logo
Swifts' decline: how can Britons help these remarkable birds?

Swifts' decline: how can Britons help these remarkable birds?

The Guardian17-06-2025
The swift (Apus apus) is an acrobatic aerial bird, a remarkable sprinter and endurance flyer that rarely touches the ground. When these sickle-winged birds do come down – after several years in perpetual flight, even sleeping midair – it is to nest in the eaves of roofs across Europe after spending winters in sub-Saharan Africa, migrating 7,000 miles (11,000km) every year. They are celebrated by nature-lovers, artists and poets as they race through city skies on long summer evenings, filling the air with their screaming calls.
The fastest bird in level flight (top speed: 69mph/111kph), they feed on airborne insects. Swifts are in trouble because of steep declines in insects, but also because they are losing traditional nesting sites. Swifts once nested in caves and hollow trees but moved into buildings hundreds of years ago. Modern insulation, particularly in roofs, removes the crevices and cavities where they have nested for centuries.
Grim. Swift populations slumped by 66% between 1995 and 2022 in Britain and have continued a rapid downward trend. Since the last count of 59,000 breeding pairs, the population this summer is set to be just 40,000 pairs. In five years' time, there could be fewer than 25,000, unless action is taken.
Declines are not so pronounced across continental Europe despite similar insect declines. Countries such as Germany and France appear to have retained more nesting sites in old buildings than in Britain, where few buildings constructed after 1944 can accommodate swifts.
A swift brick is a hollow brick which slots into the brickwork of new or old homes, providing a cavity where swifts can nest. The bricks have also been found to help other cavity-nesting birds, including the rapidly declining red-listed house martin, house sparrow and starling. Other species including blue tits, great tits, nuthatches and wrens will also nest in the bricks.
Swift bricks are made by brick manufacturers large and small, and typically cost about £35. There is a British Standard for them and some developers are already fitting them to new homes.
Three years ago, the writer and bird lover Hannah Bourne-Taylor launched a campaign to oblige every new home to be fitted with a swift brick. When in opposition, the UK Labour party supported the 'swift brick amendment', first tabled by the Conservative peer Zac Goldsmith, to do this in England. Now in government, Labour is resisting attempts by its own backbench MP Barry Gardiner to insert a swift brick amendment into the controversial planning and infrastructure bill.
Labour is reluctant to impose additional regulations on housebuilders as it attempts to address the UK's housing affordability crisis with a big push for new homes. Nearly 30 housebuilders have voluntarily agreed to install one brick for every new home built. Labour's latest move is to suggest adding swift bricks to national planning policy guidance so that all England's local planning authorities insist on them for new homes. But Bourne-Taylor says this won't guarantee more swift bricks, because many planning authorities lack the resources to ensure planning conditions are met. A recent study found developers, who make multi-billions in profits, were not providing 75% of the nesting boxes stipulated in planning permissions.
'By refusing to mandate swift bricks, the government is making it clear to their voters that they do not care about nature because this would be the easiest nature recovery action, ever,' said Bourne-Taylor. 'Loads of people have told me that they will never vote Labour again because of how the government have acted on swift bricks.'
Wooden swift boxes are widely available and are suitable for swifts, provided they can be installed at least 4.5m above ground and not on a south-facing aspect, because this is too hot for the nesting birds. Retrofitting an integral brick is more expensive but slightly better because it provides a cooler space and will last longer than a wooden box.
Even if a swift box is ignored by swifts, it will be a boon to other birds. And there are many other ways to help swifts. The Swift Local Network unites swift lovers across Britain. Local groups rescue fallen birds and protect existing nesting sites: talking to neighbours who have swifts in their roofs raises awareness if roofs are renovated.
The government's commitment to insulate Britain will be welcomed by all environmentally minded voters, but this makes it more crucial than ever that swift bricks are integrated into all new homes. Campaigners are emailing the housing secretary, Angela Rayner, to let her know.
Site-faithful swifts sometimes take a while to discover new nesting opportunities. If house sparrows first take up residence, this is good news because swifts often seek out nesting spaces where they see sparrows – they are a signal for swifts that there are good homes here!
Some people play swift calls from a window close to a new nestbox to attract curious swifts when they first arrive back in Britain in May. This can help, but usually only in areas that already have swift populations.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Readers reply: Are there too many pets?
Readers reply: Are there too many pets?

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Readers reply: Are there too many pets?

Are there too many pets? Pet ownership goes up and up, particularly dogs and cats. But how many is too many? Gene Leonard, London Send new questions to nq@ This needs to be qualified: 'There are too many pets … for people who dislike dogs so much they can't enjoy green spaces, cafes and other public areas.' rewilder As I get older, I find myself questioning pet ownership. A pet exists for the sole purpose of pleasing its owner, giving it comfort, pleasure and companionship but also putting it at risk of abuse, pain, displeasure and abandonment. They are bred (often conforming to a human-designed ideal) or captured in order to perform human-pleasing duties. So, yes, there are too many pets for their human masters. 02Dscythe This is probably true unless you live with a cat, in which case the roles are reversed. kiramango I think there are too many abandoned pets, too many pets in rescue, too many designer pets with health problems because of their breed standards and too many dogs tied up outside leading lonely, deprived lives. We have one rescued dog, who is adored. He is walked on a lead three times daily, enjoys off-lead time playing in the fully fenced back yard, is fed the best possible food and is treated like a member of the family in all ways. I love cats, but I also love birds; I wish people would keep their cats indoors to protect the birds. The worst problem in our world is too many irresponsible humans, not too many animals. MythKenner From an ecological point of view there are too many of everything associated with humans, so yes, there are definitely too many pets. I doubt there's an easy way to solve that, though. unclestinky There are certainly far too many people involved in the selling of mindless rubbish surrounding the keeping of animals at home. Cat and dog fashion, cosmetics, toys: too many containers of senseless junk being shipped around the world. There are way too many nonsense pet food brands as well: 'Delicious morsels lovingly selected and served with rosemary and green beans.' What? It's a pooch, or a moggy; it can't read, it doesn't understand infantile advertising slop and it's not Jay Rayner. Pets are for companionship, a haven from loneliness for many, also to assist in teaching children about caring, responsibility, kindness, life, death and how not to develop into cruel, selfish brutes who think only of themselves and the next fix of cheap entertainment. bricklayersoption How many is too many? Well, I did a house-sit with 17 cats and I can tell you, categorically: that's too many. (Now, I ask people to define 'a few cats'.) Leoned There are far too many dogs now. Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them. It's time to reintroduce the dog licence at a realistic (high) level and set some rules and expectations around dog ownership, as there are currently none. So, one dog a household. On leads in all public spaces except enclosed dog fields, which would be funded by the licence fee. Breeding banned. Tougher rules on dangerous dogs. Some basic hygiene requirements on cafe and pub owners who allow dogs. Ownership banned if you fail to pick up dog mess – no excuses. This'll do for starters. Dennis1970 'Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them'? They really aren't. And cafes and pubs already have to meet hygiene standards. And there are rules and expectations around dog ownership. You can argue they need strengthening, but saying there are none is just untrue. Oldhairynose Too many inconsiderate dog owners use those extending leads in public spaces and expect others to get out of the way or else trip over them, or let their dogs foul the public spaces they insist on using for their dog's toilet needs. Add to that letting poorly trained dogs off their leads and then saying: 'He won't hurt you, he just wants to play!' Sundaygal NYC has too many. The streets reek of dog urine and too many owners don't clean up faeces – especially in Brooklyn – so walking is a dangerous hopscotch around smears of festering mess. It can't be very friendly for the dogs, either, which are kept locked up most of the day, against their nature. 80xd35 Dogs are an environmental disaster, from the contamination of waterways from improperly disposed waste – and how long will it take for those plastic poo bags to degrade even if they're used properly? – to the harmful effects on wildlife. Dylan Dog ownership is shown to improve people's physical health, pet ownership improves mental health and many people socially benefit from pets. The frustration is those few who mistreat their pets, have too many pets, don't pick up after their pets, let their cats out to kill birds – and those who spend all their time moaning about other people's pets. But the majority, who own pets with kindness and with social benefit, shouldn't have to be judged by the minority. specklefreckle We need dogs. They take us out, even in the rain. They help us to relax. They are true friends. It would be a sad world without them. Anne Meile I'd welcome a ban on the 'exotic pet' trade. Murdomania

Readers reply: Are there too many pets?
Readers reply: Are there too many pets?

The Guardian

time4 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Readers reply: Are there too many pets?

Are there too many pets? Pet ownership goes up and up, particularly dogs and cats. But how many is too many? Gene Leonard, London Send new questions to nq@ This needs to be qualified: 'There are too many pets … for people who dislike dogs so much they can't enjoy green spaces, cafes and other public areas.' rewilder As I get older, I find myself questioning pet ownership. A pet exists for the sole purpose of pleasing its owner, giving it comfort, pleasure and companionship but also putting it at risk of abuse, pain, displeasure and abandonment. They are bred (often conforming to a human-designed ideal) or captured in order to perform human-pleasing duties. So, yes, there are too many pets for their human masters. 02Dscythe This is probably true unless you live with a cat, in which case the roles are reversed. kiramango I think there are too many abandoned pets, too many pets in rescue, too many designer pets with health problems because of their breed standards and too many dogs tied up outside leading lonely, deprived lives. We have one rescued dog, who is adored. He is walked on a lead three times daily, enjoys off-lead time playing in the fully fenced back yard, is fed the best possible food and is treated like a member of the family in all ways. I love cats, but I also love birds; I wish people would keep their cats indoors to protect the birds. The worst problem in our world is too many irresponsible humans, not too many animals. MythKenner From an ecological point of view there are too many of everything associated with humans, so yes, there are definitely too many pets. I doubt there's an easy way to solve that, though. unclestinky There are certainly far too many people involved in the selling of mindless rubbish surrounding the keeping of animals at home. Cat and dog fashion, cosmetics, toys: too many containers of senseless junk being shipped around the world. There are way too many nonsense pet food brands as well: 'Delicious morsels lovingly selected and served with rosemary and green beans.' What? It's a pooch, or a moggy; it can't read, it doesn't understand infantile advertising slop and it's not Jay Rayner. Pets are for companionship, a haven from loneliness for many, also to assist in teaching children about caring, responsibility, kindness, life, death and how not to develop into cruel, selfish brutes who think only of themselves and the next fix of cheap entertainment. bricklayersoption How many is too many? Well, I did a house-sit with 17 cats and I can tell you, categorically: that's too many. (Now, I ask people to define 'a few cats'.) Leoned There are far too many dogs now. Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them. It's time to reintroduce the dog licence at a realistic (high) level and set some rules and expectations around dog ownership, as there are currently none. So, one dog a household. On leads in all public spaces except enclosed dog fields, which would be funded by the licence fee. Breeding banned. Tougher rules on dangerous dogs. Some basic hygiene requirements on cafe and pub owners who allow dogs. Ownership banned if you fail to pick up dog mess – no excuses. This'll do for starters. Dennis1970 'Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them'? They really aren't. And cafes and pubs already have to meet hygiene standards. And there are rules and expectations around dog ownership. You can argue they need strengthening, but saying there are none is just untrue. Oldhairynose Too many inconsiderate dog owners use those extending leads in public spaces and expect others to get out of the way or else trip over them, or let their dogs foul the public spaces they insist on using for their dog's toilet needs. Add to that letting poorly trained dogs off their leads and then saying: 'He won't hurt you, he just wants to play!' Sundaygal NYC has too many. The streets reek of dog urine and too many owners don't clean up faeces – especially in Brooklyn – so walking is a dangerous hopscotch around smears of festering mess. It can't be very friendly for the dogs, either, which are kept locked up most of the day, against their nature. 80xd35 Dogs are an environmental disaster, from the contamination of waterways from improperly disposed waste – and how long will it take for those plastic poo bags to degrade even if they're used properly? – to the harmful effects on wildlife. Dylan Dog ownership is shown to improve people's physical health, pet ownership improves mental health and many people socially benefit from pets. The frustration is those few who mistreat their pets, have too many pets, don't pick up after their pets, let their cats out to kill birds – and those who spend all their time moaning about other people's pets. But the majority, who own pets with kindness and with social benefit, shouldn't have to be judged by the minority. specklefreckle We need dogs. They take us out, even in the rain. They help us to relax. They are true friends. It would be a sad world without them. Anne Meile I'd welcome a ban on the 'exotic pet' trade. Murdomania

Britain on the brink of a 'cousin crash': Smaller families on the rise as birthrate falls - with average number of cousins dropping significantly
Britain on the brink of a 'cousin crash': Smaller families on the rise as birthrate falls - with average number of cousins dropping significantly

Daily Mail​

time6 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Britain on the brink of a 'cousin crash': Smaller families on the rise as birthrate falls - with average number of cousins dropping significantly

Britain is on the brink of a cousin crash due to declining birthrate and smaller families, according to researchers. In the 1970s, the average British teenager had seven cousins, but today they only have five. It is projected to fall to four by the end of the century. Academics Diego Alburez-Gutierrez of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, alongside fellow academics Iván Williams and Hal Caswell, have published a study on the declining numbers of cousins. They argue there will be a shift away from children growing up with lots of relatives their own age — including both siblings and cousins — to instead spending more time with grandparents and even great-grandparents. As families become older and smaller, it means cousins, who often help each other with financial, practical or emotional support, will be called upon less. And although friends are increasingly being used to fill in the role of traditional cousins, they are seen as a lot less reliable on average. Cousins often help even after years of little contact, while this happens less often with long-lost friends. This is because 'family networks are like a spider's web', according to Professor Robin Dunbar of Oxford University. The anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist, who has studied the science behind our bonds with family and friends, told the Times: 'Your relationship with your cousin is kept in place not just by your interaction with your cousin. 'But also with your interaction with any number of intervening relatives. That isn't true of friendships, which tend to be more individual and personal.' The experts point out that this change makes a marked difference for the vast majority of human history, where the majority of close relationships would overwhelmingly be made up of extended family members. The changing nature of our families' lives have been driven by freefalling birth rates, which have triggered doomsday warnings about population collapse from some. Demographers warn the lack of babies will devastate Western economies as it may leave countries with too few younger people to work, pay tax and look after the elderly. It is believed to be caused by some women prioritising their education and careers, and couples waiting to have children until later in life.. Rising costs, especially the price of childcare and housing, is another factor thought to be putting people off starting families. There is no evidence that Covid vaccines are to blame, with scientists insisting there is no proof they harm fertility. Women in England and Wales, on average, now only have 1.44 children. This is the lowest since records began in the 30s and half of levels seen during the mid-60s baby boom. Britain's fertility rate as a whole is forecasted to fall to 1.3 by 2100. The fewer babies being born on average means the less likely the average Brit is to have a squad of cousins to call upon when they need them. For some families, the changing number of cousins in just a few generations has been drastic. For example, there are many instances in recent history of Catholic families, encouraged by their faith, having well over 100 cousins. As well as being more reliable than friends, cousins also have the advantage of being more diverse. Alburez-Gutierrez argues that while people do choose their friends, they often tend to come from the same narrow social demographic, whereas cousins can be far more varied. Distant family members can often be very different, he said, pointing out the example of the stereotypical cantankerous uncle who brings up controversial topics around the Christmas dinner table. The varied nature of groups of people bound by blood often means they are more likely to get exposed to ideas or points of view that are different. Cousins often occupy a varied place within families. Some see them as close as a sibling, while others see them as strangers. Some cousins live on the same street; some live on opposite side of the world. But all cousins know what it's like to be part of the same particular family. They also have the advantage of, unlike sibling relationships, of not being fraught by intense closeness such as arguing over childhood toys or a parents' eldercare. Instead they are usually uncomplicated, even if they are closer in age and are in the same generation. The experts believe the role of grandparents are important when it comes to cousins developing a bond as children. And although cousins tend to naturally drift apart a little when grandparents die, some sense of connection is likely to remain as family members are much more obligated to say yes. The UK is not alone in facing a cousin crashing fertility crisis, with the latest figures showing that the EU also experienced a plunge last year to an all-time low. Double-digit percentage falls were recorded in Romania (13.9 per cent), Poland (10.7 per cent) and Czechia (10 per cent). Wealthy EU nations, including France and Germany, also saw significant drops. So what is behind the West's baby bust? Women worldwide, on average, are having fewer children now than previous generations. The trend, down to increased access to education and contraception, more women taking up jobs and changing attitudes towards having children, is expected to see dozens of countries' population shrink by 2100. Dr Jennifer Sciubba, author of 8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death, and Migration Shape Our World, told MailOnline that people are choosing to have smaller families and the change 'is permanent'. 'So it's wise to focus on working within this new reality rather than trying to change it,' she said. Sex education and contraception A rise in education and access to contraception is one reason behind the drop off in the global fertility rate. Education around pregnancy and contraception has increased, with sex education classes beginning in the US in the 1970s and becoming compulsory in the UK in the 1990s. 'There is an old adage that "education is the best contraception" and I think that is relevant' for explaining the decline in birth rates, said Professor Allan Pacey, an andrologist at the University of Sheffield and former chair of the British Fertility Society. Elina Pradhan, a senior health specialist at the World Bank, suggests that more educated women choose to have fewer children due to concerns about earning less when taking time off before and after giving birth. In the UK, three in 10 mothers and one in 20 fathers report having to cut back on their working hours due to childcare, according to ONS data. They may also have more exposure to different ideas on family sizes through school and connections they make during their education, encouraging them to think more critically about the number of children they want, she said. And more educated women may know more about prenatal care and child health and may have more access to healthcare, Ms Pradhan added. Professor Jonathan Portes, an economist at King's College London, said that women's greater control over their own fertility means 'households, and women in particular, both want fewer children and are able to do so'. More women entering the workplace More women are in the workplace now than they were 50 years ago — 72 vs 52 per cent — which has contributed to the global fertility rate halving over the same time period. Professor Portes also noted that the drop-off in the birth rate may also be down to the structure of labour and housing markets, expensive childcare and gender roles making it difficult for many women to combine career aspirations with having a family. The UK Government has 'implemented the most anti-family policies of any Government in living memory' by cutting services that support families, along with benefit cuts that 'deliberately punish low-income families with children', he added. As more women have entered the workplace, the age they are starting a family has been pushed back. Data from the ONS shows that the most common age for a women who were born in 1949 to give birth was 22. But women born in 1975, were most likely to have children when they were 31-years-old. In another sign that late motherhood is on the rise, half of women born in 1990, the most recent cohort to reach 30-years-old, remained childless at 30 — the highest rate recorded. Women repeatedly point to work-related reasons for putting off having children, with surveys finding that most women want to make their way further up the career ladder before conceiving. However, the move could be leading to women having fewer children than they planned. In the 1990s, just 6,700 cycles of IVF — a technique to help people with fertility problems to have a baby — took place in the UK annually. But this skyrocketed to more than 69,000 by 2019, suggesting more women are struggling to conceive naturally. Declining sperm counts Reproductive experts have also raised the alarm that biological factors, such as falling sperm counts and changes to sexual development, could 'threaten human survival'. Dr Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, authored a ground-breaking 2017 study that revealed that global sperm counts have dropped by more than half over the past four decades. She warned that 'everywhere chemicals', such as phthalates found in toiletries, food packaging and children's toys, are to blame. The chemicals cause hormonal imbalance which can trigger 'reproductive havoc', she said. Factors including smoking tobacco and marijuana and rising obesity rates may also play a role, Dr Swan said. Studies have also pointed to air pollution for dropping fertility rates, suggesting it triggers inflammation which can damage egg and sperm production. However, Professor Pacey, a sperm quality and fertility expert, said: 'I really don't think that any changes in sperm quality are responsible for the decline in birth rates. 'In fact, I do not believe the current evidence that sperm quality has declined.' He said: 'I think a much bigger issue for falling birth rates is the fact that: (a) people are choosing to have fewer children; and (b) they are waiting until they are older to have them.' Fears about bringing children into the world Choosing not to have children is cited by some scientists as the best thing a person can do for the planet, compared to cutting energy use, travel and making food choices based on their carbon footprint. Scientists at Oregon State University calculated that the each child adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the 'carbon legacy' of a woman. Each metric ton is equivalent to driving around the world's circumference. Experts say the data is discouraging the climate conscious from having babies, while others are opting-out of children due to fears around the world they will grow up in. Dr Britt Wray, a human and planetary health fellow at Stanford University, said the drop-off in fertility rates was due to a 'fear of a degraded future due to climate change'. She was one of the authors behind a Lancet study of 10,000 volunteers, which revealed four in ten young people fear bringing children into the world because of climate concerns. Professor David Coleman, emeritus professor of demography at Oxford University, told MailOnline that peoples' decision not to have children is 'understandable' due to poor conditions, such as climate change.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store