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.
Thanks to Richard Ebbs (aka Glossy Ibis) for bringing my written evidence on the issue to a wider audience through this blog. And thanks for pointing out that I am a member of many ornithological societies – for the sake of completeness, here are the ones Richard Ebbs, (aka Glossy Ibis), missed out - the British Trust for Ornithology, the British Ornithological Union, Cornwall Bird Watching & Preservation Society, Hawk & Owl Trust, Royal Air Force Ornithological Society, Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, the National Trust and English Heritage.
Sadly, I only have sufficient time these days to volunteer for 3 of those societies, the British Trust for Ornithology, Royal Air Force Ornithological Society and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and no longer have sufficient spare time to justify holding a Schedule 1 Licence for nest photography of birds such as the golden eagle, hen harrier, merlin or peregrine falcon.
Richard Ebbs (aka Glossy Ibis), also thinks that I ‘appear’ to be a firm believer in the Joint Hen Harrier Action Plan and ‘appear’ to advocate that our Charity should become involved in the plan again. Let me clear that up for him, I am a wholeheartedly firm believer in the Joint Hen Harrier Action Plan, and advocate, strongly, that our Society should become involved again – not least because of the overwhelming lack of support for any of the 2 alternatives proposed in yesterday’s debate, by the vast majority of our parliamentary representatives who spoke. To reiterate, this is not only about saving the hen harrier, but also about our Society's continued relevance in the issue.
Finally, for a proper and fuller understanding of my position, anyone can of course post their contact details here and we could then perhaps discuss my position one-to-one, in much greater detail, without the need for an undoubtedly well-intentioned intermediary.
As always, interesting to read Keith Cowieson's comments. He appears to be a firm believer in the Hen Harrier Action Plan and appears to advocate that "our charity" should become involved again.
I had previously read Keith's submission to the petitions committee on the Parliamentary Petitions website. This is a long, detailed and fully referenced submission. Keith is a member of many ornithological societies including the RSPB, GWCT and is Director of Songbird Survival. For a full understanding of his position it is worth a read, see link below:
data.parliament.uk/.../40330.html
So ends round one & although that battle was lost, the war against the widespread illegal persecution of raptors on keepered estates must surely go on!
However, it is a great pity that the RSPB didn't actually & publicly support this campaign all the way through, especially as their absence seemed to be used as a weapon by some of the speakers against the motion.
As a former Gamekeeper myself, who has actually witnessed the illegal killing of Birds of Prey, including Sparrowhawk & Long Eared Owl ( & attempted shooting of Peregrine ) by Gamekeepers, using Poison, Gun & Pole Trap, I know it is a fact that Gamekeepers kill Raptors.
So the war goes on to encourage ALL Gamekeepers to respect OUR wildlife & root out the scum in their midst, who we all know are guilty of illegal persecution of protected & rare birds in OUR countryside!
I agree wholeheartedly with Peter Shearer's comment. I think the RSPB and its reputation was somewhat traduced in yesterday's parliamentary debate and I find this sad. There must be very many RSPB members, and more importantly volunteers and workers on the ground, who feel let down and somewhat disillusioned with the direction of the criticism leveled at the RSPB yesterday. I know I did. This flies in the face of all of the good practical work carried out by the RSPB; for example exposing the law breaking activities on the Mossdale Estate.
With regard to Rob Yorke's comment I agree with the thrust of his proposal that change must come through the meeting of minds and dialogue and I hope that yesterday's debate will give new impetus to these discussions. There are clearly many more ordinary people now taking an active interest in our uplands and the related issues of wildlife management and that is a very good outcome – well done Dr Mark Avery. We will not be going away.
On a final point I am not sure what Rob means by it being fashionable for game keepers to wear a pair of harriers in 2017 – could he please explain what this will look like in practice?
Martin,
Our elected representatives in parliament have now debated the issue of grouse shooting in England and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in summing up has stated, clearly and unambiguously, that:
• the Government have no plans to introduce licensing
• the Government have no intention of banning driven grouse shooting, but have every intention of bringing to justice those who break the law
• the Government absolutely believes that the (hen harrier action) plan remains the best way to safeguard the hen harrier in England
Therefore, Defra’s Joint Hen Harrier Action Plan remains the only viable, multi-agency, government-backed process to restore the English hen harrier population. And planning for the 2017 breeding season is probably now well underway by plan partners.
Meanwhile, we are currently languishing outside the tent – not a good place to be in my opinion. We have to be in it in order to bring influence to bear if we are not to be left standing impotently on the sidelines as others take the initiative. This is not only about saving the hen harrier, but also about our Society's continued relevance in the issue.
Our Charity has the expertise, resource and the incentive to help this plan succeed. Time now then for the Society to rethink and get back on board the only game in town?