The BOU’s Annual Conference, held in Leicester from 31 March to 2 April 2009, was the third conference dedicated to lowland farmland birds. The first conference ‘The Ecology and Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds’ in 1999 identified the main drivers of the severe decline in farmland bird populations (Aebischer et al. 2000). The second conference ‘Ecology and Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds 2: The Road to Recovery’ held in 2004 focused on what actions could be taken to reverse the population declines (Chamberlain 2004, Vickery et al. 2004). The 2009 conference ‘Lowland Farmland Birds III: Delivering Solutions in an Uncertain World’ aimed to assess how effective implemented measures are in a world where conservationists have to deal with strong opposing economic interests. Graham Tucker (Institute for European Environmental Policy) put this general problem in context by urging scientists to become more involved in policy issues and face the reality that world trade influences funding for agri-environment schemes (AES), and that many countries are planning to produce crops to use as biofuel. A similar spur for action was put forward by Richard Bradbury (RSPB), who stressed the importance of promoting the economic value that farmland birds provide as a cultural service, and urged that the forces pushing towards multi-purpose economical and recreational land-use be used to benefit bird conservation. The use of land and its effect on bird biodiversity are tightly linked with the historical moment, and major changes in the political governance of a country can have major repercussions on its biodiversity. András Báldi (Animal Ecology Research Group, Hungary) illustrated this point using Hungary as an example. The collapse of socialism in that country, he explained, brought abandonment of land with positive effects on some species but not on others. Another example, this time involving Germany, was provided by Martin Flade (State Office for the Environment, Brandenburg, Germany), who explained that the Berlin Wall had separated not only people, but also the more heterogeneous agricultural landscape of East Germany, now the site of a reserve aimed at combining nature conservation with arable land use, and the western part of the country, where birds are still declining. The impact of historical changes on bird biodiversity can be assessed thanks to long-term monitoring at European, national and local levels. The Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS) is aimed at monitoring changes in populations of common bird species across Europe. From its work, presented by Petr Voříšek (Czech Society for Ornithology), it has emerged that Northern and Western Europe seem to experience the steepest decline in bird populations, while Central, Eastern and Southern Europe have suffered a less dramatic decline, especially in recent years. At a national level, David Noble (BTO) presented the long-term trend of UK farmland bird populations, which indicates a continuous overall decline of this group, despite conservation efforts and the target of the Government to reverse their decline by 2020. When the 19 species included in the Farmland Bird Index were considered more specifically, it emerged that the seven generalist species have stable populations, whereas the 12 specialist ones have declined by more than 60%. Monitoring changes at a national level can also be possible thanks to long-term studies at a local scale, which can provide examples and solutions to larger-scale problems. This was exemplified by Dick Potts’s (GWCT) plenary talk on a 40-year study in Sussex on the Grey Partridge Perdix perdix. In his contribution he highlighted how changes in management, including use of herbicides and predator control, can dramatically change the productivity and nesting success of this species. Introduction of kale strips to provide cover, conservation headlands with the associated weeds and invertebrates for food, and deployment of gamekeepers to reduce predator numbers helped to increase numbers of Grey Partridges, Corn Buntings Emberiza calandra, Lapwings Vanellus vanellus and Skylarks Alauda arvensis at a local level. The case of the Grey Partridge provided an example of how specific targeted measures, such as provisioning of brood-rearing habitat and control of predators, can lead to recovery of populations in specific areas, but Nicholas Aebischer (GWCT) pointed out that to obtain widespread positive results it is also important to motivate farmers to conserve birds on their land. Matt Lobley (University of Exeter) reiterated that motivation and training are two key commodities to provide to farmers, who are often unsure about how to comply with scheme guidelines, and who would benefit from a more guided approach to the application of the AES rules. James Phillips (Natural England) suggested that farmers would also benefit from guidelines on how to provide the ‘Big 3’ (winter seed food, insect-rich habitat, and in-field nesting cover) for different species of birds. Compliance with agri-environment schemes, at both the Entry Level Scheme (ELS) and the more competitive Higher Level Scheme (HLS), takes resources and time. It is therefore essential that AES are applied successfully, and Alex Copland (BirdWatch Ireland) suggested that their impact on biodiversity should be closely monitored at the European level. The need for close scrutiny of resource allocation and its returns became even more apparent from Arial Brunner’s (BirdLife International) contribution, in which he stressed that the different political and agricultural realities of Europe mean that EU money provided for AES is not always used to maximize biodiversity. An example was provided by Juha Tiainen (Finnish Game & Fisheries Research Institute, Finland), who showed that in Finland 95% of farmers have joined an AES scheme, but their actions are not biodiversity-orientated because farmers can decide to take facultative minor actions for biodiversity in addition to some basic compulsory measures. David Kleijn (Alterra, the Netherlands) explained that in other countries, such as the Netherlands, AES are a compromise between the needs of farmers and those of birds, and the schemes may be designed to target birds other than farmland species. The success of agri-environment schemes depends not only on compliance but also on the species that are targeted, and it is impossible to apply one single solution to tackle the complex problem of the decline of farmland birds. Michael MacDonald (RSPB) pointed out that in the UK there are examples of targeted schemes that have led to good results for bird conservation, such as in the case of the Corncrake Crex crex, Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus, and Stone-curlew Burhinus oedicnemus, but specific measures can be very expensive. Specific solutions have been suggested for different species. Rosemary Setchfield (RSPB) explained that the Corn Bunting, which is a late breeder, suffers from nest losses due to silage cutting and loss of nest-cover habitat, hence it benefits in England and Scotland from delayed cutting and increased weed density. Another example was provided by Nick Wilkinson (RSPB), who showed that Twite Carduelis flavirostris has been declining dramatically in England for reasons that are still poorly understood, hence a specific Twite recovery project has recently been launched. Outside the UK, scientists have also considered species-specific targeted solutions. A case study from France, illustrated by Vincent Bretagnolle (Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chize, France), showed that delayed cutting reduced nest destruction in the Little Bustard Tetrax tetrax, while increased weed diversity and grasshopper density increased chick survival. David Kleijn provided another example of increased chick survival, this time in Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa in the Netherlands, through the adoption of field ‘mosaic management’, a technique involving the staggering of grass mowing. In the same country, Steven Kragton (Vogelbescherming, the Netherlands) showed that Skylark also benefits from differences in vegetation heights in the form of a ‘duo-margin’ approach, which provides margins with different vegetation heights used by birds for foraging. In Mediterranean regions, Raphaël Arlettaz (Institute for Ecology & Evolution, Switzerland) explained that the adoption of alternating strips of bare soil and grass increased prey abundance and accessibility for species such as Hoopoe Upupa epops, Wryneck Jinx torquilla and Ortolan Bunting Emberiza hortulana. The need for species-specific measures in Europe was reinforced by James Phillips (Natural England) who suggested that a targeted approach of the AES for certain species could be a solution, with HLS best suited for species that are restricted in range, such as Cirl Bunting, Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, Stone-curlew and Snipe Gallinago gallinago among others, while ELS could be enough for Skylark, Linnet Carduelis cannabina, Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus, and Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella. However, a case for the introduction in Ireland of a specifically targeted AES for Skylark was advocated by Alex Copland, who explained that in the country this species does not breed on arable farmland. Rob Field (RSPB) showed that Higher Level Schemes can deliver positive results, but also that land outside an Environmental Stewardship (ES) agreement can benefit granivorous passerines if it provides game cover and seed mixtures. Catherine Davey (BTO) stressed that, in contrast to the competitive Higher Level Scheme agreement, which cannot be entered by all farmers, the open Entry Level Scheme has the potential for a great positive impact on farmland bird biodiversity, with 63% of agricultural land so far being entered in this scheme in the UK. She presented preliminary results on the effectiveness of ELS, indicating that only Yellowhammer shows a true association with ELS agreement land, whereas Skylark and Grey Partridge are still declining, but she concluded that more time is needed to assess the impact of this scheme. One way to do so is by adopting an experimental approach. Shelley Hinsley (CEH) provided results from an experimental study which indicated that bird abundance and territory numbers were higher in patches after the ELS options had been adopted. The same experiment showed that birds preferred wild bird food to other crops, and even if more seeds translated into more birds, these declined in number in February but did not move to nearby patches. The potentially highly mobile nature of birds, Gavin Siriwardena (BTO) stressed, has to be taken into account when considering food patches, which need to be available at the right spatial and temporal scales depending on the species’ ecology and foraging distance ability. He presented a study on radio-tracked Yellowhammers and Chaffinches Fringilla coelebs, from which he concluded that food resources that are 500–1000 m apart will still provide good provisioning in winter. The problem of the ‘hungry gap’ in winter and late spring was also addressed by Guy Anderson (RSPB), who highlighted it as an important problem especially after the loss of set-aside in 2007. The demise of set-aside was also the topic of Simon Gillings’ (BTO) contribution, in which he explained that this practice used to account for about 10% of arable land, and that the areas under this form of management used to have higher density of birds during both the breeding season and the winter period, when a vast proportion of set-aside provided winter stubble. Rufus Sage (GWCT) explained that now high densities of farmland birds can be found in spring in biomass crops such as the willow short rotation coppice (SRC), but other biomass crops such as miscanthus seem to attract fewer farmland birds, probably because they harbour fewer invertebrates. Different species have different ecological requirements, and when a targeted species approach is not economically viable, one of the solutions may be to increase habitat heterogeneity to help as many species as possible. Guy Anderson stressed that a heterogeneous habitat should provide food, nesting habitat, and increased invertebrate abundance and availability when appropriate management is provided. However, a problem can arise over management when there are conflicting needs. Dave Buckingham (RSPB) offered such an example with the management of grassland systems, where a conflict may arise between the need for undisturbed high grass that is perfect for invertebrates, and the need for short grass to make the invertebrates more available to birds. He suggested that a solution is to manage grazing effectively, and provided results from a study on three types of grazing intensity, which showed that lenient grazing produced the best results because it mimicked the undisturbed grassland state, while light grazing late in the season improved accessibility to prey. Grazing can therefore be an important habitat management tool, but it can also be detrimental if grazing animals trample nests. The extent of this problem was investigated at a local and regional scale by Tim Hounsome (Biocensus Ltd) with an experiment using artificial nests. Results provided evidence of a stronger direct (trampling) effect of cattle on nest survival over an indirect (short swards that increase predation) effect, while at a national scale it emerged that Skylark abundance was negatively associated with grazing. The title of this conference stressed that the world is changing fast and in an uncertain way. Uncertainties brought by climate change can affect large groups of birds, and Caroline Rhymer (Newcastle University) provided an example of how changes in soil moisture and flood seasonality will affect waders. Models can be a powerful tool, and Simon Butler (University of Reading) showed how they can be used to investigate and predict the effect of land-use changes at species and population levels, while Hazel Parry (Fera) explained how individual-based models can be used to make predictions and subsequently to influence policy-makers. In the final contribution of the conference, Andy Evans (RSPB) underlined that policy and technological development are the two main drivers of farming, and farmers need achievable targets now that sustainable development is ever more important as the demands for cheap food, to feed an increasing global human population, are becoming more urgent. The conference showed that conservation scientists have developed a huge body of information on the reasons for the decline of farmland birds at the European level, and that actions to reverse this decline are under way. Results are encouraging, but they are occasionally hindered by the difficulty of meeting the heterogeneous requirements of the declining species, and by the different situations found in different countries. The biggest challenge now will be to integrate the various ecological needs of farmland species with the powerful economic forces that push towards a style of land use that is less and less friendly to biodiversity. It is therefore paramount to integrate bird conservation in these new ways of development, as Richard Bradbury stated at this conference. Quoting Andy Evans’ concluding talk, ‘we are at a defining moment in time, and failure is not an option’. My hope is that in a few years time, perhaps in a future BOU ‘Lowland Farmland Birds’ conference, we will be able to say that we are indisputably winning. The BOU lowland farmland bird conferences have become an established 5-yearly forum to update and discuss the issues surrounding the dramatic decline and conservation needs of our farmland bird populations. Some 170 delegates from across Europe enjoyed the thought-stimulating programme, which was organized by Dr Will Peach (RSPB), Dr Juliet Vickery [RSPB (formerly BTO)], Dr Nicholas Aebischer (GCWT), Dr Richard Brand-Hardy (Defra), Phil Grace (Natural England) and Dr Gavin Siriwardena (BTO). The programme was enriched by the opportunity for discussion during breaks and the dinner, which this year included the awarding of the prestigious Godman-Salvin Medal to Professor Rhys Green (Ibis 151: 796–7). The conference itself was managed by the BOU’s Steve Dudley and Angela Langford with their usual efficiency. The BOU wishes to thank the programme organizers for delivering such a strong programme, to all the speakers for their contributions, and to the many volunteers who helped out during the conference. The BOU is extremely grateful to the Countryside Council for Wales, Defra, Natural England, the RSPB and Scottish Natural Heritage for their financial support of Lowland Farmland Birds III: Delivering Solutions in an Uncertain World.