Hen Harrier Recovery: Partnership Takes More Than a Blog
Quick summary
Natural England again sought moorland owners’ cooperation without first engaging the Moorland Association.
Breeding attempts rose to 45 in 2026, but reduced monitoring means grouse-moor figures may be incomplete.
Keeper records and an agreed protocol on surveyors, disturbance and reporting would strengthen monitoring and trust.
The MA will reapply for a brood-management licence and wants workable arrangements before next breeding season.
Once again, Natural England is asking for greater cooperation from moorland owners after missing the opportunity to engage the Moorland Association in organising it.
Following the Merlin survey difficulties earlier this year, Natural England apologised for not involving the Association at the outset. Members subsequently received England Ecosystem Survey access requests without MA having been briefed in advance. We are awaiting Natural England’s response to our outstanding questions about that survey.
Now, Natural England’s hen harrier update reports reduced monitoring on grouse moors and invites more owners to agree access arrangements.
Although the Association engaged with the national hen harrier surveys in 2016 and 2023, it has received no subsequent request to help agree a coordinated hen harrier monitoring programme with its members.
Natural England’s field staff work with individual estates, and that cooperation deserves recognition. But why has it not built on those relationships by involving the Association early, resolving practical concerns and helping more members participate?
Its own strategy promises stronger partnerships, greater trust in those delivering nature recovery and a focus on outcomes. An apology needs to lead to a change in practice.
Welcome figures - but understand the monitoring gaps
Natural England recorded 45 hen harrier breeding attempts in England in 2026, compared with 39 in 2025. A total of 112 chicks fledged, up from 106, while successful nests remained unchanged at 33.
These improvements are welcome. Everyone who has helped protect nests, manage habitat and support recovery deserves recognition. Nine recorded breeding attempts were on moors managed for grouse. Natural England rightly acknowledges that this relatively small number could reflect reduced monitoring in 2026.
The nine attempts therefore cannot safely be treated as a complete count of nesting on grouse moors. Comparisons with earlier years need to account for changes in coverage and survey effort. Natural England should explain those changes and work with land managers to secure a more complete picture, while protecting sensitive nest locations.
Start with keepers and agree the arrangements
Gamekeepers and estate teams should have a clear route to contribute hen harrier records directly, building on their participation in the 2016 and 2023 national surveys. Their regular presence and detailed knowledge of the ground are valuable monitoring resources. Estate records can also help explain how prey, habitat, weather and management influence nesting and breeding success.
Natural England should establish what information estates already hold and agree recording methods, submission arrangements and any training needed. The same standards of recording, verification and transparency should apply to all contributors.
Where additional fieldwork is necessary, Natural England should explain the information gap and agree a proportionate approach. Existing records should help target visits, avoid duplication and minimise disturbance.
The Merlin and ecosystem survey experiences show why early discussion matters. The ecosystem survey pack provides useful assurances, including that data will not be used for compliance purposes. Advance engagement would have helped members understand those assurances and resolve remaining questions before access requests arrived.
During the brood-management trial, Natural England required formal access arrangements and permissions for MA staff visiting potential sites. Members can reasonably expect comparable clarity and care when survey access is requested by Natural England or its contractors.
Protect nests, sensitive information and trust
Participation needs an agreed protocol covering surveyors, visits, data use and communications.
Trusted surveyors. Where an estate lacks confidence in the RSPB or another proposed survey partner, Natural England should offer a competent alternative working to the same scientific standards. A request for different surveyors should not, by itself, be characterised as opposition to monitoring.
Minimum disturbance. Some members are concerned that publicity can attract visitors and that repeated observation or poorly coordinated nest-protection activity could cause disturbance. Visits and observation should be coordinated, with clear arrangements for frequency, duration, observation distances and when activity should stop or be reviewed. Estate knowledge should inform that planning.
Responsible reporting. The protocol should cover how sensitive records are verified, shared and used in public statements, including information supplied to the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU). Participating estates should receive their survey records and have a process for flagging factual errors.
Fair attribution. Reporting a nest, participating in monitoring or an unexplained loss of contact with a tagged bird should not, by itself, be presented as evidence of wrongdoing by an estate. Any crime “hotspot” description should have a clear definition, evidential threshold, geographical basis and explanation of limitations.
If a nest fails or is abandoned, relevant circumstances (including visits, monitoring activity, weather and predation) should be assessed objectively. Where the cause remains unknown, that uncertainty should be stated.
These safeguards must preserve prompt reporting and effective investigation. They should also prevent publicity from outrunning the evidence.
The IUCN’s human-wildlife conflict guidance advocates collaborative approaches that address underlying social, cultural and economic circumstances. Building confidence among those supporting recovery is part of that work.
Turn July’s findings into a workable conservation licence
Brood management involves taking eggs or chicks under licence, rearing them in specialist care and releasing the young birds into the wild. It was trialled to support recovery by providing a lawful way to manage local wildlife conflict with grouse shooting.
On 22 July 2026, Natural England published its final evaluation. It concluded that the availability of brood management probably contributed to population growth, primarily through reduced nest disturbance and improved settlement on some grouse moors.
Those effects could not be fully separated from the accompanying tagging and monitoring programme. The findings support brood management as part of a wider conservation package.
Natural England said the evidence supported brood management under licence where projects follow the trial methods. Its latest breeding update omits that route. July’s findings remain its published position; the question is how they will inform practical delivery.
The MA will be applying for another conservation licence. Natural England must assess the application and decide whether to grant it. Our previous application was refused. In the Association’s assessment, the requirements indicated by the refusal reasons would have made the proposed scheme unworkable in practice.
That difficulty needs resolving. Whilst the MA must demonstrate the conservation purpose and provide appropriate safeguards, Natural England should also explain how its requirements address specific risks, reflect the completed trial and can be met within a scheme that is workable in practice.
A practical way forward
The Moorland Association’s submission to Parliament’s EFRA Committee sets out proposals directly relevant here: developing survey protocols with land managers before fieldwork, applying transparent evidence standards and making conservation permissions workable in practice.
Natural England could apply those principles now by working with the MA to agree a straightforward route for keeper-supplied records, identify any additional monitoring needed and establish trusted arrangements for access, nest protection and reporting.
Alongside that work, Natural England needs to support a workable brood-management licence. Neither discussion needs to wait for the other. Both would give practical effect to Natural England’s stated commitment to partnership.
To help members respond to access requests, the MA has prepared a downloadable Hen Harrier Monitoring Access Template. The Word document can be adapted to individual estates and asks for clear arrangements covering survey personnel, keeper-supplied records, nest disturbance, confidentiality and reporting. It provides a basis for agreeing participation; sending it does not itself grant access.
Members approached about hen harrier nest monitoring are welcome to contact the Association for help understanding and agreeing arrangements. Please continue to support lawful nest protection and report suspected wildlife crime to the police. Sensitive nest locations should be shared securely.
The Association is ready to help. The next step is direct discussion and agreed arrangements before the next breeding season.
