Part of our democratic tradition is the right to protest and the freedom of expression. Charities have a rich and long history of influencing change in policy, law, attitudes and behaviour - the RSPB's own campaigning roots date back to our origins in 1889 and the ultimately successful campaign against the use of feathers in the hat trade while we also fought a decade long battle to ban the use of DDTs - a class of pesticides that was harmful to birds of prey.
I have been involved in a number of campaigns which resulted in changes in the law: to improve the management of our finest wildlife sites (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), protect the marine environment (Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2008) and set legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Climate Change Act 2008). Each of these landmark achievements were hard fought and were the culmination of many years of campaigning and each required manifesto commitments before legislative reform was secured.
Since 2011, there has been a formal way of securing parliamentary profile with the Number 10 petition system established to enable parliamentary debate for petitions attracting more than 100,000 signatures. 39 petitions have secured such a debate and the latest took place today as a result of Mark Avery's campaign to ban driven grouse shooting. As most readers of this blog will know, the RSPB believes that a licensing system for driven grouse shooting should be introduced as an effective way of improving our uplands. In the run up to the debate, we shared our knowledge of the environmental consequences of driven grouse shooting.
My colleague, Jeff Knott, witnessed the debate and sent me this rapid assessment...
"There was lots of interest and a ticketing system had to be introduced because so many people came to listen: about 50 individuals which was approximately twice the capacity of the room. Equally, there was lots of interest from MPs with about 50 MPs attending at least part, with a majority speaking.
Overall, it was an interesting debate with a variety of contributions from MPs, varied in subject, opinion and quality. There was lots of agreement that biodiversity conservation is a major imperative. That is clearly good news! Yet, there were also various references to hen harriers doing better on driven grouse moors than off them. This simply isn't true. Several MPs said hen harriers are increasing. While they have increased from a historical low 100 years ago, the UK population declined between the last two national surveys. And clearly, it will be interesting to see what this year's survey says.
It was questioned why there are no hen harriers on RSPB reserves. There are! In 2015, RSPB nature reserves across the UK provided a home to over 60 pairs of hen harriers in 2015, about 10% of the UK population. And this year, one of the three pairs that successfully nested in England was on our Geltsdale reserve.
There was lots of support for greater enforcement of laws to prevent illegal killing of birds of prey, but this was short on detail. It was striking that the only real argument against licensing was that it would be bureaucratic. Indeed several MPs stated it was an option. This is easily solvable and we'd be very happy to work with parliamentarians to develop a streamlined system.
Clearly, there is huge interest in this subject, both from the public and from MPs, so it is vital that the Government sets out how it will enable further debate leading to action and real change."
While there will be some that will be downhearted that the parliamentary debate did not lead to an immediate commitment for legislative reform, I think that it would be a mistake to ignore the voices of more than 100,000 people wanting reform. The public anger about ongoing persecution of birds of prey and the state of our uplands will only grow unless action is taken. And, the RSPB will continue to make the case for reform both in England and in Scotland, where licensing will be considered through a similar petitioning process.
Change may take time, but it will come.
I have extracted the bits that I agree with from Keith's and Richard's voluminous exchanges.
"I await further responses to the debate from the RSPB when they have had time to fully digest and analyse the discussion". So do I. I would like to know whether the RSPB feels it is able to represent the views of 123,000 people going forward in its dealings with vested interts and if so how? In addition how does the RSPB feel it was represented by MP's and the government during the debate?
"I too look forward to Martin’s considered response to the relevant Comments posted here on his blog". Me too, especially Rob Yorke's and Peter Shearer's comments
I would appreciate it if Keith and Richard would exchange their e mail addresses and disagree each other privately rather than cluttering up this very informative blog!
Glossy Ibis (aka Richard Ebbs) raises an intriguing point. I for one wasn’t aware that there was a ‘convention’ of respecting a person's expectation to remain anonymous when commenting on a blog. As an aside, I find it bizarre that Richard Ebbs should be promoting such a ‘convention’ given his keenness to share information on other commentators with a wider audience, right here, on this very blog!
If there is such a convention on our Society’s forums, then it needs to change as anonymity when posting on social-media is cited as one of the main On-line Disinhibition Effects (ODE) encouraging factors, see here - www.wired.co.uk/.../online-aggression.
ODE is better known as cyber-bullying or trolling. ODE practices are corrosive and have no place on our Society’s website and blogs. I have raised this issue directly with Martin in the past, and made recommendations as to how our Society could counter the creeping and insidious rise in instances of ODE behaviour.
I too look forward to Martin’s considered response to the relevant Comments posted here on his blog, and perhaps some thoughts on unwritten conventions, cyber-bullying/trolling etc rather than Richard Ebbs’ off-topic diversions.
Thank you, Keith Cowieson (Director, Songbird Survival). I could have cut and pasted aspects of your submission, including all the organisations to which you subscribe. However, and to avoid the criticism of being selective, I stated " For a full understanding of his position it is worth a read".
Keith Cowieson (Director, Songbird Survival) called me out some time ago to reveal my identity, which I was happy to do. It disappoints me, however, that he fails to observe the convention of respecting a person's expectation to remain anonymous when commenting on a blog. After his first identification of me I couldn't really see the point of repeating it twice again!
I await further responses to the debate from the RSPB when they have had time to fully digest and analyse the discussion.
Kind regards,
Richard.
Let's hope Scotland can show the way ahead with effective licensing. I think the RSPB's position has been very clear and logical. Why would the society promote a petition calling for a ban it doesn't believe is the best option - that would just lead to further criticism. There are many different agendas at work amongst people who want to see a ban; conservation is the RSPB's agenda.
Martin, I probably agree that somehow it is correct to argue that the RSPB could have been more upfront in promoting the petition. However I know the Society is firmly behind the licensing option. This has caused some people to consider the RSPB as cautious or fudging the issue. The RSPB probably needs to to be more informative about why they are pursuing this option.
Having an enforcement background I can see that licensing is the strongest of the 2 proposals. Licensing would ensure that all grouse shooting is regulated whilst banning DGS would still leave unregulated shooting in place and we could find that walked up shooting changes to resemble something we currently think of as DGS but under a different name.
This may need the RSPB to be clearer about how they see licensing working.