Goose management policy in Scotland: 2010 review

Review of goose management policy in Scotland conducted in 2010.



2. Announcement was made on 23 September 2010 (see

3. See

4. see SAP=&M=2

5. See

6. Although this in part reflects earlier decisions not to use the SRDP to address goose issues whilst other explicit schemes existed outwith the SRDP.

7. The thresholds are based on AEWA population thresholds for waterbirds (see Section 2.1 and Table 2.2).

8. However, increases in population are likely to be associated with increased damage to agriculture and hence an increased cost to society (see Chapter 4).

9. We would conclude that Scotland's conservation obligations were being met if: (i) the population could be stabilised; (ii) flocks were not being lost from smaller sites; or (iii) that we could be sure that the factors causing the decline were operating exclusively outside of Scotland ( UK).

10. See

11. More detailed information on the establishment and structure of the NGMRG is given in its 2005 review ( NGMRG, 2005).

12. These aspects are examined in detail in Section 4.

13. The need for improved information was a recommendation of Annex 6 in the 2005 review.

14. The need for improved information was a recommendation of Annex 6 in the 2005 review.

15. A summary of the performance of the LGMGs is given in Appendix G.

16. The current make-up of GSAG has some very experienced goose scientists. It may not always be possible for the key stakeholder organisations to field such expert scientists in future, and it may be appropriate to consider involving other independent scientists in GSAG, either routinely or (perhaps better) to give periodic advice on key issues.

17. Discussed more fully in Section 4.7.

18. Member States may apply for derogations from the Directive but, since the Directive is designed to meet various international obligations, the EC is not itself unconstrained on such policy decisions.

19. The general public in Scotland, Islay residents, Islay visitors, Loch of Strathbeg residents, Loch of Strathbeg visitors.

20. Although it is not clear how this term was defined in the research.

21. Applying the Scottish Svalbard Barnacle population data for Solway.

22. Excluding Orkney , the increase is around 24%.

23. Based on a population of 197,160 in the local schemes plus Orkney. .

24. Goose days are uncorrected for dropping loss which if incorporated would reduce the cost per goose by 12.8% (see Table G28). All data are for the spring 2009 season.

25. BTO Birdfacts (e.g. gives mean weights for Barnacle, Pink-footed, Greylag and Greenland White-fronted Goose of 1.7 kg, 2.5 kg, 3.3 kg and 2.5kg respectively. Feed intake may be expected to vary approximately with metabolic body size (body weight0.75) but the contract Steering Group requested that costs adjusted for body weight were not presented.

26. In some schemes zoning is largely notional even though it can be said to exist.

27. The extreme form is that of a 'bullseye' with the refuge at its centre.

28. A concentrated approach is where there are designated feeding areas and linked buffer areas adjacent to each other and usually adjacent to reserves. A dispersed approach has feeding areas that may be separated spatially and buffer areas that may not be linked to feeding areas.

29. A detailed analysis of these aspects can be found in Appendix G.

30. Based on Islay estimate (see Appendix G).

31. Spill-overs might also extend to tourism opportunities with (e.g.) free access at NGO sites (reserves) limiting commercial activities on neighboring farms, but also possibly creating a need for local accomdation.

32. See

33. See

34. At which point goose management schemes might have their own budget heading or exist within another programme budget heading.

35. The co-financing rate is variable, up to 55% for Axis 2.

36. That is, taking gross budget allocations as given and neglecting possible shifts between land use and other policy areas such as (e.g.) housing, health or transport.

37. For example, see the Cook (2009)

38. This was applied for in 1999 and granted in 2001, implying that a renewal is perhaps overdue.

39. See

40. Such variation is permitted under the Article 53 of the Implementing Regs, but "standard" costs are perhaps deployed more commonly.

41. As reflected in the additional emphasis on monitoring in the RDR and Implementing Regs.

42. Including their size (e.g the limited coverage of goose schemes means they are but small areas even within relevant RPAC areas).

43. Although it should be noted that RPACS and NPAC already have to address potential differences in local and national priorities for other policy areas (i.e. this issue is not unique to geese).

44. Although transferring between Axes is much more difficult than transferring within an Axis.

45. But these terms appeared to be used interchangeably and were not defined in the preference research.

46. In the sense used in the previous preference studies (see Section 4.2.2).

47. Note that an appropriate scale of national monitoring must still continue in order to ensure that any proactive management of each population conforms to maintaining a sustainable population.

48. Although other options for enhancing damage mitigation in crofting areas may currently be limited, particularly on North Uist ( Appendix G Section 16.7.5).

49. Precise figures are elusive due to exchange rate fluctuations and adjustments to co-financing rates.

50. This excludes the LIFE programme, which for the Uists and Coll and Tiree will operate until 2014.

51. However, we note that goose management was effectively excluded from the current SRDP because other policy delivery was in place. A future SRDP could be formulated to include goose options.

52. Although some could be maintained by retaining a form of LGMG in an advisory role in appropriate geographical areas.

53. See

54. See

55. Defined as 1st Feb to 31st August (21 Feb - 31st August for areas below the high water mark for geese.

56. see

57. see

58. Exclusion of the scaring zone on Islay (156 ha) has a very minimal impact on total goose numbers and costs per goose since by definition this zone has a density of <1.5 goose per ha. The maximum possible count is thus 234 geese (see Tables G3 and G7) out of a total of more than 40,000.

59. The Islay scheme has this condition inserted into their spreadsheet calculation as is apparent in Figure 1.1.

60. The Solway LGMG argue that the scheme supports at least 15-20,000 geese but the basis for these figures is unclear and may include counts from land under the Solway Merse Management Scheme. Using the LGMS figures gives a cost of £12-16 per goose. We consider that using goose counts taken only from fields receiving payments within the LGMS is a more relevant basis for measuring cost.

61. This would not occur in other schemes since only with the Strathbeg scheme is there a clear obligation to apply fertiliser between specified dates.

62. Based on a payment cost of £74,930, 283,270 goose days and 52 days grazing.

63. Based on an analysis of Appendix G and the financial data given in the 2009 scheme report. The estimates of grazing days are uncorrected for rainfall. The estimated dropping loss given in the report is 14.7% in March and 10.3% in April. Incorporating this correction would increase goose numbers by 12.8% over the season and reduce the cost per goose correspondingly.


65. However, it is not clear that it term s of population reduction these per head figures are strictly comparable.

66. See

67. See

68. See

69. See

70. RLUS2, see

71. RLUS3, see

72. Principally the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981) and the Conservations & Natural Habitats Regulation (1994). It should also be noted that some domestic measures apparently pre-dated these EU-inspired ones. As an alternative, designated areas could have been purchased and managed directly by the State - but the general approach is to seek to influence the behaviour of private land managers.

73. Bromley, D.W. & Hodge, I. (1990) Private property rights and presumptive policy entitlement; reconsidering the premises of rural policy, European Review Agricultural Economics, 12, 197 - 214.

74. Where quality is vaguely defined here in terms of (e.g.) number of geese, habitat condition and levels of biodiversity.

75. Most notably the requirement within the Climate Change (Scotland) Act for the creation of a Land Use Strategy for Scotland by 2011.

76. It is also possible that climate change may alter the numbers, location and vulnerability of some species, possibly leading to revision of regulatory requirements.

77. Depending on how cross-compliance requirements are specified and how (potential) environmental outcomes are distributed spatially.

78. See RLUS3

79. See RLUS op cit, plus (e.g.) Buckwell (2009)

80. See

81. See


Email: Central Enquiries Unit

Back to top