I’ve blogged several times about the so-called “brood management” of hen harriers, including setting out two big unanswered questions and 25 more specific ones raised by the idea of brood management.
To be honest, I’d rather hoped not to have to write another blog on brood management this soon. I’d much rather be talking about the positive work RSPB and our partners are doing for hen harriers, for example through our Life project on the species.
But the Hawk and Owl Trust have now elaborated on their apparent plans for a Brood Management Scheme, with two pieces on their website covering the “conservation” and “science” around the idea, so it feels necessary to comment.
It’s worth saying I have a huge amount of respect for the Hawk and Owl Trust and a lot of the work they’ve done over the years. While we all make bad judgements from time to time, in this case the consequences could be extremely serious.
I also think it is unedifying that Defra have left it to another conservation organisation to try to justify a brood management scheme.
This is not the way to instill confidence from those sceptical that the brood management scheme is anything other than a sop to those running the most intensive driven grouse moors.
There is one section on the Hawk and Owl Trust website that exemplifies all that is wrong with this scheme.
“The six point plan has been agreed in principle by all parties but has yet to be ratified as one member believes that the brood management trial should be delayed until Hen Harrier numbers have recovered to a pre-determined number.
This is a worthy but sadly unrealistic objective, as it is not always understood or appreciated that Hen Harriers, as colonial or semi-colonial nesters, will become concentrated on a small number of individual moors. The fact of this concentration places these birds at huge risk of further persecution.”
I object to the implication that a brood management scheme is essential to prevent further illegal killing of birds of prey.
Let’s call it what it is. The brood management scheme is a persecution avoidance scheme. And its supporters primarily come from the shooting community including the Moorland Association, the Countryside Alliance and the National Gamekeepers’ Association. Its only support from the conservation sector has been the Game and Wildlife and Conservation Trust and now the Hawk and Owl Trust – an organisation that was not part of the talks which have taken place over the past two years.
These proponents and especially Defra will have to do more to explain how it be justified legally.
The brood management scheme is a project involving a European protected species. As such it would be subject to a series of tests under European law. These aren’t arbitrary bureaucratic tests – they are the embodiment of smart nature conservation decision-making.
The first test is to demonstrate that there are no alternative ways of meeting the objectives of the project.
There are clearly alternative ways of stopping illegal killing either through better enforcement or through the proven technique of diversionary feeding.
There are no imperative reasons of overriding public interest for intervening in this way. What is so peculiar is that Defra itself recognises that the alternative measures are necessary and appropriate components of the draft Hen Harrier action plan. By including these measures, it has essentially shot its own fox – or should I say, grouse.
Even if the alternatives test was somehow past, I struggle to see how it could be justified to issue the necessary licence under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
I could offer a point by point rebuttal (I really could - I have a piece of paper sitting on my desk that does exactly that) but I cannot see how that helps anyone.
I don’t want the Hawk and Owl Trust to be set up as the fall guy by being Defra’s champion of an ill-conceived and potentially unlawful scheme.
For now, I simply want to reiterate publicly what I have said privately on many occasions. Let’s get on with the non-contentious parts of the Hen Harrier Action Plan and consult more widely on the concept of the brood management scheme.
Ian. Couple of comments. I've never heard a behavioural or population ecologist describe hen harriers as a colonial nester, though I stand to be corrected. You're right to be sceptical. Prey availability is one factor that'll likely determine the density of settling hen harriers - the more prey, the higher the density, assuming the habitat is suitable. The more intensive forms of grouse moor management are designed to provide very high densities of red grouse, so it would be no surprise to see a high density of hen harrier nests in the absence of persecution. Presumably we'd see a lower density of hen harrier nests in less intensive grouse moors with lower densities of red grouse?
One problem I have with the Hawk and Owl Trust's hen harrier removal proposal is that it takes high-intensity grouse moor management, producing extremely high densities of red grouse, as a given, as non-negotiable. Yet we know that such intensive management causes other problems, which need to be rectified. The hen harrier removal proposal provides implied endorsement to intensive game management - or at best turns a blind eye - by facilitating it through the removal of hen harriers.
One important attribute of any tactic is that it has to be legal. If hen harrier removal were proposed within a Special Protection Area, it would need to be subject to an Appropriate Assessment under the UK Habitats Regulations. This assessment process requires that the agency giving consent considers mitigation first. So, if a problem of excessive hen harrier predation at a particular site arises, one has to look to see if the problem can be mitigated. Diversionary feeding is a potential form of mitigation, and one would need to provide an evidence-based justification for not trying diversionary feeding first. Available evidence suggests that diversionary feeding might work. So you'd need to try it. If in the specific case diversionary feeding has been tried but was shown not to work - unlikely in my view - then one might move on to consider other ways to mitigate the problem. Another obvious option might be to reduce the intensity of grouse shooting. To my mind, a combination of less intensive grouse moor management and diversionary feeding might well do the trick.
All economic sectors are bound by this legislation - game shooting interests are no exception.
I think the way forward here is to open up the debate on brood management, allow us all to see precisely what is proposed by Defra and the Hawk and Owl Trust, and then take stock once we've all had a chance to consider and comment upon the detail.
I think the Hawk and Owl Trust's tactic of negotiating brood management in secret has been hugely damaging. This is no way to handle human-wildlife conflict. I'm surprised that the scientists backing brood management cannot see the problems their approach is causing.