An introduction to the Species Action Framework
Author Martin Gaywood Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Leachkin Road, Inverness, IV3 8NW.
[email protected]
Summary • This introduction to the Species Action Framework (SAF) explains the underlying rationale and how we selected 32 species for targeted action. • Four categories were adopted for brigading species: species conservation; invasive non-native species; conflicts of interest involving native species; and sustainable use of species. • SAF marked a new approach to species conservation and management. Resources were directed at strategically planned and targeted management action for a limited number of species but with a wide biodiversity benefit. It relied on the involvement and leadership of effective partnerships. • The overall success of the work is outlined, with pointers to further work needed.
Introduction The Species Action Framework (SAF) was devised to ensure that limited resources could make a real difference for Scotland’s species and wider biodiversity. Targeted management focused on 32 species over a five-year period between 2007 and 2012, with much work continuing to date. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) coordinated the process but by the end of SAF almost 100 partner organisations were involved, together with over a thousand volunteers, and many land managers, farmers, academics and others. Some of Scotland’s recent, high profile species projects came under the SAF banner, for example: • Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels • East Scotland Sea Eagle Project • Scottish Beaver Trial • Cairngorms Wildcat Project • Scottish Mink Initiative • Langholm Moor Demonstration Project. Much of the project work involved species with fur and feathers. The Cairngorms Wildcat Project went on to become a winner at the Nature of Scotland Awards in 2013, with the Scottish Beaver Trial a runner-up (both in the ‘Innovation Award’ category). But there was also exciting work done for a lot of species that do not always get the publicity they deserve, such as woolly willow, great yellow bumblebee or hazel gloves fungus. There was well-deserved recognition for the SAF-supported work on the marsh fritillary butterfly with another win at the Nature of Scotland Awards
in 2015, and the Cairngorms Rare Plants Project was shortlisted in 2014 (both in the ‘RSPB Species Champion Award’ category). The wide range in the taxa covered by SAF was reflected by the breadth and reach of work done, from getting agreements for international flyway plans covering thousands of miles for Greenland white-fronted geese, to cutting up tree stumps within small habitat patches to help pine hoverflies. For some species the aim was to control them rather than conserve them, with actions such as the targeted management of invasive rhododendrons in areas of high biodiversity value, and testing methods to deal with New Zealand pygmyweed. Since completion of most of the project work we have been passing on the experiences and lessons learned. Research, survey and monitoring projects tend to be well recorded, but this is not always the case with management work. We therefore organised a conference dedicated to SAF in late 2012, and produced posters for each of the 32 species; these are available, together with podcasts of the speakers and their Powerpoint presentations, on the SAF pages of our website. However, we also wanted to produce a Handbook written by those who led on much of the work. This publication is the end result and we hope you find the content interesting, useful and inspiring.
Background to the Species Action Framework The SAF was produced in response to the 2004 Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (Scottish Executive, 2004) which set out what we all needed to do over 25 years to conserve and enhance biodiversity. The importance of Scotland’s biodiversity to our health, individually and as a nation, was emphasised in the Strategy, together with its enormous economic value. These values have continued to be recognised in subsequent revisions of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (including Scottish Government, 2013, 2015). At SNH we realised the importance of setting priorities for the way we manage species, focusing on those where we might expect significant wider gains to biodiversity, and thereby benefits for people. The result was the SAF which, following consultation and discussions during 2006, received a ministerial launch in 2007. Full details are provided in the SAF document (SNH, 2007) (Fig.1), but in essence it set out a strategic approach to species management in Scotland, together with a list of 32 species for which new, focused effort and resources over five years could make the most difference for biodiversity. Ultimately our longer term aim for species management is to ensure that we have
thriving and, where possible, self-sustaining and selfregulating populations of native species, distributed throughout their native range.
with accompanying Scottish guidelines has been produced (National Species Reintroduction Forum, 2014). The SAF also identified five broad principles on how we manage species for biodiversity. These should guide all species management: 1. Species management is a shared responsibility. 2. There are ecological and socio-economic aspects to species management decisions. 3. Species management benefits from a strategic approach. 4. Species management needs an adaptive approach. 5. Management activity should have regard to animal welfare.
Fig 1. The Species Action Framework launched in 2007. © SNH
We identified four main situations where species management is needed: 1. Species conservation – where a species needs targeted action to increase its range or population size because it is at risk in Scotland or internationally, or because it plays a vital role in achieving healthy ecosystems. 2. Invasive non-native species – where a species that is not native to a particular area threaten biodiversity aims. 3. Conflicts of interest involving native species – where the behaviour of a species brings it into conflict with people’s interests or with the conservation of other species or habitats. 4. Sustainable use of species – where a species in the wild is a resource of social or economic benefit (e.g. field sports, fisheries). The full criteria used for selecting the 32 species for targeted action are provided in the original SAF document (SNH, 2007). However all these species fell within at least one of the four situations above. It was also necessary for there to be sufficient knowledge of the species concerned to inform management work, and a consensus that targeted action would make a difference (for example if there was an identified management action likely to work and/or the species concerned was thought to have a key influence on ecosystem function). Reintroduction candidates were also considered, but the proposals had to address the IUCN Guidelines (IUCN 1998). Note that since SAF finished these guidelines have been revised (IUCN, 2013) and a Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations
These principles were applied to the work done for the 32 SAF species. It was widely acknowledged that practitioners of land and water management would be key partners in meeting the biodiversity conservation objectives for SAF.
How we coordinated and resourced the Species Action Framework When SAF was launched in 2007 by the Government’s Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Sarah Boyack MSP, she stated that ‘…SNH will now focus efforts and resources towards these target species…’ and that we should work ‘… in partnership with other bodies…’. To get things started we therefore set up a project and worked out how our own staff could support the process. We identified key individuals within SNH an ‘SNH Species Lead’ for every species on the list and an overall SAF Project Manager to coordinate the process. The SNH Species Leads acted as contact points and, working with partners, ensured that efforts concentrated on targeted management action getting work done on the ground. We also set up a small project management group within SNH to assess funding bids and ensure that the five broad principles of species management (listed above) were applied. For example, we received a number of proposals for mink management projects, but made a point of prioritising our limited resources on encouraging large scale, strategically planned projects (in northern Scotland or west coast islands) that built on well designed, existing work that were ‘futureproofed’ as much as possible. This simple operational approach was designed to keep the bureaucracy and paperwork to a minimum, ensuring that decisions were made and funds released as quickly as possible, and that resources were targeted at getting the work done.
On the whole, with some inevitable exceptions, this seemed to work well and it received generally positive feedback from our partners (Park, 2014).
things. For example, types of management work which could be funded by SRDP could no longer be funded directly by SNH SAF funds.
As well as providing staff to support the work, we also provided funds. In total, approximately £4m was provided by SNH over the five years of SAF (an average of £800,000 per year). This worked out at an average of around £25,000 spent per species per year, although there was considerable variation across species. These figures exclude expenditure on native deer, which are listed on SAF, because a large programme of work with funding from existing budgets was already directed at these species.
Once SRDP started it was clear that if we could work out how to use the potential of SRDP, then it might achieve far more than SAF funding ever could by itself. Therefore SAF was specifically identified as a Rural Priority when SRDP was launched. SAF funds were then used to support some project officer posts – these had the role of trying to work out where to target efforts, and of providing expert advice to farmers and their agents to try and ensure that opportunities for SAF species were included in their SRDP applications.
The SNH funding was directed at targeted management work, in line with the ethos of SAF. However there was also some additional funding for associated research, including three SNH PhD studentships (on signal crayfish, hazel gloves fungus and pine hoverfly), and for national curriculum educational material, publications and web outputs.
Project officer posts were established for species such as the SAF butterflies and moths, great crested newt, capercaillie and rhododendron. Although the complexity of some of the SRDP application process could be off-putting for land managers, particularly for small sites, we found that the use of project officers often played an important role in helping to smooth the process. Experiences varied in how well SRDP could be used to support certain actions – supporting grazing management for species such marsh fritillary butterfly proved to be effective, but it was more difficult to organise support for pond creation work for great crested newt. These useful experiences were passed on to those planning the second, 2014-2020 phase of SRDP.
This commitment of SNH funding and support was intended to provide sufficient influence for our partners to ‘lever’ funds, sometimes very considerable, from other sources. There were some good examples of where this worked, with the early SNH commitment going some way in helping to obtain substantial additional funds for the mink projects, the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project (dealing with hen harriers) and the Scottish Beaver Trial. But of course the SNH contribution was just a part of the SAF process. The many partnerships formed for the different species projects were absolutely crucial, and underpinned the whole process. We estimate that at least 94 different organisations were involved in SAF at some point. The list at the end of this chapter shows the wide range, covering the land use and conservation sectors, public bodies and NGOs, and funding and commercial sponsoring partners. On top of this were the many individuals who had essential roles - the land owners and farmers, specialists and volunteers. Overall SAF became one of the biggest multipartner initiatives that SNH has been involved with. It is very difficult to work out the overall resource contributions from the partners over the five years, but it was probably at least £4.9m, on top of many other ‘in kind’ resources of one type or another. Another key potential source of funding was the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP), and in particular the ‘Rural Priorities’ scheme. This is the main agri-environment incentive scheme that operates in Scotland, funded through Scottish Government. The first phase of SRDP was launched about a year or so after SAF started (a second phase of SRDP was subsequently launched to cover 2014-2020) and it changed the way we had to do
It is difficult to extract the funding directed at SAF projects from SRDP statistics, because there is much overlap between SAF objectives and wider biodiversity objectives. But we can say that £4.7m was awarded between April 2008 and March 2012 to support ‘viable populations of rare or endangered species’, some of which would have been for SAF species identified as a Rural Priority (with additional funding for invasive non-native management work).
How did the Species Action Framework perform? To answer this question we urge you to read the chapters! Hopefully there are lessons here that will be of interest to many practitioners, land managers and policy makers. After SAF finished we carried out a consultation exercise with staff based in SNH and our external partners who had led on much of the SAF work. They provided useful feedback on which elements of SAF they thought worked best, and where things could have been done better. It is available on the SNH website (Park, 2014).
Clearly the key objectives for the SAF work were about the biodiversity benefits we were trying to achieve. For some of the species we can point to clear and measurable outcomes, for example the numbers of an animal or plant successfully translocated to a new site. But for some of the work done over the five years, it may take a while to see how successful it has been in terms of improving the conservation status of a species, or controlling an invasive non-native species. We already have examples of promising short-term results for some species (for example following the translocations of woolly willow, vendace and white-tailed eagle), but their longer-term viability will require further monitoring. Freshwater pearl mussels, to pick another example, can have a life span of over a hundred years, and it may take decades for the results of conservation actions to become clear. There have also been some species for which we have not been able to address all of our original aims. For example, initially it was thought that it might be possible to control wireweed, a marine invasive non-native seaweed from the western Pacific, and prevent its further spread. However the results of a survey, which included reports sent in by members of the public, found that it was more widespread than originally thought. It became clear that eradication from Scotland is not possible using current techniques, and that further expansion cannot be prevented. Nevertheless, the work highlighted the role of awareness-raising campaigns, modelling techniques for predicting occurrence, and the need to focus action on preventing the introduction of marine non-native species, in collaboration with other countries.
Some broad conclusions A few conclusions can be drawn already: 1. SAF shifted the focus of a lot of our species work to more targeted management action. Previously this had not always been given enough focus compared with, for example, research, survey and monitoring. All these are vital of course, and they all support management, but getting the work done on the ground is ultimately how we can make a positive difference to biodiversity. 2. SAF provided a demonstration of the vast range of management action types needed to get the work done. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution for the management of these varied species. Examples of types of action are: • Habitat and land use management (e.g. grassland, woodland, moorland).
• The conservation translocation of species, at a national scale or at smaller catchment and habitat-patch scales (e.g. white-tailed eagles to eastern Scotland, pine hoverflies within a forest). • Demonstration projects to test methods and provide opportunities for practitioners to visit and learn (e.g. Langholm Moor Demonstration Project, great-yellow bumblebee demonstration sites). • A range of very species-specific measures, such as marking fence lines for capercaillie, and making egg-laying sites for pine hoverflies in tree stumps. • Dealing with specific non-native species or genetic forms that pose a threat to SAF species (e.g. mink, which threaten water vole; grey squirrels, which threaten red squirrels; domestic/feral cats in the Cairngorms, which hybridize with wildcat). • Strategic coordination of invasive non-native species work at large geographic scales, and ‘future-proofing’ projects to avoid wasted effort and re-invasion of species once resources are reduced (e.g. the Scottish Mink Initiative). • Cooperation at international levels, such as flyway planning for Greenland white-fronted goose. • The use of various communication tools to support all of the above. 3. The five-year SAF programme covered a relatively long period by the usual public-body standards. SNH was able to commit resources at the outset, which meant that people were able to plan ahead, and build a momentum with the work. For example, the colossal rhododendron issue needed time to develop an effective approach. 4. SAF provided an opportunity to try out new techniques and to take risks. Examples included the construction of physical barriers to prevent signal crayfish spread, and trying to work out how to breed pine hoverflies in captivity. 5. There was also a ‘legacy’ from SAF. In some cases SAF helped to test methods, carry out initial groundwork, develop partnerships and demonstrate the commitment and enthusiasm of the parties involved. This helped to get new phases of species work underway after SAF finished. A few examples are given at the end of this introduction. It also helped SNH to develop its Wildlife Management Framework,
which was designed to ensure decisions on wildlife management are consistent, informed, proportionate, practical and cost effective. The Wildlife Management Framework sets out how and why SNH gets involved with, and makes decisions on, wildlife management.
Wider species, habitat and ecosystem benefits Early on there were some criticisms that SAF represented a reversion to an old style of speciesdriven conservation, and that this did not appear to fit in with the wider habitat/ecosystem approach that many were trying to encourage. In fact SAF very specifically targeted species where the wider ecosystem-led approaches to management were unlikely to work. But it is also important to emphasise that the management actions for each SAF species often had many wider benefits: • In some cases the SAF species were ‘symbolic’ or ‘totemic’ flag-bearers to communicate messages and promote much broader issues about biodiversity conservation e.g. hazel gloves fungus which was used to promote Atlantic hazelwoods and their management. • There were often management actions directed at one species that benefited many others, e.g. pond creation for great crested newt benefits a wide range of pond life. • Some species have a ‘keystone-type’ role and can provide wider ecosystem benefits e.g. pollinating species such as great yellow bumblebee. • Action taken on a single invasive non-native species can reduce threats to wider biodiversity e.g. Rhododendron ponticum, which causes so much damage to the native flora of our special west coast woodlands. These are all examples of how a targeted, ‘speciestype’ approach can have much wider benefits. Species projects are often of particular interest to the wider public, and this can be used to promote and demonstrate wider biodiversity objectives.
Socio-economic benefits We can also look beyond the biodiversity benefits at some of the socio-economic benefits. There was significant commitment and engagement by many individuals during SAF. We are aware of over 1000 volunteers being involved in various SAF-funded projects over the five years. In addition there were many others who sent in records in
response to specific publicised surveys, such as for lesser butterfly-orchid, wireweed, and squirrels for the Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels Project. There were also more direct economic impacts. Although this was not assessed in any detail, we believe over 45 jobs were directly linked to SAF-funded work, many of these based in rural areas. These were often project officer-type posts based at one of our partner bodies. In addition there were more short-term contracts, ranging from digger drivers creating ponds, to academics modelling mink populations to help target trapping (this excludes those associated with deer management, which is a significant work sector itself). Species projects therefore not only benefit targeted species and/or wider biodiversity, but also the types of ‘cultural ecosystem services’ and other socio-economic values that government, and indeed much of the public, supports (for example health and well-being, promoting access to the countryside, Citizen Science, and contributing to rural economies).
The next steps Many people have asked whether there will be a second, similar exercise to SAF. That is a question for which there is currently no clear answer, although the end of SAF marked a new phase for many ongoing or new projects for SAF species. Most of these are highlighted in the following species chapters, but they include: • Freshwater pearl mussel - Catchment-scale management plans produced during SAF led to the subsequent Pearls in Peril LIFE+ project that will run until 2016, and has a budget of £3.5 million. • Scottish wildcat – Measures trialled during the Cairngorm Wildcat Project supported by SAF were reviewed and developed for Scottish Wildcat Action, a partnership project supported by the Scottish Government and Heritage Lottery Fund. • Eurasian beaver – The Scottish Beaver Trial continued after the end of SAF, with monitoring finishing in May 2014. The results of this were included in the final Beavers in Scotland report (Gaywood, 2015) submitted to Scottish Government in June 2015. In November 2016 the decision was made to allow beavers to remain, representing the first ever formal reintroduction of a mammal species anywhere in Britain.
• Woolly willow – The planting of young willow plants has continued at a number of Scottish sites through the support of partner organisations and individuals.
Scottish Government. 2013. 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity – A Strategy for the Conservation and Enhancement of Biodiversity in Scotland. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
• Hen harrier – The Langholm Moor Demonstration Project continues to be supported by partners, and the final report is due by the end of 2017.
Scottish Government. 2015. Scotland’s Biodiversity – A Route Map to 2020. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
With growing pressures on resources there is an ever greater need to prioritise and focus work. Projects involving translocations are now developing a more planned and strategic approach through the work of the National Species Reintroduction Forum and the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (2011) has meant stronger legislation and guidance is now in place for invasive non-native species. SNH’s Wildlife Management Framework is helping to guide decision making on wildlife management, and the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Route Map to 2020 (Scottish Government, 2015) sets out an aim to ‘deliver focused action for priority species in Scotland’. The last of these identifies some specific ongoing and planned projects, and notes that a further suite of projects is to be developed. The SAF has been a great success, and those involved should be justly proud of their work. Significant challenges remain of course. We therefore hope that new work will be guided, informed and inspired by the experiences of the many practitioners recorded in this Handbook.
References Gaywood MJ (ed). 2015. Beavers in Scotland: A Report to the Scottish Government. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness. IUCN. 1998. Guidelines for Re-introductions. IUCN, Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland. IUCN. 2013. Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. IUCN, Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland. National Species Reintroduction Forum. 2014. The Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness. Park J. 2014. Report of the 2012-2013 consultation on the Species Action Framework (SAF). Scottish Natural Heritage report, Stirling. Scottish Executive. 2004. Scotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands – A strategy for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
Scottish Natural Heritage. 2007. A five year Species Action Framework: making a difference for Scotland’s species. Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby, Perth.
The Species Action Framework Handbook This account comes from the Species Action Framework Handbook published by Scottish Natural Heritage. For more information on the handbook please go to www.snh.gov.uk/ speciesactionframework. This document should be cited as follows: Gaywood MJ. 2016. An introduction to the Species Action Framework. In The Species Action Framework Handbook, Gaywood MJ, Boon PJ, Thompson DBA, Strachan IM (eds). Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby, Perth.
Partner organisations involved in SAF projects (with apologies to any that may have been missed). Agrimony ALP Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust Argyll and Bute Council Argyll and the Islands SRDP LEADER Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland British Dragonfly Society Buccleuch Group Bumblebee Conservation Trust Burnet Study Group Butterfly Conservation Cairngorms National Park Authority Cairngorms Rare Plants Project Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Clyde River Foundation Countryside Council for Wales
Derek Gow Consultancy
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Edinburgh Biodiversity Partnership
Royal Zoological Society of Scotland
Environment Agency
SCENE Loch Lomond
Fish Conservation Centre
Scottish Agricultural College
Forest Research
Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum
Forestry Commission Scotland
Scottish Association for Marine Science
Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
GDF Suez
Scottish Gamekeepers Association
Greenland White-fronted Goose Study
Scottish Government
Herriot Watt University
Scottish Land and Estates
Highland Biodiversity
Scottish Native Woods
Highland Birchwoods
Scottish Natural Heritage
Highland Council
Scottish Power Renewables
Historic Scotland
Scottish Venison
Hymettus
Scottish Water
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Scottish Wildlife Trust
Kilgarth Development Company
Shellfish Association of Great Britain
Leader Programme
South Lanarkshire Council
Life Nature Fund
Scottish Rural Property and Business Association
Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park
The British Lichen Society
Lochaber Fisheries Trust
The Crown Estate
Lothian Amphibian and Reptile Group
The Falkirk Area Biodiversity Partnership
Malloch Society
The Farm Environment
Marine Scotland Science
The James Hutton Institute
Midlothian Council
The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies
Montane Scrub Action Group
Tubney Trust
Moredun Research Institute
Tweed Forum
North Atlantic Fisheries College
UACPA Ltd
National Museum of Scotland
University Marine Biological Station Millport
National Trust for Scotland
University of Aberdeen
National Wildlife Crime Unit
University of Chester
Native Woods Cooperative (Scotland)
University of Glasgow
Natural England
University of Stirling
People’s Trust for Endangered Species
Veterinary Laboratory Agency
Plantlife
West Lothian Council
Queens University Belfast
University of Oxford WILDCRU
Red Squirrel Survival Trust
Wildlife and Wetlands Trust
River Annan Trust Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland Rothiemurchus Estate Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
