Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (A23(a))
How much does it cost to deliver birds through
agri-environment funding?
The increase in bird populations in response
to agri-environment funding depends on a number of factors including:
the species of bird and its habitat requirements, the current
state of the population, the threats facing it and the relative
expense of adopting conservation management. It is not possible
to give specific costings in terms of £/bird but the two
case studies below illustrate some costings for different schemes.
In addition to facilitating the increase in
bird populations, agri-environment funding provides a number of
other benefits including: population and diversity increases in
plant and invertebrate communities, farm diversification opportunities,
local employment and landscape improvements. Further examples
of the benefits to rural communities provided by nature conservation
projects can be found in our publication "Conservation Works".
Case study: Cirl Bunting
A recent study carried out by RSPB on cirl buntings
in Devon has demonstrated the success of Countryside Stewardship
(CS) in reversing the decline of farmland birds.
By 1989 numbers of cirl buntings, a once common
farmland bird had declined to only 114 pairs, prompting the creation
of a special project within CS to try and reverse this decline.
The first agreements were signed in 1992, and to date 63 agreements
have been signed.
Research demonstrates that cirl bunting numbers
have increased by 83 per cent on land entered into CS between
1992 and 1998 compared with just 2 per cent of adjacent countryside[2],
resulting in a population of 453 pairs by 1998.
CS provides both annual management payments
based on the profit forgone and capital payments. In 1999-2000
the total annual CS payments averaged £5,270 per farm (average
size 143ha). As well as benefiting cirl buntings and other wildlife
the scheme has also helped enhance business viability and farmers
optimism about the future.[3]
Case Study: Breeding wading birds
The Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) scheme
offers payments to landowners in return for maintaining or enhancing
the landscape, biodiversity and historic value of the land. Table
1 shows the results of a study carried out by RSPB comparing the
success of the ESA scheme and RSPB reserves at conserving breeding
waders.[4]
These figures give an indication of the return on agri-environment
funding. It is interesting to note that while private farmers
successfully delivered target birds on their agreement land, areas
receiving additional conservation expertise under RSPB management
usually delivered more birds per pound. This demonstrates the
benefits of equipping land managers with conservation advice and
training, as proposed under the Curry Report's recommendation
for a national training and advice programme.
Once again, the bird population increases will
not be the only return on the investment made. Visitors to RSPB
nature reserves are estimated to spend a total of £12 million
in local economies each year as a result of visiting reserves.
This spending is estimated to support more than 300 FTE jobs in
local economies, while direct employment on reserves amounts to
a further 200 FTE jobs.
Table 1.
Cost-effectiveness of different ESA tier options
in supporting breeding wading birds. Figures in parentheses are
the annual ESA payment per ha for each tier. Breeding wading bird
data are for 1997, and ESA payment data for the 1996-97 financial
year.
(a) Broads ESA
| Management | Area of land surveyed for breeding wading birds (ha)
| Number of breeding lapwing, redshank and snipe (pairs)
| Number of breeding lapwings, redshank and snipe per £100k of ESA payment received
|
Tier 1 (£135):
RSPB |
119 | 7
| 44 |
| Non-RSPB | 8,261
| 198 | 18
|
Tier 2 (£225):
RSPB |
378 | 74
| 87 |
| Non-RSPB | 4,958
| 327 | 29
|
Tier 3 (£310):
RSPB |
73 | 38
| 165 |
| (b) Suffolk River Valleys ESA |
| Management | Area of land surveyed for breeding wading birds (ha)
| Number of breeding lapwing, redshanka (pairs)
| Number of breeding lapwings and redshanka per £100k of ESA payment received
|
Tier 1 (£80):
RSPB | 119
| 15 | 157
|
| Non-RSPB | 1,237
| 46 | 46
|
Tier 2 (£190):
RSPB |
75 | 11
| 78 |
| Non-RSPB | 432
| 94 | 114
|
Tier 2A (£240):
RSPB |
99 | 75
| 317 |
| Non-RSPB | 157
| 63 | 167
|
Tier 1 is a low tier option. Tier 2 is a high water level
option. Tiers 2A and 3 are high water level options that prescribe
that ditch water levels be maintained at field level between January
and the end of April or May and held within 45cm of field level
from then until the end of October. Tiers 2A and 3 also place
further restrictions on other grassland management.
For the Broads ESA there was virtually no non-RSPB managed
land surveyed that had been entered into Tier 3.a Does not include
breeding snipe as there are no data in Babbs (1997) in which tier
the 10 or fewer pairs of breeding snipe on grassland in the survey
area were recorded. Data for ESAs analysed from original data
in Weaver (1995) and Babbs (1997).
2
Peach W J, Lovett L J, Wotton S R, and Jeffs C. 2001 Countryside
stewardship delivers cirl buntings (Emberiza cirius) in Devon,
UK Biological Conservation 101 361-373. Back
3
Nigel Hewitt, Mark Robins 2001. The Financial, Social and Management
Effects of Countryside Stewardship Cirl Bunting Agreements on
South Devon Farms. RSPB unpublished report. Back
4
Ausden, M. & Hirons, G.J.M. 2002. Grassland nature reserves
for breeding wading birds in England and the implications for
the ESA agri-environment scheme. Biological Conservation 106/2,
279-291. Back
| 
