Deer Management on the Assynt Peninsula

DEER MANAGEMENT ON THE ASSYNT PENINSULA

Summary

1. The Ardvar Woodlands SSSI/SAC, which lie within the area of the Assynt Peninsula Sub-Group (APSG), is in unfavourable condition (see map at Annex 1). We provided a report to the Board in November 2016 on progress made by APSG in delivering on specific requirements to bring the woodlands into favourable condition. This paper provides an update on progress made between then and now with an overall assessment on delivery. It recommends that we offer a Control Agreement to properties in the Sub- Group and move to a Control Scheme where this is not accepted. This proposed intervention is part of our on-going national programme to improve deer management for the delivery of public benefits. To date this has involved nearly 50 properties in voluntary control agreements.

Action

2. The Board is asked to consider progress with this case since the last update and to agree to:

a. Welcome the commissioning of a Deer Management Plan (DMP) by APSG. b. Welcome the delivery of the stag cull in full. c. Note that the hind cull fell significantly short of what had been agreed. d. Note that the DMP does not provide us with confidence that the Deer Management Group (DMG) can deliver the deer management necessary to achieve favourable condition in the long term. e. Approve the offering of a Control Agreement under Section 7 of the Deer (Scotland) Act, 1996; and if any owners do not accept, to serve them with a Control Scheme under Section 8 of the Act. f. Delegate the signing of a Control Scheme to the Director of Operations.

Preparation

3. This paper has been prepared by Kristin Scott with input from a range of technical experts within SNH, and is sponsored by Nick Halfhide.

Background

4. Since 2009 SNH and its predecessor body the Deer Commission for Scotland have made numerous attempts with land managers to secure a voluntary Section 7 Control Agreement and associated DMP which would secure the recovery of the woodlands into favourable condition. A timeline which tracks the effort made to get agreement with key parties over the management of deer across the Assynt Peninsula is at Annex 2. This includes the decision by the Board in June 2016 to give APSG one final opportunity to achieve the deer density target by allowing a further 10 months for the group to deliver the

specific outputs listed below. The Board also expected to see the fencing plans implemented on Ardvar Estate, the North Assynt Estate (Nedd Common Grazings) and on Quinag Estate (Unapool Common Grazings).

5. The Board agreed that the APSG needed to deliver all of the following outputs by the end of March 2017:

a. Requirement 1: A coherent DMP that delivers public benefit as well as collaborative deer management. b. Requirement 2: A DMP that is designed to bring the woodland into ‘favourable condition’ with clearly defined methods for monitoring and delivering this. c. Requirement 3: The overall stag and hind cull targets as specified by SNH for the 2016/17 season are met1.

Interim Progress Report to SNH Board - November 2016

6. The November progress report to the Board was fairly upbeat. The stag cull had been achieved in full; progress with the DMP had been slower than we had hoped for, but APSG was signalling it was committed to taking it forward. To assist APSG we drafted a ‘vision’ statement setting out how the woodlands could look in 30 years’ time, subject to a grazing regime that is compatible with recovery of the habitat.

7. We advised the Board that the APSG Chair had warned that the hind cull would likely be very challenging for some parties and that we would explore how we might help or offer advice over any capacity issues. We reported that progress was being made with the fencing proposals on all three properties, albeit at slightly different rates. On the strength of this progress we recommended that the Board did not intervene using regulation at this stage, and to review progress again after March 2017.

8. We have now reviewed progress further between November 2016 and March 2017 and can report the following:

Progress with Requirement 1:

9. APSG appointed a contractor in December to develop their DMP and a draft plan was presented simultaneously to both APSG members and SNH at a meeting on 16 March 2017. We broadly welcomed the draft plan but asked APSG to provide more clearly defined, measurable targets, identifying how the wider public benefit will be delivered. We received a revised plan on 21 April.

10. The revised plan has taken on board some of our comments and progress has been made in identifying the public interest that deer management contributes to across the APSG area. However, the plan needs to be further

1 SNH produced cull figures; then APSG produced their own cull figures through their ‘statement of intent’, which the Board accepted.

improved with more specific, measurable and time-bound actions, and stronger commitments from individual members. In particular, the actions that relate to developing mechanisms to manage deer are still weak in the plan which is of concern as it is a long-standing issue. Based on the history of the site, this revised plan does not give us confidence that deer will be managed effectively over the ten years of the plan. We assess the first requirement, a coherent DMP that delivers public benefit as well as collaborative deer management, as being only partially delivered.

Progress with Requirement 2:

11. Despite prolonged discussions we have not reached agreement with APSG on a vision for the woodlands, in particular on expectations over the timescale for recovery and what that actually means or looks like, or the basis upon which future cull targets should be modelled.

12. The deer population model suggested in the DMP is not based on industry best practice. APSG has averaged three counts (2011, 2013 and 2016) which effectively subtracted 15% off the most recent count (2016) to provide a lower baseline. The consequence of this is a population model which in actual terms, relative to the 2016 count, delivers a density of 9 deer/km2. This is significantly different from the density of 7.5 deer/km2 proposed by APSG and accepted by the Board in June 2016, and would not be low enough to bring the woodlands into favourable condition.

13. In addition, the revised DMP does not explicitly adopt an adaptive management approach to delivering favourable condition focused on habitat response as a key metric in determining deer culls. This is standard practice in deer management so that after an initial reduction cull, further cull targets are based on sound evidence provided by on-going habitat monitoring.

14. The first draft plan did not include our vision for the protected features which sets out how recovery of the habitat will be measured using the Herbivore Impact Assessment, and over what timescale. SNH developed this vision to provide APSG with a clear picture of what this type of SSSI woodland in this location could look like with appropriate management. The vision also provides targets to help guide APSG to reach the vision end point. The future condition for the site described in our vision is based on the ‘Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Woodland Habitats’ published by JNCC in 2004 and applied to every woodland SSSI in Scotland.

15. While the revised DMP now better reflects the requirement for habitat monitoring to inform planning, it has still not adopted our vision for the site nor suggested a credible alternative. APSG considers that the objectives for management in our vision are not possible within the timescale, a view not shared by our woodland ecologists based on their knowledge of similar sites elsewhere.

16. We have been working closely with FCS over forestry contracts, which include funding of deer fences and deer management in both enclosed and

unenclosed woodland. These contracts set out a clear indication of progress that FCS expects to be made over the next five years regarding habitat recovery, which will be monitored through herbivore impact assessments. The conditions attached to the contracts are aligned with the objectives and the targets for the short (2-5 years), medium (5-10 years) and long term (30 years) that we have set out for woodland habitat recovery in our vision.

17. We consider that the vision is achievable through adaptive deer management. This is based on a recent site survey that illustrates current deer impacts; firmly established knowledge of the growth and regeneration habits of the characteristic vegetation; and our considerable experience of the consequences of deer impact reductions.

18. Due to the lack of agreement on both the vision for the woodland and the basis for the deer population model, and the plan not explicitly adopting an adaptive management approach, we assess the second requirement, a plan designed to bring the woodland into ‘favourable condition’, as being not delivered.

Progress with Requirement 3:

19. While APSG delivered the stag cull in full, the group did not deliver the agreed hind cull. The table in Annex 3 provides a summary of the overall stag, hind and calf cull for 2016/17. The hind cull was 40 hinds less than the target cull which APSG had committed to through their Statement of Intent. This has implications for achieving the target density and future cull levels to attain this.

20. Of this shortfall in the hind cull, 30 are attributable to North Assynt Estate, and 9 to Loch Assynt Lodge Estate. Shortly after our interim progress report to the Board, the Assynt Crofters’ Trust (ACT) which owns the North Assynt Estate wrote to us indicating their intention to substantially reduce their hind cull from what they’d agreed. This was near the start of the hind season. ACT expressed concerns over the basis of our population model and the implications of the reduction cull. We have explained on a number of occasions that the initial target density allows for the collective sporting cull, with an additional buffer built into the modelling, so there should be no negative impact on the viability of sporting interests.

21. The requirement of the SNH Board was for the agreed deer density target to be met, both this year and next. We assess the third requirement that the overall stag and hind cull targets as specified by SNH for the 2016/17 season as being only partially delivered.

Progress with fencing:

22. Contracts for fencing and woodland management have been exchanged with FCS on Ardvar Estate and with Nedd Common Grazings (on ACT land). We are liaising closely with FCS and understand that works on the ground are expected to start imminently. Progress with fencing plans on the Unapool common grazings is not as far advanced, due to the relatively recent

commencement of discussions, but we expect there to be detailed negotiations soon.

Assessment against SNH Board Requirement

23. In June 2016, the Board agreed to give APSG another 10 months to show that they could put in place a coherent deer management plan, and meet the agreed cull targets. Some progress has been made, including the full stag cull. APSG committed to producing a DMP and hired a contractor to draft it. The group has managed to maintain some cohesion through turbulent times and that in itself is worth noting given the history of this case and the difficulty in getting parties to agree to work together.

24. Overall there has been partial success in delivery of some elements of the Board’s requirements. However, there has not been acceptance of the vision and it has not been adopted in the plan, and the mechanisms in the DMP for effective management of deer in relation to the protected area are weak. Furthermore, APSG have disputed the baseline for establishing the cull, resulting in the group’s hind cull target not being met, and the plan does not explicitly adopt an adaptive management approach. Overall this does not provide us with confidence that APSG can deliver the deer management necessary to achieve favourable condition in the long term and we do not consider that more time to discuss these points will lead to agreement.

Next Steps

25. Subject to the Board’s approval, we propose to offer a Control Agreement under Section 7 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. We would firstly offer each member of APSG a S7 Control Agreement based on the agreement that was offered in August 2015. On the basis that we are offering the same conditions as previously, we will give APSG members one month to sign up to this new S7 Control Agreement. Thereafter, for those properties who did not sign the Control Agreement, we would serve them with a Control Scheme under Section 8 of the Act.

Summary of Risks

26. Legal Challenge: This would be the first time that we have served a S8 Control Scheme and may lead to legal challenge in order to test our approach. To mitigate this risk, we have taken legal advice on how to interpret and apply the legislation in Sections 7 & 8 of the Deer (Scotland) Act, 1996.

27. Exit strategy: There is a risk that our intervention becomes protracted with significant resource requirements. We need to consider how we manage our intervention so that we can transfer management back to the local deer managers over the medium to long term without the need for further regulation. We will continue to work with the group to build their capacity to achieve this and explore what funding may be available to support them.

28. Damage to the natural heritage: If the on-going impacts to the woodland by red deer are not reduced or removed, the natural heritage interest will continue to decline to a point at which the extent of the woodland shrinks, the species diversity declines and the prospects for recovery are further diminished. The approach recommended in this paper seeks to mitigate this risk.

29. Reputational damage: This is a high profile case and it will be closely scrutinised by a wide range of organisations and individuals. We have a comprehensive communications plan in place to explain what we propose to do and why.

Recommendation

30. We recommend that the Board approves the offering of a Control Agreement under Section 7 of the Deer (Scotland) Act, and if any owners do not accept, to serve them with a Control Scheme under Section 8 of the Act.

Author: Kristin Scott Date: 22 June 2017

For any queries please contact Dave Mackay on: 0300 067 3107 Email: [email protected]

Annex 1 Map

Annex 2: Timeline

2004 - Site Condition Monitoring - the woodland was found to be in unfavourable declining condition. This was due to a number of factors including a low degree of naturalness, absence of understorey and absence of regeneration of the range of tree species present on the site.

2008 - Woodland Profile Survey - highlights herbivore pressure at Ardvar Woodlands SSSI.

2009 - Voluntary Section 7 Control Agreement (S.7) over 5 years established by the Deer Commission for Scotland (DCS) between Ardvar Estate and John Muir Trust (JMT). Assynt Crofters’ Trust (ACT) declined to participate.

2012 - Agreement breaks down and is deemed to have failed.

May 2013 - all three properties invited to join new S.7. Agreement is not secured and a subsequent attempt at professional mediation also fails.

Early 2014 - We informed the Environment Minister that mediation attempts between JMT and Ardvar Estate had failed and case was heading towards imposition of a Section 8 Control Scheme (S.8).

May 2014 - SNH Board agreed Management Team’s preferred option to move the woods into unfavourable recovering condition. This involved a series of fenced exclosures on all three properties accompanied by a S.7 Control Agreement across the whole of the APSG area. A key feature of the proposed approach was that it would address the long term woodland management needs after fencing was removed. It was accepted that if this was declined, S.8 may be required at some stage to implement proposed management solution.

September 2014 - relations re-established with the three properties; native woodland adviser contracted to develop Woodland Management Plan, including fencing proposals.

March 2015 - Woodland Management Plan and fencing proposals agreed; negotiations commenced for implementation of fencing plans with property owners and crofting common grazing occupiers.

June/July 2015 - APSG failed to secure agreement for a Deer Management Plan across the wider Assynt peninsula amid disagreement within the group itself, and between the group and SNH.

August 2015 - we notified our intention to seek a S.7 Control Agreement signalling the start of a statutory 6 month consultation period in which to secure a voluntary agreement. Three months into the consultation, reservations about the S.7 process and distrust between parties was signalling that it would be difficult to get agreement.

October 2015 - SNH provided the Environment Minister with a briefing on the Ardvar situation in advance of giving evidence to the Parliament's RACCE Committee on the deer provisions within the Land Reform Bill.

November 2015 - SNH Chairman met with representatives of ACT to listen to concerns over S7 and explore underlying reasons. Chairman met separately with owner of Ardvar Estate later that month to listen to his views and concerns. Chairman also had dialogue with JMT over the Ardvar situation in August 2015 at a stakeholder meeting.

January 2016 - SNH Chairman and Director of Operations briefed the Environment Minister.

February 2016 - by end of the 6 month period we had only 3 signatories to the S.7 Control Agreement; broad consensus with S.7 underlying aims and objectives but members unwilling to commit until after a spring deer count.

March 2016 - count maps, figures and proposed cull targets provided to APSG. Members again asked to sign S.7 but this yielded no additional signatories.

28 April 2016 - final attempt to get parties to sign S.7 to enable the SNH Board to consider whether further regulatory action required under S.8. No further signatures received and remainder confirmed their opposition in principle to signing S.7.

5 May 2016 - APSG writes to SNH asking for more time to demonstrate it can deliver a collaborative cull, but based on a 10% reduction of the 2016 count.

30 June 2016 - SNH Board accepts APSG’s revised proposed cull and agrees to give APSG a further ten months and sets clear targets which must be met.

17 November 2016 - Interim update to Board painted an optimistic picture based on the stag cull being met, a commitment to progress with a DMP and good progress towards the fencing targets.

30 November 2016 - Assynt Crofters’ Trust writes to SNH stating that they had decided to reduce their hind cull target due to concerns with both SNH’s population model and implications of the reduction cull.

9 December 2016 - APSG appoints contractor to write DMP.

12 January 2017 - staff meet with contractor to try and resolve fundamental differences over basis for deer population modelling and our ‘vision’ for woodland condition.

23 February 2017 - contracts were signed by Ardvar Estate with Forestry Commission Scotland (Woodland Improvement Grant (WIG) and Sustainable Management of Forests (SMF)) for the erection of fencing and the management of deer in both enclosed and unenclosed woodland.

31 March 2017 - SNH sets out concerns over draft DMP to group. These relate primarily to the basis for the population modelling; the lack of recognition of the ‘vision’ and actions for improving the woodland habitat; and the plan not explicitly adopting an adaptive management approach to deer management.

21 April 2017 - SNH receives revised DMP from APSG’s contractor enabling us to give it a final assessment.

25 May 2017 - contracts were signed by Nedd Common Grazings with Forestry Commission Scotland (WIG and SMF) for the erection of fencing and the management of deer in both enclosed and unenclosed woodland.

Annex 3 Cull summary

Property SNH original cull APSG proposed alternative Actual cull taken 2016/17 requirement cull Stags Hinds Calves Stags Hinds Calves Stags Hinds Calves Ardvar Estate 27 58 24 15 25 10 17 29 15 North Assynt Estate (ACT) 62 86 32 62 86 32 60 56 24 Quinag Estate 40 (+1 (JMT) 40 62 24 40 62 24 sika) 64 24 Brackloch/Middle 6 (+1 Inver 5 7 2 5 8 2 sika) 7 2 Kylesku 3 2 1 3 2 1 6 * * 8 (+ 1 Lagg & Loch Poll 5 8 3 7 8 3 10 roe) 2 Little Assynt (CCW) 8 15 3 10 15 5 3 3 2 Loch Assynt Lodge Estate 7 9 3 7 9 3 2 0 0 Lochinver/Vestey 9 16 6 9 16 6 11 20** 10** Oldany Island 4 6 2 7 10 3 4 13 6 159 200 Total 170 270 100 165 241 89 (+2 sika) (+1 roe) 85

* Kylesku hinds reported with Quinag

** Combined Vestey (17 hinds + 9 calves) & Culag Woods (3 hinds + 1 calf)

NB. Additional animals will have been shot on small holdings/crofts under general authorisation. These exact numbers are unknown but we do not believe these numbers to be significant in the context of the cull outlined above. The population model that SNH’s original cull requirements are based on includes a buffer for this unknown cull.

1. The table above details the cull targets for each individual property as set out in SNH’s original cull requirement and APSG’s alternative proposal (that was agreed by the SNH Board), and then the actual cull taken. The difference in total stags, hinds and calves between SNH’s original required cull, and APSG’s proposed alternative cull, is due to a proposed reduced cull for Ardvar Estate. Four other properties slightly increased their proposed culls to try to compensate for Ardvar Estate’s proposed reduced cull, but the shortfall in its entirety was not made up by the group (see total line).

2. The further reduction in figures between the proposed APSG culls and the actual cull taken, particularly in terms of the significant difference in hind numbers, is largely associated with North Assynt Estate (Assynt Crofters’ Trust). The figures highlighted in yellow show the most significant shortfalls against agreed undertakings.