you seem to think impossible as these farms would undoubtedly use the usual pesticides,insecticides and fungicides and also they would be very good crop yields so proving that there can be a middle ground if schemes are set up correctly and adhered to.
Mark yes of course others put effort and money into getting these results but progress in all things usually needs co-operation from different groups,farmers will probably respond better to praise when due rather than continuous criticism.
Dennis -There are doubtless numerous excellent examples of wildlife-friendly farming, but I fear they still represent only a tiny minority (especially in East Lincolnshire where I live).
I suspect the huge farming conglomerates are so preoccupied with generating maximum profits that they probably scoff at pinprick efforts by Natural England, conservation groups (and even the Government) to seek to safeguard and enhance Nature.
Isn’t the likelihood that the multinational agro-chemical manufacturers now have a stranglehold on farming not just in the UK but throughout the world?
Some crops now receive as many as 12 (!!) treatments, culminating in a pre-harvest fungicide spray.
As an experiment last August, I gathered up a sack of spilled grain from a farm lane because I was curious why no sparrows,
pheasants or other birds were feeding on it in the way that they had done in previous years.
I sprinkled it on my back lawn where it was again totally disregarded by collared doves, chaffinches and other species.
I’m not a scienctist, so I do not have an explanation.
I can only theorise that the fungicide sprayed on the days leading up to harvest had made the grain (wheat) completely unpalatable to birds.
Mark – As you might imagine, I don’t agree with your heading that the latest announcements represent “good news” for farmland birds. Unless l the chemicals issue is addressed (nil prospect of that), I see no reason for optimism that the spiral of decline will be reversed.
Regards
Jim
Jim – then you didn’t read (or understand) the paper. HLS farms (which as Dennis says are likely to be using pesticides – perhaps less than others but perhaps not – are significantly better than non-HLS farms in terms of bird population changes. If there were enough HLS-type farms then the spiral of decline would be reversed. And that could be achieved through regulation as well as or instead of financial incentives.
Jim,you need to consider lots of that grain goes into bread so it will be tested and obviously there is nothing wrong with it.
We have waited probably 30 years for a titbit of good news ref farmland birds and these farms prove that intensive farming including using chemicals can work.
Sadly we are bound to have some who want to say that it is all lies.
Greenfly,well you seem to just take that Guardin report as if it is correct.
Other scientists as always will disagree.
Fact is farmers will have advice before using EXPENSIVE chemicals(everyone seems to think farmers get them free)and using also adds the cost of application.
Each farm user will use them the first time and work out the increase in crop yield against the cost of that chemical and what any scientist has said is totally irrelevant he will base the next use of that chemical on that last crop performance.
Scientists have done marvellous service for farmers but they have made mistakes thinking that what is theoretical works in practice.
Farmers just will not use any chemical unless there is a benefit in it.
We do need to keep our population under control for any recovery in wildlife abundance and biodiversity to succeed.