The Earl of Cranbrook PhD, DSc

The Earl of Selborne KBE, FRS

The Group met on three occasions: 20 December 1995 (at Fordingbridge); 30 April 1996 (at Fordingbridge); and 25 September 1996 (at Loddington).

The Group considered the research of the Game Conservancy Trust and the Game Conservancy Scottish Research Trust. It is also considered work supported by the Allerton Trust and the Habitat Trust from the viewpoint of its general quality and contribution. In particular the Review Group sought to establish the extent to which the research of the Game Conservancy Trust:

1. fell within the objects as set out in the Trust Deeds (in particular the Consolidating Deed of 26 June 1990 and the Deed of Variation of 3 August 1993);
2. is conducted by properly qualified staff, defining that as such persons who would be employed as research workers in public research institutes or universities;
3. is of high quality and addresses objectively problems concerning the conservation of game such as are of general public interest.

An indicator of the quality of the research findings would be provided by the extent to which these are published in outlets that constitute the normal refereed scientific publications for ecologists, conservationists, parasitologists and other professional biologists. Monographs and special publications should be judged on the extent to which they provide an objective account of general interest.

These are set out in Clause 2 of the Deed of Variation which replaces Clause 4 of the principal Deed and are as follows:

1. to promote for the public benefit the conservation and study of game species, their habitats and other species associated with those habitats;
2. to conduct research into the ecology and biology of game species and their environmental requirements and to publish the useful results of such research;
3. to advance the education of the public in game biology and in the conservation of game (especially, but not exclusively, in the conservation of game as a suitable resource).’

The field research of the organisation has been concentrated in two particular habitats:-

1. the farmlands of Southern Britain (not only arable fields and pastures, but the associated headlands, hedgerows, coppices and woodlands);
2. upland habitats (both moors and woodlands) principally of Northern Britain, but also including such habitats in Wales.

More limited studies have been made in wetlands, with particular reference to the impact of the manipulation of small water bodies to alter their ecological features.

The Review Group recognised that the great strength of the Trust’s research in these areas lay in its impressive breadth. Until the advent of the Trust there had been little study of the interactions throughout these ecosystems. This particularly applied to the agricultural ecosystem. The work, commenced in Sussex nearly three decades ago, was truly pioneering and has revealed a great deal of information concerning the interactions of herbicides, plants, insects and a variety of birds and mammals in the systems. The early work naturally depended on observations and the correlation between certain variables.

The unique and extensive database developed by collecting much current and historical information, mostly held in unpublished private research, has provided an opportunity for the statistical analysis of variables on an extensive scale. Most recently, and more particularly at Loddington, the Trust has been able actually to test its own conclusions by means of direct experimentation. For example on the field visit to Loddington members of the Review Group were able to see for themselves the large numbers of predacious ground beetles that frequented the ‘beetle banks’ in the arable fields. Thus in seeking to provide a full background for the conservation of game species and their habitats, research which is itself of considerable public interest, the Trust has also provided information which is important for those concerned with the wider issues of conservation (the maintenance of biodiversity), the general management of agricultural systems (including the use of pesticides and the encouragement of biological control), and the ecological implications of man’s manipulation of a variety of habitats ranging form upland moors to lowland streams.

The Review Group received presentations from the Director and seven Heads of Section. It also had brief meetings with other members of staff who were visited in their laboratories. From these presentations and discussions, and from the CVs that were made available the Group has no hesitation in confirming that the staff are of high calibre, well qualified for the research that they are directing or personally conducting; it would expect them to be strong candidates for appropriate positions in the universities or public research institutions. The Group was also impressed by the personal enthusiasm of the staff for the broad holistic approach to game conservation research which is the Trust’s policy.

The Group is agreed that it was impressed by the quality of the research, which was of a calibre equivalent to that undertaken in a research council institute. It considered that good use was being made of historical and contemporary data and that there was a good inter-relation with the relevant work of others, eg. English Nature, NERC’s Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. It notes that its opinion is substantiated by a number of independent measures of research excellence: foremost, the confidence in their work expressed by the statutory and non-statutory organisations placing contracts for specific research studies; secondly, the number of institutions and universities that collaborate with the Trust’s scientists on projects, or place their research students with the Trust; and, thirdly, the high level of publication and dissemination of results through refereed papers in prestigious journals.

The Group considers that the research is of high quality and has a justified international reputation for investigation of ecological processes in man-made habitats and managed semi-natural habitats, particularly those associated with agriculture in lowlands and uplands. The findings of this work have already contributed significantly to the basic scientific knowledge for the management of the conservation of plant and native animal species, and native and 'introduced’ game species and others in these areas. The work on passerine birds of farmlands, and rare weeds in agricultural fields, are examples of important studies on non-game species. Those engaged in game management will, like all those interested in such habitats (ecologists, farmers, ramblers, educationalists etc.), derive benefits from this work. Because much of the fundings of the work of the Trust comes from those with a direct interest in game management, its incidental value to them is often emphasised presentationally when it is published. This in no way diminishes its general interest. Before reaching the above conclusions, the Group noted that certain activities, which are of direct benefit to those concerned with the economic management of game, are carried out separately and are not funded from the Trust resources.

Members of the Review Group wish to record their own personal interest in relation to the Game Conservancy Trust. Sir Richard Southwood is an Honorary Life Member and a Life-President; he is not a land owner and does not shoot game. Lord Cranbrook is a (minority) member of a farming partnership that does organise a private subscription shoot for game birds and ground game on the land in its management; this shooting group has made donations to the Game Conservancy Trust, but has not used the services of the Advisory Body. Lord Selborne is a director of a farming company which is a subscriber to the Game Conservancy. The company leases the shooting on its land, and the tenants in the past have taken advice from the Game Conservancy.