As a reminder, scenarios C, D and E as presented to respondents are shown in Fig. 6.6. As stated in section 6.1, scenario C from the visitor valuation surveys (Chapter 4) is used here to illustrate how the model described in this chapter can be used to infer socio-economic effects of the policy/market condition scenarios. In Table 6.6 it can be seen that the vegetation changes resulting from scenario 1 match scenario C well, and from Table 6.5 we see that this is also true of the BAP species predictions. This suggests that for scenario outcome where we already have an idea of what to expect, and an estimate of socio-economic benefit to visitors, our model produces the
expected outcome and leads to a net cost in terms of visitor socio-economic values, of approximately £201,480 (Table 4.13), which is in fact the biggest cost to visitors of any of the scenarios presented to them.
Table 6.6 Percent change in total area covered by each broad vegetation type ( S.E.).
Scenario
Broad vegetation type
Woodland Blanket bog Rough
grassland Heather moorland 1 0.00 ( 0.00) -7.08 ( 0.8) 10.37 ( 0.91) -3.29 ( 0.75) 2 0.00 ( 0.00) 1.05 ( 1.1) -1.15 ( 0.21) 0.10 ( 0.03) 4 3.21 ( 0.10) 4.74 ( 1.3) -11.95 ( 1.03) 4.00 ( 0.08) 5 7.59 ( 1.40) -4.61 ( 1.19) -0.82 ( 0.05) -2.17 ( 1.14) 7 3.33 ( 0.06) -3.42 ( 0.7) 2.14 ( 0.32) -2.04 ( 0.74) 8 2.06 ( 0.07) 9.07 ( 1.8) 0.10 ( 0.05) -11.13 ( 1.08)
We see that the standard errors in Table 6.6 are lower than those seen in Table 6.2, suggesting that overall landscape configuration itself is less dependent on the starting point than BAP species distributions, and therefore BAP species distributions are dependent on the pattern of habitats as well as the total available area of each type.
None of the policy/market scenarios modelled in this chapter matches up with outcomes D or E, the two scenarios which represented a socio-economic benefit to visitors when compared with the status quo.
6.4 Discussion
Stakeholder decisions can have a considerable effect on the value of the North
Pennines for BAP species and for visitors. They can significantly alter the distribution of BAP species within the North Pennines, and many policies significantly influence the potential distribution of over half of the species studied. This is no surprise given that previous studies have shown the conservation effect of management for grouse shooting (Robertson et al., 2001, Tharme et al. 2001). The present study goes further by indicating that decisions made by grouse moors and by farmers in the North Pennines can influence the whole taxonomic range of species, including those which are known to be of conservation concern and which the government has an obligation to protect. Although the exact habitat effects of stakeholder decisions are not known, but are estimated from available literature, the model implementation in Appendix VII is, for most scenarios, quite conservative, so actual changes should be expected to be at least as drastic as those indicated here.
Some species are more sensitive to these decisions than others, with the Northern Dart and Pale Shining Brown moths being particularly affected. In some scenarios, such as consistently low income from red grouse (scenario 1), the benefits are localised, and if barriers to dispersal prevent the species establishing on the particular estates with improved conditions for these species, may not be realised. Those influencing farmers as well as (or instead of) shooting tenants and landowners have less localised effects but the extent of localisation depends on the spatial configuration of individual stakeholder responses. The standard errors in Table 6.2 indicate the sensitivity of
species responses to spatial configuration of changes. Vertebrate BAP species tend to be less sensitive to the likely decisions by stakeholders than other taxonomic groups (except perhaps for Brown Hare), suggesting that visitor values of the area (which are in part dependent on the distribution of rare and threatened birds and mammals) are less sensitive to stakeholder decision making than might be expected.
The results of this chapter have important implications for policy development. For example, if a consistently low income from red grouse shooting were observed (as has been occurring elsewhere in recent years), as in scenario 1, it might be necessary for conservation bodies in the uplands to ensure that management maintains heather moorlands and blanket bog, which are currently maintained by gamekeepers, if the distribution of the Pale Shining Brown moth is not to be adversely affected. Brown hare and Black Grouse should be monitored, as the overall probability of presence decreases for Brown Hare, and the number of cells which are above the threshold decreases for Black Grouse, under scenario 1. It would be beneficial to re-run the model with a range of strengths of habitat responses to stakeholder actions (model implementation column in Appendix VII). This would indicate the degree to which effects demonstrated (for all scenarios) are reliable given the uncertainty as to the strength of habitat responses to stakeholder actions. This might be particularly
important for species for which the change is relatively small, such as Skylark and the Pearl-bordered Fritillary.
Natural England has been strongly advocating making their burning guidelines statutory (scenario 2, Shaw et al. 1996). If this were the case, it might improve the habitat for many BAP species but not the Pale Shining Brown and Northern Dart moths, and the Small Cow-wheat (an annual herb). There is lack of experimental evidence to support Natural England claims of the benefits of their guidelines, and such evidence of actual vegetation changes in line with their expectations, combined with results from the present model, might strengthen their case for enforcing these guidelines. Protecting blanket bog (as the burning guidelines are intended to do) would maintain and perhaps enhance the socio-economic value of the area (Chapter 4). Removal of all land use subsidies resulting in a free market for agricultural goods (scenario 5) is likely to be detrimental to many BAP species but there are potential socio-economic benefits (visitors valued an increase in the extent of woodland and of
blanket bog over the status quo, see Table 4.13). If Britain‟s government is to
maintain pressure within the EU for decreased CAP funding, it is essential that upland BAP species are monitored, and assistance for the invertebrate and plant species which might suffer is provided.
Importantly, scenario 1 links with scenario C from Chapter 4, demonstrating the link between stakeholder behaviours (in this case in response to a changing market
condition) and changes in two different elements of conservation value as measured in this thesis: predicted presence of BAP species, and visitor socio-economic values. Suitability of the area improves for up to five BAP species, whilst for up to three BAP species it declines, and visitor welfare decreases. It is crucial therefore that any
market forces likely to negatively influence grouse shooting are considered worthy of intervention to maintain the overall value of the North Pennines.
The scenarios presented were chosen because they may become reality, but before this happens it is important for government to understand the wider implications, especially given their remit for joined up policies. The results suggest that these policies (or market conditions) come with costs as well as benefits, and in general do not represent a holistic view. They need to be re-considered if benefits are to
incorporate the rural economy, conservation, and welfare simultaneously. Back to nature subsidies (scenario 4) show potential to increase socio-economic welfare (increased extent of blanket bog and woodland cover results, valued elements) but need to be considered carefully to ensure that the distribution of bird and mammal BAP species does not decline, and to consider alternatives for the plant and invertebrate species likely to suffer.
There is no magic policy formula to conserve or enhance BAP species in the North Pennines, and it is unlikely that all the BAP species distributions studied here can be increased simultaneously. Not only is the impact dependent on starting point, but different BAP species have differing requirements and benefits to one species will almost certainly come at some cost to another, and will lead to differential impacts on socio-economic welfare. The best that can be done is to design policies which lead to overall improvements in habitat availability for BAP species (perhaps similar to an economic Pareto-optimality solution, where no further improvements can be made for
one species except at the expense of another, Estrin and Laidler 1995), or monitor and provide alternatives for those species likely to be adversely affected.
The model presented here incorporates one time-frame only. It has been shown that where land is not owned, short-term profitability is more important than long-term sustainability (Panayotou 1993, Fraser 2004, Bandiera 2007), and only a minority of the stakeholders incorporated into this model actually own their land (although the vast bulk of the land area is privately owned, owners are not the only stakeholders with decision-making rights). The consequences in the longer term may therefore be different from those presented here, but it is unrealistic to expect stakeholders to make an accurate assessment of their behaviour into the far future. Spatial scale is also likely to be important, and as discussed in Chapter 5, some species may respond more strongly to smaller scales than it is possible to model with the available data.
However, patchiness was not amongst the most important variables for BAP species in Chapter 5 (Table 5.4) and the larger scale measure of patchiness, the number of vegetation types within a cell, was more important and beneficial for more species. It is also important to recognise that although some species may respond more strongly to smaller scales, given limited resources for conservation, trade-offs between quality and quantity of species response predictions may need to be considered (Hernandez et
al. 2006 show the quality of predictions given different data patterns).
One element of Figure 6.1 not modelled here is feedbacks: Chapter 3 demonstrated that stakeholders, particularly landowners and shooting tenants, have motivations over and above profitability. It can be assumed that these are implicit within their stated actions: they will undertake actions that increase their own utility, whatever it is that constitutes utility to them. However, there may be unintended biodiversity and
landscape effects of their actions that cause their behaviour to deviate from that stated in Chapter 3. Future policy changes should depend on the future state of the landscape and biodiversity, and valuations of changes from that future state. A continual process of policy alteration and research feeding back into policy may be necessary to
maintain a state of optimal benefits from the uplands.
This chapter has shown that it is possible to estimate the impacts of potential future policy changes on multiple elements of conservation value, and has demonstrated the importance of starting point on conservation impacts of stakeholder actions. It
allowed for only a token estimate of socio-economic changes, and further valuation studies using the results of this chapter as the basis for creating scenarios for valuation would lead to much more precise socio-economic value estimates linked to each policy scenario. However, indications are that current policy ideas in the uplands do not represent holistic thinking, and certainly do not lead to an overall benefit as they stand.