Grouse Shooting, Moorland Management and Local Communities

Transcription

1 Grouse Shooting, Moorland Management and Local Communities Edinburgh Agricultural Economics Discussion Circle 11 th January 2016 Rob Mc Morran (SRUC) Ros Bryce and Jayne Glass (UHI) 1

2 Background/Context Driven grouse shooting unique to UK important part of UK shooting industry Grouse numbers shot vary annually - decline in grouse evident from 1970s (Smith et al., 2000) 746 (UK) properties (3.7Mha) involved in grouse shooting (459 managing moors) in Scotland (Hudson, 1992, FAI 2010) Heather moors only extensive in UK/Ireland - heather declines since 1940s (Thompson 1995) Some threats to industry: climate/grouse numbers/pests/land-use change and conflicts 2

3 Background/Context Increasing pressure on landowners/managers to deliver multiple (public and private) benefits LUS promotes integration public benefits delivery alongside traditional land uses (collaborative working/trade offs) Increasing pressure on landowners to account for local and wider communities in decision-making processes (LUS, Land Reform Bill (Part 4) and Community Empowerment Act) Requires understanding of relationships between land management and communities 3

4 Benefits and Impacts Economic impacts (Scotland) (FAI 2010) 1,072 jobs, 14.5 million of wages and contributes 23.3 million to GDP Average moor generates 26,700 with outgoings of 43,364 Profitability increased between 1994 and 2010 (43% profitable) Social impacts - Tomintoul Study (UHI, 2009) (Limited, single case study) Majority recognised benefits negatives also identified (minority) Decline in local awareness/involvement and work often seasonal/low pay Communication, awareness raising and dialogue key Conservation/Environment Control of pest species beneficial for breeding waders (Tharme et al. 2001, Fletcher et al 2010) but some species occur at lower densities Illegal shooting, trapping, poisoning of raptors (Redpath et al and others) Other concerns relating to use of medicated grit, lead shot and proliferation of hilltracks (Wightman and Tingay 2015) 4

5 A. Assess: 2015 Project objectives A. Extent of grouse shooting/moorland management B. Objectives of grouse shooting estates and future priorities B. Assess direct (and indirect) benefits and impacts of grouse shooting on local communities, businesses and economies C. Determine local community perceptions of (i) the grouse shooting industry (ii) the benefits and impacts on the local economy and communities D. Explore possible future trends 5

6 Two Study Sites Angus Glens and the Monadhliath (Stratherrick/Strathnairn) Size allows survey of whole community/all owners Grouse moor management established in both areas Topographically distinct upland regions Consistent socio-economic contexts (not honeypots) Both areas include multiple small settlements Allows cross-comparison more robust approach 6

7 7

8 8

9 Methods/Approach Community Survey Perceptions of benefits/impacts Blanket Household Survey/Self selecting Sent to % return rate (266) Stakeholder interviews (10+10, Purposive) Community representatives/land managers/schools/gamekeepers etc. Expansion of survey topics Business interviews (10+10) Importance of grouse shooting Direct and indirect links (farmers, shops, garages, tradesmen etc. Landowner survey Sporting activity, employment, spend etc. Majority responded 9

10 Community Survey Area/Response (Angus) 10

11 Community Survey Area/Response (Monadhliath) 11

12 12

13 13

14 Community Survey Respondents All but one full time residents Similar educational levels in both areas (25% diploma or cert/30% degree) age group under represented Majority locally resident for 10yr+ Higher proportion employed by estates/work in land based jobs in Angus 14

15 Impacts of estates on respondents Similar proportion (18%) reported both positive and negative impacts Higher proportion reported only positive in Angus (27% compared to 19%) Only 6% reported solely negative in Angus compared to 19% in the Monadhliath 15

16 Benefits/impacts of grouse shooting Personal benefits/impacts 49% Angus respondents and 26% in Monadhliath reported benefits 49% Angus respondents and 60% in Monadhliath reported no benefits 18% Angus respondents and 26% in Monadhliath reported negative impacts Community level benefits/impacts 70% (Angus) and 53% Monadhliath perceived community benefits 8% (Angus) and 15% (Monadhliath) did not perceive community benefits 9% (Angus) and 13% (Monadhliath) reported negative impacts Employment and spend important at personal/community levels Majority reported using grouse moors in both areas (personal benefit) 16

17 17

18 Estate Survey: Sporting Activity and Employment No. of commercial and private sporting days No. of brace of grouse shot Total FTEs Sporting FTEs Seasonal sporting staff (FTE Equivalent) Total sporting employment (FTEs) Total estate employment Angus Monadhliath

19 Angus Monadhliath Angus Monadhliath Angus Monadhliath Angus Monadhliath Angus Monadhliath Sporting Revenue Number of estates providing revenue and total revenue on these estates Average revenue per/ha for estates providing data Angus 2.6M (10) ( 2M from grouse) Monadhliath 545K (7) (207K from grouse) Both study areas combined 3.1M (17) ,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 Grouse Venison Sales Deer Stalking Other Sporting 1,000, ,

20 Angus Monadhliath Angus Monadhliath Angus Monadhliath Angus Monadhliath Angus Monadhliath Sporting Expenditure Number of estates providing sporting costs data and total costs on these estates Average costs per/ha of grouse moors Estimated total costs for all survey respondent estates Angus Monadhliath Study areas combined 6M (12) 1.7M (8) 7.8M (20) M 1.9M 8.9M Sporting staff Costs Sporting input costs Sporting investment

21 Sporting local Business Impacts Direct and indirect impacts evident in both areas, including accommodation use (varied between types/locations, impacts low for some a/c providers) Other examples: spend by estates/staff/customers in garages, vehicle dealerships, sporting goods suppliers, butchers and on tradesmen A wide range of businesses utilised, many outwith survey area Impacts more prevalent in Angus, due to lower spending and a lack of local businesses (proximity of Inverness) in the Monadhliath Features of estate-business interactions indicated by businesses included consistency of estate custom; estates viewed as a reliable income stream Spend was also seasonal, declines evident in years of low grouse numbers Increased investment levels perceived in Angus in recent years 21

22 Grouse Shooting and the Environment Community and estate survey respondents perceived environmental benefits and negative environmental impacts A higher proportion perceived environmental damage linked to grouse shooting in the Monadhliath (30%) than in Angus (13%) A majority viewed hilltracks positively in both areas, although a minority viewed increased development of hill tracks in recent years with concern. A common concern (both areas) was illegal raptor persecution 22

23 Awareness of management/use of moors Majority have some or good awareness of estate management: Angus 74%, Monadhliath 62% But some limited or no awareness Angus 26%, Monadhliath 37% Majority used estate land Angus 71%, Monadhliath 58% Majority used grouse moors Angus 65%, Monadhliath 58% 23

24 Communication More respondents in Angus satisfied (48%) with level of communication between estates and communities than unsatisfied (20%) More dissatisfied in Monadhliath (31% satisfied, 35% unsatisfied) Perceived disconnect, between estates and communities evident in both areas; 40% interested in learning more about grouse shooting Disconnect reflects Tomintoul study findings (2009) 24

25 Support for grouse shooting? Majority (74%) supportive of continuation or expansion of grouse shooting in Angus; smaller supportive majority (52%) in Monadhliath Minority (5% Angus, 16% Monadhliath) unsupportive of continuation of grouse shooting Further minority supportive of continuation at lower levels (9% Angus, 7% Monadhliath) Lower levels of support in Monadhliath may reflect lower levels of (and more dispersed) benefits and lower numbers employed in land-based activities 25

26 Conclusions/Recommendations Caution required when interpreting community survey (male/age, strong views bias) But sample diversity evident geographically and in terms of employment etc. Results (collectively) show range of socio-economic impacts may be disproportionately significant in these marginal, remote communities Study areas may not be representative of many upland areas generalisation is difficult Impacts likely to be concentrated in high activity areas close to communities. In other areas benefits may be absent/more dispersed, dependent on landcover and presence of estates Concerns around negative impacts also evident, emphasis on environmental/communication Estate investment in grouse set to continue short term, due to prestige, value of the product, market demand and potential for subsidising management through other land use Marginal nature and time/financial pressures from compliance with legislation/political pressure, indicate uncertainty exists around investment longer term Further research required, to inform best practice and understand positive and negative aspects of grouse moor management from new perspectives (e.g. ecosystem services) 26

27 Conclusions/Recommendations Reflecting concerns and the wider policy context community engagement is of greater importance going forward Opportunities include: i) estate engagement with local primary and secondary schools through school visits ii) establishing estate demonstration days iii) increased estate engagement with local community councils; iv) increased emphasis on recruitment of beaters and loaders from local communities. Transparent, constructive dialogue between the industry and wider stakeholders remains critical to long-term development of grouse shooting in Scotland 27

28 Both the existing (2015) study and the previous Tomintoul (2009) study can be found online: Tomintoul Study: Angus and Monadhliath Study: THE RESEARCH TEAM WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL OF THE LOCAL ESTATES, COMMUNITY MEMBERS, BUSINESSES AND STAKEHOLDERS THAT TOOK PART IN THIS WORK Thank You! 28

29 29

30 30

31 Angus community interviews (10) Interviewees Community (3) (Community Council, Primary School, local farmer) Local estates (2) Public sector/ngo (5): (RSPB (1), Angus Council (2), SNH (1), FCS (1)) Angus business interviewees (10) Retail (3) (Sporting goods, outdoor shop, butcher) Accommodation and catering (1 local hotel, guest houses (2)) Other professional services (4) (Garage, joiner, fencing, vet) Monadhliath community interviewees (9) Community (4) (Community Council, Community Trust, Primary School, Secondary School) Local estates (3) Public sector/ngo (2): (RSPB, FCS) Monadhliath business interviewees (7) Retail (3) (Tearoom, sporting goods supplier, local shop) Accommodation and catering (2) (Hotel, Inn) Other professional services (2) (Garage, Vehicles dealership) 31