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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
fig.6. Essential roles of a DMG monitor & adapt Standard monitoring methods Adapt to circumstances Provide regular reports induce Provide disagreement resolution Agree procedures for non-compliance compliance Participant priority key: essential functions functions with potential added value functions with little support Agree info needs Agree membership roles Source training Utilise agencies capacity building Agree DMG boundary Clear objectives Democratic setting of objectives Use local information Reflect local constraints Objectives acceptable to all Majority agreement of objectives develop consensus ♦♦ a lack of “deer specific” options available for land managers. ♦♦ the current payment rates are not attractive enough to justify employing external expertise. ♦♦ the application process is complex and competitive. ♦♦ the added complexity when sheep are also present on the ground: problems arise in the application process when trying to make a collaborative application. Participants generally agreed that SRDP funding could usefully support DMGs and consideration should be given to: ♦♦ Collaborative applications for multiple properties, ♦♦ Provision of training for stalkers and land managers (e.g. habitat monitoring), ♦♦ Provision of additional man-power for deer counting and stalking, ♦♦ Supporting independent counts. In negotiating changes to SRDP it is clear that any measures must demonstrate the delivery of additional tangible public benefits over and above that which might be expected as a legal duty/responsibility. However, there is a cultural hurdle to be overcome in making public funding more widely available to deer managers in exchange for the delivery of public benefits; to make this acceptable to both them and the public. 9 Sustainable Deer Management • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk
Page 1 and 2: Sustainable Deer Management A Case
Page 3 and 4: The participants were chosen to inc
Page 5 and 6: fig.3. The private and public benef
Page 7: fig.5. The SDM Process ♦ ♦ Safe
Page 11 and 12: ♦♦ enable land managers to take

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?