As was explained in the two previous posts (see Exhibit A and Exhibit B) RSPB has received yet another huge grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund. This time they have received £244,059 to save the black grouse in North Wales.
This is despite RSPB having overseen the virtual extinction of the species on the 10,000 acres of prime black grouse habitat they have managed for decades at Lake Vyrnwy. It is also despite the curious similarity of the current bid with one for which RSPB previously got nearly a million pounds from the Welsh government. All very strange, but we have become accustomed to a world where the conservation industry is not subject to boring things like value for money, actual delivery of agreed outcomes, or even the need to demonstrate relevant competence.
What do you get for £244,059.00?
Here is what can be gleaned from an application which appears designed to prevent a clear grasp of what will happen to black grouse as a consequence of RSPB getting a quarter of a million pounds:
“The project will deliver capital works on the North Berwyn (SSSI, SPA, SAC) encouraging favourable condition to important features of the site, including gold standard peatland restoration, conifer removal and habitat management for priority species, while increasing climate resilience.
The estimated size of the works is:
Planned heather cut c36 hectares
Planned peatland restoration c3.74 hectares (rewetting through 6.2 km ditch blocking)”.
The project will try out 'no-fence' cattle collars. These are a version of the electric shock collars that are illegal to use on dogs in Wales. If the beast wearing it strays from its permitted grazing area, it is electrocuted.
The RSPB will “assess predation levels potentially impacting ground nesting birds. Where possible we will explore lethal and non-lethal methods of reducing predator impacts, such as diversionary feeding of birds of prey”.
Increase understanding of cultural heritage and historic land use.
Take peat cores for paleo-environmental analysis.
Record undocumented features e.g. Scots Pine Shepherds way markers.
Produce a paper on the Multiple Benefits of Sustainable Management for Black Grouse.
Create a demonstration site (c719 hectares) showing the multiple benefits of sustainable management which, with the paper above, will inspire and empower landowners.
Engage with practitioners, graziers, farmers and landowners.
Create a landscape partnership, developed with AONB, NRW, and key communities.
That's about it. If we have missed something, we can only apologise, but what we haven't missed is anything that says that there will be more black grouse. In fact the RSPB is careful to make clear that a grant of £244,059.00p to save the black grouse must not result in any expectation that the black grouse will actually be saved.
This is what they say on the subject of actually conserving black grouse.
“Due to the ecology of this species, it will be difficult to assess the impact the project is having on the population of Black Grouse within the two-year lifespan of the project. Furthermore, the uplands in Wales have been created over thousands of years thus the management of these dramatic ecosystems must also look long-term and encourage management plans which span decades, with results that can’t be seen for years”.
Put another way and in plainer English, the meaning of this is clear: "Don't expect any black grouse, you've given the money to people who will not do what is necessary, so they may well disappear, but, with a bit of luck, we will be long gone by then."
To be fair, their refusal to say that they will actually save black grouse is only sensible because, on the basis of what they say the money is for, the black grouse have had it.
Several of the planned actions obviously have no value in black grouse conservation terms. The increasing knowledge of cultural heritage, the peat cores, and the recording of shepherds' waymarks will have zero impact on black grouse.
Others, if you are both optimistic and charitable might, in the longer term, have an indirect benefit. The paper, the engagement and the partnership are normal management tools and could do some good, but it should be remembered that the RSPB have already had nearly a million pounds in Welsh Government Core Grant funding to do this in the same area. If it worked then, why is it necessary to do it again now? And if it didn't work when they got £800,000, why will it work for £244,000?
The heart of the matter
The actions that could have a direct impact on black grouse conservation are always the same. This is because we know what needs to be done to conserve black grouse. Everyone has known what is needed for years. If you have any doubt it is in the Black Grouse Recovery Strategy produced by an effective partnership run by GWCT and including RSPB in the 2010s.
We also know that if the strategy is implemented black grouse do well. Given reasonable spring weather, numbers and range increase. In bad springs the population is robust enough to withstand the temporary setback. It is the implementation of the strategy in the Pennines that has resulted in the area being England's core black grouse area.
So we know what to do. We even know that it works in Wales because it is applied on the only functioning grouse moor that has black grouse, and that moor, according to RSPB, holds 75% of the Welsh black grouse population.
What is needed? As ever, it is the three legged stool. Suitable habitat, providing suitable food for all stages of the birds life cycle, and the reduction of predation pressure to a level that allows the bird to produce a surplus of fledged young.
How do the RSPB's Berwyn plans compare to what is known to work?
We are told that there will be a 719 hectare demonstration site. The first thought is that this is a very small area to achieve anything significant in black grouse conservation. The RSPB/Severn Trent Lake Vyrnwy site is over 4,000 hectares and, even with that scale of operation they have been unable to demonstrate successful black grouse conservation, so 719 hectares is tiny.
When you examine the detail it gets worse: a lot worse. The capital works are set out, and we assume that these will be on the 719 ha demonstration site – it would make no sense otherwise. What is planned is fitting electric shock collars to some cattle, pulling up self-set conifers, cutting heather, 'gold standard peatland restoration' and assessing predation levels. There is also talk of diversionary feeding of birds of prey and a bit of predator control.
The electric shock collars have all the appearance of a gimmick and there is no evidence that we are aware of that they have any success, or even relevance, in black grouse conservation.
Pulling up self-set conifers is a good idea for lots of reasons, but compared to other upland ground nesting birds, black grouse are untroubled by the presence of a few small trees, so the direct impact will be small. It will also be largely free, as it is a favourite task for unskilled volunteers.
That gets us to the big ticket items. The 'capital works' that presumably justify much of the cost of £244,059. Heather cutting is an important tool. We are told that the plan is to cut 36 hectares of heather. This will we assume not be a single block, that would be silly. It will be strips and patches, which will take longer. Given modern equipment and a competent contractor this might take two or even three days to complete and the cost would be a rounding error on the quarter of a million.
The blanket bog restoration will affect a grand total of 3.74 hectares. That this will be to 'gold standard' is, in the circumstances, hardly surprising. With the amount of money they are charging for the tiny area involved, they could afford to use real gold. The area is so small that it will have no impact on the black grouse population. Why would it?
But RSPB are never shy about making big claims. Faced with what would be an embarrassingly tiny bit of capital works for hundreds of thousands of pounds, they simply double down. Forget the black grouse. This little bit of fiddling on a piece of land smaller than many municipal golf courses, will have far a grander effect. “Actions to enhance the mosaic of habitats needed for Black Grouse, will also deliver benefits for, water quality, air quality, soil health, wildfire and flood prevention and carbon sequestration”. Not bad for a couple of days heather cutting and under 4 hectares of gold plated grip blocking.
How many times do you need to assess something before you realise that the answer is always the same?
Predation is always where the wheels come off and this is no exception. Here are the relevant statements in the application.
RSPB will: “Assess predation levels potentially impacting ground nesting birds. Where possible we will explore lethal and non-lethal methods of reducing predation impacts, such as diversionary feeding of birds of prey”.
“This project will explore the option of non-lethal predator control using targeted diversionary feeding, we will evaluate effectiveness of this technique in the Welsh landscape and collect views from stakeholder about potential issues and alternatives. Camera traps will be used to monitor predators and the data assessed to understand more about the predators within the landscape”.
“Predator control contractors will additionally be required to maintain specific records to ensure evidence of adherence to protocols and licenses, and coverage via GPS. Monthly reports will track effort and progress. Future control should build on project monitoring. Habitat and species monitoring before and after management will inform work options and measure ecological change.”
It has to be asked why the people running this project think that the foxes, stoats and corvids of Wales might be impacting ground nesting birds in the Berwyns differently from identical foxes, stoats and crows in England, or Scotland.
It is a matter of common knowledge that without the legal control of common generalist predators, ground nesting birds are in serious trouble. This has been demonstrated repeatedly, and scientifically, with monotonous regularity, throughout the UK. When you only have two breeding seasons to work in, is it really necessary to waste at least one of the assessing if crows and foxes behave in the Berwyns in exactly the same way that they behave elsewhere?
It is however true, that the RSPB finds it impossible to control foxes, stoats and crows effectively enough to achieve the outcomes in terms of fledging success of ground nesting birds that is considered normal on land managed under private ownership. Their research published in Douglas et al, bemoans the fact that they are actually useless. On the RSPB's English study sites the areas where RSPB did nothing saw more curlews hatched than the areas where they did anything. You can't get much worse than that.
The reason is hidden in the application, where it says,“Predator control contractors will additionally be required to maintain specific records to ensure evidence of adherence to protocols and licenses, and coverage via GPS”.
It is the 'adherence to protocols' that is the problem. The RSPB has an arcane system of management and part of that system is an Ethics Committee. They decide what will be controlled and how. Whilst stoats are killed by RSPB at vast public expense on the Orkney Isles, the Ethics Committee does not allow them to be controlled anywhere on the mainland, including Wales.
Foxes can only be shot with a rifle at night. All other systems are prohibited, despite things like cage traps and humane cable restraints meeting international standards of humane operation and allowing more selective culling, they cannot be used. Crows can only be caught in Larson Trap. Shooting is not allowed, unless the crow in question is showing the 'learned behaviour of looking for eggs'.
Did this crow demonstrate 'learned behaviour of looking for eggs'?
Faced with this sort of behaviour, it is perhaps not surprising that the Douglas et al paper mused on the comparative lack of commitment demonstrated by the RSPB contractors. So it may be almost irrelevant whether RSPB does predator control or not.
How will this be managed?
The area involved in the demonstration site would be significantly less than a beat keeper would be managing on a grouse moor. All the elements that RSPB are getting £122,030 per annum for would be carried out by such a gamekeeper, but over a larger area and at no additional cost for contractors.
In a black grouse area the keeper would not just do much more for less, he or she would be expected to produce surplus red and black grouse. True they might not go to as many partnership meetings, but you would have black grouse, and in a good year, lots of them. That is not theory. It happens all over the place, including within sight of the Berwyns.
In such circumstances the management would be simple and direct. The landowner, shooting tenant or their agent would appoint the gamekeeper who might be single handed or part of a team run by an experienced head keeper. The gamekeepers would do everything. They would manage the habitat, control predators and where necessary herbivores such as deer or rabbits. They would interact with graziers, farmers, visitors, everyone who had impact on the place. They would be involved in strategic and tactical decisions about how the place was run. Their success would be tangible, measurable and multi-faceted. Not only would you get shootable quantities of red grouse, but you would have lots of other rare upland birds, including black grouse, breeding successfully. Again this is not a theory. It is a fact and can be seen a few miles from the RSPB's site.
The RSPB are clear about how they will manage the project. Well, open is perhaps a better word because clarity is not what they do.
There will be a 'Dedicated Conservation Officer' who will chair (as Project Manager) the Project Board.
The Dedicated Conservation Officer/Project Manager will report to the 'Programme Executive'. The 'Programme Executive' will chair the 'Project Steering Group'. Which is not the same as the Project Board.
These will all refer to an Internal RSPB Board for guidance and help for the 'Project Team'.
Obviously, the Project Team is not to be confused with the Project Board (chaired by the Project Manager/Conservation Officer), the Project Steering Group (chaired by the Programme Executive), or the Internal RSPB Board because they are guiding the Project Team.
This is before we start going into all the stuff about stakeholders, communities and the overwhelming aim to "Galvanise and redefine a partnership of key stakeholders in North east Wales who can work together to share resources, knowledge, and priorities. This will include NRW and the AONB”.
The question is obvious. Faced with the existence of a Project Team, a Project Board, a Project Steering Group, an Internal RSPB Board, an external Partnership and God Knows what else, how will the Conservation Officer find time to do anything? The answer seems to be that they won't. There is a mass of management stuff, but nowhere is there any suggestion that the Conservation Officer who makes up 60% of the conservation resource, actually does any conservation.
What lessons can we learn?
We would suggest there are some important ones. As usual RSPB are more inclined to be frank when they're looking for money and that can often be revealing.
Remember that RSPB said they will, “Assess predation levels potentially impacting ground nesting birds. Where possible we will explore lethal and non-lethal methods of reducing predation impacts, such as diversionary feeding of birds of prey”.
It is rare indeed for RSPB to admit that birds of prey might present any sort of conservation problem at all, even though they are well aware that their impact can be critical to ground nesting birds. Black-tailed godwits unable to fledge a chick on the Washes because of kites and marsh harriers, and the same happening with lapwing and kites on Otmoor are well documented, but rarely if ever spoken of by RSPB.
Up in the forested Berwyns they will be worried about kites, buzzards and ravens, but particularly goshawks. They may find the views of local stakeholders even more developed than their own in this regard. It will do the debate good if they face up to that challenge.
Elsewhere RSPB tells us that the uplands of Wales have been, 'Caught amid intensification and ineffective agri-environment policy, this decline highlights the plight of a species teetering on the brink. Areas of uplands in Wales have been subject to unsustainable land use practices ranging from intensive pasture management and overgrazing to complete agricultural abandonment of heather moorland. The loss of Black Grouse represents more than a depletion in numbers; it signifies a loss of our wider natural resources, history and heritage'.
It is telling that the abandonment of management of heather moorland is clearly identified as a negative. This is an interesting position for an organisation that has frequently ceased vegetation management on moorland it controls, and one that contrasts with its silence when it's rewilding fellow travellers propose precisely that as the best option for what should replace grouse moor management.
Our favourite however is,“Blanket bog restoration, heather management and conifer removal will create a mosaic of habitats for black grouse and restore the ecosystem benefits of a biodiverse landscape. It will reduce flooding and wildfires”.
Amen to that. What they have described is exactly what happens on a grouse moor. The only difference is that they have focused on black grouse rather that red and black grouse. Happily the management is the same for both. That is why almost everywhere that has a sustainable population of black grouse is a grouse moor or near one.
What they describe is nothing more nor less than a grouse moor. It is splendid to see that they are so clear in this application of the benefits of grouse moor management. What a pity that they feel they have to change their tune when they want to score political points.
Can we suggest that you keep this quote handy. Ready for use whenever you need to explain the enormous advantages of grouse moor management. It is after all true and its is what RSPB really think.
“Blanket bog restoration, heather management and conifer removal will create a mosaic of habitats for grouse and restore the ecosystem benefits of a biodiverse landscape. It will reduce flooding and wildfires”.
Comments