Natural England’s Merlin Survey: Do Not Consent Until Natural England Comes Clean
- Andrew Gilruth
- 9 hours ago
- 6 min read
✅ KEY TAKEAWAY: Natural England's Merlin survey gathers broader data than initially claimed, including SSSI condition assessments and unverified persecution incidents. The MA advises members to withhold consent until full clarity is provided.
As the Moorland Association previously explained, nobody should be bounced into consent. The further documents now produced by Natural England and the RSPB only strengthen that point.
Natural England first sought to reassure estates that the proposed visits were only for Merlin survey work and would not involve condition assessments. It is only after persistent questioning that a much broader picture has emerged.
This is not simply a neutral exercise in locating and counting breeding Merlin.
Documents now provided to the MA by Natural England show that the survey is also being used to gather data for SSSI condition assessment, to record whether moorland is managed for grouse shooting, to assess the presence and extent of heather burning, and to invite surveyors to note any “known or suspected persecution incidents.”
Members are entitled to ask a very obvious question. Is this really just a Merlin survey, or has something materially wider been presented under that label?
What Natural England first said
In its original correction, Natural England said the surveyor would only be surveying for Merlin and would not be carrying out condition assessments.
That gave a clear impression that the field exercise was narrow, straightforward and species-specific.
What the later documents now show
In a later site-specific response seen by the MA, Natural England says something more. It states that the purpose of the survey is twofold: first, to gather breeding Merlin data to inform condition assessment of the SSSI, and second, to contribute to the updated national Merlin survey.
That is an important shift. Members are not simply being asked to facilitate a straightforward national bird survey. Natural England now says the data will also inform SSSI condition assessments. But the more immediate concern for members is that the survey paperwork goes wider than many were first led to believe.
This goes beyond counting Merlin
The survey paperwork shows that surveyors are not merely recording Merlin sightings.
The recording form distinguishes between heather-dominated moor managed for grouse shooting and heather-dominated moor not managed for grouse shooting.
The survey instructions require the recording of heather burning presence and extent, with burning classified from none to more than 70%. The same instructions also refer expressly to concerns about the impact of burning on Merlin.
Members are therefore fully entitled to ask why this management information is being gathered during the breeding season, how it will be used, by whom, and for what purpose.
“Known or suspected persecution incidents” is a serious unanswered point
The survey instructions also tell surveyors to record any information on “known or suspected persecution incidents.”
That phrase is left entirely unexplained. Suspected by whom, on what basis and to what standard? Recorded for what purpose, shared with whom, retained where and used how?
Those are not trivial questions. They go to the heart of what this exercise really is. If surveyors are being invited to note “known or suspected” incidents, members are plainly entitled to know who is making those judgments and how.
Where Raptor Study Group workers or other individuals outside Natural England are being drawn into sensitive observations of this kind, members are entitled to ask whether opinion, prejudice or speculation is being given an official-looking route into the system.
If Natural England wants confidence, it needs to say plainly who is involved, in what capacity, under what authority, with what safeguards and to what evidential standard. Vague references to collaboration are not enough.
Why were landowners not properly involved from the outset?
This whole episode has been handled backwards.
Why were estates not properly asked for their own Merlin data at the outset. Why were keepers and estate staff, who often know the ground and nest locations best, not approached as a first resort. Why was the initial approach a late request for third-party access, followed only later by documents showing a broader data-gathering exercise.
If this had been approached openly and collaboratively from the start, much of this concern might have been avoided.
Access without consent makes the situation worse
The position is made more serious by the fact that the MA has now seen evidence relating to an incident in which a person identifying himself as an RSPB surveyor is said to have entered and worked on the moor without consent. He also refused to provide his full name or any form of identification. If correct, that is wholly unacceptable. If access is being sought by consent, consent must be respected on the ground.
Natural England’s own correspondence says that, in England, access is being sought by consent and on the basis of voluntary cooperation. Consent cannot be requested in writing and then ignored on the ground.
The supporting documents do not cure the problem
Natural England has now produced a risk assessment, codes of practice and an insurance certificate. Those documents show that RSPB surveyors are expected to operate under lone-working and upland-safety procedures and that the RSPB holds public liability and employers’ liability insurance.
That may answer a few practical questions. It does not answer the central one. Why was this presented as a Merlin-only exercise when the paperwork now shows something wider.
Questions the MA is asking (and which estates may also wish to ask)
The MA is asking Natural England and the RSPB to answer, clearly and in writing:
Was this ever truly intended to be a Merlin-only survey, given that the documents also cover SSSI condition assessment, heather burning, grouse moor management categories and “known or suspected persecution incidents”?
Why was the original impression given that surveyors would only be surveying for Merlin, when later correspondence now confirms a wider purpose?
Why are surveyors being asked to record the presence and extent of heather burning during the breeding season?
What is meant by “known or suspected persecution incidents”?
Who is entitled to make that judgment, on what basis and to what standard?
How will any such material be recorded, retained, shared and used?
Will any of this information be used for purposes beyond a straightforward Merlin survey?
Has any survey access already taken place without consent and, if so, under what authority?
What instructions have been given to surveyors about identification, prior notice, and engaging with estates before entering land?
Why were estates not first asked for their own Merlin records or local assistance before third-party access was sought?
If access is granted, exactly who is proposed to attend, on what dates, by what route, and for what precise purpose?
Natural England now says the data will also inform SSSI condition assessments. How exactly will that be done, and how does that fit with the earlier impression that this was simply a Merlin survey?
The MA is writing to Natural England and the RSPB
The Moorland Association is writing to both Natural England and the RSPB to make clear that the present situation is unacceptable.
Survey work should only be undertaken where consent has been given. Where access has been sought or granted on the basis that this was merely a Merlin survey, Natural England and the RSPB should now go back to estates and seek express, informed permission if they also intend to record heather burning, grouse moor management categories, or any “known or suspected persecution incidents.”
They should also explain, clearly and in writing, who is making those judgments, on what basis, and for what purpose that information will be used.
Members should not agree to access until this is clarified
The MA’s position is straightforward.
No member should agree to one of these survey requests unless and until Natural England and the RSPB have fully clarified, in writing, the true scope of the exercise, the intended use of any management-related observations, the meaning and handling of any reference to “known or suspected persecution incidents”, and whether any survey access has already taken place without consent and on what authority.
Until that happens, members should not agree to these surveys.
Don't Miss the Latest Moorland News
Get news of policy shifts, new research and land management changes that affect upland Britain, delivered free every week. If it matters on the moor, you'll hear it from us first.
