Just a quick update today to let you know that 'people power' has won the day again and NatureScot has agreed to publish it's wildlife licensing data - hopefully by the end of the coming week.
Social media outcry Back in March, NatureScot told me that they planned to release the data within weeks, but nothing appeared - and my enquiries since then had been met with a rude silence. So I decided to take matters into my own hands and I published a few statistics from NatureScot's bird control data myself, on my blog, figures that I'd obtained through a freedom of information request. That caused quite a stir on social media. As the news spread and public outrage increased, suddenly out of the blue I received a message from NatureScot, confirming that they will now release the full data for public scrutiny as early as next week. Their licensing manager told me on Tuesday "I have approved the release of our 2022 data...hopefully this will be completed and available to the public by the end of next week." I now have some details of this scheduled release and also a hint that there will be more information coming soon about a 'species licensing review'; NatureScot told me "we are waiting for confirmation from Scottish Government to go ahead with that review, which will consider the access to data and transparency of our approach to licensing and will I am sure make recommendations in relation to our licensing approach which will enable us to provide a more efficient and effective service." Quite what that will mean is unclear but I will keep tabs on developments. Public pressure = success So, anyway, well done everyone! Our campaign is supported by around 400,000 people now, with more joining all the time - we can't be ignored. It's really important that we all look at the data when it's out - I'll put a link on my website and you'll get another update when it goes live, so watch this space. Campaign title update Meanwhile the eagle eyed amongst you will have noticed that I've tweaked the title of our campaign to accommodate this latest development. Birds are clever and don't recognise national boundaries, and so our campaign, which previously focused on England, will now cover the whole of the UK, in particular looking at Natural England and NatureScot (the other UK agencies, for Wales and Northern Ireland, seem to be doing a better job, at least for now). Thanks again and I'll be in touch... Best, Jase
8 Comments
* Freedom of information request reveals 'staggering' extent of lethal bird control in Scotland
* 50 species of birds appear on NatureScot's kill list for 2022 * NatureScot vowed to publish licence data for public scrutiny - but when? Worrying statistics have emerged from Scotland detailing a staggering level of officially sanctioned lethal bird control - but Scottish government nature agency, NatureScot, seem reticent about sharing their licence data with the public - in spite of an assurance that they would. NatureScot vs Natural England An early success of our campaign was persuading Natural England to publish an annual declaration of their licence data, so that detailed statistics for every bird control licence issued in England are now freely accessible for public scrutiny. So, when worrying figures started trickling through from north of the border - albeit only via freedom of information requests - I asked Scotland's government nature agency, NatureScot, if they would follow Natural England's lead and make their own licence data available to the public. They were quick to reassure me. NatureScot's Director of Green Economy told me enthusiastically, "We agree on the benefits of publishing this information and are keen to ensure openness and transparency of our licensing functions," adding that "we are currently in the process of formatting licence information which will be published on our website on a regular basis and we hope to have this available in the next few weeks." That was in March. On 2nd June, I politely reminded NatureScot of the assurance they made two months earlier, but I received no acknowledgement. So, on 13th June, I asked them again. This time I received two holding responses, one from the Director of Green Economy saying he was 'out on site', and another from the Senior Executive Support Manager to Chair & Chief Executive, saying "we will be back in touch as soon as possible with our response". As I write this, it is 24th June and I've heard nothing further. So, why the silence? Well, read on.... Shocking data I have taken a look at NatureScot's bird licence data for 2022, which I obtained through a freedom of information request earlier this year, and the figures are really shocking. No less than fifty species of birds appear on the lethal control list, including some red listed species of the highest conservation concern. "Endangered species" Back in February, in a note accompanying their foi response, NatureScot tried to justify the long list of lethal control licences; they told me "no activity carried out under these licences will adversely affect the conservation status of any of our native species and none of the licences issued relates to endangered species." I'm not convinced about that. What constitutes an 'endangered' species? NatureScot issued 18 licences last year to kill Curlew - 'as many as required' - this is a red listed species. Surely they qualify as 'endangered'? These Curlew licences were approved in the name of air safety, which some might say is valid, but nevertheless it's just not true for NatureScot to say that 'none of the licences relates to endangered species' - when they clearly do. The list of species permitted to be killed in the name of air safety is extensive and also includes Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Sand Martin, Lapwing, Starling, Oystercatcher, Dunlin, Snipe, Buzzard, Grey Partridge and more - with no limit on the numbers licensed for destruction in these cases. Air safety is again provided as the reason behind licences to kill 'as necessary' the chicks of Rooks and Carrion Crows. But it's not all about air safety. Many other licences were issued for other reasons including "Preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuff for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber, fisheries or inland water" "Conservation status" Now let's turn to the matter of 'not adversely affecting conservation status' - well, take the number of licences approved by NatureScot to kill Ravens - the data suggests that they issued around 150 licences in 2022 to kill these magnificent birds. That's potentially a lot of Ravens. NatureScot also approved the slaughter of several hundred Pink Footed Geese and Barnacle Geese last year; and we already know that the agency has been under pressure to explain their notoriously extreme approach to culling gulls, including red listed Herring Gulls - see my post about that here. Embarrassed by the figures? Has NatureScot had second thoughts about "the benefits of publishing this information"? Whatever the reason, silence is not the best look. I would suggest that it's in everyone's interest to publish the data now, especially if NatureScot really do want to ensure 'openness and transparency', as they claim to. Questions to answer Licence returns, if we could see them, might shed light on the final numbers affected, though if the system is like that of Natural England, the returns may rely on the 'honesty and integrity' of licence holders. So, clarification from NatureScot would be welcome - if and when they decide to publish the data. Certainly 400,000 supporters of our campaign will not be deterred by a government agency clamming up when it comes to releasing data, we've been there before, we are patient - but really we're deserving of better than the silent treatment. Let the people see the figures, and let the people decide if NatureScot is doing a good job. We would like a response from NatureScot, an idea of when they will publish the licence data and an explanation if they are not going to. Oh, and we really do insist on being treated with respect. Watch this space....
Hi folks,
It's been five years since I started this campaign! So I thought I'd take a quick look back and assess some of the great things we've accomplished in our quest to examine and overhaul Natural England's licences, specifically those affecting our wild birds. Successes One of our most significant achievements has been pressuring Natural England into releasing the (previously secret) bird control licensing data. Not only that, but they now publish it in full and every year. The public now has full access to the licence facts and figures, and this really is a huge accomplishment. So well done everyone! But we've had other success too... Black-Headed Gull Eggs Recently we've seen the almost total withdrawal of licences issued to harvest eggs of Black-headed gulls, for human consumption. Just two individual licences remain in place at the time of writing. I'm hopeful that these will also be suspended by next year. Already we've seen the very tangible results of this, as not one single egg of this threatened species was served at this year's annual 'gull egg luncheon' hosted by the Cure Parkinsons charity. This was due entirely to the withdrawal of licences. I expect that most of the fancy restaurants, traditionally serving gull eggs, were also forced to remove them from their menus this year due to lack of availability. A great outcome. Questionable decisions challenged... We've seen licences withdrawn in other cases too, where I pointed out anomalies that Natural England appeared to have missed - for example the 10 year farmyard Starling cull that Natural England continued to licence each year without ever noticing the futility of the exercise. Some of the data I uncovered has really highlighted the most ridiculous decisions made by Natural England's licensing team. For example the destruction of thousands of Mallard eggs because (according to Natural England) the ducks 'posed a threat' to passing cyclists. That particular revelation rightly caused widespread outrage, and indeed in the past five years, our campaign has received coverage in all the major UK national newspapers, with some stories making the news around the world too. This publicity in itself is also a major success of the campaign, raising public awareness of Natural England's activities and ensuring that the organisation is aware of being monitored in this way. Herring Gull licences and valuable discussions In 2020, we were encouraged to find Natural England having a major rethink over the number of licences it issued to cull rural gulls (NatureScot take note...), and I've had a generally useful exchange of views with Natural England's various heads of wildlife licensing. The success of these discussions has depended on who was in office at the time.... I had really good engagement with one particular incumbent who was keen to exchange ideas and hear views from supporters of our campaign. Alas, that helpful chap is no longer with Natural England, which is disappointing. Nevertheless, communication channels remain open - which is no small achievement; I have direct communication with the agency in a way that many others don't. This is due largely to our 400,000 campaign supporters, whose sheer numbers invoke a powerful force for communication and hopefully change. Challenges There are of course still challenges - and frustrations. Our suggestions to reform the Cormorant cull licences fell largely on deaf ears after our most helpful contact at Natural England departed his post. It looked like we were close to agreeing some modifications to the Cormorant licences - but then our hopes disappeared with the change of personnel. And Natural England flatly refuse to consider removing red listed songbirds from the falconry hunting licences, which I think is scandalous. I will continue to fight for these rare birds to be excluded from all lethal control licensing. North of the border.... Although our campaign focuses on Natural England, I have also noted worrying statistics emerging from Scotland, whose own nature agency, NatureScot, has made some dubious decisions over its wildlife control licences. I contacted them in March of this year, to ask if they might follow Natural England's lead in making their licence data publicly available, and they seemed very keen to reassure me that they would: "We agree on the benefits of publishing this information and are keen to ensure openness and transparency of our licensing functions," they told me, adding "we are currently in the process of formatting licence information which will be published on our website on a regular basis". This promise has so far come to nothing. Since that initial response there's been a stony silence and no reply to my emails. Something doesn't smell good... But, you know me - I'll keep asking. Incidentally, licence data I have seen from equivalent bodies Natural Resources Wales and Daera (Northern Ireland) was of less concern, it seems that England and Scotland are the ones to keep an eye on. Next steps What's next for the campaign? Well it might all seem quiet at the moment, but I'll keep looking at the data (and I'd ask you all to do the same), highlighting anomalies and pushing for change. I don't know what the future holds, perhaps a change of government might bring some hope for this country's diminishing wildlife, though I'm cynical about any political solution to our biodiversity crisis. I think the future of our natural world lies in the hands of the people - not the politicians. A very sincere thank you Finally, and most importantly, I want to extend sincere thanks to you all for your support and especially for your messages of encouragement, all of which is what keeps me going. I read and appreciate every single message. Thank you. The campaign continues. |
If you appreciate what I write about, please consider showing your support by buying me a virtual coffee!
Click the button below! Thanks :) Archives
July 2023
|