It was a four-walk, two-book half-term. So I am rested.
Like many, I was out and about in a t-shirt on Halloween enjoying the extraordinary weather. At Sutton Hoo (the girl is learning about Anglo-Saxons at school this year), I spotted some very large parasol mushrooms alongside harebell still in flower while a red admiral butterfly flew past.
Yet, Sunday's publication of the IPCC's synthesis report (here) is a timely reminder that the changing climate may not just provide quirky wildlife experiences, but threatens a global catastrophe for people and wildlife unless we heed the warning and wean ourselves off fossil fuels.
Just three of the parasol mushrooms at Sutton Hoo with harebell just out of shot
This report emerged on the same day as the latest long-hop to be bowled bySir Ian Botham and his shooting chums. This one appeared in the Mail on Sunday. It is essentially a rehash of last week's smears but it does include the shocking accusation that the RSPB campaigns to tackle climate change. Whatever next? The RSPB campaigning against the trade in wild birds, against pollution from oil spills, against the inappropriate use of pesticides? While it may be a surprise to some, we've been campaigning against threats to nature for 125 years and we shall continue to do whatever nature needs. You can read our full rebuttal here.
The RSPB campaigning against the plumage trade. Sir Ian would not be amused.
This aggressive and crude attack is a bit of a distraction from the day-job, but it has provided an opportunity for us to spell out how our work hangs together: science to inform priorities and test solutions, practical conservation to save sites and species, advice and advocacy to influence land outside of our control and activity to educate and inspire others.
Anyone working in nature conservation has to work out when and how best to deploy the various tools in the conservation toolkit. The RSPB, like any organisation, has finite resources and we want to have the greatest impact on wildlife. But, is it best to spend money from our loyal supporters on...
...acquiring land to add to the 0.6% of the UK that we currently own and manage for nature, or
...advising farmers on how best to manage their land with wildlife in mind, or
...campaigning for new laws for nature which could affect the whole of the country (as we did with the Wildlife Trusts last week, here), or
...cracking down on wildlife crime (documented in last week's Birdcrime report, here) to prevent species from being driven to extinction by illegal killing?
We do all the above and I tend to think we have the balance about right. But, I am always looking for new insights from others. This is why I have been captivated this week by Michael Lewis' book, Moneyball. It had been on my 'must-read' list for some time and it documents how Billy Beane, the head of the Oakland A's baseball team, used statistics to buck the trend whereby success was bought. Although Okland A's had the third lowest payroll of Major League Baseball teams, they managed to reach the playoffs in successive years. Now, as you know, I am more of a cricket fan, but baseball stats are addictive and I can see why Beane was drawn to recruiting players based on novel objective assessment of players' talents rather than traditional metrics or box-office value.
Imagine if we had a similar assessment of the relative merits of different conservation tools and were able to judge the return for wildlife based on the investment made. It would make my job easier. But the reality is that context and opportunity is everything. If a new threat emerges (say the discharge of a sticky substance called polyisobutelene which kills seabirds, or the use of a new class of pesticides called neonicotinoids which is found to affect wildlife populations), we cannot sit idly by and ignore it. We won't be derailed by Sir Ian or anyone else wanting to cause mischief. We will roll up our sleeves and make the case for change.
That's conviction-conservation for you - standing up for what you believe in and then taking the necessary action. And for those of you that were wondering, the other book I read this week was Hugo Young's excellent biography of Margaret Thatcher.
What do you think offers the biggest bang for the conservation buck?
It would be great to hear your views.
Martin, I spoke too early didn't I. How nice to see that the RSPB has sent a link to the rebuttal statement to all its e-mailable members.
What worries me Martin is that we tend to treat the Botham publicity as having no credence and as not being worthy of even playing the game. That is easy to do when you are in the know but the MoS has 1,500,000 readers, the majority of whom will either believe it or only read the headline which then stays with them. The RSPB cannot reach this many with a rebuttal on the RSPB website.
The shooting press are already re-publicising this propaganda and BASC (who I used to have a lot of time for) are alleging the 2013 Wildlife Crime figures show that wildlife crime is decreasing. We need strong publicity to close this innings but that needs money for which the RSPB would then be criticised again.
Very well said Martin, and absolutely right about not being derailed by this mischief making "lot". You "guys" at the RSPB are the professionals with the skills,experience and knowledge of managing the ever increasing and varied threats to our wildlife and are therefore best situated to make the necessary judgements as to where and how to best spend the Society's money. I,for one,totally support your current spending agenda and quite take the point about having to keep it very flexible.
In this current mischief making situation the best advice is, keep calm, use ones brains and intelligence to the full,(I think the RSPB has a lot more of these than its accusers),and keep looking ahead.
In a way, it is slightly gratifying that hose accusing and grossly misreprenting the RSPB should feel they need to do this. It shows the RSPB's campaigning generally and especially for the licensing of driven grouse moors is really "biting".
Keep up the great work RSPB. "You can't make cakes without breaking eggs"