Ecos issue 31 1 whole issue

www.banc.org.uk

Spring 2010 issue 31(1)

Perfectly natural aliens?

Recession tips for the conservation sector ‘No regrets’ solutions for an uncertain climate

ECOS A REVIEW OF CONSERVATION ECOS is the quarterly journal of the British Association of Nature Conservationists

www.banc.org.uk ecos@easynet.co.uk Managing Editor: Rick Minter Tel: 01452-739142 e-mail: ecos@easynet.co.uk Assistant Editor:

Martin Spray Hillside, Aston Bridge Road, Pludds, Ruardean, Glos. GL17 9TZ Tel: 01594-861404 Acknowledgements This issue was edited by Rick Minter and Martin Spray.

The opinions expressed in ECOS are not necessarily those of BANC Council or of the Editors ECOS may not be reproduced, transmitted in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, in English or other languages, without the prior written consent of the publisher, BANC.

Subscriptions/BANC membership Subscriptions for ECOS are ÂŁ25 for individuals and ÂŁ80 for the corporate institutional rate. See inside back cover for further details. Current and previous articles and whole editions can be purchased on line at www.banc.org.uk

President: John Bowers Vice-Presidents: Marion Shoard Adrian Phillips

Chair: Adrian Koster Secretary: Ruth Boogert Treasurer: Derek Bensley

BANC is a non profit making company limited by guarantee, registered in England No. 2136042. Registered charity No. 327595.

ECOS is printed by Severnprint using Cocoon Silk 300gsm cover and Cocoon uncoated 100gsm text paper. Both papers have a 100% recycled content and are FSC certified. The electricity used during printing is generated from renewable sources.

The magazine is printed under the SylvaPack environmental print route using no alcohol and processless plates and a donation is made to Tree Aid to support tree planting in sub-Saharan Africa.

ECOS 31(1) 2010 Editorial

A no-regrets response to our mixed up nature Welcome to a new look ECOS. We hope it meets your expectations for keeping the brand but feeling more reader-friendly. In particular we have tried to tackle people’s main grumble about pages being too dense, so we hope the new product appears less crowded. Please let us have feedback of any sort. Other steps we’ve taken include articles and full editions available for purchase on line, and these will be available in colour throughout. Finally, the BANC website is now ready for blog debates pursuing some of the talking points from each edition. First topics on which we invite your views flow from this issue, and include those of climate change and of alien species, both of which are humdingers affecting so much of our present conservation activity. We will also be taking views on ‘getting started’ in conservation, which is on the minds of many of our readers.

The past months’ frenzy of debate on climate change has been game-changing, as hitherto ‘settled science’ is now portrayed as anything but. Blogs and newspapers have gone to town on the subject, with many journalists now looking for conflict in the science rather than more stories of melting glaciers and the plight of polar bears. “I am more convinced than ever about the need for a new language of climate change, based not on scientific certainty but on uncertainty, risk and values.” Says BBC’s environment correspondent Roger Harrabin. Amidst such uncertainty we should be driven by no-regrets policies, taking actions that are relevant to the needs of wildlife and the resilience we need in our ecosystems and landscapes, whatever the volatility of the climate. Installing wind turbines en mass, linked to new high voltage lines across wild land, and policies for exotic tree species designed for warmer scenarios, are topical examples of policies which tick boxes for government, but they have potential to be ‘big regrets’ and ‘big mistake’ policies for the environment and the economy. Several of our authors, including Mike Townsend, Richard Smithers, and Adrian Phillips suggest more subtle and genuine no-regrets proposals in this issue.

Turning to alien species, Ian Rotherham starts us off with an overview from last year’s BANC-sponsored conference. He asks us to confront our cultural preferences which in turn influence our prejudices across different misfit species. Our wildlife and ecology is more dynamic and varied than we care to admit – creatures like big cats and eagle owls are intriguing additions to our UK wildlife, which we will debate in future editions, but the likes of springtails and fungi are also crucial to the way nature ebbs and flows, as we see in this issue.

Geoffrey Wain 1

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Eco-xenophobia - responding to our natural aliens Wildlife groups need to separate science from subjectivity in their thinking behind control of alien species – too often controls on aliens are based on preferences for the ‘nature we like’ rather than identifying what species, alien or native, are creating genuine harmful impacts. This article reviews key examples and debates, including those which emerged at the 2009 BANC sponsored conference on alien species at Sheffield Hallam University.

IAN ROTHERHAM Problem species and their impacts The National Trust estimates the cost of current controls of invasive exotic plants at around £2.7bn per year.1, 2 The RSPB states that “Invasives are a significant threat to a large proportion of the world's biodiversity”.3 In response to this threat, the main government department, Defra, has announced a new campaign - Be Plantwise. This is the first part of a two-pronged attack on alien invaders and it aims to raise gardeners’ awareness of problem species and the consequences of deliberate or accidental release.

This is a good idea in principle but feels like a gesture without spending real money. It also seems like again we are not thinking of wider landscape management issues and actual problem species, but solely the label of ‘invasive aliens’. There is little sign of the debate moving towards a sustainable process of conservation land management which is supported by a wider community of stakeholders. Whilst education is especially important in terms of garden escapes, the conservation problems run deeper than just exotics and include aggressively invasive native plants too.

The scale of the impacts, and therefore of the challenges facing the delivery of coherent responses, are truly massive. Sarah Simons the Executive Director of the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) recently stated that “Despite the enormous costs, not only to biodiversity but also food security, human health, trade, transport and more broadly, economic development, invasive species continue to receive inadequate attention from policymakers and in 2010, there is simply no excuse for not tackling one of the greatest threats to the environmental and economic well-being of our planet.” Indeed there is no denying the global impacts of aggressively invasive and often exotic species, especially on once isolated island ecologies and areas of high endemic biodiversity. But problem species include regionally native ones too, and it seems that in many cases the triggers of invasion and of damaging impacts are human-induced environmental changes. These include moves away from traditional land management, and often economicallydriven controls, and also environmental changes such as gross eutrophication. To tackle effectively the consequences of aggressive invasions we needed to consider the phenomena ‘in the round’ and to address the wider contextual issues too.

2

ECOS 31(1) 2010

This 2mm long insect, the psyllid Aphalara itadori, is a predator of Japanese Knotweed in Japan. It is soon to be released in Britain to act as a natural form of pest control for the invasive plant. This is the first time such an approach has been used to help control the spread of a non-native invasive plant in Europe. If successful, it could reduce the estimated £150m annual costs to the building and engineering industries of clearing this invasive plant.

Photo: CABI

Getting in a tangle with natives and aliens Obvious examples of other natives, along with bracken, causing problems include gorse on many heaths and grassland sites, hawthorn and blackthorn and even birch invading grasslands, heaths, moors and bogs. Willow and poplar both cause huge damage to buildings. Both Ted Green of the Ancient Tree Forum and John Rodwell, (‘Godfather’ of the National Vegetation Classification), now argue that sycamore, that most despised of trees in England, is actually native. Beech, non-native in northern England and Scotland, along with mature Larch and other species also not native, are glorious additions to many landscapes. Native clematis (old man's beard) can be a pernicious weed of southern woods as can native ivy. Wild rhododendron (introduced from Gibraltar in 1764) can be surprisingly good for many wildlife species including massive winter roosts of birds, breeding nightingales, and cover for deer, badgers and otters. Furthermore, the impacts of exotic invasive rhododendron, on say ancient woods, are not unique to this alien species. The adverse effects are because it is invasive and not necessarily because it is alien. Native holly, abandoned and no longer cut for leaf fodder in traditional ‘holly hags’, now spreads invasively across many ancient coppices. This transforms the woodland ecosystem and eliminates woodland ground flora, yet there is no call to arms to remove it. One wonders why. In urban Sheffield, our otters back on the River Don since the early 2000s are hiding out under the dense stands of Japanese knotweed.

3

ECOS 31(1) 2010 In terms of mammals, native roe deer can cause similar damage to that from alien Muntjac. Both red squirrel and grey squirrel can damage trees; even badger, one of our most iconic conservation species, can undermine buildings, gardens and occasionally railway lines! Red deer are native but may cause serious over-grazing, damage to trees, woods, and forests, and road traffic accidents. Basically many species, in the wrong place at the wrong time, can and will cause problems. Alien species are often particularly invasive but then so are many native species. An interesting issue is raised by the culturally significant brown hare, listed as a Red Data Book and Biodiversity Action Plan species but which is alien, a Norman introduction. The rabbit also is alien, but especially following the cultural severance of abandonment of traditional grassland management, is vital in maintaining many species-rich wildflower pastures, and hugely important as food for predators such as buzzards.

Actions to control alien species are frequently controversial, even when based on good science. Control or removal of planted (alien) conifers (sometimes 100-200 years old) on sand dunes is proving controversial in west Lancashire, and also at Newborough Warren in North Wales. Here, after a lot of money has been spent to conserve the 'native' red squirrel, they may be sacrificed to remove planted conifers from the dunes. The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) has decreed that these aliens should be cleared to free up the ancient sand dune systems. But many locals are dismayed that their squirrels will be lost. There are concerns about the dilution of the genetics of Wordsworth's Lake District wild daffodils by hybridisation with nasty garden escapees, but I've never seen any evidence of this contamination.

Similarly in most regions of Britain the worries about Spanish bluebells seem overstated. Yet the creeping invasion of woodland by variegated yellow archangel has a massive impact on ecology but generates no interest from conservation bodies.

Other invasives such as sweet cicely, which is also alien, again often get no response from conservation bodies. Similarly Norway maple is still widely planted in landscaping schemes and is now colonising everywhere but triggers no action to control its spread, and Russian vine is another accident waiting to happen but generates no interest at all.

The need for management We need to target actions on managing problem species that create damaging impacts (ecological and/or economic), regardless of their exotic or native status.

Our judgement of what is a ‘problem’ should be based on scientific understanding and we should recognise when subjective preferences are entering the equation.

The answer is often good old-fashioned conservation land management, to improve habitat health in a wider context, and working with farmers, foresters and other landowners to deliver sensitive land management. Hopefully funding streams such as environmental stewardship can help. Of course one problem is that the wildlife and plants just don't read the books or the Action Plans! There are already a few excellent examples of good practice such as the work on knotweed in Swansea, and especially the management of invasive plant species by James Macfarlane and colleagues for Cornwall County Council. However, these approaches require long-term commitment and this means both champions and funding; but with the economic outlook for both local government and for 4

ECOS 31(1) 2010 environmental agencies looking bleak, such support may not continue. Worse still, the huge costs estimated for the active control of invasive aliens, are unlikely to be met by government in the new climate of economic austerity, which in particular may restrict Defra’s activity.

Shutting the stable door boar and eagle owl on the banned species list Wild boar, the European eagle owl, the Monk parakeet and 60 other species have been added to the list of non-native species that pose a threat to Britain’s indigenous animals. The Chinese water deer, the snow goose and 13 other birds, the slipper limpet and 7 other invertebrates, 35 plants including two kinds of rhododendron, and two types of algae have also been included on the list, created jointly by Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) prohibits the introduction into the wild of any animal which does not normally live or visit Britain or any plant or animal on the list, which is detailed in Schedule 9. Doing so carries a maximum punishment of two years in jail and a £5,000 fine. Seven animals were removed from the list, including the Mongolian gerbil and the Himalayan porcupine, as these are no longer thought to be a threat. The former native wild boar is back in the wild in Britain around 700 years after being hunted to extinction. However, calls from enthusiasts for a formal reintroduction into the UK have met with official resistance.

Yet Steve Carver at the Wildland Research Institute, University of Leeds, commented “It is very worrying to have DEFRA include native species, albeit largely extinct in the UK save recent reintroductions, in a list of non-native species that threaten UK biodiversity. Where did they get their scientific advice/evidence from on this? If wild boar is included then it sounds ill thought out........or is it just a political move? Certainly wild boar inclusion goes against Article 22 of the EC Habitats Directive and Article 11 of the EC Birds Directive, doesn’t it? Does it include Beaver and Lynx I wonder? Or is it just a list of species already here and perceived as a problem?”

So it seems that the scientific logic underpinning some of these decisions is very questionable. Furthermore, quite a number of these animals and plants are already here, will be hard or impossible to remove anyway, and in some cases, are actually natives. This muddled thinking detracts from the need to take serous action to address those species (like exotic signal crayfish and native bracken) which are clearly very damaging. In most cases, beyond public statements of policy, little real action is taken.

Costs, benefits and value judgements I think the key issue is that we have slipped into a judgemental situation where ‘native’ is good and ‘alien’ is bad but decided on a very ad hoc and subjective basis.

Quite often, as raised at the 2009 Sheffield conference (see below), the science underpinning ideas of alien of native and even of good or bad is very poor, and assumptions are made on the displacement of ‘native’ species by ‘aliens’ with little 5

ECOS 31(1) 2010 evidence. Along with tricky issues of how we determine native or exotic status, (and wall lizard, pool frog, eagle owl, and many others pose significant questions), there are also matters of human-imposed boundaries. Are we talking of native to GB, to the UK, or to England, Wales or Scotland individually? Furthermore, how do we respond to naturally occurring changes in species distribution either simply over time, or in response to climate change or other environmental fluxes?

Many exotic plants and animals bring huge social, environmental, and economic benefits to us. Much of UK commercial forestry is underpinned by exotic softwoods, and will still be so in the future. The garden and horticultural industries are worth maybe £6bn a year. But most of the seriously invasive problem plants have escaped from garden situations, accidentally or in many cases deliberately released and dispersed. The interrelationships between gardens, horticulture, nature, and conservation are deep and complex. Long-established exotic species are central to every designed landscape amongst National Trust properties or other heritage houses and gardens. In this context, the landscape vistas and experiences to which these species contribute immensely are worth a huge amount as leisure and tourism sites.

Chatsworth in the Peak District for example is the most popular rural tourism site in Britain, and mixes nature, designed and heritage landscapes, with wild native species but also a backdrop of introduced exotics many of which are naturalised. Furthermore, many of the gardeners, who often deliberately release aliens into the wild, are also members of our major conservation organisations. Research shows that they often understand the issues, but seek to disagree over the merits of naturalised aliens, and education may not necessarily change this viewpoint. So what do we allow and what do we remove? The simple issues so often presented are all too frequently very complicated, and we are faced with the question of how we make our choices.

Return of the natives?

How should we decide what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’? Wild boar is an interesting example, since any British woodland without them cannot be judged to be a truly native ecosystem, as boar are a keystone forest mammal, important in dispersing mycorrhizal fungi. But are they now an alien to be eradicated or a native to be welcomed back? Defra seems to be swaying towards the former, but many people are excited by the return of the native.

Chinese water deer are non-native (alien) but we hold around 40% and rising as a proportion of the world population of a globally threatened species, and water deer so far have had negligible impacts across their current range in Britain; so again, in or out?

In Scotland the red squirrel was for centuries persecuted as a pest of forestry and became extinct; as also happened across much of England and Wales. Today’s populations were largely reintroductions from European stock, much of which is genetically very different from the original. So again in or out, and how do we decide about the grey squirrel? I have done work with local communities to examine upbringing and background in relation to attitudes. Most urban people who have grown up with grey squirrels actually like them, but might tolerate 6

ECOS 31(1) 2010 control, but not killing of grey squirrels. Those growing up in rural districts are generally more tolerant of destruction of greys, and especially so if they have grown up with ‘native’ reds.

The return of the beaver, another lost native, is again a reintroduction issue and in practice would not cause serious problems or damage but there is a lot of paranoia.

Lynx, black leopards, and puma are now accepted by several police forces as breeding in the wild in Britain. Maybe these will help to control expanding deer populations, but reintroduction of large carnivores, by accident or by controlled release will always be controversial. But it seems that, like if or not, they are here.

There are ideas about reintroducing large carnivores to the Scottish Highlands but various parties want to influence this debate, not least game management interests.

At the 2009 conference, a lack of dialogue between game management and land owning interests, and wildlife conservation groups, was highlighted as an issue.

Identifying real problems There is a need to focus on problems, not necessarily on whether species are alien or native. Bracken is a case in point as a native invader, and one for which there appears to be no national strategy in place, but for which there is a routine massive cost. Furthermore, some species like buddleia for example, cause considerable structural and hence economic damage in Britain but is generally not controlled because it is the ‘butterfly bush’ and we like it.

The language of ‘rhodo bashing’ or ‘knotweed bashing’ for example has unfortunate connotations - I’ve coined the term ‘Eco-xenophobia’ to stress that we are making judgements through mistaken ideas of what is native, what is alien, and hence what is good or bad. Many of these concepts are very recent and disguise serious issues of problem species and of sustainable land management and custodianship. What’s worse perhaps is that they resonate with racist tendencies and extremist groups and parties, and this is a growing concern in parts of Europe.

Main messages from the 2009 Sheffield conference The 2009 conference on exotic and invasive plants and animals was promoted jointly by BANC and the Biodiversity & Landscape History Research Institute. The conference ranged over the need for real solutions to problems and the latest good practice, to the equally pressing need to discuss and debate the questions of ‘why’, ‘when’, where’ and even ‘if’ we should intervene in the ecology of invasions (or sometimes of perceived invasions). The result was the clear emergence of an agenda for serious debate but a feeling too that many organisations and even individuals perhaps do not wish to engage. Key issues highlighted at the conference included: 1. We are now good at identifying some damaging invaders and on some occasions taking action quickly to head off later problems.

2. We are less good and even very subjective about identifying other invaders and potentially problem species which are spreading rapidly but for which no actions are being taken.

7

ECOS 31(1) 2010 3. There are no measures for identifying regional or local champions to tackle problem aliens in a co-ordinated way. This has a consequent major cost to business and others but no effective response; the overall cost of problem invaders is £2-3 billion per annum, excluding the huge cost of bracken invasion and lost productivity of agricultural lands; 4. Responses to damaging aliens are often too late to be worthwhile.

Interventions at an early stage of an invasive species’ emergence are more likely to be effective.

5. There is insufficient funding (in amount or longevity) for agencies or local authorities to provide skills for their key staff or to take effective action at a local or regional level.

6. There are examples of good practice to share and disseminate, including Swansea City Council and Cornwall County Council, but there remains a lack of effective coordination.

7. A big tension, but often not discussed, is that many exotic species contribute in a major way to people’s quality of life and to the economy.

8. There are increasing concerns especially in Europe about eco-xenophobia and extremist politics.

9. The underpinning science, especially about expected impacts on other species, is often lacking. There is a serious need for objective science to inform understanding and decision-making, whilst accepting that actual decisions are subjective and political.

10. It seems that developments in bio-control, whilst they can seem scary for many, may offer the possibility of long-term controls rather than eradication.

11. Using invasive species for food (for example, menus using signal crayfish) or other natural products is an important way of raising awareness of the problem, as well as creating incentives for people to help target the species.

12. Alien and invasive species are popular topics for the media, but much coverage of the subject is superficial and poorly informed.

13. The meeting heard compelling evidence about big cats wild in Britain (which in the case of lynx is a returning native); which together with the reappearance of wild boar, creates some truly wild nature and challenges the ‘control’ culture of nature conservation.

The wider picture Whilst some damaging invasions by exotic species are taken seriously, there remain few effective and coordinated programmes of long-term control. In some cases, 8

ECOS 31(1) 2010 NEIL BENNETT

exotic species are so immersed in our ecologies, that control is impossible; in others we are simply unwilling to pay the price. In the latter case there is often much talk and hype but little action beyond strategies and policies; both of which are generally too late to prevent problems. According to the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP), in its recent assessment of fifty-seven countries worldwide, most have made international commitments to tackle the threat of invasive species, but so far only half have introduced legislation on the issues. Fewer still are taking effective action on the ground.

Specific actions, however apparently laudable in principle, remain controversial in both specialist and pubic arenas, and problematic in practice.

A prime example is the British cull of ruddy ducks, one of Sir Peter Scott’s less welcome legacies. According to The Observer newspaper (Sunday 7 February 20101): “A controversial UK cull of ruddy ducks, a US native that has been compared to a ‘feathered lager lout’ for its displays of thuggish and amorous behaviour, has cost the British taxpayer more than £740 for each dead bird. Figures from the Defra show that shoots of the chestnut-coloured bird have cost taxpayers £4.6m, yet only 6,200 have been killed. The disclosure has sparked an outcry from ornithologists and animal activists who have protested since the cull began five years ago. They say that the bird, targeted because it had interbred with the threatened white-headed duck in Spain, should have been left alone. The cull is due to end in August.”

Furthermore, without effective international co-operation then surely this project is doomed to failure. One consequence witnessed all across England, is that local bird recorders simply withhold the location of ruddy duck sites in their patch. Regardless of any merits in the case for control, it seems that the key arguments with grassroots ornithologists have yet to be won. Without their support it is highly unlikely that any control programme could be effective. So we have the question of whether the efforts have produced any noticeable effects that are viable and have a real influence on the white-headed ducks in Spain. Surely the money would have been better spent in Spain helping to control hybrids within the white-headed duck’s range, and on associated education and awareness-raising programmes.

The lessons of history also show that to be effective control programmes need to bring together key parties for closely coordinated action. Eradication of coypu from England’s East Anglian Fens and Broads remains one of the few success stories in Britain of landowners, government agencies and conservation bodies working together. Another basic observation is that too often, even if we want control in order to avoid demonstrable ecological damage, the efforts are too little too late.

9

ECOS 31(1) 2010

References 1.

2.

3.

Anon. (2010) Winning the Battle But Losing the War on Invasive Alien Species. The Observer, Sunday 7 February.

Bruxelles, S. de (2010) War is declared on the plant invaders that cost ÂŁ2.7 billion a year to control. The Times, 24 February, p4 Graham Madge, RSPB, quoted online 13th October 2008 newsforums.bbc.co.uk

Bibliography Blake, D. (2009) Predator reintroductions and game shooting interests. International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 24-28.

Booy, O. (2009) Coordinating the GB response to non-native species. International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 29-31.

Coates, P. (2006) American Perceptions of Immigrant and Invasive species. Strangers on the Land. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Cooke, A.S. (2009) Chinese water deer Hydropotes inermis in Britain. International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 32-43.

Goulding, M. (2009) Wild Boar Issues and Arguments: A Case Study. International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 60-66.

Hibbert-Ware, A. (1938) Report of the Little Owl Food Inquiry 1936-37. H. F. & G. Witherby Ltd., London Jowit, J (2010) Aliens in the woods: public asked to record wildlife and track invaders. The Guardian, 22 March 2010 Minter, R. (2009) Big Cats in our outdoors: Just a few escapes or a breeding population? International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 70-73.

Robinson, R.C. (2009) Invasive and Problem Ferns: A European Perspective. International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 83-91.

Rotherham, I.D. (2001) Himalayan Balsam - the human touch. In: Bradley, P. (Ed.) Exotic Invasive Species should we be concerned? Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Birmingham, April 2000. IEEM, Winchester, 41-50.

Rotherham, I.D. (2001) Rhododendron gone wild. Biologist, 48(1), 7-11.

Rotherham, I.D. (2003) Alien, invasive plants in woods and forests ecology, history and perception. Quarterly Journal of Forestry, 97 (3), 205-212 Rotherham, I.D. (Ed.) (2005) Loving the Aliens??!!? Ecology, history, culture and management of exotic plants and animals - issues for nature conservation. Journal of Practical Ecology and Conservation Special Series, No. 4, 96pp Rotherham, I.D. (2009) Exotic and Invasive Species: Issues around Alien, Invasive, Urban and Problem Species: Summary and overview. International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 6-9 Smout, T.C. (2009) The Alien Species in Twentieth-Century Britain: Inventing a New Vermin. In: Smout , T.C., Exploring Environmental History, Edinburgh University Press, 169-181

Ian Rotherham is Professor of Environmental Geography and Reader in Tourism and Environmental Change at Sheffield Hallam University. He is an ecologist, landscape historian, and environmental economist with a long-standing interest in exotic plants and animals. ian.d.rotherham@btinternet.com

10

ECOS 31(1) 2010

As British as curry?

Hot and bothered over parakeets Should parakeets be seen as a foreign pest or a vibrant addition to our wildlife? This article examines the views amongst different wildlife bodies.

MATHEW FRITH Open season on a page three bird In October 2009 the London Evening Standard heralded an “open season on parakeets” following Natural England’s press statement on changes to the licensing arrangements for the control of certain species.1 Bill-boards exclaimed a clarion call to start controlling ring-necked parakeet (Psitticula krameri) 2, backed up in the paper’s suggestion that the “birds can be shot without a licence” in order to protect crops and “native species such as the woodpecker.” It further underlined the threat posed by the parakeet by describing it as a bully of small birds and the cause of damage to trees.

Natural England’s press release, couched in the need to regularly review licences, nevertheless highlighted the need to “target the increasing impact of non-native species” further emphaised as being “recognised as a major global conservation problem.” To ram home the point, Natural England’s Chief Executive stated “Nonnative species are a major threat to global biodiversity and it is important that licences can operate as an effective tool in helping to tackle the problem.” Four non-native species were specifically listed on the press release; ring-necked and monk parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus), Canada goose (Branta canadensis) and Egyptian goose (Alopochan aegyptiacus). New licencing arrangements due to come into play in the New Year would allow “their numbers [to] be controlled”.

Natural England also announced the removal of great black-backed (Larus marinus) and herring gull (L. argentatus) from some licences due to conservation concerns about their population numbers. This message appeared out of nowhere, with no advance notice offered by Natural England. Given the London Evening Standard’s coverage of the topic, London Wildlife Trust (LWT) issued a statement: “We believe the decision to include ring-necked parakeet (and Canada goose) within the general licence for conserving birds from 1 January 2010 is misguided.

Whilst we recognise that populations of ring-necked parakeet and Canada geese have grown, and in some cases cause concern, there is currently no evidence that either species is having an adverse impact on native wild bird populations or natural habitats in London or elsewhere in Britain.

More worryingly, the lowering of evidence required to obtain licences to control parakeets could set a damaging precedent, allowing poorly-regulated and 11

ECOS 31(1) 2010 inappropriate controls (e.g. inhumane shooting) to take place upon the whim of land-owners. It could also serve to further the expansion of populations due to the fact that controls will be relaxed. Given the number of parakeets in London, we ask how do Natural England intend to monitor the licences they issue?”

The following day the media jumped in, muddying the waters.3 Over-simplifying an interview with me, reports claimed that LWT’s view was that the decision was racist (rather than ‘could be interpreted as racist’) as parakeets were “as British as curry”, rather than a complicated analogy of cultural appropriation and tastes within modern-day Britain, within the loaded terminology of non-natives and aliens in a place like London.

The story ignited a blue touch paper. Relationships between the LWT and Natural England immediately nosedived, but the bandying of the ‘R’ word within the media also had impact; Natural England issued a further statement on 3 October. This distanced the agency from suggestions that it was calling for the eradication of ringnecked (and monk) parakeet (“We are not.”), and stated that it remained “illegal for anyone to kill or intefere” with them “except in exceptional circumstances.”

Ring the changes The changes to the general licences followed a four month consultation that ended in March 2009.4 Generating 35 unique responses5, largely from the expected players, it is worth noting some of the feedback to the questions posed by Natural England in relation to the two parakeet species. Over 74% (i.e 26) supported the need for regulatory measures to control invasive non-native species, although the RSPB stated that its support was dependent on “good evidence that a genuine problem exists.” Natural England’s response was that it would adopt a “presumption to support or facilitate the control of non-native species” when considering adding species to general licences. However, it also stated that this was “not a call to the public to support or facilitate” such species.

When it came to ring-necked parakeet, and the purpose of adding the species to the general licence for conserving wild birds, 60% agreed (and almost 63% for the purpose of protecting crops). However RSPB, RSPCA and WWT questioned the evidence of damage by ring-necked parakeet in the context of general licences, and felt the measures were disproportionate for monk parakeet. The RSPB added that the addition of ring-necked parakeet was contrary to NE’s five principles of licensing, due to its belief that there was no problem, nor that licensed action would contribute to resolving the problem. The NFU commented on the disparity over non-native species and damaging native species. Disappointingly the Wildlife Trusts recorded ‘no comment’ to the questions over the parakeets.

Natural England’s response was to add the two parakeet species to the General Licence, content that the risk assessments published by the GB Non-native Species Secretariat provided appropriate justification (these were not further detailed).

12

ECOS 31(1) 2010

A ring-necked parakeet at home in Richmond Park?

Photo: Dave Pressland

An explosion?

The pet trade first introduced ring-necked parakeets from the Indian sub-continent to England in 1840. The first recorded breeding of the species in Britain occurred in 1855 in Norfolk, but it wasn’t until 1969, with young raised at Gravesend, Kent, that their recent expansion began. By 1998 the known UK population was c.1,500.

The British Trust for Ornithology report, Breeding Birds in the Wider Countryside, lists ring-necked parakeet populations as an estimated 20,000 birds, predominantly in south-east England, and the fastest-increasing species with a 600% increase between1995–2007.6 This was modestly reported in the Daily Telegraph “Parakeets now outnumber native British birds” - and the story linked their population growth to reported declines in several woodland bird species such as willow tit. However, the RSPB was quoted: “There are a large number of birds now outnumbered by parakeets such as kingfishers, barn owls and red kites. But that is not to say they are declining because of parakeets…[and] so far there is nothing to suggest parakeets causing a problem for native birds because they are confined to a small range.”

Ring-necked parakeets thrive in London, north Surrey and parts of Kent. They are highly visible –“undeniably spectacular”– and audible birds. They are increasingly part of London’s wildlife, reflecting the cultural diversity of the city. However, despite the implications that there is a good basis to support control, there is currently no evidence that the ring-necked parakeet is having an adverse impact on native wild bird populations or natural habitats in London or elsewhere in Britain.

This is supported by a desk-top review commissioned by Defra.7 Is this another case 13

ECOS 31(1) 2010 of ‘foreign, loud, “unnervingly numerous”, and rapidly increasing’, and thus a perceived problem for our sensitive native birds?

Recent research in Belgium, based largely on modelling, suggests that there may be a negative causative relationship between ring-necked parakeet and nuthatch in woodlands, but that other factors may be influential in controlling the ability of nuthatch in securing nest-holes for breeding.8 There are hints that the parakeet might cause problems for some species, but the absence of robust data to assess their potential impacts on species or habitats suggests the decision to include ring-necked parakeet within the licensing maybe precautionary.9 Or is it a worrying presumption based simply on the bird’s noisy presence that has drawn attention to itself?

A chorus of disapproval Renewed attempts to ‘deal with’ non-native species are gathering pace, following reviews of the legislative schedules, and the establishment of the GB Non-Native Species Secretariat and delivery of the Non-native Species Strategy10 through regional fora.11 There appears to be a growing consensus for action to be taken, no doubt spurred on by the seeming success of the ruddy duck cull.12 Indeed, the language at times is becoming rather shrill, unnervingly echoing that of others with agendas that could be perceived to have analogous aims – “We need to be vigilant and not be afraid to take action to stop many of these exotics before they get too numerous… We fail to do so at our peril”.13 Nevertheless, there is some unease as to whether this activity chimes well within towns and cities, and how the targeting of some species from outside Britain helps to embed the wider objectives of biodiversity conservation to a public increasingly largely disengaged from an indigenous nature. For all the justifiable concerns about the impacts of introduced species at a global level, in Britain our biodiversity has been shaped by non-natives for thousands of years, and I question whether such emphasis so readily applies.

Newspapers’ opinion on the parakeet proffered both sides of an argument (foreign pest versus bright addition to our fauna). However, widely-bandied descriptions of them being bullies and pests surely reflect more on our attitudes towards ‘aliens’ than any empirical evidence to support such views. The flurry of green feathers in the media generated a clear split in the subsequent blogosphere between those that couldn’t wait to get their guns out, to those that were prepared to man the barriers to prevent ‘the slaughter’. The London Wildlife Trust lost one member due to our stance, but gained messages of support as well.

Leaving aside the decision to add the ring-necked parakeet onto the General Licence, it is this aspect of the Natural England press release which raised questions; a naivety that it would be reported objectively, and pin-pointing non-native species which have a clear resonance within cities–themselves consisting of many people from outside Britain. To say that ring-necked parakeets merit no public interest is an under-statement; their presence is as controversial as any measures to control them, and any commentary about them from a professional authority will be oil on a fire without due preparation.

14

ECOS 31(1) 2010 The public is often cast as being ignorant and sentimental when it comes to wildlife conservation. Whether or not this is the case (and I doubt it is), it cannot be argued that the public does not have a valid opinion and stake in the natural world. We appear to be unwilling to accept that there often strong motivations for bringing in animals and plants to the country. Given Britain’s location we have an impoverished native flora and fauna, and people have attempted to ‘brighten it up’ ever since they first settled here. This is not an argument for laissez faire. However, our biodiversity is as much a cultural construct as a natural response, and if we fail to take account of the values that people place on our wild animals and plants no matter where they come from, attempts to impose a professional’s version of biodiversity in Britain will struggle.

References and notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Changes to wildlife protection announced by Natural England, press release, 30 September 2009, Natural England, www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/news/2009/300909.aspx It is also called rose-ringed parakeet. Authorities are divided on the name.

For example; Parakeets cull is racist, say wildlife experts, Daily Telegraph, 2 October 2009.

Natural England (2009), General Licences under wildlife legislation in England; Summary of Consultation Responses & Decisions, December 2008-March 2009.

There were 115 responses in total; 79 were campaign positions of one organisation, and 1 was a response that didn’t provide information suitable for analysis.

British Trust for Ornithology (2009), Breeding Birds in the Wider Countryside: their conservation status 2009; Trends in numbers and breeding performance for UK birds. www.bto.org/birdtrends2009/wcrrinpa.shtml Fletcher, M. and Askew, N. (2007), Review of the status, ecology and likely future spread of parakeets in England, University of York.

See: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/management/non-native/documents/csl-parakeet-deskstudy.pdf Strubbe, D. and Matthysen, E. (2007), Invasive ring-necked parakeets Psittacula krameri in Belgium: habitat selection and impact on native birds, Ecography, 30; 4, pp578-588, Copenhagen The birds may have an impact on other cavity nesters. See: http://192.171.199.232/daisie/speciesFactsheet.do?speciesId=50460# www.nonnativespecies.org The London Invasive Species Initiative was established in 2009, chaired by the Environment Agency.

Or is it? The Guardian (7 February 2010) reported that the cull to date has cost over £740 per dead bird.

Fox, A. D. (2009), What makes a good alien; Dealing with the problems of non-native wildfowl, British Birds, 102, pp660-679, December 2009, London.

Mathew Frith is Deputy CEO of London Wildlife Trust; these views are his own. mfrith@wildlondon.org.uk

15

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Ducking and diving – mixing science and values in ruddy duck control The curious tale of an amorous duck and the efforts made to curb its enthusiasm. Is culling of ruddy ducks about protecting the white headed duck, or demonstrating our control over nature?

PETER SHIRLEY Times change. In 1976 the West Midland Bird Club (which runs reserves and organises talks and field trips in the region) adopted the ruddy duck as its emblem.

This species was becoming more common in the area, having first appeared in Staffordshire in 1959, first bred in that county in 1961, and having first bred in Worcestershire in 1971.1 In those innocent days people welcomed this attractive newcomer to Britain’s inland waters. By 1995 however the Club found itself in discussion with English Nature about allowing ruddy ducks to be culled on its reserves. This was resisted by the Club on the grounds that the proposed method of control (shooting) might not be the most humane and effective, and that there would be disturbance to other species. English Nature went over the Club’s head to the owners of the reserves that they leased and obtained their consent.2 The ruddy duck is still represented in the Club’s logo, albeit somewhat cryptically.

The British population of ruddy ducks originated from about 70 birds which escaped from, amongst other places, the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust’s Slimbridge Reserve in the late 50s and early 60s. The first nesting record was in Avon in 1960, and by 2000 the population numbered about 6,000.3

The intruder and its cousin Ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) is perhaps unique amongst our introduced species in that it looks as if it not only might be successfully extirpated in the United Kingdom (sharing that dubious accolade with the coypu (Myocaster coypus), but also that this fate is not because it presents a threat in this country, but because it might do so to a species elsewhere, in this case Spain. The species in question is the white-headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala), which, being threatened with extinction, has been the subject of a major conservation effort for the last 30 years. This has been relatively successful, with an estimated population in Spain of 22 in 1977 increasing to about 3,000 in 2000. The global population has however severely declined from over 100,000 in the early 20th Century to about 19,000 in 1991 and less than 10,000 now.4 These birds are in widely scattered wintering and breeding populations across Eurasia. Between 2000 and 2005 the average count of white-headed ducks in Spain has been 2,470 birds.5 16

ECOS 31(1) 2010

The innocent ruddy duck?

Photo: www.glendell.co.uk

Ruddy ducks are partially migratory and some birds from the UK make their way to Spain (this behaviour first recorded in 19836) where the males are more favoured as mates by female white-headed ducks than males of their own species. The resulting hybrid males are similarly favoured. This behaviour is interpreted as a threat to the long-term viability of the Spanish white-headed duck population by conservationists and geneticists. As a result the UK Government, within the context of various international agreements and with the support of major conservation organisations, agreed to cull the ruddy duck population here.

Following 10 years (yes, 10!) of research and trials, shooting was identified as the most effective way of doing this and a 5 year eradication programme commenced in 2005. As a result the ruddy duck population has been reduced from about 6,000 to about 700. The cost of this is officially put at between £4.5m and £5m,7 although Animal Aid claims that £8.5m has been spent.8 Over the same period ruddy ducks and hybrids have also been killed in Spain.9 The problem with controlling by killing is of course that if all breeding individuals are not accounted for the activity has to continue ad infinitum. If the 70 original escapees increased to 6,000 in just 40 years, then the ten times that original number still extant means that there is a lot more shooting to do, and a lot more money to spend. At some point the law of diminishing returns must come into play – how much money will we spend on eliminating the last few dozen ruddy ducks? If we don’t go through with a complete cull will not the whole cycle start again? The Observer newspaper on 7 February 2010 quotes slightly different figures to those above, but estimates that each dead duck has cost the taxpayer more than £740. The exercise certainly raises questions over value for money.

17

ECOS 31(1) 2010 Although killing this undoubtedly attractive duck has not attracted the public controversy of similar operations against other species, introduced or not, there has been a continuous feeling of unease amongst conservation bodies and the occasional outburst of public concern. When Warwickshire Wildlife Trust allowed its Brandon Marsh site to be used for early trials, suspected animal rights protesters set fire to the reed bed there, and the Trust’s AGM was lobbied. (The logic of setting fire to the reed bed has never been explained, whatever effect on ruddy ducks was discounted by the loss of reed warbler habitat.) There have been recent protests in Wigan because the local council is allowing shooting of ruddy ducks on the Wigan Flashes.

The most vociferous voices against the ruddy duck cull are from animal welfare proponents - conservationists seem to be more in the reluctant agreement camp.

This split is, perhaps, more typical of the United Kingdom than some other countries. In the USA for example there is generally less of a divide in people’s minds between welfare and conservation. One of their biggest animal charities, The Humane Society of the United States with more than two million members, neatly combines the two.

Whose species are they anyway?

Concern partly centres on the fact that ruddy and white-headed ducks are so closely related, as manifested by the fact that they freely interbreed.

Conservationists usually control individual species to favour unrelated species, for example gulls are controlled to protect terns (they may be cousins but they are definitely not the same species), hedgehogs in the Western Isles are controlled to protect ground-nesting waders, and brown rats are controlled all over the world to protect a variety of other species. Questions therefore arise as to whether or not ruddy and white-headed ducks are entirely separate species (see below). There is also the question of genetic conservation (one of the aims of the Biodiversity Convention) in that two such closely related species must share the majority of their genes, either as separate entities or as hybrids. Why, some may ask, does it matter about the hybridisation if the genes are being conserved? The Biodiversity Convention is quite clear on this point: “Biodiversity also includes genetic differences within each species - for example, between varieties of crops and breeds of livestock. Chromosomes, genes, and DNA - the building blocks of life determine the uniqueness of each individual and each species”.10 Although that is clear, ducks’ genetics and taxonomy are not. Many duck species interbreed and fertile hybrids are common. Introduced mallards interbreeding with them are said, for example, to be threatening the viability of the grey duck (Anas superciliosa) in New Zealand. This raises the question of what is a species and can we really separate one sort of duck from another? Defining a species is fraught with difficulty. Species are as much, or even more, a human construct than they are a natural entity. Darwin himself commenting on the difficulty of defining the term ‘species’ said that “It all comes, I believe, from trying to define the indefinable”.11 The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (no doubt amongst many others) has published a detailed modern discussion of the issues.12 This paper discusses, amongst 18

ECOS 31(1) 2010 other things, whether or not species are ‘natural kinds’ with unique essences (the prevailing pre-Darwin view) ‘units of evolution’ (one of the main post-Darwinian views) or ‘groups of entities that share stable similarities’ (Homeostatic Property Cluster kinds or HPC theory). I am not going to pretend to fully understand these distinctions, nor to attempt to apply them to ruddy ducks. I mention them just to illustrate that there are deep philosophical and scientific concepts which make the notion of ‘species’ as slippery to grasp as an eel, and to point the reader to further food for thought.

Ducks are not, of course, the only difficult group of species. For example, decades of pipistrelle bat records are now compromised by the discovery that there are two species of pipistrelle. They look the same, and have apparently identical behaviour and geographical range. It was technology that revealed a miniscule difference – the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) echo-locates at 45 kHz whilst the soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) does so at 55 kHz. Researchers are now examining what other differences there may be.13 If the two species are susceptible to the same pressures and conservation measures, the tiny differences between them might not be significant and the resources would be better applied to the conservation measures. It would be ironic if the research demonstrates that they are merely two races of the same species.

So, what of ruddy and white–headed ducks? The conclusion of a paper in British Birds in 2000 is that they are separate species which have been geographically and genetically isolated from each other for several million years.14 This conclusion is reached through a detailed examination of the genetics of the two ducks.

Unfortunately for those of us wrestling with practical conservation problems rather than theoretical concepts they muddy the waters rather than clarify them. In the paper they say that two other species in the genus Oxyura are more closely related to the white-headed duck than any of the three is to the ruddy duck, and that there are many examples of morphologically distinct and geographically isolated waterfowl species whose genes are less divergent than the two species under consideration here. Maybe the taxonomists got things wrong in the first place, and the genus Oxyura should either have the number of species reduced (there are currently six or seven species or races each found in a different part of the world) or be split into two or three genera, or both. Such taxonomic lumping and splitting goes on all the time, and reinforces the anthropomorphic basis of species.

As an aside I wonder how all this relates to the genotypes of humans and chimpanzees which are said to be 99% the same? And, more sensitive still, what would happen if we applied the arguments about ruddy and white-headed ducks to humans? When transport opened up the world many morphologically distinct and geographically isolated races of people came into contact with each other.

Subsequently the world’s biggest attempt at apartheid was universally condemned, short-lived and impossible to maintain.

Natural flotsam and jetsam If nature allows these two ducks to breed with each other, why are we determined to prevent it and so willing to commit millions of pounds of scarce resources to 19

ECOS 31(1) 2010 intervene? Those favouring control of ruddy ducks base their arguments on the fact that the two species have not encountered each other by natural means since their original divergence from tropical swamps millions of years ago. The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans have so far prevented any ‘natural’ contact. What might have happened however had the white-headed duck population not declined over the last 100 years? The reduced population exists in scattered locations from Spain to China, and the extent of the Chinese population is uncertain. Ruddy duck are thriving on the American continent. Might not vagrants from either species eventually have made their way to the other’s territory to naturally begin the hybridisation process which we so fear?

A sandhill crane recently made its way to the Highlands of Scotland, and then to south-west France15; could not migratory ducks do the same? Global movements of other organisms are well known. Tim Hawes describes these in relation to invertebrates as ‘flotsom (sic) but not jetsam’. Birds are subject to the same forces generated by wind and weather as insects and, as in the case of the sandhill crane above, frequently turn up in places far from their normal homes.

In the meantime the factors which have caused the decline of the white-headed duck, including, crucially, habitat loss, continue apparently unchecked. Ruddy duck from Britain are only threatening the Spanish population of white-headed ducks, human activities are threatening the rest of the widely scattered population. Are we culling ruddy ducks because we can, and because we can be seen to be doing something, even if that something is largely irrelevant in relation to the ultimate fate of what might, or might not, be a separate species?

When the science is agreed, as to be fair seems to be case here, what about the ecoethics? Is this reductionist science at its worst, or a sensible application of specialist knowledge? How should we feel about this project, does culling ruddy ducks matter considering that most conservation management involves controlling and killing unfavoured species to help favoured ones? And has anybody apart from the animal rights movement really noticed? Most of the early criticism I have been able to find seemed to be more about conservation politics than conservation per se.

Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee are in favour of the cull - they are organising and paying for it after all. In the voluntary sector the RSPB begins its policy statement as follows: “The RSPB welcomes the European Commission’s support for efforts to eradicate ruddy ducks from the UK. We commend the high priority for action the UK Government is giving this issue, and are facilitating the eradication project where possible”.18 For the Wildlife Trusts, putting ‘ruddy duck’ into the web site search facility produces only a reference to its species database, which does not include ruddy duck in its list of birds.19 Strangely the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust also appear to be silent on the subject. Searching its website using ‘ruddy duck’ and ‘ruddy duck cull’ produces nothing about the project or their attitude towards it. As it had a part in introducing the ruddy duck to Britain in the first place this may be thought both strange and a little unsporting.

20

ECOS 31(1) 2010 This appears to me to reinforce the idea of unease about the treatment of ruddy ducks. If we don’t much like something that we otherwise feel to be necessary it is often easier to pretend it isn’t happening. It would, I suspect, be difficult to find another multi-million pound conservation project which hides its light under a bushel in the way that this one does.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/club/chrono Graham Harrison pers. comm. www.nonnativespecies.org/01_Fact_File/05_Fact_Sheets.cfm www.birdlife.org www.nonnativespecies.org/Ruddy_Duck/documents/ruddy-duck-qa.pdf www.cma.gva.es/areas/estado/biodiversidad/bio/Fauna/malvasia/ENGL/Eproblem/AMENAZAS.html www.nonnativespecies.org/Ruddy_Duck/documents/ruddy-duck-qa.pdf Animal Aid website http://www.cma.gva.es/areas/estado/biodiversidad/bio/Fauna/malvasia/ENGL/Eproblem/AMENAZAS.html http://www.cbd.int/convention/guide.shtml F. Darwin 1887, Vol. 2, 88 Ereshefsky, Marc, "Species", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/species/ www.arkive.org Are Ruddy Ducks and White-headed Ducks the same species? McKracken et al British Birds 93: 394-398 August 2000 British Wildlife Vol. 21 No. 2 pp 125-6 December 2009 Hawes T. Flotsom but not jetsam: insights from insect fallout. Antenna Vol. 30 No 2 p 95 Lawson T. ECOS 18 (1) 82-83 and Hughes B. and Williams G. ECOS 18 (2) 15 -19 1997 www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/species/nonnative/ruddyducks.asp www.wildlifetrusts.org/index.php?section=environment:species:bird

Peter Shirley is a jobbing nature conservationist who used to work for the Wildlife Trusts, is Vice-President of the Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country, Vice-Chair of the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, and a trustee of the National Wildflower Centre and the Urban Wildlife Network. The views expressed here are his own. petershirley@blueyonder.co.uk Thanks to Graham Harrison, Andy Mabbett and Neil Wyatt for their help with this article.

The views expressed are entirely those of the author.

21

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Exotic springtails in the UK – their occurrence and diversity Springtails are unseen and unrecognised by most but are incalculably numerous. They produce vast quantities of droppings which contribute significantly to the make-up of soils.

This article describes the latest attempts to identify assemblages of these tiny Collembola.

PAUL ARDRON This account is based on a paper presented at the September 2009 ‘Aliens’ conference in Sheffield. The presentation with close-up colour photography was a celebration of the discovery of new and exotic collembolans or springtails in Britain. Some of these are new to this country, others are new to science. Furthermore, their individual stories are closely tied in with activities such as plant collecting and horticultural introductions from around the world. A major part of the paper was directed to raising awareness of this rich and exciting micro-fauna, to be found right under our eyes.

For decades the springtails have remained elusive and difficult to identify. However, following the publication of the late Steve Hopkin’s guide to British and Irish springtails, there was at last a ‘tool’ to facilitate the systematic study of this extremely ecologically significant group within these isles. This article describes the subsequent discovery and attempt to identify assemblages of these tiny animals that could not be identified using Steve’s keys. These Collembola were eventually found to be from exotic faunas, in the main probably of Australasian origins. However, the provenance of others remains unclear and different global etymologies are suspected. All of the alien species discovered so far belong to the most advanced order of Collembola, the Symphypleona, or so-called “globular springtails”.

This has proved to be an exciting and ground-breaking period of research activity.

Currently, the author has found approximately 13 exotic taxa in the UK, mostly in formal botanical gardens, but also domestic gardens, an orchid nursery, and a garden centre; as well in the wider landscape, on introduced plants and conifers and on semi-natural vegetation at a number of sites in the south of Cornwall. Two of the species, Sminthurinus trinotatus Axelson W.M. (1905) and Sminthurinus domesticus Gisin H. (1963) were found to be already on the British list, but both had only been recorded rarely and only in glasshouses. At the moment, the actual number of taxa found remains a little in doubt because of the difficulties in establishing provenance of some types and the critical nature of the taxonomy. At least one of the springtails is previously un-described and belongs to an unknown genus. At the moment the survey has provisionally identified four species of Katianna: remarkable for a genus that previously was unknown in this country or indeed anywhere in the Palaearctic region. In order to obtain provisional identifications the author has collaborated with Frans Janssens in Antwerp, who maintains a web site devoted to Collembola 22

ECOS 31(1) 2010 (www.collembola.org). Penny Greenslade in Australia has examined some of the specimens and provided help with determinations.

The characteristics of springtails Springtails are unseen by most but are incalculably numerous. They occupy most of the world’s land surface, even in arctic regions. Most types are very small: there are many less than a millimetre in length. These animals are extremely important ecologically, consuming detritus, algae, fungi, pollen, and other plant material and in turn producing vast quantities of droppings, which contribute significantly to the make-up of soils.

In spite of being very small in size, springtails are sometimes stunningly patterned and multi-coloured. They have a number of distinctive anatomical features. In many advanced types, including most of the Symphypleona, two batteries of eight light sensitive ocelli are positioned either side of the head. There are other sensory organs, including elaborate antennae and specialised sensitive hairs called bothrotrichia. Furthermore, Collembola are often adorned with elaborate and diagnostic patterns of hairs (setae), some sensory, but others of wax to ward off the attentions of enemies. Observation of this chaetotaxy can be vital when making critical species determination. Also for defence, springtails possess a very peculiar and unique structure called the furca. This tubular feature, which has two paddlelike ends, can be thrust downwards to catapult the animal into the air. However, these jumps can be controlled and limited by deploying yet another unique feature located beneath the animal. Out of this ventral tube or collophore, from which Collembola take their name, can be deployed two eversible vesicles. These structures, which resemble tiny transparent elephant trunks, are normally involved with water and salt exchange, but can be used in conjunction with the furca.

Just before jumping, a Symphypleona may extrude its vesicles forwards to allow a controlled landing nearby, or to hold onto a chosen position. Finally, the springtails rather pincer-like feet, made up of a claw and empodium are so complicated that they have been the subject of extensive academic treatise. Though tiny, these creatures are a fascinating and barely known group of animals whose identity, ecology and behaviour provide wonderful opportunities for research and discovery.

The springtails – a selection Detailed accounts of all of the exotic springtails can be found in Ardron (2009) 1, but several demand mention here.

Calvatomina near superba This colourful springtail with, a striking and distinctive head pattern, was first discovered at Heligan in Cornwall and subsequently at Sheffield Botanical Gardens.

The detail of the markings and form of the antennae of specimens indicated that these Springtails were different from any on the British list. Even assigning them to a particular genus proved problematic, although they clearly belonged to the family Dicyrtomidae. The difficulty was because of the lack of suitable literature and the issue of interpretation of critical identification features. Frans Janssens eventually 23

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Calvatomina near superba: two purple form adults resting on water’s surface, one with its furca extended.

Photo: Paul Ardron

found a copy of a New Zealand journal (Salmon, 1943) illustrating the taxon Dicyrtomina superba with markings very close to this springtail.2 However, since Salmon described the species, certain members of Dicyrtomina, including D. superba, have been reassigned to the newer genus Calvatomina Yosii (1966), by virtue of details of the setae. At the moment the Heligan and Sheffield specimens have been assigned close to this taxon. Although the British collections of this springtail are near to the original type there are a few conflicts, relating to the detail of the ocelli and claws and pigment patterns.

“Katianna schoetti” Womersley (1933) This springtail, typically golden yellow with darker longitudinal striping was discovered at Sheffield Botanical Gardens, along with specimens of Calvatomina near superba (see above). Microscopically the taxon is very distinctive: covered dorsally by smooth, back curving spines. The feet are surrounded by groups of blunt tipped (tenant) setae.

Initial notions that this springtail belonged to the genus Katianna were confirmed by reference to the family key on Frans Janssen’s web site and the generic key in Bretfeld (1999).3 Previously, no member of this generally southern hemisphere genus had been found in the Palaeartic region. This springtail has subsequently been provisionally named Katianna schoetti based on its resemblance to specimens of that taxon illustrated and described in the Australasian literature. Recently, large numbers of the springtail have been found on the Ericas in Sheffield Botanical Gardens, along with the Calvatomina near superba and Katianna 3 (see below). Several have also been found on a dwarf juniper in Meersbrook Park, Sheffield and on Erica in a private garden at Lerryn in Cornwall; in both locations along with numerous specimens of Katianna 3.

24

ECOS 31(1) 2010 Katianna sp. 3 Janssens F & Ardron P.A. (2008) This springtail has created considerable controversy. It was well known to macro photographers working in southern England and numerous images of it had been posted on Frans Janssens web site, under the name of Sphyrotheca multifasciata.

Worldwide, there were many other images of the same taxon; again labelled Sphyrotheca multifasciata. However, when specimens were found at Sheffield Botanical Gardens, in April 2008 and later at a number of sites in southern Cornwall, microscopic examination showed that they were not S. multifasciata and did not even belong to the genus. The taxon in fact appeared to be yet another member of the genus Katianna, as it was covered dorsally by the characteristic curved spines and had the blunt tipped tenant setae. Furthermore, although the literature indicated that S. multifasciata was very colourful, there were important differences in the detail here to. It was clear that an error had been made in the identification and this had been then perpetuated worldwide.

The taxon may be un-described and has been provisionally labelled Katianna sp. 3 Janssens F & Ardron P.A. (2008). Since the first finds the author has discovered sizable populations at several outdoors sites in southern Cornwall, both in formal garden settings and semi-natural environments. Like the taxon Genus nov. sp. nov.

Greenslade (2009:il) below, Katianna sp. 3, appeared to be only found outdoors in the far south of the UK. However, populations have subsequently also been located outside at two sites in Sheffield: the Botanical Gardens and Meersbrook Park. On both occasions, the taxon was present with Katianna schoetti and at the botanical gardens also with Calvatomina near superba. Also, whilst present in a variety of gardens, in conifer plantations, and on trackside variegated yellow archangel (Lamiastrum galeobdolon var. argentatum) in Cornwall, this taxon has not been found in semi-natural environments unless the archangel is present. This recently invasive plant seems to have been acting as a vector for the transfer, site to site, of this springtail and also the Genus nov. sp. nov. taxon.

Genus nov. sp. nov. Greenslade (2009:il) This variably marked springtail, is another well known to macro photographers and had previously been collected from Richmond Park by Peter Shaw the UK Collembola recorder. The author has collected the taxon at a variety of sites in southern Cornwall, from formal and domestic gardens, conifer plantations and in particular, variegated yellow archangel growing along country lanes and forestry tracks. Several of these sites are very rural and distant from garden environments of any type. The springtail has also been recorded at semi-natural sites, including Breeney Common on the edge of Bodmin Moor.

Attempts to identify this springtail have also proved frustrating. Frans Janssens initially thought that it belonged to the non-Palaeartic genera Parakatianna.

However, microscopic examination of specimens revealed features that did not fit with that diagnosis and it seems to belong to both an un-described species and genera, possibly of South American origins. The origins of this springtail clearly raises a few questions: for one, if it is a colonizer in the UK, how as it managed to so successfully colonize gardens, conifer plantations, and semi-natural 25

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Deuterosminthurus bellingeri: the Whirlow specimen resting on an erica stem.

Photo: Paul Ardron

environments at least in parts of the far south west of the UK, when the other exotics have not. Its apparent very southern range in the UK suggests that it has sub-tropical origins.

Deuterosminthurus bellingeri Nayrolles (1997) After the 2009 conference, the author decided to investigate a peculiarly mottled individual of Deuterosminthurus previously photographed in Whirlow Park, Sheffield. When found, this specimen was thought to be an unusual intermediate form of the widespread D. pallipes, which can be either all yellow or purple. Frans Janssens believes it to be a specimen of the Mediterranean D. bellingeri, previously known only from sites in southern France.3 Interestingly, the Whirlow specimen was found on Mediterranean heaths.

Sources of introduction Although the origin of the springtails mentioned above has been partly ascertained, the methods of transference and introduction are less clear. Almost all probably arrived on introduced plants or in accompanying soil. Tree ferns are likely vectors, because of their bulk and fibrous nature. Intercontinental transfer of Collembola would most readily occur in the egg stage because ova are often hidden by the females amongst detritus.

Ecological associations The link between the exotic springtails and introduced plants is a significant part of the story so far. However, also of interest is the close association and possible dependency that most of these aliens have developed with non-native plants, not necessarily those of the same global origins. The exotic springtails usually show a preference for either evergreens with dense small leaves, or very hairy plants. The 26

ECOS 31(1) 2010 evergreens nurture the development of algal food, whilst hairy foliage provides refuge from predators. The most notable example of the latter association are the thriving populations of Katianna sp. 3 and Genus nov. sp. nov. colonising the stands of variegated yellow archangel in Cornwall. This plant seems to be particularly favoured because it has both very hairy leaves and hooded flowers.

Plants such as labiates and legumes with hooded flowers appear to be popular with springtails in general, probably because the blooms offer shelter, both from predators and the weather. It is unlikely to be incidental that Cornish Lamiastrum and Ulex have been found to support sizable populations of the Katianna sp. 3 and Genus nov. sp. nov., but their spread may be linked to the aggressive character of the Lamiastrum. At sites where these three associates are present, the springtails have moved onto the native ground vegetation to a degree, but seldom occur there in quantity. However, at forestry sites where there are exotic conifers, in particular western hemlock-spruce (Tsuga heterophylla) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata), both of the springtails have invaded the canopy of these introduced trees in numbers. Yet even here the Lamiastrum appears to be the vector. The potential this plant has for assisting the spread of these invertebrates is considerable, given it continuing attractiveness to gardeners. As an example, at the 2009 Bakewell Show in Derbyshire, this ‘hostile weed’ was found in ‘pride of place’ at the front of a Gold winning horticultural trade stand.

New and exciting…

Although there are numerous alien invertebrates in the UK most of these have been found because they are either showy, abundant, or are serious pests. By comparison, the vast majority of springtails are not troublesome and lead a very secretive life. One rare exception is the UK native Sminthurus viridis, which somewhat ironically, has spread worldwide from Europe apparently in the egg stage with seeds3 and in Australia, in particular, has become a serious agricultural pest known as the ‘Lucerne Flea’.4 However, because of the harmlessness of the springtails alien to the UK, the scale of the introduction here has been previously un-suspected. These are exotics to be discovered and celebrated as new and exciting members of British ecology.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

Ardron, P.A. (2009) "Aliens in Inner Space UK, OK!": the occurrence of diverse, established communities of exotic springtails (Collembola) in formal gardens and more widely in the British landscape., International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 10-23 Salmon, J.T. (1943) New Records of Collembola from New Zealand with Description of New Species Part 2-Symphypleona. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 73 Bretfeld, G. (1999) Synopses on Palaearctic Collembola Vol. 2 Symphypleona. Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde Gorlitz, Gorlitz Hopkin, S.P. (2007) A key to the Collembola (Springtails) of Britain and Ireland. Field Study Council Publications, Shrewsbury

Paul Ardron is a freelance ecologist and researcher, who works with the Biodiversity and Landscape History Research Institute. He has a specialist interest in the identification and classifications of underrecorded taxa such as collembolans, myxomycetes, lichens, sphagna, and fungi.

27

ECOS 31(1) 2010

UK invasive fungi – benign additions to our fungal flora The global movement of plant materials and of horticultural products such as composts, along with new opportunity ecological niches such as piles of woodchip mulches can facilitate both spread and establishment of exotic fungi.

PETER SHAW Fungal colonisers In common with many other life forms, new species of fungi are continuing to colonise the UK, typically associated with anthropogenic habitats. Such new arrivals generate some excitement amongst mycologists, and always raise issues of whether they are really ‘new’ or merely ‘overlooked previously’. However, some species are clearly recent imports and in some cases the import path is clear. This was the case with the discovery of Conchomyces bursiformis in Sheffield. This is a southern hemisphere species whose previous northernmost record was in montane Africa. It was growing on the stem of a tree fern Dicksonia antarctica, imported from Australasia.1,2 Australasia has been the source of several alien macro-fungi in the UK, notably the bizarre-looking Octopus stinkhorn Clathrus archeri which fruits especially in bamboo gardens, and Paurocotylis pila (like a red plastic truffle) which is spreading widely in Orkney.3 It has been observed repeatedly that piles of woodchips, when applied as weed-suppressing mulch in ornamental situations, produce flushes of decomposer fungi that include species rare or alien in the UK.4,5,6 The commonest and most distinctive alien on woodchips is the ‘Redleg Roundhead’ Leratiomyces ceres, originally known as Stropharia aurantiaca but now identified as the same as the Australian species formerly known as Psilocybe ceres.7 It is becoming clear that the global movement of plant materials and of horticultural products such as composts, along with new-opportunity ecological niches such as piles of woodchip mulches, can facilitate both spread and establishment of exotic fungi.

Woodchip specialists Several fungi new to the UK have appeared on woodchip piles, a typical pattern being that shown by Psilocybe cyanescens (1945), Agrocybe putaminum (1986) and Melanoleuca verrucipes (2001), which were all first recorded in woodchip beds in Kew gardens before colonising more widely. A second Agrocybe, Agrocybe rivulosa, was new to science when first found in the Netherlands in 2003 but has now been found (almost invariably on woodchips) over 100 times in the UK.8,9 Agaricus subrufescens (Agaricus rufotegulis) is only known from woodchip piles in ornamental sites, again being first described from the Netherlands in 1997, and appearing in the UK in 2003; it has now been recorded thirteen times.10 This has invariably been on woodchips in 28

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Clathrus archeri the octopus stinkhorn or ‘Devils fingers’ - a species mentioned as a well known invasive alien.

Photo: François Van Der Biest

ornamental settings in the south of London. This species has a pruinose stem surface which is unique among European Agaricus and suggests an exotic origin. Although speculative, the records of these five species suggest a link between the arrival of woodchip fungi and with the import of horticultural material. Kew Gardens has always imported plant material from around the globe and the Netherlands now supports huge commercial suppliers of ornamental flowers.

More recent trends In addition to the above a number of new and noteworthy fungi have been found away from anthropogenic substrates. The bracket fungus Phellinus wahlbergii has recently been found at two places in Berkshire, but (being rather non-descript and dark coloured) could easily have been overlooked at other locations.11 It is likely that following its discovery in the UK further searches will turn up more sites.

The other new discoveries are much more conspicuous species that may well be new arrivals to the UK. These include: Inocybe bresadolae, a poisonous Inocybe common in mainland Europe, and which was first found in 2008 in the UK in Clumber Park in Nottinghamshire. This was in what has been described as a remarkable fungal ‘hotspot’.12,13 Interestingly, while collecting specimens of this Inocybe, accidental soil 29

ECOS 31(1) 2010 disturbance revealed a truffle Tuber maculatum, and as that was excavated two more species of hypogenous fungi were unearthed. These were Octavianna asterosperma and Pachyphloeus citrinum, and all three truffles were first records for the county of Nottinghamshire!

A further exotic discovery was of Leucopaxillus tricolor which turned up under beech trees in the Gog Magog Hills in 2008. This was the first UK record, and being a stout species up to 20cm across with yellow gills, it seems unlikely that this fungus was previously overlooked; in other words that this is a genuinely new arrival.

Yet another large, distinctive fungus and new to the UK is Allopsalliota geesterani.14 This was found at Potteric Carr Nature Reserve in South Yorkshire and was associated with rabbit burrows.

Unlike the woodchip aliens, none of these fungi show any signs of rapid and invasive extensions of their ranges. It is more likely that they will gradually spread as ecological opportunities arise and they establish within suitable niches. For most field mycologists the arrival of these exotic and alien fungi are interesting and sometimes exciting.

Certainly, and unlike the spread of exotic pathogens, most of these are considered entirely benign additions to our fungal floras.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Hobart, C. (2003) Exotic mushroom in an urban setting. Field Mycology, 4(3), 84-85.

Henrici, A. (2003) Further notes on Conchomyces bursiformis. Field Mycology, 4, 85-87.

Eggerling, T. (2004) Paurocotylis pila. Field Mycology, 5, 41-42.

Shaw, P.J.A. & Kibby, G. (2001) Aliens in the flowerbeds: the fungal biodiversity of ornamental woodchips.

Field Mycology, 2, 6-11.

Shaw, P.J.A., Butlin, J. & Kibby, G. (2004) Fungi of ornamental woodchips in Surrey. Mycologist, 18, 12-16.

Marren, P. (2006) The ‘Global fungal weeds’: the toadstools of wood-chip beds. British Wildlife, 18, 98-105.

Bridge, P., Spooner, B.M., Beever, R.E. & Park, D.C. (2008) Taxonomy of the fungus formerly known as Stropharia aurantiaca with new combinations in Leratiomyces. Mycotaxon, 103, 109-121.

Lovett, C. (2006) Agrocybe rivulosa new to the British list. Field Mycology, 7, 47-48.

BMS database: www.fieldmycology.net/GBCHKLST/gbchklst.asp Accessed December 2009 Nauta, M. (2001) Flora agaricina neerlandica, 5, Krips & Meppel, Netheerlads, 60.

Ainsworth, M. (2008) Phellinus (Fuscoporia) wahlbergii new to Britain. Field Mycology, 9, 131-135.

Hobart, C. (2009) Three rarely recorded truffle species. Field Mycology, 10, 5-8.

Hobart, C. & Tortelli, M. (2009) Inocybe bresadolae - the first authenticated British record. Field Mycology, 6, 77-79.

Hobart, C. (2005) Allopsalliota geesterani a new invader in Britain. Field Mycology, 6, 77-79.

Peter Shaw is a Senior Lecturer in the school of Human and Life Sciences at Roehampton University. p.shaw@roehampton.ac.uk

30

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Scottish alpine and woodland birds – their fortunes in an uncertain climate Many claims about impacts of warming on Scottish land birds are dubious. This article reviews the topic, with examples.

ADAM WATSON During the mild period since the late 1980s, there is good evidence of plants growing earlier, birds singing earlier and migrant birds returning earlier. I contributed to that evidence. It is not the subject of this article, which assesses claims about effects of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) on Scottish alpine and woodland habitats and their birds. The following is based on an earlier article1 but is updated and adapted for a wider readership. Because the press can distort, I name nobody who was reported in newspapers.

Global climate As a biologist I take no side in the AGW climatological conflict. However, a brief sketch may be of use, pointing to further reading. I found Lamb2 admirable for his impartial approach.

From time immemorial, evidence in ice-cores, lake deposits, tree-rings and sunspots shows that there have been big climatic changes, sometimes abrupt (years, not centuries), for natural cyclic reasons.2, 3, 4 Evidence from satellites, ocean currents and solar radiation reveals that the proportion of atmospheric carbon dioxide fits poorly with subsequent temperature.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that warming is mainly due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other ‘greenhouse’ gases.5 In the 2000s, however, increasing warming did not follow rising emissions. Also, natural changes in ocean currents may usher a cooler decade for Britain.6 The cyclic trough of sunspots has been low and long, again suggestive of cooling. After the area of arctic sea-ice reached a minimum in 2007, it increased in 2008 7, 8 and again in 2009.

The climate of northern latitudes 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 was cool in the late 1800s to early 1900s, milder in the 1920s to early 1940s, cooler till the mid 1980s, milder to the mid 2000s, cooler since. I have experienced the last four periods. I ponder whether the current cool one will continue.

The key question is whether anthropogenic emissions are the main cause of warming or are minor compared with natural factors. Secondly it is uncertain whether warming, anthropogenic or natural, will slow or stop the warm ocean current that keeps Britain unusually mild for its northern latitude. The consequent 31

ECOS 31(1) 2010 cooling may be worse for Britain than warming. Other possibilities are AGW causing great heat and rising seas, as the IPCC predicts, or else reducing or preventing a global ice-age. A coming ice-age is eventually inevitable for natural reasons, as shown indubitably by our planet’s history.

Recent UK winters and snow patches Early months in 2008 and 2009 were cold. The cold intensified in and after December 2009. Satellite photographs showed Atlantic clouds moving north-east as usual, but instead of crossing Britain they turned from Spain to Labrador. The warm Atlantic current did likewise in January 2010.9 Snow patches lasting till winter have increased, with nine, 12 and six in 2007, 2008 and 200910, following none in 2006. Heavy snow fell above 900 m, even when lowland temperatures slightly exceeded the average. Ski centres thrived in the last three winters. Are these ephemeral changes, soon to be overridden by warming, or portents of a cooler Britain? Time will soon tell.

Claims in general Most media reports and scientific publications stress doom. I find the claims poor, often unfounded. Many reveal inexperience in both field and literature, and exaggeration abounds. For example, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) noted of climate11 “the changes we are experiencing now....their scale is greater than has been experienced for many hundreds of thousands of years”. This overstatement ignores evidence on past climate.

Claims on alpine land - press and TV 1. The Scotsman (4 November 1999) reported an officer of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) saying of Scottish alpine land, “several bird species, already in decline, would soon be on the brink of extinction. In as little as 50 years, he predicts breeding pairs of ptarmigan will fall from 10,000 to 1,000”. There is no published evidence of ptarmigan ‘already in decline’, and the 10,000 figure was speculation by one who had done no counts.

2. The National Trust for Scotland published an article mentioning dotterel, snow bunting and ptarmigan12, and in the same paragraph an RSPB officer commented on birds, “Species will tend to move northwards and upwards. They are shifting to find a new climate zone”. The present tense in this sentence is unjustified.

3. The RSPB gave dire words:13 “Bird-watchers yesterday issued a warning to the Scottish executive that birds like the ptarmigan, snow bunting and dotterel could migrate to Norway, Greenland and Iceland if CO2 emissions are not reduced....But rising CO2 emissions in recent years mean that the numbers of birds have fallen – the number of breeding pairs of snow buntings in Scotland has reduced in recent years to 100”. The highest-ever estimate was up to100 pairs!

4. A newspaper reported14 an SNH advisor who “compares the calamity that awaits the hill birds with a train crash. The birds are being buffeted about: the snow 32

ECOS 31(1) 2010 isn't there where it used to be, the insects aren't emerging as expected, the whole hillside's not looking the way it used to. It might seem tranquil enough to us, but the birds are experiencing this huge dislocation in their lives. Nothing will be the same as it was”. This is fanciful.

5. Turning to impacts of warming on plants and animals in the Cairngorms, Stephen Sackur15 asked SNH advisor Professor Thompson, “What is the most significant impact you have seen in your working life?” The Professor said “It’s a very difficult question” and evaded answering it! Viewers can only conclude that a big impact is illusion.

Then Sackur asked “Are you not overstating” about warming causing “ecological chaos in the Cairngorms?” Replying “I don’t think so”, the Professor mentioned “birds reduced in numbers.....if you get just a tiny change of temperature, that’s going to give rise to completely different conditions”, and if a bird is “looking for a particular insect’, and ‘if just one of these things goes out of kilter, that’s chaos....If that one insect is not there, there’s a big chance the bird dies”. This is fanciful.

6. Science Editor Robin McKie16 asked me if Scottish alpine plants are moving uphill because of warmer climate and soon would have nowhere to go. Witnessed by Dr Mick Marquiss, I replied: “I’ve seen no sign of it and no paper with good evidence of it”. Astonishingly, McKie’s article ran: ‘All native species are being pushed further and further up the mountains,’ said Watson. “Soon they will have nowhere to go”. This, the opposite of what I said, is the worst distortion I have known. Further fancy was, “The delicate interaction of Cairngorm wildlife and plants is also beginning to buckle under this pressure”.

7. A ‘prediction’ for the BBC was reported11, “Rising temperatures are already believed to be causing semi-Arctic habitats to recede north or to higher ground, making life difficult for mountain birds, such as the ptarmigan...There are areas of the Cairngorms which in the past have been covered by snow throughout the year. These permanent snow patches melted last year. This is having a big effect on bryophytes, including all sorts of mosses and liverworts, which depend on a permanent source of snow melt”. There is no evidence of habitats receding or life more difficult for ptarmigan or melting of all snow in 2006 having a big effect on bryophytes.

The data on snow in 2006 were published18, but patches are only semipermanent and all vanished in four other years since 1930. No vegetation is under the longest-lying snow. The bryophytes do not depend on permanent snow-melt.

Claims on alpine land – scientific publications 1. A report backed by state bodies19 reveals lack of field experience and of critical thinking. “The species likely to be at the most immediate risk of extinction in the UK are those that breed in the moss and lichen-dominated Arctic-alpine habitat found in the Cairngorms and a few other high-altitude areas in northern 33

ECOS 31(1) 2010 Scotland, such as Snow Buntings and Dotterels. As temperatures increase, so plant species from lower altitudes will begin to move up-slope and encroach on this already scarce habitat. As there is no higher altitude ground to move to, the total area of Arctic-alpine habitat in the UK will start to decrease and by 2050 it may have disappeared altogether”.

These claims rest on misleading assumptions that temperature controls the area of alpine land and that climate is temperature. Yet, alpine land comes low in windy places, even near sea-level in north-west Sutherland where winters are mild with little snow or frost. Also, meteorologists predict more gales due to warming. This should expand alpine land downhill. Only a continental climate would move it up, as in the warmth after the last glaciers vanished.

2. A book published for SNH included a chapter on climate.20 If mean temperature rises 1°C, “Organisms inhabiting arctic-alpine habitats above 600 m in 1960–91 will therefore need to move to 800–875 m to experience similar conditions. This would result in about 90% and 96% reductions in arctic-alpine extent in Scotland and Wales, respectively”. Declines of ptarmigan, dotterel, snow buntings and mountain hares would be likely and some plant species would lose all ‘climate space’ in Britain.

These assertions rely on the same misleading assumptions as in 1. The concept of ‘climate space’ or ‘climate envelope’ over-generalises when taken this far.

Naming mountain hares is dubious, for their densities on moorland at lower altitudes generally far exceed those on alpine land. Also, they thrive at sea-level in the mild winters of Ireland and western Scotland. They depend on short foodplants, not temperature.

3. SNH’s Noranne Ellis and consultant Geraldine McGowan wrote that by 2020 the Cairngorms would be around 1°C warmer, so “It is likely that marked changes in species composition could be seen as early as 2010–20” 21, and a 1C rise would move Scottish alpine land uphill 200–275 m, reducing its area by 93%. Neither author had published personal fieldwork on Scottish alpine wildlife in relation to climate.

They cited a report22, wherein models determining shifts in suitable climate space for birds “indicate a complete loss from the Cairngorms of suitable climate for Snow Bunting. This may also be true of ptarmigan, dotterel and mountain hare”.

Funding fieldwork on wildlife in relation to climate might tell something new and reliable. Instead, consultants are hired to write yet more desk-reports after modelling with dubious assumptions.

4. Press releases by SNH and BBC announced fieldwork on snow-bed mosses, and SNH proclaimed “A new report has confirmed the cold high summits of our mountains have become the front line in Scotland’s engagement with the onset of climate change”.23 In both releases, SNH botanist Dr David Genney claimed of snow-bed mosses: “Any loss of this habitat will pose a direct threat to birds such as ptarmigan....and dotterel”. The Press & Journal on 19 June quoted this, and 34

ECOS 31(1) 2010

A deerstalker looks for a stag in September 1948 among ancient native pines at 500 m in Glen Derry of the Cairngorms. The alpine zone starts at 750 m, and the hills behind rise to 1180 m. During the warm climate after the last glaciers vanished, roots preserved in peat show that pines grew to 750 m, which must have greatly reduced the extent of alpine land.

Photo: Adam Watson (at the age of 18)

later printed my letter that it was “wildly overstated. Most ptarmigan and dotterel are on hills that do not have moss-dominated snowbed vegetation, so it is not necessary to them”. Genney had published no work on the birds.

Claims on woodland 1. On pinewood19: “The Scottish Crossbill, the UK’s only endemic bird, has been identified as being potentially at risk of extinction owing to climate warming. By the end of the 21st century, the climate “envelope” occupied by Scottish Crossbills might only be found in Iceland and so they will either have to move (which seems highly unlikely), adapt to new conditions in Scotland or face extinction”.

The main old pinewoods survived because glaciers left very freely drained soils (often sands or gravels) that are acidic because of the bedrocks from which they originated. In a climate with more precipitation than evaporation and transpiration, this led to podzol soils, so poor that they could not be cultivated.

In natural conditions, soils change extremely slowly. Hence podzols should continue, and pines that favour these podzols, and crossbills that eat pine-seeds.

Also, Scots pines thrive on land far hotter than Scotland, such as some Mediterranean regions. The key is soil.

2. A scientific paper24 contained maps of current distributions of several bird species and distributions based on predicted changes in temperature, precipitation and 35

ECOS 31(1) 2010 sunshine. “Of the European species modelled, 11 have zero overlap between their potential future and present distributions in Europe for all three future climate scenarios explored; these include the endemic Loxia scotica (Scottish Crossbill), that thus must be considered to be at extreme risk of global extinction as a result of climatic change”. As above, this omits the key determinant, soil.

Authors adduced neither data nor analyses to back their claims.

A newspaper publicised this project25, noting “Research to be published tomorrow

by Durham University and the RSPB”, and adding an RSPB officer’s claim about Scottish crossbills, “The crossbill is now confined to the very north of Scotland. As Europe heats up, only Iceland offers the hope of a new homeland....Similarly, the snow bunting has had to move further and further up the Cairngorms as the climate has warmed”. From a Durham author: “what is happening now is so rapid that birds cannot adapt, and so face extinction”. The present tense is unfounded. The editor published my letter querying the officer’s claim on buntings, as from “annual fieldwork and published data across three decades I see no change in altitudes used.”His claim of crossbills confined to the very north was also erroneous. Breeding Scottish crossbills are far more widely distributed than previously known, in many coniferous plantations and old pinewoods, from Sutherland and Caithness south to Stirlingshire, from Glen Garry in the west to near Stonehaven on the east coast.26 3. In a press release (6 March 2007) on another desk-project, SNH announced ‘The Long March – Spatial Adaptation to Climate Change’, to help species move north as the climate warms. “Duncan Stone is coordinating the strategy to identify potential barriers and geographical pinch-points where species might be prevented from moving”. He asserted, “Some woodland birds such as the tree creeper will only foray 10 metres from woodland cover”. This reveals inexperience, for tree-creepers and other woodland birds often breed in small isolated woods surrounded by miles of moorland.

Conclusion on claims about wildlife Incorrect biased claims are repeated, despite criticism and contrary evidence. This is dogma, not science. One may ask why these bodies ignore the scientific method and its testing of assumptions and alternative hypotheses. Perhaps they wish to jolt people about AGW. This, however, would be unethical for bodies claiming to rest their policies on science. Also, it carries risks. Unscientific ideological critics of conservation work by these bodies are handed arguments for discrediting these bodies and lobbying politicians to curb them.

Enter the politicians A top officer signified 27 how SNH has become largely political, rather than one rooted in science like its forbear Nature Conservancy. Of AGW sceptics, “They also believe the world is flat. I’m absolutely scathing of them....They should open their eyes”. His deputy “thought it dangerous that people were continuing to question the evidence”, though scientists worth their salt question the evidence on everything. A day before, newspapers reported Gordon Brown’s ‘Fifty days to save the world’, and later he called sceptics ‘flat earthers’.

36

ECOS 31(1) 2010 Of concern is that uncritical politicians and officers who advise them ‘fight climate change’ with unwise policies. Examples are ‘biomass’ in wood or oilseed rape, palm oil from felled rain-forest, subsidised wind-turbines on thick peat, and ‘targets’ to plant millions of trees.

These practices increase net emissions, given the methods used, including transport. The Forestry Commission even clear-fells immature conifers so that turbines get more wind!

Is this political correctness gone mad, or Alice in Wonderland renewed, or both?

Philosophy of science The essence is to refute a hypothesis by observation, prediction and experiment. It should be framed as a null hypothesis, where the factor to be tested makes no difference compared with a control. Confirmation is unreliable, for the cause may be a different factor associated with the one being tested. Refutation is reliable, allowing one to reject the null and try a new idea. Scientists should seek evidence against a hypothesis more strongly than evidence for it.

When an eminent body supports AGW, many think it must be right, simply because it is eminent. However, support is a will-o’-the-wisp if arguments are open to doubt.28, 29 AGW is faith to many believers, including politicians who hold the pursestrings. Meanwhile, some who disbelieve AGW dislike the state, so their views on climate are suspect. Then there are the controversies on emails, peer-reviews, manipulated graphs. Other scientists will check these and test the hypotheses rigorously. Scientific truth will prevail.

A call for fieldwork The public and politicians need reliable information. Yet, state and voluntary conservation bodies do little new fieldwork on the subject. Instead, woolly assertions abound in desk-reports and models. Exaggeration and lack of rigour often pervade conservation bodies. I find some officers defensive when I criticise unjustified claims, yet sound progress depends on criticism. This article will do a small service if it helps some readers check whether claims rest on evidence or bias, and if it spurs organisations to do fieldwork.

References 1.

2.

3.

Watson, A (2008) Global warming and Scottish land birds Scottish Bird News 84 1–3 Lamb, HH (1995) Climate, history and the modern world Routledge, London Alley, RB (2000) The two-mile time machine. Ice cores, abrupt climate change, and our future Princeton University Press 4. Singer, SF and Avery, DT (2007) Unstoppable global warming every 1,500 years Rowman and Littlefield, Maryland 5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis Fourth Assessment Report, www.ipcc.ch 6. Keenlyside, NS, Latif, M, Jungklaus, J, Kornblueh, L and Roeckner, E (2008) Advanced decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector Nature 453 (May): doi:10.1038 7. Taylor, P (2009) ‘Climate Watch 09’ ECOS 30 85–94 8. Taylor, P (2009) Chill Clairview, East Sussex 9. www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/6/822520/-Freak-Current-Takes-Gulf-Stream-to-Greenland 10. Watson, A, Duncan, D, Cameron, I and Pottie, J (2009) Twelve Scottish snow patches survive until winter 2008/09 Weather 64 184–186

37

ECOS 31(1) 2010 11. RSPB (2007) Climate change, wildlife and adaptation Sandy, Bedfordshire 12. Maclellan, M (2005) Mercury rising Scotland in Trust 22 No 1 20–23 13. Mulholland, J (2006) Is Ptarmageddon Day looming for many of Scotland’s rare birds?

Scotsman 7 October 14. http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2027399.ece 15. BBC NEWS | Programmes | Hardtalk | Des Thompson 16. McKie, R (2006). Global warming threatens Scotland’s last wilderness Observer 10 December 17. Mulholland, J (2007) How will Scotland’s wildlife cope? Herald Focus 20 January 18. Watson, A, Duncan, D and Pottie, J (2007) No Scottish snow survives until winter 2006/07 Weather 62 71-73 19. Eaton, MA, Noble, DG, Hearn, RD, Grice, PV, Gregory, RD, Wotton, S, Ratcliffe, N, Hilton, GM, Rehfisch, MM, Crick, HQP and Hughes, J (2005) The state of the UK’s birds 2004 British Trust for Ornithology, RSPB, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature, Environment and Heritage Service (Northern Ireland), SNH 20. Ellis, NE and Goode, JEG (2005) Climate change and effects on Scottish and Welsh mountain ecosystems: a conservation perspective Mountains of northern Europe DBA Thompson, DBA, Price, MF and Galbraith, CA eds 99–102 Stationery Office, Edinburgh 21. Ellis, N and McGowan, G (2006) Climate change The Nature of the Cairngorms Shaw, P and Thompson, DBA eds 353–365. Stationery Office, Edinburgh 22. Harrison, P, Berry, PM and Dawson, TE eds (2001) Climate change and nature conservation in Britain and Ireland: MONARCH –modelling natural resource responses to climate change UK Climate Impact Programme, Technical Report, Oxford 23. SNH 19/06/2008 High corries to become Scotland’s lookout posts for signs of climate change, and BBC 18 June 2008 00.21 UK New ‘lookouts’ for climate change 24. Huntley, B, Collingham, YC, Green, RE, Hilton, GM, Rahbek, C, and Wills, SG (2006) Potential impacts of climatic change upon geographical distributions of birds. Ibis 148 supplement 1 8–28 25. Haworth, J. (2009) Birds of Scotland risk wipeout as warming drives them north. The Scotsman 3 March 26. Summers, RW, Jardine DC and Dawson, RJG (2004) The distribution of the Scottish crossbill, 1995–2003 Scottish Birds 24 11–16 27. Fyall, J (2009) ‘Deny climate change? – Then you’re as ignorant as those who think the world is flat’ Scotsman 21 October 28. Royal Society (2007) Climate change controversies: a simple guide RS, London 29. Singer, SF (2008) Not so simple? A scientific response to the Royal Society’s paper “Climate change controversies: a simple guide” Centre for Policy Studies, London

Adam Watson, born in 1930, studied snow patches since 1938 and ptarmigan since 1943, and still does so. A research ecologist, he is author of many scientific papers and books. adamwatson@uwclub.net This article is an adapted and updated version of ‘Warming and Scottish alpine and woodland birds’, first published in Scottish Bird News no 84 (www.the-soc.org.uk)

38

ECOS 31(1) 2010

The changing nature of climate Global warming theory implicating a dominating role for carbon dioxide is driving policy decisions. But are we getting the best policies for adapting to variations in climate? What if carbon dioxide is not in fact dominating climate? And are these policies actually helping to create a sustainable society? These questions are examined with particular reference to land management policies.

SIMON AYRES Vested interest During and since the Copenhagen summit, the most interesting news has been not from the summit itself, but the series of revelations which appear to discredit some of the work of the IPCC. There are the examples of data being massaged or distorted to present a point of view: for example Climategate1 and the representation of data by Jajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC.2 There are the examples included in the latest IPCC report3 which, far from being peer-reviewed science, are suppositions quoted outside the scientific literature, for example the melting of the Himalayan glaciers 4 and the disappearance of the Amazon rainforest.5 And there are the accounts of Jajendra Pachauri’s numerous vested interests, including his association with Tata, that cast doubt on his ability to chair the IPCC impartially.2, 6 There are an increasing number of works examining the science behind climate and raising questions on the IPCC conclusions, for example Taylor(2009)7 and Singer and Avery (2006).8 Taylor provides an in-depth review of the scientific research into the various factors influencing global climate. There is strong evidence for a number of cyclical influences, both internal and external to the planetary system.

He also reveals that, far from a consensus on the role of carbon dioxide in driving our climate, there has been some division within the IPCC, along with selection of evidence and challenges from outside the IPCC. There is a problem here with scientists specialising in different fields not relating their work, and with integrating an array of complex influences into the climate models. Indeed, this is the focus of Taylor’s critique, that the climate models used by the IPCC do not take account of all the factors influencing climate, and that they have failed to provide reliable predictions. The IPCC reports lend more weight to the computer models than to real data, and the summaries for policy makers simplify and even distort the content of the reports.

We should also note that the main ‘solution’ to climate change is the establishment of carbon trading markets, valued at over $126 billion in 2008.9 The trading of emissions allowances in developed countries and the payment for emissions reductions in other countries enables big business to make big money, especially those that operate transnationally. A current example is the closure of the Corus steel plant, owned by Tata, in Redcar in the UK. Tata will be able to trade the now 39

ECOS 31(1) 2010 superfluous emissions allowances on the EU market, earning millions. The company is at the same time planning to open a new steel plant in India, for which they will receive payments under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism.2, 6 It is apparent that there are vested interests behind the promotion of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ theory. This is enough to encourage thinking people to take a sceptical view. Why is it then that so many environmentalists promote the theory, effectively helping corporate interests to get richer quicker?

This is partly down to very effective marketing of the greenhouse gas message. For example, Al Gore, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have worked closely with Fenton Communications, the world’s biggest ‘public interest’ public relations firm.10 It may also be that it is seductive to be able to bundle up all environmental problems into one issue: climate change. A simple solution can then be presented: we must at all cost reduce our carbon emissions.

I fear this approach might well backfire, especially if the influence of greenhouse gases on climate is proved to be rather small. Taylor’s reading of the evidence suggests that the influence could be at most 20% and that this could be generous.

It could leave the environmental movement discredited, and make it more difficult to persuade the public to take environmental issues seriously. More importantly, it could be drawing us into policy responses that do more harm than good. A common response to doubts over the science is that we ought to reduce carbon emissions anyway, in case greenhouse gases cause climate chaos: the precautionary principle.

The precautionary principle The precautionary principle requires a polluting activity to be ceased if there is a risk that it is harming the environment. The burden of proof then rests on the prospective polluter to show that the material will not harm the environment. It became enshrined in international agreements and laws following campaigns against water and air pollution, including dumping nuclear waste in the sea.

On the face of it, it makes sense to stop releasing a pollutant into the environment in case it is causing harm. But we need to be careful how the precautionary principle is used, it works both ways. This is not so much a case of ‘what if it does not cause any harm’, but more a case of ‘what are the consequences of not releasing the material into the environment’. In other words, what are the alternatives?

With nuclear waste, an alternative to dumping at sea might be to dispose of it down old mine shafts on land. However, this could have worse consequences than it being released into the ocean. As it happens, we are storing nuclear waste above ground at power stations. With the risk of the material being stolen and released into the environment, the precautionary principle tells us that this practice should also be ceased. In effect, what we face is a decision based on a set of factors, and the choice must sometimes be the least worse.

Faced with the element of doubt over the role of carbon dioxide in driving the climate, the precautionary principle is usually cited. But the value of a single40

NEIL BENNETT

ECOS 31(1) 2010

minded policy of carbon reduction depends on the policy responses, on what the alternatives are. To date we have seen a series of policies that are ineffective, counter-productive or environmentally damaging, often profiting corporate interests without providing real benefits to the global environment. Sure, air pollution needs to be reduced, but this is a case where informed long-term policies need to be formulated and choices weighed up, without the single-minded fixation on carbon to the detriment of all other concerns.

Climate change rools ok Given these doubts and considerations, environmental groups should fight individual causes on their own merit, not because of their relation to climate change. A similar tendency to relate everything to climate change can be seen in nature conservation organisations, and indeed in forestry. Having accepted climate change dogma, we rely on the climate modellers to tell us how the climate will change in the UK. Apparently, the summers will be hotter and drier, winters will be mild with more rain and wind. Therefore, species will move north or to higher elevations, there will be migration into the UK from the south, and we will lose species at the northern end of their range. But see Adam Watson’s article in this issue for a critique of this rather simplistic model of the response of wildlife to possible temperature changes.

41

ECOS 31(1) 2010 In forestry, we consider what tree species will be suitable for the future climate, and the modifications in the range of our timber crops.11 In fact, there is little predicted difference in suitable tree species, with some additions from the Mediterranean, the main effect being the increase in wind and more parasites due to the milder winters. The policy response is very sensible, with or without looming climate change: to build greater resilience into our forests. Firstly by increasing the number of species being grown in a particular woodland; and secondly to have a greater diversity of ages, reducing the use of clear fell and single age crops, to management based on ‘continuous cover’ methods. The mixed species and mixed age forests will also be more attractive, better for biodiversity, and better at protecting soils and water. So there are ample reasons to manage woodlands like this, without resorting to the climate change reasoning.

The Wildlife Trusts’ ‘Living Landscapes’ approach arose from a recognition that protecting nature in isolated reserves has not been a successful strategy for stopping the decline in biodiversity in the UK. The idea is to work with other landowners to create more favourable conditions for wildlife across the landscape.

Of course, this increased resilience is a necessary shift in approach to land management for many reasons, from provision of ecosystems services to the protection of wildlife. Naturally, in the current political climate, the Wildlife Trusts do not hesitate to promote it as a response to climate change.12 I believe the response of nature conservation and forestry in the UK to climate concerns has produced some positive policies towards making ecosystems more resilient. But I suggest that these policies are important even without ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ theory. An environmental consultant recently remarked, if you wanted to research the population dynamics of the red squirrel you wouldn’t get funding unless you presented it as ‘research into the population dynamics of the red squirrel in the context of climate change’. This illustrates the tendency to pay lip service to the climate change story. A problem with this is that, apart from strengthening what may well be dogma, numerous other valid reasons are under-emphasised.

Bad policies Where the single-minded pre-occupation with carbon reduction is really dangerous and tragic is in promoting policies that damage the environment. The destruction of rainforests to make way for biofuel production is the most infamous example.

Here in the UK, the unbridled development of wind power stations in scenic areas has been consistently criticised. The John Muir Trust13 reports how the environmental degradation caused to large areas of our uplands by wind power stations overshadows any possible damage that could be caused by climate change (according to IPCC climate models). A recent report from the RSPB14 shows that wind turbines are having a negative effect on bird populations, again overshadowing any possible effects of climate change. It is galling to see environmentalists supporting such policies in the belief that they will ‘save the world from climate chaos’.

42

ECOS 31(1) 2010 These are just two examples of the damaging policies coming out of the carbon obsession, leading to the direct destruction of species and habitats that we are concerned with saving from the ‘ravages’ of climate change. Lomborg tells us that if the UK renewable energy target of 20% by 2020 is fulfilled, it will (according to the IPCC climate models) reduce average global temperature rise by a mere 0.00038 degrees.15 He also argues that throwing money at carbon reduction is a ridiculously expensive way to deal with the negative effects of climate change, a more cost-effective approach being to invest in direct solutions for issues arising from a changing climate. The added advantage here is that if it turns out that carbon is not significant after all, the issues are still resolved.

Time to save the world’s forests Forests are still being destroyed at an alarming pace. The one positive result to come from the carbon finance mechanisms is the money now available for preserving and restoring forests in poor countries, particularly the tropical rainforests. This is the first time that areas of forest have been given a value on international commodity markets, a value in retaining the ecosystems intact. The last few months have been unsettling for greenhouse gas theory. Will it stand up to long term scrutiny in the face of more data and more sophisticated understanding of the systems influencing climate? Nobody knows. But if not, the days of the carbon market are numbered. This may be a unique window of opportunity for investment in protecting and restoring the world’s forests. Without this finance, there is a real possibility that we will witness the disappearance of most forest areas. It is tragic that so many billions of carbon finance are squandered on moving factories around the world or burning CFCs or building destructive renewable energy projects. I hope that more of this money will make its way to protecting forests, until all forests are safeguarded.

References and notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

See for example James Delingpole, 2009, Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? in Telegraph blog http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-ofanthropogenic-global-warming/ Monckton, C. 2009. Open letter to Chairman Pachauri. Science and Public Policy Institute, Original Paper. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pachauri_letter.pdf IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

See for example Damian Carrington, 2010, IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers, in The Guardian www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake See for example Jonathan Leake, 2010, The UN climate panel and the rainforest claim, in The Times www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece See for example Christopher Booker and Richard North, 2009, Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri, in The Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-DrRajendra-Pachauri.html Taylor, P. 2009. Chill, A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory: Does Climate Change Mean the World is Cooling, and If So What Should We Do About It? Clairview Books.

Singer, S. F. and Avery, D. 2006. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. Rowman & Littlefield.

43

ECOS 31(1) 2010 9. Karan Capoor, K. and Ambrosi, P. 2009. State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2009. World Bank.

10. See for example Martin Cohen, 2009, Beyond Debate, in Times Higher Education www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409454 11. See for example Read, D.J., Freer-Smith, P.H., Morison, J.I.L., Hanley, N., West, C.C. and Snowdon, P. (eds). 2009. Combating climate change – a role for UK forests. An assessment of the potential of the UK’s trees and woodlands to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The synthesis report. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh.

12. See www.wildlifetrusts.org/?section=environment:livinglandscapes 13. John Muir Trust. 2008. Impacts of Wind Farms on Upland Habitats: The Environmental Cost of Scotland’s Renewable Revolution. www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/policy/wind%20turbines%20on%20upland%20areas.pdf 14. Pearce-Higgins, J. W. 2009. The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology. Volume 46 (6), Pages 1323-31. www.rspb.org.uk/media/releases/details.asp?id=tcm:9-230416 15. Lomborg, B. 2008. Global warming: why cut one 3,000th of a degree? Britain's efforts to reduce the speed of global warming will cost huge sums of money and have a pitifully tiny effect. The Times, September 30th 2008.

NORMAN MARR

Simon Ayres is a professional forester. He also works voluntarily coordinating a new project to restore the wildwood over a large area in the Cambrian Mountains, Wales. director@forestmoor.com

44

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Copenhagen, nature conservation and a few REDD herrings Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) was officially endorsed by the Copenhagen Accord, but what are the consequences of REDD – is the system a license to pollute, and is it part of the problem rather than part of the solution in addressing climate change?

KATE RAWLES Seeing REDD Nature conservation came pretty far down the priority list at the international climate change negotiations at Copenhagen in December 2009. Nevertheless, there was at least one major outcome that promises to have a direct bearing on it.

REDD – reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation – and REDD plus were officially endorsed by the Copenhagen Accord; a document light on commitments for sure, but one that used strong language in relation to forests. The destruction and degradation of forest ecosystems accounts for around 20% of the world’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions. That’s more than every train, plane, truck, scooter and skidoo on earth. REDD’s main aim is emissions reductions but ‘co-benefits’ would, it is argued, include biodiversity conservation and, since the basic idea is for rich countries to pay poor ones to protect their forests rather than cut them down, poverty reduction.

It sounds great. And the basic concept of financing the conservation of those bits of nature that are particularly good at carbon sequestration through, for example, carbon credits, is clearly one that could have more general application - including in the UK, where our forests might be a bit thin on the ground but our peat bogs are superb. A bit of burrowing, though, soon reveals some seriously thorny problems in the REDD undergrowth. There are widespread concerns about the implications of REDD for (human) forest dwellers, and widespread scepticism that payments for forest protection will actually end up in the hands of the poor. Many argue that REDD will not work without good governance and that the opportunities for corruption are legion. Key in all this is the way that forests are defined. Is a eucalyptus plantation a forest? Indeed it is, according to the UN. And this creates the real possibility of ‘perverse incentives’, for example, to cut down indigenous forests and replace them with plantations. As the ‘Redd-monitor’ explains: “the way forests are defined is crucial to whether REDD helps to preserve or destroy forests. The UN’s failure, in its negotiations on REDD, to differentiate between forests and industrial tree plantations, creates the risk that governments and companies could replace forests with oil palm, eucalyptus or rubber plantations and claim carbon credits under REDD schemes”.1 45

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Seeing the wood for the trees The wider context, of course, is that changes in local climates caused by global heating have huge implications for ‘nature’ – for other living beings, for species, habitats, ecological systems – and for the way we try to shield nature from our own worst excesses through nature conservation. A key component in terms of adaptation is likely to be increased emphasis on the move to augment the concept of protected areas as a cornerstone of nature conservation with that of protected networks and corridors, allowing those species that can move, to move, should they need to.

The ‘Y2Y’ project – aiming to connect key habitats into an uninterrupted corridor from the Yellowstone to the Yukon – is a particularly inspiring attempt to respond to this, with a rationale that preceded global heating but has certainly been strengthened by it. It was also an example of what, on a journey to explore North American attitudes towards global heating back in 2006, I came to think of as ‘leadership from the middle’. Groups of people in unions or universities or schools; cities with enlightened mayors; businesses or, in this case, a coalition of NGOs were bypassing what they understood to be a profoundly inadequate federal level response to global heating and initiating a whole range of positive actions themselves.

Plans to enhance conservation networks and ‘green corridors’ are widespread in the UK. But there is a real sense in which the notion that we and other species can adapt to global heating – whether by heading north up our nearest green corridor or in other ways – is deeply misguided. Of course, given that the time lag between emissions and effect has committed us to at least another 1.2-degree rise on top of the 0.6-degree rise in average global temperatures already recorded, the need for adaptation will to an extent be unavoidable. But any suggestion we can rely on adaptation alone is frankly insane. The IPCC presents us with a range of scenarios, from a rise of 1.8 degrees at the lower end (generally assumed to be unachievable) to around 6.4 degrees at the higher. Needless to say, where we end up on this spectrum is critical. In an estimate now considered conservative, the IPCC suggests that at a little over two degrees, one third of all our wild species will be irrevocably en route to extinction. At four degrees, we lose half of all our wild species. Half!

And this is a key point. If we don’t mitigate, and substantially, we are not just looking at the sad demise of the odd polar bear and a bit of a bad weather. We are looking at ecological catastrophe. Recent reports outlining, for example, the disruption of UK food webs because of different responses to our earlier arrival of Spring 2 and the little mentioned biodiversity disaster creeping up on us in the form of ocean acidification only confirm this.

Part of the solution, or part of the problem?

Keeping below two degrees is widely regarded as necessary if we are to avoid ‘dangerous’ levels of global heating – though the Maldives, facing obliteration through sea-level rise, would strongly prefer an even lower target. Either way, mitigation is key, with most analysts agreeing that emissions cuts of between 80 – 90% across the industrialised world are required. The timescale is 2050 but the next ten years are crucial. So can REDD contribute?

46

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Greenpeace parked up for the 2009 UN climate summit at a snowy Copenhagen.

Photo: Kate Rawles

My own dawning disillusionment with REDD closely tracked a similarly unnerving and deeply depressing process of realisation in relation to the negotiations as a whole. The REDD devil isn’t just in that small detail about how forests are defined.

Alongside the main summit in Copenhagen ran an alternative event; the Klimaforum, whose slogan was ‘system change, not climate change’.3 Speaker after speaker criticised the basic mechanism on which REDD is premised. Carbon trading and carbon credits, they argued, are a license to pollute. They allow rich countries to carry on as normal and they not only fail to tackle the underlying root cause of global heating, they endorse it, by buying into - literally buying into – the idea of trading mechanisms as part of the solution. But trading the right to emit carbon in a way that facilitates business as usual in the ‘developed’ world cannot be the solution when the bottom line is that carbon emissions in the developed world need to come to a virtual halt. We are already up against the limits of our planet’s ability to absorb anthropogenic emissions.

And these, of course, are not the only limits as the work of Johan Rockstrom and his team have confirmed in their analysis of vital planetary support systems – and their boundaries.4 For all its seriousness, global heating is itself only a symptom of a much larger problem; that countries across the world are committed to the notion of development as growth, in the context of a finite planet; a planet with limits. Our current development paths proceed as if earth’s ability to absorb pollution and to provide resources were infinite. The result, as report after report has pointed out, is that the way we humans currently meet our needs has already 47

ECOS 31(1) 2010 had such an impact on biodiversity that our own survival is threatened - not to mention that of thousands of other species.

Leadership from the middle Carbon credits and other trading mechanisms do worse than nothing to tackle the development as growth paradigm. They are fully coherent with it. But, in the end, the conservation of nature requires that we profoundly rethink and reshape this paradigm. Having travelled to Copenhagen with a view to joining the thousands of demonstrators calling on those in the negotiations to make the best possible deal they could, I came away haunted by the sound of police helicopters constantly in the sky and worried by the unnerving realisation that they were there to protect the wrong people. Our world leaders are not currently up for tackling unsustainable forms of growth – they are all in search of ways of securing it.

If we’re going to deal with global heating, and other profound threats to the millions of other species we co-exist with, it’s probably down to us. We can’t achieve it without politicians and governments of course, but we need to be very, very clear that we will support politicians in thinking the unthinkable; that we could indeed have ‘prosperity without growth’.5 And we ourselves need to show leadership; not just as individuals but as individuals working collaboratively in communities, businesses and organisations. We need leadership from the middle, including from the nature conservation sector.

The good news? First, in many ways, we already know the solutions. Leaving the carbon in the ground, greatly reduced levels of consumption, compensation for over consumption and equitable economic and political institutions were amongst the calls from the Klimaforum, for example. This isn’t about sacrificing human quality of life – it’s about securing it in ways that can be shared across the human population in ways that don’t lead to the destruction of the ecological systems and living communities we are part of. The other good news, of course, is the mounting evidence that high levels of consumption don’t equate with high levels of happiness; and that quality of life can be achieved in vastly less materialistic ways.

We can celebrate a low carbon lifestyle. Given average remuneration in the conservation sector, most nature conservationists probably already do.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

48

www.redd-monitor.org/2008/12/17/forest-definition-challenged-in-poznan/ accessed 27/2/10 Thackeray et al (2010) ‘Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments.’ Global Change Biology, in press. Reported in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8506363.stm and www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/wildlife-climate-change accessed 28/2/10 Klimaforum (2009) System change not climate change. A people’s Declaration from Klimaforum09 available at www.klimaforum09.org/IMG/pdf/A_People_s_Declaration_from_Klimaforum09__ultimate_version.pdf accessed 28/2/10 Rockstrom et al (2009) ‘A safe operating space for humanity’ Nature 461, 472-475 (24 September 2009).

Discussed in Pearce (2010) ‘Earth’s nine lives’ New Scientist 27th February, 2010 Jackson, T (2009) Prosperity Without Growth; economics for a finite planet, Earthscan.

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Bibliography IUCN (2009) Ocean Acidification; a special introductory guide for policy advisors and decision makers available at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ocean_acidification_guide.pdf accessed 28/2/10 New Economics Foundation (2006); The Happy Planet Index; An index of human well-being and environmental impact Available at: www.happyplanetindex.org/ Accessed 27/2/10 Parry et al, eds (2007): Climate Change 2007; Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press United Nations Environment Programme (2007) Global Environment Outlook GEO4 environment for development Progress Press Ltd, Malta. Available at www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/ Accessed 28/2/10 United Nations Environment Programme (2007) Global Environment Outlook GOE4 environment for development Progress Press, Ltd, Malta United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2009) ‘Copenhagen Accord’ available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf accessed 27/2/10 WWF (2008); Living Planet Report Available at www.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/ Accessed 28/2/10

Kate Rawles works half-time as a senior lecturer in Outdoor Studies at the University of Cumbria and half-time as a writer, lecturer and environmental campaigner. kate@outdoorphilosophy.co.uk

Copenhagen climate campaigners remind us that the stakes are high.

Photo: Kate Rawles

49

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Where now in climate and nature conservation?

In the aftermath of the dismal performance in Copenhagen, and doubts shed on the veracity of elements of the IPCC report, public belief to climate change has wavered.

A lack of progress in international agreement should not prevent such actions for adaptation we are able to take at a country, regional or local level. These should address the impacts of climate change with direct consequences for peoples’ lives, through sustaining nature as the foundation of all useful function.

RICHARD SMITHERS & MIKE TOWNSEND Coming down from the Summit While hopes for the Copenhagen summit were never high, the result falls short of reasonable expectation. Any meeting of minds among a group of 192 nations inevitably tends towards the lowest common denominator. In this case an accord rather than a treaty, one that recognises a need to keep global temperature rise below 2°C but fails to set any targets for cuts in emissions. Such commitments as were made must be enacted ‘as soon as possible’; a phrase with such latitude as to be almost without meaning.

The developing world, understandably, is reluctant to slow its economic growth in view of the benefits that such growth has already bestowed upon others. Developed nations are wary of any impediment to economic recovery and mindful of an increasingly sceptical electorate. The email leaks from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and subsequent false claims about the rate of loss of Himalayan glaciers in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report have fed public mistrust.

In the UK, belief that climate change is happening has slumped. Among those who accept it, the number who thinks it is human-induced is falling.1 ‘Apocalypse fatigue’, as it has been called, has already begun. No one is to blame and everyone is to blame for this state of affairs. Climate science has become a polemic, at its extremes represented by ‘climate messiahs’ and ‘climate deniers’. There is pressure on science to provide definitive answers; politics does not like ‘maybes’ and ‘probabilities’. Equally scientists often fail to recognise that science is culturally and politically situated. Formulating policy is not a rational application of objective truths but a contested battle of values and beliefs.

Models and reality Climate science is complex and uncertain. Climate models attempt to capture millions of possible interactions between a myriad of physical, biological, social and economic factors. Even then, they are a gross simplification. Probabilities associated with their outputs reflect the models not ‘reality’. The only certain thing is that none of them 50

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Flooding: an issue of more immediate concern than biodiversity for most people Photo: Paul Glendell/Natural England

will be ‘right’. This does not undermine their value but it does misunderstand their purpose. What can be concluded is that an uncertain future looks potentially very unstable in ways that threaten our well-being and that of other life on Earth.

Attributing predictive powers to climate-space models, such as MONARCH2, themselves based on the output of climate models, compounds the error. They cannot tell us what we need to do for which species, where and by when; they simply suggest the scale of the challenge if we are to enable as many species as possible to adapt and move in response to change.

On this basis, actions that we might identify are: • Conserving all wildlife habitats, not just selected sites; • Restoring all wildlife habitats e.g. those planted with non-native conifers; • Protecting wildlife habitats by reducing damaging uses of neighbouring land; • Establishing new habitat alongside existing wildlife habitats to buffer and extend them; • Sympathetically managing intervening land between wildlife habitats to allow species to move more easily through the landscape.

51

ECOS 31(1) 2010 While models, such as BEETLE 3, can apply such actions to land cover data, they are best used to produce a range of scenarios that inform the development of strategies and implementation, rather than prescribe locationally-specific action. It is the cultural and political realities of land ownership and the need to meet the full gamut of human needs that will dictate what is achievable.

Unless you are a climate scientist, the chances are that you care about climate change not as a phenomenon but for its potential direct and indirect impacts.

While nature conservationists may care about biodiversity, for the majority of people concerns focus around what are seen as more immediate issues to do with energy and food security, flood risk and water quality, health and well-being.

A reappraisal Could it be that projections of climate change provide an opportunity to create a new narrative for the natural environment, one which emphasises its essential functional value as well as any intrinsic worth? Society cannot set the natural environment on one side to be used and abused at will; self-evidently, we are part of it and reliant upon it for all our needs. It is not an optional tool for a sustainable society and economy but a prerequisite. A healthy, functioning ecosystem underpins the goods and services needed to support life.

There is a need for a reappraisal. Nature conservation delivered by conservation organisations through the creation of areas set aside for the purpose, cannot come close to delivering the scale or type of action required. Nature conservationists have spent the last hundred years progressively attuning people to cherish the rare at the expense of the common-place and to think of wildlife as something confined to nature reserves. As a result, nature has become something experienced remotely, rather than central to peoples’ lives.

A new narrative would see conservation of the natural environment as the starting point for all other activity; as the basis for useful function. It would situate nature conservation in the social and cultural landscape, where conservationists would act as advocates, enablers, and catalysts for sustainable land management.

There are a number of characteristics that might distinguish this approach: • area-based, as opposed to site-based; • systems-based, addressing ecological processes and drivers of change, as opposed to site-focused and seeking to maintain species populations in situ; • managed to develop resilience (i.e. the capacity to adapt to change), as opposed to maintain stasis; • heuristic and directed towards learning, discovery and problem-solving, as opposed to prescriptive and directed towards a specified end point; 52

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Nature must be integrated into the way land is managed, not marginalised Photo: Paul Glendell/Natural England

• directed by environmental, social and economic objectives, as opposed to being primarily for nature conservation; • about protection, restoration and habitat creation, as opposed to primarily protection of a representative sample of biodiversity; • judged through emergent properties (i.e. ecosystem goods and services, including biodiversity); measured by broad surrogates, such as habitat connectivity, as opposed to the frequency of selected species; • run with, for, and in some cases by local people, as opposed to planned and managed primarily by nature conservationists.

Such an approach makes sense whatever the extent, rate or direction of climate change; focusing on the social and cultural context of nature conservation and making clear that the natural environment is fundamental to delivering the goods and services people need. If nature conservationists fail to make this connection, we will fail to secure the long-term future of biodiversity.

Act now Actions for adaptation can and should happen now. They require no international agreement; they need not damage competitive advantage or negotiating power.

They require a new perspective of what is possible and an acceptance of 53

ECOS 31(1) 2010 uncertainty. On our crowded islands, nature must be intimately integrated into the fabric of all that people do and the way that land is managed or, perhaps, all that people do needs to recognise and be woven between the threads of nature.

There is a growing recognition of the importance of the natural environment for adaptation and for delivery of ecosystem services. These messages about the functional value of the natural environment need to be impressed upon policymakers, practitioners and the public; they need to be built into policy and hard-wired into daily practice. Nature conservationists have a part in ensuring this critical role is embedded in the minds and deeds of those with the ability to make things happen.

But there is also a need to tap into people’s love of the natural world, which surpasses its functional value. Maybe that love has its genesis in an innate understanding of our functional dependence on it. Whatever its root, we should not abandon the sense of wonder, to the cause of utility. There is a Greek saying, “a society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit”. That sentiment was never truer than now.

As the Copenhagen circus travels onwards to what may well be yet another inconclusive jamboree, and public doubts about climate change are fuelled by ‘revelations’ from the media, we should not hang our heads. Nature conservationists need not wait on the politics of obfuscation to promote such actions that we as a nation, as communities and as individuals are able to take; actions for adaptation that will help sustain the natural world on which we all depend.

References 1.

2.

3.

BBC Climate Change Poll, February 2010, at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8500443.stm MONARCH (Modelling Natural Resource Responses to Climate Change), at: http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=331 BEETLE (Biological and Environmental Evaluation Tools for Landscape Ecology), at: http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/infd-69pla5

Mike Townsend is Head of Conservation Policy at the Woodland Trust. miketownsend@woodlandtrust.org.uk Richard Smithers is UK Conservation Adviser in the Conservation Policy team and is chair of the International Association for Landscape Ecology (UK). richardsmithers@woodlandtrust.org.uk The views expressed in this article are those of the authors.

54

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Britain’s Arctic wildlife – the Big Freeze of 2010 Early 2010 saw severe cold conditions across the UK, with heavy snowfall and prolonged freezing temperatures. How did the conservation sector respond to this crisis, what species were at risk, and what lessons have been learnt?

ANDREW HARBY In the first few weeks of 2010 the UK experienced temperatures reaching –22°C in parts of the Scottish Highlands and around –10°C in areas of South-East England, and 2-3 feet of snowfall, remaining as cover for 2 weeks in some places, and much longer in parts of Scotland. The adverse weather has caused many difficulties for almost every profession and sector. But how has this weather pattern affected the UK’s wildlife and those organisations charged with protecting it?

Many professionals in the conservation sector welcomed the return of a colder winter. Such weather fluctuations can be regarded as a vital factor contributing to the natural variations in species levels, population distribution and compositions within an ecosystem and although in the short-term such weather events may impact some species significantly, invariably these will recover in the long-term.

After all, the majority of native species will be accustomed to such severe conditions through evolution in our temperate climate.

Media focus on birds under stress The snow and cold weather resulted in a number of press statements from wildlife organisations including the RSPB, RSPCA and Natural England. In particular, the impact on bird populations was highlighted as being of concern and was a highly publicised and evident cause. A number of articles in the national press as well as the Snowwatch one-off TV episode illustrated the plight of a number of species, and behaviour change of birds such as redwings, fieldfare, common snipe, cirl buntings and even bitterns which were commonly reported in gardens and parks.

Though the snow was a boon for bird and wildlife spotters and photographers, uninformed members of the public will rarely see the link between the greater conspicuousness of some species with the greater struggles this represents.

Explanations from wildlife bodies is vital in such circumstances, urging people to consider the help needed for wildlife under stress.

The plight of a number of small birds and wetland birds was widely promoted by the RSPB, which urged people to spare a thought for their garden birds. coal tit numbers fell by 20% and goldcrests by 75%, the RSPB’s annual Big Garden Birdwatch (undertaken in late January) found. Finding food on frozen ground and under blankets of snow is the greatest test for wild birds in winter as food is 55

ECOS 31(1) 2010 covered in snow and ice, the ground becomes too hard for birds to probe and water birds may be forced to leave iced-over lakes and rivers. According to the RSPB, the wintry weather of early 2010 could potentially be the single biggest wildlife killer for many years. To help wildlife through this period, the RSPB joined forces with Natural England, the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust to publish a four-point plan including organizing emergency feeding of several threatened birds at locations across the UK, urging people not to disturb flocks of fatigued wetlands birds and asking farmers and members of the public to leave food out for garden and farmland birds.

Farming and animal welfare The RSPCA, in conjunction with the National Farmers Union, reacted to the conditions by launching a new Farm Animal Welfare hotline for farmers and livestock owners in view of the likelihood of stranded livestock, power cuts to intensive units and difficulties in getting feed delivered. The hotline allowed frontline RSPCA staff to locate where help was most needed and reduce critical threats to animal welfare. The hotline proved useful in areas of Northumberland and the North East where waist high snowdrifts reduced accessibility and calls were high.

Conservation land management Natural England relaxed restrictions on farmers in agri-environment schemes, where supplementary feeding is normally limited, thereby allowing additional feed to help maintain animal welfare during the cold period. The effect this may have on environmental features will hopefully be reduced by a number of stipulations Natural England introduced. People responded to pleas from Natural England and RSPB to show restraint in shooting and other activities that may have caused unnecessary disturbance to wildfowl and other water birds already suffering as a result of the cold weather.

For a number of organisations, particularly bodies like the Wildlife Trusts, the conditions had a drastic impact on operational output with a reduced capability to reach sites and implement practical habitat management. The weather also affected a couple of core areas vital to efficient functioning fluctuating. Firstly the weather, perhaps unsurprisingly, was accompanied by exceptionally low volunteer turnout, a vital resource for many organisations and essential for tasks such as site wardening, running events and undertaking practical management. Second, the cancellation of a number of community outreach events, essential for engaging with potential fundraisers and members of the public that utilise sites, was also a major issue as these were not practical with inches of snow and frozen ground. However the raised profile of wildlife issues and increased visibility, especially involving avian species, resulted in increased telephone enquiries from the public who showed willingness to become involved with projects such as the RSPB’s emergency feeding initiatives.

Effects at a species level With the occasional exception, predators benefited most from the cold weather and blanketing of snow as small birds and mammals struggling with starvation became easy targets for raptors and generalist scavengers such as crows and foxes.

56

ECOS 31(1) 2010 Exceptions include some owl species.

Young and inexperienced barn owls in particular can find it difficult to hunt small mammals running underneath a covering of snow. Though some predator species profited from these otherwise unfavourable conditions, this will undoubtedly be reflected in the long term as thriving raptor populations, for example, will be effected by the resulting reduced prey numbers in time. A status of flux between predator and prey relations is entirely desirable and should be considered favourable to a static equilibrium.

Effects on deer The repercussions of an unchecked prey species have been seen in many areas of Scotland where the Scottish Wildlife Trust observed that artificially high populations of red deer in particular suffered due to food Midwinter at the bug hotel shortages. With too many animals Photo: Dave Pressland competing for scarce resources, starving deer have died in numbers while others have resorted to stripping tree bark at greater rates, causing damage to large areas of woodland and effecting the ecology of these delicate sites. This is of great concern to the SWT as not only is the regeneration of native highland woodland a primary concern, but this is also the preferred habitat of the red deer and therefore their actions will only compound their predicament in future if left unchecked. Higher numbers were also forced into urban areas to search for whatever they could find, thus bringing them into conflict with human influence and causing issues such as more traffic accidents. The Scottish Wildlife Trust has recently called for an extension to the deer stalking season to cull any deer that are suffering and weak through starvation and unlikely to survive. Their plight will likely again intensify debate over potential predator reintroductions.

In the Cairngorms, in mid March ecologist Adam Watson observed that “there has definitely been localised heavy mortality of roe deer. It is still too early to know how many red deer have died, because deep snow is still covering the corpses, but I think it will be many, because the winter has been the longest since 1963. On a walk of 100 yards of snow-free grass last week near Glenshee ski centre I saw two mountain hares that had died, both emaciated. The trouble was exacerbated by a slight thaw and then hard frost, so that the snow surface became very hard.�

57

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Pondlife A prolonged period of sub-zero temperatures will have had clear repercussions for the UK’s ponds and wetland areas, which will have remained frozen with a significant depth of ice-cover for a number of days. This will have had discernible consequences for wetland birds, such as bittern, hoping to find food trapped under ice as previously covered. But the result for a number of pond species, already in a perilous state, is also in question. However, research by conservation charity Pond Conservation has suggested that a period of ice cover for garden ponds may benefit animals living beneath the surface as oxygen concentrations can actually increase due to the photosynthesis of underwater plants.

Keeping aliens in check?

The cold spell could influence a number of alien species that have benefited from recent mild winters. For instance Kew Gardens for one is hoping the horse-chestnut leaf-miner moth, an import from Eastern Europe that turns horse chestnut leaves brown, may have a reduced impact this year. Other species that could suffer may include the winter breeding rose-ringed parakeet, which has been shown to suffer population crashes as a result of low food availability for fledglings during cold spells. Signal crayfish reproduction has also been shown to suffer from sustained cold periods, whilst red-eared terrapins may also incur fatalities.

Some have drawn parallels with the cold winter of 1962-63 when it has been suggested that half the birds in Britain died; this level of mortality is highly unlikely in 2010 given the comparative short timescale of the conditions, however the effects on populations of small birds such as wrens and goldcrests is likely to be significant, with estimates of around 10 –15% mortality in these species. The effect of this year’s conditions may be compounded as the recent cold spell comes on the heels of a reasonably cold start to 2009, and many populations of small bird species may not yet have recovered. For example the Thames Basin and Wealden Heaths Special Protection Area Dartford warbler population crashed by 88% from just over 1000 pairs to only 117 during this period. The consequences of January’s sub-zero temperatures are yet to be known for this species but it is sure to be of specific concern for the RSPB, which believes the legacy of this hard winter will be seen in bird populations for many years to come.

Andrew Harby is a recent graduate of University College London’s MSc in Conservation. He is currently working with the London Wildlife Trust on a number of assignments as part of their Graduate trainee scheme and can be contacted on a_harby1@hotmail.com

58

ECOS 31(1) 2010

The Dower plus 100 Report National Parks 1945 - 2045 Looking at conservation and land management over the coming decades, will the pioneering projects of today be commonplace in future? This article considers the exciting opportunities facing Britain’s National Parks, ranging from low-carbon landscapes to mammal reintroductions.

ADRIAN PHILLIPS I have been polishing my crystal ball and have found the Executive Summary of the report prepared in 2045 to mark the centenary of John Dower’s seminal review of National Parks…

A resilient landscape A hundred years ago, John Dower described National Parks as “extensive areas of beautiful and relatively wild country (whose) characteristic natural beauty is strictly preserved” and access provided for - along with wildlife and heritage protection, and safeguards for farming. By 1975, we recognised that there was a need not only for protection, but land (and water) had to be managed to achieve national park purposes. Early this century, we began to create new landscapes, more resilient to the forces of change, adapted to the fast changing climate, capable of storing carbon and water, and sustaining productive soils and wildlife. So national parks are no longer fortresses, where we hold on to the best of the past (though some of that is certainly needed), but places where we encourage pioneer economies and landscapes that can cope with accelerating change – though still respecting, and reflecting, the special qualities of these places, including the elusive ones of wildness and remoteness.

In practical terms, that means a quarter of the parks is forested, not with conifer stands (many of which have been felled by violent winter storms, destroyed by fire or killed by disease), but with mainly broadleaved woods and forests. So tree cover has doubled since 2010. The largest tree-free areas are extensive peatland reserves which store even more carbon and water than forests.

The landscape, biodiversity, carbon, soil and water benefits of these much more treed uplands are understood. While not everyone welcomes the change in cherished landscapes and land uses, especially where attractive stone wall landscapes have been lost, a new landscape (and a new landscape aesthetic) is appearing.

Big changes have occurred in the Park settlements too. John Dower urged planners to be sensitive to tradition – using local building materials and respecting vernacular styles. For 50 years or more, the Park planners did this well: good manners (if not inspired design) were the hallmark of most new development in our National Parks.

59

ECOS 31(1) 2010 But climate change and carbon reduction targets began to drive a reappraisal.

Nationally, we are on target to reduce carbon emissions by 80% from 1990 levels, and all new buildings since 2016 have had to be carbon neutral. Achieving this was at first controversial. But, as a National Park officer put it: “New houses used to look odd without a chimney; now they begin to look odd without a solar panel”.

By 2021, the third and biggest peak oil crisis (with crude oil reaching $250 a barrel) drove a revolution in providing energy to existing buildings. Insulation efficiency has greatly improved, and much more use is made of solar panels, ground source heating, bio-mass boilers, bio-gas production and mini-wind turbines. They are now found on, in or under, nearly every building, and on every farm, in the National Parks; what was pioneering in 2010 is commonplace in 2045. While large scale wind energy generation has never had a place in the Parks, the hundreds of new micro-generation schemes are welcomed as symbols of commitment to a greener (and more energy secure) future. They also generate income for householders who sell their electricity into local networks that are replacing the obsolete National Grid.

National Parks have always grown food but, after the 2021 peak oil crisis tripled the costs of fuel and fertilisers, food policy was driven by the quest for national and local self sufficiency. For example, we were 15% and 60% nationally self sufficient in 2010 in fruit and vegetables respectively, and are now 45% and 90%. The ‘transition garden movement’ encouraged towns to dig up their ornamental flower beds and grow vegetables instead. Thousands of Park residents pledged themselves to put down at least half their gardens to growing vegetables. The health benefits were noted by Primary Health Trusts; village composting schemes became the norm; and cottage gardens have never been so productive since before 1914.

In 1987, Malcolm and Ann McEwen spoke of National Parks as ‘greenprints’ for the countryside. It was a bold notion, ahead of its time. But in 2045 we can see what this means: the National Parks are pioneering a new landscape fit for a changed climate and a post-carbon economy.

More space for nature The National Parks have always been potentially important for nature. But the separation of landscape protection from nature conservation in the 1949 Act, and the emphasis on protection of small sites, meant that nature conservation was rarely considered a priority for the Parks as a whole. In biodiversity terms, the Parks were sleeping giants – full of potential but not much action.

The transfer of responsibilities for on-the-ground nature conservation from the agencies to the Park authorities in 2018 helped, but the real change came as the new, resilient, Park landscapes of the mid-twenty first century emerged. These provide more space for nature, and scope for innovative projects: • A three-mile long tunnel that opened last year in the New Forest. This buries the A35 beneath a lengthy ‘eco-bridge’ which reconnects habitats: deer and ponies now wander where once the traffic roared.

60

ECOS 31(1) 2010 • Reintroduction programmes: brought back to the Cairngorms in 2030, lynx for example are now found in two Welsh parks and the Northumberland National Park. Other mammal reintroductions are underway or planned. The tourist benefits are such that Parks compete to be included in such schemes.

• The third generation of National Parks (see below), brings new habitats into the Park family, such as flooded coastal wetlands and dry grasslands. As a result: spectacular birds flourish, like ospreys, cranes and great bustards; winter bird populations are at record levels; and beavers and otters attract large numbers of visitors. National Parks are valued as much as havens for wildlife as for their beautiful landscapes.

So, while John Dower’s vision of National Parks for people to enjoy is as relevant as ever, a complementary vision has emerged: Parks as places where natural processes are less constrained and wildlife has more space.

People and jobs For 100 years, Britain’s National Parks have been protected, but lived-in, working landscapes – internationally they were, and still are, pioneers in this regard. But, as John Dower recognised, there is an inherent tension here, with early debates about employment in national parks often being cast in terms of ‘jobs v beauty’. In this century it became evident that the Parks’ beauty could support jobs, mainly through the tourism sector but also because a good environment attracts and holds other kinds of business. In a third stage, employment in the post peak oil economy is creating a new kind of beauty in the parks.

Our increasingly forested upland parks now pay their way, and create jobs, by providing essential services for society as whole – carbon capture and storage, water supply and regulation, timber and wood based industries, wildlife viewing, healthy living, adventure tourism, education and the like. At the same time, there is a vigorous small farming sector, with more younger farmers too, producing traditional foods mainly for local consumption and for visitors. This fits with the national trend to connect farming more strongly to its local community.

Also new farmers have been drawn to the parks to grow novel crops more suited to today’s warmer climate. In the South Downs, vineyards now compete as an iconic landscape feature with downland pastures. Its sparkling wine rivals French champagne – and local producers have persuaded the EU to protect their product name: ‘Chalkdown Bubbly’.

Together with this new farm economy have come many flourishing microbusinesses: food processing, craft manufacture, green energy innovation. The result is a buoyant park economy, based on low impact activities, serving the local community and rooted in the physical qualities of the environment. And this in turn creates a working landscape that looks more like those that were once associated with Alpine Europe – blocks of woodland interspersed with productive farmland and thriving small settlements.

61

ECOS 31(1) 2010 This new landscape has had its critics but values are changing. The public seem increasingly receptive to features in the landscape that reflect a post-carbon economy. And – shades of William Wordsworth – a new wave of contemporary poets and artists celebrate the qualities of this emerging landscape.

The 2021 peak oil crisis was poorly anticipated, but has radically altered patterns of transport and tourism. People have not, of course, willingly given up the convenience of the private car but the costs of motoring and the limitations of hydrogen and electric vehicles mean that traffic jams in the countryside are a thing of the past. Instead there has been the ‘counter-Beeching’ trend. Many new miles of rural light railways have opened up, serving local needs and bringing visitors to the parks by public transport in numbers not seen for a hundred years. Visitors stay longer, make more use of local facilities and get to know the Parks better; and thus the local economy thrives. It is a virtuous circle.

Money for services rendered Immediately after the founding legislation of 1949, national support was very modest, and used for small conservation and recreation projects. After 1974, the Parks received government funds for their own operations. By the mid-1980s, grants were paid for farming and land use in line with park purposes, but still rather narrowly focused on wildlife, landscape, heritage and access.

Once more, climate change brought about a new way of looking at things. By 2015, Pillar 1 of the Common Agricultural Policy (now the EU Land and Water Conservation Programme) had been converted into payments to land managers to capture and store carbon, with top-up payments for water and biodiversity conservation.

Thousands of hectares ceased to be farmed as a new upland economy emerged, based as much on ecosystem services as on food. Though many regretted the social effects of the decline of hill farming, it still thrives but more as a high value, niche activity covering a smaller area. However, wool production is doing well because of government grants for insulation materials produced with low carbon emissions.

John Dower believed access to the countryside was good for people. By the 2020s there was conclusive evidence that access to green places, like the National Parks, is linked to levels of public health, crime and educational attainment. So investment in Parks saves money that would otherwise have to be spent in health, crime prevention and education budgets. After predictable resistance by finance departments, corresponding lines of funding became available to the parks. Thus in 2032, the Justice Department began to support National Parks access for young people as part of a crime prevention programme. The NHS encouraged physical fitness though access provision, and promoted mental health recovery with work on farms. The Parks are partners in the education ministries’ ‘Nature for Children’ programme under which every child has direct and meaningful contact with nature. As a result, there has been a fivefold increase in public funding of the Parks since 2025.

John Dower wrote of the Parks that “few national purposes (can offer) at so modest a cost ... so large a prospect of health giving happiness for the people”. In 62

ECOS 31(1) 2010

The new landscape of the National Forest in the East Midlands – offering ‘new nature’ and new outdoor experiences.

Photo: National Forest Company

this respect, he saw Parks as places of natural beauty and recreational refreshment.

100 years later we recognise that they are also good value for money for all the other services they perform.

Balanced governance At first, only the Peak District and Lake District had their own boards. By 1974, each Park had at least a single joint committee to oversee it. Two thirds of members came from local government; one third was appointed by Ministers. Later these committees became independent authorities, and parishes were given a small role.

Early in this century, the first two Scottish Parks gave Park residents a role in electing some board members.

Since then all Park boards have adopted some variant of the ‘one-third/onethird/one-third’ model: • One third of members are directly elected by local residents. Some feared this would lead to a parochial view of the park’s role, but it has worked the other way: local people became more engaged in what they saw as a national as well as a local responsibility. Turnout regularly exceeds 75%.

• One third of members are appointed by a consortium of regional economic, environmental and social interests, a model inspired by the French Regional Nature Parks. Among the consortium’s appointees, some places are reserved for elected local authority members.

• The final third are directly elected on-line by the ‘Friends of the National Parks’.

People throughout Britain can apply to become ‘friends’ providing they meet certain criteria – such as frequency of visit to the parks or active membership of 63

ECOS 31(1) 2010 park-supporting NGOs - and qualify for the right to cast an electronic vote for candidates to represent the national interest. There has been a general welcome this innovative, open, participatory form of democracy.

Old Parks, New Parks Looking back over a hundred years, we can see that the National Parks family has grown in three stages.

The first generation of 10 national parks was created in England and Wales between 1951 and 1957, fulfilling John Dower’s vision of accessible landscapes of great beauty.

The second generation came into being between 1988 and 2010: 3 more parks in England and the first 2 in Scotland. Those in England had been debated for many years. For Scotland, whose parks came 50 years after those south of the border, it was a case of better late than never.

The third generation of National Parks represented a response to the changes in the climate, the need to adapt to these, the effects of peak oil, and the growing evidence that Parks were good for the local economy. Thus: 2017: the National Forest of the English Midlands was given National Park status, in recognition of its increasingly beautiful and accessible landscape - with one third under tree cover, whereas it was 6% in 1990.

2026: the Abercrombie National Park (based in part on the former Metropolitan Green Belt) and the Welsh Valleys National Park were created after the peak oil crisis made it necessary to provide large accessible parks near centres of population.

2039: the Somerset Wetlands Park was created after repeated tidal incursions made conventional farming uneconomic. Land and water management skills were transferred from Broads which has also suffered tidal flooding. As with earlier Dutch schemes for nature restoration, beavers, otters, konik horses, cranes, ospreys and other spectacular animals have been introduced (or arrived) and now attract many visitors.

2042: the Salisbury Plain National Park was given to the nation by the former Ministry of Defence. This came about after the government gave support to the global plan to cut military budgets by 50% to release funds to combat climate change and reverse the loss of biodiversity. This is now the largest dry grassland area in Western Europe, and a centre for breeding great bustards, stone curlews and other birds of the steppe.

In Scotland, Parks are no longer controversial. A watershed was crossed in 2009 when the people of the island of Harris asked for Park status: they saw the community and economic benefits that would follow. A network of mountain, marine and coastal parks has been created in response to public demand.

64

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Possible wildlife reintroductions – a key future role for National Parks?

The National Parks in each of the three federal countries have a distinct brand, with strong public identity and support. Scotland and Wales have adopted their own particular models of a National Park Service offering unified careers for their staff.

The Parks are only one part of the larger family of protected landscapes in Britain, including also AONBs and National Scenic Areas. At first these family members had little to say to each other and co-ordination between the devolved administrations was frustratingly slow. But things became easier with the re-unification of Ireland in 2038 and the establishment a year later of the federal settlement between England, Wales and Scotland. Paradoxically, closer co-operation among the protected landscapes of Britain came within a looser political framework.

Conclusion The National Parks enjoy more public affection and political support than could have been imagined 30 or 40 years ago. Optimism about the Parks’ future is due to the leadership of the park authorities, the local communities and their NGO allies. Faced with the challenge of climate change, they came together, abandoned their traditionally cautious approach, and chose to embrace the new opportunities that were on offer.

As I conclude this summary, I notice that I have been polishing my crystal ball clockwise – which is the way to get a positive view of the future. I’d rather not know what would happen if I were to polish it anticlockwise!

Adrian Phillips has worked in conservation here and abroad for more years than he cares to remember, but he is proud to be a Vice President of BANC. adrian.phillips@gmx.com

65

ECOS 31(1) 2010

The conservation sector in the recession - double-dip or quits?

A year on from my previous article [ECOS 30 (1) 60-68], have pessimistic predictions about reduced income streams been realised? Will the longest recession since the 1930s depression, rather than bottoming-out, turn out to be W-shaped with GDP shrinking again over the next 12 months, the dreaded double-dip?

JONATHAN SOMPER The UK Giving Report 2004-05 highlighted that almost one fifth of the money charities received for the year is donated in December, so what impact did the postal strikes pre-Christmas 2009 have on your charity? Did it exacerbate an already dire situation? The Institute of Fundraising reported that a wide variety of operations were affected including: “membership subscriptions, general donations, regular trust and corporate donations, fundraising events and the trading of Christmas cards and Christmas catalogues”.1 Received wisdom is that: “most things that are done in a recession would make sense outside a recession”. In particular, cutting fixed costs, reviewing variable costs such as print, travel and training; and prioritising expenditure that gives quick results. The aim should be to “create a portfolio of fundraising activity that balances risk and return”.2 Indeed, a spokesperson for one conservation charity commented that: “the recession has been a good thing because we have had to think about all our costs and have found savings…researched best practice…with the economy in a depressed state there is more competition for our business, so a stronger organisation has emerged from the recession with costeffectiveness improved.”

So how bad was the fall-out from the recession?

Respondents to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations’ (NCVO’s) State of the [Third] sector survey reported falling income, job losses and cuts to services, larger organisations were particularly affected. Two thirds of respondents commented that their charity’s income had fallen,3 whilst, the Charity Commission’s Third Economic Survey of charities 4 indicated that just over half the charities had been affected by the economic downturn: • More than two thirds had seen a decline in their investment income, indeed one conservation charity with normally 85% of its income invested, anticipating the stock market fall had changed stock into cash with a view to investing elsewhere, this meant a reduction in £80,000 annual income. Furthermore low interest rates have meant that it is taking longer to recover from this impact than envisaged; 66

ECOS 31(1) 2010 • just under one third had seen a decrease in grant income, compared with nearly one in five charities had seen an increase in grant income; • and around one quarter had seen a decrease in fundraising income, double the number that had seen an increase in fundraising income.

• Almost one in every six charities registered an increase in demand for their services, perhaps filling the void left by withdrawn public sector services.

Accountants Baker Tilly reported in January, that one in ten respondents were reducing staff salaries and nearly one third were deferring existing or planned projects. Over one quarter of voluntary sector CEOs salaries were frozen between 2008/2009 according to ACEVO’s Annual Pay Survey, while in contrast FTSEs top 100 CEO’s salaries increased by 10% over the same period. It is worth noting that many CEOs do not take their holiday entitlement and more than two thirds of charity CEOs worked an average of 19 hours overtime a week including 10 hours over the weekend.5 One third either have or are going to increase fundraising activity according to Baker Tilly, but almost half of respondents were not expecting the economic situation to improve until the fourth quarter of 2010.

Is the membership bubble about to burst?

Membership is an important source of funding for smaller organisations. The good news is that the NCVO survey found subscriptions for two thirds of the charities with a membership stayed the same, with 18% actually seeing an increase and 12% a decrease (the only income category where more had seen an increase than a decrease), so membership has proved more resilient in the short term than other income sources.

Despite holding its own or better during the recession there is still concern among some organisations that membership has reached a peak. Membership is the main unrestricted income for organisations like the 48 Wildlife Trusts. If membership has plateaued, they lack capacity for growth, even if they can identify other restricted income such as grants; they will struggle to find unrestricted income to match fund and so unlock project funding. Anecdotal evidence suggests that while it is still possible to get funding for people who do biodiversity management, back office funding is a perennial problem. As projects have been converted into central operations, organisations are now struggling to pay the bills to keep them running.

Even if they can resource the project initially, they may not be able to convert it to core costs, so projects in the future will tend to be more modest and short term.

Organisations must develop new unrestricted income streams or have to start making tough decisions about staffing. Corporate donations are another source of unrestricted income, but charities report that these contributions have already been affected with companies either giving ‘in kind’, or committing for just one year rather than three and effectively giving less.

Are trustees’ expectations realistic?

The success of some conservation organisations over the last decade in converting projects into everyday operations could be a double edged sword as trustees who 67

ECOS 31(1) 2010 have joined organisations after the subsistence levels pre HLF and Landfill Tax Credit funding, have no experience of these early years of struggling to survive and consequently, expect year on year growth, and indeed count it as a measure of success. However, many of the organisations prior to these funding streams had turnovers of between one quarter and half one million pounds as opposed to over £1m today. With austerity likely to take precedence over the next five years, trustees may need to learn a new skills set and review measures of success.

Income – the biggest challenge According to respondents to the biennial State of the Sector survey conducted by Third Sector, comprising 700 charity professionals (January 2010), not surprisingly “Income remains charities' principal worry”. More than half of those charities with annual turnovers of less than £1m indicated that access to funding or maintaining donations was their main priority for the future. Respondents identified sustainable funding as the sector's biggest challenge.6

Have you taken action to mitigate the recession?

Just over half of the charities had taken some steps to mitigate the effects of the recession: • one in five had attempted to reduce running costs such as stationery, printing, mobile phones and energy costs; • but only 8% had increased their fundraising activity; • one in ten charities had drawn on their reserves and this included around one quarter of the largest charities (an income of £1m or more), and 20% of the large charities (£100,000-999,999 turnover). Conservation organisation executives may feel what is the point of financial reserves if they can’t be used to cover running costs, however, trustees need to weigh up whether they can keep converting financial reserves to cover running costs or are embedding debt into the forward cash flow, that they are not confident the trust can make.

• Almost one in every ten charities had considered merging or collaborating with other charities, the trend is more prevalent in the larger charities.

• Some 17% of the largest charities and 23% of the large charities had delayed or cut back on projects.

Nevertheless, seven out of ten charities were reported to be optimistic about the short term future and 11% were putting more effort into recruiting volunteers.

Have you felt the government funding squeeze?

A survey of charity finance directors and chief executives by the accountants Baker Tilly during September/October 2009, reported that more than one third of the 100+ respondents had already experienced a decrease in government funding; whilst around two thirds of respondents expect a further reduction during 2010.7 68

ECOS 31(1) 2010 A survey of public spending in the UK, by the Economic and Social Research Council (September 2009) commented: “While spending in most areas has grown steadily over recent years, the latest projections (from Budget 2009) suggest that public spending will be squeezed tightly over the next few years, and tough choices will have to be made between spending priorities”.8 However, on average environment-oriented voluntary sector organisations receive just 19% of their income from statutory sources (central and local government, devolved administrations, and National Lottery distributors etc.) and 81% from other sources, so they may be robust enough to survive; in comparison the culture and recreation sector receives 30% from statutory sources. Environment income from other sources was: 58% from individuals; 9% from voluntary sector; 3% from the private sector; and 12% generated internally.9,10 A third of the largest charities were concerned about the public sector contracts that had provided stability over several years coming to an end over the next 18 months and whether there would be anything to replace them given the tightening of the public sector belt. Nevertheless, in recent years the significant grants from large charitable trusts such as Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, the Tubney and Pew Charitable Trusts, has helped some conservation organisations to be recessionproofed, without the restrictive bureaucracy of statutory funding applications.

Charity donations feel the pinch The Annual UK Giving Survey conducted by the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) found that individual donations fell by 11% year on year to February 2009 to just under £10bn (£9.9bn). In comparison, donations in the United States fell at just over half this rate, by 6.3% in 2008-09. Giving in the United States actually constitutes twice as a large a proportion of GDP as it does in the UK, 2.2% and 1% respectively. Despite the recession in the UK annual retail sales in the UK only fell by around 1% 2008-09 according to the Office for National Statistics.11 The fall in UK giving was compounded by the fact that only 40% of the UK donations were Gift-Aided, showing that there is still a need to educate people to make the most of tax-effective giving and perhaps also a need for a simpler process.12 The trend appears to have continued through 2009, as a survey of 2,000 UK residents by Investec Private Bank carried out in December 2009 found that around £5.32bn was donated (presumably different donation criteria to the Annual Giving Survey), down around 10% on the previous year i.e. registering a drop of around £500m. Nevertheless 7 out of every 10 respondents still gave money to charity during 2009 (an average of around £110) with London residents giving the most (an average of £175).13

Just who are your high-level donors?

The UK Giving Report 2004-05 highlighted that high-level donors (those who give £100 or more in an average month), had different giving preferences to the majority of other donors. Importantly, they were twice as likely to give to an environment cause as donors overall.14 Some 4% of high-level donors supported 69

ECOS 31(1) 2010 the environment cause (conservation, the environment and heritage) whereas only 2% of donors overall supported this cause. 50% of higher level donors were male (a much higher proportion than donors overall), 71% of donors were in managerial or professional occupations (and were slightly older) compared with just 37% for all donors; and a higher proportion lived in London than donors overall. However, the impending public sector redundancies will typically affect the white, middle class supporters of conservation organisations and their environmental memberships and donations may be jeopardised.

Move over - new kids on the block!

However, there is a new breed of major donor in the wings that will need to be wooed to offset the decline in giving by historical supporters. These high value donors represent ‘new money’ rather than inherited money and they want to make a contribution to society. They are living in the present and are not bound by tradition and crucially not committed to maintaining a costly family estate. These new donors want to be part of shaping the solution and conservation organisations must take heed of this when planning their engagement strategy for example, the Wildlife Trusts have developed Patron Schemes for flagship nature reserves, where the Patron groups pledge a substantial contribution to the Trust, such as £500£2,500. The Patrons are not necessarily members, but they enjoy specific benefits like an exclusive guided walk around the reserve with an expert.

Investment income on the slide Charities typically hold 15% of their assets in cash and most deposit accounts targeting charities only offer low returns.15 In last year’s article [ECOS Spring 2009 Issue 30 (1)] we reported that that UK charities’ investment income had declined by between 10-20% over the previous year. Baker Tilly reported in January this year that more than 9 out of every 10 charities had seen a fall in investment income and just over one half were expecting an additional decline through 2010.

Door-to-Door fundraising ‘Door-to-door (D2D) fundraising’, a staple of the last decade, is increasing significantly, with 305,000 new donors were being recruited by this method in the year to April 2007. This had risen to 360,00 in the year to April 2009 (Public Fundraising Regulatory Association) and around 90% of donors opted for Gift Aid, with £9.40 being the median average monthly gift from door-to-door fundraising method in the year to April 2009.16 This is encouraging at a time when Face-to-Face (F2F) fundraising and membership recruitment is thought by conservation organisations and some industry experts to have reached saturation point and has clearly been less effective during the recent recession.

The self-preservation instinct – does charity begin at home?

If the economic downturn continues, will people be more likely to cut back on their charitable donations in favour of self-preservation? It seems so: 1,000 adults were surveyed by nfpSynergy (a research consultancy specialising in not for profit organisations - Charity Awareness Monitor) in the UK in November 2008, and again in May 2009 and September 2009, and asked where they would cut their 70

ECOS 31(1) 2010 household spending over the following year as a result of the recession. Over this period the proportion of people expecting to give less to charity increased from 34% in November 2008 to 42% in September 2009. Respondents from poorer backgrounds and men (47%) were more likely to reduce their charity donations. 17 What if anything, can be done about this?

Is donor lapsing preventable?

Nathan & Hallam’s (2009) investigative research into why donors lapse found that mutual respect was vital to sustaining a relationship. They recommended: • Re-recruiting D2D, F2F and telephone donors by welcoming them again; • Managing donor expectations through donor-centric communications; • Delivering what was promised; • Offering them communication choices e.g. email.

Conservation organisations need to keep thinking of new and different ways to meet their donors’ needs and ‘show them’ how they are making a difference.18 The moral is get to know your donor and their preferences. Environmental causes typically have the lowest attrition levels vis à vis social welfare, health and disability causes, and by adopting these practices they could be reduced further. One conservation organisation’s membership has been growing through the recession despite recruitment targets being missed, simply because their retention efforts designed to reduce lapsing have paid off (see my previous article for additional ‘retention’ tips).

Are legacies the Golden Snitch or a drain on future resources?

An online will-writing firm TotallyFreeWills found that just over one quarter of the 1,000 under 35s surveyed in 2009 intend to leave legacies when they die and similar number said that they might leave money to charities, predominantly motivated by personal experience and charities that they already supported.19 Legacies whilst not predictable are a welcome boon and can transform an organisation’s thinking. However, legacies have traditionally been earmarked for capital items and acquisitions by conservation organisations, but these usually also have running costs in the long term. So although trustees look at legacies as already designated for purchases, they could be storing up problems for later by not addressing running costs as well and may have to review their preconceptions.

Future trends in funding and support Income – the biggest challenge – According to respondents to the biennial State of the Sector survey conducted by Third Sector, comprising 700 charity professionals (January 2010), not surprisingly “Income remains charities' principal worry”. More than half of those charities with annual turnovers of less than £1m indicated that access to funding or maintaining donations was their main priority 71

ECOS 31(1) 2010

NEIL BENNETT

for the future. Respondents identified sustainable funding as the sector's biggest challenge.20 Baby Boomers’ needs – What do people who will be donating over the next 10 years want from charities?

Focus groups run by Whitewater, a fundraising agency, with participants from the baby boomer generation born between 1946 and 1964, currently aged between 45 and 65 years old, indicated that they were sceptical that the £3 a month ask would change the world, but instead valued trust and accountability, they wanted to know that the charity had spent their money wisely. Better communication and reporting is implied to dispel misconceptions and to flag positive results.21 Market segmentation gurus are advising marketers to move from traditional segmentation demographics to more psychological customer profiling.22

The rise and rise of digital media – Digital media will change the face of fundraising over the next decade. Generation C – people born between 1978 and 1994 (sometimes called Generation Y) – keep more in touch with their peers than previous generations using digital media. John Baguley, Director of International Fundraising Consultancy concluded “Unlike Generation X – people born between 1965 and 1977 (reactive young adults sometimes called “Baby Busters”) – they do not use new media as a tool to an end. For them it is where they live”. Social networking websites such as Facebook at the end of last year had around 11.8 million daily visitors in the UK up 54% on the previous year. Charities need to look at fundraising techniques that will reach this new generation of adults that collaborate and share content over new media platforms like mobile phones.23 People switch between laptop and phone to use social media during the day and the next fundraising tool might be a mobile phone application.24

The next donor generation Looking at the next generation of givers, nfpSynergy’s Youth Engagement Monitor 25 found that 5 out of 6 (83%) of all 11-25 year olds use at least one social networking site and that 80% of 17-25 year olds - those of college/university age use Facebook.26 Whilst, four fifths (79%) of those claiming regular charitable involvement use Facebook. The launch of Google Buzz in February 2010 will only reinforce this trend.

72

ECOS 31(1) 2010 UK Usage of Social Networking Websites Average UK visitors Average minutes per Annual change in average per day (m) user per month UK monthly visitors Facebook 11.86 356.1 +54% Bebo* (teens) 1.03 113.0 -37% MySpace* (music) 0.40 16.6 -33% Twitter 0.38 23.4 +1,783% Linkedin 0.30 14.8 +269% Source: comScore, December/October 2009 data based on UK panel of 60,000 Adapted from the Evening Standard 25/1/2010 *Niche audiences

To be or not to be - no Web 2.0 Bryan Miller (Cancer Research UK charity), in an article (November 2009) Is Community fundraising 2.0 the future of fundraising in a networked society?, suggested that we need to revisit traditional community fundraising approaches and adapt them to the online world. The rise of Web 2.0 services designed to enable easy sharing and collaboration between individual users is increasing online advocacy and conservation groups should look to develop ‘user generated content’ on their website. People are opting out of direct mail, telemarketing and other intrusive techniques such as ‘chuggers’;27 ‘the future of fundraising is to stop interrupting what people are interested in and to be what people are interested in’ (JWT Advertising Agency, 2005). To do this, charities need to develop new online fundraising products that supporters will want to take to their friends and wider networks themselves.28 A new and potentially winning take on ‘supporter get supporter’ activity such as Dinner4Good (www.dinner4good.com) enables them to promote the organisation to their network of friends and family. Tracking forwarded ‘e-zines’ (e-mail newsletters/magazines and updates) may also lead to new supporters.

To this end nfpSynergy in partnership with Missionfish and The Institute of Fundraising identified five new trends in on-line fundraising in 2008: • Charities are using blogs to tell their heart felt stories online; • Charities are engaging first, and fundraising second, via blogs, emails, forums, interactive games and a whole range of web 2.0 functions.

• Social networking is forcing charities to make ‘friends’, who advocate and network on their behalf.

• New media is a multi-purpose tool and must be integrated to be successful.

• Multiple income generating partners are key, for example, through search engines, auction sites and affinity deals.29

Is Bmycharity a trend setter?

When Bmycharity, the online fundraising site, switched to a commission free basis, charitable donations doubled from £274,000 in November 2008 to £546,000 in 73

ECOS 31(1) 2010 November 2009, this was despite the charity giving market shrinking by 11% in 2009. (November is typically a relatively slow fundraising month.) It seems that people raising money for good causes were keen not to waste money by fundraising through sites that charge up to 5% commission on charity donations in the tight economic climate. If this continues, might other similar sites be forced to follow suit? 30

It is not all doom and gloom!

So what has been working well in the world recession? Major donors and innovation are success drivers. A 2009 Management Centre survey31 found Greater pro-activity was needed and common factors that have enhanced revenue included: • investing more in fundraising and putting more effort to counter predicted income decline; • discovering new income sources; • major benefactors boosting income; • fundraising innovation creating new offerings.

The Director of the Management Centre, Bernard Ross, surmised: “The message is stay close to the donors in as many different ways as possible”.

In summary, the recession has had a significant impact on conservation organisation’s income and will continue to have an effect over the next few years.

As existing grants and public sector contracts come to an end, organisations that have been protected from the worst of the recession by these income sources will feel the pinch. For conservation organisations looking to become more secure and also cost-effective post recession, the way forward is: to review your costs, to look after your membership, to develop unrestricted income flow, for example, through major donor programmes, and to immerse the organisation in the virtual world that is social networking. For example, by building up ‘followers’ through ‘Twitter’, and providing both information and tools, that enable existing supporters to use social media to extol the organisation’s virtues to their peer networks. In this way your organisation should become more flexible and better able to cope with the challenges of the next decade as they unfold.

74

ECOS 31(1) 2010

References and notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20 21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Charities ‘will lose millions if the post strikes continue to Christmas’, Kaye Wiggins, third Sector, 3 November 2009.

Feast or Famine: the choice is yours (or how can charities survive the recession) Joe Saxton, nfpSynergy, June 2009 State of the Sector survey: how has the recession affected your charity? Third Sector, 11 January 2010.

1,001 telephone interviews were carried out with a random sample of charities in England and Wales, the sample was split between four income bands and weighted to reflect the number of charities in each income band on the register. The bands were small (income up to £9,999), medium (£10,000-£99,999), large (£100,000-999,999), largest with an income of £1million or more. www.acevo.org.uk/index.cfm/display_page/publications/control_contenttype/publication_list/display_open/publications/1726 State of the Sector survey: what will matter in the future?By Tristan Donovan, Third Sector, 15 January 2010 Baker Tilly is the leading audit firm in the charity sector and acts for more top 3,000 charities than any other firm source: CaritasData 2009. www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn43.pdf The State and the Voluntary Sector Recent trends in government fundingand public service delivery (2009, National Council for Voluntary Organisations, London) Jenny Clark, Joy Dobbs, David Kane, Karl Wilding Income from statutory sources by sub-sector, 2006/07 (% of each subsector’s income) Fig. 8: NCVO, GuideStar Data Services p21.

The State and the Voluntary Sector Recent trends in government fundingand public service delivery (2009, National Council for Voluntary Organisations, London) Jenny Clark, Joy Dobbs, David Kane, Karl Wilding Income from statutory sources by sub-sector, 2006/07 (% of each subsector’s income) Figure 22 Voluntary sector income sources by sub-sector, 2006/07 (% of income) p37 Cathy Pharoah: Give poor Felicity donor a break, Third Sector, 10 November 2009.

Charity donations ‘have tumbled by 11%’, Kate Wiggins, Third Sector, 23 September 2009.

Charity donations fell by nearly 10 per cent last year, survey suggests, Kaye Wiggins, Third Sector Online, 14 January 2010.

Results of the 2004/05 survey of individual charitable giving in the UK, CAF, NCVO Survey reveals fall in charity donation, 15/1/2010, Howard Lent, http://www.charitytimes.com/ct/inestec.php Fundraising: From street to doorstep, Third Sector, 6 July 2009 Rise in proportion of people who plan to cut their giving, Kaye Wiggins, Third sector Online, 22 January 2010.)(More cut backs on donations is likely says data, Andrew Holt, 25/01/2010, www.charitytimes.com/ct/nfpsyn.php A qualitative investigation into the donor lapsing experience, Amber Nathan and Lslie Hallam International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 14(4) 317-31, 2009. [Special issue on contemporary issues in fundraising.]

Under-35s ‘keen to give legacies’, Hannah Jordan, Third Sector, 30th June 2009.

State of the Sector survey: what will matter in the future? By Tristan Donovan, Third Sector, 15 January 2010.

Baby boomers hate emotional campaigns, Institute of Fundraising Scotland conference hears, Kaye Wiggins, Third Sector Online, 13 November 2009 .

Cathy Pharoah: Give poor Felicity donor a break, Third Sector, 10 November 2009 Charity fundraisers ‘must prepare for Generation C’, Tristan Donovan, Third Sector Online, 9 July 2009.

Brands get social with Facebook generation, Gideon Spanier, Evening Standard Monday 25th January 2010, p37, Business Which tracks a representative sample of over 1000 11-25 year olds throughout mainland Britain twice-yearly. http://nfpsynergy.net/mdia_coverage/our_press_releases/online_social_networking_vastly_prevalent_amongst_ young_people_especially_those_claiming_regular_charitable_involvement.aspx Paid street fundraisers are sometimes known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chugging" \o "Chugging" chuggers because occasionally fundraising is viewed as aggressive or invasive (a portmanteau of "charity" and "mugger"). It became popular as a way of referring to street fundraisers after several articles appeared in British newspapers which touched upon the negative image of the people doing the job.

75

ECOS 31(1) 2010 28. Is Community fundraising 2.0 the future of fundraising in a networked society? Bryan Miller, Cancer Research UK charity queried in November 2009 article in International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Wiley-Blackwell, Vol 14, No4 p365-370 29. http://nfpsynergy.net/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/p/passion_persistence_and_partnership.pdf 30. Donations through online fundraising site Bmycharity site double since becoming commission free, 09/12/2009, Andrew Holt, www.charitytimes.com/ct/bemy.php 31. The qualitative online survey was carried out between May and August 2009 and explores the views of 126 fundraising directors and sector experts across the globe on the impact of the economic downturn on the third sector. The Management Centre’s Global Fundraising Confidence Survey 2009

Jonathan Somper is an independent consultant with over 25 years experience who provides practical marketing support, tailor-made research and membership know-how to charities, companies and organisations committed to the environment and a more sustainable future. jonathansomper@talktalk.net

Signal crayfish, caught under an Environment Agency licence, form a non-native dish at a Wild Food dinner prepared by Duncan Mackay, author of EAT WILD, Two Rivers Press, 2010. An article reviewing initiatives on ‘eat to beat’ invasive species is being prepared for a future ECOS. Photo: Duncan Mackay

76

ECOS 31(1) 2010

Book Reviews

THE NATURALIZED ANIMALS OF BRITAIN AND IRELAND Christopher Lever New Holland, London, 2009, 424 pages Hbk. £35 ISBN 978-1-84773-454-9 This is a timely and much needed update of a classic book first published in the 1970s. Lever presents a thoroughly readable and authoritative account which details how many alien vertebrate animals (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish) were introduced to great Britain, became naturalised and are now living wild. He discusses species released deliberately as well as those which escaped accidentally. Based on many years of painstaking research the book describes the individual histories and also their impacts on the environments into which they have become embedded – fascinating stuff.

The story, or perhaps stories, of animals introduced to Britain covers many centuries but the most abundant examples are from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as landowners and others sought to diversify the native fauna. British winters proved a challenge to many species and a lot did not survive. The Peak District wallabies for example were lost because of a combination of recreational disturbance and then the series of cold 1980s winters. However, many species did establish, and quite a few, such as little owl and American mink, thrived in their new-found homes. Some of the newcomers were eventually deemed beneficial; so after warnings of dire consequences for game birds, little owls are now considered by farmers to eat insect pests and so are welcome additions to our ecology. Others like the mink have devastated populations of native water voles and other mammals and birds.

There is a whole diversity of animals introduced at different times and for a variety of reasons or motivations. From common carp to red-necked wallaby and from ring-necked parakeet to African clawed toads, British ecology has acquired and absorbed them all. At the same time as British fauna has gained exotics it has also lost many natives, mostly through habitat loss and persecution. Some species were lost very early, but their demise has affected ‘native’ ecology ever since.

They include all our larger carnivores, plus beaver, wild boar, and birds such as white-tailed eagle. The red kite was largely extinct in most of its British range but a reintroduction programme has brought it back from the brink.

Lever has extended the 1970s account to include the reintroductions, and of 77

ECOS 31(1) 2010 course these, like the naturalisations, are potentially controversial. It has been advocated that keystone carnivores such as lynx and wolf should be brought back, but many of the public and often landowners are filled with trepidation. Even the humble beaver raises the levels of concerns amongst some riparian interests.

For every taxonomic group Lever provides a rich source of research, of literature and of history to illuminate the story. The book takes the fauna, species by species, and gives detailed accounts with useful summaries of information on, for example, distributions, and of key literature. The national distribution maps are also clearly presented and very helpful. The book gives accounts of the mechanisms and needs for potential control of some species, for example Canada goose, and of course the ruddy duck. There is a very helpful and comprehensive reference list too. In the first edition Lever was just about the first person to bring to a wider audience the impacts of the acclimatization societies, and for that alone deserved to be read. He has written a real treasure trove that you will find yourself returning to, especially in order to dip into the little gems of the species accounts. What we need now is the same for British exotic flora - now there’s a challenge.

Ian Rotherham

78

NATURE’S POWERS & SPELLS Landscape change, John Clare and me Carry Akroyd Langford Press, 2009, 167 pages Hbk. £38 ISBN 978-1-904078-35-7 If you’ve not yet discovered the Langford Press wildlife art books I urge you to track them down. These large format hardbacks ooze quality and are a real inspiration, showcasing the talent of contemporary wildlife artists.

If you are not bowled over by this latest in the series by Carry Akroyd, there is little hope for you!

I expected my review of this book to be a doddle – a quick appreciation of Carry Akroyd’s vibrant artwork and sympathetic nods to her accompanying text. How wrong and delightfully surprised I was - the text is compelling, and represents some of the finest discussion of intimate landscape change produced for a long time. The quality comes from her crisp writing and her deep knowledge of the subject – her understanding of ecology, and her feeling for the land, rooted in middle England’s Northamptonshire landscape. Here, as elsewhere,

ECOS 31(1) 2010 intensive agriculture and the intrusion of roads, traffic and infrastructure have taken their toll, erasing features of the landscape and beating back ordinary and special wildlife.

Her stylized work (mainly screenprints or serigraphs, but also linocuts, monoprints and watercolours) uses vivid tones. It often elevates the observer across sweeping views of the land. She uses bold foregrounds and she cheats with the perspective to conjure up expanded angles and compositions – these invite repeat views through different projections. All her elements of nature, from veteran trees, to bolting hares, restless meadows, or shaggy wetlands, depict the essence of wild nature.

The focus of the book, and of much of Carry Akroyd’s work, is her parallel view to John Clare, the prolific nineteenth century poet ‘Northamptonshire’s Peasant poet’. He too observed transformations in the landscape, at the small and the grand scale. He noted its consequences, on the character of particular places and on the effects on people’s lives, which he felt deeply from amongst the landless classes, especially at the time of the enclosures.

Selections of Clare’s verse are absorbed into some of Carry Akroyd’s artwork.

Mostly this reinforces the sense of grieving for lost wildlife and meaningful places now gone, but much is also uplifting, given the dignity and richness of Clare’s prose. The modern-day artist uses Clare as a reference point to compare different changes, subtle and dramatic, across the same locations. In reflecting on the further ebb and flow of the landscape

today, and the environmental erosion taking place, John Clare might be equally angry. But he would be proud of Carry Akroyd for making sure it is documented and discussed, and the parts that are saved and recovered are displayed in their full glory.

Geoffrey Wain

A BRUSH WITH NATURE 25 years of personal reflections on the natural world Richard Mabey BBC Books, 2010, 256 pages Pbk. £12.99 ISBN 1846079139 Richard Mabey’s inspirational nature writing has been both spiking and soothing the pages of BBC Wildlife magazine for 25 years. The consistency and quality of the product that Richard has delivered over this period has been astounding. If you ever wanted to hear a competent observation on the real state of nature in the UK or sometimes on a global stage, then all you needed to do was see what Mabey was 79

ECOS 31(1) 2010 banging on about that month. Not that there was the tympanic sound of Stalinist hammers forging a revolution out of the travails of steel-head trout, but more often the skilful dissection of an important issue affecting the soul of nature with the grip and stab of the red-backed shrike. Woe betide the bumbling bureaucrat who confused belief in Government rhetoric with what mattered in the real world, where people are passionate about common, ordinary but just plain beautiful Nature.

Richard Mabey has always been a mildmannered gentleman who carried a cane with a pointy end. His poetic essays on the spirit of nature carried people away on a gossamer cloud of the tufty bits of Old Man’s Beard in the autumn winds. His words and mental stimulation blended the honeyed-taste sensations on the palate of a bottle of vintage perry with the sharp wit of a barely ripe crab apple. Never dull and always surprising, Richard has provided a social chronicle of how the once exclusive preserve of rural vicars and amateur naturalists has become an airport-thwarting campaigning industry with its attendant highs, lows, in-fighting and duplicity. In an era of political sleaze and self-serving, unregulated bankers that has combined disastrously to impact on the whole of society, will Her Majesty take note that there are still a few knights fighting to keep safe her most majestic realm in all its quirky, natural magnificence.

Duncan Mackay

80

CELEBRITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Fame, Wealth and Power in Conservation Dan Brockington Zed Books, 2009, 193 pages Pbk, £12.99 ISBN 978-1-84277-974-3 If you would normally be put off by any publication with the word ‘celebrity’ in the title, then this book is for you. To me it is a slightly derogatory term for people whose wish to be famous seems to be in inverse proportion to their talent. In its more widespread use, I would concede that celebrities could include actors who are good at their craft, but this doesn’t justify television makers sending scores of them on their first forays into Africa, so we can learn about their aversion to creepy crawlies. If I can’t go myself, I would rather just watch wildlife footage or at least listen to experts with a real affinity to wildlife. Dan Brockington discusses conservationists, such as Ian Redmond, who have become well known through their work and campaigns. He also includes David Attenborough whose vast knowledge about the natural world and self effacing manner, seem the very antipathies of celebrity culture.

Personally I would question the broad church manner in which Brockington tries to incorporate everyone well known under the celebrity term.

However he partly justifies this by explaining how the general public will pay a lot of money to hear such experts speak and value their opinions.

Brockington examines how celebrities want to be associated with conservation causes, partly because it makes them look good, but also from a desire to do good. Overseas conservation and development projects are naively viewed as simpler and have the advantage that the local communities are less likely to

ECOS 31(1) 2010 object. In reality the subtleties of local politics and economics in developing countries are at least as complicated as in the West. Problems cannot be entirely solved by money, nor can we save the world by simply clicking on a website that urges us to buy a toy panda or sign an environmental petition.

There is an interesting chapter on wildlife film and wildlife presenters, turning some cameramen into presenters and the prevalence of ‘the making of’ TV programmes. The author compares the Steve Irwin (the late swashbuckling Aussie who literally tackled predators) versus David Attenborough style of presenting. He also goes into why conservation programmes are the poor relations of natural history series. Two years ago the BBC’s Natural History Unit’s budget was slashed by a third and Brockington does a great job of explaining the demise of blue chip series. Watching celebrities in the wild is not the same as interacting with nature first hand. He holds Springwatch up as a rare example which celebrates ordinary wildlife and the public’s participation in surveys, gardening, festivals and message boards – a series which shows that people and wildlife are more important than the presenters.

Brockington comments on dynasties of conservation fame such as the Leakeys.

He also remarks on the prevalence of white conservationists to be well known in Africa, with black scientists being in the background. While white settlers remained in southern and eastern Africa this is not so all over the continent. In India, local conservationists dominate.

He looks at mythical characters such as Mowgli and Tarzan and their dominium over the beasts and ‘natives’.

The book considers the tendency of the super rich to give extremely large donations and the creation of extra large conservation organisations to deal with these legacies. He also discusses how many conservation organisations have got into bed with big business and are no longer the voice of their ordinary members.

Brockington suggests the likes of Bob Geldof may be best placed to argue on our behalf, with large NGOs and governments over their environmental and development policies.

The dense print could have done with being relieved by photos. Comprehensive notes, and Brockington’s tendency to tell the reader what he is about to say, say it and then sum up, is maybe too close in style to an academic article, rather than a book for a wider readership. But these are minor quibbles, and I would recommend this well researched book to anyone with an interest in wildlife, conservation and development. Whether we like it or not, celebrity is a fact of the 21st century, and this book goes a long way to improving our understanding of its impact on conservation.

Jocelyn Murgatroyd

MAHATMA GANDHI AND THE ENVIRONMENT Analysing Gandhian Environmental Thought T N Khoshoo and John S Moolakkattu New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), 2009, 155 pages Hbk. Rs250/$44, ISBN 978 81 7993 223, www.teriin.org Few books on Gandhi and the environmental implications of his thought have so far appeared.

81

ECOS 31(1) 2010 Although Gandhi did not say a great deal specifically about the environment, his general outlook is very relevant to caring for our planet.

This book is based on one by the late T N Khoshoo and is written by John S Moolakkatu who holds the Chair of Peace Studies at the University of Kwazulu Natal and is also editor of the leading Gandhian journal Gandhi Marg.

Gandhi absorbed from his Indian background the idea of the unity of all things in the universe, and this can lead naturally to a respect for all human beings, for animals and plants, and even for the inanimate. This is significantly different from the idea of exploiting nature for human benefit, which has been for some centuries the approach in the West. Gandhi’s orientation is cosmocentric rather than anthropocentric.

Gandhi’s life was his message, and his “personal lifestyle was the most sustainable one – simple, austere, clean, need-based, adequate worldly possessions, and reasonably comfortable”. In a world where the dominant, Western, economic system is rapidly embracing all countries, Gandhi’s approach is truly a revolutionary one. It is also, however, common sense.

Gandhi saw in his own time the simple impossibility of unrestrained economic growth. Asked if he would like to see the same standard of living for Indians as for the English, he replied: “It took Britain half the resources of the planet to achieve this prosperity. How many planets will a country like India require!”

Some of Gandhi’s specific practices would make a big difference if adopted; e.g. significantly reducing the quantity of imported goods and 82

using as much local produce as possible, and adopting a vegetarian diet – or veganism, which for some reason the author calls ‘puritanical vegetarianism’. One’s wealth and possessions should be in trusteeship, meaning that they should be used for the wider good, not oneself alone; this would mean greatly reducing luxury items and thus reducing wasteful production. New technology will be of some help in reducing environmental impact in the hazardous decades ahead, but changes in lifestyle will be more important, putting Gandhian ideas centre-stage.

The dozen topics covered range from’ Nature’ and humankind’ and ‘Yogic practice and the environment’ to ‘Western industrialism’ and ‘the contemporary discourse on decentralization’. A very useful appendix contains some of Gandhi’s sayings relevant to the issue, but no references are given for them - nor is there an index.

Nevertheless it is an excellent presentation of a subject that is of the highest importance and demonstrates how Gandhi can challenge us all six decades after his death.

George Paxton

A WILDER VEIN Linda Cracknell (Ed) Two Ravens Press, 2009, 228 pages Pbk. £10.99 ISBN 078-1-906120 43-6 As I write this review I’m on one of my regular train commutes to the city. I speed through the countryside in this warm and ostensibly comfortable conveyance, isolated from the land by glass and metal. Yet as I type these few words on my laptop, I stare out the

ECOS 31(1) 2010 window wishing I was there among the woods and the hills; hunting among the patchwork of fields for pockets of wildness, watching birds, following animal tracks and disturbing the deer from their day beds.

But, alas, I’m on my way to work again and trying to write this review. The man opposite wants to talk - which in itself is nice - but he’s disturbing my line of thought. In the end he asks about the book I have open beside me and we end up chatting about what is “wild” and our relationship with nature and the landscape around us. I try to describe the book I have just read over the course of so many other journeys just like today. At first I struggle for words, but in time we end up talking about the concept of wilderness, its connection to place and the notion that people and our diverse cultural histories are as much a part of the landscape of the British Isles as the rocks, soil, animals and plants that are its physical and biological foundations.

Perhaps I should qualify this statement with a discussion of the divergent course of urbanisation, industry and intensive farming, and the urgent need for a wilder, softer touch on the land, but therein lies another story.

I often say to my students that there are two different, though linked, views of wilderness; that which looks on wilderness as the pure bio-physical reality of wild nature and pristine ecosystems, and that which sees wilderness as a human construct; a perception or feeling about wildness in the landscapes we inhabit. A Wilder Vein takes the second route. As an anthology of contemporary writings, the book is as diverse as the word itself, at least in style and prose, if not always

in content. The foreword by Rob Macfarlane makes this point beautifully in a quote from Helen Macdonald who says “It is wilds not wild. We need 40 different words for 40 different kinds of wildness”. Here, 18 writers, together with foreword and introduction from Macfarlane and Cracknell, approach the idea that wildness is still to be found in the countryside of Britain and Ireland… if your senses are suitably attuned.

Wildness is all around us, even in our inner cities; the lichen on a roof tile, the fox rummaging through your dustbin at night, the starlings roosting in old factories. Even the red kite is now regularly seen over the city where I work. We get a sense of wildness from our five main physical senses (sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch), but more often than not this is augmented and transformed into something other than the biophysical; by our deeper sense of place, of human history, belonging (or separation), an appreciation of that which is beautiful and, ultimately, the painful understanding of our own mortality and fleeting presence on the land. I am reminded here of the words of Syd Scroggie, poet and mountaineer, who on returning from the Second World War minus a leg and his sight, realised that on going back to the hills, that the wild – his wild - was more than just a visual or aural experience, it was a feeling far deeper rooted than any of our physical senses. “I can do without my sight” he says “but I cannot do without my mountains” and his poem Ante Mortum is a beautiful postscript for one man’s love for the land. Many of the writers in the book make this same point, that if only we open our inner eye and scrutinise the land with greater depth and feeling then we will 83

ECOS 31(1) 2010 get so much more in return. Sure, Britain’s multiple and varied landscapes are the product of thousands of years of human history; layer upon layer, lives upon lives, story and myth - shaping what we see today. Although I lurched from sheer delight and then bewilderment and back again within the varied styles of writing, I could easily understand the central message… all the authors have sensed this inner and largely unseen wild; the wildness we feel with heart and mind rather than the sometimes cold and critical eye of the ecologist.

The countryside continues to speed past my window. Or rather, I speed past it, a temporary visitor in this, my life, upon this land. A pylon, a farm house, then a hare breaking cover, the pleasing symmetry in the twin trunks of an ash tree, the rookery taking flight for a day in the fields… all signs of people and nature in the land. Not necessarily in harmony, and often at odds, but nature is still there giving hope for the landscapes of tomorrow.

I’ve got a lecture and a shed load of meetings today, but for the moment, clutching my review copy of A Wilder Vein, my eye scans the field and woods… looking for the inner wild.

Steve Carver

(07:53 First Transpennine service to Leeds, 23 February 2010)

WHAT IS LAND FOR? The Food, Fuel and Climate Change Debate Edited by Michael Winter and Matt Lobley Earthscan, 2009, 340 pages Hbk. £49.95 ISBN 978-1-84407-720-5 The Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (Relu) and the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) funded a 84

workshop to discuss the ideas that form the basis of many of the chapters of this book. The editors in their introduction write: “Our use of land is one of the principal drivers of global environmental change. Land and food are at the forefront of the domestic policy Agenda in the UK to an extent unprecedented since the 1950s”.

All 51 highly respected contributors are well-known to their peer groups, recognized in their fields of expertise for their research, presentation and extrapolation of infinite detail. The book is rich in references, figures, tables, illustrations and diagrams. By its nature, it can be read end to end, but I think its readers will access particular chapters and explore the book according to individual interest and curiosity. The book is aptly introduced and concluded by the editors: firstly, Knowing the Land; lastly, The Emerging Contours of the New Land Debate. The main content is divided into Part 1 (6 chapters), New Uses of Land: Technologies, Policies, Tools and Capacities; followed by Part 2 (6 chapters), Emerging Issues and New Perspectives.

The editors frame the book by stating that “We seek to establish and explore the contours of the new debate”… “…to inform decisions that society makes on how to pose the right questions, determine the right research priorities, collect the right data and conduct the right analysis.” The book is crisply up-todate, eclectic and edaphic, and of great reference value to readers keeping a keen eye on current developments. Many readers, yet unfamiliar with the content, but needing a firm grasp of the baseline issues of sustainable land use, will find the book enlightening.

Adrian Kòster

ECOS 31(1) 2010

CONSERVATION PSYCHOLOGY Understanding and promoting human care for nature Susan Clayton and Gene Myers Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, 264 pages Hbk. £75 Pbk. £32.50 ISBN 978-1-4051-7678-1

build on human potential.” However, this is not a book for those of us drawn to the boundaries and the margins where ecopsychology can take us.

Alison Parfitt

This textbook introduces the emerging field of conservation psychology, which explores connections between the study of human behaviour and the achievement of conservation goals. So it applies the concepts and techniques of psychological research to conservation, for instance drawing on the results of behaviour research to encourage sustainable behaviour and observing social interaction in order to understand the way in which environmental values are created and transmitted.

THE HOCKEY STICK ILLUSION

The book summarises theory and research on human cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses to nature. Then it reviews research on people's experience of nature in wild, managed, and urban settings (eg. at home, in zoos). Finally, it examines ways to encourage conservation-oriented behaviour at both individual and societal levels (eg. environmental education). This is a thorough overview and lots of published literature is referenced, mainly from the USA. The text does not include much analysis and discussion and it does not include any insight from other possibly related disciplines. It is therefore not a surprise to read, in the first chapter, that the relationship between psychology and eco-psychology is contested: “ecopsychology has been criticised for a lack of scientific objectivity, referencing concepts like spirituality and indigenous wisdom that are difficult to clearly define.” In the final chapter I was cheered by: “One of psychology’s key contributions to conservation can be to help emphasis and

AIR CON

Climategate and the Corruption of Science A.W. Montford Stacey International, 2010, 482 pages.

Pbk. £10.99 ISBN 9781906768355

THE REAL GLOBAL WARMING DISASTER Christopher Booker Continuum, 2009, 368 pages Hbk. £16.99 ISBN 9781441110527

Ian Wishart Howling at the Moon Publishing, 2009, 284 pages Pbk. £15.99 ISBN 9780958240147 It’s been a difficult six months for those who claim climate change is mainly influenced by human activity. In October 2009, a raft of emails emerged from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia which revealed a research unit and its worldwide contacts under fire by critics from the blogosphere.

The CRU team and its allies have appeared desperate to defend the credibility of their temperature records and the interpretation of the modelling based upon them.

Further, the UN Committee which advises governments on climate change, the IPCC, has shown to be relying upon un-refereed opinion in key areas of climate impact: Himalayan glaciers, African crop yields and Amazon rainforest. Given the huge investments hanging on policy decisions dependent upon this science, the 85

ECOS 31(1) 2010 climatic research establishment has come under severe scrutiny. These three books are the latest salvo from the climate ‘sceptics’ camp – how far do they really question the science?

All of the errors and behind-the-scenes ‘corruption’ in climate change science have been revealed not by the institutions of science or the normally ever-watchful environmental NGOs, but by critics far removed from the mythic image of well-funded or orchestrated opposition. The NGOs remain mostly silent onlookers, and I rather suspect, reluctant readers, of the recent literature of criticism.

The current Number-One Amazon bestseller in the climate change literature is not Al Gore, but a little known blogger and former chemistry student at St Andrew’s University – Andrew Montford, custodian of the Bishophill blogsite. In The Hockey Stick Illusion Montford documents the saga of climatologist Michael Mann’s fabled statistical treatment of global temperature proxies over the past one thousand years – a treatment that airbrushed away all traces of global cycles in the past one thousand years.

The Hockey Stick emerged in 1998, the creation of a relative newcomer to climate science at the University of Massachusetts who was within a couple of years elevated to lead author at the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and became the pit-bull of the climate science fraternity. His graphics effectively removed both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from the global record – which was now smooth as a hockey-stick shaft until the blade of the late 20th century unprecedented ‘uptick’. The graph featured large in the IPCC 2001 report and was influential throughout the world in convincing 86

governments and environmental groups to support the IPCC’s call for concerted environmental action to mitigate carbon emissions. The UN reported that modern temperatures were unprecedented in the climate record. So sudden and pervasive was this story that the world of real climatology – outside of the computer simulators – fell silent.

One voice called persistently about the lack of supporting data and replication – a semi-retired minerals engineer in Canada, Steve MacIntyre, someone with a long history of analysing mining stocks and with an interest in tree-ring chronologies. Mann’s analysis flew in the face of just about every chronology that MacIntyre had seen - he asked for the data and the computer codes used to process it.

Montford chronicles MacIntyre’s efforts to seek and scrutinise this data. It took MacIntyre years to discover just how the hockey stick was constructed. He finally discovered that the novel techniques used

by Mann mined the data for hockey-stick type upticks, especially from tree-rings, which are notoriously difficult to correlate to temperature, and then skewed the analysis – so much that when MacIntyre tested the technique with random numbers, it still produced a hockey-stick. In the end, MacIntyre’s critique was published in the recognised journals and upheld by a high-level congressionally instigated review by experts in statistics – yet in the 2007 IPCC report, Mann, who was still closely involved with the UN network, was able to manoeuvre the wording such that it looked as if he had been right.

This is a book about how the scientific establishment protected its investment by denying access to data, using false trails and partial releases, corruption of the peer-

ECOS 31(1) 2010 review process, undermining of Freedom of Information acts, packing of investigative committees and steering of the UN reports through biased editing and control of the review process. And all this was researched and written before the corroborative emergence of emails at CRU. Montford has done a great service to science, to history and to a public grown sceptical of the scare stories upon which vast amounts of research funding, carbon trading and energy technology subsidies depend. That story cannot now claim that the 20th century warmth is unprecedented.

Everything now hangs on the causal hypothesis and whether the natural climate has had a major role in the warmth that has been observed – and much of that knowledge relies on an understanding of cycles – which is still very low.

Montford lays bare a world of devious behind-the-scenes behaviour of scientists in positions of power – it is not one that our modern environmental movement seems keen to investigate. That task has fallen to bloggers and investigative journalists – and of the latter, most particularly the bête noir of environmentalism, Christopher Booker. His book, The Real Global Warming Disaster is another tome that environmentalists are unlikely to read – but should.

Booker handles the science well. But the real meat of the book is again behind the scenes in the corridors of power. All environmentalists should read of Sir David King’s mission to Russia in 2004, the purpose of which was to get Putin onside over ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. It was successful. But in terms of the reputation of British science and diplomatic protocols, it should be a cringing embarrassment to anyone who cares about science. King’s bullying tactics and crass ignorance of real

climate research are laid bare. This explains why, for example, Yuri Izrael, one-time Vice Chair of IPCC, a professor of global systems ecology, should retreat from public statements about the hype on global warming and how cycles were driving it, to then concentrate the work of his institute on geo-engineering concepts for cooling the planet. Putin funded his institute of global ecology after he signed up for his billions of carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol’s trading mechanisms.

This is the murky world exposed by Booker – and there are dozens of such examples, most particularly on the role of James Hansen’s institute within NASA where the models all began. This is the shadow not just of global carbon trading and the IPCC, but of science and its relation to funding and government policy.

These books are scholarly and forceful. The ‘sceptical’ literature also has more journalistic best-sellers – like Ian Wishart’s Air Con. They can be wordy, dense, opinionated, uncoordinated and difficult to read with little or no scholarly referencing – the sort of book that speaks to the converted in what many see as a quasireligious war. Wishart’s book would not convince any environmentalist there was anything rotten in the State. And Booker’s approach might not either – because few would get beyond the first couple of pages where he dismisses previous (and supposed) scare-stories on nuclear power and toxic chemicals, acid rain and lead in petrol. I gagged when Three Mile Island was dismissed as a minor leak – internal explosions actually came within 90% of the containment’s design limit and the loss of Pennsylvania to productive economy for one hundred or more years.

This is the crux of the problem. The green movement – which still refuses to look 87

ECOS 31(1) 2010 critically at the claims of global warming and reverts to ‘the argument from authority’ has too much invested to respond to the growing evidence of deception at the highest levels. The Hockey Stick story shows the UN’s IPCC reports to be the dodgy dossiers of the environmental movement. There is a great danger here: that anti-environmental forces which do read Booker, as well as a large number of uncommitted people who recognise deception and the distortion of science and will not tolerate it, will bring both science and the environmental movement into such public disrepute, that the regulation and finance needed to help the most exposed communities cope with their vulnerability to natural climate change – which is happening irrespective of carbon dioxide’s contribution – will simply not be possible, especially in a world of straightened finances.

Peter Taylor

WILD JUSTICE The Moral Lives of Animals Marc Beloff & Jessica Pierce The University of Chicago Press, 2009, 208 pages ISBN 13:978-0-226-04161-2 The Oxford English Dictionary defines morality as “The doctrine or branch of knowledge that deals with right and wrong conduct and with duty and responsibility.” Until recently morality has been thought of as a purely human trait with the odd anecdotal suggestion that maybe dogs, cats or domestic animals may show the occasional example of moral behaviour.

In this book the authors seek to suggest that many animals have a natural sense of morality, but that 88

possibly we do not always immediately recognise it in the various ways that it is expressed. The jump from suspicion to a seriously suggested theory is a great and complex one. Unfortunately it is so complex that the first third of the book, literally 54 out of 153 pages is spent in introducing the theory and defining the ground terms. The latter part of the book considers cooperation, empathy and justice as the main heads of morality in the animal world and looks at numerous examples of this. Many of these examples are well known and have been often quoted in other contexts. Much use of canid, particularly domestic dog, behaviour is quoted, as is primate and elephant behaviour.

The concluding chapter brings together the various heads under which animal morality was previously discussed, it also considers whether the concept of animal morality challenges the uniqueness of humans and suggests that animal morality will help us better understand human morality.

This book is a brave attempt to expand what was previously thought to be a human characteristic into the animal world, albeit almost exclusively mammalian. The book should be essential reading for every animal behaviourist, not because the authors have definitely proved a point, but because they are making a statement that needs to be considered, and to fail to consider it at this early stage might leave the reader behind if animal morality was to become something greater than a variation of anthropomorphism.

Chris Moiser

BACK COPIES OF ECOS The following back copies are available for purchase. Costs range from £8.30 (inc p&p) for issues from the current and previous year’s volume, to £5.30 for older issues.

Up to date prices and order forms for back copies are available at www.banc.org.uk.

www.banc.org.uk BANC inspires innovation in conservation.

I 30 (3/4) Ecological skills; Getting started in conservation I 30 (2)

Nature at our service?

President:

John Bowers

I 30 (1)

30 years back – and forward

Vice-Presidents:

Marion Shoard

I 30 (1)

30 years back – and forward

Adrian Phillips

I 29 (3/4) New nature – old creatures

Chair:

Adrian Koster

I 29 (2)

Nature’s tonic

Secretary:

Ruth Boogert

I 29 (1)

Walking the talk in conservation

Treasurer:

Derek Bensley

I 28 (3/4) Climate Change adaptation – helping nature cope

I 28(2)

Nature’s Id

I 28(1)

Loving Nature?

I 27(3/4) Accepting the wild?

I 27(2) I 27(1) I 26(3/4) I 26(2) I 26(1) I 25(3/4) I 25(2) I I I I I I I I

25(1) 24(3/4) 24(2) 24(1) 23(3/4) 23(2) 23(1) 22(3/4)

Shores and seas – the push for protection Species reintroductions Aliens in control Carbon, conservation and renewables The extinction of outdoor experience Wilder landscapes, wilder lives?

Superquarry finale & last chance for the countryside Wild boar and wild land Extinction of Experience Urban greening Nature conservation – Who cares?

Citizen Science Reintroductions and aliens Land reform Nature in the neighbourhood

ECOS & BANC - keep in touch on the web BANC’s web site offers a chance to…

Other Members of Council: Emily Adams Mathew Frith Rose Goodwin Andrew Harby Gavin Saunders Nicola Walker

Subscriptions/BANC membership Subscriptions for ECOS are £25.00 for individuals and £80 for corporate/institutional rate.

Subscriptions should be sent to: Hallam Environmental Consultants Ltd Venture House, 105 Arundel Street Sheffield, 1 2NT Tel: 0114 272 4227 info@hallamec.plus.com Subscription form available at www.banc.org.uk

• Follow up the debate in ECOS between issues

Subs taken out on or after 1 October

• Link to current news in conservation as it breaks

remain valid until 31 December in the

• Learn about new initiatives and campaigns

following year.

www.banc.org.uk

Editorial 1.

Spring 2010 issue 31(1) www.banc.org.uk

A no-regrets response to our mixed up nature. Geoffrey Wain

Feature articles 2. Eco-xenophobia - responding to our natural aliens.

Ian Rotherham 11. As British as curry? Hot and bothered over parakeets.

Mathew Frith 16. Ducking and diving – mixing science and values in ruddy duck control. Peter Shirley 22. Exotic springtails in the UK – their occurrence and diversity.

Paul Ardron 28. UK invasive fungi– Benign additions to our fungal flora. Peter Shaw 31. Scottish alpine and woodland birds – their fortunes in an uncertain climate. Adam Watson 39. The changing nature of climate. Simon Ayres 45. Copenhagen, nature conservation and a few REDD herrings.

Kate Rawles 50. Where now in climate and nature conservation?

Richard Smithers & Mike Townsend 55. Britain’s arctic wildlife – how we coped in Winter 2010.

Andrew Harby 59. The Dower+100 Report - National Parks 1945-2045.

Adrian Phillips 66. The conservation sector in the recession - Double-dip or quits?

Jonathan Somper

Book Reviews • The Naturalized Animals of Britain and Ireland • Nature’s Powers and Spells • Wild Justice • Celebrity and the Environment • Mahatmagandhi and the Environment • A Wilder Vein • What is Land For? • Conservation Psychology • The Real Global Warming Disaster • Air Con • The Hockey Stick Illusion • A Brush with Nature

©2010 Britis h As s ociation of Nature Cons erv ationis ts IS S N 0143-9073 Graphic Des ign and Artw ork by Feathers tone Des ign Cheltenham .

Printed by S ev ernprint Ltd, Glouces ter