REVIEW OF BIRD SPECIES IN THE SHROPSHIRE BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN

DISCUSSION PAPER prepared by Leo Smith

Process

I have agreed to co-ordinate the review of the bird species in the Shropshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), on behalf of the BAP Partnership, Shropshire Wildlife Trust (SWT), and Shropshire Ornithological Society (SOS).

I proposed the following, which seems to have found favour:-

“I envisage using existing groups (e.g. SOS Conservation Sub -Committee, SWT Lapwing Action Group) as sounding boards, discussing targets and resources with the Organisations that will have to deliver (mainly Defra, but also EN, NT, RSPB, SWT SOS etc), proposing a draft Plan to them, and signing them up to a negotiated plan that each Partner owns and knows the action it needs to take. Monitoring progress will be an integral part of each Plan. Organisation, Meetings and Minutes can thus be kept to a minimum.

Progress towards existing targets in the current BAP, and any new targets in the revised BAP, also needs to be reported to the national BAP Partnership, through the Biodiversity Action Reporting System (BARS). This is a web-based information system that supports the planning, monitoring and reporting requirements of national and local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). I have agreed to do this reporting in relation to the Birds section of the BAP as a whole, and co-ordinate reporting by each Partner on their responsibilities as well. Any progress reported can be viewed on-line at www.ukbap-reporting.org.uk

Review

The first part of the process will be to review progress on the Objectives, and towards the Targets, in the 2002 BAP.  Each specified Lead Organisation for each Action in each existing BAP Action Plan will be asked to report on the progress made, to the BAP Partnership Officer and myself.

No Action or Target should be omitted from the revised BAP, unless it had a completion date prior to 2005. However, general Targets will be made more specific (“SMART” - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound – in the jargon), and “Ongoing” Targets will have interim SMART Targets (“Milestones” in the jargon) added.

In addition, new priorities and targets will be set. There is the opportunity (and need!!!!!!) to add some bird species to the Shropshire BAP.

 Proposed Basis of Species Selection for Revised BAP

• In current BAP (need to continue to monitor progress towards existing targets set to be achieved at future dates). This applies to all species, even if the current Targets are unlikely to be met.
• A National BAP Target Species, but not currently in the Shropshire BAP, and it either breeds in the County already, or there is a reasonable prospect of it doing so in the next 10 years if appropriate action is taken.
• On Defra’s Environmental Stewardship Scheme (ESS) Higher Level Scheme (HLS) Joint Character Area (JCA) Target Species List, if species is also relevant to BAP process
• Species that are good indicators of biodiversity and / or the quality of particular and important habitats
• Possible to monitor population change (or other specified target outcomes) at County level.
• Possible to actually do something worthwhile, and plan meaningful action to implement the Action Plan
• Any other criteria.

Existing Shropshire BAP Target Species

1.      Lapwing is still a flagship species in decline, and already being targeted by an Action Group, co-ordinated by SWT.

2.      Ring Ouzel is probably now extinct, but there is a target to increase the population by 2010, and a revised Action Plan is a basis for addressing predation of ground-nesting birds on Long Mynd (an issue for Snipe & Curlew, and some other species, as well)

3.      A series of recommendations to BAP Partners already included in report on “Snipe in the SW Shropshire Hills 2004 will form basis of new Action Plan

4.      The current BAP includes the Target “To increase by 50% the number of these birds in Shropshire (as recorded by BBS in the case of the Farmland birds) by 2010”.

Possible Additional Species To Go In New BAP

1. Species on Defra ESS HLS JCA Target Species List

• Curlew

• Grey Partridge

• Merlin

• Redshank

• Turtle Dove

• Yellow Wagtail 

2. Species With National BAP Action Plans that are not in the Shropshire BAP

• Nightjar

• Spotted Flycatcher

3. Other Candidates

• Barn Owl (subject to the views and resources of the Shropshire Barn Owl Group)

• Dipper, as an indicator of river quality

• Any more

Issues

1.              Some species on Defra ESS HLS JCA Target List are not appropriate, as it would be difficult to draft Action Plans that would meet the other criteria, and most of them are not County-wide targets.

•  Grey Partridge are still shot, and put down by Gamekeepers. It would be difficult to influence, or measure, population change

•  Merlin are currently restricted to heathland on the Long Mynd.  It should only be included if there is a BAP objective to significantly increase the amount of heathland (e.g. through Longstones Project), and manage it to increase the amount of Merlin prey (i.e. the number of Meadow Pipits)

•  Redshanks are almost certainly extinct. If so, is there anything meaningful we can do?

• Turtle Dove are shot on migration, and may be affected by drought in the Sahel as much as any action here, although the population decline is largely driven by poor breeding success, attributed to loss of food supply.

The relevance of the Defra ESS HLS JCA Target List depends partly on how much weight Defra give it, and how they intend to monitor progress. Perhaps the list of 20 species on the “PSA Target List”, which is monitored, is more relevant, though Defra still issues blanket licences to “control” some of them, and others are hardly conservation priorities.

2.              Although the species on Defra ESS HLS JCA Target List all occupy farmland, they occupy different habitats and therefore each needs different conservation action. Ideally they should therefore have discrete Action Plans, although some parts will overlap.

3.              What do we do about Song Thrush, and the farmland seed eating birds in the current BAP that are not on any part of Defra’s new ESS list (Linnet ( a National BAP species), House Sparrow and Bullfinch)? As there is currently a BAP target for 2010, we can’t ignore them, but what do we actually do to help them? At the Shropshire level, this is primarily a public education issue. Who has the funds for Promotion & Publicity, and who should be the lead organisation? How can we measure effectiveness?

4.              Spotted Flycatcher is widely distributed in the County. Again, if it is included in the BAP it is primarily an education issue.

5.              Do we give higher priority to the more scarce species?

6.              Notwithstanding the issues above, we could have a lowland wet meadows sub-plan for Redshank, Curlew, Lapwing, Snipe and Yellow Wagtail, even though it would only cover part of their range. It would still be necessary to have separate plans for Curlew, Lapwing, and Snipe, as they now primarily occupy other habitats. Is this a good idea?

7.              Similarly, perhaps the only way to deal with the farmland birds is to have one Action Plan for all of them (and include Grey Partridge and Turtle Dove in that?). But do we monitor what we can measure (e.g. the amount of additional habitat, or winter food, that is created), or the breeding success, and / or the population of the birds?

8.              There is existing suitable habitat for Nightjar already, which is apparently not occupied. However, the species is increasing in recently – felled Coniferous Plantations, and is likely to start breeding again in the County if Forestry Commission agrees to manage woodlands in a sympathetic way. Therefore inclusion of this species depends on Forestry Commission agreeing to the appropriate management action, and someone agreeing to monitor possible breeding sites in say 2009 or 2010, half way between national 2004 Survey and the next one in 10-12 years.

9.              Curlew is in serious local decline, and should have a high priority (see Appendix 1 below)

Targets

As part of the overall BAP plan, targets have to be “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound).

We also need to incorporate or complement the existing Targets of key Partners – Defra / RDS, Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, English Nature and National Trust, amongst others.

The current BAP includes Targets to 2010. Targets to 2015 need adding.

Ideas for suitable targets welcome!!!!!!!

Resources to Monitor Targets

The BTO Breeding Bird Survey covers around 50 1-kilometre squares in a County (including Telford and Wrekin) of 3519 square kilometres. Population changes in BBS squares can be measured, but there are not enough of them to place any statistically valid reliability on them.

“An Atlas Of The Breeding Birds Of Shropshire” (1992) provided a baseline of distribution by tetrad (2x2 kilometre squares), and it is intended to repeat this from 2008 onwards. However, this shows if each species is present in each tetrad, but not how many there are. The Skylark population could half again, but if it happened through reduction in breeding density rather than contraction of range, the “Atlas” Map would not change.

It would be possible to collect some population data concurrently with Atlas fieldwork (e.g. SOS has already agreed to repeat the 2003 Lapwing survey in 2008), but the opportunity to do this is limited. The vast majority of bird survey work in the County is undertaken on a voluntary basis, and the volunteers are already stretched (they don’t even get expenses).

It is much easier to monitor scarce and conspicuous species in nice places, or ones with very restricted habitats, than numerous and widespread species in boring places.  Is anyone willing to finance meaningful population (as opposed to distribution) monitoring of national BAP / Red List species that are still relatively common?

Is Defra going to insist on “value for money” for farm subsidy payments (i.e. monitoring outcomes on farms that get tax-payers money for HLS and / or PSA target species)? If so, this might form the basis for BAP Targets.

If other organisations are not going to monitor specific species, and there are no other resources for specific monitoring surveys, we can only have BAP Action Plans for what SOS feels able to monitor voluntarily, and the scale of this is unlikely to be statistically valid.

Flagship Species

The BAP needs support, action and funds from the general public, as well as statutory and nature conservation organisations. We therefore need some “Flagship” species.

Options for these include

• Lapwing
• Snipe
• Curlew
• Barn Owl
• Dipper

Next Steps

I will contact all BAP Partners for a response to this Discussion Document, and then draw up some specific proposals for discussion at the BAP Steering Group and further detailed discussion with the organisations that will have to deliver and monitor the BAP Birds Action Plans.

Leo Smith     August 2005

back to Reports page

Appendix 1: The Decline Of Curlew  

Nationally, Curlew is in serious decline, and is on the Amber List of Birds of Conservation Concern 2002-2007.  The Birds of Wet Meadows Survey 2002 found a 38.9% decline since 1982.  The Repeat Upland Bird Survey 2002 revisited nine study areas that had previously been surveyed between 1980 and 1991, and also reviewed data from four other upland areas. It found an estimated decline of over 50%, with a 41% decline in only seven years between 1987 and 1994 at one site in North West Wales.

In the West Midlands , the same Birds of Wet Meadows Survey found a 61.3% decline in only 20 years between 1982 and 2002.

In Shropshire , An Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Shropshire (1992) showed Curlew occurring in both the uplands, and lowland wet meadows, but suffering from a steady reduction in the area of optimum habitat in the lowlands. The County population was estimated at 700 pairs. Since then, the decline in the lowlands has continued. Locally, the Birds of Wet Meadows Survey covered 11 sites, mainly in the Severn Valley and the Wealdmoors north of Telford, and found a reduction from 25 pairs to 11 (a 56% decline).

In the uplands, breeding bird surveys on the Stiperstones and the Long Mynd have shown a catastrophic decline of Curlew in the last 10 years.

The Long Mynd Breeding Bird Project found 11-13 pairs in 1995, declining to 7-8 pairs in 1998, 3 pairs in 2002 and 2003, and only 2 pairs in 2004. Very few chicks or young birds were seen, indicating very poor breeding success.

Five breeding pairs were recorded on the Stiperstones in 1995-96, but breeding apparently ceased prior to 2000, and certainly none were found during surveys in 2002 and 2004.

In the nearby Upper Onny area, Curlews have also declined considerably in recent times. A survey in 2004 estimated the population at only 24 pairs in 122 square kilometres between the Long Mynd and the Welsh border. A comparison of the 2004 Survey Results with the relevant section of the distribution map in The Atlas (1992) also showed a considerable reduction in range. Breeding success of these remaining pairs appears to be low, and insufficient to halt, let alone reverse, the decline. The breeding density is also relatively low, and Curlews are found now only in areas of wet pasture, where emergent springs have enabled soft rushes and marshy ground to remain.

back to Reports page