Assessment of County Rarities by the NRC

Most birdwatchers are familiar with the British Birds Rarities Committee (BBRC) which assesses records of rare birds seen in Great Britain including England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although created in 1959, it was not until 1975 that a similar committee was set up in Norfolk to assess semi-rare and/or difficult to identify species that occurred in the county but which fell outside the remit of the BBRC. 
 
Under the auspices of the then County Recorder, a team of five experienced birdwatchers were co-opted onto the Committee and the 1975 Norfolk Bird and Mammal Report (NBMR) included a list of just over 40 species requiring a written description from the observer(s) to take effect from January 1st 1976. At the time, a decision was made that where there were three or more observers the need for a description would be waived and it was not until 1994 that the current system was put in place where a description was required irrespective of the number of observers. A quick glance at the original list of species requiring a description shows that approximately half of them are no longer considered by the Committee including Red Kite, Mediterranean Gull, Hobby, Peregrine and even Common Buzzard although at the time it should be remembered that these were still rare birds in the county.

Committee membership

Since the Committee’s inception there have always been five voting members and currently each member serves for a fixed term of five years before retiring which means that each year there is a vacancy. A number of factors are taken into account to determine the suitability of potential candidates but include (among others) a track record of finding rare birds in the county and subsequently providing high-quality submissions for those finds. A full list of the criteria can be found in the Constitution details here.
 
Potential candidates are identified and discussed by the existing members and in recent years the aim has been that they should not have already served on the Committee. However, the Committee has recently decided to amend the selection process so that every third year the vacancy is filled by an ex-member. The practical effect is that from 2023 onwards there will always be two members serving a second term which we believe brings additional experience to the team and will strengthen the assessment and decision making process. Where there is more than one candidate, selection is by a simple majority vote by the existing members of the Committee.
 
In addition to the five voting members of the Committee, the Rarities Committee Secretary acts in a key role in managing the work of the Committee as well as acting as a liaison between the County Recorder, the Editor of the NBMR (who is effectively a de facto non-voting Committee member) and the BBRC. The Secretary does not have a vote on either record assessment or new member selection.
 
If any member of the Committee decides to leave before their five-year term expires the Secretary, in conjunction with both the County Recorder and the remaining Committee members, will arrange for an ex-member to be co-opted back onto the Committee.
 
The Committee meets once a year (usually in July) to discuss any outstanding issues, for example additions or deletions from the county description list and records from the previous year which may have been pended. Also present at the meeting are the County Recorder, the Rarities Committee Secretary, the Editor of the NBMR plus the incoming Committee member.
 
While there is a vast wealth of experience across the Committee, very occasionally outside assistance may be sought. For example, the county’s first record of Wilson’s Petrel was referred to an acknowledged seabird expert for their comments prior to acceptance.

Which species?

There are currently just over 80 species and sub-species requiring a written description for acceptance and inclusion in the annual report. The full list can be found here and is updated regularly to reflect any changes as a result of decisions made by either the Records Committee or by the BBRC.
 
Figure 1 shows the fluctuations (at five year intervals) of the numbers of species/sub-species considered by the Committee.

Figure 1.

The list of species is reviewed annually and where appropriate changes are made using the following criteria:
 
Additions to the list

• Species once considered by the BBRC (for example Black Kite, Bee-eater, Surf Scoter and Little Bunting) where  over the years they have been shown to be scarce migrants rather than genuine rarities hence the ‘relegation’ to assessment by local committees.
• Species and sub-species which can be difficult to identify and/or where it has become apparent that there is a risk of confusion with commoner ones, for example Willow Tit/Marsh Tit.

 
Removals from the list

• Species which were assessed by the local Committee but which have become much scarcer to the point that the BBRC have decided to include them on the list of species which they consider, for example Kentish Plover and Tawny Pipit. It should be noted that many of the species ‘promoted’ back to BBRC status may have originally been assessed by them in the past.
• Species which have become much commoner in the county so that they are no longer considered by the Committee as rare or scarce. Recent examples include Raven and both Cattle and Great Egrets.

 
Any changes to the list are detailed in the NBMR and will usually take effect from January 1st of the year following publication. Additionally, the details are also updated on the NRC website.
 
As well as a number of birds which are genuinely difficult to identify, there are also a number of species on the current list which at first glance may seem surprising, for example Hoopoe. However, it should be remembered that a small number of submissions are received annually from non-birdwatchers and while the Committee welcomes such records they are treated with the same rigour as all the others.

The Assessment Process

The primary role of the Committee is to assess records of bird species or forms considered rare at county level and to ensure that the assessment process is not only fair and transparent but also that all submissions are treated equally. One factor which has revolutionised the assessment process is that the vast majority of submissions are now received electronically and often include digital photographs or digitised sketches as well as the ‘written’ description.
 
For the vast majority of submissions, the initial point of contact is the County Recorder who upon receipt uploads basic details to the Work In Progress (WIP) file held on the NCR website. The County Recorder then forwards the submissions to the Secretary who is responsible for creating manageable batches of 15-20 records which are then forwarded electronically to each of the five Committee members.

For each record, members of the Committee have three options:

Accept
Based on the details provided (which may have included photographs and/or sketches) there is sufficient evidence that a correct identification has been made.
 
Not Proven
Based on the details provided, there is insufficient evidence to confirm the identification and/or that other species have not been eliminated.
 
Pend
Based on the details provided there may be a requirement for additional details and/or discussion by Committee members to determine the final outcome. Any pended records are held by the Secretary for discussion at the AGM where a final decision is made.
 
It is important to emphasise that each record in each batch is assessed completely independently by individual Committee members - the decisions and comments relating to each record are unknown to other members during the assessment process.
 
Committee members return their completed batches to the Secretary who then collates the comments/decisions relating to each of the records. At this stage a decision is made on the status of the record:

• Where a record has five ‘Accept’ decisions the record is accepted.
• Where a record has four ‘Accept’ decisions, irrespective of the fifth decision, the record is accepted.
• Where a record has two or more ‘Not Proven’ decisions, irrespective of the other three decisions, the record is not proven.
• Providing a record does not have more than one ‘Not Proven’ decision and where at least one of the remaining votes is to pend, the record is held for discussion at the Committee AGM. Following discussion at the AGM a final decision made on whether the record is accepted or not proven.
  

It is not until this stage has been reached that the collated details of all the records in the batch are forwarded to the individual Committee members who then see all the comments/decisions for the first time. Additionally, the Secretary forwards the details to the County Recorder who updates the ‘Work in Progress’ (WIP) file held on the NRC website and also posts details of the accepted records via Twitter. All accepted records will subsequently appear in the systematic list of the NBMR with the finder/identifier initials. For completeness, a list of ‘Not Proven’ records will subsequently be included in the same publication.
 
The Committee fully understands the disappointment of a ‘Not Proven’ decision but in the vast majority of cases such a decision is based solely on the lack of detail in the description which either does not confirm the identification and/or fails to eliminate other species. Only in a very small number of cases does the Committee believe that a mistake has been made.
 
Additionally, the Committee is always willing to reconsider ‘Not Proven’ decisions but only where new information can be provided, for example a photograph that was not available at the time of the original submission. Also, in exceptional circumstances, the Committee may decide that an already accepted record no longer satisfies the identification criteria and that it becomes ‘Not Proven’.
 
There are also occasions where although a bird is seen by many observers, and there are photographs on social media, no description is received by the County Recorder. Rather than ‘lose’ the record, the photograph(s) accompanied by relevant comments are circulated and assessed by the Committee in the normal way. Any such records which are subsequently accepted appear in the NBMR as ‘per Recorder’ rather than with the finder/identifier initials.
 
Also, in recent years there has been an increasing trend for observers to use on-line recording platforms such as BirdTrack and e-Bird to maintain their records. It is important to stress that any records of rare or scarce birds uploaded to any of these platforms will not appear in the NBMR unless the observer also submits a description to the County Recorder via the normal channels for assessment by the Committee (assuming the record is then accepted).

How many records?

Figure 2 shows details of the total number of individual submissions received for the years 2015-2019 split by ‘Accepted’ and ‘Not Proven’ categories.As can be seen the numbers of submissions can fluctuate significantly from year to year but it is worth noting that while 2016 was an exceptional year, no fewer than 120 records (28% of the total) related to just two species: Caspian Gull and Great Egret. Unsurprisingly, both species have subsequently been removed from the list of species requiring a description, much to the relief of the Committee!
 
As well as fluctuations in the number of submissions received, the acceptance rate of those submissions also varies from year to year. Figure 3 provides details of the accepted/not proven percentage split for the years 2015-2019.

Figure 2

Figure 3.

While the overall numbers of ’Accepted’ records remains consistently above 80%, for certain species/sub-species the rate is lower, in some cases much lower. Table 1 shows the species/sub-species with the lowest rate of acceptance over the period 2015-2019.

Species/Subspecies	Total records	NP records	% Accepted
Continental Coal Tit	4	3	25
Black Kite	5	3	40
Cory's Shearwater	6	3	50
Roseate Tern	8	4	50
Goshawk (away from the Brecks)	31	14	55
Lesser spotted Woodpecker	10	4	60
Red-rumped Swallow	11	4	64
White-billed Diver	11	4	64
Golden Oriole	7	2	71
Taiga Bean Goose (away from Yare Valley)	11	3	73
Black-throated Diver	76	20	74
Honey Buzzard	55	12	78
Long-tailed Skua	47	10	79

 

Table 1.

Overall, the acceptance rate for the species/subspecies listed in Table 1 is just 70%. The common factor with the vast majority of the records in Table 1 is that they relate to submissions of birds seen in flight and highlights the difficulty of accurately assessing and recording details on birds that are often distant or poorly seen and where views are usually brief. However, observers are reminded that even in such circumstances any description should not only to provide sufficient detail regarding the identification but should also exclude any confusion species where appropriate.

The Norfolk Records Committee website

The NRC website at norfolkbirds.weebly.com holds a wealth of information relating to bird recording in the county:
 

• An up-to-date list of all species and sub-species which require a description. This is reviewed annually and any amendments also included in the NBMR and notified via Twitter as well as the ‘News’ tab on the website.
• Detailed information relating to submission of records including:

• A formatted Word file for county rarity descriptions available to download.
  
• A formatted Excel file for submission of general records not requiring a description available to download.
  
• General overview regarding the writing of rarity descriptions.
• Detailed submission guidelines.
• Some examples of ‘real life’ rarity descriptions of both county and national rarities.

• The current Norfolk list (based on the IOC World List) available to download.
• Brief biographies of current Committee members
• An updated copy of the Work in Progress (WIP) file.
• Identification articles on some difficult to identify species and sub-species.
• News and blog.
• Details of the NRC Constitution.
• County Recorder contact details

 
Any comments regarding the website should be sent to the County Recorder at [email protected].

The Future

The use of email, the internet and social media has revolutionised the way in which records are submitted, assessed and any decisions subsequently notified. The development of digital photography and ‘digiscoping’ has also meant that many of the submissions are now accompanied by good quality photographs making the assessment process that much easier. Additionally, the advent of mobile ‘phones has meant that most observers now also have a means of making sound recordings, should the need arise, to back up any written description.
 
A recent innovation which is likely to have an impact on record submission and assessment is the increasing number of people sound recording nocturnal migration (‘nocmig’). While the Committee occasionally assesses sound recordings as part of a normal submission process, in the vast majority of such cases the bird is also seen. The challenge for the Committee will be to assess any ‘nocmig’ submissions on the basis that this will not be the case. With night-time recording still in its infancy, it is likely that the Committee will take a conservative view when assessing such submissions.
 
Looking further into the future, a recent development has been the production by a leading optical company of a device which (it is claimed) is able to identify individual species. The Committee looks forward to receiving the first submission from such a system!
 
However, despite the continued advances in technology, it is clear that the solid principles laid down by the then County Recorder and the original committee members forty-five years ago have stood the test of time. While acknowledging that no system is perfect, we strongly believe that the independent assessment of county rarities by a small team of experienced local birdwatchers using the processes outlined above has served the county well and is set to do the same for many years to come.
 
Norfolk Records Committee
October 2020