Nature in the News

OpenYourEyes

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

Why would they need ecologists to implement guidelines already decided by Brussels ? One presumes ecologists would have been involved at the initial guideline formation.. It's not your trade by any chance...:)

The advisors sole remit would be to advise farmers on how to implement what are increasingly complicated schemes without loss of payment through penalties.

My most recent job was working on a small island with seabirds - I somehow don't think that shouts out "hire me to advise farmers" - as smart as you think you are My point is that if its a scheme meant to deliver environmental and ecological benefits, then surely at least a portion of those 80 jobs should be for ecologists with experience in the fields that the various prescriptions in GLAS are meant to deliver on! Especially given how badly our previous agri-environment schemes have performed.

You've summed up perfectly how the agricultural organisations see it - a box ticking exercise! Box ticking wouldn't be your trade my any chance? My point is that since it's public money being spent, not only should the remit of those advisors be to help the farmers to tick the boxes, but it should be to do their best to also deliver on what GLAS is trying to achieve. Previous agri-environment schems did not deliver on what they were intended to do, this isn't a good start for GLAS!


Agricultural land dominates our landscape, and the agri-food industry is our most important. All the while our farmland species are in freefall, agricultural intensification and expansion threatens a multitude of habitats, and one of the main causes of things like water pollution is agricultural run-off. It pains me, that as someone with third-level degrees in conservation that I was always taught that the best and most sustainable way to achieve our goals is to work with people like farmers towards common goals. Unfortunately the various farming organisations are still not singing from that hymn sheet.

Capercaille

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Just to add to that, a load of agricultural consultants are being hired to advise on the agri-environment schemes etc., but they're not looking for ecologists!

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/80-glas-advisor-jobs-with-frs-and-teagasc-170923/?utm_source=Irish+Farmers+Journal+-+Newsletters&utm_campaign=435f8083b3-Newsletter_21_Non_Subscribers_18_7_14_7_18_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_efb977c6d0-435f8083b3-114793621

Its no wonder that we have such a terrible track record with agri-environment schemes, and environmental issues in general. It's criminal the way we use a 'green' and environmentally friendly image as a selling point for our agri-food industry when it couldn't be much further from the truth.

The agricultural consultants would mostly have an agricultural science degree and would know hardly anything about wildlife. Their priorty in working as agricultural consultants will be to get the GLAS scheme payments to the farmer, everything else would be secondary.

If they had ecologists doing the work they would prioritise the benefits to wildlife/biodiversity. The IFA would do their best to keep ecologists out.

OpenYourEyes

Capercaille wrote: »

The agricultural consultants would mostly have an agricultural science degree and would know hardly anything about wildlife. Their priorty in working as agricultural consultants will be to get the GLAS scheme payments to the farmer, everything else would be secondary.

If they had ecologists doing the work they would prioritise the benefits to wildlife/biodiversity. The IFA would do their best to keep ecologists out.

That's my point exactly (see my post above). I'm not even suggesting that the 80 jobs should all go to ecologists, but surely it makes the most sense to break down those 80 jobs into ecologists and ag science graduates from the various disciplines, so that there's a more diverse and well-rounded approach to the whole thing, and both sets of 'recruits' could learn a lot from each other in the process. Even if that meant more money had to be spent -raise it to 100 jobs - at least it would be money well spent as opposed to the box-ticking exercise this threatens to be!

Capercaille

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

That's my point exactly (see my post above). I'm not even suggesting that the 80 jobs should all go to ecologists, but surely it makes the most sense to break down those 80 jobs into ecologists and ag science graduates from the various disciplines, so that there's a more diverse and well-rounded approach to the whole thing, and both sets of 'recruits' could learn a lot from each other in the process. Even if that meant more money had to be spent -raise it to 100 jobs - at least it would be money well spent as opposed to the box-ticking exercise this threatens to be!

Posted at the same time.

Capercaille

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

That's not basically it.. Firstly hedge types have not been decided, (not sure where the IFA comes in but then I haven't heard anything from them)
Secondly this is just a small part of a new scheme called ' Greening' and what it means is that a tillage farmer with over thirty hectares of arable must submit 5% of the tillage area to an EFA , Enviormental Focus Area, for next year with percentages increasing in 2017. There is no extra payment, there is no special payment, if he doesn't do this he will lose thirty percent of the payment he would normally be entitled to.


There is far more to this scheme and even if I could be bothered I'm certainly not getting into it here.

I'm aware of the GLAS schemes, I'm trying to get into one myself.

As I said hedges are a part of this, other areas that count as EFAs include drains, buffer strips ( fallow strips by hedgerow) groups of trees/ copses, fallow arable land , catch crops or green cover.

Alot of people will just do the easiest option not the most biodiverse option like throwing in beans as a crop to satisfy the EPA

For the life of me I cannot see why this is not welcomed , why is it necessary to constantly focus on the negative? All the areas mentioned above are bio/ diverse if implemented properly .

GLAS is a watered down version of REPS and that was a failure.

Zoo4m8

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

My most recent job was working on a small island with seabirds - I somehow don't think that shouts out "hire me to advise farmers" - as smart as you think you are My point is that if its a scheme meant to deliver environmental and ecological benefits, then surely at least a portion of those 80 jobs should be for ecologists with experience in the fields that the various prescriptions in GLAS are meant to deliver on! Especially given how badly our previous agri-environment schemes have performed.

You've summed up perfectly how the agricultural organisations see it - a box ticking exercise! Box ticking wouldn't be your trade my any chance? My point is that since it's public money being spent, not only should the remit of those advisors be to help the farmers to tick the boxes, but it should be to do their best to also deliver on what GLAS is trying to achieve. Previous agri-environment schems did not deliver on what they were intended to do, this isn't a good start for GLAS!


Agricultural land dominates our landscape, and the agri-food industry is our most important. All the while our farmland species are in freefall, agricultural intensification and expansion threatens a multitude of habitats, and one of the main causes of things like water pollution is agricultural run-off. It pains me, that as someone with third-level degrees in conservation that I was always taught that the best and most sustainable way to achieve our goals is to work with people like farmers towards common goals. Unfortunately the various farming organisations are still not singing from that hymn sheet.

Smart as I think I am? Ha! Nice one!
So advising on the different Environmental options availability and application is a box ticking exercise ? Ecologists would probably be overqualified..
Box ticking my trade? No, they wouldn't take me..not smart enough apparently
And it pains me that the whole farming community is constantly indicted by sweeping generalisations without any recognition of any advances or improvements, water pollution for instance is a fraction of what it used to be thanks to constantly updated containment measures..

Capercaille

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

Smart as I think I am? Ha! Nice one!
So advising on the different Environmental options availability and application is a box ticking exercise ? Ecologists would probably be overqualified..
Box ticking my trade? No, they wouldn't take me..not smart enough apparently
And it pains me that the whole farming community is constantly indicted by sweeping generalisations without any recognition of any advances or improvements, water pollution for instance is a fraction of what it used to be thanks to constantly updated containment measures..

Better to have an ecologist that is overqualified, than somebody with an ag science degree who knows next to nothing about the wildlife/biodiversity.

Zoo4m8

Capercaille wrote: »

I'm aware of the GLAS schemes, I'm trying to get into one myself.

Alot of people will just do the easiest option not the most biodiverse option like throwing in beans as a crop to satisfy the EPA

GLAS is a watered down version of REPS and that was a failure.

I do realise that I'm not that bright.. But what has GLAS got to do with Greening?
Beans? EPA? Now I'm really lost..
GLAS is not a watered down version of REPS, It is introducing far more environmentally pleasing efforts..
Now you are just repeating yourself, we've already done the REPS failure thing, an if you believe it was a failure why would you be bothered with GLAS?

Zoo4m8

Capercaille wrote: »

Better to have an ecologist that is overqualified, than somebody with an ag science degree who knows next to nothing about the wildlife/biodiversity.

Another sweeping generalization ! On second thoughts it's more a sweeping assumption ! Sure you'll be able to set them straight when they come to help you with your GLAS app..I give up..time to put the kettle on!

fryup

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

If the catholic church (and/or other sizeable religions) were to take on the issue of ecology and climate change, it could have very significant knock-on benefits for the world (...not to mention for the church too).

with the worlds population reaching crisis point...i think the most constructive thing the catholic church could do is change its teaching on birth control

Alun

fryup wrote: »

with the worlds population reaching crisis point...i think the most constructive thing the catholic church could do is change its teaching on birth control

Except according to many it isn't. I remember seeing a documentary on BBC 4 recently where the renowned statistician Professor Hans Rosling stated that birth rates in many developing countries were actually starting to decrease. You can watch it here ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd7K4cgrjng. It's a long one but worth the watch.

Capercaille

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

I do realise that I'm not that bright.. But what has GLAS got to do with Greening
GLAS is not a watered down version of REPS, It is introducing far more environmentally pleasing efforts..
?

My error, Greening part of SFP. GLAS is different.

Beans? EPA? Now I'm really lost..

Planting beans as part of crop diversification.

Now you are just repeating yourself, we've already done the REPS failure thing, an if you believe it was a failure why would you be bothered with GLAS?

Trying to get into Corncrake Farm Plan. Since I do everything in the plan and more (eg delaying mowing till mid September instead of September 1st), I might as well get paid for it and use money for more early-cover beds.

Capercaille

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

Another sweeping generalization ! On second thoughts it's more a sweeping assumption ! Sure you'll be able to set them straight when they come to help you with your GLAS app..I give up..time to put the kettle on!

So would you think that somebody with an Ecology degree would know more or less than somebody with an Ag Science degree (about wildlife protection methods)?

Zoo4m8

Capercaille wrote: »

My error, Greening part of SFP. GLAS is different.

Planting beans as part of crop diversification.

Trying to get into Corncrake Farm Plan. Since I do everything in the plan and more (eg delaying mowing till mid September instead of September 1st), I might as well get paid for it and use money for more early-cover beds.

Absolutely, you shouldn't have a difficulty, and I saw elsewhere you had a flock of Twite on site, payments available for Twite habitat, wild flower meadows etc. You will know more about this than I , but I'm now looking at my options on a neglected patch I got hold of recently.
It would be hoped that landowners with amounts of land not being farmed in the accepted sense of the word will jump on board this very worthwhile scheme(GLAS)
My only reservation is that it probably won't be open ended so would be at risk of having the rug pulled from under down the line.

Now, back to advisors..you can't assume that an advisor won't have any knowledge or passion for conservation, after all he/she could be an Ecologist fallen on hard times..

Capercaille

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

Now, back to advisors..you can't assume that an advisor won't have any knowledge or passion for conservation, after all he/she could be an Ecologist fallen on hard times..

Any of the teagasc advisors I have dealt with before, their knowledge in those matters has not been great. I live in hope.

OpenYourEyes

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

Smart as I think I am? Ha! Nice one!
So advising on the different Environmental options availability and application is a box ticking exercise ? Ecologists would probably be overqualified..
Box ticking my trade? No, they wouldn't take me..not smart enough apparently
And it pains me that the whole farming community is constantly indicted by sweeping generalisations without any recognition of any advances or improvements, water pollution for instance is a fraction of what it used to be thanks to constantly updated containment measures..

I referred to the various farming organisations - the IFA etc, who get criticism in their own ranks for not looking after small farmers. Of course there are plenty of farmers who do great work and put thought into maintaining biodiversity, unfortunately at this moment in time they're the exception to the rule. And I put the blame for that equally if not more-so at the door of the policy-makers by the way.

OpenYourEyes

fryup wrote: »

with the worlds population reaching crisis point...i think the most constructive thing the catholic church could do is change its teaching on birth control

Alun wrote: »

Except according to many it isn't. I remember seeing a documentary on BBC 4 recently where the renowned statistician Professor Hans Rosling stated that birth rates in many developing countries were actually starting to decrease. You can watch it here ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd7K4cgrjng. It's a long one but worth the watch.

It's probably worth clarifying that in theory it's consumption that's the bigger problem, not necessarily population size, but that being said we have a much better chance of reducing population increase than reducing consumption. Obviously, the best way to tackle it is to do so on both fronts!

Good that the churchs influential voice is being used to highlight a major problem though!

recedite

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

As I said hedges are a part of this, other areas that count as EFAs include drains, buffer strips ( fallow strips by hedgerow) groups of trees/ copses, fallow arable land , catch crops or green cover.
For the life of me I cannot see why this is not welcomed , why is it necessary to constantly focus on the negative?

I welcome it. I also see the loopholes; if there are not enough hedgerows or wild areas on a tillage farm, the farmer will plant an area in legumes to get up to the required percentage. Instead of setting aside an area for wildlife.
I can't see why it has been decided that a commercial monoculture crop, sprayed with herbicides and pesticides, is allowed in lieu of a real "environmentally focused area". Except as a means to subvert the original intent of the scheme. Possibly thought up by Coveny to thwart an original plan in Brussels to increase wildlife friendly areas.

And I don't know what the dispute on this thread is about, you are both saying the same thing.

Capercaille wrote: »

I'm aware of the GLAS schemes, I'm trying to get into one myself.
Alot of people will just do the easiest option not the most biodiverse option like throwing in beans as a crop to satisfy the EPA.

The Indo article, as linked earlier, said the exact guidelines on what is allowed, including descriptions of gappy hedges will be issued in due course by Dept of Agriculture. Whoever is hired merely has to interpret and explain these guidelines to farmers. They don't need to know much about either ecology or agricultural science.

Zoo4m8

I think re the choice of cover crops as an alternative I'm sure some (hopefully)would take the no cost /minimum cost route , a buffer strip would qualify as would leaving land fallow, the route I will take anyway if necessary..

You point on advisors is what I've tried to get across, maybe you will have more success!

OpenYourEyes

recedite wrote: »

The Indo article, as linked earlier, said the exact guidelines on what is allowed, including descriptions of gappy hedges will be issued in due course by Dept of Agriculture. Whoever is hired merely has to interpret and explain these guidelines to farmers. They don't need to know much about either ecology or agricultural science.

My point was more in relation to GLAS, and that the people they are looking to hire will interpret the guidelines to the letter to ensure the farmer gets the payment. Someone with ecological knowledge of the bird species with schemes under GLAS for example, would not only make sure that all of the boxes are ticked for that farmer to receive payment but would also draw on their knowledge to make sure that the habitat created is as suitable for that species as possible (obviously within the financial constraints of the farmer etc). They would go that extra mile and that would mean that the farmer is happy to get his/her payment, but also that there's a higher chance the scheme will be successful.

Like I said, I blame the policy-makers and big farming groups, more than the people who will be hired for those jobs or the farmers on the ground. But given the failure of previous agri-environment schemes, I think this is a small and simple change that is at the very least worth trying! You said "...all they have to do....", we're arguing on the basis on what they should have to do.

recedite

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

I think re the choice of cover crops as an alternative I'm sure some (hopefully)would take the no cost /minimum cost route , a buffer strip would qualify as would leaving land fallow, the route I will take anyway if necessary..

If it was grassland, there would be a good chance of it reverting to some kind of wildlife meadow in the short term, but the problem with leaving arable land fallow is that you are inviting in ragwort and thistles which will spread onto adjacent land. Hence the idea of planting cover crops or "green manure" as part of crop rotation. But IMO a field of beans or alfalfa is no more a "wildlife area" than a field of potatoes.

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Like I said, I blame the policy-makers... we're arguing on the basis on what they should have to do.

I agree, and pro-wildlife groups should be lobbying to influence the rules and guidelines before they are decided. Its no good saying afterwards we want them to hire ecologists to implement the kind of rules we would have liked, but didn't get.

In regard to "greening" and designation of EFA's, if we are going to talk about what should be done, then a list of what kind of farm habitats constitute a genuinely wildlife friendly area should be drawn up at EU level, and then transposed into national law in individual member states.
Ecologists would then be hired to visit farms, and check the percentage of land that genuinely qualified. If it fell short, they would advise on what measures to take in the individual circumstances, eg restore a hedgerow, allow a wetland to develop, plant a copse etc...

The rules as they are being drafted by our Dept of Agriculture seem to be designed to include enough DWA's ("dubious wildlife areas" ) :pac: to allow all existing farmers to continue to avail of their grants, without any real change on the ground. Leave no man behind!

Zoo4m8

Fallow land would need to be managed as set aside was in previous times, apart from the immorality of leaving productive crop land idle it is easily kept spreadable weed free and quickly reverts to growing various grasses and low growing weeds that don't have a 'spread' factor, willow herb, daisys, vetches etc.

Capercaille

http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/martinharper/archive/2014/12/15/recipe-for-success-the-story-of-the-bittern.aspx
Saving the British Bittern-a good news story

OpenYourEyes

Some info on Corncrake conservation this year:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/state-pays-400k-to-save-the-corncrake-bird-302671.html

OpenYourEyes

Also the Irish Raptor Study Group have criticised the new GLAS guidelines:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=581781708619502&id=345679678896374

DAFM think "extensively grazed pasture provides... suitable nesting habitat" for Hen Harrier....according to the GLAS Options... This is extremely bad news for Hen Harriers if DAFM cannot get even the basic needs of this protected species right.

Draft GLAS Options released to farm planners and agricultural consultants. Your Commonage.ie have provided a link to the document. Worth checking Page 28 which outlines Hen Harrier options. Can DAFM be serious?? What do you think?

http://www.yourcommonage.ie/2014/12/blog-post.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

OpenYourEyes

And finally from me today, a review of the published scientific literature has looked at the impact of corvid (crow) predation on other birds

Press Release and discussion featured here: http://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/new-study-suggests-that-killing-crows-is-mostly-pointless-most-of-the-time/

The full paper featured here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ibi.12223/pdf

The study, the first of its kind, reviewed all published evidence on whether predation by corvids actually reduces the overall breeding performance of birds or, more importantly from a conservation perspective, reduces their numbers. Data were collated from 42 studies of corvid predation conducted across the globe over the last sixty years.

Not only were corvids unlikely to have any impact on their potential prey species, if there was an impact it most often affected the breeding success of the prey species rather their subsequent numbers. Half of cases found that corvids reduced breeding success whereas less than 10% of cases found that they reduced prey numbers in the long term.

Cerrtainly something worth reading and mentioning to anyone worried about crows and magpies in their garden!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

And finally from me today, a review of the published scientific literature has looked at the impact of corvid (crow) predation on other birds

Press Release and discussion featured here: http://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/new-study-suggests-that-killing-crows-is-mostly-pointless-most-of-the-time/

The full paper featured here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ibi.12223/pdf



Cerrtainly something worth reading and mentioning to anyone worried about crows and magpies in their garden!

Good to see further studies debunking one of the greatest fallacies about birds.

Capercaille

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Some info on Corncrake conservation this year:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/state-pays-400k-to-save-the-corncrake-bird-302671.html

400,000 euros may seem like a large amount, but in reality it is a pathetic amount. When you look at Countries like Poland (which are supposed to be poorer) spending millions on conservation of their threatened species like Aquatic warbler. Huge areas are managed for the Aquatic warbler and vast resources are utilised.

Every year you get newspaper articles on how much is spent on the Corncrake. I remember one year a headline stated that 250,000 euro spent on getting an increase of one bird. What a waste of money it implied. The newspapers seldom have articles on how much individual farmers get (non-conservation payments), I do work for a farmer who gets nearly 500,000 subsidy a year. Larry Goodman is on nearly a million a year subsidy, a man who caused the Beef tribunal.

The top payment given to the Offaly farmer is 6,312 Euro, which in reality is small compared to most SFP. To receive this payment he/she would be in the Corncrake Farm Plan. The farm would be basically leased to the NPWS and the farmer would have to provide large areas of early-cover beds and would have to delay mowing every year (mandatory) when crakes are present.

OpenYourEyes

The unsustainablity of sea fishing continues - a victory for short-term thinking and populist politics!

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/16/fishing-quotas-defy-scientists-advice

Andrew Clayton, of the Pew Charitable Trusts, which advocates a sustainable fisheries policy, said: “After decades of failing to get to grips with overfishing, the new common fisheries policy was supposed to bind ministers to setting sustainable fishing limits this year. Instead, they have set a considerable number of [quotas] in excess of the level scientists advised, failing to meet the targets they set themselves for overfishing. These are weak decisions, jeopardising the livelihoods of fishermen and the sustainability of stocks.”

whyulittle

Further to the video I put up last week...

I thought they stuffed 32 into the crate in the end!

A total of 29 grey partridges have taken wing across the border as part of a project to re-establish a wild population of the birds in the North.

It is part of an initiative between the Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA).

Wild grey partridges were declared extinct in Northern Ireland in 1992.

More at rte.ie.