Discussion topics

Ecosystem issues

Nature conservation

Attitudes

Incomes and livelihoods

Farming, fisheries and game

RETURN to Meeting Report

Scary or what?
What, where and how? - a workshop on reintroducing key species to Britain - 8th September 2006

 WORKSHOP REPORTS

GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Participants discussed, in smaller groups, these topics in relation to reintroductions:

• Ecosystem issues

• Nature conservation, but not as we know it

• Attitudes

• Income and livelihoods

• Farming, fisheries and game

Each group recorded discussion and feedback 3 key points.

Ecosystem issues

• What are the key effects of reintroduced species on their ecosystems and fellow wildlife?

• What functional relationships might occur amongst species and habitats?

• Is the issue about reintroducing natural processes or reintroducing species?

• Any other one key question?

Group A discussion

• Depends on species

• Whole ecosystems means all animals

• Large predators are top down regulators of ecosystem

• Large predators effect medium sized predators

• Lynx predate on wild cat, a small proportion only (see evidence from Swiss Alps)

• Large predators take other carnivores – to remove competition

• Do predators take most abundant prey? Or most palatable?

• Dead animals killed on roads don’t get predated in the same way as preyed kill

• The effect on other predators will depend on the niche occupied by that species

• Predators effectively disperse prey – this does not happen in any of our ecosystems now?

• Does presence of wolves affect fauna? Do they take sheep once they have taken the deer? Or do they move on?

• David Hetherington showed that sheep kills reduced in an area with lynx – was this because there were less sheep or that predators were getting better at catching other prey?

• What are the arguments about beaver reintroduction – economic and political?

• Forestry Commission were worried about which species of trees would be affected – and what effect that would that have on the mosaic?

• There were worries about aspen - but now realize that beaver effect would be beneficial

• Beaver can affect the dominant species in an area

• But we need to accept the changes they will bring

• Forestry Commission no longer focused on timber production: reintroduction beaver would help them meet their new management ethos

• Animals need to be introduced gradually until greater numbers and territorial behaviours are achieved

• We have to be prepared for change (and not, as usual, resist change)

• Nature conservation sector recognizes that ecosystems are dynamic – co-evolution theory

• Boar and bluebell worries? Boar turn bulbs over but don’t eat them

• In any case there will be declines - change

• Carrying capacity eg. at Oostvarsdersplassen herds don’t overgraze

• It is about natural processes – not species

• Idea of using dogs to move deer on

• The BAP process focuses down – into detail

• We need changes in conservation attitudes

• Do we need iconic species to capture public enthusiasm?

Group A 4 key points

1. Importance of restoring natural processes – focus on process not reintroducing species

2. Importance of predators

3. Need to set precedents

4. Changes in attitudes amongst nature conservation community about accepting change

Group B discussion

• Is there natural process or habitat that is already suitable?

• Or do species drive the process, ie. beaver?

• Species introduced actually drive the natural processes – cant have a natural process without key species

• Effects on ecosystems are not always due to species, eg. Irish riparian systems caused by other processes as beaver were never there

• Machinery ruins landscape whereas beaver create a much more natural landscape

• May take years to see the real environmental effects of reintroducing species such as the beaver

• There are advantages to other species, such as insects and birds, by beaver introduction – increased dead wood about

• And more diverse habitats with marshy areas and slower water courses increase diversity and water conservation

• Landscapes may not be greatly affected by beaver if little restoration is needed.

• Beaver will encourage more willow type trees for coppicing

• Education needed for environmentalists and conservationists to reduce misconceptions about ecosystems change

• Need to be careful as natural processes could compromise BAP species

• How would reintroductions affect/interact with invasive species eg. Japanese Knotweed

• Habitats will  change anyway – whether with JCBs or reintroductions

• UK is constricted by conservation priorities backed up legislation and bureaucracy – so it is difficult to conserve species where outcome in unknown. Concentration on habitat conservation makes conservation more realistic?

• The Dutch approach is sensible – to assess possible reintroductions problems and consider solutions

• We could end up with fewer species due to fears about conserving what we already have

• Humans need to fulfill the role of top predator if domestic species are going to be used to manage habitat ie. feral goats in Lynton, Devon graze Valley of the Rocks

• The Dutch have several approaches to managing herbivores in the absence of predators eg. only intervene to shoot starving animals in Oostvarsdersplassen: culling for meat without intervening in herd dynamics

• The UK deer population would not be a problem if the public ate venison – need education here

• Any problems with reintroductions need legal and bureaucratic guidelines for management. But these need to be within the natural context otherwise it will become a farmed system

Group B 3 key points

1.  We are never going to know ALL the effects of reintroductions on ecosystems, so we need to go ahead thereby accepting some uncertainties.

2. But need to be prepared to address problems as they may arise (some ‘best practice’).

3. Two options for ecosystem change:

• Drive change with key species reintroductions

• Can reintroduce natural processes using free range domestic ponies with humans as top predators

Nature conservation, but not as we know it

• What are the implications of reintroductions for formal approaches to BAPs, targets and wildlife management?

• Any other one key question?

Group discussion

• Re-introductions are outside the current scope of BAPs, targets etc.

• BAPs are a series of actions that require intervention, a means of control that has outputs by specific dates

• Re-introductions take away need for intervention

• Re-introductions are experiments that don’t fit with targets and managerialism

• OVP – stood back and let go. Amazing things have happened in a cascade of effects as one change brings in the next process

• Natural dynamics that may well turn out to be unpredictable

• Adaptive conservation – do targets or outcomes?

  • What happens if something goes wrong?

  • What have we got to lose?

• Ecosystems rather than individual species – redo BAP system

• Landscape targets for HAP need more joining up to create natural links

• BAPs preserve agriculture-associated species

• Good condition prescriptions for NNR and SSSI are too mechanical and specific

• Some SSSI notifications are moving targets

• Go for extensive systems wherein some species may move or be lost e.g. non-viable agriculture in Somerset levels replaced by a wide area wetland system

• Species will track climate change and will migrate

• Should we use exotic species – how do we decide? Bad experiences so far

• Some people lose patience and go ahead with re-introductions – not always wise e.g. natterjack toad in Lake District

• Who got to choose BAP species in the first place?

Group discussion

3 Key points

1. Introduced species may help towards BAP targets (but may not!). Need to understand what benefit species can give  eg. beaver-HAPs –Water Framework Directive.

2. Target driven approach and reintroductions are not incompatible BUT targets need to be flexible to accommodate unpredictability.

3. Who makes the choices? And how will climate change influence these choices?

Attitudes

• What do the public, politicians and key interest groups feel about reintroductions?

• What influences them and why?

• Any other key question?

Group A discussion

• Interest in reintroductions is gaining momentum eg. Government: many groups

• There are diverse publics with differing interests, fears, drivers

• Views among stakeholders are continually evolving

• Thinking at a larger scale 

• Land use changes eg. farming: climate change

• Deep seated fear of carnivores?

• Multi-functionality eg. ecosystem services: hunting

• Greater pragmatism on many sides

• Animal welfare activists are a growing threat

• Emotional responses

• Human fear perceived and realized

• Lack of knowledge on the real impact of reintroductions

• There are positive benefits

• Has the case been made strongly enough for advocating reintroductions?

• Making a case for real benefits?

• Reintroducing lynx could be seen as a gateway to other species through education

3 key points

1. There is no uniform audience (within interest groups)

• Attitudes are shifting

• Key to success is finding the drivers

2. Attitudes vary between species

• Dangerous / benign

• Reintroductions are about putting right previous wrongs

• Multi-functionality

3. How to manage individual reintroductions

• Conservation importance to individual species

• Climate change

• Agriculture

Group B discussion

• Public perceptions – noise?, danger?

• Forinstance, for Red Kites early consultation was important

• Communicate in different ways to different groups

• Need for education about predation, ecosystems

• Need to get messages right and consistent e.g. Eagle Owl

• Is the Red Kite too common?

• Risk of messages getting distorted in the press / media

• We are dealing with fear and myth

• Not imposing anything on landowners etc

• Practical education about dealing with risks of predators

• Awareness is improving due to tv

• Using economic arguments and targeting politicians

• Must speak face to face with stakeholders and have public meetings

3 key points

1. There is diversity of information and opinion

2. Education needed – in different forms – and iterative

3. Political backing – how does this (reintroductions) fit with other agendas

Incomes and livelihoods

• What income, livelihoods and enterprises can be linked with reintroduced species?

• Any other one key question?

Positive impacts discussion:

• New source of food ("bush meat") if carefully managed

• New source of revenue from hunting (something else for the huntin' shootin' fishin' lobby to shoot at!)

• New source of revenue from free-range animal products (meat, furs, horn, etc.)

• New benefits from increased natural capital/habitat projects such as water management, timber and forest products, sustainable energy production, etc.

• New opportunities for both formal and informal education such as re-engaging with nature, the wild as a natural classroom, new instructional examples, etc.

• New support for local and internal economies through exploitation of above opportunities/income streams and development of new low-impact livelihoods/lifestyles plus associated trickle down.

• New opportunities for tourism associated with new wildlife and new habitats (landscape change).

• (It was noted that both -ve and +ve feedback loops might develop from increased travel to areas of species re-introductions ...with -ve feedback loops operating from increased CO2 emissions and other environmental impacts associated with travel and accommodation incurred nationally and locally, and +ve feedback loops operating from reduced CO2 emissions and other impacts associated with travel and accommodation incurred globally)

Negative impacts discussion:

• Possible financial losses from livestock predation with carnivore re-introductions

• Likely financial losses from crop damage with herbivore re-introductions (e.g. wild boar)

• Possible competition for fodder between domestic livestock and wild herbivores?

• Possible reduction in tourism income from some sectors (old duffers) where carnivores may be re-introduced due to fear factor (will be more than offset by increased tourism from other streams)

3 key points

1. Ecotourism, natural capital, food/products, hunting

2. Indirect benefits: resource management, local/sustainable livelihoods, more diverse and less homogeneous landscapes, education, connections with nature.

3. Should we justify projects in £ and pence OR should the balance sheet be influenced mainly by non-monetary benefits (eg. education, spiritual benefits)?

Farming, fisheries and game

• What are the opportunities and challenges of reintroduced species to farming, fisheries and game interests?

• What incentives and what if any compensation measures should accompany key introductions?

• Any other one key question?

3 key points

1. Opportunities

• Area branding

• Positive payments (Wild index for Agri-env schemes)

2. Eco-tourism and game shooting

3. Education – induction – provision of resources

RETURN to Meeting Report

-top