The Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF) was established, we are told, to provide one effective voice to represent the conservation interests of raptors.
Strange then the organisation seems to have failed to mention any positive news about raptors, such as there now being the highest number of birds of prey in the UK for over 200 years and hen harrier numbers at record highs.
Rather than reference any of the widespread positive news out there NERF, under the leadership of Stephen Downing, a former Wildlife Crime Officer, seems hell-bent on stoking division and trying to grab a cheap headline, rather than offer anything constructive or praising the efforts of those upland communities who have helped raptors reach record numbers.
In a recent interview, Downing claimed, “the numbers of birds disappearing on or near grouse moors is staggering and is continuing unabated. These birds are really under pressure, you can’t ignore the statistics”.
It seems Downing is the one ignoring statistics. Not only has the hen harrier population rocketed in recent years, but the vast majority of these are now found on or near grouse moors.
In a recent email to multiple upland stakeholders Downing grandiosely announced that NERF was pulling out of the Yorkshire Dales National Park and Nidderdale National Landscape management collaboration group. It cited this was because NERF was upset at the, entirely legitimate, questions raised by the Moorland Association towards the NWCU’s hen harrier action plan.
Downing went to say the he and NERF “fully support the decision made by the NWCU to remove the Moorland Association from the RPPDG. As a consequence, NERF feels compelled to suspend collaboration with an organisation that seeks to undermine the valuable work for the NWCU in their attempts to [reduce] hen harrier persecution and to muddy the waters with an irrelevant discussion about the IUCN guidelines.”
The irony of Downing’s comments is, by dismissing the IUCN guidelines as ‘irrelevant’, he is literally embodying the main problem of human-wildlife conflict outlined in the IUCN’s guidelines.
In case Downing is unfamiliar with those guidelines on human-wildlife conflict and coexistence, we thought it would be helpful to outline them here: “In a level 3 conflict, the language and behaviour of those affected are strongly negative, and disproportionate to the damage involved (e.g. highly dramatised). Parties use strong or polarised language, and descriptions of previous attempts to solve the issue are described as complete failures. In addition, the affected parties are reluctant or even refuse to cooperate with each other (e.g. conservationist) or with the authorities (e.g. government agencies) to try to reduce the impact, and there is hostility and scepticism or sarcasm about the intention of others”.
Well now, this description sounds awfully like Mr Downing’s adversarial behaviour, doesn’t it?
For someone who sat on the failed Environmental Council process for six years you would think there would be more respect shown toward internationally recognised guidelines, followed by every government in the world.
Furthermore, in Downing’s somewhat petulant email attack, there is no recognition shown that the Moorland Association has been the main instigator of DEFRA’s plans, including the brood management scheme, which has been widely recognised as hugely successful.
Whist Downing may be relying upon a level of influence amongst his old chums in the National Wildlife Crime Unit to make, what can only be construed as headline gathering noise, there is seemingly increasing dissent amongst other parts of the police force and policy makers as to the level of perceived unnecessary resources being devoted to the area.
In July the Met Police chose to close down their wildlife unit and, if rumours are to be believed, other asset re-allocations are currently being considered nationally.
One would think that alienating widespread rural communities by pulling out of collaborative approaches to conservation, circulating snarky highly dramatised and sarcastic emails to widespread stakeholders and failing to recognise the significant progress made in many areas may not be the most effective way to justify continued relevance, or indeed existence.
Comments