How should we manage Predators and Prey?

In the middle of all the arguments and to-ing and fro-ing of the debate upon how we should manage our uplands, the issue of whether shooting does or does not have a serendipitous conservation value is once again raging – just as it does every year with the opening of the grouse season on the 12th August, then game shooting and wildfowling today (the 1st September). At my level of consciousness (limited, it is true) the first blows were struck by Peter Glenser, Chairman of the BASC, in this article in the Country Squire Magazine. The right of reply was given to Dr Steve Carver of Leeds University here. There was a further piece written by Liam Stokes and more comments by Steve Carver at the end of Liam’s article.

1.0 – Symbiosis.

There were two things about Steve Carver’s response which caught my eye. The first was his use of the term ‘symbiosis’ to describe the relationship between the predators who interfere with numbers of the game species such as pheasants and grouse. Symbiosis is the term ecologists use to describe two species who live in close proximity and whose habits are in some way mutually beneficial. It is a bit more complicated than that, so I quote verbatim the opening paragraphs from Chapter 13 of ‘Ecology – from Individuals to Ecosystems’ [1].

“No species live in isolation, but often the the association with another species is especially close: for many organisms, the habitat they occupy is that of another species. Parasites live within the body cavities or even the cells of their hosts; nitrogen fixing bacteria live in nodules on the roots of leguminous plants; and so on. Symbiosis (‘living together’) is the term that has been coined for such close physical associations between species, in which a ‘symbiont’ occupies a habitat provided by a ‘host’.

In fact, parasites are usually excluded from the category of symbionts, which is reserved instead for for interactions where there is at least the suggestion of ‘mutualism’. A mutualistic relationship is simply one in which organisms of different species interact to their mutual benefit. It usually involves the direct exchange of goods or services (e.g. food, defense or transport) and typically results in the acquisition of novel capabilities by at least one partner. Mutualism, therefore, need not involve close physical association; mutualists need not be symbionts. For example, many plants gain dispersal of their seeds by offering by offering a reward to birds or mammals in the form of fleshy edible fruits, and many plants assure effective pollination by offering of nectar to visiting insects. These are mutualistic interactions but they are not symbioses.

It would be wrong however, to see mutualistic interactions simply as conflict-free relationships from which nothing but good things flow for both partners. Rather, current evolutionary thinking views mutualisms as cases of reciprocal exploitation where, none the less, each partner is a net beneficiary.”

So that’s it then: symbiosis is where there is a close physical association and a net benefit to both species. So when it comes to considering game species and their predators, we cannot say that it is a symbiotic association because there is no net benefit for both predator and prey. Consider a Peregrine Falcon which kills and eats a pigeon: whilst the Peregrine gains food, there is manifestly no advantage to the pigeon. Neither do the two species live in particularly close proximity – for obvious reasons. In fact ecologists, with admirable simplicity, term the association between predator and prey as a ‘predator-prey relationship’. They may get technical and further describe it as ‘density dependent’ or ‘density independent’, or even ‘functionally dependent’; but we have little need to worry about these nuances here.

I needed to clear this up before proceeding too far because Steve Carver, in introducing the term, has confused his own argument.

2.0 – Predator-Prey Relationships

The second point which caught my eye was the following argument, which is the crux of Steve’s case and which I quote below:

“…predator populations follow in close synchronisation, sometimes a year or two behind their prey species, depending on birth rates and populations. [See Figure 1 below] Thereby land management for shootable surpluses of game species also increases populations of predators such as mustelids, corvids, raptors, foxes etc….. Heavy handed predator control just creates a predator vacuum into which other predators flow, once the a territory is seen as vacant. This further perpetuates for yet more predator control.

To make matters worse, not only do these predators prey on the same species you are trying to protect in order to create the shootable surplus, but there will also be a “spill over” predation on other species of conservation importance such as ground nesting birds (curlew, plover, lapwing) that your predator control also purports to protect, since predator species don’t distinguish between game and non-game birds.”

Figure 1 – Typical theoretical representation of population densities of predators and prey (Source unknown).

Screen Shot 2017-09-01 at 12.13.54

This quotation from Steve Carver can be boiled down to a succession of arguments:

  1. Predator numbers depend upon the density of prey and fluctuate with a lag, of varying time, behind prey numbers (Figure 1).
  2. In game or grouse shooting, where numbers of prey species are inflated to very high densities, this will ‘drag in’ predators from outside and thereby increase the density of predators.
  3. When predator control is undertaken, this will create a ‘predator vacuum’ and so draw in more predators.
  4. Given high densities of predators, this will increase incidental predation upon species of high conservation value.

Figure 1 above is a theoretical model, the actual picture often becoming a lot more confused over time, as indicated by Figure 1 here. However, as a rough guide, it’s not a bad one. This suggests that the first of Steve’s hypotheses stacks up – because it fits in with theoretical and observational studies.

The second of Steve’s hypotheses suggests that the numbers of predators will also rise to much higher levels than normal, because the prey species are at abnormally high densities. This is open to some debate because, in the context of UK game shooting, the size of shooting estates is quite small and will support only a limited number of predators, because the size of the predator territories is a limiting factor. Additionally, the availability of surplus prey is limited over time, i.e. there is a very short-term glut of prey species and a limited number of predators, meaning that the impact of the predators is relatively small. This is in some ways analogous to the situation in the Arctic tundra where sudden peaks of voles and lemmings overwhelms the resources of the predators in the area to take out a given proportion of the prey. These objections aside, in theory hypothesis number two might stack up reasonably well.

The third hypothesis is common-sense, except insofar as there is a time lag between getting rid of the predators and their return from outside. The rapidity with which predators re-populate the area depends upon the species – avian species are generally quicker to return because they are more mobile. Furthermore, they will tend to be younger individuals because these are the ones which disperse from their home ranges. It will often take a year or two for a young raptor to settle in and find a mate before it begins to breed and so exploit the prey in the area. This timescale of a year or two needs to be contrasted with the very short window of glut (i.e. seasonal) by the management of game birds.

The fourth hypothesis is a product the generalist nature of most predators, who are able to switch from their preferred species to another, on an opportunist principle. A Common Buzzard, who might normally specialise in grouse chicks and voles on a grouse moor, will not pass up the opportunity of a Curlew chick, if one becomes available.

3.0 – Wolves, Moose and Caribou.

So far, Steve Carver’s reply to Peter Glenser seems to hold up reasonably well. But a week or two after these responses were published by Country Squire Magazine, a paper was published from a Canadian study of the effects of controlling Moose in order to reduce the Wolf predation upon Caribou. The New York Times article which alerted us to the publication is here and the paper itself is here. Steve Carver’s response was to suggest that the Canadian management strategy undertaken by this experiment could be an example for UK game and grouse shooting to follow (and, by implication, simultaneously allowing rewilding into the frame).

The species of particular interest in this paper[2] is the North American Caribou, which is a group of subspecies of the Eurasian Reindeer Rangifer tarandus. There are four subspecies of Caribou; and the particular subspecies under scrutiny by this study is the Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou which, as its name suggests, lives primarily in the boreal forests of Canada. Caribou have declined dramatically in recent years and so are of considerable conservation interest. One reason for their decline is given as the increase in numbers of Moose Alces alces and to a much lesser extent, White-Tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus. These species have moved into the forests of Canada in much greater numbers because large scale logging activities have altered the mature forest into a mix of vegetation which favours the Moose and White-Tailed Deer, but also reduces the amount of arboreal lichens which is the main winter food of the Caribou. Along with the Moose come large increases in Wolves Canis lupus whose primary prey is the Moose, but which will also take Caribou.

The ecological principle around which this study hinges is that of apparent competition. This relies upon the idea that when a novel prey species colonises an area, predators arrive with it. The predators then also suppress secondary, but native species. If the native species are unable to reproduce fast enough to replace their losses, this will put them on a downward path to extinction or local extirpation. In this case, the native species is the Caribou, the novel species is the Moose (and White-Tailed Deer) and the predator, now arrived in big numbers, is the Wolf. The central hypothesis of this study is that a large reduction of Moose numbers to an ecologically reasonable target (about a 70% reduction), will reduce wolf numbers sufficiently to assist the Caribou numbers to recover. Within this general hypothesis are three specific hypotheses, each depending upon the preceding one:

  • Sport hunting can be used to reduce the numbers of Moose.
  • Wolves are primarily limited by Moose abundance.
  • Caribou are primarily limited by Wolf abundance.

The study set out to test these hypotheses by dividing the study area of two mountain ranges within British Columbia into a treatment area and a reference (control) area. The treatment area was 6,500 km² and the reference area was 11,500 km². Within these areas, there were a total of five named sub-populations of Caribou of widely varying sizes. The numbers of Moose that were taken out was about 535 from the treatment area over the years of 2003 to 2005, whilst the numbers taken out from the reference area was about a dozen a year, which was usual practice. Wolf abundance was monitored using GPS and VHF collars on chosen individuals.

Figure 2 – Number of Moose harvested in treatment and reference areas (Source: screenshot from Serrouya et al. 2017).

Screen Shot 2017-09-03 at 08.34.02

Note that the numbers of Moose culled in the treatment area after 2005, continues to be higher than in the reference area. This is necessary to maintain Moose abundance at the desired levels, otherwise reproduction will simply build the numbers up again.

As would be expected from the theoretical model of predator-prey relationships, the Wolves declined in response to the reduced numbers of their primary prey species, which were achieved after the concentrated culling during the years 2003 to 2005:

Figure 3 – Moose and Wolf abundance in the treatment areas from 2002 to 2014. Note that wolf abundance monitoring was started in 2007. (Source: Serrouya et al. 2017).

Screen Shot 2017-09-03 at 08.34.30

Note that Moose culling started in 2003, but monitoring of Wolf abundance only started in 2007, so there is a gap in information of four years as to what was happening to the Wolves. Although it is not possible to determine exactly when the Wolves began to decline in response to the reduced number of Moose, it is clear that a decline happened and continued until the Moose abundance levelled out  from 2009 onwards.

To test the effectiveness of severe culling of Moose upon the populations of Caribou, the abundance of each sub-population of caribou was recorded before and after treatment began in 2003.

Figure 4 – Caribou abundance estimates, before and after treatment began (dotted line), for each sub-population (Source: Serrouya et al. 2017).

Screen Shot 2017-09-03 at 10.06.17

In Figure 4, the top three graphs represent the fluctuations in Caribou abundance for the three treatment sub-populations. The bottom two are the same for the reference sub-populations. The Columbia North (treatment) and Wells Gray South (reference) are the largest sub-populations, each occupying about 20% of the total study area. The two smallest areas are Frisby-Queest (treatment) and Groundhog (reference). Columbia South (treatment) is intermediate in size.

These graphs show that in the small and intermediate areas, Caribou numbers continued to decline dramatically after 2003, regardless of whether or not those areas had been subjected to treatment. The largest reference area (Wells Gray South) suggests that Caribou numbers continue to decline, but more slowly than in the smaller areas. Only Columbia North (treatment) shows a stabilisation of Caribou numbers, with the possibility of a small increase by 2014. As Caribou have a low rate of reproduction recovery from a high risk of predation to a much lower risk will clearly take some years. It could be argued that Caribou numbers will recover further but slowly. But from the paper, this cannot be said to be absolutely certain. The smaller areas and sub-populations are perhaps more interesting in that they suggest that lurking confounders are at play – such as food availability declines.

Overall, the first two of the hypotheses listed above appear to be supported: i.e. that Moose numbers can be quickly reduced by sport hunting; and that Wolf numbers are limited by the abundance of their principal prey species (i.e. Moose). The third hypothesis that Caribou are primarily limited by Wolf abundance is much less well supported. Despite the apparent confidence of the title of the paper, the data suggest that caution (and a good deal more work) is needed before the success of the treatment can be announced with complete confidence.

4.0 – Are Wolves, Moose and Caribou relevant to British Grouse Moors?

Outwardly, in the sense that Steve Carver means it, there are a number of beguiling similarities between the Woodland Caribou in the boreal rainforests of British Columbia, and the management of a large sporting estate in England or a grouse moor in Scotland. These similarities can be listed as follows:

  • The Canadian Moose can be thought of in the same way as a pheasant on our hypothetical sporting estate. Both are introduced interlopers upon the existing natural environment.
  • The Wolf, as a generalist predator (albeit one with particular preferred tastes), has its parallels in the Fox, Common Buzzard, Carrion Crow, Magpies and so on.
  • The Caribou, as a native species with a low reproductive success, has its parallels in the form of (say) a Lapwing which mimics the low success of the Caribou because its reproductive strategy is intrinsically high risk.
  • Caribou numbers appear to be limited by Wolves (but other factors may also contribute); Lapwing are limited by foxes and corvids (but are also limited by modern agricultural methods).
  • Both Caribou and Lapwing are declining rapidly and both are of considerable importance from a conservation point of view.
  • Both the Canadian study and the UK sporting estate operate strategies of continuous management. The Moose continue to be culled because of reproductive replacement. In the UK, predators are also continuously controlled both because of reproductive replacement and also inward migration from outside the area.

These are the similarities which come to mind. However, there are also differences:

  • The most obvious disparity is that of scale. Most UK sporting estates, even large ones in Scotland are a matter of a few hundred hectares at the most. The area for this Canadian study is 18,000 km² or roughly 87% the size of the whole of Wales.  Its size and extremely rugged landscape is why monitoring of the radio tagged Wolves had to use a fixed wing aircraft in order to cover the vast area adequately. Size really does matter. The bigger the contiguous habitat, the lower the proportion of  edge effect.  This edge effect is important because the size and physical terrain limited the flow of Wolves and Moose into and out of the Canadian study area. This becomes even more important when there are hard, physical boundaries separating areas of interest and which limit or stop the movement of predators. There is a particularly rugged mountain range (Monashee Mountains – see Figure 5) to divide the treatment area from the reference area. Inevitably, this sort of physical barrier will slow up the immigration/emigration of large mammals in a way that does not happen in the UK – where many of the predators are fast moving, often avian and the landscape is nothing like as rugged as in British Columbia.
  • The Canadian study had large mammals as its subjects. Population responses to increases in predation, and then withdrawal of that predation, tend to be measured over years. A sporting estate in the UK has a very brief surplus for little more than two or three months. This may allow those resident predators to gorge themselves for a happy, but ephemeral period; after that, prey populations return to normal levels very quickly. Increased numbers of predators moving into such an area to enjoy the surplus will quickly find a very lean period after the 31st January at the end of the shooting season. This inhibits the build up of a large number of predators during the breeding season that follows.
  • The Canadian study was pursuing a path of indirect control: cut the numbers of Moose to reduce the numbers of Wolves, which in turn helps the Caribou. In UK sporting estates and smaller shoots, the approach is much more direct: reduce the number of predators to reduce the effect upon both the game species and the native  species of conservation interest, such as Lapwing or Curlew.
  • Perhaps the principal difference is that of the objectives between the Canadian study and sporting estates in the UK. The Canadian study had two problem groups which it wanted to reduce: the novel species (Moose) and the predator species (Wolves). A UK sporting estate has only one problem group: that of the predators (which, although they are more than one species, for the purposes of this argument can be considered as one problem). Conversely, the Canadian study had one native species as its conservation objective (Caribou): whereas the UK situation has two conservation objectives (Pheasant or Grouse, and Lapwing, Curlew etc).
  • The UK sporting interest provides a huge financial benefit to the landowners and farmers. Much of that money trickles down into the local economy in the form of wages and the service economy. In addition, a great deal more money comes into the local economy because of tourism which is prompted by the landscape itself, managed jointly by farmers and the sporting interests. The amount of money that flows into the area in this way, far exceeds (on a per hectare basis) any equivalent amounts generated by the British Columbia landscape, magnificent though it is. In particular, the Canadian sporting interest will generate a tiny amount per hectare compared with the UK situation.

Figure 5 – Monashee Mountains separating the treatment from the reference areas (Source: Google images).

Screen Shot 2017-09-04 at 09.13.40



Steve Carver’s overall thrust seems to be that if UK sporting interests (and farmers) were to accept lower numbers of game for a shootable surplus (or lower yields), this would enable a ‘rewilded’ landscape to ‘improve’ ‘biodiversity’ and ‘wildness’. These claims are open to criticism and are unlikely to prove viable, for at least some of the points given above.

Regardless of ecological theory, or experiments conducted on a vast scale in Canada, the simple fact of the matter is that direct predator control as practiced in Britain, succeeds in protecting both game species and species of high conservation interest. The daily experience of every gamekeeper, and which gets them out of bed early in the mornings, is now backed up by a growing body of scientific evidence which shows that land managed for sporting purposes supports a higher diversity of species of conservation interest than similar land. Over decades of work by the late Dick Potts[3] and colleagues at the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, has repeatedly demonstrated that the management and creation of particular  habitats (such as beetle banks in arable fields), as well as predator control, will greatly increase numbers of birds and other species. Predator control is now conducted routinely by the RSPB on some of their reserves, and they are also successful advocates of eradication of rats, mice and hedgehogs from naive island populations of breeding seabirds. Studies on predation of wader species are discussed by Ian Newton[4] who says: “Once predators have been removed from an area, nest success typically shows a substantial increase, and in subsequent years breeding densities rise…..Moreover, in the uplands, waders show greater nest success and nesting densities in areas where predators are controlled by gamekeepers than in other similar habitat elsewhere.” These statements are again backed up by a very recent paper on Curlew Numenius arquata breeding abundance by Franks et al.[5]. This statistical modelling study examined the mapped records provided by the successive breeding bird surveys organised by the British Trust for Ornithology. They used the Breeding Bird Surveys from 1995 and 2011 at a resolution of 1km² to investigate the potential drivers of variation in curlew population change across Great Britain. Under the section headed ‘Game Management’ they say: “We predict that Curlew abundance and population change will be positively associated with the extent of strip burning, through its role in creating variation in vegetation height and as a proxy for for grouse moor management, and consequently predator control.” They go on to say: “We predicted that Curlew abundance and population change would be positively associated with Red Grouse and Pheasant numbers, as a proxy for aspects of game management such as predator control.” Under the section headed ‘Predator populations’, they say: “We predict that Curlew abundance and population change will be negatively associated with both crow and fox occurrence.”

So we can safely conclude that direct predator control works; and that its use is sufficiently rapid in its positive effects for species of conservation interest. It is swift and efficient in its effects.

There are considerable differences between the British landscape and that of many parts of Europe and North America. One of the main differences is that of land ownership. Almost all land in the UK is owned by someone. Whereas much of the wild, undeveloped land in North America (and a good deal of Europe) is de facto owned by the state in the sense that exploitation needs licenses from the state to develop or extract from it in some way. In the UK the ownership of land means that the demand to make that land provide an income is very strong. This means that the land is worked very hard to provide the owner or tenant with an income. As this pattern of ownership has progressed over the centuries, the landscape has been shaped into what we see today – a highly diverse patchwork quilt of woodlands, fields and open spaces on a scale which is much smaller than in many other parts of the world. But it gives us a biological, social, economic, historical and cultural diversity which is unique and very, very special. If the rewilders wish to change all that, then they need an extraordinarily good reason to do so. So far, neither the rewilding movement as a whole, nor Steve Carver, have provided that reason.



[1] Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL (2006): Ecology – from Individuals to Ecosystems (Fourth edition). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

[2] Serrouya R, McLellan BN, van Oort H, Mowat G and Boutin S (2107): Experimental moose reduction lowers wolf density and stops decline of endangered caribou. PeerJ5:e3736;DOI10.7717/peerj3736.

[3] Potts GR, (2012): Partridges; Harper Collins, London.

[4] Newton I (2017): Farming and Birds. Chapter 13, pp 338-345. Harper Collins, London.

[5] Franks SE, Douglas DJT, Gillings S and Pearce-Higgins JW (2017): Environmental correlates of breeding abundance and population change of Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata) in Britain. Bird Study, DOI 10.1080/00063657.2017.1359233.



Posted in Conservation, Environment, Rewilding | 5 Comments

Brexit – will it lead us into an economic abyss?

The past few months have seen the wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who voted Remain, reach some sort of crescendo. James Chapman, former Daily Mail political editor, director of communications for George Osborne and then Chief of Staff for David Davis and now at Bell Pottinger, has ejected a flurry of tweets slamming anyone who has ever said anything positive about Brexit. He has ranted on the Today programme and  seems to have gone completely over the top and demanded that a new centrist party is set up to fight or reverse Brexit. So extreme are his tweets that friends are worried for his health. Meanwhile, the BBC has, allegedly, (I do not have a television and so cannot speak from first hand experience) been preaching an unrelenting diatribe of bad news for Brexiteers. The Guardian has been in a constant state of depression and the Financial Times has issued a steady stream of learned articles about how bad it is all going to be. All of these sources of news and commentary have reported news as either “Despite Brexit” if it is good economic news; or “Because of Brexit” if it is bad news. The more irreverent of us have now turned these two memes into hashtags and gleefully retweeted them on Twitter.

And yet my Twitter timeline is punctuated by people such as Robert Kimbell (@RedHotSquirrel) who tweets equally unrelenting good news about British companies which have just won new orders, or export orders, or are expanding. He tweets about those countries outside the EU who are queuing up to sign trading agreements with us. So, on the one hand it is all gloom and doom from the Remainers; and on the other it is as if we are about to burst into the sunny uplands of a resurgent Britain, free at last of the chains that bound us to the suffocating influence of the EU.

What then, is the truth? Can we even tell what the truth is? Does anyone know how all this is going to pan out? One particular article in The Guardian irritated me. In this piece, Barry Eichengreen, a professor of economics at University of California, Berkeley and former policy advisor at the IMF, is particularly unpleasant about the prospects of a newly independent United Kingdom. However, somewhat surprisingly for a professor of economics, he offers perilously little in the way of actual evidence to substantiate his case, other than that he thinks it’s all going to go tits up. He suggests that the devaluation of Sterling will bring inflation (it will), but chooses to ignore the fact that it will also bring export orders, may help to depress imports and will definitely boost tourism (it has). In common with other gloomadon-poppers, he asserts that there will be no landing agreements for British aircraft – and leaves us with the unspoken implication that we will all fall out of the sky when we go on holiday.

I started my search for truth and reconciliation by looking at trade figures, partly because this is where Robert Kimbell is coming from; and partly because it seems to me that trade is a good proxy for the health (or otherwise) of the economy. The UK has always been a trading nation and has always traded with continental Europe to a greater or lesser degree. When I say say “always” I mean it, because archeological evidence suggests that we have traded with France and Low Countries ever since the melting ice cut us off from the mainland. The Romans only ever bothered with us because they were already trading with us extensively. Trade expanded considerably during the Roman occupation and continued during the so-called Dark Ages. By the Medieval period, English wool was exported all over Europe – and many cities such as Bruges grew rich on the trade and need for banking that trade in English wool brought them. The vineyards of Burgundy, Bordeaux and Portugal grew rich on the demand from the burgeoning English (and Welsh) merchant classes. And so on, up to the present time.

The first place to explore UK trade figures is the most recent ONS tables here. This graph is reproduced in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 – UK trade, exports and imports, from June 2007 to June 2017 (Source: ONS).

Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 15.48.34

As has been the case ever since I can remember, our exports are exceeded by our imports, giving us a trade deficit which varies each month, but from initial inspection looks remarkably consistent over the timescale of the graph. By adding the two together to give us the total volume of trade, i.e. imports plus exports, we get figure 2 below:

Figure 2 – Volume of Imports plus Exports, June 2007 to June 2017

Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 16.08.25

The situation is now slightly smoothed and we can now divide this up into five different phases and look at each individual phase of UK economic history since June 2007. If the data is split into these five phases we get the following figures:

Figure 3 – Phase I: UK Trade Volume, June 2007 to a peak in August 2008.

Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 16.23.08

The banking crisis of 2008 started in 2007 with realisation that the subprime mortgage market was insolvent. Markets became increasingly jittery throughout 2007 and 2008, until on 15th September 2008, the huge investment bank Lehman Brothers, collapsed. What followed was a global recession, more banking collapses and various other smaller crises, such as the Greek recession – which continued to produce aftershocks for some time. Some argue that we haven’t finished yet. In the period leading up to August 2008, UK trade was roaring ahead, as can be seen from Figure 3. It should be noted that trade was rising steadily and at a consistent pace of roughly £2.3 Billion per month (Exports + Imports).

Figure 4 – Phase II: UK Trade Volume, September 2008 to July 2009; The Recession.

Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 16.42.32

The immediate and terrifying plunge took nearly a year before it bottomed out in the UK. Each month saw a steady reduction in the amount of trade as businesses and individuals retreated into defensive positions. As these figures are for international trade, as opposed to trade within the UK, it can be suggested that international trade will be the first to suffer in an international recession. It is also likely that international trade will be the slowest to pick up when conditions ease.

Figure 5 – Phase III: UK Trade Volume August 2009 to July 2011 – The Recovery Period

Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 16.56.08

Once again, trade increases steadily from one month to the next at about the same rate as it did before the 2008 crash. In August 2010, the volume of trade was once again at roughly the same value that it was before the crash, exactly one year later. There seemed to be a brief drawing of breath and then trade roared ahead again for another 12 months, until a strange flattening out occurred:

Figure 6 – Phase IV: UK Trade Volume August 2011 to February 2016 – The Bumpy Plateau

Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 17.10.40

During this four and a half years, trade was characterised by a volatile set of peaks and troughs. Mostly, it was troughs for about two-thirds of the time. Overall, trade increased by only 3% over this period, or 0.7% annually. This is compared to increases of double figures in Phase I and Phase III. The causes for this economic behaviour are difficult to determine, but lack of business confidence will be a large factor. Certainly, this period deserves closer study, if only for the wild fluctuations in trade.

Figure 7 – Phase V: UK Trade Volume March 2016 to June 2017 – The Brexit Effect

Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 17.38.56

This period is characterised by a growth of approximately 12% per year. Once again, the growth has returned to a more normal, steady increase from one month to the next over a long period of time. The volatility characterised by Phase IV has gone. The only concern is that there is an apparent flattening out of the curve in the final three months of the curve, but this may just be part of natural variation; or it may presage a downturn of some sort. However, it is not possible to tell which it is.

Much of the UK’s exports are founded upon manufactured goods (although these are now of reduced importance because of the modern predominance of the service sector). These days, the UK manufactures finished items such as cars, using imported components. We also manufacture components which are exported and then re-imported as part of a finished item such as a car. This phenomenon may help to explain the apparent very close relationship between exports and imports. So it is worth looking at manufacturing to see if that has a similar pattern:

Figure 8 – UK Manufacturing Value, 2007 to 2016 (Source: ONS)

Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 10.01.56

This bears a superficial resemblance to the overall pattern of trade in Figure 2 above. There is the Phase I initial climb to the peak of 2008; the Phase II crash from 2008 to 2009; a Phase III period of quite rapid recovery for two years from 2009 to 2011; a Phase IV period from 2011 to 2015 of a slow and bumpy increase; and finally a phase V period from 2015 to 2016, a period of increase of roughly the same rate achieved in the pre-crash of 2007. In very approximate terms, this would suggest a relationship between trade and manufacturing which is fairly close.

However, the usual measure of the health of the economy, and the one most usually quoted in the headline news, is that of GDP. This yields a slightly different pattern:

Figure 9 – UK GDP from 2007 (2nd Quarter) to 2017 (2nd Quarter) (Source: ONS)

Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 10.18.33

Once again, we see a rise to the peak of 2008, then a crash to 2009. What happens then is a long period of slow but consistent growth from the trough of 2009. There is no period of rapid recovery and no really obvious bumpy middle period. Perhaps, by exercising the imagination, it may be possible to discern a concave part of the growth curve (from 2011 to 2014) but this is stretching a point somewhat.  What is remarkable, and very obvious, is that that GDP took a very long time to recover the lost ground after the crash, whereas trade and manufacturing recovered very quickly. Specifically, from the trough of 2009, GDP took four years to regain all the lost ground. Whereas trade took 11 months and manufacturing took one and a half years.

At least part of the puzzle lies in the reasons why there is this difference in the response of the GDP versus the Trade curve. The answer lies in this graphic from the ONS:

Figure 10 – Changes over time of composition of UK GDP. (Source: ONS)

Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 11.40.56

And here we see that services now comprise nearly 80% of the generation of GDP in modern Britain. Furthermore, when looking at the way in which services have influenced GDP over time:

Figure 11 – Influence of different sectors upon GDP since crash of 2008 (Source: ONS)

Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 11.46.14

The pale blue line represents services and this shows a very close similarity to the shape of the GDP curve. Production is the dark blue line and along with construction are both very much more volatile than services. Production includes manufacturing and so there are echoes of the manufacturing curve in Figure 8 above.

One further small question remains to be answered. Figure 1 above shows the trade deficit between exports and imports. Over time, this appears to be very consistent within slight variations from one month to the next. However, if the deficit is roughly consistent in absolute terms, whilst the value of exports (or imports) is rising steadily, then the relative trade deficit must be getting smaller. The following tests this possibility:

Figure 12 – Trade Deficit Relative to Exports (Derived from ONS data)

Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 12.01.38

Here the trade deficit has very slowly declined from about 10% of the value of exports, to about 5.5%. The wide variation in the monthly figures is probably explained by the fact that most of this economic data is derived from surveys of businesses and that these surveys will suffer from intrinsic variation from one month to the next as different businesses are surveyed. Nevertheless, the trend is definitely downwards and heading towards a potential cross-over when exports exceed imports. In theory, on the current trajectory, it will take another decade or so before this happens.

Discussion and Conclusions

The foregoing examination of trade and GDP figures for the UK over the last decade suggests that when a financial crisis occurs and markets decline or slow down, trade is remarkably sensitive to those fluctuations in demand. Manufacturing is at least as sensitive to a decline or recession as trade, because orders are either cancelled or not made as individuals and businesses retreat into defensive positions in order to ride out the storm. Manufacturing then takes a little longer to recover when the upturn occurs. However, GDP, dominated in the UK by services, is slower to fall, does not fall as far, and takes much longer to recover. This explains the UK’s long and agonising crawl out of the 2008 banking crisis. The UK is dependent upon the services sector more than any other G7 country, as this ONS graphic shows:

Figure 13 – Percentage of service sector in each of G7 nations (Source: ONS

Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 12.42.23

However, the differences are marginal. The differences between Germany (which is widely considered to be dominated by manufacturing and export) and the UK is only about 11%. So it is clear that all highly developed economies such as ours, are dependent upon services for the bulk of their wealth creation. Nevertheless, the UK is often considered to be too dependent upon services; and there is a strong sense that our economy is in some way unbalanced. This impression is confirmed when we look at yet another excellent graphic from the ONS:

Figure 14 – Service sector contribution to regional economies (Source: ONS)

Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 12.52.39

All this confirms what many of us have sensed for some time – that whilst London and its financial and other services is vitally important for the UK economy, there is a large part of the UK whose potential is seriously under-exploited. These regions were once centres of manufacturing, but have declined in importance. But there is no doubt that manufacturing (and therefore trade) are once again resurgent. The transition from the old heavy industries of steelmaking and mining have left a hole which is slowly being filled by forms of lighter and smarter manufacturing, which in many cases is returning to the UK. The vast populations of the Far East are becoming more prosperous and the wage differentials between the UK and Far East countries is narrowing. The time it takes for a container ship to travel from Shanghai to Southampton is about 31 days at 16 knots. Getting stuff into and out of a container and transporting to and from a port means that this time is extended by another week or two. This transport time adds to the logistics of distant manufacturing; and so there is a further encouragement for UK firms to re-shore their manufacturing and shorten the supply chain.

But none of this answers directly the original questions posed at the beginning of this article about whether or not the UK was about to plunge into a dreadful economic abyss caused by our exit from the European Union; or by contrast, whether we would be uplifted by our new freedom to negotiate our own trade deals with non-EU countries and remove barriers created by the customs union.

In the run up to the referendum, we were told (with perfectly straight faces by those who told us) that the economy would suffer an immediate disaster as a result of voting to leave the EU. Manifestly, this has not happened. Our GDP has continued to rise at roughly the same rate as it has done for the last eight years. Our trade continues to flourish, rising by about 10% between the referendum in June 2016 and June 2017. Manufacturing has risen by 1.9% for the same period, and this is comparable to the increase over the year 2007 to 2008, before the crash. It is also comparable to the rise in GDP for the same period.

The principle premise of the Remainers is that trade will stop completely between the UK and the EU if we do not concede to the demands of the single market. This is palpable nonsense. Nearly all EU countries need access to the lucrative UK market far more than the UK needs access to theirs. In particular, Germany needs the UK for a very large part of its vast manufacturing industries. And what Germany needs from the EU, Germany gets, regardless of the objections of other member states. Meanwhile, the UK is steadily doing more and more business with the rest of the world and the proportion of trade that we do with the EU is steadily diminishing. Admittedly, it is difficult to assess exactly what the split is because a large percentage of UK exports to the rest of the world are routed through Rotterdam and Antwerp and these are counted as exports to the EU – the so-called Rotterdam Effect. So all UK export statistics to the EU are overstated – the linked article suggests about 4% or so. Whilst much publicity is given to various EU politicians who have expressed a desire to punish the UK, this is unlikely to happen for very good commercial reasons. The EU needs the UK far more than we need them.

The 2008 banking crash was global in its extent, and the effect upon UK international and domestic trade was far-reaching and very deep. As a result the UK lost about 6.5% from its GDP and took four years to recover before GDP was restored to the pre-crash peak. There is no doubt that the UK relationship with the EU vis à vis trade is important, even if it is diminishing, but it is very much more restricted to the limits of UK and European economies. Importantly, most of UK GDP is generated within the UK rather than by trading with other countries. This suggests that UK is better insulated against punitive action by the EU than would be the case if we had a much more export oriented economy, such as Germany. All EU countries need to trade with each other and artificial constraints put upon that trade by the EU are unlikely to have the same reach as a global banking crisis similar to 2008. But it is instructive to look at what happened in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 crash:

Figure 15 – Proportion of UK Exports to EU and non-EU countries (Source: ONS)

Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 15.16.48

Note that prior to the crash, UK exports to non-EU countries were exceeded by exports to the EU. By 2009, UK exporters’ response to the crash was to diversify into markets outside the EU. By 2011 the gap between EU and non-EU exports increased and now, EU exports are actually diminishing in real terms. Back in 2008, it was almost as if the kicking given to us by the crash was the necessary stimulus to get the UK out in to the rest of the world again. This trend is continuing.

This exploration of the rest of the world by UK exporters suggests that the inherent flexibility of attitude was what caused trade to recover back to its pre-crash peak within twelve months. It suggests that even if the EU bureaucrats enforced punitive action against the UK and effectively reduced a large proportion of UK exports to the EU, the response would be for those exporters to go elsewhere and recovery would be swift – i.e. within twelve months. UK GDP is unlikely to be seriously affected.

So, if there is cause to be confident that defensive measures against aggression by the EU are robust, does that still allow for the irrepressible optimism by Robert Kimbell – i.e. that we are standing on the threshold of a new, confident dawn? My own view is that it does. It is clear that there are huge areas of untapped economic productivity lurking within the UK. I feel that the financial services sector is at full capacity, or nearly so. The real potential for economic growth lies in the relatively downbeat areas of the North, the Midlands and the devolved countries of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Here lies potential for a return to manufacture as the basis for regional economies. One of the things that George Osborne got right was his insistence that there should be a “Northern Powerhouse”. Even here in Cornwall, there is a sense of engineering and mining returning once again to this quiet backwater of the United Kingdom.

This is not to say that are no serious problems lurking in hidden corners of the EU – and which are waiting to jump out and grab us by the throat. There are two principle difficulties ahead: The first is the size and location of a vast debt mountain lying un-talked about in Irish, German and Italian banks. The Greek problem rumbles on, with every bail-out only serving to repay the interest on loans given to them by German banks. Once these financial problems burst into the light of day, it will probably be enough to bring down the Euro.

The second problem is political.  The invitation by Angela Merkel to millions of young men of Middle Eastern and North African origin to enrich themselves by coming to Europe, was unilateral and done without any consultation with the people of Europe. The invasion, by a culture which is alien and predominantly antagonistic to European culture, will eventually cause political unrest within Europe on a scale unseen for decades. The Visegrad countries of the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary have already refused to accept these so-called “refugees” and have erected border fences on  a scale which has not been seen since the Iron Curtain was demolished. The refusal by Poland to accept the situation imposed upon them by Brussels is leading them to a showdown in the European Court of Justice, and the potential for fines etc. Given that Poland is the biggest recipient of EU largesse, this is a potentially risky strategy by Poland. But Poland has had its national identity crushed by successive waves of Germans and Russians in recent history, and my suspicion is that they are unlikely to want to lose that identity again – this time to Brussels. Within this dispute, along with the departure of the UK from the EU, lies the seeds of break-up of the European Union.

These two issues represent indirect risks to the UK economy within the next decade. But they are not “because of Brexit” and neither are they insuperable. There is every reason for confidence for our future as an independent, sovereign nation once again. We have only to grasp the opportunities which will present themselves to us; and ensure that our politicians do as they are told.


“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o’erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O’erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill’d with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call’d fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear

That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'”

Posted in Balance of Trade, Brexit, Economic forecasts | Leave a comment

What is “conservation” and who is it for?


Even before the referendum, it was becoming clear that all sorts of conservation NGOs and hangers-on were exercised over the possibility of Brexit and what the implications would be. Now that our exit is confirmed, those same worthies have gone into overdrive about the awful prospects that lie ahead for UK conservation and the environment. Many have said that the prospects are all bad and that the ‘environment’ will be low on the list of government priorities. The cynic in me suggests that their principal concern is the loss of their jobs.

As if that was not enough to be going on with, conservation (or conservation-type) issues are afflicting the nether reaches of the public consciousness. These can summarised as a short list:

  • Rewilding – i.e. the release of Lynx and Wolves into the British countryside.
  • Rewilding in the sense of banishing sheep from the uplands and replacing them with trees.
  • Grouse moor conflicts with Hen Harriers.
  • Culling of Black Rats from Lundy, Stoats from Orkney and Hedgehogs from North and South Uist, all in order to save various birds on their breeding grounds.
  • Reintroductions involving Red Kite, Great Bustard, Sea Eagle, Common Cranes, beavers and others.

And all this has somehow got mixed up with farming and public perceptions of farmers that are often extremely negative. The grouse shooters and game shooters are equally held in low esteem, despite their protestations of conservation effects or activities.

So what exactly is conservation?

In the sense that we mean it here, my dictionary[1] says: “conservation (noun)… preservation, protection or restoration of the natural environment and of wildlife”. The Oxford Dictionary of Ecology [2] gives more detail:

“Conservation The maintenance of environmental quality and resources of a particular balance among the species present in a given area. The resources may be physical (e.g. “fossil fuels”), biological (e.g. “tropical forest”), or cultural (e.g. “ancient monuments”). In modern scientific usage conservation implies sound biosphere management within given social and economic constraints, producing goods and services for humans without depleting natural ecosystem diversity, and acknowledging the naturally dynamic character of biological systems. This contrasts with the preservationist approach which, it is argued, protects species or landscapes without reference to natural change in living systems or to human requirements.”

There are several verbs in both of those descriptions: preservation, protection, restoration, maintenance, management. This suggests that conservation is an extremely active, interventionist process. Most conservationists would wholeheartedly agree that conservation involves a lot of hard work. Within Allaby’s definition, there are also a number of implied conditions (‘social and economic constraints’; ‘goods and services for humans’) where conservation is conditional upon human needs. In other words, in the broadest possible sense, the only reason conservation happens at all is because we humans need it and want it to happen; and furthermore, are prepared to do what ever it takes to achieve it.


What does conservation do? – and has it worked? 

For many years, conservation was all about establishing ‘nature reserves’ in order to protect a particular species or groups of species. Larger scale projects included the establishment of National Parks, such as Yosemite in the USA, or the Peak District National Park in the UK. Legislation has also played a very important part in the preservation aspect, because it has protected certain species from being hunted or destroyed. The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) is an example of protection of many species of animals and plants within the UK. It was a successor to various Protection of Birds Acts which established the principles (and the success) of legal protection. Wide ranging legislation such as this reaches right into the heart of land-use planning for example. The success of legislation in preventing the local extinction of many species of birds has been profound. With the combination of nature reserves and the legislation, the RSPB has halted and reversed the decline and extinction of UK breeding birds such as the Great Crested Grebe, Avocet and many others. A further extension to this was the realisation of the effects of organochlorine pesticides, PCBs and Mercury upon birds of prey populations[3]. Subsequently, organochlorines and many other substances were banned from agricultural use in the UK and other countries. The result has seen an explosion in numbers of birds such as Peregrine Falcons (which were said to be reduced to 50 breeding pairs in the whole of the UK by the 1960s). Peregrines are now once again breeding all along cliff tops and even on tall building in big cities. St Paul’s and Salisbury Cathedrals now each have their own resident pair of Peregrines.  The dual approach of having refuges, legal protection and banning harmful chemicals has worked for many species.

However, public discourse makes it clear that laws and fencing off of random pieces of land are not sufficient on their own to undo what is often perceived to be decades of damage done to the natural environment by farming and other land-use practices over the last few decades. Activists and the media are constantly harping at what they perceive to be unstoppable environmental destruction.  There is evidence that they have cause for their complaint. The BTO studies of populations of wild birds show that huge losses have occurred since the early 1980s. This gives some justification for alarm.


Figure 1 – Populations of wild birds in the UK since 1970. (Screengrab from British Trust for Ornithology website)

Screen Shot 2017-07-20 at 13.41.31

In this figure, both farmland and woodland birds have dropped alarmingly, but the biggest drop is in farmland birds, which have halved in numbers from the early 1980s. Although all groups of birds have declined since the mid 1970s when detailed records began, the political emphasis has been upon farmland birds.

The UK is not alone – these drops in farmland bird populations have been recorded across much of Europe. So, of course, the question is asked ‘What is going wrong?’. Inevitably, the focus has been upon the intensification of agriculture and the use of pesticides. Accusatory fingers are regularly pointed at farmers who are blamed for the losses in biodiversity on the land that they farm. However, as farmers do exactly what governments tell them to do via regulation and demands to increase the efficiency of their operations and increase output, it soon becomes clear to the objective observer that the conventional conservation policies of nature reserves and legal protection are insufficient to counter the declines. Naturally, many critics of farmers have failed to look this deeply and their reflexive response is to blame the farmer for everything.

Who gets the money?

The response of the conservationists has been to demand a huge increase in research and for changes amongst agriculture – not least to an agricultural support system which created milk, grain and butter mountains. Reform of the Common Agricultural policy followed, farm support was taken off commodities and placed upon the area of land actually farmed. Farmers were not the only beneficiaries of this change. Golf courses, equestrian centres and, of course, conservation NGOs all benefitted from the changes. Greenpeace Energy Desk reported the top 100 recipients of CAP payments in 2016. Their intention was to show the number of billionaires receiving public funding simply because they own large tracts of agricultural land. However, their research is more interesting if it is examined for the large charitable conservation NGOs and public bodies such as English Nature:

Figure 2 – Top 100 recipients of CAP monies split into private companies and conservation NGOs and Natural England. (Figures derived from Greenpeace Energy Desk calculations, June 2016)

Screen Shot 2017-07-21 at 09.39.07

As can be seen, the conservation and charitable NGOs receive roughly a third of the biggest CAP payments. In their latest analysis of payments for 2017, Greenpeace have again drawn attention to the rich-list recipients whilst failing to draw attention to the biggest beneficiary, the National Trust, which is head and shoulders above any other body on the list. the National Trust received  a massive £7,640,996 according to this report published in June 2017. It begs the question that if all this public money is being put into conservation, then why is it not working? If between £25 million and £30 million of taxpayers’ money is being shovelled into conservation NGOs each year, then what is that money being used for? Why are the genuine conservation outcomes that we are all looking for, as poor as they appear to be?

A few clues to the expenditure of these large sums of money can be found by visiting any National Trust local offices or yard, and observing the amount of transport and machinery, along with the number of people sitting in offices in front of computers. That equipment would be the envy of many a small farmer who has to scratch about and make do with ancient worn-out kit that is only held together with a few patches of paint and baler twine. Meanwhile, much of the physical conservation work carried out upon the nature reserves by these huge NGOs is actually conducted by supervised gangs of volunteers. This contrasts with the farmer who usually does the work himself – often quicker and more efficiently.

Reintroductions – and eradicating the introductions.

Nevertheless, there is a great deal of habitat management done by conservation NGOs. In addition, there are programs for reintroducing species which have been lost from some areas, and where conditions are now improved to support those  species. The RSPB has been particularly active in terms of reintroducing such things as Cirl Buntings, Red Kite, Great Bustard, Sea Eagle, Corncrake and Common Crane. From small (or even zero) breeding populations of each of these species, there has been a gradual increase into viable populations. The example of Red Kite is a particularly obvious success. From small numbers of Swedish and German birds introduced into parts of England and Scotland from 1989 onwards, Red Kite are now widespread in most parts of the Midlands of England, as well as much of Scotland. The once tiny remnant population of Welsh birds has now expanded considerably. Birds are not the only examples of reintroductions – the Field Cricket has been introduced back into Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire. Likewise, the Short-Haired Bumblebee. Quite often, the introduction of a few individuals from another  population into a small isolated population will be enough to improve the genetic diversity, so that the population once again becomes viable.

As a contrast to the reintroduction of species because of a perceived loss of native populations, there is the vexed issue of what to do when species which are being protected upon a reserve are constantly attacked by predators; or where the habitat is being destroyed by herbivores. This kind of dilemma has faced the RSPB in several contexts. Problems of habitat loss caused by grazing deer at Leighton Moss meant that some Red Deer had to be culled. This caused a good deal of public outcry, because some people felt that a conservation organisation should not be killing animals, but preserving them. A similar problem at RSPB Arne in Dorset occurred when Sika deer began to eat themselves out of house and home.

Other examples of the RSPB being involved in extensive culling have arisen when programs to eradicate rats or mice on islands where those rats have been accidentally introduced by humans. When rats become too numerous, they set about destroying unique seabird populations. This has happened on Gough Island in the South Atlantic with mice that are so numerous that they are estimated to kill up to 600,000 chicks in a year. The RSPB has organised an eradication project which is expected to start in 2019 and hopefully will be completed in 2021. Similarly, rats on South Georgia have been successfully eradicated and seabirds have returned to breed in big numbers.

Nearer to home, the RSPB has been involved in similar programmes to eradicate rats from  Lundy and Shiant Islands in the Hebrides. However, the species of rat in this case is the Black Rat (which is much smaller than the Brown Rat) and is now itself an endangered species within the UK. This demonstrates an ethical issue revolving around two species which involves a choice between them. Criticism is levelled at the RSPB because their priorities are birds and that birds are more “attractive” than rats. So the birds get the protection, but not the rats (who in numerical terms are at least as deserving of protection as the birds).

Despite the RSPB’s apparent enthusiasm for culling or eradication of inconvenient species, they have conversely expressed strong objections to other organisations or people who wish to cull species of birds  or animals. Examples include their objections to culling Monk Parakeets in Borehamwood, culling gulls in the Ribble estuary because of bird strike risks, and objections to badger culling because of bovine TB. Here, the ethical choices of conservation organisations are thrown into stark relief because of their apparent hypocrisy over the issues around killing those species which may or may not be in favour of one organisation or another. We begin to see that the acceptability of culling, and indeed conservation itself, is very much in the eye of the beholder. One man’s conservation may amount to another man’s habitat destruction.

This philosophical dichotomy is nowhere as stark as the RSPB’s refusal to co-operate with a scheme to control and relocate Hen Harrier nests on grouse moors. The Hen Harrier Joint Action Plan was set up  by the RSPB, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Moorland Association, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, and the National Parks. The plan is led by Natural England. The RSPB has withdrawn its support from the scheme on the grounds that, despite the scheme, Hen Harriers are still being persecuted on grouse moors. It is worthwhile looking briefly at some of the circumstances surrounding the problem:

Hen Harriers were eradicated by persecution from mainland Britain by about 1900, only a few pairs remaining in Orkney. Given protection, they spread again into mainland Scotland and then into England. As their numbers increased upon grouse moors, their favoured habitat, they once again became subject to (illegal) persecution. Given the huge economic and ecological contribution that English grouse moors bestow upon our uplands, this conflict needed to be resolved, because legislation and enforcement proved inadequate to prevent this persecution. The problem hinges around the fact that one pair of Hen Harriers on a grouse moor of adequate size, will not do much damage to Red Grouse numbers. However, Hen Harriers have a habit of roosting communally in winter, and sometimes breeding polygamously, with one male serving up to three females[4]. When this happens, grouse numbers are depleted rapidly and the moor becomes uneconomical to shoot. An important part of the Joint Action Plan was to trial a brood management scheme which moved harriers or their broods to a rearing facility away from the grouse moor. The young would be reared in pens until fledging when they would re-join the wild population. No lethal control would be used.

Strangely, the RSPB did not like this aspect of the plan, despite doing many similar things themselves for Great Bustards, Red Kite, Common Cranes and so on. After the first season of the Action Plan, and a very poor success rate for English Hen Harriers, the RSPB concluded that more persecution was taking place. This indicated to them that the grouse moor ownership and management were not taking the plan seriously, so the RSPB withdrew their support. However, as their support for the whole scheme seemed to be rather lukewarm at best, there is a lingering suspicion that they were looking for any excuse to back out of supporting the scheme.

At the same time as the RSPB deliberations were taking place, i.e. during the course of 2015 and 2016, a former Conservation Director of the RSPB, Mark Avery, waged an online war against the grouse moor fraternity. On the 12th of August 2015, he published an extremely partial book about the problem[5] which was curiously selective in the evidence that he considered whilst building up his case. Avery instigated a Parliamentary petition demanding a total ban on driven grouse shooting. This petition produced 123,077 signatures. Evidence was taken by the the House of Commons Petitions Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee before being debated  by the House of Commons EFRA committee. The proposed ban was rejected by the Secretary of State. Avery’s campaign has been criticised as divisive. It could even be judged as counter-productive to the conservation cause as it has helped to polarise the debate considerably – and may even have contributed to the RSPB’s withdrawal from the  Joint Action Plan. However, as both the publication date of Avery’s book and the petition were both timed to coincide with the start of the grouse shooting season, the ensuing froth and bluster did a thoroughly good job of increasing book sales. Avery’s book marketing strategy cannot be faulted.

The other skins in the game.

It is not just the big conservation NGOs who “do” conservation. Thousands of smaller organisations such as the county naturalists’ trusts and other organisations devoted to specific groups of animals or plants are an important contribution to our conservation and natural history heritage. These groups often revolve around a few experts in a particular field, such as bumblebees or spiders. Butterflies and moths have a large following of amateur and professional lepidopterists; the coleopterists pursue beetles with enthusiasm; dragonflies are spotted by birders with time on their hands; and so on.

However, the groups that are often left out of the conservation circle of righteousness are farmers and the countryside sporting groups. Farmers manage about 70% of the land area in the UK. Grouse moor and deer stalking takes place over 11,750 square kilometres of Scotland, upland England and Wales. Game shooting and other country sports take place on farms all over the country. Public and private forestry occupy about 10% of the land area. The Ministry of Defence owns or holds rights over 424,100 hectares (or 1.8% of total UK land area).

Figure 3 – Map of British grouse and deerstalking moors (screenshot from GWCT website)

All of these groups manage blocks of the British countryside in ways which have an impact upon conservation aims, even though the principal purpose of these groups is not conservation per se, but which impact the semi-natural environment simply because they occupy large areas of land.

Figure 5 – Use classification of UK Ministry of Defence held land. (Screenshot from MoD website).

Note that the largest proportion of land held by the MoD is for training. These are often large tracts of land which are usually not farmed, or only moderately so. By definition they are remote and wild places and hold large numbers of species that are of considerable conservation interest. Aside from training grounds for tanks and artillery, local MoD commands are often keen to assist conservation groups to ensure that these wild places are maintained in such a way that they make a large contribution to the overall conservation effort of the UK.

Are farmers to blame for absolutely everything?

Farmers are often criticised for being responsible for all sorts of environmental problems, including loss of biodiversity from the British countryside. As Figure 1 above shows, there is some cause for concern. However, it is wrong to assume that farmers are careless of the wildlife that exists on their land. Many are active in establishment and maintenance of areas which are of high conservation (or archeological) interest. Many have game shoots upon their land and look after the woods and cover in the interests of their sport. Inevitably, this means that those farmers with sporting interests create land which is often of higher conservation interest than those that don’t. Many farmers engage directly in conservation or environmental work which benefits biodiversity in different ways. This results in claims for CAP monies under the various environmental stewardship schemes:

Figure 6Area of UK farmland under higher-level stewardship or targeted agri-environment schemes.

Figure 7 – Area of UK farmland under entry-level stewardship.


Taking the figures for 2014 from Figures 6 and 7, this would suggest that approximately 7 million hectares are under entry level schemes; and a further 3 million hectares are under higher-level schemes. This gives a total of 10 million hectares of UK farmland being under the various inducements to improve biodiversity. The total utilised agricultural area for the UK is 15,686,440 hectares in 2010 (Source: Eurostat), so this would suggest that just under two-thirds of UK farmland is thus enhanced for the benefit of the environment and at the expense of the taxpayer. But, once again, referring to Figure 1 above, it is clear that all this effort and expense by conservation organisations, amateur enthusiasts, farmers, grouse moor owners and the rest has resulted in a decline of 50% of farmland birds since the 1970s. If it is assumed that bird life is a good proxy for many other species of plants and animals, then this paints a dire picture of the environmental health of UK farms. Who is to blame for all this?

The critics of farmers (and there are many) will point to the farmers and say that the farmers are simply not doing what they have been paid to do by the taxpayer. But this can be quickly dismissed because the Rural Payments Agency in England (and their equivalents in the devolved countries) are particularly savage when it comes to penalising farmers who they believe to have claimed for for something they have not done. RPA farm inspections are extremely thorough and are predicated on looking for opportunities to penalise the farmer. So, if the farmers are doing the work that has been prescribed by all the advisors and regulatory authorities then the system for enhancing farmland biodiversity must itself be at fault. The farmers have merely done exactly as they have been told by the experts and authorities.

The farm payment system, along with all of its environmental bells and whistles, are a product of thousands of man-hours of earnest discussion, inquiry and debate by agricultural and environmental experts – mostly within the confines of the European Union. The rules have been subject to lobbying by the environmental NGOs and political fudge by member states. And yet, despite all of this consensus, it is still manifestly failing to achieve any real improvements. At least, that is the message trumpeted by the environmental lobby, who continue to point their accusatory fingers at farmers.

So, if we are to expend vast amounts of taxpayers’ money on agri-environmenatl schemes, then what are the outcomes? Do these outcomes represent achievement of the desired goals? As far as I am aware, only one of the governments in the UK have bothered to try to answer this most fundamental of questions. The current Welsh scheme for agri-envronmental payments under the Common Agricultural Policy is called Glastir. In common with it’s English counterparts, this has entry level and advanced levels depending upon the eligibility criteria. The Welsh government instituted the Glastir Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (GMEP) which has established a baseline for subsequent monitoring, as well as assessments of progress against historical data from previous agri-environmental schemes in Wales. This has been carried out by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology on behalf of the Welsh Government and their report for 2017 is here. Briefly, the report shows: “…. there are two to three times more indicators improving (26-30%) than declining (8-14%) in the short and long term, with the remaining 60% showing no change.” So perhaps the situation is not as bad as the media and politically motivated environmentalists would have us believe. However, we do not know this for certain for the whole of the UK, because only the Welsh government has bothered to find out. Unfortunately, comprehensive and useful though it is, this study is at the level of Wales. It would be even more useful if it provided direct feedback to the individual farmer, being the person on the ground who actually does the work – and that is where feedback is most valuable. Nevertheless, the GMEP provides the basis for improving the outcomes from agri-environmental schemes at both farm and national levels.

Are the conservation NGOs any use?

On its website, Naturenet lists about 60 different organisations responsible for conservation in one way or another. The list is not exhaustive because it misses out the shooting and country sports bodies, but gives an idea as to the scale of direct conservation activities in the UK. For example, for 2015/16 the National Trust reports an income of £522 Million; likewise, the RSPB reports an income of £100.7 Million. It is clear that conservation is big business in the UK. When the international perspective is considered, conservation and environmentalism are vast industries with immense power. Over the course of my lifetime, the number and size of conservation organisations have grown dramatically. Their incomes have burgeoned. Nature reserves have been acquired and management for the intended purpose has proceeded apace. Their lobbying power has increased beyond all measure and their influence on legislation and environmental policy has grown commensurately.

And yet, according to the State of Nature 2016 report, Britain’s wildlife is in a parlous condition. if we have spent all this money, both public and private, upon conservation organisations, both public and private, then why are we not seeing a better return for our money? Some clues to answer this question may be found in some of the designated nature reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Of the one million hectares of land in England designated as an SSSI,  38.5 % are classified as ‘Favourable’, 55.8% classified as ‘Unfavourable Recovering’ and the remainder as ‘Unfavourable’ or worse. Whilst this suggests that the majority of these sites are recovering in some way, it nevertheless suggests that they have been a lot worse in the recent past. Certainly, I can think of one particular tract of south-facing chalk downland in Dorset, owned and managed by the National Trust, which instead of being covered in sheep-grazed turf and Common, Adonis and Chalk Hill Blue butterflies, is actually covered in rank gorse with very few butterflies. There are rumours of SSSIs in Scotland designated for their Red Throated Divers, managed by the RSPB, and where the divers have long since departed.

Other clues to answer this question lie in the increasing criticism levelled at the RSPB for their apparent hypocrisy in failing to recognise the part that shooting and other country sports have in the management of highly diverse habitats and providing the stronghold for many remarkable species such as the Curlew and the Golden Plover. This website asks a number of very reasonable questions of the RSPB. But perhaps the most telling is its calculation of the actual amount the RSPB spends upon managing its nature reserves – a mere 24%; whilst 26% is spent on fund raising, 40% spent on research, education, lobbying and PR, and 10% on administration. in other words, most of their expenditure is on people in offices, not on the birds.

Further criticisms are levelled at the RSPB, because they have installed a massive wind turbine at their headquarters. They argue that is in the interests of generating their own electricity and for cutting their carbon footprint. A cynic might remark that the real intention is to garner the handsome rent available to the owners of land upon which these things are sited. The RSPB argue that they have considered its siting so as to avoid bird collision, and that they program it to stop turning at night when the wind speeds are low so as to avoid chomping bats. However, the RSPB has been a vigorous opponent of wind turbines in many places because of the risk these things pose to bats and birds. The charge of hypocrisy is inescapable.

Whilst the above examples have concentrated upon the RSPB, it must said that there are probably many instances of similar conflicts of interest that apply to other NGOs. All in all, there is much evidence that nature conservation organisations have lost their way and are in danger of forgetting what they are there for.



The application of conservation principles to legislation and land use has had many significant successes over the last 70 years or so. Many species have saved from ultimate extinction by conservation effort. Whilst it is perfectly true that much is still to be done in terms of altering human cultural mind-sets – there are still totemic issues such as the continued poaching of rhinos and elephants for their ivory. Nevertheless, examples such as the almost complete cessation of whale hunting has allowed most species of whale to recover in numbers. There is now a growing tourist industry based around whale watching; it seems almost as if the whales have forgiven us for our excesses and some now seem to enjoy the attention from humans. National game parks in Africa have understood for many years that tourism brings in money – and that money helps the wildlife and the habitats to thrive.

However, not all species are interesting or photogenic enough to stimulate tourism; and tourism has its own environmental impacts and hazards. Legislation is is not always effective and may in some instances be counter-productive. For example, a  ban on the use of glyphosate for spraying off arable weeds such as Blackgrass Alopecurus myosuroides, might require more toxic chemicals to replace it, as well as a wholesale return to ploughing which destroys large numbers of earthworms. Potentially, UK soil health could decline again, where many farmers are presently seeing an improvement. Another agro-chemical instance is with the banning of neonicotinoid seed coatings. This must be replaced by more toxic synthetic pyrethroids which, because they are sprays, have a far greater effect upon bee and insect populations than the coated seeds. Clearly, there can be many areas of conflict between the priorities of food production and that of conservation.

Conflicts with farming and shooting aside, it is becoming clear that the rate of conservation successes has slowed down. With the possible exception of future improvements in the island eradication of rats from oceanic or remote islands, the conventional conservation techniques of reserves, legislation and reintroductions may have reached the point of diminishing returns – at least in the UK. This leaves us with the lasting impression that the conservation NGOs are now desperately top-heavy in terms of staffing and budgets being spent upon marketing etc. The big UK-based organisations of the National Trust and the RSPB fall into this category of apparently having lost their way. International organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have long since divided into just two activities: lobbying and fundraising. There is no actual conservation or environmental work done by either of these organisations, and has not been for many years. Both now seem to be in the business of taking EU taxpayers’ money and raising charitable donations by selling photographs of fluffy animals printed on glossy leaflets – a kind of “Give us your money or the baby seal gets it” approach to marketing. It seems almost as if many conservation NGOs have drifted into becoming large employers of mediocre environmental science graduates who spend their lives in front of computer screens, and having little contact with the environment that they are supposed to be conserving.

But there are grounds for optimism. The Glastir Monitoring and Evaluation Programme and the State of Nature 2016 reports linked to above are both prepared from information and techniques developed by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, a division of the Natural Environment Research Council. CEH have international recognised expertise in developing continuous long-term monitoring for levels up to landscape and beyond to national levels. Furthermore they are independent, but co-operate with universities and other research organisations. The two reports show that this kind of research can be very effective in monitoring and developing policy at national level, and down to farm level. Perhaps the biggest problem with agri-environmental payments to farmers to date, has been that the results have not been objectively measured and tested – resulting in policies whose utility in terms of effective conservation benefit are unknown or even counter-productive. Furthermore, some policies have been enacted for limited periods and then ceased, despite the possibility of beneficial results. Until hard information becomes available to farmers, who can then use it to decide which outcomes they are prepared to work for, conservation effort on farmland will continue to be a hit-and-miss affair.

Meanwhile, other items of research, such as that from the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, have shown that biodiversity on shooting estates and grouse moors is often as good or higher than that of neighbouring moorland managed by the RSPB. The principle reasons for this (muirburn and predator control) are not acknowledged by the RSPB for reasons of their own idealogical dogma. For conservation to move forward, the truth must be acknowledged and embraced by both sides in what has become an extremely fractious debate. This is not to say that the RSPB has been alone in taking a rigid stance. Many within the shooting lobby are equally stiff-necked. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that dogmatic adherence to the idea that any bird which is currently protected is immune to changes in the law – which may remove that protection in the future. Conservation has been so successful, as far as the Common Buzzard is concerned, that they are now extremely common everywhere in the UK. But they are also highly successful as generalist predators and can do a lot of damage to many ground-nesting birds. There are increasing occasions where there is a strong case for limited or local control of buzzards. Unfortunately, as things stand, the RSPB is completely opposed to such control, even where the case for doing so is compelling.

It is clear from the foregoing that conservation is a highly active process which engages many people in many different walks of life – and which uses many different processes to achieve it. But not all of this activity is entirely worthy. There is a good deal of job-seeking corporatism, froth, virtue-signalling and outright political manoeuvring associated with it. Conservation is a series of choices – human choices – where the arguments start just as soon as one set of humans gain ascendency over another set. We are left with ethical choices as to which species we should conserve and those which we should control. Those ethical judgements have to be made by humans in the light of the most complete and up-to-date information available.

At the beginning of this article, a definition of conservation was given which includes the concept that conservation is for human benefit. There seems to be an appreciation that the animals and plants which surround us are of value, not only for their own sake, but for the spiritual benefit of humankind too. Somehow, most of us seem to want to have some form of nature around us. There seems to be a huge, if poorly understood, psychological benefit to us. Without natural things and landscapes around us, we would be poorer creatures indeed. The human desire for natural landscapes has to be balanced against our own need to produce sufficient food from a finite area of land and sea. We humans have a duty to look after our planet and our fellow creatures, not just for their own sake, but for ours as well.



[1] Pearsall J (ed.) (1999) New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[2] Allaby M, (ed.) (2010) Oxford Dictionary of Ecology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[3] Cooke AS, Bell AA and Haas MB (1982) Predatory birds, pesticides and pollution, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood, Huntingdon.

[4] Cramp S and Simmons K (1980): Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol. 2, Hawks to Bustards. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[5] Avery M, (2015) Inglorious. Bloomsbury Natural History, London.


Posted in Common Agricultural Policy, Conservation, Farming, Taxpayer | 4 Comments

Is Theresa May an ‘Unelected’ Prime Minister?

This morning, Jolyon Maugham QC tweeted the following:


Encapsulated within less than 140 characters, Jo seems to have raised two or three issues all at once. But the thing which caught my eye was his use of the phrase ‘Unelected PM’.

This particular jibe has been used more than once by a number of pundits. It was used several times during the premiership of Gordon Brown. Invariably, it is used pejoratively as an attempt to diminish to legitimacy of a particular Prime Minister. There have been occasions in the past where such a Prime Minister has felt the need to go to the country in a General Election in order to secure a popular mandate and thus carry out their intended programme. So perhaps there is a modicum of truth in the epithet. But certainly, we need to examine the situation a little more carefully.

The standard procedure for the appointment of Prime Minister in the UK, is for the Crown to ask a particular politician to form a government. This is why, after a General Election, there is a ritual journey by the leader of the winning party to make a journey to Buckingham Palace to seek an audience with Her Majesty. That politician is not necessarily the leader of the party which won most seats. Famously, after the 2010 General election, it took a couple of days to winkle Gordon Brown out of Number 10 Downing Street before David Cameron was confident enough to go to the Palace.

A General Election is called for the electorate to choose a politician to represent them in Parliament. Although many of us, when we vote, will have at the back of our minds a view of the competency of a particular party, a party leader, and who we should like to form a government, this is not the legal purpose of the election. The legal purpose is to return a politician to Parliament to represent us in that place.

So, with these caveats in mind, we should then look at the history of elections and Prime Ministers in this country and see what has happened.

Since 1900, there have been a total of thirty General Elections, thus forming thirty Parliaments. Of these, there have been thirteen Parliaments where the Prime Minister has been changed during the course of that Parliament. This has happened for a variety of reasons – resignation of an incumbent PM  due to ill health being one reason. On other occasions, a PM has resigned because he (or she) can no longer carry their party with them. Margaret Thatcher’s resignation under these circumstances is perhaps the most well known example in recent times. David Cameron’s resignation falls into this category.

Using this list, it can be seen that there have been two Parliaments since 1900 which have been headed by more than two different Prime Ministers – that of 1900-1906 (Marquess of Salisbury, Arthur Balfour and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman) and 1935-1945 (Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill). Furthermore, not all General Elections have resulted in Parliaments where successive PMs have come from the same party. The 1900-1906 Parliament was headed by three Prime Ministers, the Marquess of Salisbury and Balfour being Conservative, and Campbell-Bannerman being Liberal. The 1918-1922 Parliament was headed successively by David Lloyd George (Liberal) and then Andrew Bonar Law (Conservative). Likewise, the 1923-1924 Parliament was lead by Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) and then Ramsay Macdonald (Labour).

The principle point seems to be that the Crown can appoint anyone to form a government in the best interests of the nation. Looking at this list, where 43% of governments (and therefore Prime Ministers) have been changed during the course of a single Parliament, it becomes apparent that our electoral and constitutional system is remarkably flexible and can be altered according to the needs of the nation at any particular time or national emergency. Under this examination, it seems to depend upon three things for its success: the willingness of the electorate, the politicians and the constancy of the Crown acting in the best interests of the whole nation.

So when considering recent events, Theresa May’s government was formed upon the resignation of David Cameron and the result of the EU Referendum. This new government has been drawn from the ranks of the Conservative MPs who are mostly different individuals from their immediate predecessors. As a result, the philosophical outlook of the current government is markedly different from that of David Cameron’s government, but is no less legitimate for it. There is no particular need for Mrs May to go to the country for another General Election, because the Conservatives enjoy a small but workable majority in Parliament. In any case, the immediate need for the country, as mandated by the result of the referendum, is to extricate the United Kingdom from the clutches of the European Union. Another General Election would only act as a distraction and hindrance to this requirement.

Finally, we need to address directly the ‘unelected’ epithet. There have been no Prime Ministers of the UK who are unelected since the Marquess of Salisbury resigned due to ill health in 1902. The nearest we have had since then was Sir Alec Douglas Home (the 14th Earl of Home) who was appointed Prime Minister upon the resignation of Harold Macmillan.  Home renounced his peerage four days after his appointment as PM in order that he could be held to account within the House of Commons.

Theresa May was elected MP for Maidenhead in 1997 and now enjoys a majority of 29,059 at the last election. Given that, and all the conditions outlined above being fulfilled, it is difficult to see how Jo Maugham can  argue that she is somehow ‘unelected’ – even allowing for the habitual sophistry of lawyers. Sadly, this is not the first time he has let himself down with cheap, unsubstantiated jibes. I doubt if it will be the last.

Posted in Political Debate | Leave a comment

The impact of upland farming – Part 4 of 4: Definitions and conclusions.

In many ways, George Monbiot’s book Feral, is a curious amalgam of anecdote, ecological theory, polemic and autobiography. On two or three occasions, he seems to feel intimately and mystically connected to events (as he envisages them) in the distant geological past. These intense emotional experiences lead to ideas of a revelatory nature. So his nostrums for the correction of the UK’s environmental ills (as he sees them) are correspondingly muddled. Nevertheless, he has inspired a whole new movement of people devoted to returning large chunks of the British Isles to a state of natural bliss, as determined by Monbiot and his acolytes. This last post in the series looks at some more ecological definitions and a few objections to the idea of ‘rewilding’ as a scheme to do little more than introduce some large predators and let vast tracts of land revert to secondary forest, in an outwardly naive attempt to re-create a pristine ‘natural’ environment.

Part A – Definitions and Principles.

A large part of the intellectual shortcomings of this book are the use of terms from the science of ecology. This relies upon their everyday usage where the precise meanings have been muddied. So the following notes are a short discussion of the definitions and their implications for ‘rewilding’ on the scale that George Monbiot envisages.

An ecosystem is a ‘..discrete unit that consists of living and non-living parts, interacting to form a stable system. Fundamental concepts included the flow of energy via food chains and food webs, and the cycling of nutrients biogeochemically. Ecosystem principles can be applied at all scales. Principles that apply to an ephemeral pond, for example, apply equally to a lake, an ocean, or the whole planet.[1]’ A closely related concept is that of the habitat which is defined as ‘the living place of an organism or community, characterised by its physical or biotic properties.[2]’ Thus it can be seen that the habitat of, say, a Pied Flycatcher might be an upland Sessile Oak wood pasture, because that is where Pied Flycatchers like to breed. On the other hand, the Sessile Oak wood pasture can be viewed as an ecosystem in terms of the flows of nutrients, energy and species of plants and animals that live within it.

The above definition for ecosystem uses the words ‘stable systems’. This should not be confused with ‘static’. Within an ecosystem, most species will be in a constant dynamic flux, their populations waxing and waning within certain limits. Some of these fluxes will be diurnal, seasonal, annual or may even operate over decades or centuries. For example, the wood pasture will have originated as young trees. The influence of grazing animals upon it isolates those individual trees which reach adulthood, but will suppress any further young trees. The woodland takes on an open aspect with few younger trees. The trees themselves will also be deliberately pollarded by humans, to maintain green growth and fuel stocks, whilst keeping the regrowing branches clear of browsing cattle. This will also considerably extend the lifespan of the individual trees. After many decades, the wood will take on a distinctive open-floored appearance and many characteristic flora and fauna. However, if the grazing pressure is removed, the wood will produce many young trees, the open aspect will be lost, the old trees will die much earlier than otherwise; and so many species which were dependent upon its previous regime of fertilisation from animal dung etc, will be lost and may be replaced by others.

An ecological term which is in frequent use, and which is abused almost as often as it is used, is biodiversity: ‘A portmanteau term, which gained popularity in the late 1980s, used to describe all aspects of biological diversity, especially including species richness, ecosystem complexity and genetic variation.[3]’ The problem with this term is that it frequently has an implied value judgement attached to it. In other words, if biodiversity for a particular habitat is described as ‘high’ this is seen to be a good thing. Conversely, if the biodiversity is ‘low’ then this is bad. The principle seems to rely upon counting the number of species in an area and calling this count ‘biodiversity’. This practice of counting species is endemic amongst that particular kind of birdwatcher known as ‘twitchers’. Amongst this group, there is a habit of collecting lists of birds seen: there might be a ‘British List’ for all birds seen in Britain; a ‘Life List’ for all birds seen so far in the birdwatching career of an individual; a “garden List’ for all birds seen in that person’s garden; and so on. The longer the list, the more pleased is the twitcher. A very long list may even confer status to the holder amongst his fellow twitchers. The pursuit of such lists is similar to that of a stamp collector or train spotter and is perfectly harmless.

However, this listing habit can lead to some obviously absurd conclusions. One example is contained within the National Biodiversity Network Gateway. This an enormous exercise whereby all official databases for UK flora and fauna have been collated to produce a vast interactive map showing which species has been recorded in which 10Km square of the Ordnance Survey grid. In one particular square in south-east Dorset, a total of 38,738 species of plants and animals have been recorded. This is because that square includes chalk downland, acid heathland, saltmarsh, sand dunes, built up areas, sea and a chunk of Poole Harbour. By virtue of a statistical quirk, it has accumulated species from all of these vastly different and varied habitats. In other words, we should not consider the Dorset square as being more important or valuable than this square which has 4,513 species recorded in it. The two squares just happen to be very different and each contain species which are characteristic of those habitats. The National Biodiversity Network has been created with very serious intent and it is important for research and assessing the impact of such things as development. But we should not run away with the idea that big numbers of species are necessarily more important than small numbers.

Contrary-wise we could consider an extreme example of the Antarctic, which has no predatory land mammals. Would we introduce – in the interests of ‘improving its biodiversity’ – Polar Bears into this place? Hopefully everyone would agree that this would amount to an ecological disaster, and so this act of vandalism would not be done. To return to the example of Welsh uplands, the relatively small number of species recorded in the upland moors are distinctive to that habitat. They play a part in the dynamics of the moorland and so are of importance in their own right.

This brings us to the concept of a keystone species which is defined as: ‘A species which has a disproportionately strong influence within a particular ecosystem, such that its removal results in a severe destabilisation of the ecosystem and can lead to further species losses.[4]’ Note that the definition revolves around the word ‘influence’; and secondly that it is couched in terms of what happens when the keystone species is removed. There are two implied conditions within this definition. The first is that the keystone species has to be present in sufficient numbers to have influence; and secondly that there is a directional aspect to its influence. However, in the stories that are told to illustrate the keystone effect – wolves in Yellowstone Park and Sea Otters in kelp forests, there is the effect of removal, which is adverse, and the reverse effect of reintroduction which brings about the restoration of the affected ecosystems. In both of these cases, the removal of the keystone was only a matter of a few decades. Both affected ecosystems were otherwise unmanaged by humans. In both these cases, the keystone is a large predator – and this explains why Rewilding Britain wishes to re-introduce large predators.

The impact of a keystone species with the rest of the ecosystem starts with a predator-prey relationship. In the case of Sea Otters, the prey species are sea urchins. In the case of the Yellowstone Wolves, the prey species is the Elk Cervus canadensis. Predator-prey relationships are rarely straightforward. The longest running study of the dynamics of predator and prey is the Isle Royale project which has studied the way in which wolves interact with Moose Alces alces on this large 535 square km island in Lake Superior. This is a relationship which is outwardly simple: the wolves eat the moose, whose numbers decline as a result of predation. The wolf numbers decline correspondingly as the numbers of moose declines and the wolves have insufficient to eat. When predation pressure is thus reduced, the moose numbers build up again. Or that is the theory.

But reality is much more complicated:


Figure 1Isle Royale: fluctuations of wolf and moose numbers since 1959. Image from Wolves on Isle Royale project.

From Figure 1, the anticipated wave-form type picture, with wolf populations following fluctuations in moose numbers has not quite happened. As can be seen from the overview of the project, it’s a lot more complicated than expected from classical predator-prey theory. And this is in a geographical situation where the two populations are isolated from any other outside influence.

All of this unpredictability brings us back to the suggestion I made in Part 3 of 4 of this series, that characteristic species would be lost from the uplands if rewilding is conducted in the way that George Monbiot and Rewilding Britain seem to envisage. The other thing that we can say is that those characteristic species would be replaced by comparatively commonplace woodland species – except, of course, for the wolves and the lynx. The unpredictability is increased when a large predator is introduced into an ecosystem that has not known such predators for many centuries. Regardless as to whether a particular species is found in the fossil record, or if it appears in mediaeval records, introduction of such a species amounts to the release of an entirely alien species, with results that are completely unpredictable.

Part B – Can the uplands be made better?

None of the foregoing is an attempt to say that everything in the uplands of Britain and Northern Ireland are perfect as far as ecological health of the moorlands is concerned. There are some serious causes for concern. Almost all of the iconic bird species mentioned in Part 3 of 4 are in decline. Some seriously so. The reasons for these declines are not fully understood, but one reason may be related to the recent history of grazing and certain dominant species of vegetation such as Purple Moor Grass Molinia caerulea and Matt Grass Nardus stricta. These grasses are tussocky in habit – Molinia in particular growing tall dense tussocks which reduce the open habitat of the moorland to a much more hazardous, enclosed vista which hides predators from ground nesting birds. As the tall grasses encroach, the number of places in which a Skylark, for example, will wish to nest are seriously reduced. Another factor will also be related to the commercial afforestation of the uplands, and the edge effect, as explained in Part 3 of 4 of this series.

The traditional management practice has been to burn the Molinia and then allow cattle to graze the new shoots ensuing from the blackened stump. However, under the influence of previous incarnations of the Common Agricultural Policy, headage payments made for sheep meant that numbers of sheep on the hill rose and caused undoubted over-grazing. Furthermore, the hardy hill cattle breeds such as Welsh Black, Belted Galloway and Highland cattle were reduced in number and replaced by continental or other lowland breeds. These modern breeds are insufficiently hardy to be put on the hill and will not thrive on the poor quality grazing which the uplands have to offer. So grazing pressure has been increased at a lower level on the in-byes to each farm. This, in turn, has reduced habitat for the grassland species at lower altitudes such as Skylark and Lapwing. Ironically, it is likely that the encroachment of unfriendly grasses on the uplands has been exacerbated by the recent reduction of sheep on the hill (which has happened as yet another incarnation of the CAP has replaced headage payments with area payments). Although sheep do not control Molinia as well as cattle, they are better than nothing. Furthermore, cattle are better at keeping bracken under control, because Bracken does not like to be trampled. Moorland has thus suffered over the last 30 years from a high grazing density of sheep, a reduction of cattle and then a reduction in the numbers of sheep (since 2001), but not enough cattle. A summary of the grazing effect on upland pastures can be found in this 2012 report from the RSPB. Further experimentation and monitoring of cattle grazing Molinia can be found here.

Given sufficient practical science and experimentation; and coupled with a re-learning of traditional practices, it is quite likely that a sensible approach to grazing the hills can bring about a large improvement in the number of Curlew and Golden Plover nesting  in our uplands. All it needs is a bottom-up demand from the farmers and the local people to drive demand. Government assistance in the form of flexible grant-aiding would cover any losses. The prospect of leaving the EU and our departure from the centralised and often damaging regimes dreamt up in Brussels will mean that opportunities for sensible management will soon become possible.

Part C – Food value of sheep.

George Monbiot claims that sheep occupy a huge amount of UK land surface area, but produce a mere 1.2% of our diet. In making this comparison, Monbiot is attempting to diminish the role of sheep in the national diet and so conclude that the loss of sheep from the uplands is of no significance – and by implication can easily be made up from other sources. He uses a rough calculation of the calorific value of sheep meat in our diet to justify this comment. In so doing, he uses this to lend strength to his idea that sheep should be banished from the landscape and replaced with trees and wolves. However, Monbiot’s statistics are never what they may seem at face value. His statistics are based upon the calorific value of sheep meat compared to the total average food consumption in the UK. At first glance, this may seem to be a reasonable comparison. But the UK has to import 40% of its food, so this makes the production of food from the UK of much greater importance in terms of food security and contribution to the economy.

A better comparison would be to compare sheep as a source of protein with the total amount of protein from animal sources produced within the UK.

From these two figures, it can be seen that sheep meat contributes 300,000 tonnes, of which approximately 60,000 Tonnes is protein. Clearly, the loss of such enormous quantities of food from UK production would amount to a serious loss in the nation’s ability to feed itself.

However, the story is not yet complete. Monbiot is assuming that the uplands are only producing sheep. In fact, the uplands produce both sheep and beef, so an element of the UK beef production needs to be added to the sheep figure in order to assess the importance of the uplands. This is difficult to assess from the statistics that I have found so far, but Welsh statistics provide us with an approximation which can be used:

Welsh beef production in 2014 was 42,600 Tonnes.

Welsh lamb production in 2014 was 64,200 Tonnes.

80% of Welsh farms are the Less Favoured Areas (i.e. the uplands), so the beef contribution to the upland output is 42,600 x 80% = 34, 080 Tonnes beef from the Welsh uplands. At 20% protein for a carcass, this is equivalent to 6,816 Tonnes of protein. If we assume most Welsh lamb is produced in the LFA, then using the same approximate calculation, the Welsh uplands produce about 15,000 Tonnes of protein from the combination of lamb and upland beef.

Whichever way you look at it, this is a lot of food and protein produced by some very poor grazing, and cannot be considered to be unimportant enough to dismiss.

Section D – The rewilding business plan.

The Rewilding Britain plan is much the same as George Monbiot’s. It amounts to statements that express a wish to reintroduce Lynx and Wolves amongst other things. Their plan also assumes that vast areas of upland Britain will be re-afforested in order to provide habitat for the large mammals they plan to bring in. As this will create environments which will be full of birdsong and so on, it will also draw in the tourists. This will compensate the farmer for his loss of sheep and grazing. Rewilding Britain has a stated ambition: “To see at least one million hectares of Britain’s land, and 30 per cent of our territorial waters, supporting natural ecological processes and key species.” One million hectares is ten thousand square kilometres, or just under half the area of the whole of Wales. The UK Exclusive Economic Zone (i.e. our territorial waters) is just under 4 million square kilometres, so 30% of that is 1.2 million square kilometres. It seems that they want to take control of much of our fishing grounds as well. We would expect to see a comprehensive plan involving lots of people, government and so on. Unfortunately, there isn’t any.

The principal thrust of Monbiot’s plan, which is backed up by Rewilding Britain, is that the  upland sheep farming will be replaced, and even improved upon, by tourism. According to the Welsh Assembly, total Gross Value Added for the Welsh economy is about £55.8 Billion. Of this, agriculture contributes about 0.71%, or £396 Million. However, this includes dairy and lowland farming, so we have to multiply this figure by the percentage of Wales which is occupied by Less Favoured Areas (which is a proxy for upland farming). This gives a contribution to the Welsh economy by hill farming of approximately £317 Million. As Rewilding Britain wish to rewild the equivalent of nearly half of Wales, this would suggest an equivalent of £150 Million would have to be generated to make up in order to equal the losses caused by the departure of hill farming. Tourism in Wales already contributes 5% of the Welsh economy, or £2.79 Billion. So Welsh tourism would have to be increased by approximately 5 – 6%.

Furthermore, Rewilding Britain needs to demonstrate that they can generate this additional income from the act of rewilding itself. In other words, it is not enough to increase Welsh tourism by building more caravan sites near the beaches; they have to show how many more people will visit Wales in order to view the Wolves, Lynx and Blue Tits in their new forests. This may be tricky, because it is a well known fact that most tourists rarely walk more than 100 yards from their cars. The very small number who are prepared to walk miles uphill and then sit in a cold and uninviting hide for hours in the hope that they will see a Wolf or a Lynx will be perilously few in number.

Rewilding Britain and George Monbiot counter this objection by citing instances of the numbers of people who come to watch Ospreys. This is fair enough, but Ospreys have have a convenient habit of nesting in the tops of dead trees, or even on artificial platforms, which are easily arranged to be close to car parks and hidden approaches. This kind of arrangement suits any species which is static in its habitat and breeding sites. Beavers are a possible example of  this kind of arrangement. But Wolves and Lynx are much less tolerant of human presence and are unlikely to breed in accessible places. Furthermore, their home ranges are vast in terms of area. The likelihood of seeing either of these species will be small; and the income generated from that possibility will be correspondingly tiny.

Section E – Risk and impact assessments

Aside from the economic impact of rewilding, it is essential that other impacts are considered. The first is the ecological impact of re-afforesting the uplands in terms of what species will be displaced by the new arrivals. Part 3 of 4 of this series gives an indication of the impact upon the bird species which would be adversely affected. Part 3a of 4 suggests that the archeological damage would be significant. The social and cultural losses in human terms are unquantifiable but considerable. But no thought has been applied, either by Monbiot or Rewilding Britain, to even considering these issues. It is as if, in their world, humanity is simply a hindrance to ‘nature’ and should be eradicated in the interests of this tiny group of activists.

Section F – Conclusions

Rewilding Britain acknowledge that the release of potentially dangerous animals into the UK environment has a number of obstacles, and mentions the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.  Surprisingly, it fails to mention The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 14 (1) (a) which states that it is an offence to release into the wild any animal which ‘is of a kind which is not ordinarily resident in and is not a regular visitor to Great Britain in a wild state;’ Wolves and Lynx fall into this category because their absence from these islands is one of many centuries. Despite this omission, to their credit, they recognise that the obstacles to their principle objectives are likely to be many and considerable.

To put the ambitions of Rewilding Britain into perspective, their stated aim is to ‘rewild’ 10,000 square kilometres of Britain. As already stated, this is equivalent to an area nearly half the size of Wales. It is 4.2 times the area of the Lake District National Park – our largest national park. Alternatively, it can be said to be the equivalent of six and a half average UK national parks. Given their list of species which they intend to ‘rewild’, it is clear that they intend to re-afforest this area. They have not said what they intend to do with the farmers who currently produce food in these areas, but it is clear that the trees will have to move in, and the farmers, grouse moor owners and deer stalking estates will have to move out. How they intend to achieve this is unstated in legal or any other terms. It can only be assumed that they intend some form of compulsory purchase or other statutory instrument to achieve this aim. In proportional terms, it is on the scale of the wholesale collectivisation of Soviet Russia in the 1930s.

The very idea of this arbitrary seizure of our uplands is one of staggering arrogance, only equalled by its ignorance of the natural and human history of our island nation. It seems to be founded on the Monbiot principle that humans are, at best, a nuisance and only ever destructive to the ‘natural’ environment. It harks back to some period, perhaps in the Neolithic, when we as a species were deemed by Monbiot to be in some sort of harmony with our surroundings. The fact that most of the extinctions of some of the very large mammals, such as Mammoths and Sabre-Toothed Tigers, all took place in the Neolithic seems to have escaped them. The principles of this scheme do not acknowledge the upland species which we hold in this country, and which are themselves of huge importance. They are ignorant of the consequences of their proposals upon important ecosystems and they are careless of the human and historical impacts.

This plan is outrageous and preposterous in equal measure. If carried out, it would amount to a modern totalitarian equivalent of the Highland Clearances, but without the sheep. That it is proposed by a collection of comfortable metropolitan intellectuals, whose management abilities are unlikely to extend beyond the getting of funding, is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they have funding and they are serious. This, they say, will happen whether we like it or not:



[1]  Allaby M, (2010) A Dictionary of Ecology. Fourth edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[2]  Ibid.

[3]  Ibid.

[4]  Ibid.

Posted in Conservation, Farming, Livestock | 4 Comments

The impact of upland farming – Part 3a: A short walk upon Bodmin Moor.

Yesterday, in a spirit of inquiry, I set off early to Camelford and then to the north side of Bodmin Moor. My aim was to walk up to the top of Rough Tor, which is just to the north of Bodmin Moor’s highest top of Brown Willy. I was looking for evidence of ecological disaster caused by upland farming, as described by George Monbiot. Early in the morning, there had been a massive hailstorm, so ice had to be cleared form the car before I set off. The ice persisted in many of the narrow lanes even as I neared my destination, despite the sunshine. And so as I arrived in the car park next to a plantation of conifers and a small boundary plantation of young oaks, everything was wet and gleaming underfoot. The view in front of me towards Rough Tor, was one of an open grazed moor leading up to the broken granite top. A group of Galloway cattle grazed on the short turf. Behind me, I could hear the sound of an approaching vehicle. So could the cattle, who lifted their heads and began to bellow. Even though the vehicle was still out of site, the cattle knew it was the farmer, who duly appeared over the brow in a Land Rover laden with sacks of feed. He opened the gate and drove in and then across the bottom end of the moor to the north-east and out of sight. The cattle followed. A line of Scottish Blackface sheep appeared and threaded their way across the moor, following the cattle. A minute or two later, some ponies appeared from high on the hill and followed the sheep. As I walked through the gate onto the moor, a Song Thrush sang from the oaks.


© David Eyles 28th February 2017 – Scottish Blackfaces heading for Breakfast. Rough Tor, Bodmin Moor.

The grass was short turf interspersed with clumps of Nardus stricta  – Matt Grass. The clumps had been grazed tight – I suspected that this would be the work of the ponies. Apart from the occasional plantations of exotic conifers, the whole place was a vista of open and sweeping aspects. Monbiot would describe this as ‘sheep scoured’, ‘desolate’ and so on. It would send the poor man into deep depression. But as far as I was concerned, it was a beautiful sunny, if showery, late winter scene. The greens and browns of the turf  and tussocky grasses blended. Only the broken granite stones of ancient settlements broke the surface. As I walked up the hill, I crossed numerous lines of stones, many set upright like mini menhirs. The OS 1:25000 map describes these as ‘settlement’ and ‘cairns’, but it is clear that a long time ago, many people were very busy building and living in this bleak place.


©David Eyles 28th Feb 2017 – Bronze Age standing stones. Rough Tor, Bodmin Moor

As I neared the top of Rough Tor, a pair of Ravens rose into the air to check me out. Typically, I had chosen the more difficult route to the top and the granite slabs were slippery as I wibbled my way up. And then, of course, I managed to find a nice deep hole of peat and water in which to slide my right leg. The camera nearly got a dipping.


©David Eyles 28th Feb 2017 – Raven. Rough Tor, Bodmin Moor

The great granite slabs, rounded by an ice age and millennia of wind and rain, sat balanced upon the Tor. In the distance was the sea on the coast of North Cornwall. Patches of water from reservoirs and old clay tailings dams gave patches of blue. All around was green at lower altitudes and then the dark green of the plantations dotting the upper landscape. Then there was the moor itself. Not a uniform green, but squared off patches, some of Nardus, some of short Fescues and clumps of Hard Rush Juncus inflexus. These enclosures were the work of ancient and more modern man, but over all these, the sheep roamed unhindered.


©David Eyles 28th Feb 2017 – Rough Tor, Bodmin Moor

As I looked to the south-east and at Brown Willy, the base of Willy himself was surrounded by  ancient field systems. All around me was the evidence of Bronze Age human activity. About 4,500 years ago, this was a large community of people. Most likely, in the Neolithic period which ended 2,500 years BC, people had already cleared all the trees from the tops. This laid the foundations for their successors to begin agriculture and pastoralism with domesticated sheep in cultivated fields. At some later point, the climate changed for the worst and became pretty well what it is today – a lot wetter and colder. The Iron Age successors to these early pastoralists moved down the hill, now able to cut down trees with their iron implements and find the deeper, more forgiving soil of the lower altitudes. They left only a few hill farmers behind, who exploited what the hill can still provide – grass for sheep, cattle and ponies. The farmers are still there today.


©David Eyles 28th Feb 2017 – Field systems at the base of Brown Willy. Bodmin Moor.


©David Eyles 28th Feb 2017 – Bronze Age field systems at the base of Rough Tor, Bodmin Moor.

I turned to look for an easier way down that they way I had come up and found a short stone staircase that led between great boulders. That staircase might be four thousand years old, built by the people who lived in the settlement near the top of the Tor. My cranky knees silently thanked them for their public-spirited foresight all those millennia ago. I slithered down to the saddle which separates Rough Tor from Showery Top and then turned North to amble down the gentle slope back to the car park. To my right, a Skylark sang briefly. This was not the tremulous chirrup of the massed winter flocks, but a short song of a solitary bird – a quiet rehearsal for the full magnificence of the breeding season. Then, from behind Showery Top came a musical cry and I looked up to see a flock of about fifty Golden Plover wheeling in the blue. They headed off north and I continued my gentle descent.

A few hundred yards from the plantation at the car park, three or four Carrion Crows were bouncing about in the little field systems. They were clearly feeding in the short turf upon invertebrates. To emphasise the point, a flock of thirty or so Starlings landed on the same patch and began to forage busily. They took off and joined another flock and landed again to thunder across the turf in a crescent, jabbing and whistling as they went. If the worms did come out voluntarily to be eaten, then they could be frightened out by the advancing cacophony above them.

As I neared the plantation I could hear an early Robin singing and the short song of a Chaffinch. A small flock of Wigeon paddled about in the stream. The plantation provided a habitat for the crows and the woodland birds. But the crows’ forays into the surrounding moorland shows how treacherous these alien trees can be when dumped into the middle of a landscape which has been a home for waders for thousands of years. This was as neat a demonstration of the edge effect as you could wish for. The crows near the plantation were replaced by the Ravens who guarded the Tor. The landscape was not empty, but busy with life.


©David Eyles 28th Feb 2017 – Alien plantation in a Neolithic/Bronze Age landscape. A home for Carrion Crows to harass breeding waders. Brown Willy Downs, Bodmin Moor.

A small flock of naughty young Blackface escapees scooted off the road as I drove back up the lane. A field to my left had a few ewes and the first cross-bred lambs of the year. The field on my right was very short cropped and full of pregnant ewes. The flock of fifty Golden Plover I had seen earlier, had joined some others and they now numbered two or three hundred. They took off from feeding amongst the ewes and wheeled around. Golden Plover like to take off and do some freestyle formation flying. Only in the depths of a snowy winter do they sit and sulk in a field before moving off south to warmer places. But this field they had been feeding in was clearly full of invertebrates, even though it looked skinhead-shorn by the sheep.

I had come looking for environmental and ecological devastation and found great, open beauty that had endured for thousands of years, kept alive by the very grazing pressure so hated by George Monbiot and his metropolitan acolytes. You could argue, and I would  agree, that more could be done to increase the numbers of birds breeding on these open spaces. It is likely that by altering the grazing pressure a little – a few more cattle and fewer sheep, that within three or four years the clump-forming grasses would recover, the shorter grasses might grow a bit longer and  some of the species which are still declining in our uplands, would increase again. We do not know for certain, because too little scientific work has been done to answer this question. We know for certain that control of predators, like the Carrion Crows I saw yesterday, will improve breeding success. But what should not happen is that grazing is withdrawn and the landscape neglected, fenced off and called ‘conservation’ or ‘rewilding’. That will destroy these beautiful places as certainly as planting alien conifers upon it. It will drive out the wonderful species which depend upon the invertebrates and short grasses – all of whom rely upon the cropping and manuring by domesticated animals. It will also bury the archeology which created the landscape in the first place.

And we humans will have lost our connection with some of our own origins.


©David Eyles 28th Feb 2017 – Brown Willy from Rough Tor. As it always has been for four thousand years – grazed by sheep and cattle.


Posted in Conservation, Farming, Livestock | 7 Comments

The impact of upland farming – Part 3 of 4: Ecology of the uplands in transition.

In his book Feral [1], George Monbiot outlines his ideas for the environmental transformation of the British uplands – from open sheep grazed pastures to wooded hillsides. He argues that this will considerably enhance biodiversity. Furthermore, that the release of large predators such as Lynx, Wolves and Wild Boar, will amount to a restoration of keystone species that will bring about an enormous ecological improvement and which will bring everything back into a natural balance. He proposes that afforestation of the uplands should be carried out by the removal of sheep and cattle from grazing the uplands. This will allow the fragments of woods that currently remain on the periphery to regenerate. He also suggests replanting with local tree stock to enhance this process. The large predators would be re-introduced to ensure that a balance is achieved between trees and deer.

It is clear from his book that Monbiot hates sheep and all their works; that he prefers a heavily wooded landscape and dislikes the open vistas of apparently bare mountainsides. He claims that not only do the sheep ‘scour’ the upland landscape and leave it devoid of any birds or insects, but that they also graze within the woods and prevent any sort of natural regeneration. Most of his adverse comments seem to apply to upland Wales, which he describes as ‘the Cambrian desert’.

This post will examine Monbiot’s ideas, mostly from the point of view of birds, as they are the group that I know most about. However, it should be noted that Monbiot’s  radical proposals would also affect everything else in the uplands; from the trees, shrubs, grasses, mosses and invertebrates.

Parts 1 and 2 of this series have examined the upland farmer from the point of view of economics and culture. This post will examine the farmer as a player in the ecological dynamics of the uplands and how the birds will be affected by the change from a farmed landscape to an un-farmed landscape.

screen-shot-2017-02-13-at-13-59-02Golden Plover – a distinctive species of open upland moorland. Photo by Sindri Skulason via Google Images.

A central justification to Monbiot’s ideas, and the principles of the ‘rewilding’ movement which has which flowed from them, is the term keystone species. This means: ‘a species that has a disproportionately strong influence within a particular ecosystem such that its removal results in a severe destabilisation of the ecosystem and can lead to further species losses’ [2]. Monbiot cites the example of wolves in Yellowstone Park, which were initially eradicated from the park in 1926. At that point, Elk Cervus canadensis, began to multiply rapidly and overgraze the park. This resulted in degradation of some ecosystems within the park, and so wolves were re-introduced in 1995. Monbiot’s point is that the wolves were responsible for restoring the balance between grazers and predators to the benefit of the vegetation and the rest of the ecosystem, and that this makes them a keystone species.

All of this is perfectly reasonable in the context of Yellowstone Park, which has had relatively little human interference since it was first designated a National Park in 1872. This is because the Native American tribes that had lived in the area for millennia were systematically removed (or ethnically cleansed)[3]. In other words, the wolves had been absent for a mere 70 years. Their re-introduction from such a short absence managed to restore things to a balance closely resembling the situation before they were eradicated. However, in the UK, wolves were eradicated in England and Wales by the 14th Century and in Scotland by the 18th Century. Since then, upland ecosystems have had time to adjust and in any case have been controlled principally by the farmer or moorland manager.

The most far-reaching of Monbiot’s ideas is the proposal to reafforest the uplands as he seems to envisage. The consequence of so doing would result in a highly dynamic situation of encroaching forest which moves steadily uphill. In order to assess some of the changes another ecological term needs to be introduced – that of edge effect:

‘The change in the number of species occurring in the zone where two habitats are in contact. Since this zone may contain biotic elements from both habitats and some unique to itself it may be rich in species, but because those species are ill-adapted to the immediately adjacent habitat, the rate of local extinction is usually high at edges. Predation in particular, is greatest at the habitat edge. The effect occurs because the overlap region supports some species from both adjacent ecosystems and some peculiar to itself. Ecologists now regard the edge effect as a sign of ecological deterioration. The fragmentation of habitats causes an increase in edge areas, but a decrease in in the internal areas of ecosystems, leading eventually to a loss of species from all affected ecosystems and an increase in edge species, which are usually commonplace.’ [2] [My emphases] 

An illustration of this is given below, which is an idealised upland moor (green circle) with a sessile oakwood (red ellipse) in a valley leading up onto the moor. As the oakwood enlarges with the forces of natural regeneration, it encroaches upon the moor and the two edge effects combine, with the moorland becoming diminished. For a schematic illustration, see Figures 1 and 2 below:


Figure 1Schematic diagram of open moorland (top circle, mostly green) currently grazed with sheep and/or cattle. This is the breeding ground for specialist birds such as Red Grouse, Curlew, Golden Plover, Merlin and so on. The deep green is where those species are most numerous and the lighter coloured areas where those species are compromised by the edge effect, including the slight impinging of predators from the oakwood. The red ellipse is a small sessile oak pasture which is partly open canopied and is grazed by sheep and cattle. The red fuzzy area beyond the boundary of the wood is the area which is affected by predators living in the wood.  

In Figure 1 above, the open moor is characterised by a mixture of heather Calluna, Purple moor grass Molinia caearulea and open stretches of shorter grasses which are readily grazed by the sheep. There are few trees in this area, which is gently undulating and receives high rainfall and wind. The bird species which are characteristic of this kind of habitat are concentrated in the dark green area, with fewer or none in the light coloured areas. A stream drains the moor and this feeds into a valley which is occupied by a small sessile oakwood which is also grazed. This means that the wood has open areas which are covered in grass instead of thick undergrowth. The oak trees are all very old, often covered in mosses and lichens and are occasionally isolated, so the tree canopy is discontinuous.

Figure 2 below shows what happens when the sheep and cattle are withdrawn. The moorland grasses and heather become rank. Molinia encroaches into the areas previously grazed and gradually dominates the heather which becomes weak and leggy. The characteristic bird species which demand open areas, decline in numbers – here represented by the green changing from dark (Figure 1) to light (Figure 2). The sessile oakwood is now overtaken by thick undergrowth and young trees. As these mature, the older trees die off. Furthermore, because of the lack of grazing, the wood extends and creeps up the hill and begins to enter the area previously occupied by the moorland species. As more predators occupy the wood, the range of predation beyond the wood is also extended.

The edge effect is shown by the fuzzy coloured areas. As the woodland edge effect is extended, so the moorland characteristic species retreat and go into decline until they are eliminated.


Figure 2The same areas after grazing has been stopped and the wood and moor allowed to regress. The woodland extends at the expense of the moorland; and the influence of the woodland is now felt well beyond its boundaries, shown by the fuzzy red areas. The remaining moorland habitat is degraded because of the removal of sheep and cattle and this is shown by the lighter green. 

Whilst Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the general principles, they provide little information as to which species will be affected by the transformation of open upland moorland into continuous or even patchy woodland. To do this properly requires an environmental impact assessment which takes into account the habitat requirements for all species of plants and animals; and an intimate knowledge of the nature of succession and how it affects all of those species. A long succession of moorland into woodland spread over many decades is almost impossible to predict exactly, but some indicators of the potential changes can estimated using the habitat requirements of birds, which are well known and recorded. Figures 3 and 4 below show the shift in species as the open moorland is overtaken by woodland. The estimations of the effect of each phase of transition from open moorland to forest can be estimated from the habitat and feeding requirements of the distinctive species of both upland sessile oak pastures and open moorland, which are summarised in Appendices I to VI below the References section. These lists are not intended to be exhaustive, but are simply representative of the characteristic species  of birds within these two ecosystems.


Figure 3Transition of upland sessile oak pasture into dense woodland with closed canopy and thick undergrowth caused by the withdrawal of grazing by sheep and cattle. The existing open canopy and open floor is represented by the blue sector, which shifts into the yellow block and then finally matures into the green block. As young trees overtake the original parent trees, the older trees die off, thus progressively removing specific habitats for, say, the lesser spotted woodpecker. The first changes will be in the woodland floor which becomes overgrown and is no longer suitable habitat for birds which rely upon the open, grazed woodland floor as feeding habitat. 

This suggests that changes occur progressively and in different ways, affecting some species of birds sooner than others. In the above example, the loss of a grazed woodland floor may result in the loss of Pied Flycatcher, Wood Warbler and Tree Pipit fairly quickly, as the woodland floor becomes overgrown. By contrast, Black Grouse will benefit with the new advancing vegetation and young trees, as they are a species of transitional habitats between trees and moorland, as they rely upon both for feeding at different times of year. As the new trees mature and close canopy, species such as Goshawk move in, which are adept at hunting prey in heavily wooded areas. However, towards the end of this dynamic process, it can be seen that the species which are particularly associated with woodland pastures are extinguished. The list above is not exhaustive and does not show the increases  experienced by generalist woodland species such as Tawny Owls, Blackbirds, Robins and many others. These would all increase in numbers and variety, but only at the expense of the specialist species for which upland sessile oak pastures are renowned.

Figure 4 below shows what would most likely happen when open moorland is progressively encroached upon by advancing woodland:


Figure 4Transition of open moorland to predominantly closed canopy woodland with some open patches. The blue block is the starting point of existing open moorland dominated by heather Calluna, purple moor grass Molinia caearulea and other grasses which are grazed by sheep and cattle. As grazing is ceased, the transitional yellow block becomes more prevalent, until it too is overtaken by mature woodland. The loss of open moorland and shorter grasses result in a local but wholesale extinction of the moorland species.

There is considerable difficulty in predicting the progress of ‘rewilding’ to the uplands of the UK. The preceding paragraphs have discussed the possibilities for birds, with Welsh uplands in mind. This model is a very simple one – and which would become much more complex and dynamic if deer were introduced, wild boar arrived to dig up and bury acorns, and both were predated by lynx and wolves. There would be almost complete unpredictability about the rate of afforestation and the precise nature of the undergrowth thus created.

But the effect upon open moorland of withdrawal of grazing would be almost immediate, and certain, as it is overtaken by rank growth and creeping afforestation. The result would be certain loss of bird species which are considered to be distinctive of the Welsh uplands. Wales is a stronghold of many of the species mentioned above and whose habitats are summarised in the appendices below. Nevertheless, it is clear that the withdrawal of grazing and subsequent encroachment by woodland would result in wholesale extinction of many species in the affected moorland.

It is fair to say that the woodland which replaced the moorland would possibly harbour more species eventually, but these would tend to be species which we are already familiar with in our urban gardens. In other words, the likely outcome would be that distinctive species are replaced by commonplace ones – exactly as predicted by the definition for ‘edge effect’ as given above.

Despite Monbiot’s enthusiasm for dense woodland and his revulsion for open landscapes, most people would consider his ideas for rewilding the Welsh uplands as a tragedy, rather than an ecological gain.


[1]  Monbiot G, (2013) Feral, Penguin Books, London.

[2]  Allaby M, (2010) A Dictionary of Ecology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[3] Cramp S and Simmons KEL (eds) (1979), The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol.II, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[4] Cramp S and Simmons KEL (eds) 1982) The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol.III, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[5] Cramp S (ed) (1985) The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol.IV, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[6] Cramp S (ed) (1988) The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol.V, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[7] Cramp S and Perrins CM (eds) (1993) The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol.VII, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[8] Cramp S and Perrins CM (eds) (1994) The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol.VIII, Oxford University Press, Oxford.


Each appendix is a table of the species with its habitat requirements and feeding behaviour. These are abbreviated summaries taken directly from The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vols II to VIII, from the sections on ‘Habitat’ and ‘Food’ within the each species description.

Appendix I – Red Grouse to Common Buzzard

Species Breeding Habitat Feeding behaviour
Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus [3] ‘Treeless tundra, moors, heaths, bogs…wherever Calluna…dwarf shrubs…flourish. Ssp scoticus confined to heather moors above or well clear of trees.’ Avoids trees in winter when moving down to lower altitudes. Mostly herbivorous, but some invertebrates esp. for chicks.
Black Grouse Tetrao tetrix [3] ‘…Glacial relict…transitional between forest…and open heath, marginal cultivation, bog and fen, or steppe. Presence of trees essential, but not in dense stands or closed canopy.’ Mostly plant material – tree seeds, buds. Feeds on ground in spring, summer and autumn. In trees in winter.
Red Kite Milvus milvus [3] ‘In Wales, small relict population based on small discontinuous open relict oakwoods Quercus petraea …in undisturbed upland valleys up to c400m…providing breeding, resting and roosting places…hunting over adjoining farmland, rough grassland mostly at 200-300 m, but also on higher deforested moorland and rough grassland …and heather carrying substantial flocks of sheep…Preference for extensive open areas with low vegetation where prey species active diurnally…Attachment to trees does not extend to closed forest.’ ‘Predator and scavenger. Wide range of food items…. Hunts by soaring and circling over open ground.’ Hunts up to 7 Km away from breeding site.
Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus [3] ‘Usually avoids steep mountainous terrain, unbroken forests…groups of mature trees…tall dense stands of grassland or vegetation. Otherwise [occupies] wide range open terrain…includes grassland, upland moors, heaths…etc.’ ‘…young and adult songbirds, young nidifugous birds and small rodents. Flies low quartering over ground and seizing prey with sudden pounce, often using hedges and shrubs to surprise prey. In breeding season, hunts predominantly along transect, following habitat edges’
Common Buzzard Buteo buteo [3] ‘Preference for hunting over open tracts with low vegetation…[linked] with varied landscapes including forest clearings with groves or tall isolated trees and hilly slopes, ridges or uplands with some or much tree cover…preference for broad leaved trees and, in Britain, woods of sessile oak Quercus petraea.’ ‘Wide diversity of prey…small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, larger insects and earthworms. Feeding techniques governed …by habitat restrictions. (1) perching then planning onto prey… by surprise attack. (2) soaring or hovering over open terrain before dropping onto prey. (3) walking or standing on ground looking for locusts or earthworms.’

Appendix II – Goshawk to Golden Plover

Goshawk Accipiter gentilis [3] ‘…exclusively in forested and wooded areas, esp of coniferous trees (spruce) and broad-leaved trees Quercus and Fagus. Adept at flying through close forest but prefers to nest in tree-tops, where clear level access is afforded by stream course, ride, fire break or natural glade. Hunting range up to 6 Km, but open country exploited only when it lies near more or less extensive woodland, and when hedgerows or wind-breaks provide good cover.’ ‘Mainly birds up to size of Capercailie Tetrao urugallus and Hare Lepus europeaus. Hunting…swift, aggressive, and adroit pursuit flights…Takes advantage of any cover to approach prey …to take it by surprise. Will stoop from great height like Peregrine Falco peregrinus …to catch prey in air.’
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus [3] ‘For hunting, requires extensive open terrain often including wetland or coastal habitats. For breeding mainly cliffs, crags and other precipitous undisturbed locations such as tall inaccessible structures.’ [now in tall buildings in cities]. ‘Mostly birds…majority taken on the wing; usually over open country and over water, rarely on edge of woods.’
Merlin Falco columbarius [3] ‘Avoids forests and bare precipitous mountain ranges, preferring open tracts of low, rough vegetation on uplands, foothills or plains…Favours undulating or folded landforms providing wide outlooks from ground perches or nest sites, especially heads of upland stream valleys… Reliance on small birds as prey and preference for habitats of low bird density necessitates hunting over fairly wide extent of homogeneous terrain.’ ‘Chiefly small birds caught in open country. [Usually] hunts in low…horizontal flight from perch with final glide less than 1 m above ground. Prey usually caught after short-distance surprise attack. Other techniques included prolonged persistent chasing and vertical stooping…On Yorkshire moors…fed almost exclusively on Anthus pratensis [Meadow Pipit] 90%… Northumberland …almost entirely birds…40 species, [but] 48% [were] Anthus pratensis.’
Golden Plover

Pluvialis apricaria [4]

‘…unenclosed upland moors and peatlands…often windy climate beyond normal tolerance for tree growth….stops short of mountainous terrain, inhabiting sub-montane and montane zones …between 240 m and 600 m in Britain….Sometimes overlaps with Dunlin Calidris alpina on moist cottongrass Eriophorum moors, but differs in tolerating drier terrain…Prefers flattish or gently sloping ground with some raised places suitable as lookouts…some blending of open patches with very sparse low vegetation and other areas providing partial cover, but still not tall enough to block the distant view. ‘Wide spectrum of Invertebrates, principally beetles and earthworms. Some plant material incl. berries, seeds and grasses.  Most food taken from surface or by probing 1 – 2 cm…prey mainly located visually, although some evidence of acoustic location.’

Appendix III – Lapwing to Lesser Spotted Woodpecker

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus [4] ‘Requires ready access to soil carrying appreciable biomass of surface or subsurface organisms, not arid and preferably moist or even near saturation. Habitat may be flat, gently undulating…and must not impede easy walking. Invariably chooses unenclosed terrain affording unbroken all round views. Avoids fields enclosed by hedgerows or walls smaller than c. 5 ha, or parkland with many large trees.’ ‘Predominantly ground-living invertebrates…Prey located by sight and sound… All prey taken on ground.’
Dunlin Calidris alpina [4] ‘Avoids dry stony or rocky sites and those overgrown with dense herbage or tall shrubby plants, preferring moist boggy ground, often interspersed with pools or other standing or flowing water.’ ‘Chiefly invertebrates. Prey located by sight and by touch. Feeding method depends upon substrate (e.g. hard or soft mud) and behaviour of prey (mobile or immobile).’
Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos [4] ‘Prefers fresh water of clear lakes, rivers or streams, especially favouring fairly fast flowing upper courses of streams and rivers…Thus differs from most waders in preferring stony, shingly or rocky edges…’ ‘Chiefly immobile or free-flying invertebrates, particularly insects. Prey located visually; picked mainly from ground (especially between stones and within cracks), from low vegetation, and from faeces of mammals (e.g. sheep).’
Curlew Numenius arquata [4] ‘Chooses damp or wet terrain with dry patches, or sometimes the converse, especially near water. Characteristically an upland bird in Britain… Prefers open landscapes with wide visibility, unbroken by forest or woodland, or by ravines and other features permitting surprise approach. Favours moist, poorly drained upland moors, either of heather Calluna mixed with rough grass… or open recently burnt stretches…’ ‘Omnivorous, though taking principally invertebrates.’
Lesser Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos minor [5] ‘…tolerance of high and low temperatures, wind and rainfall…Availability of easily worked decayed wood may be more essential than tree height or species. Prefers open broad-leaved woodland, edges, spinneys, parkland, riparian or other tree lines or avenues, and most moist woods of oak Quercus, hornbeam, Carpinus, willow Salix, alder Alnus, or poplar Populus. …Avoids conifers and any dense, mature stands.’ Almost exclusively insects. Rarely feeds on ground. In summer, chiefly searches for insects on surface of tree trunks, branches and leaves; in winter, pecks at rotten wood to find beetle larvae and adults beneath bark…’

Appendix IV – Meadow Pipit to Wheatear

Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis [6] ‘Chooses, as a ground dweller, open areas of rather low, fairly complete vegetation cover. Avoids extensive bare rock, stones, sand, soil and close-cropped grass or herbage…and on the other hand, tall dense vegetation, including woods, forests and reedbeds. Flourishes, however, in plots of young planted trees, and perches freely on fence-posts, telegraph wires, stone walls and other points of vantage, but once scattered trees appear, competitive advantage seems to pass to Tree Pipit.’ ‘Mainly invertebrates, with some plant seeds in autumn and winter. Feeds almost exclusively on ground, walking at a steady rate picking invertebrates from leaves and plant stems.’
Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis [6] ‘…basically a ground feeder and ground nester, but unique [amongst congeners] in West Palearctic in attachment to trees and bushes as look-outs and song-posts, no less essential in breeding territory than suitable foraging terrain and nest-sites. Accordingly shuns both open and shrubless habitats and those where habitats and those where density of woody vegetation leaves insufficient open low herbage accessible.’ ‘Chiefly insects with some plant material taken in autumn and winter. Food mostly taken from ground, low herbage and leaf litter, more rarely from twigs, branches tree trunks and stumps.’
Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus [6] ‘Requires sheltered but fairly open wooded or parkland areas with access to dry secure nest-holes in trees, rocks, walls, banks or other places without too dense or tall unbroken undergrowth or herbage…prefers broad-leaved or mixed trees …and is adapted to woodland edges, streamside and roadside trees, orchards and gardens in human settlements.’ ‘…largely insects…and spiders… (1) Picks items from ground; apparently does not probe for worms and rarely searches in leaf litter. (2) Feeds in trees and other vegetation…, picking items from trunks, branches and leave, including hovering near foliage. (3) Flies from perch on to prey on ground, normally returning to perch to eat it. (4) Takes aerial prey in brief flight from perch.’
Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe [6] ‘…requiring ready-made rock or burrow nest-site immediately neighbouring seasonally insect-rich bare patches or short swards for for easy foraging…European habitat also open… flat, sandy, sparsely vegetated arctic tundra…cliff tops, heaths and downland closely grazed by rabbits or sheep…’ ‘Chiefly insects; also spiders, molluscs and other small invertebrates, supplemented by berries. Normally locates prey visually, chiefly on ground or in low vegetation… (1) Running: in flat areas of short turf, runs…short distance, stops to pick up item or to scan ground ahead, and then runs on. (2) Perching: in areas of scattered perches (e.g. stones or low bushes) uses these to scan the ground nearby, drops down for item and then returns to perch or moves to new one…. ‘

Appendix V – Whinchat to Wood Warbler

Whinchat Saxicola rubetra [6] ‘… more continental bias than S. torquata, although favouring moister and less rough habitats. General separation of range suggests avoidance of interspecific competition with S. torquata and greater use of seasonal growth of green vegetation such as bracken Pteridium and tall grasses or herbage in preference to permanent woody shrubs. Accepts sparser and less robust perches than S. torquata, often using posts, fences or tall weeds… more attracted to grassy areas, incl some farmland types… fringes of wetlands and grassy uplands.’ Invertebrates and some seeds. Hunts from perch, flying to and taking prey mainly from ground or in vegetation, sometimes in flight like flycatcher.’
Stonechat Saxicola torquata [6] ‘…inhabits wide variety of dry plains and hillsides, often sub-marginal for agriculture, characterised by scattered bushes, shrubs, stones, walls, or fences … used as look-outs or song-posts commanding lower heathland, grassland or bare patches. In Britain, prefers rough coastal areas where gorse Ulex, heather Calluna or Erica, and bracken Pteridium are interspersed with close-cropped grass; Where grass grows tall and dense, S. rubetra usually takes over.’ ‘Small and medium sized insects and other invertebrates. Locates terrestrial prey from elevated perch then flies, glides or hops to ground, picking prey up on landing or while standing on ground; may return to same perch or a new one.’
Wood Warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix [6] ‘…requires moist and shady woods with closed canopy and no or sparse undergrowth… Recent intensive study in Westfalen (West Germany) shows deciduous trees, especially beech and oak, to be indispensable for territory…In Britain characteristic of woods of sessile oak Q. petraea…usually preferring mature canopy… little secondary growth and sparse ground cover, but which has convenient low branches for perching…. Thus requires dual-level habitat: tree canopy for foraging and singing; and more or less open ground beneath for breeding.’ ‘Insects and other invertebrates, with some fruit and seeds in autumn. Picks items off leaves (often from underside) and other parts of trees and bushes while moving through foliage.’

Appendix VI – Ring Ouzel to Raven

Ring Ouzel Turdus torquatus [6] ‘…typically open moorland or fell with rarely more than sparse and stunted trees, occasionally at sea-level but normally at 250 m or higher, in Scotland up to 1200 m. Most nesting territories in Britain include small crags, gullies, screes, boulders or broken ground, as well as sloping or flat areas, often of heather, with a few trees or bushes…’ ‘In spring and early summer, adult and larval insects and earthworms; at other times, mainly fruit. Feeds on ground and in trees and bushes.’
Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca [7] ‘Range broadly coincides with occurrence of more than 1000 mm of annual rainfall, and with hilly terrain, and with area in which sessile oak Q. petraea is dominant tree, with little undergrowth…. spacing of trees and plenty of low undergrowth appear to be essential.’ ‘Arthropods, flying and non-flying… during breeding season, larval lepidoptera important for nestlings; fruit and seeds taken taken regularly in late summer and on migration… Obtains food directly from trees or ground or by sallying out from perch after flying prey, usually for a short distance.’
Magpie Pica pica [8] ‘Occurs up to considerable altitudes… where ecological conditions are suitable, but is predominantly a lowland bird of open or lightly wooded country offering good opportunities for foraging on ground and for nesting, roosting and taking cover in trees or shrubs. Inhabits woods of many different types, both broad-leaved and coniferous, wherever glades, clearings, or more open stands occur, and especially near margins of natural or cultivated grasslands and croplands.’ ‘Invertebrates, especially beetles Coleoptera, fruits and seeds; occasionally small invertebrates [eggs and nestlings of other birds] and all kinds of carrion, refuse and domestic scraps. Very opportunistic feeder, diet varying considerably according to habitat and local food sources: broadly, consumption of invertebrates highest in spring and summer, and vertebrates and plant material in autumn and winter.’
Carrion Crow Corvus corone [8] ‘…forest country, esp forest edges, groves and river valleys… In Britain marked attraction towards foraging on tidal estuaries… recently, strong build-up has occurred even within the largest towns…Many studies indicate that given its wide-ranging foraging, omnivorous appetite, and skill in exploiting the most diverse opportunities, habitat constraints are not normally limiting…’ Principally invertebrates and cereal grain; also small vertebrates, birds’ eggs, carrion and scraps… varying greatly according to local availability. In general, a ground feeder and scavenger in agricultural landscapes, typically in pasture or rough grassland in spring and summer, and arable fields in autumn and winter. Favourite sites include dung-rich pasture, hayfields, fields of cereal after harvest, areas by water (esp seashore) and rubbish tips.’
Raven Corvus corax [8] ‘So wide ranging that concept of habitat is hardly applicable…Overriding requirements are for nest-site of difficult access, normally on a rock-face or tall tree, and wide, largely undisturbed foraging area with tracts of open surface of any kind on which long-range food-gathering, often involving high flights, can be practised. Thus avoids interior of large or dense forests, scrub woodland, thickets, shrubby terrain, wetlands with tall aquatic vegetation, orchards, plantations, field crops and intensively farmed or grazed lands.’ ‘Plant and animal material, taken opportunistically; animal food may be killed with powerful bill, or scavenged as carrion. Also robs nests and takes invertebrates (esp molluscs on shore); plant material mainly cereals and fruits. Where carrion plentiful, usually takes food by scavenging.’



Posted in Conservation, Farming, Rewilding | 7 Comments