Sustainable Deer Management A Case Study Report for the Deer ...

sustainable governance of natural resources as
suggested by Dietz, Ostrom & Stern (2003)*:
to:
♦♦
Simple and cost effective monitoring and
reporting on the resource and use of the
resource by members.
♦ ♦ Enabling members to maintain frequent face
to face communications thus increasing the
potential to trust and lowering the cost of
compliance monitoring.
♦ ♦ Nurturing members support for compliance.
♦ ♦ Providing timely and objective information that
explains areas of uncertainty and tradeoffs.
♦ ♦ Dealing with conflict using a participatory
process.
♦ ♦ Providing a support infrastructure for
members.
♦ ♦ Support moderate rates of change in the
resource in response to internal and external
changing circumstance.
This process would enable the DMG membership
♦♦
Gather their own information on their
particular deer population’s welfare, landscape/
habitat/crop condition, general business
viability, wider community considerations and
use this to agree the best way forward to
achieve the greatest benefit for all concerned.
♦♦
Adapt to changing environmental, economic
and social circumstances in a timely way
through objective monitoring.
Crucially the voluntary approach would also require
a process that enabled it to deal effectively with
disagreements between members and deal with
those whose actions may significantly impact the
DMG’s ability to achieve statutory obligations and the
greatest benefits, but who do not actively engage/
co-operate with the DMG membership.
The responses from the Case Studies provide
a current snapshot of land managers views on the
various stages of the above process and displays:
1. Strong support for:
♦♦
Agreeing what information is needed to
sustainably manage the shared resource
♦♦
Clearly defined DMG boundaries
♦♦
Clear objectives which are established using
local information and reflect local constraints
and opportunities
♦♦
Measuring (deer welfare, habitat, crop damage,
business viability) and reporting back to the
DMG membership on a regular basis.
2. Agreement that added value could be derived
from:
♦♦
Agreeing membership roles to supply the
required information to the DMG
♦♦
Sourcing training/equipment if required
♦♦
Utilising NGOs & Agencies in information
gathering where applicable
♦♦
Working out how to best take account of the
views of the wider community.
♦♦
Majority of members agreeing on objectives
♦♦
Providing appropriate conditions to resolve
disagreements
♦♦
Adapting to changing circumstances
The one principle for which there was little
support or perceived value was that of developing
consequences for non-compliance of DMG
objectives/rules. (see fig. 6).
Supporting Delivery - Scottish
Rural Development Programme
At present, the Scottish Rural Development
Programme (SRDP) is the only source of public
funding to support deer management related
activities. Despite encouragement, the deer industry
has been slow to take advantage of the resources
that are now available and the Case Studies provides
a partial insight as to why this is the case.
Other than land managers seeking to expand and
establish woodlands on land with nature conservation
designations, there is little take-up by land managers
for deer management purposes.
Evidence from the case studies suggests the main
reasons for this include:
*Dietz T., Ostrom E. & Stern P. C. (2003). The Struggle to
Govern the Commons. Science, New Series, 302907-1913
8 Sustainable Deer Management • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk