Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Guy Smith (RAS 12a)
Thank you for the opportunity to address the
EFRA Committee at the Royal Show last Tuesday. In our Q and A
session after my submission I suggested that there was a general
culture in Britain to concentrate on the negatives in modern agriculture
and ignore the positives. I went on to suggest this was reflected
in Westminster amongst MPs. I was challenged to produce some evidence
to back this up. By way of example I would concentrate on one
specific but well known area—the impact of farming practice
on the British bird population.
The best place to start is with a graph that
you will find in DEFRA publications.
Although British Bird populations have increased
in terms of species and numbers in the last 30-40 years (bold
line), DEFRA and English nature maintain there is a sub-class
of 19 bird species called the "Farm-land" species (broken
line) that have declined.
From this it has been deduced that modern agriculture
is bad for birds , if not bio-diversity generally. You will often
find this sentiment echoed in the media. My view is this is quite
damaging for agriculture in as much that it undermines our image
as good custodians of the countryside and suggests to consumers
there is an "environmental cost" to British farm produce.
It is a sentiment I have heard echoed by MPs and ministers—most
notably Elliot Morley.
The idea has influenced a lot of Government's
agri-environmental policy and will continue to do so. Farmland
birds, as defined by the RSPB, are an indicator on the Government's
"Quality of Life" indicator.
The "sound science" question is what
is the definition of a "Farmland Bird". Is it where
they nest or where they forage or where they mate or where they
roost or whether they are migratory? On the RSPB analysis it is
none of these things. The Turtle Dove, the Kestrel, the Skylark
have all shown declines, are all on the RSPB list and are all
different in terms of where they nest or forage or whether they
are migratory etc. Furthermore the idea that british farmland
only harbours 15% of the british bird population is quite perverse.
As is the RSPB idea that the Grey partridge is a farmland bird
and a Red Leg partridge is not. Similarly how can it be that the
Sparrow hawk is not a farmland bird but it's prey, the sparrow,
is. Again, according to the RSPB and DEFRA, the crow is not a
farmland bird. Most farmers find this ridiculous and laughable.
The crow is traditionally and presently associated with farmland.
More generally farmers will tell you their farm's harbour scores
more species that the RSPB 19.
In short there is no objective definition being
used here—there is no sound science. It is simply the subjective
opinion of the RSPB. I would suggest the RSPB are a vested interest
here in that they have something to gain from promulgating the
idea British birds are under some sort of threat from a human
source. Their campaign clearly sells membership and increases
their influence in Government.
If one looks into this issue it becomes clear
that the RSPB analysis taken up by English Nature and DEFRA is
rather selective and unduly negative and stems from a campaigning
agenda that has nothing to do with conservation science. The BTO
identify 21 species of bird which they define as "Farmland"
which have actually increased over the last 30 years. (see table
taken from BTO web-site).
Table of population increases for CBC
farmland 1968-99
|
| Species | Period
(yrs)
| Plots
(n) |
Change
(%) | Lower
limit
| Upper
limit |
Alert | Comment
|
|
| Goldfinch | 31
| 60 | 32
| 2 | 79
| | |
| Blue Tit | 31
| 93 | 33
| 17 | 49
| | |
| Swallow | 31
| 62 | 34
| 4 | 76
| | |
| Pheasant | 31
| 64 | 36
| 2 | 95
| | |
| Chaffinch | 31
| 94 | 36
| 21 | 53
| | |
| Woodpigeon | 31
| 40 | 66
| 9 | 159
| | |
| Chiffchaff | 31
| 44 | 67
| 23 | 170
| | |
| Magpie | 31 |
72 | 71
| 42 | 98
| | |
| Pied Wagtail | 31
| 58 | 77
| 25 | 175
| Unrepresentative
|
| Crow | 31 |
77 | 77
| 44 | 119
| | |
| Mallard | 31
| 62 | 78
| 45 | 136
| | |
| Great Tit | 31
| 89 | 79
| 50 | 111
| | |
| Wren | 31 |
93 | 82
| 62 | 102
| | |
| Long-tailed Tit | 31
| 47 | 114
| 56 | 183
| | |
| Goldcrest | 31
| 27 | 138
| 41 | 378
| | |
| Blackcap | 31
| 57 | 192
| 124 | 284
| | |
| Stock Dove | 31
| 37 | 199
| 117 | 372
| | |
| Coal Tit | 31
| 27 | 213
| 85 | 380
| | |
| Green Woodpecker | 31
| 23 | 304
| 126 | 1,034
| | |
| Great Spotted Woodpecker | 31
| 28 | 464
| 162 | 1,068
| | |
| Collared Dove | 31
| 40 | 1,581
| 620 | 7,894
| | |
|
The key point here is that only three of this list of 21
are included in the RSPB/EN/DEFRA group of farmland birds. If
they were included the RSPB graph broken line would look very
flat and not nearly as alarming. If this was done then the view
of agriculture by consumers, politicians, opinion formers may
be a good deal more positive.
Furthermore inclusion of the BTO 21 would put a different
slant on the RSPB analysis as to why some species of bird (such
as Skylark or Corn Bunting) are declining. The RSPB argue that
as all farmland birds are declining it can be assumed that change
in habitat is the key. Therefore we must change farm practices
and change habitat. The BTO list suggests something else might
be going on as these twenty-one increasing birds would also be
sensitive to this habitat change if the RSPB argument was right.
It may be that predators are more important than habitat as the
BTO 21 includes many predators and birds that do not suffer from
predation.
The most worrying thing for the industry here is that Government
are expecting to see reverses in the declines of the RSPB 19.
If habitat is not the key here but predation is, we may not see
these increases while predators increase (and the vast majority
of mammal and bird predators of birds have seen large increases
over the last 30 years). Hence, under the RSPB analysis we may
not see much reversal and the pressure on agricultural reform
will remain. We are in a lose-lose scenario.
I am keen to see a more rounded analysis. Farmers should
recognise that some bird species have declined and should acknowledge
that agricultural practice may be to blame and we should encourage
changes and new practices that will address this. But we should
also seek acknowledgement that some species have increased and
that some species loss may have nothing to do with agriculture
and will not be influenced by agricultural policy.
More generally I find it odd that Government and politicians
should take up a loaded and selective analysis from a lobby group
which is unduly negative. It is almost as if politicians are keen
to accentuate the negative when it comes to viewing agriculture.
It would be nice to think our elected representatives would accentuate
the positive about British agriculture and it's conservation record.
I have more evidence that I could present on this issue generally
but feel I have gone on long enough.
July 2006
| 
