Sustainable Deer Management A Case Study Report for the Deer ...
Sustainable Deer Management A Case Study Report for the Deer ...
Sustainable Deer Management A Case Study Report for the Deer ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong><br />
A <strong>Case</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>Report</strong> <strong>for</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> Commission <strong>for</strong> Scotland<br />
ESTATE<br />
Key<br />
Findings<br />
DMG<br />
MONITOR<br />
R Rose March 2010
Introduction<br />
Wild deer are widespread throughout Scotland,<br />
present in woodlands, open hill and increasingly on<br />
<strong>the</strong> edges of urban areas affecting land managers and<br />
society in many different ways with associated costs<br />
and benefits.<br />
<strong>Deer</strong> management in Scotland has been primarily<br />
influenced by <strong>the</strong> fact that, in <strong>the</strong> wild, deer belong<br />
to no one until killed or captured and <strong>the</strong>y can freely<br />
cross boundaries between different land ownerships<br />
which may have differing land management<br />
objectives.<br />
As a result a collaborative approach to deer<br />
management has been developed through <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong>mation of voluntary <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Groups<br />
(DMGs) which are run by representatives of <strong>the</strong><br />
landholdings in <strong>the</strong> area to manage <strong>the</strong> local deer<br />
population as a common resource (Fig 1 – map of<br />
DMG coverage).<br />
DMG’s cover most of <strong>the</strong> red deer range in <strong>the</strong><br />
uplands but little of <strong>the</strong> area of <strong>the</strong> lowlands where<br />
roe deer predominate. These arrangements have<br />
been effective in some areas where <strong>the</strong>re are similar<br />
private objectives amongst land managers. However,<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is general agreement that in <strong>the</strong>ir current <strong>for</strong>m<br />
<strong>the</strong>y struggle to address or resolve conflicting private<br />
objectives or to deliver multiple public benefits.<br />
Partly in response to this, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> Commission<br />
<strong>for</strong> Scotland (DCS) has to focus resources on<br />
specific geographical locations where deer are<br />
having a detrimental impact on <strong>the</strong> natural heritage,<br />
agriculture or public safety. This essentially reactive<br />
approach to deer management problems is expensive<br />
and is regarded as a temporary stop-gap in a longerterm<br />
proactive approach to sustainable deer<br />
management (SDM).<br />
In order to in<strong>for</strong>m a more proactive approach, <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Project, governed by<br />
a Steering Group with representation from Forestry<br />
Commission Scotland (FCS), Scottish Natural<br />
Heritage (SNH), DCS and <strong>the</strong> Association of <strong>Deer</strong><br />
DMGs<br />
<strong>Case</strong> <strong>Study</strong><br />
areas<br />
Fig.1. <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Group map<br />
<strong>Management</strong> Groups (ADMG), has been working<br />
over <strong>the</strong> last 20 months to better understand what<br />
local and national <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong><br />
(SDM) looks like.<br />
W Su<strong>the</strong>rland E Su<strong>the</strong>rland<br />
Through one-to-one meetings with over 90<br />
landowners, factors, stalkers, non-government<br />
organisations (NGOs) and community councillors <strong>the</strong><br />
project has sought to:<br />
S Perthshire<br />
Borders<br />
♦♦<br />
improve understanding of what SDM is and<br />
identify aspects that can be quantified,<br />
♦♦<br />
articulate both <strong>the</strong> private and public interest<br />
delivered through SDM,<br />
♦♦<br />
understand and improve <strong>the</strong> role of DMGs<br />
and land managers in delivering SDM and <strong>the</strong><br />
decision-making processes behind delivery,<br />
♦♦<br />
consider appropriate management mechanisms<br />
and support tools to underpin delivery of SDM.<br />
2 <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk
The participants were chosen to include views from<br />
all over Scotland, ranging from <strong>the</strong> traditional open<br />
hill deer <strong>for</strong>est of <strong>the</strong> highlands, grouse moors and<br />
<strong>for</strong>ests to <strong>the</strong> lowlands near cities (see fig.1).<br />
2. Key Findings<br />
Evaluating <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong><br />
management<br />
To fully understand what sustainable deer<br />
management is and what it looks like, a range of<br />
criteria were developed and identified <strong>for</strong> participants<br />
to consider. These ranged across <strong>the</strong> 3 pillars of<br />
sustainability – environmental criteria, economic<br />
criteria and social criteria and also included some<br />
cross cutting <strong>the</strong>mes considered essential <strong>for</strong> delivery<br />
(refer to annex on p.12 <strong>for</strong> list of criteria used).<br />
Participants were asked to consider those criteria<br />
which best described what <strong>the</strong>y considered to be<br />
<strong>the</strong> key deer management objectives needed to make<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir land management sustainable and describe how<br />
<strong>the</strong>y measure if <strong>the</strong>se are being achieved or not.<br />
The results have been analysed, ranked and<br />
evaluated at <strong>the</strong> local and national scale. The results<br />
demonstrate a range of relative importance of <strong>the</strong><br />
criteria identified <strong>for</strong> each <strong>Case</strong> <strong>Study</strong> area which<br />
helps illustrate <strong>the</strong> way deer are regarded <strong>for</strong> a given<br />
locality. Comparisons of <strong>the</strong> relative importance<br />
of criteria between sites allows consideration and<br />
evaluation of what SDM could look like on both a<br />
local and national scale.<br />
For instance, <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>estry sector in case study no.1<br />
is very focused on a few key economic, technical and<br />
environmental criteria to achieve SDM and attaches<br />
less importance to <strong>the</strong> social elements.<br />
To consider <strong>the</strong> key elements of SDM on a national<br />
scale, <strong>the</strong>re were five criteria which consistently<br />
came top of <strong>the</strong> list across all <strong>the</strong> case studies. (see<br />
fig.2.)<br />
♦ ♦ Safeguard Welfare of all deer species.<br />
Welfare issues ranged from deer health<br />
through to minimising suffering associated<br />
with road traffic accidents (RTAs), poaching<br />
etc. and <strong>the</strong> relative importance of each varied<br />
depending on locale<br />
♦♦<br />
Conserve/Enhance Biodiversity. The<br />
importance of conserving biodiversity was a<br />
given, particularly within <strong>the</strong> semi-natural and<br />
more extensively managed landscapes.<br />
♦♦<br />
Maintain balanced integration between<br />
agriculture, <strong>for</strong>estry & natural heritage.<br />
<strong>Deer</strong> management was always considered<br />
in <strong>the</strong> context of <strong>the</strong> main land uses of <strong>the</strong><br />
landholding with <strong>the</strong> aim of achieving maximum<br />
net benefit across all <strong>the</strong> different parts.<br />
♦♦<br />
Minimise costs associated with Wild <strong>Deer</strong>.<br />
Costs were associated with damage to crops/<br />
habitat, employing professional deer managers,<br />
developing/maintaining infrastructure<br />
♦♦<br />
<strong>Deer</strong> management is proactive and to<br />
an industry recognised standard (Best<br />
Practice).<br />
However, in analysing a limited number of case<br />
studies in this way, we may fail to pick up on<br />
nationally important criteria which are site specific<br />
e.g Securing favourable condition of designated sites<br />
was always deemed essential if an SSSI or similar was<br />
on a landholding but o<strong>the</strong>rwise was considered less<br />
important.<br />
Private and Public Benefit<br />
Associated with <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong><br />
management<br />
The <strong>Case</strong> Studies enabled comparison of SDM in<br />
differing local contexts and circumstances which<br />
allowed comparisons between areas where deer<br />
management is considered <strong>the</strong> main land use<br />
as opposed to areas where deer are managed<br />
to minimise negative impacts on o<strong>the</strong>r land use<br />
objectives.<br />
3 <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk
fig.2. Key elements of SDM<br />
♦♦<br />
<strong>Deer</strong> management<br />
is proactive<br />
♦ ♦ Safeguard deer<br />
welfare<br />
♦♦<br />
Conserve/enhance<br />
biodiversity<br />
♦♦<br />
Maintain balanced integration<br />
between agriculture, <strong>for</strong>estry<br />
and natual heritage<br />
♦♦<br />
Minimise costs associated<br />
with deer management<br />
In all cases <strong>the</strong>re was a blend of economic,<br />
recreational and aes<strong>the</strong>tic benefit associated with<br />
delivery of SDM, <strong>the</strong> relative value of each, differing<br />
between sites and to a lesser extent between<br />
individuals within each site. (see fig.3.)<br />
Most of <strong>the</strong> public funding which currently<br />
supports deer management is ei<strong>the</strong>r associated<br />
with improving <strong>the</strong> condition of designated sites or<br />
paid to support woodland establishment. Over <strong>the</strong><br />
remainder of Scotland, any public benefit currently<br />
associated with deer and <strong>the</strong>ir management is a<br />
by-product of private sector land management<br />
aspirations. Evidence from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Case</strong> Studies<br />
demonstrates that nurturing <strong>the</strong> SDM process will<br />
ensure continued and enhanced contributions to <strong>the</strong><br />
outcomes of a broad spectrum of National Strategies<br />
and provide additional site-specific public benefits.<br />
Delivering SDM through<br />
Collaboration<br />
There is general agreement from <strong>the</strong> majority of<br />
participants that DMGs are a good concept, which<br />
allow co-ordination and flow of relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
and discussion on how to manage a common<br />
land resource - but <strong>the</strong>y could do more - and<br />
participants recognised that <strong>the</strong> voluntary system<br />
has its limitations. For instance, it can be difficult to<br />
achieve consensus amongst members, DMG’s are<br />
not regarded as decision-making bodies and are<br />
weakened by non-attendance of some land managers.<br />
To support sustainable deer management, DMGs<br />
have to carry out certain functions and take on<br />
specific roles which enable members to manage <strong>the</strong><br />
shared resource of deer and <strong>the</strong> landscape on which<br />
<strong>the</strong>y reside. After a wide ranging literature review on<br />
this subject, participants were asked to consider a list<br />
of 16 key roles of a DMG. Interviewees were asked<br />
to record which <strong>the</strong>y regarded as <strong>the</strong> most important<br />
<strong>for</strong> attaining sustainable management of <strong>the</strong> deer<br />
resource in <strong>the</strong>ir area, and also which functions <strong>the</strong>y<br />
did not consider essential, but that would lead to<br />
additional benefit if attained. (see fig.4).<br />
4 <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk
fig.3. The private and public<br />
benefits of SDM<br />
key:<br />
A Ensure skills,<br />
knowledge and<br />
training development<br />
to manage deer<br />
B Native deer are<br />
recognised as an<br />
iconic species and an<br />
asset<br />
C Conserve/enhance<br />
biodiversity<br />
D Guided by a <strong>Deer</strong><br />
<strong>Management</strong><br />
Plan and Policy<br />
Document<br />
E <strong>Deer</strong> management<br />
is proactive and to a<br />
industry recognised<br />
standard (BP)<br />
F Develop <strong>the</strong> market<br />
and supply chain <strong>for</strong><br />
venison<br />
G Secure favourable<br />
condition of<br />
designated sites<br />
H Safeguard welfare of<br />
all deer species<br />
I Provide security <strong>for</strong><br />
jobs of good quality<br />
J Maintain balanced<br />
age structure across<br />
<strong>the</strong> age profile<br />
K Minimise costs<br />
associated with wild<br />
deer<br />
H<br />
G<br />
I<br />
F<br />
community<br />
L Maintain balanced<br />
integration between<br />
agriculture, <strong>for</strong>estry<br />
& natural heritage<br />
M Ensure estate<br />
viability<br />
N <strong>Deer</strong> management<br />
assists achievement<br />
of multiple land<br />
management<br />
objectives<br />
O Minimise negative<br />
impacts of deer in/<br />
around communities<br />
P Contribute to<br />
safe and healthy<br />
environment <strong>for</strong><br />
people<br />
J<br />
82<br />
64 64 100<br />
73<br />
73<br />
91<br />
73 91<br />
82<br />
D<br />
E<br />
N<br />
M<br />
C<br />
A<br />
F<br />
L<br />
46<br />
42<br />
58<br />
B<br />
C<br />
A<br />
42 33<br />
67<br />
83<br />
H<br />
92<br />
J<br />
D<br />
88<br />
K<br />
88<br />
F<br />
P<br />
O<br />
53 53<br />
66<br />
66<br />
66<br />
73<br />
B<br />
E<br />
D<br />
<strong>for</strong>estry<br />
93<br />
80<br />
A<br />
87<br />
87<br />
E<br />
lowland<br />
colour key:<br />
H<br />
L<br />
common to all<br />
common to some<br />
uncommon<br />
These pie charts<br />
illustrate <strong>the</strong> top<br />
10 ranked benefits<br />
of SDM listed by<br />
participants in 3 case<br />
studies<br />
3. CONCLUSIONS<br />
Evaluating <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> management<br />
Despite <strong>the</strong> fact that deer management objectives<br />
and techniques change with factors like geology,<br />
geography, land use, estate size, and resident deer<br />
species, five objectives consistently came top of <strong>the</strong><br />
list across all of <strong>the</strong> case studies.<br />
This suggests that <strong>the</strong>re is wide ranging support<br />
across <strong>the</strong> Scottish deer industry <strong>for</strong> “strong”<br />
sustainable development where <strong>the</strong> limitations of<br />
land are identified, and understood. Consequently<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is broad agreement between both <strong>the</strong> private<br />
sector and government on <strong>the</strong> key environmental and<br />
economic objectives associated with SDM.<br />
♦ ♦ Safeguard deer welfare<br />
♦♦<br />
Conserve/enhance biodiveristy<br />
♦♦<br />
Maintain balanced integration between<br />
agriculture, <strong>for</strong>estry and natural heritage<br />
♦♦<br />
Minmise costs associated with deer<br />
management.<br />
These are delivered and based on <strong>the</strong> premise that<br />
any deer management activity should be carried out<br />
proactively and to an industry recognised standard<br />
(Best Practice). These sentiments are reflected in <strong>the</strong><br />
Wild <strong>Deer</strong>: A National Approach (2008).<br />
However, <strong>the</strong>re is evidence to suggest that<br />
although <strong>the</strong> private sector has regard <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> social<br />
benefits which are relevant <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir locality, <strong>the</strong>y<br />
tend not to attach as much importance to <strong>the</strong>m as<br />
<strong>the</strong> costs attached to <strong>the</strong>ir achievement outweighs<br />
any private benefit.<br />
To deliver on both a local and a national scale and<br />
in <strong>the</strong> long-term, <strong>the</strong> objectives of SDM are only one<br />
part of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> process.<br />
5 <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk
fig.4. Essential roles of a DMG<br />
monitor<br />
& adapt<br />
Use standard monitoring<br />
methods<br />
Provide regular reports to<br />
DMG members<br />
induce<br />
compliance<br />
Agree what in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
is needed to manage <strong>the</strong><br />
deer sustainably<br />
capacity building<br />
Agree DMG boundary<br />
DMG to have a clear set of<br />
objectives<br />
Use local in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
Reflect local constraints &<br />
opportunities<br />
develop consensus<br />
This process requires an ability <strong>for</strong> all land mangers<br />
to adapt to changing circumstances (environmental,<br />
economic and social) through objective monitoring<br />
and if required adopt a change of management<br />
prescriptions.<br />
Since deer can move freely across land ownership<br />
boundaries, it is more appropriate <strong>for</strong> SDM to be<br />
measured at a suitably large spatial scale where<br />
deer and <strong>the</strong> landscape within which <strong>the</strong>y exist can<br />
be considered to be a shared resource. Delivery of<br />
SDM will require land managers, DMGs and Agencies<br />
to agree <strong>the</strong> scale, identify <strong>the</strong>ir particular role in<br />
<strong>the</strong> process and recognise that <strong>the</strong> current lack of<br />
objective monitoring of deer impacts on habitats or<br />
crops, habitat condition or business viability at <strong>the</strong><br />
individual land unit level has a significant detrimental<br />
knock on effect on this process. (see fig.5).<br />
Ideally <strong>the</strong> process would enable land managers<br />
to pursue land use objectives into <strong>the</strong> long-term<br />
with <strong>the</strong> minimum of bureaucracy by satisfying<br />
government agencies that public benefit is<br />
secured. Development of a code of sustainable<br />
deer management, which identifies and agrees <strong>the</strong><br />
minimum standards <strong>for</strong> a range of public benefits,<br />
will assist this process. However until such times<br />
as agreed standards are developed and assigned<br />
to differing habitats and landscapes and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
associated public benefits identified in this report, it<br />
will be difficult to measure if SDM is being delivered<br />
in any given location.<br />
6 <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk
fig.5. The SDM Process<br />
♦ ♦ Safeguard <strong>Deer</strong> Welfare<br />
♦♦<br />
Conserve/Enhance Biodiveristy<br />
♦♦<br />
Maintain balanced integration between<br />
agriculture, <strong>for</strong>estry and natual heritage<br />
♦♦<br />
Minimise costs associated with <strong>Deer</strong><br />
management<br />
LEARN<br />
participate<br />
YES<br />
pass on<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
to DMG<br />
YES<br />
measure if<br />
objectives are<br />
being achieved<br />
YES/NO<br />
NO<br />
LEARN<br />
&<br />
ADAPT<br />
NO<br />
measure<br />
if DMG<br />
objectives are<br />
being achieved<br />
YES<br />
NO<br />
co-operate<br />
with DMG<br />
membership<br />
Private and Public Benefit<br />
Associated with <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong><br />
management<br />
Whilst it is relatively easy to present broad-brush<br />
statements describing <strong>the</strong> private and public benefits<br />
associated with SDM in each <strong>Case</strong> <strong>Study</strong> area we<br />
are currently unable to take this any fur<strong>the</strong>r and<br />
complete any meaningful detailed cost-benefit<br />
analysis. In order to do this we would need to<br />
allocate monetary values to <strong>the</strong> benefits associated<br />
with <strong>the</strong> cultural and environmental benefits, such<br />
as ecosystem services. This would require <strong>the</strong><br />
development of suitable indicators with allocated<br />
standards to measure against. Such in<strong>for</strong>mation is<br />
important <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> SDM decision-making process to<br />
enable amongst o<strong>the</strong>r things:<br />
♦♦<br />
The development of a fiscal incentive scheme<br />
which is both attractive to <strong>the</strong> private sector<br />
and identifies <strong>the</strong> additional public benefits<br />
(environmental, economic, social) which are<br />
being bought by <strong>the</strong> public purse.<br />
♦♦<br />
A credible calculation of <strong>the</strong> trade-offs<br />
associated with environmental and socioeconomic<br />
impacts of deer management.<br />
♦♦<br />
Adaptive management by deer managers<br />
through <strong>the</strong> development and use of support<br />
tools which allows <strong>the</strong> integration of biological,<br />
social, economic and institutional in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
<strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Groups<br />
If voluntary DMGs are to remain <strong>the</strong> main institution<br />
to facilitate and deliver SDM in Scotland, <strong>the</strong>y need<br />
to adopt <strong>the</strong> characteristics and principles which<br />
are generally deemed important <strong>for</strong> long-term<br />
7 <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk
sustainable governance of natural resources as<br />
suggested by Dietz, Ostrom & Stern (2003)*:<br />
to:<br />
♦♦<br />
Simple and cost effective monitoring and<br />
reporting on <strong>the</strong> resource and use of <strong>the</strong><br />
resource by members.<br />
♦ ♦ Enabling members to maintain frequent face<br />
to face communications thus increasing <strong>the</strong><br />
potential to trust and lowering <strong>the</strong> cost of<br />
compliance monitoring.<br />
♦ ♦ Nurturing members support <strong>for</strong> compliance.<br />
♦ ♦ Providing timely and objective in<strong>for</strong>mation that<br />
explains areas of uncertainty and tradeoffs.<br />
♦ ♦ Dealing with conflict using a participatory<br />
process.<br />
♦ ♦ Providing a support infrastructure <strong>for</strong><br />
members.<br />
♦ ♦ Support moderate rates of change in <strong>the</strong><br />
resource in response to internal and external<br />
changing circumstance.<br />
This process would enable <strong>the</strong> DMG membership<br />
♦♦<br />
Ga<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>ir own in<strong>for</strong>mation on <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
particular deer population’s welfare, landscape/<br />
habitat/crop condition, general business<br />
viability, wider community considerations and<br />
use this to agree <strong>the</strong> best way <strong>for</strong>ward to<br />
achieve <strong>the</strong> greatest benefit <strong>for</strong> all concerned.<br />
♦♦<br />
Adapt to changing environmental, economic<br />
and social circumstances in a timely way<br />
through objective monitoring.<br />
Crucially <strong>the</strong> voluntary approach would also require<br />
a process that enabled it to deal effectively with<br />
disagreements between members and deal with<br />
those whose actions may significantly impact <strong>the</strong><br />
DMG’s ability to achieve statutory obligations and <strong>the</strong><br />
greatest benefits, but who do not actively engage/<br />
co-operate with <strong>the</strong> DMG membership.<br />
The responses from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Case</strong> Studies provide<br />
a current snapshot of land managers views on <strong>the</strong><br />
various stages of <strong>the</strong> above process and displays:<br />
1. Strong support <strong>for</strong>:<br />
♦♦<br />
Agreeing what in<strong>for</strong>mation is needed to<br />
sustainably manage <strong>the</strong> shared resource<br />
♦♦<br />
Clearly defined DMG boundaries<br />
♦♦<br />
Clear objectives which are established using<br />
local in<strong>for</strong>mation and reflect local constraints<br />
and opportunities<br />
♦♦<br />
Measuring (deer welfare, habitat, crop damage,<br />
business viability) and reporting back to <strong>the</strong><br />
DMG membership on a regular basis.<br />
2. Agreement that added value could be derived<br />
from:<br />
♦♦<br />
Agreeing membership roles to supply <strong>the</strong><br />
required in<strong>for</strong>mation to <strong>the</strong> DMG<br />
♦♦<br />
Sourcing training/equipment if required<br />
♦♦<br />
Utilising NGOs & Agencies in in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
ga<strong>the</strong>ring where applicable<br />
♦♦<br />
Working out how to best take account of <strong>the</strong><br />
views of <strong>the</strong> wider community.<br />
♦♦<br />
Majority of members agreeing on objectives<br />
♦♦<br />
Providing appropriate conditions to resolve<br />
disagreements<br />
♦♦<br />
Adapting to changing circumstances<br />
The one principle <strong>for</strong> which <strong>the</strong>re was little<br />
support or perceived value was that of developing<br />
consequences <strong>for</strong> non-compliance of DMG<br />
objectives/rules. (see fig. 6).<br />
Supporting Delivery - Scottish<br />
Rural Development Programme<br />
At present, <strong>the</strong> Scottish Rural Development<br />
Programme (SRDP) is <strong>the</strong> only source of public<br />
funding to support deer management related<br />
activities. Despite encouragement, <strong>the</strong> deer industry<br />
has been slow to take advantage of <strong>the</strong> resources<br />
that are now available and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Case</strong> Studies provides<br />
a partial insight as to why this is <strong>the</strong> case.<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r than land managers seeking to expand and<br />
establish woodlands on land with nature conservation<br />
designations, <strong>the</strong>re is little take-up by land managers<br />
<strong>for</strong> deer management purposes.<br />
Evidence from <strong>the</strong> case studies suggests <strong>the</strong> main<br />
reasons <strong>for</strong> this include:<br />
*Dietz T., Ostrom E. & Stern P. C. (2003). The Struggle to<br />
Govern <strong>the</strong> Commons. Science, New Series, 302907-1913<br />
8 <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk
fig.6. Essential roles of a DMG<br />
monitor<br />
& adapt<br />
Standard monitoring methods<br />
Adapt to circumstances<br />
Provide regular reports<br />
induce<br />
Provide disagreement<br />
resolution<br />
Agree procedures <strong>for</strong><br />
non-compliance<br />
compliance<br />
Participant priority key:<br />
essential functions<br />
functions with potential added value<br />
functions with little support<br />
Agree info needs<br />
Agree membership roles<br />
Source training<br />
Utilise agencies<br />
capacity building<br />
Agree DMG boundary<br />
Clear objectives<br />
Democratic setting of objectives<br />
Use local in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
Reflect local constraints<br />
Objectives acceptable to all<br />
Majority agreement of objectives<br />
develop consensus<br />
♦♦<br />
a lack of “deer specific” options available <strong>for</strong><br />
land managers.<br />
♦♦<br />
<strong>the</strong> current payment rates are not attractive<br />
enough to justify employing external expertise.<br />
♦♦<br />
<strong>the</strong> application process is complex and<br />
competitive.<br />
♦♦<br />
<strong>the</strong> added complexity when sheep are also<br />
present on <strong>the</strong> ground: problems arise in <strong>the</strong><br />
application process when trying to make a<br />
collaborative application.<br />
Participants generally agreed that SRDP funding<br />
could usefully support DMGs and consideration<br />
should be given to:<br />
♦♦<br />
Collaborative applications <strong>for</strong> multiple<br />
properties,<br />
♦♦<br />
Provision of training <strong>for</strong> stalkers and land<br />
managers (e.g. habitat monitoring),<br />
♦♦<br />
Provision of additional man-power <strong>for</strong> deer<br />
counting and stalking,<br />
♦♦<br />
Supporting independent counts.<br />
In negotiating changes to SRDP it is clear that any<br />
measures must demonstrate <strong>the</strong> delivery of additional<br />
tangible public benefits over and above that which<br />
might be expected as a legal duty/responsibility.<br />
However, <strong>the</strong>re is a cultural hurdle to be<br />
overcome in making public funding more widely<br />
available to deer managers in exchange <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
delivery of public benefits; to make this acceptable to<br />
both <strong>the</strong>m and <strong>the</strong> public.<br />
9 <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk
4. NEXT STEPS<br />
Since SDM has <strong>the</strong> potential to positively contribute<br />
to <strong>the</strong> outcomes of a broad spectrum of National<br />
Strategies and provide additional site-specific public<br />
benefits it would be appropriate <strong>for</strong> government to<br />
consider options <strong>for</strong> supporting <strong>the</strong> process.<br />
It would be appropriate <strong>for</strong> government to<br />
consider options <strong>for</strong> supporting each of <strong>the</strong> key<br />
stages of <strong>the</strong> SDM process utilising an appropriate<br />
blend of providing in<strong>for</strong>mation, advice and training;<br />
promoting voluntary agreements, imposing<br />
regulation, use of financial instruments (incentives<br />
through to taxes), creating new markets and<br />
instigating relevant research.<br />
The cross-cutting objective must be to promote<br />
<strong>the</strong> role land managers play as individuals and as<br />
members of a DMG, and where appropriate assist<br />
<strong>the</strong>m to fulfil <strong>the</strong>ir role. One option would be <strong>the</strong><br />
development of an interactive web based tool to<br />
provide advice, in<strong>for</strong>mation, guidance on individual<br />
roles and actions required of <strong>the</strong>m and how <strong>the</strong>y<br />
might best go about per<strong>for</strong>ming <strong>the</strong>se actions.<br />
Evaluating <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong><br />
management<br />
Evidence from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Case</strong> Studies suggests that land<br />
managers are already incentivised to attain most of<br />
<strong>the</strong> economic and environmental criteria described<br />
as nationally important in <strong>the</strong> recently published<br />
Scotland’s Wild <strong>Deer</strong>: A National Approach (wDNA).<br />
This project, in addition to <strong>the</strong> legislative review of<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> (Scotland) Act 1996, has highlighted that<br />
deer managers, individually and collectively, would<br />
benefit from <strong>the</strong> provision of better in<strong>for</strong>mation,<br />
advice and guidance on <strong>the</strong>ir individual roles and how<br />
<strong>the</strong>y might best go about per<strong>for</strong>ming <strong>the</strong>se actions.<br />
It is also clear that certain objectives listed in <strong>the</strong><br />
wDNA which were considered in this study to be<br />
of additional benefit and could produce added value<br />
with government assistance:<br />
♦ ♦ Ensure skills, knowledge and training<br />
development to manage deer.<br />
♦♦<br />
Develop <strong>the</strong> market and supply chain <strong>for</strong><br />
venison.<br />
In addition <strong>the</strong> social benefits of SDM were<br />
consistently considered as desirable across all sites.<br />
Hence, land managers/DMGs may also benefit from<br />
advice on communicating with <strong>the</strong> local community<br />
through <strong>the</strong> development of best practice guidance.<br />
Since SDM is a process ra<strong>the</strong>r than an endpoint <strong>the</strong><br />
Code of Practice <strong>for</strong> responsible deer management<br />
proposed under <strong>the</strong> Wildlife & Natural Environment<br />
Bill Consultation, will assist <strong>the</strong> development of<br />
criteria based indicators which can be readily<br />
measured by land managers. These indicators will<br />
need to be robust and accepted by land managers,<br />
yet relatively easy and cheap to attain. The standards<br />
attached to <strong>the</strong>se indicators would <strong>the</strong>n provide <strong>the</strong><br />
“goal posts” <strong>for</strong> land managers to measure success/<br />
failure against on a local basis and satisfy government<br />
agencies that land is being managed sustainably.<br />
Scottish Rural Development<br />
Programme<br />
The Scottish Government and Association of <strong>Deer</strong><br />
<strong>Management</strong> Groups (ADMG) should seek to<br />
influence SRDP measures to support collaborative<br />
planning and local capacity building.<br />
Consideration will also have to be given to how<br />
<strong>the</strong>se measures relate to cross-compliance and <strong>the</strong><br />
legislative framework being proposed to bolster <strong>the</strong><br />
voluntary DMG approach.<br />
<strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Groups<br />
Scottish Government, in partnership with <strong>the</strong> ADMG<br />
and <strong>the</strong>ir membership, need to ensure that right<br />
blend of “carrot and stick” will:<br />
♦ ♦ minimise government regulation and<br />
bureaucracy<br />
♦ ♦ encourage <strong>the</strong> DMG membership to develop<br />
<strong>the</strong> necessary capacity<br />
10 <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk
♦♦<br />
enable land managers to take “ownership”<br />
of <strong>the</strong> in<strong>for</strong>mation and various processes<br />
associated with SDM.<br />
As such, government advice, in<strong>for</strong>mation, training<br />
and fiscal incentive should focus on developing local<br />
capacity, with particular emphasis on those parts of<br />
<strong>the</strong> process where <strong>the</strong>re is most potential to achieve<br />
added value.<br />
Some important DMG functions cannot easily be<br />
allocated to any one person within <strong>the</strong> membership<br />
to per<strong>for</strong>m and since DMGs are run on a voluntary<br />
basis, most office bearers have full-time jobs and<br />
may have difficulty in providing <strong>the</strong> additional focus,<br />
energy and time required to improve <strong>the</strong> DMG<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance. In such cases, DCS staff will aim<br />
to provide direct support to DMG’s to focus on<br />
supporting <strong>the</strong> implementation of those functions<br />
which were consistently considered difficult to<br />
achieve in practice as a consequence of requiring<br />
additional input in time or resources.<br />
However, in addition and in order <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> voluntary<br />
approach to successfully deliver SDM, certain key<br />
DMG functions need to be backed up by legislation<br />
to make sure that <strong>the</strong>y can:<br />
♦♦<br />
Deal effectively with those whose actions<br />
may significantly impact on a DMG’s ability to<br />
achieve <strong>the</strong> greatest benefit, but who do not<br />
actively engage/co-operate with <strong>the</strong> DMG<br />
membership.<br />
♦♦<br />
Deal effectively with disagreements between<br />
members with a recognised arbitration<br />
process.<br />
If a significant deer issue arose in a locale with no<br />
established DMG, an independent panel or facilitator<br />
would also have an important role in identifying key<br />
stakeholders, collating in<strong>for</strong>mation on <strong>the</strong> relevant<br />
local “deer-human-landscape” interactions and act as<br />
a catalyst to bring about practical long-term solutions.<br />
This type of facilitation to allow conflict resolution<br />
to take place must be seen to be independent,<br />
trustworthy, knowledgeable of <strong>the</strong> processes<br />
involved and be able to listen to and reflect on<br />
<strong>the</strong> desires of <strong>the</strong> DMG membership. This type<br />
of approach is being actively pursued through <strong>the</strong><br />
developing proposals within <strong>the</strong> Wildlife And Natural<br />
Environment Bill.<br />
11 <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk
For ease of interpretation <strong>the</strong> 38 criteria which<br />
have been developed <strong>for</strong> evaluating SDM can be<br />
considered under four broad headings;<br />
Environmental (12)<br />
♦ ♦ Safeguard Welfare of all deer species<br />
♦ ♦ Minimise spread of non-native species<br />
♦ ♦ Secure Favourable Condition of Designated<br />
Sites<br />
♦ ♦ Conserve/Enhance Biodiversity<br />
♦ ♦ Secure Favourable Condition of Nondesignated<br />
Sites<br />
♦ ♦ Mitigation/Adaptation to Climate Change<br />
♦ ♦ Conserve and enhance <strong>the</strong> cultural and historic<br />
environment<br />
♦ ♦ Implement precautionary measures, such as<br />
<strong>for</strong>est habitat network creation.<br />
♦ ♦ Increase <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>for</strong>estry in environmental<br />
protection including sustainable flood and<br />
catchment management and soil protection<br />
♦ ♦ Increase long-term carbon retention in<br />
woodlands through low impact silvicultural<br />
systems, promoting woodland regeneration<br />
(e.g. by managing grazing pressure)<br />
♦ ♦ Encourage <strong>the</strong> development and monitoring<br />
of short rotation coppice and short rotation<br />
<strong>for</strong>estry on appropriate sites.<br />
♦ ♦ Native deer are recognised as an iconic species<br />
and an asset<br />
Economic (16)<br />
♦ ♦ Increase Economic Opportunities Assoc. with<br />
Wild <strong>Deer</strong><br />
♦ ♦ Minimise Costs Assoc. with Wild <strong>Deer</strong><br />
♦ ♦ Develop <strong>the</strong> market and supply chain <strong>for</strong><br />
venison<br />
♦ ♦ Contribute to Social and Economic<br />
Development of Communities<br />
♦ ♦ Maintain balanced integration between<br />
agriculture, <strong>for</strong>estry & natural heritage<br />
♦ ♦ <strong>Deer</strong> management assists achievement of<br />
multiple land management objectives<br />
♦ ♦ Provide security <strong>for</strong> jobs of good quality<br />
♦ ♦ Satisfy demands of various types of sporting<br />
client<br />
♦ ♦ Maintain balanced age structure across <strong>the</strong> age<br />
profile<br />
♦ ♦ Maintain/improve <strong>the</strong> long-term capital value<br />
of estate/property<br />
♦ ♦ Contribute to a financially self-sufficient<br />
business plan where asset value is maintained<br />
♦ ♦ Ensure estate viability.<br />
♦ ♦ Appropriate proportion of tourism income<br />
comes into <strong>the</strong> estate<br />
♦ ♦ Enable Diversification of income e.g. green<br />
tourism, accommodation etc.<br />
♦ ♦ Non-economic benefits associated with deer<br />
outweigh <strong>the</strong> net cost of <strong>the</strong>ir management<br />
♦ ♦ Retain natural winter mortality to a minimum<br />
through provision of food & shelter<br />
Social (7)<br />
♦ ♦ Increase Participation in <strong>Management</strong> and<br />
Enjoyment of Wild <strong>Deer</strong><br />
♦ ♦ Contribute to Safe and Healthy Environment<br />
<strong>for</strong> People<br />
♦ ♦ Minimise Negative Impacts of <strong>Deer</strong> in/around<br />
Communities<br />
♦ ♦ <strong>Deer</strong> Encourage <strong>the</strong> Participation of<br />
Responsible Outdoor Recreation<br />
♦ ♦ Community well in<strong>for</strong>med on all aspects of<br />
deer management<br />
♦ ♦ Community appreciates <strong>the</strong> benefit associated<br />
with deer and <strong>the</strong>ir management<br />
♦ ♦ Community proactively educated by <strong>the</strong> deer<br />
sector<br />
Technical (3)<br />
♦ ♦ Guided by a <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Plan and Policy<br />
Document<br />
♦ ♦ <strong>Deer</strong> management is proactive and to a<br />
industry recognised standard (BP)<br />
♦ ♦ Ensure skills, knowledge and training<br />
development to manage deer<br />
12 <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Deer</strong> <strong>Management</strong> • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk