Perfectly natural aliens? Recession tips for the conservation sector 'No regrets' solutions for an uncertain climate
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
www.banc.org.uk Spring 2010 issue 31(1)
Perfectly natural aliens?
Recession tips for the conservation sector
‘No regrets’ solutions for an uncertain climate
ECOS www.banc.org.uk
ecos@easynet.co.uk
A REVIEW OF
Managing Editor:
CONSERVATION
Rick Minter
ECOS is the quarterly journal
of the British Association of Tel: 01452-739142
Nature Conservationists e-mail: ecos@easynet.co.uk
Assistant Editor:
Martin Spray
Hillside, Aston Bridge Road, Pludds, Ruardean, Glos. GL17 9TZ
Tel: 01594-861404
Acknowledgements
This issue was edited by Rick Minter and Martin Spray.
The opinions expressed in ECOS are not necessarily those of BANC
Council or of the Editors
ECOS may not be reproduced, transmitted in any form or by any means,
in whole or in part, in English or other languages, without the prior
written consent of the publisher, BANC.
Subscriptions/BANC membership
Subscriptions for ECOS are £25 for individuals and £80 for
the corporate institutional rate. See inside back cover for
further details. Current and previous articles and whole
editions can be purchased on line at www.banc.org.uk
President: Chair:
John Bowers Adrian Koster
Vice-Presidents: Secretary:
Marion Shoard Ruth Boogert
Adrian Phillips Treasurer:
Derek Bensley
BANC is a non profit making company limited by guarantee, registered in England
No. 2136042. Registered charity No. 327595.
ECOS is printed by Severnprint using Cocoon Silk 300gsm cover and Cocoon
uncoated 100gsm text paper. Both papers have a 100% recycled content and are
FSC certified. The electricity used during printing is generated from renewable sources.
The magazine is printed under the SylvaPack environmental print route using no
alcohol and processless plates and a donation is made to Tree Aid to support tree
planting in sub-Saharan Africa.ECOS 31(1) 2010
Editorial
A no-regrets response to our
mixed up nature
Welcome to a new look ECOS. We hope it meets your expectations for keeping the
brand but feeling more reader-friendly. In particular we have tried to tackle people’s
main grumble about pages being too dense, so we hope the new product appears
less crowded. Please let us have feedback of any sort. Other steps we’ve taken
include articles and full editions available for purchase on line, and these will be
available in colour throughout. Finally, the BANC website is now ready for blog
debates pursuing some of the talking points from each edition. First topics on
which we invite your views flow from this issue, and include those of climate
change and of alien species, both of which are humdingers affecting so much of
our present conservation activity. We will also be taking views on ‘getting started’
in conservation, which is on the minds of many of our readers.
The past months’ frenzy of debate on climate change has been game-changing, as
hitherto ‘settled science’ is now portrayed as anything but. Blogs and newspapers
have gone to town on the subject, with many journalists now looking for conflict
in the science rather than more stories of melting glaciers and the plight of polar
bears. “I am more convinced than ever about the need for a new language of
climate change, based not on scientific certainty but on uncertainty, risk and
values.” Says BBC’s environment correspondent Roger Harrabin. Amidst such
uncertainty we should be driven by no-regrets policies, taking actions that are
relevant to the needs of wildlife and the resilience we need in our ecosystems and
landscapes, whatever the volatility of the climate. Installing wind turbines en mass,
linked to new high voltage lines across wild land, and policies for exotic tree species
designed for warmer scenarios, are topical examples of policies which tick boxes
for government, but they have potential to be ‘big regrets’ and ‘big mistake’
policies for the environment and the economy. Several of our authors, including
Mike Townsend, Richard Smithers, and Adrian Phillips suggest more subtle and
genuine no-regrets proposals in this issue.
Turning to alien species, Ian Rotherham starts us off with an overview from last
year’s BANC-sponsored conference. He asks us to confront our cultural preferences
which in turn influence our prejudices across different misfit species. Our wildlife
and ecology is more dynamic and varied than we care to admit – creatures like big
cats and eagle owls are intriguing additions to our UK wildlife, which we will
debate in future editions, but the likes of springtails and fungi are also crucial to
the way nature ebbs and flows, as we see in this issue.
Geoffrey Wain
1ECOS 31(1) 2010 Eco-xenophobia - responding to our natural aliens Wildlife groups need to separate science from subjectivity in their thinking behind control of alien species – too often controls on aliens are based on preferences for the ‘nature we like’ rather than identifying what species, alien or native, are creating genuine harmful impacts. This article reviews key examples and debates, including those which emerged at the 2009 BANC sponsored conference on alien species at Sheffield Hallam University. IAN ROTHERHAM Problem species and their impacts The National Trust estimates the cost of current controls of invasive exotic plants at around £2.7bn per year.1, 2 The RSPB states that “Invasives are a significant threat to a large proportion of the world's biodiversity”.3 In response to this threat, the main government department, Defra, has announced a new campaign - Be Plantwise. This is the first part of a two-pronged attack on alien invaders and it aims to raise gardeners’ awareness of problem species and the consequences of deliberate or accidental release. This is a good idea in principle but feels like a gesture without spending real money. It also seems like again we are not thinking of wider landscape management issues and actual problem species, but solely the label of ‘invasive aliens’. There is little sign of the debate moving towards a sustainable process of conservation land management which is supported by a wider community of stakeholders. Whilst education is especially important in terms of garden escapes, the conservation problems run deeper than just exotics and include aggressively invasive native plants too. The scale of the impacts, and therefore of the challenges facing the delivery of coherent responses, are truly massive. Sarah Simons the Executive Director of the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) recently stated that “Despite the enormous costs, not only to biodiversity but also food security, human health, trade, transport and more broadly, economic development, invasive species continue to receive inadequate attention from policymakers and in 2010, there is simply no excuse for not tackling one of the greatest threats to the environmental and economic well-being of our planet.” Indeed there is no denying the global impacts of aggressively invasive and often exotic species, especially on once isolated island ecologies and areas of high endemic biodiversity. But problem species include regionally native ones too, and it seems that in many cases the triggers of invasion and of damaging impacts are human-induced environmental changes. These include moves away from traditional land management, and often economically- driven controls, and also environmental changes such as gross eutrophication. To tackle effectively the consequences of aggressive invasions we needed to consider the phenomena ‘in the round’ and to address the wider contextual issues too. 2
ECOS 31(1) 2010
This 2mm long insect, the psyllid Aphalara itadori, is a predator of Japanese Knotweed in Japan. It is soon to be
released in Britain to act as a natural form of pest control for the invasive plant. This is the first time such an
approach has been used to help control the spread of a non-native invasive plant in Europe. If successful, it could
reduce the estimated £150m annual costs to the building and engineering industries of clearing this invasive plant.
Photo: CABI
Getting in a tangle with natives and aliens
Obvious examples of other natives, along with bracken, causing problems include
gorse on many heaths and grassland sites, hawthorn and blackthorn and even birch
invading grasslands, heaths, moors and bogs. Willow and poplar both cause huge
damage to buildings. Both Ted Green of the Ancient Tree Forum and John Rodwell,
(‘Godfather’ of the National Vegetation Classification), now argue that sycamore,
that most despised of trees in England, is actually native. Beech, non-native in
northern England and Scotland, along with mature Larch and other species also not
native, are glorious additions to many landscapes. Native clematis (old man's beard)
can be a pernicious weed of southern woods as can native ivy. Wild rhododendron
(introduced from Gibraltar in 1764) can be surprisingly good for many wildlife
species including massive winter roosts of birds, breeding nightingales, and cover for
deer, badgers and otters. Furthermore, the impacts of exotic invasive rhododendron,
on say ancient woods, are not unique to this alien species. The adverse effects are
because it is invasive and not necessarily because it is alien. Native holly, abandoned
and no longer cut for leaf fodder in traditional ‘holly hags’, now spreads invasively
across many ancient coppices. This transforms the woodland ecosystem and
eliminates woodland ground flora, yet there is no call to arms to remove it. One
wonders why. In urban Sheffield, our otters back on the River Don since the early
2000s are hiding out under the dense stands of Japanese knotweed.
3ECOS 31(1) 2010 In terms of mammals, native roe deer can cause similar damage to that from alien Muntjac. Both red squirrel and grey squirrel can damage trees; even badger, one of our most iconic conservation species, can undermine buildings, gardens and occasionally railway lines! Red deer are native but may cause serious over-grazing, damage to trees, woods, and forests, and road traffic accidents. Basically many species, in the wrong place at the wrong time, can and will cause problems. Alien species are often particularly invasive but then so are many native species. An interesting issue is raised by the culturally significant brown hare, listed as a Red Data Book and Biodiversity Action Plan species but which is alien, a Norman introduction. The rabbit also is alien, but especially following the cultural severance of abandonment of traditional grassland management, is vital in maintaining many species-rich wildflower pastures, and hugely important as food for predators such as buzzards. Actions to control alien species are frequently controversial, even when based on good science. Control or removal of planted (alien) conifers (sometimes 100-200 years old) on sand dunes is proving controversial in west Lancashire, and also at Newborough Warren in North Wales. Here, after a lot of money has been spent to conserve the 'native' red squirrel, they may be sacrificed to remove planted conifers from the dunes. The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) has decreed that these aliens should be cleared to free up the ancient sand dune systems. But many locals are dismayed that their squirrels will be lost. There are concerns about the dilution of the genetics of Wordsworth's Lake District wild daffodils by hybridisation with nasty garden escapees, but I've never seen any evidence of this contamination. Similarly in most regions of Britain the worries about Spanish bluebells seem over- stated. Yet the creeping invasion of woodland by variegated yellow archangel has a massive impact on ecology but generates no interest from conservation bodies. Other invasives such as sweet cicely, which is also alien, again often get no response from conservation bodies. Similarly Norway maple is still widely planted in landscaping schemes and is now colonising everywhere but triggers no action to control its spread, and Russian vine is another accident waiting to happen but generates no interest at all. The need for management We need to target actions on managing problem species that create damaging impacts (ecological and/or economic), regardless of their exotic or native status. Our judgement of what is a ‘problem’ should be based on scientific understanding and we should recognise when subjective preferences are entering the equation. The answer is often good old-fashioned conservation land management, to improve habitat health in a wider context, and working with farmers, foresters and other landowners to deliver sensitive land management. Hopefully funding streams such as environmental stewardship can help. Of course one problem is that the wildlife and plants just don't read the books or the Action Plans! There are already a few excellent examples of good practice such as the work on knotweed in Swansea, and especially the management of invasive plant species by James Macfarlane and colleagues for Cornwall County Council. However, these approaches require long-term commitment and this means both champions and funding; but with the economic outlook for both local government and for 4
ECOS 31(1) 2010
environmental agencies looking bleak, such support may not continue. Worse still,
the huge costs estimated for the active control of invasive aliens, are unlikely to be
met by government in the new climate of economic austerity, which in particular
may restrict Defra’s activity.
Shutting the stable door -
boar and eagle owl on the banned species list
Wild boar, the European eagle owl, the Monk parakeet and 60 other species have
been added to the list of non-native species that pose a threat to Britain’s
indigenous animals. The Chinese water deer, the snow goose and 13 other birds,
the slipper limpet and 7 other invertebrates, 35 plants including two kinds of
rhododendron, and two types of algae have also been included on the list, created
jointly by Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) prohibits the introduction into the wild of
any animal which does not normally live or visit Britain or any plant or animal on the
list, which is detailed in Schedule 9. Doing so carries a maximum punishment of two
years in jail and a £5,000 fine. Seven animals were removed from the list, including
the Mongolian gerbil and the Himalayan porcupine, as these are no longer thought
to be a threat. The former native wild boar is back in the wild in Britain around 700
years after being hunted to extinction. However, calls from enthusiasts for a formal
reintroduction into the UK have met with official resistance.
Yet Steve Carver at the Wildland Research Institute, University of Leeds,
commented “It is very worrying to have DEFRA include native species, albeit largely
extinct in the UK save recent reintroductions, in a list of non-native species that
threaten UK biodiversity. Where did they get their scientific advice/evidence from
on this? If wild boar is included then it sounds ill thought out........or is it just a
political move? Certainly wild boar inclusion goes against Article 22 of the EC
Habitats Directive and Article 11 of the EC Birds Directive, doesn’t it? Does it
include Beaver and Lynx I wonder? Or is it just a list of species already here and
perceived as a problem?”
So it seems that the scientific logic underpinning some of these decisions is very
questionable. Furthermore, quite a number of these animals and plants are already
here, will be hard or impossible to remove anyway, and in some cases, are actually
natives. This muddled thinking detracts from the need to take serous action to
address those species (like exotic signal crayfish and native bracken) which are
clearly very damaging. In most cases, beyond public statements of policy, little real
action is taken.
Costs, benefits and value judgements
I think the key issue is that we have slipped into a judgemental situation where
‘native’ is good and ‘alien’ is bad but decided on a very ad hoc and subjective basis.
Quite often, as raised at the 2009 Sheffield conference (see below), the science
underpinning ideas of alien of native and even of good or bad is very poor, and
assumptions are made on the displacement of ‘native’ species by ‘aliens’ with little
5ECOS 31(1) 2010 evidence. Along with tricky issues of how we determine native or exotic status, (and wall lizard, pool frog, eagle owl, and many others pose significant questions), there are also matters of human-imposed boundaries. Are we talking of native to GB, to the UK, or to England, Wales or Scotland individually? Furthermore, how do we respond to naturally occurring changes in species distribution either simply over time, or in response to climate change or other environmental fluxes? Many exotic plants and animals bring huge social, environmental, and economic benefits to us. Much of UK commercial forestry is underpinned by exotic softwoods, and will still be so in the future. The garden and horticultural industries are worth maybe £6bn a year. But most of the seriously invasive problem plants have escaped from garden situations, accidentally or in many cases deliberately released and dispersed. The interrelationships between gardens, horticulture, nature, and conservation are deep and complex. Long-established exotic species are central to every designed landscape amongst National Trust properties or other heritage houses and gardens. In this context, the landscape vistas and experiences to which these species contribute immensely are worth a huge amount as leisure and tourism sites. Chatsworth in the Peak District for example is the most popular rural tourism site in Britain, and mixes nature, designed and heritage landscapes, with wild native species but also a backdrop of introduced exotics many of which are naturalised. Furthermore, many of the gardeners, who often deliberately release aliens into the wild, are also members of our major conservation organisations. Research shows that they often understand the issues, but seek to disagree over the merits of naturalised aliens, and education may not necessarily change this viewpoint. So what do we allow and what do we remove? The simple issues so often presented are all too frequently very complicated, and we are faced with the question of how we make our choices. Return of the natives? How should we decide what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’? Wild boar is an interesting example, since any British woodland without them cannot be judged to be a truly native ecosystem, as boar are a keystone forest mammal, important in dispersing mycorrhizal fungi. But are they now an alien to be eradicated or a native to be welcomed back? Defra seems to be swaying towards the former, but many people are excited by the return of the native. Chinese water deer are non-native (alien) but we hold around 40% and rising as a proportion of the world population of a globally threatened species, and water deer so far have had negligible impacts across their current range in Britain; so again, in or out? In Scotland the red squirrel was for centuries persecuted as a pest of forestry and became extinct; as also happened across much of England and Wales. Today’s populations were largely reintroductions from European stock, much of which is genetically very different from the original. So again in or out, and how do we decide about the grey squirrel? I have done work with local communities to examine upbringing and background in relation to attitudes. Most urban people who have grown up with grey squirrels actually like them, but might tolerate 6
ECOS 31(1) 2010
control, but not killing of grey squirrels. Those growing up in rural districts are
generally more tolerant of destruction of greys, and especially so if they have
grown up with ‘native’ reds.
The return of the beaver, another lost native, is again a reintroduction issue and in
practice would not cause serious problems or damage but there is a lot of paranoia.
Lynx, black leopards, and puma are now accepted by several police forces as
breeding in the wild in Britain. Maybe these will help to control expanding deer
populations, but reintroduction of large carnivores, by accident or by controlled
release will always be controversial. But it seems that, like if or not, they are here.
There are ideas about reintroducing large carnivores to the Scottish Highlands but
various parties want to influence this debate, not least game management interests.
At the 2009 conference, a lack of dialogue between game management and land
owning interests, and wildlife conservation groups, was highlighted as an issue.
Identifying real problems
There is a need to focus on problems, not necessarily on whether species are alien
or native. Bracken is a case in point as a native invader, and one for which there
appears to be no national strategy in place, but for which there is a routine massive
cost. Furthermore, some species like buddleia for example, cause considerable
structural and hence economic damage in Britain but is generally not controlled
because it is the ‘butterfly bush’ and we like it.
The language of ‘rhodo bashing’ or ‘knotweed bashing’ for example has
unfortunate connotations - I’ve coined the term ‘Eco-xenophobia’ to stress that we
are making judgements through mistaken ideas of what is native, what is alien, and
hence what is good or bad. Many of these concepts are very recent and disguise
serious issues of problem species and of sustainable land management and
custodianship. What’s worse perhaps is that they resonate with racist tendencies
and extremist groups and parties, and this is a growing concern in parts of Europe.
Main messages from the 2009 Sheffield conference
The 2009 conference on exotic and invasive plants and animals was promoted
jointly by BANC and the Biodiversity & Landscape History Research Institute. The
conference ranged over the need for real solutions to problems and the latest good
practice, to the equally pressing need to discuss and debate the questions of ‘why’,
‘when’, where’ and even ‘if’ we should intervene in the ecology of invasions (or
sometimes of perceived invasions). The result was the clear emergence of an agenda
for serious debate but a feeling too that many organisations and even individuals
perhaps do not wish to engage. Key issues highlighted at the conference included:
1. We are now good at identifying some damaging invaders and on some
occasions taking action quickly to head off later problems.
2. We are less good and even very subjective about identifying other invaders and
potentially problem species which are spreading rapidly but for which no
actions are being taken.
7ECOS 31(1) 2010
3. There are no measures for identifying regional or local champions to tackle problem
aliens in a co-ordinated way. This has a consequent major cost to business and others
but no effective response; the overall cost of problem invaders is £2-3 billion per
annum, excluding the huge cost of bracken invasion and lost productivity of
agricultural lands;
4. Responses to damaging aliens are often too late to be worthwhile.
Interventions at an early stage of an invasive species’ emergence are more likely
to be effective.
5. There is insufficient funding (in amount or longevity) for agencies or local
authorities to provide skills for their key staff or to take effective action at a local
or regional level.
6. There are examples of good practice to share and disseminate, including Swansea
City Council and Cornwall County Council, but there remains a lack of effective
coordination.
7. A big tension, but often not discussed, is that many exotic species contribute in
a major way to people’s quality of life and to the economy.
8. There are increasing concerns especially in Europe about eco-xenophobia and
extremist politics.
9. The underpinning science, especially about expected impacts on other species, is
often lacking. There is a serious need for objective science to inform understanding
and decision-making, whilst accepting that actual decisions are subjective
and political.
10. It seems that developments in bio-control, whilst they can seem scary for many,
may offer the possibility of long-term controls rather than eradication.
11. Using invasive species for food (for example, menus using signal crayfish) or
other natural products is an important way of raising awareness of the problem,
as well as creating incentives for people to help target the species.
12. Alien and invasive species are popular topics for the media, but much coverage
of the subject is superficial and poorly informed.
13. The meeting heard compelling evidence about big cats wild in Britain (which in the
case of lynx is a returning native); which together with the reappearance of wild
boar, creates some truly wild nature and challenges the ‘control’ culture of
nature conservation.
The wider picture
Whilst some damaging invasions by exotic species are taken seriously, there remain
few effective and coordinated programmes of long-term control. In some cases,
8ECOS 31(1) 2010
exotic species are so immersed in our
NEIL BENNETT
ecologies, that control is impossible; in others
we are simply unwilling to pay the price. In
the latter case there is often much talk and
hype but little action beyond strategies and
policies; both of which are generally too late
to prevent problems. According to the Global
Invasive Species Programme (GISP), in its
recent assessment of fifty-seven countries
worldwide, most have made international
commitments to tackle the threat of invasive
species, but so far only half have introduced
legislation on the issues. Fewer still are taking
effective action on the ground.
Specific actions, however apparently laudable in
principle, remain controversial in both specialist
and pubic arenas, and problematic in practice.
A prime example is the British cull of ruddy
ducks, one of Sir Peter Scott’s less welcome
legacies. According to The Observer newspaper (Sunday 7 February 20101): “A
controversial UK cull of ruddy ducks, a US native that has been compared to a ‘feathered
lager lout’ for its displays of thuggish and amorous behaviour, has cost the British taxpayer
more than £740 for each dead bird. Figures from the Defra show that shoots of the
chestnut-coloured bird have cost taxpayers £4.6m, yet only 6,200 have been killed. The
disclosure has sparked an outcry from ornithologists and animal activists who have
protested since the cull began five years ago. They say that the bird, targeted because it
had interbred with the threatened white-headed duck in Spain, should have been left
alone. The cull is due to end in August.”
Furthermore, without effective international co-operation then surely this project is
doomed to failure. One consequence witnessed all across England, is that local bird
recorders simply withhold the location of ruddy duck sites in their patch. Regardless
of any merits in the case for control, it seems that the key arguments with
grassroots ornithologists have yet to be won. Without their support it is highly
unlikely that any control programme could be effective. So we have the question
of whether the efforts have produced any noticeable effects that are viable and
have a real influence on the white-headed ducks in Spain. Surely the money would
have been better spent in Spain helping to control hybrids within the white-headed
duck’s range, and on associated education and awareness-raising programmes.
The lessons of history also show that to be effective control programmes need to
bring together key parties for closely coordinated action. Eradication of coypu from
England’s East Anglian Fens and Broads remains one of the few success stories in
Britain of landowners, government agencies and conservation bodies working
together. Another basic observation is that too often, even if we want control in
order to avoid demonstrable ecological damage, the efforts are too little too late.
9ECOS 31(1) 2010
References
1. Anon. (2010) Winning the Battle But Losing the War on Invasive Alien Species. The Observer, Sunday 7 February.
2. Bruxelles, S. de (2010) War is declared on the plant invaders that cost £2.7 billion a year to control. The
Times, 24 February, p4
3. Graham Madge, RSPB, quoted online 13th October 2008 newsforums.bbc.co.uk
Bibliography
Blake, D. (2009) Predator reintroductions and game shooting interests. International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 24-28.
Booy, O. (2009) Coordinating the GB response to non-native species. International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 29-31.
Coates, P. (2006) American Perceptions of Immigrant and Invasive species. Strangers on the Land. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Cooke, A.S. (2009) Chinese water deer Hydropotes inermis in Britain. International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 32-43.
Goulding, M. (2009) Wild Boar Issues and Arguments: A Case Study. International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 60-66.
Hibbert-Ware, A. (1938) Report of the Little Owl Food Inquiry 1936-37. H. F. & G. Witherby Ltd., London
Jowit, J (2010) Aliens in the woods: public asked to record wildlife and track invaders. The Guardian, 22 March 2010
Minter, R. (2009) Big Cats in our outdoors: Just a few escapes or a breeding population? International Urban
Ecology Review, 4, 70-73.
Robinson, R.C. (2009) Invasive and Problem Ferns: A European Perspective. International Urban Ecology
Review, 4, 83-91.
Rotherham, I.D. (2001) Himalayan Balsam - the human touch. In: Bradley, P. (Ed.) Exotic Invasive Species -
should we be concerned? Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental
Management, Birmingham, April 2000. IEEM, Winchester, 41-50.
Rotherham, I.D. (2001) Rhododendron gone wild. Biologist, 48(1), 7-11.
Rotherham, I.D. (2003) Alien, invasive plants in woods and forests ecology, history and perception. Quarterly
Journal of Forestry, 97 (3), 205-212
Rotherham, I.D. (Ed.) (2005) Loving the Aliens??!!? Ecology, history, culture and management of exotic plants and
animals - issues for nature conservation. Journal of Practical Ecology and Conservation Special Series, No. 4, 96pp
Rotherham, I.D. (2009) Exotic and Invasive Species: Issues around Alien, Invasive, Urban and Problem Species:
Summary and overview. International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 6-9
Smout, T.C. (2009) The Alien Species in Twentieth-Century Britain: Inventing a New Vermin. In: Smout , T.C.,
Exploring Environmental History, Edinburgh University Press, 169-181
Ian Rotherham is Professor of Environmental Geography and Reader in Tourism and
Environmental Change at Sheffield Hallam University. He is an ecologist, landscape historian,
and environmental economist with a long-standing interest in exotic plants and animals.
ian.d.rotherham@btinternet.com
10ECOS 31(1) 2010
As British as curry?
Hot and bothered over parakeets
Should parakeets be seen as a foreign pest or a vibrant addition to our wildlife? This
article examines the views amongst different wildlife bodies.
MATHEW FRITH
Open season on a page three bird
In October 2009 the London Evening Standard heralded an “open season on
parakeets” following Natural England’s press statement on changes to the licensing
arrangements for the control of certain species.1 Bill-boards exclaimed a clarion call
to start controlling ring-necked parakeet (Psitticula krameri) 2, backed up in the
paper’s suggestion that the “birds can be shot without a licence” in order to protect
crops and “native species such as the woodpecker.” It further underlined the threat
posed by the parakeet by describing it as a bully of small birds and the cause of
damage to trees.
Natural England’s press release, couched in the need to regularly review licences,
nevertheless highlighted the need to “target the increasing impact of non-native
species” further emphaised as being “recognised as a major global conservation
problem.” To ram home the point, Natural England’s Chief Executive stated “Non-
native species are a major threat to global biodiversity and it is important that
licences can operate as an effective tool in helping to tackle the problem.” Four
non-native species were specifically listed on the press release; ring-necked and
monk parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus), Canada goose (Branta canadensis) and
Egyptian goose (Alopochan aegyptiacus). New licencing arrangements due to
come into play in the New Year would allow “their numbers [to] be controlled”.
Natural England also announced the removal of great black-backed (Larus marinus)
and herring gull (L. argentatus) from some licences due to conservation concerns
about their population numbers. This message appeared out of nowhere, with no
advance notice offered by Natural England. Given the London Evening Standard’s
coverage of the topic, London Wildlife Trust (LWT) issued a statement:
“We believe the decision to include ring-necked parakeet (and Canada goose)
within the general licence for conserving birds from 1 January 2010 is misguided.
Whilst we recognise that populations of ring-necked parakeet and Canada geese
have grown, and in some cases cause concern, there is currently no evidence that
either species is having an adverse impact on native wild bird populations or natural
habitats in London or elsewhere in Britain.
More worryingly, the lowering of evidence required to obtain licences to control
parakeets could set a damaging precedent, allowing poorly-regulated and
11ECOS 31(1) 2010 inappropriate controls (e.g. inhumane shooting) to take place upon the whim of land-owners. It could also serve to further the expansion of populations due to the fact that controls will be relaxed. Given the number of parakeets in London, we ask how do Natural England intend to monitor the licences they issue?” The following day the media jumped in, muddying the waters.3 Over-simplifying an interview with me, reports claimed that LWT’s view was that the decision was racist (rather than ‘could be interpreted as racist’) as parakeets were “as British as curry”, rather than a complicated analogy of cultural appropriation and tastes within modern-day Britain, within the loaded terminology of non-natives and aliens in a place like London. The story ignited a blue touch paper. Relationships between the LWT and Natural England immediately nosedived, but the bandying of the ‘R’ word within the media also had impact; Natural England issued a further statement on 3 October. This distanced the agency from suggestions that it was calling for the eradication of ring- necked (and monk) parakeet (“We are not.”), and stated that it remained “illegal for anyone to kill or intefere” with them “except in exceptional circumstances.” Ring the changes The changes to the general licences followed a four month consultation that ended in March 2009.4 Generating 35 unique responses5, largely from the expected players, it is worth noting some of the feedback to the questions posed by Natural England in relation to the two parakeet species. Over 74% (i.e 26) supported the need for regulatory measures to control invasive non-native species, although the RSPB stated that its support was dependent on “good evidence that a genuine problem exists.” Natural England’s response was that it would adopt a “presumption to support or facilitate the control of non-native species” when considering adding species to general licences. However, it also stated that this was “not a call to the public to support or facilitate” such species. When it came to ring-necked parakeet, and the purpose of adding the species to the general licence for conserving wild birds, 60% agreed (and almost 63% for the purpose of protecting crops). However RSPB, RSPCA and WWT questioned the evidence of damage by ring-necked parakeet in the context of general licences, and felt the measures were disproportionate for monk parakeet. The RSPB added that the addition of ring-necked parakeet was contrary to NE’s five principles of licensing, due to its belief that there was no problem, nor that licensed action would contribute to resolving the problem. The NFU commented on the disparity over non-native species and damaging native species. Disappointingly the Wildlife Trusts recorded ‘no comment’ to the questions over the parakeets. Natural England’s response was to add the two parakeet species to the General Licence, content that the risk assessments published by the GB Non-native Species Secretariat provided appropriate justification (these were not further detailed). 12
ECOS 31(1) 2010
A ring-necked parakeet at home in Richmond Park?
Photo: Dave Pressland
An explosion?
The pet trade first introduced ring-necked parakeets from the Indian sub-continent
to England in 1840. The first recorded breeding of the species in Britain occurred
in 1855 in Norfolk, but it wasn’t until 1969, with young raised at Gravesend, Kent,
that their recent expansion began. By 1998 the known UK population was c.1,500.
The British Trust for Ornithology report, Breeding Birds in the Wider Countryside,
lists ring-necked parakeet populations as an estimated 20,000 birds, predominantly
in south-east England, and the fastest-increasing species with a 600% increase
between1995–2007.6 This was modestly reported in the Daily Telegraph -
“Parakeets now outnumber native British birds” - and the story linked their
population growth to reported declines in several woodland bird species such as
willow tit. However, the RSPB was quoted: “There are a large number of birds now
outnumbered by parakeets such as kingfishers, barn owls and red kites. But that is
not to say they are declining because of parakeets…[and] so far there is nothing to
suggest parakeets causing a problem for native birds because they are confined to
a small range.”
Ring-necked parakeets thrive in London, north Surrey and parts of Kent. They are
highly visible –“undeniably spectacular”– and audible birds. They are increasingly
part of London’s wildlife, reflecting the cultural diversity of the city. However,
despite the implications that there is a good basis to support control, there is
currently no evidence that the ring-necked parakeet is having an adverse impact on
native wild bird populations or natural habitats in London or elsewhere in Britain.
This is supported by a desk-top review commissioned by Defra.7 Is this another case
13ECOS 31(1) 2010 of ‘foreign, loud, “unnervingly numerous”, and rapidly increasing’, and thus a perceived problem for our sensitive native birds? Recent research in Belgium, based largely on modelling, suggests that there may be a negative causative relationship between ring-necked parakeet and nuthatch in woodlands, but that other factors may be influential in controlling the ability of nuthatch in securing nest-holes for breeding.8 There are hints that the parakeet might cause problems for some species, but the absence of robust data to assess their potential impacts on species or habitats suggests the decision to include ring-necked parakeet within the licensing maybe precautionary.9 Or is it a worrying presumption based simply on the bird’s noisy presence that has drawn attention to itself? A chorus of disapproval Renewed attempts to ‘deal with’ non-native species are gathering pace, following reviews of the legislative schedules, and the establishment of the GB Non-Native Species Secretariat and delivery of the Non-native Species Strategy10 through regional fora.11 There appears to be a growing consensus for action to be taken, no doubt spurred on by the seeming success of the ruddy duck cull.12 Indeed, the language at times is becoming rather shrill, unnervingly echoing that of others with agendas that could be perceived to have analogous aims – “We need to be vigilant and not be afraid to take action to stop many of these exotics before they get too numerous… We fail to do so at our peril”.13 Nevertheless, there is some unease as to whether this activity chimes well within towns and cities, and how the targeting of some species from outside Britain helps to embed the wider objectives of biodiversity conservation to a public increasingly largely disengaged from an indigenous nature. For all the justifiable concerns about the impacts of introduced species at a global level, in Britain our biodiversity has been shaped by non-natives for thousands of years, and I question whether such emphasis so readily applies. Newspapers’ opinion on the parakeet proffered both sides of an argument (foreign pest versus bright addition to our fauna). However, widely-bandied descriptions of them being bullies and pests surely reflect more on our attitudes towards ‘aliens’ than any empirical evidence to support such views. The flurry of green feathers in the media generated a clear split in the subsequent blogosphere between those that couldn’t wait to get their guns out, to those that were prepared to man the barriers to prevent ‘the slaughter’. The London Wildlife Trust lost one member due to our stance, but gained messages of support as well. Leaving aside the decision to add the ring-necked parakeet onto the General Licence, it is this aspect of the Natural England press release which raised questions; a naivety that it would be reported objectively, and pin-pointing non-native species which have a clear resonance within cities–themselves consisting of many people from outside Britain. To say that ring-necked parakeets merit no public interest is an under-statement; their presence is as controversial as any measures to control them, and any commentary about them from a professional authority will be oil on a fire without due preparation. 14
ECOS 31(1) 2010
The public is often cast as being ignorant and sentimental when it comes to wildlife
conservation. Whether or not this is the case (and I doubt it is), it cannot be argued
that the public does not have a valid opinion and stake in the natural world. We
appear to be unwilling to accept that there often strong motivations for bringing
in animals and plants to the country. Given Britain’s location we have an
impoverished native flora and fauna, and people have attempted to ‘brighten it up’
ever since they first settled here. This is not an argument for laissez faire. However,
our biodiversity is as much a cultural construct as a natural response, and if we fail
to take account of the values that people place on our wild animals and plants no
matter where they come from, attempts to impose a professional’s version of
biodiversity in Britain will struggle.
References and notes
1. Changes to wildlife protection announced by Natural England, press release, 30 September 2009, Natural
England, www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/news/2009/300909.aspx
2. It is also called rose-ringed parakeet. Authorities are divided on the name.
3. For example; Parakeets cull is racist, say wildlife experts, Daily Telegraph, 2 October 2009.
4. Natural England (2009), General Licences under wildlife legislation in England; Summary of Consultation
Responses & Decisions, December 2008-March 2009.
5. There were 115 responses in total; 79 were campaign positions of one organisation, and 1 was a
response that didn’t provide information suitable for analysis.
6. British Trust for Ornithology (2009), Breeding Birds in the Wider Countryside: their conservation status 2009;
Trends in numbers and breeding performance for UK birds. www.bto.org/birdtrends2009/wcrrinpa.shtml
7. Fletcher, M. and Askew, N. (2007), Review of the status, ecology and likely future spread of parakeets in
England, University of York.
See: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/management/non-native/documents/csl-parakeet-deskstudy.pdf
8. Strubbe, D. and Matthysen, E. (2007), Invasive ring-necked parakeets Psittacula krameri in Belgium:
habitat selection and impact on native birds, Ecography, 30; 4, pp578-588, Copenhagen
9. The birds may have an impact on other cavity nesters. See:
http://192.171.199.232/daisie/speciesFactsheet.do?speciesId=50460#
10. www.nonnativespecies.org
11. The London Invasive Species Initiative was established in 2009, chaired by the Environment Agency.
12. Or is it? The Guardian (7 February 2010) reported that the cull to date has cost over £740 per dead bird.
13. Fox, A. D. (2009), What makes a good alien; Dealing with the problems of non-native wildfowl, British
Birds, 102, pp660-679, December 2009, London.
Mathew Frith is Deputy CEO of London Wildlife Trust; these views are his own.
mfrith@wildlondon.org.uk
15ECOS 31(1) 2010 Ducking and diving – mixing science and values in ruddy duck control The curious tale of an amorous duck and the efforts made to curb its enthusiasm. Is culling of ruddy ducks about protecting the white headed duck, or demonstrating our control over nature? PETER SHIRLEY Times change. In 1976 the West Midland Bird Club (which runs reserves and organises talks and field trips in the region) adopted the ruddy duck as its emblem. This species was becoming more common in the area, having first appeared in Staffordshire in 1959, first bred in that county in 1961, and having first bred in Worcestershire in 1971.1 In those innocent days people welcomed this attractive newcomer to Britain’s inland waters. By 1995 however the Club found itself in discussion with English Nature about allowing ruddy ducks to be culled on its reserves. This was resisted by the Club on the grounds that the proposed method of control (shooting) might not be the most humane and effective, and that there would be disturbance to other species. English Nature went over the Club’s head to the owners of the reserves that they leased and obtained their consent.2 The ruddy duck is still represented in the Club’s logo, albeit somewhat cryptically. The British population of ruddy ducks originated from about 70 birds which escaped from, amongst other places, the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust’s Slimbridge Reserve in the late 50s and early 60s. The first nesting record was in Avon in 1960, and by 2000 the population numbered about 6,000.3 The intruder and its cousin Ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) is perhaps unique amongst our introduced species in that it looks as if it not only might be successfully extirpated in the United Kingdom (sharing that dubious accolade with the coypu (Myocaster coypus), but also that this fate is not because it presents a threat in this country, but because it might do so to a species elsewhere, in this case Spain. The species in question is the white-headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala), which, being threatened with extinction, has been the subject of a major conservation effort for the last 30 years. This has been relatively successful, with an estimated population in Spain of 22 in 1977 increasing to about 3,000 in 2000. The global population has however severely declined from over 100,000 in the early 20th Century to about 19,000 in 1991 and less than 10,000 now.4 These birds are in widely scattered wintering and breeding populations across Eurasia. Between 2000 and 2005 the average count of white-headed ducks in Spain has been 2,470 birds.5 16
ECOS 31(1) 2010
The innocent ruddy duck?
Photo: www.glendell.co.uk
Ruddy ducks are partially migratory and some birds from the UK make their way to
Spain (this behaviour first recorded in 19836) where the males are more favoured
as mates by female white-headed ducks than males of their own species. The
resulting hybrid males are similarly favoured. This behaviour is interpreted as a
threat to the long-term viability of the Spanish white-headed duck population by
conservationists and geneticists. As a result the UK Government, within the context
of various international agreements and with the support of major conservation
organisations, agreed to cull the ruddy duck population here.
Following 10 years (yes, 10!) of research and trials, shooting was identified as the
most effective way of doing this and a 5 year eradication programme commenced
in 2005. As a result the ruddy duck population has been reduced from about 6,000
to about 700. The cost of this is officially put at between £4.5m and £5m,7
although Animal Aid claims that £8.5m has been spent.8 Over the same period
ruddy ducks and hybrids have also been killed in Spain.9 The problem with
controlling by killing is of course that if all breeding individuals are not accounted
for the activity has to continue ad infinitum. If the 70 original escapees increased
to 6,000 in just 40 years, then the ten times that original number still extant means
that there is a lot more shooting to do, and a lot more money to spend. At some
point the law of diminishing returns must come into play – how much money will
we spend on eliminating the last few dozen ruddy ducks? If we don’t go through
with a complete cull will not the whole cycle start again? The Observer newspaper
on 7 February 2010 quotes slightly different figures to those above, but estimates
that each dead duck has cost the taxpayer more than £740. The exercise certainly
raises questions over value for money.
17ECOS 31(1) 2010 Although killing this undoubtedly attractive duck has not attracted the public controversy of similar operations against other species, introduced or not, there has been a continuous feeling of unease amongst conservation bodies and the occasional outburst of public concern. When Warwickshire Wildlife Trust allowed its Brandon Marsh site to be used for early trials, suspected animal rights protesters set fire to the reed bed there, and the Trust’s AGM was lobbied. (The logic of setting fire to the reed bed has never been explained, whatever effect on ruddy ducks was discounted by the loss of reed warbler habitat.) There have been recent protests in Wigan because the local council is allowing shooting of ruddy ducks on the Wigan Flashes. The most vociferous voices against the ruddy duck cull are from animal welfare proponents - conservationists seem to be more in the reluctant agreement camp. This split is, perhaps, more typical of the United Kingdom than some other countries. In the USA for example there is generally less of a divide in people’s minds between welfare and conservation. One of their biggest animal charities, The Humane Society of the United States with more than two million members, neatly combines the two. Whose species are they anyway? Concern partly centres on the fact that ruddy and white-headed ducks are so closely related, as manifested by the fact that they freely interbreed. Conservationists usually control individual species to favour unrelated species, for example gulls are controlled to protect terns (they may be cousins but they are definitely not the same species), hedgehogs in the Western Isles are controlled to protect ground-nesting waders, and brown rats are controlled all over the world to protect a variety of other species. Questions therefore arise as to whether or not ruddy and white-headed ducks are entirely separate species (see below). There is also the question of genetic conservation (one of the aims of the Biodiversity Convention) in that two such closely related species must share the majority of their genes, either as separate entities or as hybrids. Why, some may ask, does it matter about the hybridisation if the genes are being conserved? The Biodiversity Convention is quite clear on this point: “Biodiversity also includes genetic differences within each species - for example, between varieties of crops and breeds of livestock. Chromosomes, genes, and DNA - the building blocks of life - determine the uniqueness of each individual and each species”.10 Although that is clear, ducks’ genetics and taxonomy are not. Many duck species interbreed and fertile hybrids are common. Introduced mallards interbreeding with them are said, for example, to be threatening the viability of the grey duck (Anas superciliosa) in New Zealand. This raises the question of what is a species and can we really separate one sort of duck from another? Defining a species is fraught with difficulty. Species are as much, or even more, a human construct than they are a natural entity. Darwin himself commenting on the difficulty of defining the term ‘species’ said that “It all comes, I believe, from trying to define the indefinable”.11 The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (no doubt amongst many others) has published a detailed modern discussion of the issues.12 This paper discusses, amongst 18
ECOS 31(1) 2010
other things, whether or not species are ‘natural kinds’ with unique essences (the
prevailing pre-Darwin view) ‘units of evolution’ (one of the main post-Darwinian views)
or ‘groups of entities that share stable similarities’ (Homeostatic Property Cluster kinds
or HPC theory). I am not going to pretend to fully understand these distinctions, nor
to attempt to apply them to ruddy ducks. I mention them just to illustrate that there
are deep philosophical and scientific concepts which make the notion of ‘species’ as
slippery to grasp as an eel, and to point the reader to further food for thought.
Ducks are not, of course, the only difficult group of species. For example, decades
of pipistrelle bat records are now compromised by the discovery that there are two
species of pipistrelle. They look the same, and have apparently identical behaviour
and geographical range. It was technology that revealed a miniscule difference –
the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) echo-locates at 45 kHz whilst the
soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) does so at 55 kHz. Researchers are now
examining what other differences there may be.13 If the two species are susceptible
to the same pressures and conservation measures, the tiny differences between
them might not be significant and the resources would be better applied to the
conservation measures. It would be ironic if the research demonstrates that they
are merely two races of the same species.
So, what of ruddy and white–headed ducks? The conclusion of a paper in British
Birds in 2000 is that they are separate species which have been geographically and
genetically isolated from each other for several million years.14 This conclusion is
reached through a detailed examination of the genetics of the two ducks.
Unfortunately for those of us wrestling with practical conservation problems rather
than theoretical concepts they muddy the waters rather than clarify them. In the
paper they say that two other species in the genus Oxyura are more closely related
to the white-headed duck than any of the three is to the ruddy duck, and that there
are many examples of morphologically distinct and geographically isolated
waterfowl species whose genes are less divergent than the two species under
consideration here. Maybe the taxonomists got things wrong in the first place, and
the genus Oxyura should either have the number of species reduced (there are
currently six or seven species or races each found in a different part of the world)
or be split into two or three genera, or both. Such taxonomic lumping and splitting
goes on all the time, and reinforces the anthropomorphic basis of species.
As an aside I wonder how all this relates to the genotypes of humans and
chimpanzees which are said to be 99% the same? And, more sensitive still, what
would happen if we applied the arguments about ruddy and white-headed ducks
to humans? When transport opened up the world many morphologically distinct
and geographically isolated races of people came into contact with each other.
Subsequently the world’s biggest attempt at apartheid was universally condemned,
short-lived and impossible to maintain.
Natural flotsam and jetsam
If nature allows these two ducks to breed with each other, why are we determined
to prevent it and so willing to commit millions of pounds of scarce resources to
19ECOS 31(1) 2010 intervene? Those favouring control of ruddy ducks base their arguments on the fact that the two species have not encountered each other by natural means since their original divergence from tropical swamps millions of years ago. The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans have so far prevented any ‘natural’ contact. What might have happened however had the white-headed duck population not declined over the last 100 years? The reduced population exists in scattered locations from Spain to China, and the extent of the Chinese population is uncertain. Ruddy duck are thriving on the American continent. Might not vagrants from either species eventually have made their way to the other’s territory to naturally begin the hybridisation process which we so fear? A sandhill crane recently made its way to the Highlands of Scotland, and then to south-west France15; could not migratory ducks do the same? Global movements of other organisms are well known. Tim Hawes describes these in relation to invertebrates as ‘flotsom (sic) but not jetsam’. Birds are subject to the same forces generated by wind and weather as insects and, as in the case of the sandhill crane above, frequently turn up in places far from their normal homes. In the meantime the factors which have caused the decline of the white-headed duck, including, crucially, habitat loss, continue apparently unchecked. Ruddy duck from Britain are only threatening the Spanish population of white-headed ducks, human activities are threatening the rest of the widely scattered population. Are we culling ruddy ducks because we can, and because we can be seen to be doing something, even if that something is largely irrelevant in relation to the ultimate fate of what might, or might not, be a separate species? When the science is agreed, as to be fair seems to be case here, what about the eco- ethics? Is this reductionist science at its worst, or a sensible application of specialist knowledge? How should we feel about this project, does culling ruddy ducks matter considering that most conservation management involves controlling and killing unfavoured species to help favoured ones? And has anybody apart from the animal rights movement really noticed? Most of the early criticism I have been able to find seemed to be more about conservation politics than conservation per se. Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee are in favour of the cull - they are organising and paying for it after all. In the voluntary sector the RSPB begins its policy statement as follows: “The RSPB welcomes the European Commission’s support for efforts to eradicate ruddy ducks from the UK. We commend the high priority for action the UK Government is giving this issue, and are facilitating the eradication project where possible”.18 For the Wildlife Trusts, putting ‘ruddy duck’ into the web site search facility produces only a reference to its species database, which does not include ruddy duck in its list of birds.19 Strangely the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust also appear to be silent on the subject. Searching its website using ‘ruddy duck’ and ‘ruddy duck cull’ produces nothing about the project or their attitude towards it. As it had a part in introducing the ruddy duck to Britain in the first place this may be thought both strange and a little unsporting. 20
You can also read
