Agency Selection of Natural Heritage Sites for Joint Action
to address the negative impacts of wild deer
Introduction
As part of the approach agreed by agencies in March 2004, sites for Joint Agency Working are being identified by an objective and transparent process focussing primarily on those sites most in need of attention.
The 3 main steps of identifying sites with concerns, assessing sites and prioritising for action are explained below and through the links provided.
( replaces 'expressions of concern')
The Joint Working Audit List records for each listed site: Site Condition monitoring (SCM) results are compiled into an Audit List. The condition of all designated sites is monitored on a 6-year cycle, providing an overview of all sites affected by deer and livestock.
(a) whether features are unfavourable because of grazing, and types of grazing animals present;
(b) whether deer are a potential contributor to unfavourable condition;
And in due course will also record:
(c) whether the site has been prioritised for action; and,
(d) whether the site is included in the Work Programmes
Sites are then prioritised using the best information available, to i) make the best use of taxpayers money and ii) bring forward those sites most in need of attention. Risk analysis of sites to establish a priority ranking using the best information available is carried out against agreed criteria - namely:
Importance in terms of international obligations.(a) Importance in terms of international obligations.
(b) Significance of impacts (extent or degree).
(c) Urgency.
And when taking action
(d) Cost effectiveness of early action.
(e) Positive opportunity.
( includes what were formerly 'sites for assessment' and 'priority sites')
The work programmes details sites where agencies are working jointly to address grazing & trampling impacts. This includes sites where:
(a) Action is underway on sites agreed as the highest priority;
(b) Sites undergoing additional monitoring (eg to establish an evidence baseline); and,
(c) Sites where positive opportunity is likely to lead to enhancement through voluntary approaches and incentive schemes (eg Land Management Contracts).
Other site work
There will be sites where other impacts are not linked to deer; where there are no deer present; or where features have been found to be unfavourable for reasons not connect with grazing and trampling. In such cases, SNH are working with SEERAD and FCS to look at ways of addressing the factors leading to that unfavourable natural heritage condition (for example where on-site management may be able to make a difference).