Guest blog from Professor Sir John Lawton: RSPB’s science rated as ‘outstanding’

In early April, Professor Sir John Lawton chaired a panel of experts who reviewed RSPB’s scientific programme. I was fortunate to observe the review and it was one of the most inspirational 24 hours I have spent at the RSPB, hearing about the breadth and depth of our science designed to find solutions to the plethora of conservation problems that nature faces.  Sir John has taken over my blog for the day, and kindly outlines his thoughts on the Science Review below.

I was delighted to be asked to review the RSPB’s scientific programme, not least because I had undertaken a similar review 15 years earlier, and was interested to see how things had changed. I think that it is desperately important for conservation organisations to ensure that their policies and practices are based on the best possible evidence, and consequently was pleased to see RSPB opening its science programme up to external review.  I was greatly assisted with the review by my co-panel members, Professors David Macdonald and Val Brown, and Dr Jenny Gill.

L to R: Dr David Gibbons, RSPB; Dr Jenny Gill; Professor David Macdonald;
Professor Sir John Lawton; Professor Val Brown; Martin Harper, RSPB.

Over a couple of days, we learnt – among other things - about the RSPB’s role in the (then unpublished) State of Nature report, and about its work to find solutions to recover the fortunes of threatened species – from skylarks, hawfinches and curlews, to migrants, vultures and pygymy hippos. We also heard about the RSPB’s innovative seabird tagging work, the suite of experiments they have undertaken on their estate, their rainforest and climate change research, and the measurements they have made of the services provided by ecosystems. The review was meticulously run by RSPB staff, and the fifteen separate presentations we heard were excellent without exception.

My fellow panel members and I wrote a report of our review, which I was invited to present to RSPB’s Council in early July. Our overarching assessment was summarised in the report as follows:

“The review group are unanimous in their view that the RSPB’s Conservation Science Department is outstanding. The quality, depth and breadth of its research would be regarded as excellent in any large internationally competitive UK university”.

We then went on to say that:

“Some huge, very important and exciting research problems are being carried forward with great skill and imagination”, and that “..the ‘in house’ Conservation Science Department is fundamental to the Society’s mission”.

We each individually thought we knew broadly what research was undertaken by the Department through our long association with RSPB. We were wrong. We found the shear breadth and depth of the work “staggering” (to quote one panel member at the end of the second day).

Needless to say, there is always room for improvement, so we made a series of recommendations for the future. We particularly felt that the RSPB’s scientific work deserved to be better known, and that they should seek ways of communicating their science better. For example, they should make much more creative use of social media to publicise the amazing work done by the Department. We also felt that the RSPB should undertake more social science. Whilst biological research should remain fundamental to the society, we believe that economic analyses, conflict resolution, human behavioural studies, political science and governance are increasingly important in trying to find practical solutions to environmental problems. Finally, we thought that the science programme could sometimes be swifter of foot in the way that it works, because the fast-changing world of policy occasionally demands rapid responses. However, we accept that finding resources for such science could be challenging.

Professor Sir John Lawton