Delivering action: how Aspen fits into the UK Biodiversity Action Planning process

The Biodiversity and Management of Aspen woodlands: Proceedings of a one-day conference held in Kingussie, Scotland, on 25th May 2001

Peter Cosgrove
Cairngorms Biodiversity Officer, The Cairngorms Partnership, 14 The Square, Grantown on Spey, Morayshire, PH26 3HG. Email: petercosgrove@cairngorms.prestel.co.uk

A brief history of recent forest biodiversity planning milestones

In 1992, the UK Government signed up to, and later ratified, the Rio Earth Summit's Convention on Biological Diversity. This single act had profound effects upon the UK's forestry industry and how forest biodiversity conservation should be addressed. In 1993 the UK Forestry Minister signed up to the General Guidelines for Sustainable Management of Forests and the General Guidelines for the Conservation of the Biodiversity of European Forests at Helsinki.

The 'Helsinki Guidelines' interpreted the Rio Biodiversity and Sustainability principals for European forest management. This was further defined and ratified through the Lisbon Pan-European Ministerial conference on the Protection of Forests in 1998. The 'UK Forest Standard' was published in 1998 and this identified what the UK had signed up to in terms of our international commitments. From this point in time, the UK forestry industry fully embraced the concept of multi-purpose forestry, including biodiversity conservation.

The UK biodiversity planning process

Running in parallel to the biodiversity policy developments in the forestry industry, has been the much broader process of general UK biodiversity planning. Since 1994, the UK Biodiversity Steering Group has published a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Strategy and series of action plans for the UK's most declining, threatened and endangered species and habitats. However, this is not a complete list because of a lack of data on some species (especially on degree of decline). Unfortunately, 'Aspen woodland' does not have a UK Habitat Action Plan, unlike for example 'Upland Ash woodland', and neither does it get its own Species Action Plan (SAP), in the same way that Juniper does.

Using the conventional UK habitat listing process, 'Aspen woodland' is not considered a habitat in its own right, or even a priority, but it could be considered part of other habitats such as 'Pine woodland', 'Wet woodland' or 'Birch woodland', none of which are particularly appropriate. For example, 'Birch woodland' is currently defined by the UK BAP listing process as 'Oak woodland' without Oak; thus 'Aspen woodland' is probably 'Oak woodland' without Oak and Birch! It might also be considered part of 'Riparian or Wet woodland', but this is equally unsatisfactory as most Aspen stands are not 'wet'.

As described elsewhere, although Aspen is a widely distributed tree in Great Britain, pure woodland stands are extremely rare and confined to the north and east of Scotland. 'Aspen woodland' supports a unique living community containing many rare and scarce species including moths, flies, bryophytes, lichens and fungi that occur nowhere else in the UK. Whilst five of these are listed as 'Priority' species under UK BAP, requiring the implementation of SAPs dedicated to their survival, many others that should be listed under the UK BAP process are not (for example, several Red Data Book invertebrate species). Ecologically speaking, 'Aspen woodland' on its own or in association with Birch and Scots pine is a real habitat and has its own very distinct flora and fauna, which is not served well by the current UK BAP process.

The Scottish Executive recently produced a policy statement called 'The nature of Scotland' (2001). The proposals in the document outline the single most important piece of wildlife legislation since the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. Amongst its many recommendations is for "a new statutory duty for Scottish Ministers (and competent authorities) to have special regard to the conservation of biodiversity, the richness and variety of our species and habitats". This piece of legislation is very similar to the comparable Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for England and Wales, which sets in legal terms the conserving and enhancement of biodiversity in accordance with our Rio Biodiversity Convention commitments. It provides long overdue statutory backing for the current BAP process in Scotland.

This approach, in a non-statutory form, has already been adopted and adapted by Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs), with national and local partners coming together to agree delivery of local biodiversity action across Scotland. With the proposed change to statutory powers likely in Scotland, it is worth briefly considering what has happened south of the border, where there has been a statutory duty on English and Welsh competent authorities towards biodiversity conservation.

Opportunities and constraints

Initial indications suggest that anything with a UK action plan - a so-called Priority habitat or species - potentially attracts interest, resources and action. To stop an avalanche of requests for biodiversity action on everything, many of the statutory agencies/partners appear reluctant to put significant resources into non-priority issues. Theoretically, this is great news for listed Priority species and habitats but where does it leave the others? In many ways it is too early to tell from England and Wales, but we should be aware of how the UK BAP listing process might influence what action is possible for Aspen. As someone might have once said "all habitats and species are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Therefore, in theory at least, it should be possible to get significant resources and effort committed to the following four (five) UK Priority Aspen species without too much difficulty:

• Epione vespertaria, the Dark-bordered beauty moth;
• Hammerschmidtia ferruginea, the Aspen hoverfly;
• Byctiscus populi, a leaf rolling weevil;
• Orthotrichum obtusifolium, the Blunt-leaved bristle moss; and,
• (Orthotrichum gymnostomum, the extinct (?) Aspen bristle moss).

Luckily the moth requires young, regenerating Aspen, the moss requires mature trees and the hoverfly requires dead wood. Thus, three of the extant Scottish Priority species appear to require all the basic successional stages of Aspen woodland. On the face of it, action for these three Scottish Aspen flagship species should bring along much/most of the other Aspen interest. However, all three species have very small and fragmented populations, effectively confined to parts of the Cairngorms. As a result, it is likely to prove difficult to obtain resources to deliver action in areas outwith the immediate vicinity of the localised remnant populations of the three Aspen Priority species.

Furthermore, there is a genuine concern that it is relatively difficult to get money/resources spent on single species (even Priority species) issues when there is so much Priority habitat management that could get the money instead. Much of the excellent past native Pinewood work has been done on the back of Priority habitat improvement. The Pinewood Priority flagship species, such as Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus, help focus interest, but the management of the habitat for a range of species is of greatest biodiversity importance and this has largely driven the successful delivery of the UK HAP for native Pinewood.

In terms of biodiversity, the critical aspect of an Aspen community is the transition from groups of scattered individual trees to a larger more extensive/continuous Aspen stand, which then acts as an ecological entity. It is only these larger stands that can support the full Aspen community, including those which depend upon a regular supply of dead wood and decaying trees for larval development. To really deliver action, and avoid as much duplication of effort and bureaucracy as possible, it is suggested that the key Aspen species experts come together with habitat specialists to develop a hybrid action plan for the Aspen habitat and its dependent species (such as listed in the Cairngorms LBAP). This plan could then be taken forward in an integrated manner by the key partners.

I believe the participants of this seminar are in a unique position to take such a step forward.

However, there are four simple questions that need to be answered first before we can move forward, and I would like to ask the seminar's participants to discuss and answer these questions:

• Will action targeted specifically at the three extant Scottish Priority Aspen flagship species deliver the goods for the remainder of the Aspen flora and fauna? Or to put another way, is it sensible to concentrate on the three Priority species and not the habitat?
  
  
• Do we need to collectively make appropriate representations to the UK Government regarding the (non) listing of Aspen woodland under the UK BAP?
  
  
• Regardless of the answer above, should one of the key outputs of today's seminar be a national Aspen Action Plan?
  
  
• Finally, if you think that the development of an Aspen Action Plan is a good idea, would you be willing to be involved in its development and implementation?
  
  

Return to The Biodiversity and Management of Aspen Woodlands

For further information about aspen, please go to the Aspen Information Resource