« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Annex 7 Original NGF Recommendations
The recommendations are grouped in order in which the relevant policy issues are considered in this report.
SECTION 2 - PVA and Review of Populations
Recommendation 1: Subject to improved monitoring of the population and of mortality from hunting, additional shooting of Icelandic pink-footed geese would be acceptable.
Recommendation 2: Increased mortality from hunting in the Icelandic greylag goose population should be avoided, and monitoring of current hunting mortality and population levels should be co-ordinated.
Recommendation 3: Where required to support local management activity shooting of Greenland barnacle geese may be authorised, under licence. Initially additional mortality should not exceed 5% per annum of the current population.
Recommendation 4: Shooting may be licensed across the range of the population or targeted at specific areas, with a view to reducing local concentrations and encouraging wider geographic dispersal of the population in winter.
Recommendation 5: Where necessary to prevent serious damage to agriculture, licensed shooting of Svalbard barnacle geese should continue to be permitted.
Recommendation 6: The position should be regularly reviewed in view of the improving conservation status of the population and further population viability analyses and risk assessment work should be commissioned for this population, to inform consideration of future changes in policy.
Recommendation 7: Where necessary to prevent serious damage to agriculture, licensed shooting of Greenland white-fronted geese should continue to be permitted. The position should be regularly reviewed.
Recommendation 8: No alteration to the protective regime for native greylag geese and naturalised greylag geese is required.
Recommendation 9: No alteration to the protective regime for Taiga bean geese is required.
Recommendation 10: Canada geese may continue to be hunted or shot under licence where there is serious damage to agriculture.
Recommendation 12: The National Policy Framework should be implemented in co-operation with other countries with common interests in the relevant goose populations.
Recommendation 29: That, subject to ACPOS' views, annual monitoring of hunting mortality of geese should be undertaken by means of surveying a sample of shotgun certificate holders in order to establish the numbers of quarry geese shot in UK each winter.
Recommendation 30: That a more comprehensive survey of shotgun certificate holders should be carried out every 5 years.
Recommendation 31: That Ministers consider instituting a compulsory requirement on overseas shooters, and possibly their sponsors, to submit a return on the numbers and species shot while visiting UK.
Recommendation 32: That Ministers approve the commissioning of a monitoring programme to cover the relevant goose populations in the 5 years following implementation of the NPF. Subsequent monitoring should be subject to periodic review in line with management changes ( LGMS) and the extent and nature of local goose management schemes. The programme should include regular monitoring of populations where shooting is permitted as part of an LGMS and, in particular, include a full annual census of the Greenland population of barnacle geese. It should also include further work on Population Viability Analyses and risk assessments as considered appropriate by the Review Body, including risk assessments for the various populations falling below a variety of thresholds within the 20-30,000 range.
SECTION 3 Legal status, licensing, compliance monitoring
Recommendation 11: No amendment to national or international legislation is required at present, provided that the recommendations for the population management through the licensing system are acceptable to the European Commission. Changes to legislation should, however, be reconsidered if monitoring of goose populations indicates that their conservation status would support appropriate alterations.
Recommendation 17: The effectiveness of individual management schemes will depend on the numbers of geese which they are designed to manage. Management schemes may include a provision to reduce, by licensed shooting of specified numbers of geese, the numbers wintering in the area covered by the scheme, where this is necessary to safeguard agricultural production and where scientific advice indicates that the proposals will not compromise the viability of the population concerned.
Recommendation 34: Ministers should give further consideration to seeking changes to legislation to allow the sale of carcasses of quarry species and of geese killed under licence as part of management schemes.
SECTION 4 Local Goose Management Schemes
Recommendation 13: Where geese are making use of agricultural land, initial responsibility rests with the farmer, who should take steps to minimise damage to crops and grass by scaring and, where appropriate and legally possible, shooting geese.
Recommendation 14: Where this is impossible, either because of the numbers of geese or because the necessary level of scaring and any associated shooting could not be undertaken due to the protection status of the population, a management scheme should be considered.
Recommendation 15: For populations of geese requiring special protection, the main aims of management schemes should be to simultaneously maintain the viability of the population and minimise the agriculture damage in a manner consistent with the conservation objectives.
Recommendation 16: There should be a general presumption against management schemes for goose populations not requiring special protection. However, such schemes may be appropriate on areas immediately surrounding large, established roosts, where these form part of properly-managed reserves and significant damage to crops and grass is caused by heavy concentrations of geese on agricultural land. Co-ordinated management of geese in areas (such as the Uists) where numbers and densities are lower may also be necessary as the impacts on agriculture and aspects of the natural heritage may be very significant. The main aim of such schemes for populations not requiring protection will be to minimise agricultural damage.
Recommendation 17: The effectiveness of individual management schemes will depend on the numbers of geese which they are designed to manage. Management schemes may include a provision to reduce, by licensed shooting of specified numbers of geese, the numbers wintering in the area covered by the scheme, where this is necessary to safeguard agricultural production and where scientific advice indicates that the proposals will not compromise the viability of the population concerned.
Recommendation 18: Assistance should be made available, in areas designated as scaring zones under management schemes, for initiatives such as extensification or habitat manipulation.
Recommendation 19: Management schemes should identify roosts, feeding areas, buffer zones and scaring zones.
Recommendation 20: Financial assistance should be made available for the purchase of approved goose scaring equipment and for habitat management.
Recommendation 21: Payments for goose management schemes should be made on an area, rather than on a headage basis and should be regularly reviewed.
Recommendation 33: Ministers should consider commissioning an economic study designed to measure the benefits to society from the presence of geese.
SECTION 5 - National Policy Framework - Funding
Recommendation 25: That the national goose management arrangements should be funded initially through a domestic funding mechanism administered by the Scottish Executive/ SNH.
Recommendation 26: That opportunities to obtain financial support from the EU should be urgently pursued at national and local level.
Recommendation 27: That Ministers nominate a Funding Body which, on advice from the Review Body, will consider applications for Local Goose Management Schemes and which will give priority consideration to funding schemes in those areas where levels of goose density are greatest and where farmers have suffered the greatest levels of economic loss arising from goose damage (in accordance with the NGF criteria).
SECTION 6 National Policy Framework - National Structures and General Principles
Recommendation 22: That local goose management groups should be set up to develop and review LGMS proposals in those priority areas where current management techniques are either insufficient or impractical to manage over wintering goose populations effectively.
Recommendation 23: That adequate notice is given of discontinuation of local schemes, and that such withdrawal is managed so as to minimise disruption to farming activity.
Recommendation 24: That Ministers establish a Review Body whose main function will be implementation of the NPF. In particular, it will (a) ensure that applications from local groups for Local Goose Management Schemes accurately implement the NPF at local level; (b) conduct a multi-disciplinary policy review every five years to ensure that the national goose management arrangements continue to complement the UK's national and international nature conservation obligations for geese, minimise economic losses to farmers and maximise the value-for-money of public expenditure; and (c) oversee arrangements for monitoring of protected geese populations.
Recommendation 28: That the criteria to determine where goose management schemes should be implemented should be:-
- Protection status of the goose population.
- The number of geese in the area over which it is proposed a scheme might operate.
- The density of goose usage on farmland, particularly the area at this density of usage and the period of time for which geese reside in the area.
- The presence of a reserve or designated area such as a SPA managed for geese in the area.
- The level of impact caused by geese on farm businesses.
- The level of interest in participation in a scheme.
« Previous | Contents | Next »