Government starts to shed light on CAP reform

Government is beginning to shed some light onto the future of the countryside 

So, Mr Paterson has chosen to move 12% across from pillar one to pillar two, which means that there is less in the pot which goes straight to farmers (pillar one), but more in Pillar two (which funds environmental schemes and rural business development etc) which is good news. Mr Paterson has also stated that 87% of the 12% transferred into rural development will be spent on Agri-environment – so around £926 million, which is also good news.

This is new funding made available for fresh commitments, not including the £2.155 billion that has already been committed, so that in total there will be about £3.1 billion over the 2014-2020 period for spending on Stewardship type schemes. This is a compromise between what the NFU were asking for – 9% and what the environmentalists wanted – 15%.

Wales has decided to go for the full 15%, while Scotland will have a 9.5 % and Ireland 7%. But wait for it, in Germany they have gone for 4.5% and in France 3%, while in Italy it has been set at 0%!! Call me naive, but I could have sworn that one of the main reasons for joining the European Union was to have a “level playing field” when it came to trading. Just my luck to be reincarnated as a farmland bird in Italy!!

As yet there is no news on many other aspects of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform. In particular we await the changes made to Cross Compliance, in other words what farmers are obliged to do on their farms to enable them to receive the single farm payment – ie: money from pillar one.  

Once we know this segment of the whole, we can get down to sorting out exactly what the new Stewardship scheme will look like, rather than drafting and somewhat guessing the outcome. 

These are indeed interesting times for the countryside!

Cultivating brains for the future of farming

Agricultural students - the future of farming

I sort of knew this would happen. Over the last 20 years or so, I have watched agricultural colleges either shut down completely or close their agricultural courses, preferring to offer “equine studies” or “countryside management” instead – not that there is anything wrong with these courses – but how short sighted have they been in no longer offering practically based pure agricultural courses?

It is estimated that food production will have to increase by 70% in the next 40 years to feed a growing world population. It will have to try doing so with the same agricultural footprint, and without depleting our natural resources or destroying our environment. A huge ask indeed.

Meanwhile, estimates suggest that UK agriculture needs 60,000 more workers for optimal productivity, and to be internationally competitive the sector will require graduates with advanced problem-solving skills.

There are currently 7,000 agriculture students graduating from UK universities and colleges each year (and I wonder how many of those genuinely have practical skills) – insufficient to replace the 10,000 or so leaving the industry through retirement, never mind increasing their numbers.

Agricultural businesses must work with universities and colleges to design courses that will produce graduates fit for the future; they should offer student placements to ensure that graduates get the business and practical skills essential to their future employment. Government too, should support training programmes and look to promote careers in agriculture.

What is more, they need to get on with it right away.

Irish Grey partridge - back from the brink.

Grey partridge hiding by a crop planted specially for them

The alarm went off at 4.30 am yesterday morning as I had to catch an early morning flight to Dublin to visit one of the Irish Grey partridge re-introduction projects. The North Dublin Grey partridge project covers three farms, totalling about 1000 acres and is organised by the Irish Grey partridge Conservation Trust, working alongside local biodiversity Government officers, who are also funding the project.

Because Grey partridge have been completely lost from most of Ireland, lots of habitat restoration has had to be put in place prior to any thought of releasing Grey partridge back into the area. Plenty of good nesting cover, in the form of tussocky grass margins has been created and alongside them, cereal and Kale strips have been planted, which are left for two years so as to provide food and cover throughout the year.

Supplementary hopper feeding and areas of wild bird seed mixes are also used, while a targeted, spring and summer predator control programme has been put in place to limit numbers of Fox, Crows, Magpies and ground predators such as rats.

The project has already had some success with breeding taking place and broods successfully reared. We were treated to a lovely covey of 12 birds bursting out of cover, flying away over a tall hedge, the sunlight picking out their heart shaped brown chests as they turned.  A wonderful sight!   

I managed to advise on a number of points which will hopefully tweak what they are already successfully doing, so that even more coveys are established by this time next year.

Incidentally, the news from one of the other projects in Boora, county Offaly, that I visited a couple of years ago is very positive too, with Greys doing well. What is equally important is that the local breeding population of Lapwing (which has all but disappeared from Ireland too) is thriving on the back of the Grey partridge project.  This year was exceptional, with 81 nests producing 178 fledged chicks on just 694 acres. Not bad for a bird which had previously been almost lost as a breeding species in the country!

So, well done to Kieran Buckley and his team from the Irish Grey partridge Conservation Trust, and also the Irish Government for the vital funding they are giving to these projects. Not only are they saving the Grey partridge, but the Lapwing too! I should have added that Skylark numbers are also going through the roof too!!  

The enthusiastic project team - although they don't look that keen in this photo!

Play outside - you must be kidding!

Even inner city children used to play outside alot

Do you know that only 1 in 10 children regularly play outside?   Do you also know that children between the ages of 11 to 15 years old, on average spend 7 ½ hours in front of a screen of some sort every day, which equates to half of their waking life. Interestingly, those kids who spend the most time in front of a screen also report the lowest levels of well-being.

Apparently, fitness levels amongst the British are falling faster than any other country in the world and this sedentary lifestyle, coupled often with over-eating and a poor diet generally, is leading to a sharp increase in child obesity. For the first time in human history, many of these children face a lower life expectancy than their parents.

My childhood was unbelievably fortunate as I was brought up in a rural community with masses of freedom. In fact it was often hard for my parents to entice me back indoors. During school holidays I would wave a cheery goodbye to my mother as I set off on my bike, without her even knowing which direction I had gone in, relying only on the knowledge that I would return when I was hungry!  Nowadays, of course things are very different, however parents seem so completely obsessed with their children’s security, that by current accepted standards of health and safety, it makes me wonder how any of my generation ever reached adulthood!

We must all surely be concerned about these few statistics that I have mentioned above, as it does not make for comfortable reading. But what are we able to do to change things? Well, here are a couple of initiatives under way (I'm sure there are many more) that I am aware of, which are attempting to change the mindset of both parents and children.

The National Trust has produced an interesting website page entitled “50 things to do before you are 11 ¾” - https://www.50things.org.uk/ and the organisation Countryside Learning offers many ideas and events - http://www.countrysidelearning.org/
 

Finally, how about introducing children to a brand new hobby? For instance, why not book them onto next summers GWCT's young shots course - find out more at:
https://www.gwct.org.uk/advisory/advisory-courses/game-management/young-shooters-course/

So, lets loosen up a little about our children being in danger the moment they leave the house. As one outward bound teacher put it at the end of an activities day, surrounded by smiling, mud splattered children with rosy cheeks - “the most dangerous thing that they have done today by far is driving here in their parent’s car”.

BO can sometimes stink - but not always.

Biodiversity offsetting - difficult to measure

Defra have acknowledged that England faces the twin challenges of simultaneously growing its economy and improving its natural environment. Added to this is the need to ensure the planning system also delivers on the environmental front. Biodiversity offsetting has been mooted as one potential solution to these environmental challenges.
 

So what on earth is biodiversity offsetting? Well it a system whereby developers can attempt to compensate for losses of biodiversity on a particular site by generating ecologically equivalent gains elsewhere.
 

My immediate thoughts on this are that it places substantial faith in the ability of restoration to recover lost biodiversity. It also potentially increases the chances of gaining planning permission on important wildlife areas, because there is the promise of “restoring” the habitat elsewhere in a more “convenient” place. Many are very worried about this saying that it is simply a “licence to trash”.
 

Tom Tew, chief executive of the Environment Bank which is the company acting as the independent broker between planners and developers said, "I think many completely misunderstand how biodiversity offsetting works. It is not a licence to trash, it is the complete opposite. When you put a value on biodiversity, you are putting a financial incentive for developers not to trash it."  He said: "If done well, it could be one of the most beneficial schemes for wildlife in the last 30 years."
 

It has been said that if you create one wetland to replace another one you have filled in just across the road, they will never be the same, no matter what species inhabit them.  In the deepest ecological sense, ‘like-for-like’ trading of nature isn’t possible. I think this is my worry; It does depend on what you are attempting to replace.
 

If for instance, you are looking to build a new housing estate on arable land, that will also destroy a small copse and an adjacent pond, maybe a brand new, well designed wetland area with ponds and scrapes, plus a new woodland planting a short distance away, might potentially compensate for these habitat losses. However, I remember when the entrance to the Channel tunnel in Kent was being constructed and the total destruction of an ancient woodland took place. But all was OK because they removed the surface layer of the forest floor and carefully “replaced it” onto some land close by, for it to re-grow. Like for like? You must be joking.
 

The basic premise underlying the biodiversity offsetting system is that it results in a net gain for biodiversity. But do we really have sufficient guidelines and knowledge to measure this “net gain”? Currently, I don’t think we do.
 

Specific biodiversity offsetting pilot schemes, running in six areas in England since April 2012, have already influenced government thinking and will continue to do so. Defra have now released a Green Paper on biodiversity offsetting in England and opened their consultation on the same subject. They have outlined their proposal for a system and are now seeking views about how best it could operate.

But hurry if you want to say your bit - the consultation finishes on the 7^th of November – see: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/biodiversity/biodiversity_offsetting 

Nick Clegg bangs another nail into the DEFRA coffin

I thought I would spare you a picture of Nick Clegg.

Not only have we lost two excellent ministers from DEFRA in recent times, Sir Jim Paice and Richard Benyon, who both (for a change) actually understood farming and the way the countryside works, but now it also appears that DEFRA has been weakened further. Apparently, it was Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg who was responsible for the decision to remove the Ministerial rank from Defra’s farming role, the Department’s chief civil servant told MPs this week.

The recent Ministerial reshuffle saw Lib Dem David Heath replaced by Tory George Eustice as Farming Minister. But whereas Mr Heath carried the rank of Minister of State, Mr Eustice is a more junior Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, leaving Defra as one of the few Whitehall Departments without a Minister of State.

The downgrading of the farming role has been criticised by MPs and industry leaders, with former Farming Minister Sir Jim Paice, suggesting it raised questions about the Government’s commitment to DEFRA and its agenda. NFU president Peter Kendall said the industry ‘ought to have an explanation’ over the apparent downgrading of the farming role in Defra.

Neil Parish, Conservative MP for Tiverton and Honiton said, “Agriculture has never been a more pressing issue than it is today and farming is a vital part of the rural economy. Food security is a grave challenge facing governments around the world. By 2050 the global population estimated to reach nine billion and it will take innovation and political will to increase food production to meet this demand. Many people in rural areas and the food and farming industries will see this as a snub from the deputy prime minister and I hope he will reconsider and give farming the support it deserves." 

I agree.

Widespread death caused by just two teaspoonful of chemical.

Aquatic life such as this rainbow trout are particularly vulnerable to insecticides

A couple of months or so ago, there was a really nasty pollution incident in a river in Wiltshire and of course the attention turned immediately to local farmers as to the cause. In fact, as it turned out, two teaspoonfuls of insecticide poured down a kitchen sink has been held responsible for wiping out insect life on a 10-mile stretch of one of the country’s prime fishing rivers.
 

The incident on the river Kennet caused ecological devastation on a stretch of river, showing just how, if certain pesticides get in the wrong hands or are miss used, major problems can occur. The DEFRA minister Richard Benyon, has asked his officials to draw up curbs on the domestic sale of chlorpyryifos, the chemical responsible.

The agricultural industry has already introduced a scheme called “Say no to drift campaign”, introduced on a voluntary basis to curb any unwanted affects of misplaced insecticides. They advocate the use of low drift nozzles on sprayers and extended buffer zones (over and above what they have to do legally) as “must do” measures to give the insecticide a future.

Does this approach work? Well, if you take the orchard sector, where low drift technology had a poor up-take, with only around 7% even being aware of the low drift nozzles in 2011. We now find that 91 per cent of orchard growers are either using or planning to use this technology.

The voluntary approach can certainly work and the vast majority of farmers, who already take huge care when using any pesticide, can and will take on new advice to become even more targeted when applying chemical products.     

Want to feel calm and relaxed? Well, take a hike!

A new report from Natural England reveals that the English adult population made approximately 2.85 billion visits to the outdoors between March 2102 and February 2013. The 4th annual monitoring report contains a wealth of information about visits made to the natural environment - where we travel from, where we visit, what we do when we're out there, and how experiencing the natural environment impacts on our behaviour, attitudes and general wellbeing.

Since the first annual report was published, the proportion of people taking at least one visit to the outdoors in the previous week for health and exercise has increased significantly from 34 per cent in 2009 to 44 per cent in 2013. Respondents to the survey also consistently agreed that being out in the natural environment made them feel 'calm and relaxed' or 'refreshed and revitalised'.

The survey shows that green spaces near home are an important part of modern life. Visits tend to be taken close to where people live, with two thirds of visitors travelling within two miles of their home. The survey shows that 92 per cent of people 'agree' that having green spaces close to where they live is important. The evidence from this report is being used by Public Health England to help local authorities identify priorities for greening their communities which will, in turn, improve people's health and wellbeing. More details at Natural England Visitor Numbers PDF

Walking in the countryside is gaining in popularity

Belgians - good with chocolate but not conservation - yet!

Belgian group visit the Allerton project

I spent today at the Allerton project in Loddington, Leicestershire. This is the GWCT’s research and demonstration farm – where we trial numerous conservation techniques to see if they really do work and how they fit in with the farming programme. This farm is also a key way of showing all sorts of people, from farmers, conservationists, politicians and the public, exactly what can be achieved on a working farm.

Today we had a visit from Belgian politicians, farmers and Government policy makers, who wanted to see firsthand how Stewardship schemes work in England and how game management is integrated in with these schemes. They were astounded by how advanced our schemes are compared to what is available in Belgium and also how “up for it” our farmers are – certainly not the case over there!!

It is exciting when GWCT research not only influences our own UK Government, but spreads far and wide to influence and impact on European countries and also the States, which has already been the case in many instances.

I really hope that these Belgians will go back to their country inspired as to what can be achieved, so that the habitats and associated species in their nation can benefit from our research and experience too, after all in many instances their wildlife is our wildlife – human boundaries are just not recognised by many species which move from country to country during the course of a year.        

Councils should make further cuts!

Verge destruction!

In these times of severe budget cuts, we are continuously told that county councils have “no slack left” to prune things any further. So why then are Hampshire County Council, along with many other councils across the country as far as I can see, spending money on cutting road verges? Fine, cut back hedges and verges at road junctions and around important signs, but why on earth are they cutting the grass along the single track lane that passes my house, destroying the wonderful display of Cow Parsley that has just come into flower!  

Not only must they destroy many bird’s nests of species such Yellowhammer and Robin which nest very low down or even on the ground, but I expect also the little round tennis ball sized Harvest mice nests too. Also smashed up are many flowers such as Cowslip, which has not yet had time to set seed, in fact with such a late spring, most are still in flower. This really is unnecessary wildlife destruction and a total waste of money, so let’s make some more budget cuts – verge cutting cuts!  

The State of Nature Report

I thought I would simply copy the press release that the GWCT put out today in response to this pretty damning report, as it really is time now that we all stop talking about what we are going to do, and actually get on with it. In most cases we do actually know what needs to be done to reverse these widespread wildlife declines, so the time for action is NOW! This is the statement:

  "We need to work together for wildlife recovery right now," says Teresa Dent, Chief Executive of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) in response to the launch of the alarming State of Nature report by a coalition of wildlife organisations today, Wednesday 22nd May.

"Bringing back our wildlife from decline demands a relentlessly positive sense of purpose from everyone involved", she urges.

"The State of Nature Report is a serious wake up call. We welcome it and we salute the wildlife organisations for revealing such dramatic declines.

"But we must seize the moment and recruit as many people as possible to play their part in turning 'feel bad' decline into 'feel good' recovery. Nothing else will succeed," Teresa Dent continues.

The GWCT has achieved over 80 years of outstanding research and understanding of the ecology of many crucial habitats including arable farmland, lowland woodlands, chalk rivers and our internationally important moorlands. We have a proven record of world class work into precious species such as the black grouse, water vole, grey partridge, woodcock, trout, salmon, lapwing and golden plover. During all this time we have worked with people who manage land and wildlife and have inspired their confidence.

"The continued decline of wildlife is frustrating and depressing for everyone involved. We simply have to harness the huge potential of farmers, game managers and foresters, along with the concerned public. If only we can unite all the good will for wildlife, we can take on this task and deliver," Teresa Dent explains.

"As an immediate contribution, we offer ten principles to achieve highly effective wildlife recovery. Stick to these, and our chances of success will soar. We're ready to play our part for wildlife right now," Teresa Dent concludes.

Ten principles for highly effective wildlife recovery:

• Stick to objectives: only single-minded commitment to saving species will succeed.
•  
• Own the problem: get those who actually manage land on side and recruit local leaders on the ground to show initiative.
•  
• Maintain good morale: this is a tough task and a positive state of mind will be vital.
•  
• Get a Reality Check: farmers and land managers need to know really how bad things have got.
•  
• Make it local: people will respond to places they know, wildlife they see.
•  
• Be precise: what exactly is needed to achieve a species' recovery? Sort out the 'pinch points'.
•  
• Cooperate, cooperate, cooperate: we need an economy of effort and synchronised actions by all.
•  
• Enough resources: maximise effective conservation with realistic funding and drawing in additional support.
•  
• Support the ordinary: stop everyday wildlife today becoming rare wildlife tomorrow. Value it to keep it.
•  
• Be agile and flexible: don't let process dominate purpose: if it works, give it support.

Large scale conservation conference

Yesterday I went to a packed conference held at the London wetland centre to discuss “large-scale conservation”. Perhaps the first thing that struck me on arriving is the whole set up at the London wetland centre, having never been there before, I can start to see why they have won a load of prizes, as it is certainly an impressive place to visit. The buildings were notable, with huge viewing windows over the wetland area, perhaps made all the more unique as the whole backdrop was filled with skyscrapers and cranes!!

The second thing that was striking about the day was to glance at the attendees list!  I reckon there were around 40 different organisations represented, which made the discussions on “how to work more closely together by forming partnerships” – very relevant!

Following Professor Sir John Lawton’s report “making space for nature” all the current conservation thinking is to concentrate on landscape scale projects, rather than nature reserves and  small isolated pockets of habitat, which although important, have been described as “precious living relics”.  

Thinking more, bigger, better and joined as Lawton suggested, is of course sensible on many levels, however, I still feel that we are too keen to place red lines around “special areas” and concentrate all our efforts there and ignore the rest of the landscape. Why not a red line put around the whole country and also around large parts of our seas? No wildlife is aware of the lines we draw on a maps. It was wholesale, across the board CAP policies that sent so much of our wildlife into decline, so why are we still so happy to pick and choose these so called important areas, albeit on a larger scale than before, and highlight them for special attention? Maybe a new report will come out in a few years time saying “CCC – countrywide co-operation for conservation – that’s what we need now”.       

Neonicotinoids

So, Europe has decided not to ban Neonicotinoids. The vote resulted in a stalemate. 13 of the 27 European Union member states voted in favour of a ban, while nine voted against and five, including Britain, abstained.

The issue here is do these products affect bees - especially honey bees? If you listen to many Bee keepers and some environmental scientists you would soon be convinced that they do. On the other hand, Bayer and Syngenta, the two major manufacturers of Neonicotinoids say that they have carried out extensive trials and that there is no evidence to suggest that bees are harmed. Our own Environment Secretary, Owen Patterson, has said that he wants to see his own Government's trial results on the effects of neonicotinoids on bees, expected later this year, before he makes a firm decision.

My own thoughts are that we do need more urgent research before banning these products. Neonicotonoids are usually coated onto crop seeds and therefore the insecticide is buried along with the seed at drilling time, keeping it out of harms way. I prefer this technique in most scenarios to an overhead broad spectrum insecticide spray delivered out of a sprayer, which potentially kills most of the insect life living in the crop (which would of course be the case if Neonicotinoids were banned).

Having said all of this however, if real proof is found that months later bees feeding on the nectar of treated crops are affected, perhaps in a non-lethal way, for instance by disorientating them so they cannot find their way back to the hive again, then of course action should be taken to put a ban in place. I for one will be watching this debate very closely and will keep you posted!.