Review of the Sutherland Biodiversity Action Plan 2003 – 2012

Review

of the

Sutherland

Biodiversity Action Plan

2003 – 2012

A report to the

Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group

Ro Scott

March 2013

Contents Page

Highlights – A selection of successful projects 3

1. Introduction 4

2. Analysis of projects 5

3. Evaluation against original objectives 8

4. Changes since 2003 10

5. Identification of achievement gaps and the means to fill them 14

6. Cross-cutting issues 34

7. Where to next? 36

8. Miscellaneous recommendations 38

Throughout the document, direct quotes from the original 2003 Sutherland Biodiversity Action Plan are shown in a smaller typeface.

Acknowledgement

Thanks are due to all the current members of the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group for their enthusiastic input to this review:

Ian Evans (Chair) Assynt Field Club Kate Batchelor West Sutherland Fisheries Trust Janet Bromham Highland Council Biodiversity Officer Paul Castle Highland Council Ranger Service Judi Forsyth SEPA Kenny Graham RSPB Fiona Mackenzie Sutherland Partnership Development Officer Ian Mitchell SNH Don O’Driscoll John Muir Trust Andy Summers Highland Council Ranger Service Gareth Ventress Forest Enterprise Scotland

Ten Years of the Sutherland Biodiversity Action Plan

*** Highlights *** (in no particular order)

230 populations of Aspen identified with suggestions for further work

Important new habitat type recognised and located – Ancient Wood Pasture

Information on three key groups of Sutherland invertebrates collated

Two village wildlife audits published – Scourie and Rogart

9 Primary Schools engaged in conservation projects

Two new wildlife ponds created

New water vole colonies discovered

Wildflower meadow created at Golspie

Two ‘Wet and Wild’ weekends held at Borgie and Kinlochbervie

Nesting terns protected on Brora Golf Course

First confirmed British record of the lacewing Helicoconis hirtinervis

1. Introduction

The Sutherland Biodiversity Action Plan was first published in October 2003, as one of seven local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) produced for the Highland Council area, under the auspices of the Highland Biodiversity Project 2002-05. The Plan was drafted by the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group, whose then members came from the following organisations:

The Sutherland Partnership Assynt Angling Group Assynt Field Club North Highland Forest Trust Loch Duart Ltd. Scottish Crofters Foundation Sutherland National Farmers Union The Highland Council Ranger Service Scottish Landowners Federation Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

During the subsequent ten-year period, five different funding regimes (the Sutherland Partnership Community Biodiversity Programme 2005-06; Highland BAP Implementation Programme 2005-06; Communities Project for Highland Biodiversity 2006-09; Sutherland LBAP Implementation Plan 2007-9; and the Sutherland Partnership Environmental Fund 2009-12) have enabled the Group to undertake more than 30 biodiversity projects in Sutherland.

With the imminent end of funding, in April 2013, both for the current round of projects and for the Sutherland Partnership itself, it was considered timely to undertake this review of the achievements of the Sutherland LBAP during its first ten years.

The contract brief included the following elements: a. Review and summarise achievements , since publication of the Sutherland Biodiversity Action Plan in 2003. b. Identify the main gaps in coverage, both in terms of key objectives and targets, and in a geographical sense. c. For each gap, suggest a future project or series of actions that could be undertaken to improve our collective knowledge, raise awareness or enhance habitats.

2. Analysis of projects

Appendices 2(a-d) analyse the number of projects carried out and the amount of money spent, according to: taxonomic group; habitat category; geographical area (by Community Council); and functional type of project. Results are summarised on p. 7 in the form of pie charts. In all cases, the sums of money used in the analysis are those contributed from the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group’s funds. Information on match- funding supplied by other organisations was not available for all projects and so could not be analysed. Where a project covered e.g. more than one taxonomic group or habitat, the money is split equally between the categories involved, although this may not accurately reflect the emphasis of the work.

2a. Taxonomic group The largest block of projects (11) covered multiple taxonomic groups, and accounted for 40% of spend. The next largest group in terms of spend (32%) was the four projects involving higher plants. This is because three of these were woodland survey and/or management projects, which were some of the largest projects in terms of individual budgets. Eight projects on invertebrates, including freshwater faunas, accounted for 13% of spend, with birds and mammals equal at 7% each. The poor relations were fish and lower plants, with one project each, accounting for 1% or less. The one proposed project on fungi is excluded because it will not now be completed due to lack of volunteer time.

2b. Habitat category The habitat categories used are those which form the chapter headings in the original Sutherland BAP. The largest spend (33%) was on 14 projects concerning forests and woodland. Again, this is because of the relatively high cost of woodland survey and/or management projects. Twelve marine and coastal projects accounted for 23% of spend, with river, loch and wetland (10 projects), town & village (9 projects) and 4 projects covering multiple habitats each accounting for 9-16% of spend. Spend on projects involving croft and farm land and mountain and moor was considerably less, with 2 and 1 projects each, accounting for 3% and 1% respectively.

2c. Community Council area Community Council areas were chosen as the measure of geographical coverage of the LBAP because they each contain one or more human settlements, plus an area of less densely populated hinterland. The Sutherland LBAP area includes 17 Community Councils, of which Edderton and parts of Creich were historically in Easter Ross. Of these seventeen, five (Bettyhill, Strathnaver & Altnaharra; Edderton; Helmsdale; Melvich; Strathy & Armadale) are omitted from the analysis because they have had no

5 specific projects (although some Sutherland-wide projects did include parts of their areas). Seven projects covering multiple Community Council areas accounted for 35% of spend. Of the remaining areas, Assynt achieved the lion’s share of funding, with 13 projects, accounting for 21% of the total spend. Durness came next with 5 projects accounting for 10% of spend, followed by Ardgay, Golspie, Rogart and Scourie with up to 4 projects each, accounting for 5 - 7% of spend. The remaining CC areas - Brora, Creich, Dornoch, Kinlochbervie, Lairg and Tongue, had up to 3 projects each, accounting for 1 – 2% of spend. The Community Council areas which have been most successful in achieving projects are those where there is already an active range of community organisations, interest groups, professionals (including Highland Council Rangers) and volunteers, who are able to take projects forward.

2d. Functional type There was a strong emphasis in the Sutherland BAP on the need for biodiversity audit, i.e. increasing our knowledge of what actually occurs in Sutherland 1. This is reflected in the analysis of spend by project type, in which biodiversity audit achieves the highest percentage of funding at 30%, shared between 16 projects. The 21 education and awareness-raising projects account for just less than another third (27%). The remaining 43% is shared approximately equally between projects involving habitat creation (3), habitat or species management (7), and the provision of interpretation (9).

1 See Evans, I.M. (2010) Sutherland: BAP Update 2010 (updated 1/9/2012). Unpublished report to Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group.

3. Evaluation against original objectives

Appendix 3 is a spreadsheet showing the achievements made against the original biodiversity objectives, key issues and suggested future actions, for each of the six major habitat categories identified in the Sutherland BAP. These objectives were originally set as aspirations for all of the partner organisations in their wider work, and not solely for work which could be achieved through the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group. Community-led projects reflected the desires of the communities concerned. It is therefore not surprising that many of the projects carried out, whilst all being beneficial for biodiversity in some respect, did not always relate directly to the stated objectives or proposed actions for the habitat type in question. The best match has been achieved in the habitat categories ‘Forest & Woodland’ and ‘Town & Village’ where the majority of projects do relate to one or more of the stated objectives. In contrast, very few projects at all have been carried out within the habitat categories ‘Croft & Farm Land’ and ‘Mountain and Moor’. Progress achieved (by Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group funded projects only) within each habitat category is examined below:

3.1 Sea & coast The original objectives and suggested actions were extremely ambitious and large- scale, aiming at sustainable management of marine and coastal resources. The successful projects implementing actions suggested in the plan were on a smaller scale, and directly related to threatened species (Arctic tern and Great Yellow Bumblebee) occurring on the Sutherland coast. The majority of other projects carried out were concerned with raising awareness and increasing knowledge of marine and coastal biodiversity, including a pilot marine audit project 2. These are all essential pre- requisites for sustainable management.

3.2 River, Loch & Wetland Of the nine projects carried out, six related directly to one of the original objectives – biodiversity audit (of water voles, bats, aquatic habitats, invertebrates and elvers). Two of the remaining projects involved pond creation, and one awareness-raising (of the importance of riparian woodlands). The major issues of pollution, flood control, fishery (except for eels) and bankside management, were not addressed directly through Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group funded projects (but may have been achieved by other means).

2 May, D. and Evans. I.M. (2009) Sutherland Marine Audit Pilot Study. Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group. http://www.sutherlandpartnership.org.uk/UserFiles/File/SUTHERLAND%20MARINE%20AUDIT_WEB%2 0PDF.pdf

3.3 Croft & Farm Land The objectives for croft and farm land were extremely ambitious, aiming at achieving management for biodiversity on up to 50% of the county’s agricultural land, raising public awareness of the value of low-intensity agriculture, and creating tangible benefits for farmers and crofters. One of the two projects carried out succeeded in identifying and raising awareness of an important habitat type (Ancient Wood Pasture) the existence of which had hitherto been unrecognised in Sutherland. The other concerned the Great Yellow Bumblebee, a UK BAP Priority species. In addition, the list of priority species and habitats identified in the BAP itself was used in assessing applications for agri-environment funding through the Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP).

3.4 Forest & Woodland Many of the projects carried out within this category addressed multiple objectives, concerning community involvement in the ownership and management of woodlands, raising awareness and promoting management for biodiversity. The successes achieved largely resulted from the existence of community groups, such as Gearrchoille Community Wood Ardgay, Culag Community Woodlands Trust, North Sutherland Community Forest Trust (owners of the Borgie Forest Cabin), and organisations such as the North Highland Forest Trust, which could offer volunteers and/or professional staff with the time and energy to manage projects. The only project which did not relate directly to any of the stated objectives was the Ancient Wood Pasture survey – which laid the ground for future action on this front.

3.5 Mountain & Moor The only project relating to this category was the Assynt macro-moth survey, which included some moorland habitats. However, whilst added to our knowledge of moorland biodiversity, it did not directly address any of the stated objectives or actions. These were concerned with improving the status of upland habitats and species through better management of grazing and burning impacts.

3.6 Town & Village The main objectives in this category were to raise local inhabitants’ awareness of the biodiversity found around towns and villages. All nine of the projects carried out in this habitat related to the original objectives. Two of these were the village biodiversity audits in Scourie and Rogart. Others concerned awareness-raising, and involving children directly in habitat enhancement work (e.g. tree-planting at Drummuie, Golspie).

4. Changes since 2003

Table 1 (pp. 12/13) summarises changes to biodiversity-related legislation and policy since 2003. It is not a comprehensive list, but illustrates the extent to which the background to biodiversity work is constantly changing.

In the ten years since the Sutherland BAP was published, considerable progress has been made across the board, (from Directives of the European Community to the responsibilities of the Highland Council), in integrating consideration for biodiversity into mainstream policy and legislation. This means that many of the areas of work initially identified for action in the Sutherland BAP are now being taken forward by organisations (some of which are members of the Biodiversity Group), such as SEPA, FCS and SNH.

In more general terms there has been, over the past ten years, a growing appreciation of the value of the natural world to human society in terms of the services it provides, including its contribution to human health and wellbeing. Similarly, knowledge of the natural environment and biodiversity is increasing all the time. The NBN Gateway now contains almost 80 million species records, but examination of distribution maps confirms that Sutherland is still seriously data-deficient in all but the most popular groups. The availability of high(er) speed broadband means that access to the huge online knowledge base is available to people in areas previously considered remote (including parts of Sutherland).

Whilst there have been positive gains in terms of species re-introductions, with sea eagles and red kites now resident in the Highlands, the appearance of southern species (jays, speckled wood butterflies) arriving under their own steam indicates that climate change is already exerting an impact on the Highland environment.

The pressure to ameliorate the consequences of climate change by investing in renewable energy technologies has been an increasing source of conflict in the Highlands, with the establishment of numerous onshore wind farms, micro-hydro schemes and the prospect of large offshore renewables developments in the near future. It is difficult to evaluate whether the long-term effect of these developments in mitigating climate change will offset their more immediate perceived impacts on biodiversity.

A great deal of what happens on the land is determined by its ownership. Large areas of Sutherland are in the hands of community and not-for-profit landowners. Changes of private ownership in other parts of the Highlands (e.g. Coignafearn, Glenfeshie) have demonstrated that private owners, if so motivated, can also bring about positive

10 biodiversity gains. The outcome of plans at Alladale Estate to reintroduce long-extinct native mammal species within a fenced enclosure remains to be seen.

Research into archaeology and environmental history is increasing our understanding of how the Sutherland environment was used by humans in the past. Some large projects have been carried out at Lairg 3 and in Assynt 4,5,6,7.

3 McCullagh AJP & Tipping R (Eds.) (1998) The Lairg Project 1988-1996 The Evolution of an Archaeological Landscape in Northern Scotland. Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research. 4 Assynt Hidden Lives project http://www.aocarchaeology.com/assynt/index2.html 5 Assynt Fire and Water project http://www.aocarchaeology.com/assyntfireandwater/ 6 Life and Death in Assynt’s Past http://www.aocarchaeology.com/ldap/ 7 Davies, AL (2011) Long-term approaches to woodland restoration: Palaeoecological and stakeholder perspectives on Atlantic forests of Northern Europe. Forest Ecology and Management 261, 751-763. 11

Table 1: Biodiversity-related legislative and policy changes since 2003 Date Item Main imp lications for biodiversity 2003 EU Water Framework Directive SEPA given statutory responsibility to produce River Basin implemented via UK legislation Management Plans, setting environmental quality objectives for all water bodies. 2004 Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act Imposition of ‘biodiversity duty’ on public bodies. Enhanced protection and management of SSSIs. Inception of Scottish Biodiversity List. 2004 Publication of ‘Scotland’s Post-devolution strategy for the conservation of biodiversity Biodiversity: it’s in your hands’ in Scotland. 2005 Publication of Millennium Global assessment of the state of the world’s ecosystems Ecosystem Assessment and their capacity to continue to sustain human life. 2005 Water Environment (Controlled Greater statutory control of activities impacting upon the Activities) Regulations (CAR) water environment. 2005 Formal designation of Candidate Scottish sites added to European list, ceasing to be SACs ‘candidate’ SACs. 2005 Publication of Management Strategy for the management of the Caithness and Strategy for the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SAC, designated under the Sutherland Peatlands 2005-15 European Habitats Directive. 2006 First review of Sutherland BAP, and Formulation of Sutherland BAP Implementation Plan, plus a production of Highland-wide BAP, Highland-wide Implementation Plan and framework for by Envirocentre consultancy biodiversity conservation. 2006 Highland Forest and Woodland Strategic guidance on the location of forestry and Strategy published by THC woodlands in Highland. 2006 Scottish Forestry Strategy Including target to increase Scotland’s woodland cover published by FCS from 17.1% to about 25% of land area. 2006 Establishment of British National Potential for more effective action against wildlife crime. Wildlife Crime Unit in Scotland 2006 Publication of ‘Planning to Halt the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2010 for land use Loss of Biodiversity’ by British and spatial planning in terrestrial, coastal and freshwater Standards Institution environments. 2007 Review of UK BAP Number of priority species increased from <600 to 1150, and number of priority habitats increased from 49 to 65 2007 Highland BAP Scientific and Prioritisation of species targeted for work in each Highland Technical Group (STAG) paper BAP area (habitats deferred – did this ever get done?) 2007 Rural Stewardship agri- Specific ‘packages’ of measures made available, targeted environment scheme (RSS 2001- at biodiversity priorities for particular habitats and species. 06) superseded by Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP) 2007 Start of SNH Species Action Targeted management for 32 species (including UKBAP Framework (to run until 2012) priorities red squirrel, wildcat, freshwater pearl mussel etc.) 2007 Flows National Nature Reserve 11,373.36ha of peatland, straddling the (NNR) declared Caithness/Sutherland border, becomes NNR. 2007 Publication of 'Conserving Sets framework for post-devolution biodiversity work. Biodiversity – the UK Approach' 2007 Move to Local Authority Single Funding for Local Authorities’ statutory responsibility for Outcome Agreements biodiversity routed directly from Scottish Government, rather than via SNH grants.

2008 Publication of first report on 'The Recognition of the hidden economic values of biodiversity Economics of Ecosystems & worldwide. Biodiversity (TEEB)' 2008 Scottish Fisheries Council Developing Strategies for sustainable management of established scallops, crabs and lobsters. 2008 Publication of ‘Scotland’s Wild Deer A national strategy for deer management in Scotland. - a National Approach’ 2009 Environmental Liability Directive Enforces ‘polluter pays’ principle for damage to European implemented in Scotland habitats and species, and water quality under WFD. SNH, SEPA and Marine Scotland are the ‘competent authorities’. 2010 Deer Commission for Scotland Potential for better integration of deer and natural heritage combined with SNH management. 2010 Marine Scotland Act Marine Scotland set up as an agency within the Scottish Government. Extension of statutory Planning process to the marine environment; responsibility for designating Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Increased protection for seals. 2010 Inshore Fisheries Groups Sutherland coasts are covered by North West, Moray Firth established and North Coast Inshore Fisheries Groups. 2011 Wildlife & Natural Environment Changes to species protection and licensing. (WANE) Act More rigorous approach to invasive non-native species. Licensing for out-of-season muirburn. 2011 UK National Ecosystem Assessment of the state of the UK’s ecosystems and their Assessment published capacity to continue to sustain human life. 2011 Scotland’s Land-use Strategy Strategic approach to the sustainable use of Scotland’s published land. 2011 Revised Muirburn Code issued Advice on regulation of muirburn under WANE Act. 2011 Scottish Government issues ‘2020 Commitment to generate 100% of electricity demand Renewables Routemap’ equivalent from renewables by 2020. 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment Rationalising the approach to EIA embodied in previous EU (Scotland) Regulations Directives and Regulations. 2011 Online ‘Biodiversity Planning Easy-access guidance to biodiversity advice for Planners Toolkit’ introduced http://www.biodiversityplanningtoolkit.com/ 2011 Highland Council issue ‘Highland’s Guidance for developers on how to deal with protected Statutorily Protected Species – species on site. supplementary guidance’ 2011 Publication of Scottish Government A step towards delivery of the Land Use Strategy Information Note on ‘Applying an http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/16083740 ecosystems approach to land use’ /1 2011 Publication of report by IUCN UK Recognising the importance of (particularly) Scotland’s Peatland Commission of Inquiry peatlands in carbon sequestration (amongst other things). 2012 Publication of the 'UK Post-2010 Supersedes 'Conserving Biodiversity – the UK Approach' Biodiversity Framework' (2007); UKBAP website archived. 2012 Report of Woodland Expansion Advice on how target for 25% woodland cover may be Advisory Group published achieved. 2012 Implementation of 2010 Crofting Regulation of crofting passes from Crofters’ Commission to Reform Act new Crofting Commission. 2013 Publication of ‘The 2020 Challenge Revised biodiversity strategy for Scotland. for Scotland’s Biodiversity’

5. Identification of achievement gaps and the means to fill them

This section examines what progress has been made since 2003 in achieving biodiversity gains both by the Sutherland BAP and by organisations working outwith the BAP umbrella. Information was obtained by a ‘brainstorming’ session at the SPBG meeting on 20 th November 2012, by contacting relevant people and organisations, and by searching online. Final input was made by Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group members at a meeting to review the initial draft of this report on 6 th March 2013. The results are qualitative rather than quantitative (since statistics are not readily available) and are unlikely to be comprehensive. Each section is intended to stand alone, so there is some repetition of information where it is relevant to more than one habitat type.

5.1 Sea & coast The original biodiversity objectives for this habitat were:

• To work towards local control and sustainable management of inshore fisheries around the coast of Sutherland. • To encourage all users of the marine resource to work together to reduce any potentially damaging operations. • To encourage the fish farming industry to demonstrate a measurable reduction in negative environmental impacts. • To work with local communities towards the designation and management of a Marine Reserve within inshore waters in Sutherland.

These objectives require advocacy and the ability to engage and work with local communities (whether geographical or communities of interest, such as commercial fishermen, fish farmers etc.). This level of commitment has not been, and is unlikely to become, achievable by the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group as currently constituted. Work towards the sustainable management of marine fisheries, and the designation of marine protected areas, is now within the remit of Marine Scotland and SNH. Marine Scotland published a ‘Marine Nature Conservation Strategy’ and ‘Scotland's Marine Atlas: Information for The National Marine Plan’ in 2011. The latter summarises the current state of knowledge of Scotland’s marine environment.

A number of initiatives, such as the Scottish Coastal Forum and Inshore Fisheries Groups have been set up, and a revised edition of the Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture was published in 2009. The east coast of Sutherland is also included in the area of the Moray Firth Partnership, an organisation aiming to promote Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

The Scottish Wildlife Trust operates the Reserve on Handa island, and carried out a rat eradication programme in 2005 to benefit nesting seabirds.8 The Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated for seabirds at Handa and Cape Wrath were extended in 2009 to include the surrounding marine foraging environment to a radius of approximately 2km.

On the east coast, Highland Birchwoods constructed a bird hide at Loch Fleet NNR, to demonstrate the use of locally-grown timber. This is now managed by the partnership of RSPB, SNH, SWT and Sutherland Estates which runs the NNR.

The West Sutherland Fisheries Trust is working on the interaction between fish farms, sea lice and native salmon and trout populations in Eddrachillis Bay (in conjunction with SAMS and Loch Duart Ltd.) and is tagging sea trout in Loch Laxford to gain information on their growth rates, coastal migration patterns and sea lice burdens. The Trust also undertakes seashore-based educational activities (for example the ‘Scourie Detectives’) with children.

The Marine Conservation Society and SNH have published a leaflet on marine turtles in Scotland http://www.nesbiodiversity.org.uk/pdf-files/Roadshow%20leaflet.pdf SNH has also published a leaflet on marine wildlife watching in North-west Scotland http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/places/Marine_Life_from_Boat_and_Coast.pdf Highland Council has produced a ‘Wild Coastal Trail’ leaflet http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/63420BCB-9E53-47C5-B0D4- A16532EA4F69/0/HighlandWCTBooklet.pdf

The MOD has carried out research on the effects of sonar on cetaceans, but details of authorship and location of the work were removed before publication for security reasons. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080801/full/news.2008.997.html At Cape Wrath, MOD carries out an annual seabird count ‘Operation Auk’.

The Bumblebee Conservation Trust and RSPB have carried out habitat management projects for the great yellow bumblebee at Balnakeil and elsewhere. However, securing ongoing management to maintain the habitat in suitable condition is problematic (i.e. mowing and removal of grass clippings).

8 Stoneman, J & Zonfrillo,B (2005) the eradication of Brown rats from Handa Island, Sutherland. Scottish Birds 25, 17-23. 15

A review by the Highland BAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Group (STAG) in 2007 recommended a targeted range of species for action within each Highland LBAP area. Those suggested for Sutherland which occur in marine and coastal habitats were: sea- loch egg wrack ( Ascophyllum nodosum ecad mackaii )9; basking shark; tall sea pen; great yellow bumblebee; moss carder bee.

The 2007 review of the UKBAP added the species European eel, river lamprey, sea lamprey, sea trout, salmon and the common toad (which breeds in brackish pools on the coast) to the UK priority list, thus raising their profile for action. The habitat types ‘tide-swept channels’ and ‘file shell beds’ were also added.

Following the Marine Scotland Act, SNH is carrying out an assessment of proposed Marine Protection Areas. So far none of those identified is in Sutherland. Work is also being done on assessing the contribution which existing protected areas make to the conservation of species and habitats for which MPAs can be designated. These include the following Sutherland BAP priority species: basking shark; minke whale; Risso’s dolphin; sea-loch egg wrack, and priority habitats: horse mussel beds; maerl beds; and seagrass beds.

Plantlife has produced a Freepost survey card for sea-loch egg wrack, and a general awareness-raising leaflet on ‘The wild and wonderful world of Scotland’s seaweeds’. The series of ‘Important Plant Areas’ identified by Plantlife includes stretches of the north and west Sutherland coast, encompassing habitats from dunes and machairs to seacliffs, heaths and calcareous grasslands.

Ullapool sub-aqua club has carried out a survey of seagrass (Zostera spp.) beds right around the north coast, led by SNH officer Rachel Horsburgh. http://www.usac.org.uk/Eelgrass.htm

HLF funding has recently been secured for a Highland-wide seashore biodiversity project. http://www.highlandbiodiversity.com/seashore.asp

The original issues identified in 2003 were:

• Unsustainability in the fishing and shellfish industries; • The environmental impacts of aquaculture; • Diffuse pollution and effects of marine litter on wildlife; • Erosion risks from poor management of soft coasts; • Potential adverse impacts from increased wildlife tourism.

9 For a recent review see Evans, I.M. (2013) Wig wrack Ascophyllum nodosum mackaii in the North-west Highlands : An Update. The Highland Naturalist, 9, 13-14. 16

None of these has disappeared off the agenda in the intervening ten years, although there are now more statutory mechanisms in place to address them. Additional issues identified by the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group in 2012 were:

• Despite the fact that discarding rubbish overboard from ships is now illegal, marine litter still increasing; • The potential impacts of marine renewable developments; • The continuing deficiency of information on marine biodiversity - several surveys have been done of the larger sea-lochs, but very little in between 10 ; • The potential impacts of projected sea-level change; • The perceived impact of marine SAC designation on fishermens’ livelihoods; • Loss of wader roosts due to disturbance.

Potential future projects:

a. There is still plenty of scope for biodiversity audit in the marine and coastal environments, and for raising awareness of the biodiversity of these habitats. b. Further survey and awareness-raising work on any of the priority species would be valuable. c. The marine priority habitats are more problematic, requiring sub-aqua or ROV capability. d. Attention could be directed to the potential for the arrival or spread of marine invasives such as wireweed (Sargassum muticum ) which is spreading up the west coast. e. Further habitat management projects for the great yellow bumblebee and moss carder bee (north and west coasts) might be feasible, with volunteer involvement. f. Replication of the Brora tern protection project at other key breeding sites. g. Monitoring of coastal erosion and impacts of sea-level rise. h. Awareness-raising of the problems caused by marine litter.

10 See: May, D. and Evans. I.M. (2009) Sutherland Marine Audit Pilot Study. Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group. http://www.sutherlandpartnership.org.uk/UserFiles/File/SUTHERLAND%20MARINE%20AUDIT_WEB%2 0PDF.pdf 17

5.2 River, Loch & Wetland The original biodiversity objectives for this habitat were:

• To maintain and enhance clean, natural water throughout Sutherland's watercourses and wetlands, and restore migratory fish stocks towards 1960s levels. • To map the distribution of all national and local priority freshwater species and habitats, and manage all of Sutherland's watercourses accordingly. • To make future developers aware of the biodiversity of waters within Sutherland, and ensure there is no damage to the freshwater environment. • To undertake a speedy and effective response to the occurrence of unwanted invaders such as mink.

SEPA now has statutory responsibility for water quality and for ground-water dependent terrestrial ecosystems under the Water Framework Directive. This includes giving regulatory advice for planning applications. SEPA also undertakes monitoring of freshwater plants and macro-invertebrates, studies of fish ecology and distribution and has established a methodology for identifying ground-water dependent ecosystems (mires, bogs, fens etc.). In Sutherland, 20 rivers and 10 lochs have been surveyed since 2007 and several new Vice-county records made. Alien species surveys are carried out at routine sample sites, particularly for Himalayan balsam, Japanese knotweed, Rhododendron and American mink. Surveillance is also maintained for plant pathogens such as Phytophthora on blaeberries. Data collected are shared via the NBN Gateway and Scotland’s Environment Web.

The 2007 review of the UKBAP added ‘oligotrophic and dystrophic lochs’ to the list of priority habitats, with Arctic charr, salmon, sea trout, common toad and black-throated diver being added to the list of priority species.

A European-funded LIFE project on the Conservation of Atlantic Salmon in Scotland (CASS) took place between 2004 and 2008. Its study area included the River Oykel, with the Kyle of Sutherland District Salmon Fishery Board as the local partner. http://www.snh.org.uk/salmonlifeproject/index.asp

The West Sutherland Fisheries Trust continues to work on: electrofishing of salmon and trout in western catchments and the genetics of sea trout in different rivers. An ‘eels in the classroom’ project, following on from the work on elvers by Chris Daphne, and the

West Sutherland Elver Survey 11 project, is now concluded. A similar educational project on ‘Mayfly in the Classroom’ is to begin in 2014.

Forest Enterprise Scotland has erected four platforms for nesting ospreys and installed three rafts for nesting divers. It actively monitors these, and all known natural osprey nests and diver breeding lochs, on the National Forest Estate (NFE) within Sutherland. FES has also carried out specialist water vole surveys in Dalchork and Benmore forest blocks. A bird hide has been set up at Dalchork on Loch Shin. FES is currently carrying out forest restructuring throughout Sutherland to create riparian woodland buffers of at least 30m either side of all significant burns both for general water quality management and in specific areas for targeted freshwater pearl mussel and water vole habitat management. Restructuring around diver lochs is also planned, to maintain clear flight lines.

FES manages approximately 144ha of the 404ha Kyle of Sutherland Marshes SSSI, aiming to restore the flood-plain fen/marsh habitat to good condition. Tree regeneration is managed throughout the site and 90ha is grazed by cattle through a lease for conservation, with over 60ha of vegetation swiped annually.

The Scottish Mink Initiative was set up in 2011 to address the problem of invasive American mink. It uses volunteers to operate mink rafts both on the coast and in freshwater habitats. http://www.scottishmink.org.uk/ FES monitors 10 mink rafts on its land around areas of known strong water vole populations (with no sign of mink so far). Aberdeen University continues to study the ecology of water voles in Assynt.

The British Dragonfly Society is currently compiling an updated national (GB) dragonfly atlas, which has included some fieldwork in Sutherland by the Scottish recorder and others, generating more than 500 records.

The RSPB has carried out research at Forsinard on freshwater invertebrates as a food supply for breeding common scoters. http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/projects/details/239777-the-ecology-of-breeding- common-scoters

SNH has published a study on the vulnerability to hydro-electric schemes of bryophytes living in gorges in the north-west Highlands 12 . http://www.snh.gov.uk/publications-data- and-research/publications/search-the-catalogue/publication-detail/?id=1953

11 May, D. and Marshall, S (2008) West Sutherland Elver Survey. West Sutherland Fisheries Trust. http://home2.btconnect.com/wsft/ESW/Files/West_Sutherland_Elver_Survey_2008.pdf 19

The original issues identified in 2003 were:

• diffuse pollution; • habitat modifications interfering with fish and sediment movements; • declining fish populations; • flood protection works causing adverse downstream effects; • non-native species introductions; • lack of awareness and knowledge of freshwater habitats and species.

The first five of these are now subject to a greater degree of statutory control than in 2003, largely because of the Water Framework Directive.

Additional issues identified by the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group in 2012 were:

• Wildlife crime - there were thefts of water lilies from Sutherland lochs about ten years ago, and more recent instances of pearl mussel fishing; • The increasing political pressure for hydro-electric developments, both small- and large-scale.

Potential future projects:

a. There is plenty of scope for further biodiversity audit in the freshwater environment, particularly to map the distributions of priority (and other) species, of fish and invertebrates, as well as water voles. b. There is scope for further awareness-raising of wildlife crime, particularly pearl mussels and their vulnerability to illegal fishing. c. More work could be done on the management of eel populations.

12 Averis, A.B.G., Genney, D.R., Hodgetts, N.G., Rothero, G.P. & Bainbridge, I.P. (2012). Bryological assessment for hydroelectric schemes in the West Highlands 2nd edition . Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.449b 20

5.3 Croft & Farm Land The biodiversity objectives for this habitat were:

• To encourage actively managed, small-scale agriculture such as traditionally managed crofts and small farms, for their environmental and landscape benefits, and to make the public aware of those benefits. • To enable up to 50% of Sutherland’s farm and croft land to be managed for biodiversity under agri-environment schemes such as the Rural Stewardship Scheme or Whole- Farm Agreements. • To create genuine, accessible economic benefits from biodiversity for those involved in agriculture. • To restrict or reduce the year-round grazing of woodlands to assist natural regeneration.

The management of agricultural land is largely dictated by, and dependent upon, the structuring of the agricultural support schemes which implement the Common Agricultural Policy in Scotland. These are reviewed approximately every 5 years. The Rural Stewardship Scheme (RSS), which operated from 2001 to 2006, was replaced from 2007 onwards by the Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP). This is a complex scheme with a menu of elements intended to achieve different outcomes. To quote from the SRDP website:

‘It brings together a wide range of formerly separate support schemes including those covering the farming, forestry and primary processing sectors, rural enterprise and business development, diversification and rural tourism. It includes measures to support and encourage rural communities and delivers the LEADER initiative for local innovation in rural areas.’

It also includes the Crofting Counties Agricultural Grants scheme.

The ‘Rural Priorities’ element includes 20 different ‘packages’ (nos. 7-26) targeted at different elements of biodiversity. These focus on: halting the loss of biodiversity; reversal of previous losses through management; conservation and enhancement of habitats; protection of rare or endangered species; reducing the threat from invasive non-native species; achieving 'favourable condition' on SSSIs; and increasing the connectivity of natural habitats. Other options cover aspects which also impact on biodiversity, such as pollution avoidance and mitigating climate change. Some of these measures were targeted at the retention or reintroduction of cattle grazing, which was identified as desirable in the Sutherland BAP. However, this is a competitive scheme, and larger farmers are more likely to be successful than smaller farmers or crofters. Whilst all applications refer to the Sutherland BAP, current confidentiality requirements mean that it is impossible for the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group to gauge

21 the success or otherwise of any measures funded under SRDP. This is a cause of concern to the Group.

A report by Gwyn Jones identified that fewer than 20% of eligible applicants had been awarded SRDP funding under ‘Land Managers’ Options (p. 9) in most parishes of Sutherland. http://www.efncp.org/download/SRDP-crofting-report.pdf 13

Conversely, the RSPB managed to achieve a 100% success rate in facilitating entry into SRDP for crofters and farmers in the ‘Durness Corncrake and Great Yellow Bumblebee recovery area’ between 2008-10. This secured funding for environmental benefits over 10,800 hectares of land, covering not only corncrake habitat but other nationally important habitats such as Dryas heath, species-rich grasslands, sand dunes, peatland and valley mires. SRDP will continue in revised form from 2014-20.

The RSPB commissioned a report on the effect of changing livestock numbers on biodiversity within the Less Favoured Areas. This included the Croick Estate in Sutherland as one of its study areas. http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Final_Report_tcm9-340975.pdf

A Scottish Soil Framework was published 2009, but does not place much emphasis on soil biodiversity. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/05/20145602/0 SEPA carries out some monitoring of soil invertebrates, including earthworms.

The recently-initiated Coigach & Assynt Living Landscapes (CALL) project, led by a partnership currently involving seven not-for-profit and commercial landowners, aims to promote sustainable land management across their estates within these two parishes (Coigach being in Wester Ross). This will include work on soil fertility and biodiversity.

The series of ‘Important Plant Areas’ identified by Plantlife includes stretches of the north and west Sutherland coast, supporting habitats such as machair, maritime heaths and calcareous grasslands, some of which may benefit from agricultural management.

13 Jones, G (2012) An attempt at an ex post evaluation of agrienvironment support for crofting in the 2007-13 SRDP. Report for the European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism.

At the 2007 review of the UKBAP the farmland bird species twite, yellowhammer and starling were added to the priority list, as was the hedgehog.

The original issues identified in 2003 were:

• Economic problems facing the agricultural industry; • lack of accessibility of agri-environment funding to smaller units; • decline in cattle numbers; • loss of boundary features (hedges and dykes); • agricultural intensification.

All of these are still relevant in 2013. Additional issues identified by the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group were:

• Soil biodiversity – lack of both awareness and information 14 • Farmland waders and their food supply (related to soil biodiversity)

Potential future projects:

There appears to be limited scope for the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group to influence the management of agricultural land, other than through lobbying for changes to the SRDP. There may be scope for smaller-scale projects targeted at particular species or locally-occurring habitats.

a. Potential to work with the Bumblebee Conservation Trust on the great yellow bumblebee and moss carder bee. b. Scope for awareness-raising of the importance of soil biodiversity. c. A project raising awareness and recording the distribution of the New Zealand flatworm (because of its potential adverse impact on earthworms and consequently mole populations). d. A project (possibly with artistic input?) on the importance of stone dykes as a habitat. e. Work on the hedgehog and its food supply, as an index of farmland health. f. Work on the relationship between soil chemistry, soil fertility, and the food supply of farmland waders, particularly the curlew. g. Potential to work with Plantlife on managing and interpreting habitats such as maritime heaths and grasslands within the Important Plant Areas.

14 For one aspect see: Evans, I.M. (2013) Highland Earthworms: A voyage of discovery. The Highland Naturalist, 9, 11-12. 23

5.4 Forest & Woodland The biodiversity objectives for this habitat were:

• To facilitate and support community management and ownership of local native and commercial woodlands and forestry. • To halt the destruction of native woodland through felling or inappropriate management (such as overgrazing) and housing and other developments through sound planning, awareness raising and influencing of grant scheme. • To encourage appropriate management of existing woodlands to promote biodiversity. • To encourage the development of new broadleaved woodlands and mixed conifer and broadleaf blocks in appropriate sites. • To protect and increase coverage of aspen and juniper, to restore and expand coverage of riparian woodlands throughout Sutherland.

Mainstream forestry and woodland activities are again influenced by the SRDP, which now subsumes grants previously administered by the Forestry Commission. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-8j9h8a

The FCS is currently carrying out survey work for a Native Woodland Survey of Scotland (NWSS) which aims to map the occurrence of all native woodlands over 0.5ha. This will be the most comprehensive survey of Scotland’s native woodland resource yet carried out. The results for Highland are due for publication in 2013.

FCS has also published guidance on how to deal with protected birds, red squirrels and European Protected Species (bats, otter, wildcat, great crested newt) when managing woodlands: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-6vrjh2

As a major woodland landowner in Sutherland, Forest Enterprise Scotland (FES) has carried out much work to enhance biodiversity on the National Forest Estate (NFE). Species protection and conservation is now a central part of the Forestry Commission’s mandate, and all occurrences of European Protected Species, Schedule 5 mammals plus badgers and Schedule 1 birds plus black grouse are recorded. UKBAP and Scottish Biodiversity List species are also recorded. These are added to the FES dataset, which helps plan management of the forests, and identifies opportunities for targeted conservation work, within its forest blocks in Sutherland. Prior to all forest operations targeted flora and fauna surveys are carried out to ensure avoidance of damage or disturbance to protected breeding habitats, flora and fauna.

Systematic surveys and monitoring of Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland sites, including Planted Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS), have been carried out, to inform restoration management to site-native woodland. FES is committed to restoring over 600ha of

PAWS in Sutherland back to native woodland. PAWS are being surveyed in detail to establish native woodland type and the most suitable restoration method.

All non-native tree species within the Einig Native Pinewood have been removed and monitoring continues, to identify and remove non-native regeneration. Native woodland expansion has also been conducted in Einig using seed and transplants from site-native Scots pine. Coill’ a’ Phuill birch wood in Borgie Forest has been fenced to prevent grazing and promote natural regeneration. Following recent inspection, which found heavily grazed regeneration outwith the fence, it is planned to extend the fenced area to increase the area of native woodland.

FES has removed all known Rhododendron bushes on the NFE in Sutherland. Nearly 500ha of woodland with an estimated average coverage of 15% has been cleared. Annual top-up spraying and monitoring of regeneration from remaining seed sources on adjacent land continues.

FES carries out black grouse surveys annually, covering all forest blocks within Sutherland every 3 years and the Dalchork Defined Monitoring Area (DMA) every year. In priority black grouse areas over 30km of deer fencing has been removed, with over 1km downgraded to stock fencing since 2007. Where it is not possible to remove, more than 10km of fencing has been marked to prevent bird strike. In addition to fencing works, between 800-1,500ha of vegetation is swiped annually to improve feeding and lekking habitat for black grouse, and over 40ha of woodland edge has been heavily thinned to produce low density woodland cover for them between commercial forest blocks and open hill ground. The RSPB also carries out black grouse surveys and advises landowners on habitat management.

FES carries out pearl-bordered fritillary surveys each year both within known sites and possible sites close to known populations. In Balblair Wood, habitat management work, including heavily thinning tree growth by hand, removing tree regeneration, controlling bracken and swiping rank vegetation, has created a chain of suitable sunlit but sheltered habitats for pearl-bordered fritillary, opening up and connecting known and potential breeding sites. Butterfly Conservation has identified the Moray Firth area (including East Sutherland) as a ‘Survival Zone’ for the pearl-bordered fritillary.

FES is carrying out a systematic survey of open habitats on the NFE throughout Sutherland, classifying them by NVC type to inform targeted management.

FES is currently carrying out wildcat surveys around forest blocks in Sutherland, and is are also using camera traps throughout Sutherland to indentify protected species and

25 breeding sites (under License). Potential wildcat scats are collected for analysis by Ross McEwing of the Royal Scottish Zoological Society (RZSS). SNH is currently working on a revised action plan for wildcat conservation, following the end of the Species Action Framework in 2012. This may offer opportunities to contribute towards a locally-based scheme in Sutherland.

The Woodland Trust owns nearly 700ha of land at Ledmore and Migdale Woods, Spinningdale. This comprises 95 ha of oak woodland which is SSSI and SAC, 140ha of pinewood SSSI as well as Spinningdale bog (see Moorland section below). The whole area is managed to maintain or improve its biodiversity value (e.g. by restoration of PAWS and removal of invasive exotics). Public events held on 20 separate days in 2012 attracted a total of 500 people.

Deer management affects both woodland and open ground habitats, and the balance between them. Following the integration of the Deer Commission for Scotland with SNH, moves are being made towards greater inclusivity in deer management planning, with greater consideration being given to issues other than sporting management. However, there is still reluctance on the part of some ‘traditional’ sporting managers to acknowledge the legitimacy of other management objectives, as has been highlighted by recent well-publicised differences of opinion over management objectives in Assynt. The Sutherland BAP area intersects with eight different Deer Management Groups.

A review by the Highland BAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Group (STAG) in 2007 recommended a targeted range of species for action within each Highland LBAP area. Those suggested for Sutherland which occur in forest and woodland habitats were: hazel gloves fungus (not yet recorded from Sutherland according to NBN Gateway); red squirrel (mainly in the Strath Oykel/Shin area); Scottish wood ant (southern part of county only); Northern wood ant (Bonar Bridge area only); aspen hoverfly (Strath Shin and Borgie areas only); mason bee ( Osmia uncinata ) (Bonar Bridge area only); pearl bordered fritillary; and juniper.

At the 2007 review of the UKBAP, the woodland species wood warbler, wildcat and pine marten were added to the priority list.

Plantlife has produced guides to the bryophytes and lichens of Atlantic Woodlands. Each is in two parts, dealing with different habitats or tree species. There are also management guides: ‘Lichens and bryophytes of Atlantic woodland in Scotland: an introduction to their ecology and management’ and ‘Looking after bryophytes and lichens of Scotland’s oceanic ravines’. Plantlife has also produced guides on the bryophytes, lichens and fungi of Scottish pinewoods, and a guide to ‘Managing

Scotland’s uplands for Juniper’. A guide to ‘Managing trees in Scotland’s open habitats for lichens, bryophytes and fungi’ may be relevant to the wood pasture situation. The series of ‘Important Plant Areas’ identified by Plantlife includes stretches of the west Sutherland coast, listed for their Atlantic oak and hazel woodlands. The Atlantic Hazel Group has recently published ‘Atlantic Hazel Scotland’s Special Woodlands’, which gives guidelines on assessing and managing Atlantic hazel woodland.

The recently-initiated Coigach & Assynt Living Landscapes (CALL) project, led by a partnership currently involving seven not-for-profit and commercial landowners, aims to promote sustainable land management across their estates within these two parishes (Coigach being in Wester Ross). Initial work has included setting up a tree nursery to supply stock for locally-appropriate woodland expansion, and holding a ‘hazel awareness day’.

Highland Birchwoods is running a Highland-wide Rhododendron control project aiming to assist land managers with getting SRDP funding for Rhododendron control. It has also published 'Managing Small Woodlands in the Highlands and Islands - a guide for crofters, communities and small woodland owners'. http://www.managehighlandwoods.org.uk/ An earlier Highland Birchwoods project in East Sutherland aimed to add biodiversity, recreation, economic and tourism value to local woodlands by jointly working with local communities to promote, market and deliver relevant projects. One output was a leaflet on “East Sutherland’s top ten woodland walks”.

The original issues identified in 2003 were:

• The poor condition and inappropriate management of native woodlands; • commercial ‘clearfell’ management of coniferous plantations; • the widespread absence and (where they exist) poor management of riparian woodlands; • the spread of invasive species in policy and urban fringe woodlands.

There have been notable advances in addressing these issues through revised forestry policies and grant schemes. Additional issues identified by the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group were:

• The recently-recognised importance of Atlantic hazel woods; • The need to keep existing woods alive, as well as to establish new ones; • The use of inappropriate species (i.e. native to Scotland/Britain, but not locally native) and/or provenances in woodland expansion schemes; • The need for better advice on locally native species and the use of local seed sources.

Potential future projects:

a. Follow-up to the wood pasture survey - raising awareness of the existence of this habitat type and investigating its biodiversity value (for invertebrates, lichens etc.) b. More on aspen - implementing management recommendations from the report. The Scottish Aspen website has a downloadable guide to ‘Building Aspen habitat networks’ http://scottishaspen.org.uk/ which may be useful. c. Similar work for the Atlantic hazel wood habitat, including perhaps surveys for the priority species, hazel gloves fungus ( Hypocreopsis rhododendri ). d. An awareness-raising project stressing the importance of locally-appropriate species in planting schemes and encouraging the use of local seed sources in propagating trees for planting. e. Further survey and awareness-raising on Juniper. f. Further strategic clearance of Rhododendron. g. Promoting appropriate action for the wildcat, once advice from SNH is available (e.g. neutering and control of feral cats, habitat improvements etc.)

5.5 Mountain & Moor The biodiversity objectives for this habitat were:

• To maintain or improve the management of mountain and moorland species. • To reduce the numbers of sheep and deer in certain areas where overgrazing has been identified as a problem. • To reduce the number of wildfires through more effective muirburn planning and management.

Most of the positive management work carried out on mountain and moorland habitats has been done within the designated peatland sites of the Flow Country, including land (21,500ha) owned by the RSPB at Forsinard and by the Forestry Commission elsewhere. Additional work has been done outwith designated sites using SRDP funding for e.g. drain-blocking on peatlands.

Successive EU LIFE Peatlands Projects between 1994-2000 and 2001-11 have begun the restoration of extensive areas of blanket bog by removing planted conifers from 2,200ha and blocking drains over 15,600ha. Of this, FES has delivered a total of 962ha of peatland restoration work throughout Sutherland since 2003. Through LIFE funding FES has delivered 706ha of drain blocking and 350ha of non-native tree removal, and in addition has funded a further 256ha of drain blocking and 14ha of non-native tree removal. FES has also funded and delivered 364ha of follow-up felling of non-native tree regeneration. In 2007, a large area (11,373.36ha) of peatland centred on Forsinard (but not all in Sutherland) was declared as a National Nature Reserve. Work to restore the peatlands, thus improving their carbon capture capability, will be continued by the recently-announced HLF-funded ‘Flow to the Future’ Peatland Partnership project. This will include the establishment of a volunteer centre, offering the potential to act as a resource for other local projects.

The Woodland Trust’s land at Ledmore and Migdale Woods includes the 29ha Spinningdale Bog SSSI, for which there is a tree and scrub management plan, to restore and maintain the open character of the bog.

Aside from the community buyouts of land by the Assynt Crofters Trust, Assynt Foundation, Culag Community Woodlands Trust, and the ownership of Sandwood Bay and Quinag by the John Muir Trust and Forsinard by the RSPB, the majority of Sutherland’s extensive mountain, moorland and peatland areas remain in the hands of private estates.

29 with greater consideration being given to issues other than sporting management. However, there is still reluctance on the part of some ‘traditional’ sporting managers to acknowledge the legitimacy of other management objectives, as has been highlighted by recent well-publicised differences of opinion over management objectives in Assynt. The Sutherland BAP area intersects with eight different Deer Management Groups.

A review by the Highland BAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Group (STAG) in 2007 recommended a targeted range of species for action within each Highland LBAP area. The only one suggested for Sutherland and occurring in mountain and moorland habitats was juniper.

At the 2007 review of the UKBAP, the mountain and moorland species cuckoo, ring ouzel, mountain hare, pine marten, slow worm, adder and common lizard were added to the priority list, as were the habitats ‘upland flushes, fens and swamps’, and ‘mountain heaths and willow scrub’.

Plantlife has produced a guide to ‘Bryophytes of Scotland’s oceanic heath’ and management advice on ‘Looking after bryophytes in Scotland’s springs and flushes’ and ‘Looking after Scotland’s oceanic heath’. The series of ‘Important Plant Areas’ identified by Plantlife includes Ben More Assynt for its montane flora, and the Peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland.

Highland Birchwoods was one of a number of organisations involved in the HLF-funded ‘Action for Mountain Woodlands’ project, now concluded. Its successor, the ‘Mountain Woodlands Project’, is aiming to grow and plant 500,000 mountain woodland trees (montane willows, dwarf birch, juniper etc.) through partnership working with land managers and nurseries. http://www.mountainwoodlands.org/

In 2006/07 the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust carried out a questionnaire survey of the distribution of mountain hare in Scotland under contract to SNH 15 . This found them to be widespread in Sutherland, but more frequently reported in the east of the county than in the west.

15 Kinrade, V, Ewald, J, Smith, A, Newey, S, Iason, G, Thirgood, S and Raynor, R (2008) The Distribution of Mountain Hare ( Lepus timidus ) in Scotland (2006/07). SNH Commissioned Report No. 278. 30

Scotland’s moorland Forum is a partnership of 30 organisations with an interest in promoting best practice in moorland management http://www.moorlandforum.org.uk/ It published ‘Principles of Moorland Management’ in 2003. Despite the issuing of the revised Muirburn Code in 2011, advising against burning into areas of regenerating trees, bird nesting areas, bogland etc., irresponsible large-scale muirburn is still perceived to be a problem in west Sutherland 16 . http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/355582/0120117.pdf

Butterfly Conservation has produced a Regional Action Plan for moths in the North West Highlands and Western Isles and has published a leaflet entitled ‘Learn about the Argent & Sable’ - a moth which was recorded in the Quinag lochs survey.

According to the most recent available figures (THC website) there were three operational wind farms in the Sutherland BAP area as of May 2012, with a further six approved or under construction, five submitted but not yet determined and six at the scoping stage. All of these applications will have been subject to Environmental Assessments which will have involved gathering data on the flora and fauna of the areas affected. It is regrettable that because of ‘commercial confidentiality’ this information is not routinely submitted to national and local recording schemes. In some cases (e.g. Kilbraur, Gordonbush), habitat management plans are required as a condition of planning permission. These can require habitat enhancement measures to be implemented for particular species of concern. At Gordonbush these include a reduction in deer numbers and removal of conifer plantations, to benefit golden plover and merlin. In addition, a reduction in deer numbers across the estate is intended to draw golden eagles away from the wind farm by enhancing prey availability elsewhere.

The original issues identified in 2003 were:

• Overgrazing and inappropriate burning; • The balance between moorland and woodland land uses; • other management issues, such as damage by all-terrain vehicles, wildlife crime; • the potential for erosion caused by recreational activities; • renewable energy developments.

Most of these remain of concern. Additional issues identified by the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group were:

• The different muirburn practices and issues between East and West Sutherland; • Susceptibility of the North Atlantic Hepatic mat community to inappropriate grazing and muirburn;

16 See: Evans, I.M. and Noble, R. (2009) Muirburn in Assynt. Unpublished report to SNH. 31

• Grazing pressure from deer and sheep, and conversely, a lack of cattle; • The proliferation of wind farm proposals and the lack of a strategic approach; • Anticipating and minimizing the adverse impacts of climate change on upland environments; • The impact of the ban on asulam products (effective from 1/1/13) on the likely spread of bracken in the uplands.

Potential future projects:

a. Further survey of the newly-added priority species of reptiles, possibly combining with NARRS (the National Amphibian and Reptile Recording Scheme). b. Potential to collaborate with Coigach and Assynt Living Landscapes (CALL) on biodiversity-related projects. c. Potential to collaborate with ‘Flow to the Future’ on biodiversity-related projects. d. Awareness-raising on the damaging impacts of irresponsible muirburn on vulnerable species and habitats (such as the North Atlantic hepatic mat community 17 .) e. Further survey work for the Argent and Sable moth. f. Survey and habitat management work for the blaeberry bumblebee and moss carder bee.

17 Averis AM (1992) Where are all the hepatic mat liverworts in Scotland? Botanical Journal of Scotland 46(2), 191-8. 32

5.6 Town & Village The biodiversity objectives for this habitat were:

• To raise awareness of the biodiversity on people's doorsteps through initiatives such as 'Know Your Own Patch'. • To ensure the biodiversity of roadside verges and hedges and nearby streams and watercourses is taken into account in future maintenance contracts.

Whilst the area of built-up development in Sutherland is small in relation to the total land area, a large proportion of the population lives in villages. These are therefore an important focus for awareness-raising, education and interpretation. A lot of this work is done by the Highland Council Ranger Service. The 2012 ‘Wild North Festival’ extended biodiversity-related events into the Autumn season. This is planned to be an annual event. In 2013 it will link to the ‘Wildflower Europe’ project on ‘patchwork meadows’ in conjunction with Plantlife.

Plantlife has run an online reporting system for inappropriate road verge management. This issue is now being reviewed nationally and by The Highland Council, following a trial verge management project overseen by Mary Legg (THC Ranger) in Caithness.

At the 2007 review of the UKBAP, the urban species common toad, slow worm and hedgehog were added to the priority list.

The original issues identified in 2003 were:

• Inappropriate management of public open spaces; • lack of awareness on biodiversity issues; • plant pathogens and management of parks and gardens; • roadside verge and hedge maintenance

The only additional issue identified by the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group was the inappropriate location of developments.

Potential future projects:

a. Plenty of scope for more ‘know you own patch’ projects in the other major villages of Sutherland (Brora, Golspie, Dornoch, Helmsdale), if suitable local leaders can be found. b. Support the ‘Wild North’ and ‘Wildflower Europe’ projects. c. Promote uptake of the John Muir Award scheme by local schools. d. Work with Bumblebee Conservation Trust to promote bee-friendly gardening.

6. Cross-cutting issues

A number of issues cut across the habitat divisions and could be the subject of more generic projects.

6.1 Wildlife crime A wide range of plant and animal species in Sutherland are susceptible to criminal activities of various kinds (e.g. freshwater pearl mussels, badgers, birds of prey, garden- worthy plants). Work could be done, with the Partnership Against Wildlife Crime and local Police Wildlife Crime Officers, to raise awareness of this among the population and encourage more effective reporting of incidents.

6.2 Invasive non-native species Our approach to non-native invasive species is now much more joined-up than it was in 2003. The GB non-native species secretariat hosted by DEFRA published the ‘GB non- native species framework strategy’ in 2008. The website https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/home/index.cfm gives guidance on how to avoid the spread of non-native species (and pathogens), and includes a GB-wide database of projects targeting non-native invasive species. There is now a Highland Invasive Species Forum, and the Rivers and Fisheries Trusts Scotland (RAFTS) have applied for LIFE funding for work on invasive non-native species. http://www.highlandbiodiversity.com/invasive-species.asp Recent developments include the facility to report non-native invasive species by phone app. and online. There are many non-native species in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments which threaten Sutherland’s biodiversity, and could be the subject of awareness-raising and survey.

6.3 Biosecurity New plant and animal pathogens seem to be appearing regularly (e.g. ash dieback, Dutch elm disease, red band needle blight (Dothiostroma ) of pines, Phytophthora austrocedrae on Juniper, Gyrodactylus salaris affecting salmon). Project opportunities consist of awareness-raising, reporting occurrences to appropriate authorities and encouraging best practice in relation to hygiene (e.g. of footwear, fishing equipment, boats etc.).

6.4 Climate change Climate change is another important cross-cutting issue, but is largely outwith the scope of a local biodiversity group to address. (Although the ‘Flow to the Future’ project aims to increase the carbon uptake capacity of the peatlands.) However, its effects could be monitored by promoting surveys of easily-identifiable species whose ranges seem to be

34 extending northwards in response to climate change e.g. Speckled wood and Orange tip butterflies.

6.5 Biodiversity audit Since 2003 several major national surveys have been carried out, which included coverage of Sutherland. The Scottish Badger Survey was based on a stratified random sample of 1km squares, whilst the BTO/SOC Bird Atlas attempted to cover eight sample tetrads within each 10km square. Others, such as the forthcoming BDS Dragonfly Atlas, HBRG Atlases of Highland Bumblebees and Land Mammals, and Butterfly Conservation Atlas of Butterflies in Highland and Moray, are based on compilations of casual records. Work by a number of individual local enthusiasts has also added to our knowledge of various aspects of biodiversity in the county.

Whilst knowledge of some aspects of the biodiversity of Sutherland has advanced considerably since 2003, there is still a huge amount to be discovered. It is unlikely that it will ever be possible to compile a one-off complete list of Sutherland’s biodiversity – partly because change is a constant feature. But it would be beneficial to have a better idea of exactly which of the Scottish Biodiversity List habitats and species (including the revised UK BAP priorities) occur in Sutherland, and where. This would be quite a major piece of work and would probably need input from many different experts. Now that online bibliographic searching is available it is questionable whether the updating of Meek’s 18 bibliography of the natural history of the northern counties would be a worthwhile exercise. If it were thought to be so, a computerised bibliographic database would be the appropriate 21 st century format.

The Scottish Biodiversity Information Forum, aimed at improving the flow of biological information between conservation and scientific organisations and data users to benefit biodiversity, was set up in May 2012. This may be able to address the issue of data held by large organisations not being made readily available to other users.

6.6 Geographical coverage Five Community Council areas (Bettyhill, Strathnaver & Altnaharra; Edderton; Helmsdale; Melvich; Strathy & Armadale) have had no specific projects. Future work in these areas would depend on there being someone to take the lead. One suggestion from the Group was to initiate a ‘naturalist in residence’ placement, as has been done in the USA. Such a placement would promote biodiversity audit and raise awareness in under-recorded areas. There may be possibilities for collaboration on arts-related environmental projects with the Timespan centre in Helmsdale.

18 Meek, V (1975) Preliminary Bibliography of the Natural History of Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty (excluding Lewis). Nature Conservancy Council. 35

7. Where to next?

In carrying out this review it has become apparent just how much progress has been made in integrating biodiversity considerations into national and international policies and legislation - despite the apparent slowness of progress when viewed from the ‘inside’!

Several organisations which were members of the Group at the beginning have since left (Assynt Angling Group; Loch Duart Ltd.; Scottish Crofters’ Foundation; Sutherland NFU; Scottish Landowners Federation). These largely represent the primary industries, which are most under the influence of national and international policy mechanisms, and perhaps therefore less amenable to local initiatives. Unfortunately other partner organisations have ceased to exist (North Highland Forest Trust, Highland FWAG).

This lack of involvement from major land and water users may partially account for the mismatch between the ambitious original objectives in the Sutherland BAP and the projects which were actually achieved. There are two ways of looking at this: either to increase the membership of the Sutherland Partnership Biodiversity Group to include a much wider range of interests and organisational representation; or to leave things as they are and accept that the Group will only be able to tackle, or promote, smaller-scale projects which ‘fall between the cracks’ of what the larger organisations are doing. A half-way house might be to maintain the current Group membership, but invite a wider range of participants to specific meetings focussed on each of the six habitat groupings, or alternatively, on a particular geographical area. To be realistic, the Group can only do what individual members are interested in, have the time to pursue, and for which funding can be obtained.

On the positive side, several new organisations have appeared on the scene since 2003, and may offer new opportunities for partnership working (e.g. BugLife Scotland, Bumblebee Conservation Trust). Initiatives by existing organisations, such as Plantlife’s identification of ‘Important Plant Areas’ may offer opportunities for joint working to raise awareness of the importance of these areas.

In 2011 the University of the Highlands and Islands achieved full University status. This may offer opportunities for joint working on research-based projects, or for students to carry out small research projects identified by the Biodiversity Group.

The introduction to the 2003 Sutherland BAP stressed (p. v) that a key role of a local BAP is to ‘identify local issues and opportunities to feed back to the decision-makers outwith the county’. This remains a valid and valuable aim. The BAP also identified

36 that many of the pressures on Sutherland’s biodiversity come from external factors (e.g. global climate change) over which local actions may have little influence.

One vital aspect of work for local biodiversity groups is to raise awareness of the value of local biodiversity to people who may take it for granted - not realising that theirs is different from everyone else’s! One way of contributing to his would be to upgrade the Sutherland BAP website (see http://www.caithnessbiodiversity.org.uk/ as an example).

The emphasis in the draft ‘2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity’ (the final version is not yet published) is on moving towards landscape-scale approaches rather than actions for individual species and habitats. The 2003 Sutherland BAP identified a Key Target to ‘use the whole 400,000 acres of the Dornoch Firth Basin as a model for the practice and demonstration of prudent land use throughout the Highlands, involving crofters, farmers, foresters, water bailiffs and stalkers.’ This idea might be a better match with the prevailing mood today than it was ten years ago (although CALL may have cornered the market for such a project in Sutherland).

8. Miscellaneous recommendations

The first challenge of carrying out this review was to identify the projects which had been carried out under the auspices of the Sutherland BAP, and what they had actually achieved. Whilst the lists of project titles, budgets (mostly!) and lead organisations were available, the project reports were scattered in a variety of locations, and some had omitted to record vital information such as the author and date (of the report). It would be useful in future to maintain a library of project reports in one central location (physical or online), perhaps copying all of them to the Highland Biodiversity Officer as a back-up. In view of the uncertainty over future funding for the Sutherland Partnership, attention also needs to be given to such issues as the long-term custodianship of the biodiversity photo collection.

For a few projects, some elements of the budgetary information (such as how much match funding was supplied by other organisations) were lacking. Again, a consistent recording scheme would be beneficial. The recent upgrade to the online Biodiversity Action Reporting System (BARS) may help here. http://ukbars.defra.gov.uk/

Where objectives or targets are set in terms of measurable quantities (e.g. area of woodland to be brought into management), it would be helpful if project reports contained this information (i.e. area of woodland managed), to enable reporting against the target set. Similarly with e.g. schools projects – clearer recording of not only the number of schools and/or pupils involved, but also WHICH schools took part, would have allowed more accurate analysis of the geographical spread of projects. (As an example, the report on ‘OurStory’ gave a detailed account of what had been done – but omitted to say which school was involved. – It was Stoer Primary, but this was found out from elsewhere.)

However, in the overall context of what has been achieved for biodiversity in Sutherland over the past ten years, these are minor quibbles.