The Moorland Association, a lobby group for grouse moor owners in England, has jumped the gun and prematurely declared the 7-year hen harrier brood meddling trial “a remarkable success story” and says its Board has decided to apply to Natural England for what it describes as a ‘conservation licence’ to permit continued hen harrier brood meddling on an annual basis now that the trial has ended (see Moorland Association blog here).
For new blog readers, the hen harrier brood meddling trial was a conservation sham sanctioned by DEFRA as part of its ludicrous ‘Hen Harrier Action Plan‘ and carried out by Natural England between 2018 – 2024, in cahoots with the very industry responsible for the species’ catastrophic decline in England. In general terms, the plan involved the removal of hen harrier chicks from grouse moors, they were reared in captivity, then released back into the uplands just in time for the start of the grouse-shooting season where many were illegally killed. It was plainly bonkers. For more background see here and here.
I’ve written a bit about hen harrier brood meddling this year, including the news that no hen harriers were brood meddled in the trial’s final year (2024) and possible reasons why that might have been (here) and the news that one of the project partners, the Hawk & Owl Trust, has recently withdrawn from the project now the trial has ended (here).
We also know that Natural England is “currently reviewing and analysing the data” [from the brood meddling trial] and that this is “a process which will be concluded later this year. These findings will play a critical role in informing Natural England’s judgement as to the effectiveness of brood management as a conservation technique“.
As a reminder, the brood meddling trial, initially set up as a five-year trial and later extended for a further two years, was supposedly designed to test two specific objectives:
- The practicalities of brood management: can [hen harrier] eggs or chicks be taken from the wild and raised in captivity, can those chicks be released back in to the wild and the implications for their subsequent behaviour and survival;
- Changes in societal attitudes by those involved in upland land management to the presence of hen harriers on grouse moors with a brood management scheme in place.
It’s quite clear that objective 1 has been answered by the trial – although chicks rather than eggs have been brood meddled due to concerns about transporting the eggs from the nests over rough terrain, but that’s no big deal in terms of assessing the viability of the objective.
But what about objective 2? It seems pretty clear to me that apart from the handful of estates involved in the brood meddling trial (whether they be ‘donor’ or ‘receptor’ sites), that a high level of illegal hen harrier persecution continues amongst the wider grouse moor industry (128 hen harriers reported as ‘missing’/illegally killed so far since the trial began in 2018, including at least 30 brood meddled hen harriers) and the killing is on such a scale that the police have had to set up a new Hen Harrier Taskforce, designed to use techniques usually seen when dealing with serious and organised crime, to address the ongoing criminality.
It’s obvious then that attitudes towards hen harriers from within the wider grouse shooting industry have not changed as a result of the trial, so the Moorland Association’s claim of the trial being “a remarkable success story” is unsubstantiated nonsense.
Incidentally, Natural England has already produced an interim report (in April 2022) on the social science aspect of the brood meddling trial, which is hilariously bad, but I’ll write about that separately as it deserves its own blog post.
Back to the Moorland Association’s premature announcement that it intends to apply to Natural England for a (currently non-existent) ‘conservation licence’ to continue hen harrier brood meddling, the MA states that, “This approach fits with global guidelines on wildlife conflict resolution, produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)“.
On the contrary, those IUCN guidelines are quite clear that animal translocations (in the context of human/wildlife conflict, as opposed to translocations for conservation purposes) should not take place if the perceived ‘problems’ caused by that species at the original location (in this case, on driven grouse moors) would simply be transferred to the new location(s). We’ve already seen that removing hen harrier chicks from a few grouse moors and releasing them somewhere else does not fix the problem – hen harriers are still not tolerated on other grouse moors and continue to be killed.
It’s also interesting that the Moorland Association’s blog details what it claims to be “the format of the conservation licence“, when that licence doesn’t even exist, let alone any details of its format/content! The Moorland Association claims the format includes, “A single release site” [for brood meddled hen harriers], presumably to get around the problem of there not being sufficient receptor sites willing to take the brood meddled harriers, and, “No further requirement for satellite tags“, presumably because the data from current satellite-tagged hen harriers have been so very effective at revealing the devastating extent of ongoing hen harrier persecution (e.g. see here and here). Awkward!
My guess is that the Moorland Association has made this announcement now, knowing full well that Natural England is still in the process of evaluating the success/failure of the brood meddling trial and the MA is using this announcement as a way of piling on the pressure on Natural England.
I’m really looking forward to Natural England’s full evaluation of the brood meddling trial, apparently due by the end of this year. And maybe by then it’ll also provide updates about the current ongoing police investigations into hen harriers that have died/gone ‘missing’ this year.
UPDATE 14 April 2025: Natural England / DEFRA turns down licence application for hen harrier brood meddling in 2025 (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
wouldn’t be surprised if MA and NE have already devised the conservation licence behind closed doors
my thoughts exactly. Very much sounds like Meddling is about to be licenced and this is the general shape of how it will look. MA have got giddy about it and jumped the gun or maybe these are the verbally agreed details and MA are publishing them to try to prevent NE from watering their wishes down.
“the MA states that, “This approach fits with global guidelines on wildlife conflict resolution, produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)“.”
In support for what Ruth has written, these are some of the relevant guidelines from the IUCN for translocations:
https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2013-009.pdf
IUCN
Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations
Section 3
Deciding when translocation is an acceptable option
2. There should generally be strong evidence that the threat(s) that caused any previous extinction have been correctly identified and removed or sufficiently reduced – Annex 3.2.
6. Hence, although risk analysis around a translocation should be proportional to the presumed risks (Guidelines Section 6), justifying a conservation introduction requires an especially high level of confidence over the organisms’ performance after release, including over the long-term, with reassurance on its acceptability from the perspective of the release area’s ecology, and the social and economic interests of its human communities.
8. Where a high degree of uncertainty remains or it is not possible to assess reliably that a conservation introduction presents low risks, it should not proceed, and alternative conservation solutions should be sought – Annex 3.3.
Annexes to Guidelines
Annex 3
Deciding when translocation is an acceptable option
3.1 Introduction
1. Any proposed species translocation should be justified by identifying a conservation benefit and weighing any benefits against risks, while considering alternative actions that could be taken. Motivations such as experimenting solely for academic interest, releasing surplus captive stock, rehabilitation for welfare purposes, attracting funding or public profile, or moving organisms to facilitate economic development are not regarded here as conservation purposes.
3.2 Assessing extinction causes and threats
1. Any proposed conservation translocation should be justified by first considering past causes of severe population decline or extinction. There should be confidence that these past causes would not again be threats to any prospective translocated populations.
4. All threats, direct and indirect, that might jeopardise attainment of the stated conservation benefit of the translocation should be identified and measures specified by which these threats would be mitigated or avoided.
7. Threats can be biological, physical (such as extreme climate events), or social, political or economic, or a combination of these.
3.3 Considering alternatives
3. A variety of tools including establishment of protected areas, changes in legislation or regulations, public education, community-based conservation, financial incentives or compensation to promote the viability of the wild populations can be valuable either on their own or in combination with area- or species-based solutions (social/indirect solutions)…
Enough said?
Let’s hope that Tony the Tory’s outfit come clean at last over this disastrous project.
“Tony the Tory”
You know that is a lie. No one is more deluded over Juniper’s political affiliations than yourself.
This has to change under the new government. Surely now under Labour there has to be someone within NE who feels free enough to state the obvious ?That a national system of upland land valuation dependent on how many brace of grouse can be sold to be shot per moor per acre, is never going to accommodate more than a few token breeding pairs of harriers. Faffing around here and there with a handful of landowners who are ensuring (at least sometimes) that there is no killing on their estates, when there are well over a hundred other estates (which include most of the big boys) doing exactly what they want, is a waste of time and money. Numbers of Harriers may creep up a little bit – and the corpses will mount up – but they will never be allowed to get above a sprinkling of breeding pairs, and even then mainly on the more “average” moors – or the leased United Utilities moors that are in truth not really managed as “grouse moors”, yet still need 24/7 protection to breed. The owners / agents will not even allow one pair to breed in the whole of North York Moors! FFS! How obvious does this have to be! Everybody knows how simple the problem is…Harriers like Foxes and Stoats and Buzzards and Crows will f–k up your lovely grouse moor to some extent…and if you care much about the capital land values/ reputation of your moor, then they must be got rid of. That’s all there is to the equation. End of. NE should put it’s resources and good conscience firmly behind the type of Police initiative that the grouse industry is trying hard to suppress in the Yorkshire Dales, and support them with fieldwork knowledge, intelligence gathering and camera technology.
“Surely now under Labour there has to be someone within NE who feels free enough to state the obvious ?”
“Natural England is expected to operate at arm’s length from Government, carrying out its statutory functions with technical expertise, impartiality, and transparency. As such, Natural England is staffed by public servants not civil servants.”
(Like, for example, the Crown Prosecution Service)
But it ignored many of the IUCN criteria when it licensed the Hen Harrier Brood Meddling Trial, despite acknowledging “Illegal persecution is the main threat to the recovery of hen harriers in England – as demonstrated by this 2019 study using Natural England satellite-tagging data.” and “The English Code and IUCN Guidelines are the core guiding principles for those proposing conservation translocations.”
Some of the watered-down so-called English Code criteria were also ignored: “Conservation translocations may not be appropriate if there is considerable uncertainty in the level of risk, or a high level of risk that unacceptable harm or damage may occur”
and
“You must have a thorough knowledge of the species’ ecological requirements and make
sure any threats that caused previous extinction are identified and removed or sufficiently reduced” and “you provide ongoing adaptive management to help the translocated species
survive, reproduce and achieve population goals“
and
“Do not go ahead if unacceptable negative effects are likely to occur or cannot be mitigated.”
and
“Where there are conflicts, only proceed if you can implement effective mitigation and management mechanisms”
and
“Conservation translocations should be designed to avoid stress, harm and mortality to
translocated organisms.”
and
“Choose a release site that is safe and can provide all the animal’s needs for the foreseeable future” bearing in mind that “You need to understand the mating system, the offspring establishment requirements, social structure and behaviour, survival, reproduction and dispersal, territory size, colonisation dynamics and food and nutrient sources”
On Evaluation, it says: “The goal of your evaluation should be to assess how well the project is going, what difference it has made, and any harm it caused…”
“Your translocation project should have an exit strategy… where an important partner stops participating before the project achieves its goals”
Thank you for highlighting this brood meddling nonsense. I
Whilst I agree with much of the above, one point is worth mentioning. Keith quoted this “Natural England is expected to operate at arm’s length from Government, carrying out its statutory functions with technical expertise, impartiality, and transparency. As such, Natural England is staffed by public servants not civil servants.”
This ceased to be true under the Cameron gov’t as NE was taken into DEFRA and subsequently were unable to do or say anything without DEFRA approval , that sadly still pertains. I’m also not sure that all of the stuff quoted from IUCN or the English Code pertains either but that is less important here.
Lets be blunt here the experiment has failed. Yes were have learnt that rearing in captivity and subsequent release of Hen Harriers is possible and works. That was always a likely outcome. Even if you accept the original premiss of the ” experiment” and many of us don’t, because its not about conservation of harriers as much as removing the risk of harrier predation of artificially high density grouse populations by reduction of harrier breeding density. The trigger density chosen was 30X lower than densities which had been shown MIGHT have an effect on grouse available to be shot. YES 30X lower to pander to the prejudices of moor owners rather than follow the science.
Then there is the question of uptake, less than 10 estates were involved in having broods removed for meddling, NOTE LESS THAN 10 ESTATES and only 3 were prepared to provide release sites. So any claim of widespread uptake is to put it simply FALSE/ UMTRUE/ BULLSHIT take your pick.
Sure there has been an upturn in harrier nest numbers but those numbers are at best 15% of what there should be, hardly something to scream success is it. The final point as Ruth’s depressingly regular blogs about harrier disappearances and deaths shows there has been NO reduction in persecution just a probable shift to more post breeding rather than pre and during breeding killing. Thus BM has Failed to meet either of its criteria measuring success.
Harriers are still pitifully scarce notably so in most areas with grouse moors, moors where they nest are still not the norm and there are as Sphagnum points out huge areas of natural range with no nests, only rarity and persecution can explain that.
The so called conditions for the licence as proposed by the Moron, sorry Moorland Assoc are the very conditions, that as I understand it NE refused to accept prior to the 2024 breeding season and triggered the collapse of BM. They should remain unacceptable the approach should be shelved PERMANENTLY.
“Keith quoted this “Natural England is expected to operate at arm’s length from Government, carrying out its statutory functions with technical expertise, impartiality, and transparency. As such, Natural England is staffed by public servants not civil servants.”
This ceased to be true under the Cameron gov’t as NE was taken into DEFRA and subsequently were unable to do or say anything without DEFRA approval , that sadly still pertains.”
My quote is from the Government web site:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/natural-england-framework-document/natural-england-framework-document-2022#:~:text=It%20has%20a%20separate%20legal,3.3.
It goes on to state: “It (Natural England) has been administratively classified by the Cabinet Office as a body corporate and a non-departmental public body sponsored by Defra“
Not “taken into DEFRA”, and Natural England is still expected to act impartially.
“Natural England will carry out its functions with due regard to the strategic aims and objectives of Defra and the wider government but without prejudice to it carrying out its statutory functions with technical expertise, impartiality, and transparency”
They (Defra and Natural England) are described as ‘partners’.
“Both partners will also commit to keeping each other informed of any significant issues and concerns. The terms of engagement are included in this document including a description of the key points of contact and how any disputes between the department and Natural England will be resolved.”
“The responsible senior civil servant for Defra’s relationship with Natural England is the Director General for Environment, Rural and Marine (DG(ERM)). They stand over the Natural England Sponsorship team who are the main source of advice to the responsible minister on the discharge of his or her responsibilities in respect of Natural England.”
“Defra will apply the best practice standards in the Cabinet Office sponsorship code.”
“The Natural England Chief Executive and the Defra Chief Operating Officer will ensure that a clear Partnership Agreement is in place to capture… the respective accountabilities of Natural England and Defra in the operational and strategic decision-making impacting on the delivery of these services”
“Any disputes between Defra and Natural England will be resolved in as timely a manner as possible. Defra and Natural England will seek to resolve any disputes through an informal process in the first instance. If this is not possible, then a formal process, overseen by the Senior Sponsor, will be used to resolve the issue. Failing this, the Senior Sponsor will ask the relevant policy Director General to oversee the dispute. They may then choose to ask the Permanent Secretary to nominate a non-executive member of the Department’s Board to review the dispute, mediate with both sides and reach an outcome, in consultation with the Secretary of State.”
I would encourage you to read the Framework Document. This is how our Civil Service works. On paper. What goes on in the shadows is anyone’s speculation. There is no public notice that I have found, yet, which rescinds any of the above.
I might add that it was the last Labour Government which imposed the Hampton Principles on all ‘arm’s length, non-departmental, public bodies’. That forever tied all our public bodies with departmental sponsorship to ‘take into consideration the economic consequences of their decisions’:-(
George Monbiot said at the time it would help hamstring English Nature (as it then was). In those days English Nature was “a non-departmental public body funded by DEFRA”. Different wording, same relationship.
Throughout both the Cameron and subsequent Tory administrations NE said NOTHING on the subject of Hen Harriers and/or anything else without it first having DEFRA approval, FACT.
“Throughout both the Cameron and subsequent Tory administrations NE said NOTHING on the subject of Hen Harriers and/or anything else without it first having DEFRA approval, FACT.”
That may well happen to be true, but it does not stop Natural England from going into official dispute with Defra. Maybe the Board of Natural England actually believe in the Hen Harrier Brood Meddling scam? There are fifteen of them: I did not hear of anyone resigning in protest…
Neither did I hear of any leaks from within the Natural England Board that anyone was particularly angry at their position.
The Board must act within the board code of conduct, which includes: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
They are, and remain, an ‘arm’s length public body’ with the power to go into dispute and/or resign.
That did not cease to be true under the Tories.
“I’m also not sure that all of the stuff quoted from IUCN or the English Code pertains either but that is less important here.”
I think you will find that the English Code was the basis for the legal action taken by the RSPB and Dr Mark Avery against Natural England over the Hen Harrier Brood Management Trial (as it was named).
And it remains the legal basis for this Trial, because of the findings of that action. How can that be considered ‘less important’?
I think the English Code is weasel-worded, wheres the IUCN document is more clear-cut and uncompromising.
No surprise to learn that the English Code was drawn up by DEFRA in consultation with Natural England, then.
See
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/RSPB-v-Natural-England-judgment.pdf
In the UK we like to obey the law, so that means the Establishment fix the laws (where they can).
Sphagnum morose in a nutshell you said it all I have no faith in anything people are out for there own gains I think it’s a lost battle.
Far from lost, Karen – gaining ground all the time albeit against a very powerful and deeply entrenched system. Taking the historical view things are only just getting started. Even thirty years ago the landowners would have laughed until purple faced at the thought they might have to condescend to do something other than “just kill the bloody things”.
Is there any evidence that released birds stay in that area and start a new population or just wander back to the Grouse moors, and we all know what happens on most of them.
The release sites were grouse moors and ALL harriers are inveterate wanderers.