By Henrietta Appleton, Policy Officer (England)
Whether or not to fund the management of species to protect another was the subject of a keen debate in the House of Lords on Thursday 25 January.
The debate, titled ‘Sustainable Farming Incentive: Species Management and ELMS’ was tabled by the Earl of Caithness, who keenly cited research undertaken at the GWCT Allerton Project demonstration farm. Referencing the GWCT, he stated that “30 years of careful scientific research on its commercial demonstration farm in Leicestershire have demonstrated that numbers of songbirds, and other wildlife numbers across the farm, are significantly higher when there is proper species control than when there is not. It has followed the three-legged stool principle and, with management, songbird numbers have doubled alongside a commercial farming operation.”
He went on to discuss the important role of the GWCT mink raft in helping to recover numbers of water voles, highlighting that American mink is one species of which farmers can receive payment for controlling.
In support of his case, therefore, the noble Earl presented evidence from robust scientific research – most of it our own! Consequently, we were disappointed that some of the statements made to discredit the proposed policy change were not as soundly evidenced – and in one case based on pure conjecture.
Those peers not in favour of controlling one species in support of another cited a briefing by the Wildlife & Countryside Link (WCL), which regarded the funding of predation management within ELMS as “a distraction from the core objectives of the scheme”. In support of such a stance, the briefing referenced the recent RSPB Curlew Trial Management Study, which found that predator control interventions did not make a difference at a farm level. However, as we have highlighted before, the predator management methods adopted in this study did not reflect best practice in the levels of intervention undertaken, with some methods not used for ‘ethical’ reasons and the level of intensity arguably below that of a motivated land manager. So instead of concluding that this research suggested that it is important to adopt the right approach, the RSPB chose to argue that it meant that species management was not effective.
WCL in their briefing concluded that “ELM should continue to be focused on supporting a switch to nature-friendly farming”. This is basically saying that government policy should remain unchanged – just more of the same, but this time over a greater area and at greater cost. Whilst habitat connectivity and wildlife corridors are important, encouraging farmers’ engagement through providing a range of supporting options covering habitat, food provision and protection from predation – the essence of the three-legged stool – must be the way forward.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle also speculated that the release of gamebirds was supporting high predator levels. There is currently no evidence to support this, and given that it is a frequent assertion by those opposed to game management, the GWCT has been doing a study to provide the answers. Until this is published it would be wrong to make an assertion in a policy debate that may influence its outcome; wrong conclusions will result in poor policies.
Consequently, we were delighted that the evidence for species management in wildlife recovery was accepted by Lord Douglas-Miller, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in his speech closing the debate. He said “species management plays an important role in meeting our biodiversity targets” and made it clear that “we need predator management to support the recovery of certain species and priority habitats.”
Does this herald a change of emphasis? We wait with bated breath!