« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
SECTION 4 Local goose management schemes
Review of Local Goose Management Schemes
4.1 This section reports on the role and performance of the local goose management schemes approved by Ministers since 2000. There are currently seven local schemes. Five schemes operate during Winter and Spring and focus on migratory goose populations. The remaining two schemes address issues arising from the agricultural impact of resident greylag geese during the summer months.
Key Principles for Local Schemes
4.2 All of the seven existing local goose management schemes have been approved by Ministers on the recommendation of the NGMRG and in accordance with the principles originally set out in Recommendations 13 to 23 and 28 of the NGF Report.
4.3 In order to look specifically at the performance of these existing local schemes, and to establish whether the original NGF recommendations have been implemented successfully at the local level, a sub-group of the NGMRG was established in September 2003. The sub-group reported in March 2005.
4.4 The sub-group report 17 is reproduced in full at Annex 5 and a supporting Value for Money evaluation 18 which helped inform the subgroup's deliberations can be found at Annex 6. The Value for Money paper, produced by the Scottish Executive's Analytical Services Division, draws on original research 5 commissioned by the Executive. An important objective of that research was to shed light on the extent to which goose management schemes deliver public value for money, in line with the third fundamental objective of the national policy framework.
4.5 The sub-group found that local goose management schemes have, as a whole, been successful in delivering the national policy objective of minimising economic loss to farmers and crofters. This has been achieved primarily by means of direct payments which reflect costs incurred and profits foregone as a result of managing land in a manner consistent with the presence of significant numbers of geese. In general, the schemes were found to provide good value for money, although the findings of the evaluation indicate that the administration and efficiency of schemes could, in certain respects, be improved.
4.6 The sub-group did not look in particular detail at the nature conservation outputs of schemes, since these were felt to be more appropriately assessed through the monitoring and scientific research work which is discussed in Section 2. The degree to which local schemes have placed an appropriate emphasis on all three of the fundamental objectives of national policy, and the relative weight given to each of these objectives in designing and running individual schemes, was examined closely by the sub-group.
Future of Existing Local Schemes
4.7 In relation to the seven local goose management schemes in operation during 2004 the sub-group was content to recommend the continuation of five existing schemes subject to the implementation of a range of general recommendations which are applicable to local schemes in general.
4.8 In the case of two local schemes, on the Uists and at Strathbeg, the sub-group identified a number of more significant concerns and recommended that continuation of the schemes should be contingent on improvements to their design and management. Subsequent exchanges between the relevant local groups and the NGMRG indicated that these improvements are now in hand and, on that basis, the NGMRG has recommended that schemes should continue to operate in all seven areas.
Review of relevant NGF Recommendations
4.9 In parallel with its examination of the performance of individual local goose schemes, the sub-group also assessed the continuing relevance of the specific NGF Recommendations which have determined the design and implementation of local management schemes since 2000.
4.10 Overall, the sub-group was satisfied that the principles underlying the local scheme recommendations in the NGF Report remain valid and appropriate. In particular it was clear that NGF Recommendations 13 to 16 and 22 have worked well. On that basis, the NGMRG took the view that the principles involved should remain central to the overall national policy framework. These core recommendations are restated below.
4.11 NGF Recommendations 19, 20 and 21 have also been carried forward, but have now been subsumed within new Recommendation 24. This expands somewhat on the original NGF Report by setting out a number of key features which are expected to be typical of a local goose management scheme. The co-ordinated use of scaring equipment and the designation of feeding, scaring and other zones, together with a requirement for payments to be area based rather than headage-based, have been important to the success of existing schemes and should remain fundamental to the design and implementation of local schemes in future.
4.12 NGF Recommendation 23, dealing with the discontinuation of schemes, is similarly incorporated within a new, extended Recommendation 21. Ensuring greater stability and longer-term planning was identified by the sub-group as being of particular importance. It is therefore proposed that in future the NGMRG should, where appropriate, be able to recommend re-approval of an established scheme on a longer-term basis. Experience since 2000 has demonstrated that a full annual review and re-approval process is unnecessary for schemes which are well-established and operating successfully. Safeguards which ensure accountability, transparency and the effective monitoring of performance are, however, retained within the new recommendation. The possibility that future changes to agricultural support payments may have consequential effects for goose management schemes must be borne in mind and may require the NGMRG to make future adjustments to schemes. The extent to which goose schemes are likely to be affected is, however, currently unclear.
4.13
The sub-group report noted that NGF Recommendations 17 and 18 have had limited practical application. In light of the experience which has been gained since the first schemes were set up in 2000, the NGMRG therefore took the view that it would be appropriate to omit both from the national policy framework, at least as explicit recommendations. Some of the flavour of both recommendations can, however, still be found in new Recommendation 26 which seeks to encourage innovative thinking from local groups. NGF Recommendation 28 (which did little more than summarise the key criteria for local schemes) was also identified as being essentially superfluous and it too has been dropped as a separate recommendation.
4.14 The NGMRG therefore proposes that the principal existing recommendations relating to local goose management schemes should be carried forward. NGF Recommendations 17, 18 and 28 have been dropped and 19, 20 and 21 have been subsumed with new Recommendations.
Recommendation 16: Where geese are making use of agricultural land, initial responsibility for minimising damage to crops and grass rests with the farmer or crofter, who should take appropriate steps by scaring and, where appropriate and legally possible, shooting geese.( NGF Recommendation 13).
Recommendation 17: 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.( NGF Recommendation 14).
Recommendation 18: 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.( NGF Recommendation 15).
Recommendation 19: 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 special protection will be to minimise agricultural damage.( NGF Recommendation 16).
Recommendation 20: 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.( NGF Recommendation 22).
Recommendation 21: It should be open to the NGMRG to recommend that Ministers re-approve established schemes for a period of up to 5 years, in order to provide greater stability and promote longer-term planning. Such re-approvals should be subject to a requirement for at least one mid-term review of the design and operation of the schemes, as well as to other appropriate safeguards, including in particular a requirement for annual reporting and for evidence that the scheme complies with the terms of the original approval. Where a scheme is to be discontinued, appropriate notice should be given and withdrawal managed in such a way as to minimise disruption.(Incorporates NGF Recommendation 23).
Scope for Enhancement and Improvement
4.15 In general the sub-group found that the schemes which have been approved since 2000 have functioned effectively and are successfully delivering the objectives of the national policy framework. However, the effectiveness and performance of all schemes would be enhanced by implementation of a number of further recommendations.
4.16 These go beyond the original NGF Report in providing more detailed guidance to local schemes. In particular a number of actions have been identified which will support improvements to scheme design and implementation, as well as helping to deliver value for money, assist with forward planning and ensure appropriate standards of accountability and transparency. A number of typical "core factors" of a well-designed scheme have also been identified.
Recommendation 22: Each local group should be responsible for implementing, overseeing and regularly reviewing its scheme so as to ensure that:
- the scheme properly supports the achievement of national policy objectives, including the achievement of value for money; and
- is fully compliant with the terms under which the scheme was approved.
Recommendation 23: Local groups should apply common standards of good practice in relation to matters such as scheme design, payment rates, monitoring work, the development of scaring and crop-protection strategies and the transparency and accountability of scheme operations. To assist in the evaluation of the performance of local schemes, all running costs, including all relevant administrative costs incurred by SNH and SEERAD, should be recorded and reported on in a manner which is consistent across all schemes.
Recommendation 24: Local goose management groups should establish clear objectives for their local scheme, and should formally adopt all three fundamental objectives of the national policy framework. In addition, a well-designed local scheme should normally exhibit the following core features:
- a clear scheme structure based on the identification of roosts (where present) and the use of defined feeding and scaring zones. Buffer areas and zones covering land in transitional management may also be relevant in some cases.
- a formal, properly co-ordinated, and publicly-available crop protection and scaring strategy for the scheme area as a whole. Where appropriate, the scheme should include arrangements for the purchase, distribution and management of scaring equipment.
- a scientifically-robust monitoring programme which is appropriate to the particular local circumstances.
- a transparent method for calculating appropriate payment rates for different zones, based on known levels of agricultural damage and the management activities required within each zone. Payments may vary from the standard national rate, provided there is a clear local justification for such variation.
- satisfactory arrangements for the regular review of payments and payment rates, to ensure that scheme members are not being over- or under-paid and that overall value for money is being delivered.
Recommendation 25: To ensure that the management of local schemes is accountable and transparent, and that arrangements for financial management comply with public funding requirements, local management groups should normally be chaired by a local SEERAD officer and be supported administratively by local SNH staff. Operational decisions, and in particular decisions with financial implications, should be taken by persons who are publicly accountable.
Recommendation 26: Local schemes should be encouraged to develop innovative proposals, for example, by actively examining the potential for alternative methods of scaring, crop protection or habitat management (such as, extensification, scaring, crop protection, dispersal, protective fencing, sacrificial crops or the provision of alternative feeding areas).
Recommendation 27: Best practice and lessons learned, including in relation to effective scaring and crop protection should be disseminated across schemes, as well as to land managers who are not members of local goose management schemes.
« Previous | Contents | Next »