Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


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





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 24 May 2007