The (re)introduction of White-tailed Eagles (Sea Eagles) Haliaeetus albicilla into East Anglia

This article was written in response to a well-publicised project to "reintroduce" White-tailed Eagles in East Anglia and expressed my personal views about this project. I am very happy to say that some time after I published this article the project was axed. It would be nice to think that the bodies concerned had taken account of the views I have expressed, which seemed to be shared by most other birders, and changed their policy accordingly. Unfortunately they have made no indication that their policy has changed and so my argument remains relevant even though this particular project is no longer proceeding, at least for now.

 

The proposal

A paper by Phil Grice was published in December 2005 outlining the feasibility and benefits of "reintroducing" White-tailed Eagles to East Anglia and seeking support for this project. Dr Grice detailed the project aims and objectives as follows:

The project will have two complimentary aims:

a) To re-establish by reintroduction, a self-sustaining breeding population of sea eagles in eastern England.

b) To use the reintroduction to promote:

  • the wildlife and landscapes of East Anglia;
  • contact between people and wildlife;
  • the socio-economic and cultural benefits of wildlife-rich landscapes;
  • Natural England and the partner organisations."

Until recently the paper was available online here but it now appears to have been taken down from the website. I will update this if I can get Natural England to restore it.

This paper is now three years old but as far as I know the aims and objectives have not changed. If you know otherwise please get in touch.

I believe this proposal is misguided and misleading and to forge ahead with this project despite the widespread disapproval from the birding community and beyond would be grossly irresponsible.

 

Summary

I've waffled on a bit so for those of you who don't want to read the whole lot, here's a summary of what I'm saying:

 

Reintroduction or Introduction?

First let's examine the premise that this project is really about a reintroduction as it is claimed. This is important because the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines state that a reintroduction should only take place "within the species' former natural habitat and range". It is the policy of both the RSPB and Natural England to abide by these guidelines. If it cannot be shown that the location is within the species' former natural range then the project must be regarded as an introduction, not a reintroduction, and few if any conservationists would support that.

The problem is that the IUCN guidelines are, I am told, "normally regarded" as applying on a national scale, so it could be argued that if White-tailed Eagles formerly bred somewhere in the UK and the species' former habitat still exists somewhere in the UK, then it's within the guidelines to "reintroduce" the species to anywhere in the UK, even if the chosen location is hundreds of miles from its nearest former natural habitat and range. Well, I am going to assume that no right-minded person would treat the release of Capercaillies into the Norfolk Broads as a reintroduction; in the same way, unless it can be shown that White-tailed Eagles formerly bred in East Anglia, and in the same habitat that still exists in East Anglia, then this project is about an introduction, NOT a reintroduction.

So what is the evidence that White-tailed Eagles formerly bred in East Anglia? Well, according to Phil Grice's paper, "There is a dearth of documentary evidence for breeding in eastern England" (section 2.2). In fact, the ONLY pieces of evidence mentioned in the paper are:

When I first posted this page, the only evidence I had found suggesting that the species may have ever bred anywhere in England related to nest sites in the Lake District, Devon and the Isle of Wight, all a very long way from East Anglia. Subsequently some more evidence has come to light which I will return to.

The evidence presented hardly amounts to a strong case that they ever used to breed in East Anglia. Note, I've never argued that they didn't ever breed here (I've always been quite open to that possibility), but I'm making clear that no evidence had been produced to back up any claim that they did ever breed here. Indeed even the paper only claims that they "almost certainly bred in eastern England" - in other words it admits that they might not have ever bred in eastern England.

I'm grateful to Julie Curl for providing me with some additional information that was not mentioned in the paper, strangely, as it would have helped the case significantly. Julie, a zooarcheologist, and others have apparently found evidence that the species did indeed occur here in Norfolk, probably until the 17th Century. Moreover she tells me that the records of Sir Thomas Browne, writing in the 17th Century, mention the species breeding here. This, at last, does lend some credence to the claim that this project is about a reintroduction and not merely an introduction. However, there is still no evidence, or even a claim so far as I know, that the species bred in East Anglia at any time in the last 3-400 years. The habitat in East Anglia changed drastically as the marshes were drained in the 17th Century and if that's the time they disappeared then it seems a fair assumption that that's the reason they disappeared.

A recent article on the role of reintroductions in conserving British birds (British Birds 101:2-25), one of whose authors was Phil Grice, makes the point that, "Species that have not occurred in the last few hundred years are, currently, doubtful contenders for reintroduction as climate and habitats have changed substantially." You could argue that the continued occasional vagrancy of White-tailed Eagles to eastern England means that they are excluded from this statement, but the rationale being to do with climate and habitat change seems to invalidate that argument - vagrancy is not an indication of suitability for breeding.

So what about the habitat? Well, the paper cites "at least 12 long-staying overwintering birds recorded during the period 1958-2000" in eastern coastal counties as confirmation that "the bird’s wintering habitat requirements are being met in this area." Well, that's less than one every three and a half years and and the majority ranged across more than one county, sometimes spanning several counties, suggesting that they were NOT able to find suitable habitat to sustain them for the entire winter. Some of them died. And it's only in winter. The presence of suitable wintering habitat is completely irrelevant to the availability of suitable habitat for breeding. Moreover, we know that the habitat in East Anglia has substantially changed since the 17th Century, the Fens and marshes have been extensively drained. This very likely caused their demise and although one or two projects may be helping to restore a little bit of this habitat it would crazy to suggest that the county's habitat will ever be returned to anything like its 17th Century state.

So, reintroduction or introduction? For me the case for describing this as a reintroduction has been presented very poorly indeed. If Natural England and its partners want to carry on with this project, they should be honest and admit that it's not a priority for them to keep within the accepted guidelines of ensuring that it's within the species' former natural habitat and range. In fact it now appears that a stronger case could have been made that White-tailed Eagles once bred naturally in East Anglia, and so technically there is some justification for describing the project as a reintroduction, but if this was a priority for Natural England, surely they would have made the case themselves?

In view of the fact that there is still no evidence that White-tailed Eagles have bred in East Anglia in the last 3-400 years and there is no evidence that they have ever bred in habitat that still exists here today, I think it is misleading to describe White-tailed Eagle as a contender for reintroduction as opposed to merely introduction. Phil Grice's paper for Natural England, describing this project as a reintroduction, does not sit easily with the British Birds paper (of which he also was one of the authors) which states that species in White-tailed Eagle's position are "currently, doubtful contenders for reintroduction". Perhaps Dr Grice has changed his mind on this issue - it seems a shame that Natural England have not changed their minds.

Phil Grice's paper opens with, "The sea (or white-tailed) eagle should be a characteristic feature of England’s wetland habitats," a misleading opinion stated as fact, an opinion that is not supported by evidence. But it is on this premise that this project has moved forwards.

 

Why White-tailed Eagles?

Phil Grice's paper admits that White-tailed Eagle's status on the IUCN's Red List is "Least Concern". It was downlisted to Least Concern because a reassessment of its European population suggested that it no longer approached the thresholds for the IUCN Red List criteria. The paper also acknowledges that it is "not currently regarded as a ‘priority species’ in the UK BAP" (BAP = Biodiversity Action Plan). White-tailed Eagles enjoyed a large recovery in many European countries bewteen 1970 and 1990 and continued to increase virtually everywhere between 1990 and 2000, including in its strongholds of Norway and European Russia (according to the IUCN Red List). Since Phil Grice's paper White-tailed Eagles returned to breed in the Netherlands on their own accord in 2006, returning each year since then. If there is suitable habitat for White-tailed Eagles to breed in East Anglia there is every chance that they will begin to do so without the help of any introductions.

There are plenty of species that are in decline and under threat and which desperately need the help of a sustained and concerted conservation effort. Natural England and its partners are ideally placed to drive and support this effort but instead they are diverting vast amounts of their energy and finances into a species that doesn't need their help.

So why White-tailed Eagles? Well, it's clearly not got anything to do with conservation. According to the Independent (I don't have the reference but I think it was in 2006), "In truth, it's all about spectacle and spin."

 

What's wrong with spectacle and spin?

There's nothing wrong with spectacle and White-tailed Eagles are indeed magnificent birds. Watching them has the potential to inspire passive or disinterested people to become engaged with birds and wildlife, and their habitat and conservation. The paper claims that that previous high profile bird reintroduction projects have, "proved to be a highly efficient vehicle for reconnecting people and nature". I agree with this and indeed this project will inevitably attract widespread interest (and already has done), much of it positive. However this part of the country is already well-served in terms of public relations for wildlife with a wealth of nature reserves. It is questionable whether the area can support a massive increase in public interest - as well as being of public relational importance it must be remembered that the area is first and foremost of conservational importance.

I suspect that the public relations benefits that are expected to arise as a result of this project are the main driving force behind this proposal. Of course I support measures that improve the public relations of conservation bodies and conservation in general, but this should never be the driving force behind any project of this nature. The choice of species for reintroduction projects (e.g. Red Kite, Osprey, White-tailed Eagle) appears to have more to do with the potential public relations benefits than the direct conservation benefit. The overall aim of any reintroduction project, according to the IUCN guidelines which Natural England (and the RSPB) claim to support, should not involve public relations but rather, "The principal aim of any reintroduction should be to establish a viable, free-ranging population in the wild, of a species… which has become globally or locally extinct in the wild."

If Natural England and its partners admitted that reintroduction projects were all about publicity they could not continue to pretend they were abiding by the IUCN guidelines and would undoubtedly lose much of the support they currently enjoy. Pretending that the projects are primarily about conservation of the species concerned is dishonest and irresponsible.

Another piece of spin that I find extremely distasteful is the suggestion that the majority of the local population are in favour of the project. Apparently 91% of 500 people asked were in favour. But who were these 500 people? Had they done any research? Did they know anything about birds or conservation? Of course it would be easy to find 500 random members of the public and frame a question in such a way that they would be supportive of a scheme that sounds impressive but about which they know nothing and care little. You could ask the same people if they thought it was a good idea to introduce Hedgehogs to New Zealand and they'd probably say yes. That doesn't mean it IS a good idea and it doesn't mean that the Hedgehogs won't predate the eggs of the rare and endangered indiginous wildlife there. Natural England appear to have invested more effort in gauging the views of those who don't have any interest or understanding than they have in gauging the views of those of us who might have a genuine interest.

 

Other problems with the paper

Table 1 in Phil Grice's paper attempts to show how the project would meet the IUCN guidelines for reintroductions. I've already dealt with the issue about reintroductions having to be within the species' former natural habitat and range but the table goes on to say, "The factors that caused the original decline of the species should be identified and eliminated or reduced to a satisfactory level before a reintroduction project succeeds." The authors answer this stating, "The prime cause of extinction was human persecution." No evidence is presented to back up this claim which is not surprising given the lack of evidence provided that they ever existed at all. If the cause for decline has not been identified it cannot be assumed to be eliminated. The authors go on to say, "The current low levels of persecution are a small fraction of those occurring when sea eagles were extirpated." That may be so, but of the few White-tailed Eagles that have occurred in eastern England in recent years, one (in 1984) was found shot and another (in 1989) was killed by poisoning. For such a rare bird, that’s a pretty high proportion of not many birds when the criteria demand that the factors are eliminated or reduced to a satisfactory level.

Actually, if White-tailed Eagles were indeed present in East Anglia until the 17th Century but not thereafter, it is much more likely that the cause of their decline was not so much persecution as destruction of habitat, although persecution may well have played its part. It was around the 17th Century that the Fens and marshes were most substantially drained. If that is the factor that caused their original decline it has not been eliminated or reduced to a satisfactory level. Yes, there is some current work aimed at restoring some of the natural fenland habitat, but the extent of this habitat that any 17th Century eagles would have enjoyed will not be restored in the foreseeable future.

The paper admits that if the project goes ahead there is a risk that conflict could arise from the species’ diet including species of other nature conservation interests and socio-economic importance (section 4.10). The paper claims that the chances of these risks occurring are low but I don't buy that - I think they are both very considerable in coastal East Anglia. Even if the chances are low, any incidents that are reported, whether they are real or erroneously claimed, are likely to have a significant negative impact in terms of public relations. That could be disastrous in such a sensitive and important region.

I understand from Eddie Chapman that White-tailed Eagles at Finnmark in Norway play havoc with migrating Lesser White-fronted Geese. At a very important migration stop-over site for the geese, the eagles continually scare them onto the wing reducing the time they have to feed and rest. A recent wintering White-tailed Eagle in East Anglia was reported to have caused mayhem among the other wintering birds every time it took to flight. If these birds were present during the breeding season it is not difficult to imagine the threat they could pose to other rare and vulnerable breeding birds.

 

Conclusions

According to a paper published in British Birds in January 2008 (The role of reintroductions in conserving British Birds, by Ian Carter, Peter Newberry, Phil Grice and Julian Hughes British Birds 101:2-25), "A UK White-tailed Eagle Action Plan produced in 2002 set out the long-term aim of re-establishing the species throughout suitable habitats in the UK." If this was a good plan in 2002 (I don't think it was) then it certainly isn't a good plan in 2008. But that's not surprising - how many good plans do you know that haven't changed in 6 years? Since this plan was conceived White-tailed Eagle's Red List status has been re-assessed and the species dropped as a conservation priority. Natural England now have every opportunity to drop this project without losing face as White-tailed Eagles continue to thrive and their good fortunes are sustained.

The authors of the same paper say, "We firmly believe that reintroductions should be conservation-led; to do otherwise could bring this technique into public disrepute, especially if not undertaken to the standards set by the IUCN..." I don't know about the public in general but it is abundantly clear that large sectors of the birding community are already unconvinced that many recent reintroduction projects and project proposals are conservation-led, or undertaken to the standards set by the IUCN. The consequence isn't simply that the technique is brought into disrepute but the conservation bodies and indeed conservation in general is brought into disrepute. I am personally deeply concerned by the way that bodies such as Natural England and the RSPB appear intent on forging ahead with their policy of high-profile low-value reintroductions.

I urge Natural England, the RSPB and all other conservation bodies to urgently review their policy of reintroductions. They must ensure that future and current projects are rigorously and honestly assessed against the IUCN guidelines and they should not be afraid to pull out of existing projects even if considerable resource has already been spent.