Contents

Section Page

1 Executive Summary of the Wild Venison Project 1

2 Background 2

3 Deer in the East of England 3

4 The Deer Initiative 3

5 The Forestry Commission 4

6 Woodfuel East 5

7 The Wild Venison Project 5

8 Aims of the Wild Venison Project 6

9 Targets for the Wild Venison Project 7

10 Implementation 8

11 WVP Governance 10

12 Processes 10

13 Funding 12

14 Activities 13

15 Delivery against Outcomes 16

16 Lessons Learned 21

17 Conclusions and Recommendations 26

Appendices 1. EEDA Offer letter (Excerpt) 29

2. Baseline Studies a. East of England Deer Populations Monitoring 2009 2013 b. East of England Venison marketing / sales Monitoring 2009

2013

31

3. Wild Venison Project Steering Group and Approval Panel (Members) 54

4. Steering Group and Approval Panel Code 55

5. Key targets set as milestones 58

6. Wild Venison project Application Process a. Concept Form b. Application Form

61

7. Project Scoring Sheet 73

8. Summary of processed applications 75

9. Maps of Project Information 79

10. Project Spend Costs Analysis 81

11. Who bought What 83

12. Performance against Outcomes 85

13. Cull Collection sheets

a. Cull Record Sheet

b. Venison Sales Record Sheet

87

14. Cull comparisons

a. 2011 /12

b. 2012 /13

89

15. Once in a Lifetime Visit Reporting Form 93

16. Asset Register Form 95

17. Case Studies

a. National Trust Hatfield Forest

b. Private deer stalker Mick Cundy

96

c. AGHE Wild Meat Company

18. Bibliography 99

1

1. Executive Summary

1.1. The Wild Venison Project arose out of the need to manage deer more effectively across the East of England region by creating a sustainable wild venison supply chain.

1.2. There were a number of obstacles that reduced the efficiency of landowners and stalkers to

undertake adequate culls such as the historic and current (2007/8) low price paid by dealers and a small home market for the venison product. Providing financial support to help deerstalkers and landowners with the purchase of equipment for storage, processing and marketing initiatives was the incentive for the project. Its additional objectives included a reduction in deer damage to woodlands and to agricultural crops as well as reducing deer vehicle collisions.

1.3. In March 2010, The Forestry Commission, supported by The Deer Initiative and The East of England

Deer Forum was successful in its bid to The East of England Development Agency (EEDA) to run an East of England Wild Venison Project from March 2010 to December 2013. Grant support was for capital items (extraction equipment, chillers, processing facilities and equipment); promotion and marketing and for a project officer. The £580,000 in funding was from the Rural Development Programme for England, under Axis 1, Measure 123 ‘to add value to agricultural and forestry products for small businesses and individuals’.

1.4. The Forestry Commission hosted the Wild Venison Project at Santon Downham in Suffolk, contributing £15,000 per annum to cover various costs which were not otherwise eligible for EU funding and providing financial management in parallel with the Woodfuel East Project.

1.5. During the project, 228 applicants registered interest and 47 successfully completed, with two applicants having a second application, making 49 successfully funded projects. All grant recipients purchased equipment which included 34 collection storage facilities, 2 collecting vehicles, 20 items of extraction equipment and 17 items for processing. The grants also supported 44 businesses and enabled the creation of 9.75 full-time equivalent jobs. Sales to venison outlets increased significantly, from an estimated 337 carcasses in 2009 to 2114 in 2013 (figures based on details submitted by some but not all applicants), with a measured 233% increase in Year 1 and an estimated return on investment of over 2.5.

1.6. The Wild Venison Project is supporting the management of deer across a total of 68,830 ha of land in the East of England, with 6,438 ha of all woodland including 1,640 ha of woodland SSSI, covering 17 sites; the target for SSSI management was 1300ha. The area of arable land stands at 59,918ha and is largely focused in areas where impacts to crops are known to be moderate to locally high.

1.7. The East of England Wild Venison Project has proved to be a highly successful, innovative, collaborative project with its main targets and objectives being met. As the first of its kind in the UK, it has acted as a pilot scheme from which detailed lessons have been learnt, including organization and structure, processes, resource requirements, data issues and how best to manage and support applicants. Recommendations include building on the structural, process and resource lessons learned from the East of England and to run a future project at a National level.

1.8. In sum, the East of England Wild Venison Project has demonstrated that highly cost-effective, substantive and sustainable improvements in deer management can be generated even in the short term and, if the deer population is to be properly managed in order to maintain landscapes

2

sustainably, similar schemes whether at a regional or national level, should be considered as a matter of priority.

2. Background

Reasons for the Wild Venison Project:

2.1. The need to manage deer more effectively across the East of England region has been highlighted in a number of reports1, particularly since 2009 when research published in The Journal of Wildlife Management2identified a need to manage increasing wild deer numbers to reduce their damaging impact on woodland condition and on agricultural yields. The findings were based on data from eighty Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and showed that the impact of overgrazing by deer had a knock-on effect that undermined woodland ecologies. In particular, ecologists warned that the threat from deer to woodlands consisted of a number of factors, including a reduction in the growth and density of saplings, bark damage and a change in the composition of under-storey vegetation. The potential cascading effects deer may have on other components of biodiversity, such as fewer suitable nesting sites for birds and a reduction in food sources for other woodland species, were also highlighted.

2.2. There were (and are) separate, although associated, strategic aims being addressed by DEFRA, the European Community, the Forestry Commission and other interested environmental organisations. These included woodfuel production, sustainable ancient woodland management, re-instatement of coppice management and reduction of deer-related vehicle accidents; they all require a reduction in deer numbers. At the same time, consultation with venison processors and customers showed that there was considerable potential to increase venison sales, provided that a consistent supply of specific cuts and products could be maintained.

2.3. The Report ‘Economic Impacts of Wild Deer in the East of England’ highlighted a number of key factors which would need to be addressed in any potential solution:

Deer-specific impacts on vulnerable habitat as well as agriculture and forestry, tree planting schemes and green spaces.

Deer ranging over large areas (beyond site boundaries) and therefore needing to be managed on a landscape scale, with collaboration between landowners.

Deer being among the largest wild mammals in the UK, resulting in collisions with vehicles being serious and costly (annually up to 74,000 collisions with 10-20 human fatalities and up to 700 human injuries).

Control of zoonoses and livestock diseases requires monitoring and surveillance in deer.

Specific standards and skills being needed to ensure safe, effective, humane management of deer - including in the urban environment.

1 Feasibility Study for the Processing and Marketing of Wild Venison in the East of England; RDI Consultants ; June 2009; Influences of deer browsing,

coppice history, and standard trees on the growth and development of vegetation structure in coppiced woods in lowland England; A.C. Joysa,b,*, R.J.

Fullerb, P.M. Dolman; Received 10 April 2003; received in revised form 24 March 2004; accepted 1 June 2004; Achieving Landscape-Scale Deer

Management for Biodiversity Conservation: The Need to Consider Sources and Sinks; The Journal of Wildlife Management; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.530;

KRISTIN WA¨ BER,1 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK JONATHAN SPENCER, Principal Adviser Natural

Environment, Forestry Services, Forestry Commission England, 620 Bristol Business Park, Bristol BS16 1EJ, UK PAUL M. DOLMAN, School of Environmental

Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

3

3. Deer in the East of England

3.1. Six species of deer are found in the UK, of which only two, roe deer and red deer, are classified as

native, although fallow deer are considered to be part of the natural heritage as they have been present in the UK since the 11th Century. The others - muntjac, sika and Chinese water deer - were introduced in the past 150 years.

3.2. Deer share their environment with a great many other creatures, including man who uses and manages the countryside to produce food crops, for grazing, to grow trees and for a wide range of leisure activities. If present in large numbers, deer are very destructive to young trees, the structure of ancient woodland, agricultural crops and gardens, and can cause significant damage to woodland diversity. As they have no significant natural predators in UK, they themselves are at risk from starvation due to overgrazing and from road traffic accidents. To prevent the deer from causing unacceptable damage to crops and trees and the countryside, to protect other creatures sharing their habitat from the results of deer overgrazing and to ensure the welfare of deer, it is important that they are managed. Usually, the management of deer means that they have to be 'culled' and it is important that the cull is carried out efficiently and humanely by those qualified to do so.

3.3. The increase in wild deer numbers is a national issue, but it is at a local or landscape level that their impacts are felt most. Wild deer are present in large numbers in the East of England. Roe, fallow, red, and Reeves muntjac are common, and Chinese water deer – once largely limited to the wetlands of the Norfolk Broads and Bedfordshire – are expanding their range across the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire.

3.4. In 2004, a study led by Dr Piran White, of the University of York, estimated that the then wild deer population in the East of England was in excess of 76,0003. Species-specific population sizes were calculated on the basis of species presence/absence data, assumed maximum woodland deer densities and relative biomass considerations. Muntjac were most abundant with an estimated 45,079 individuals, followed by roe (15,983) and fallow deer (7,446). Red and Chinese water deer were less abundant (2,684 and 4,949 individuals respectively), while sika were rare in the region. A number of private collections in the region hold various other species.

3.5. Five years later, in 2009, a venison marketing study prepared by RDI Associates Ltd suggested that the population could have increased to over 152,000 (an increase of 100%), and that by 2013, numbers might exceed 475,000 if management continued at current levels4.

It was suggested that, in economic terms, “the damage to the region’s economy in terms of damage to crops, traffic accidents and trees, woodland flora and wildlife habitats is estimated to be a net cost of between £7.0 and £10.2 million per year’’5.

4. The Deer Initiative

4.1. The Deer Initiative Partnership (DI) was established in 1995 to promote the sustainable management of wild deer in England, and was extended to Wales in 1999. A partnership between statutory,

3Piran C.L. White and others.Economic Impacts of Wild Deer in the East of England.2004

4RDI Associates Limited. Feasibility Study for the Processing and Marketing of Wild Venison in the East of England. 2009

5 Ibid

4

voluntary and private organisations6, it aims to establish and promote the "sustainable management of wild deer".

4.2. Throughout its activities, the DI adopts a humane, responsible and sensitive approach to the management of wild deer. It seeks to be the leading authority on all matters relating to deer management, works by building consensus and is open and transparent in all its dealings within the partnership and with the public. It therefore provides the framework and toolkit for effective and sustainable management of wild deer in England and Wales. It helps landowners and others to work together at a landscape scale and to Best Practice standards7, so that deer management is effective, safe and humane.

4.3. The Deer Initiative in the East of England covers the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, London, Norfolk and Suffolk. Key issues identified in the East of England include the high deer densities, high instances of deer-vehicle collisions, the existence of large areas of important woodland, the need to establish natural regeneration in woodlands, including re-establishing coppice cycles and productive woodfuel supply, and the requirement to minimise the localized high impacts to arable crops.

4.4. The key landscape features associated with deer include Thetford Forest, at 19,000 hectares the

largest lowland pine forest in the country, Hatfield Forest (500 hectares), SSSI woodland and ancient hunting forest and large number of small scattered woodlands, historic estates, and extensive farmland particularly in the Brecks and the Sandlings area of the East Suffolk coast.

4.5. The East of England Deer Forum, established in 2004, brings together stakeholders in the area. The

broad aims of the Forum are to promote the continued sustainable management of wild deer in the region, to provide a central focus point for the dissemination of information throughout the group and beyond, and to identify future management priorities, research and funding opportunities. It has been extremely useful in co-ordinating activities and developing local priorities for deer management.

4.6. Meeting twice a year, the Forum is currently chaired by the Deer Initiative and made up from 22

organisations in the region with an interest in wild deer management: these include the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, The British Deer Society, Forest Research, Forest Services, Public Forest Estate, the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), Natural England, the Deer Initiative, the Anglian Woodland Project, the National Trust, the National Farmers Union, Farming Wildlife Advisory Group, the Woodland Trust, the RSPCA, the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts, the British Trust for Ornithology, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Confor [Commercial Forest Industries].

5. The Forestry Commission

5.1. One of the Forestry Commission’s key aims is to improve woodland. It awards and administers Woodland Management Grants (WMGs) to encourage woodland management to UK Forest Standard. The intention is to safeguard the existing environmental and social public benefits that the

6Members of the East England Deer Forum include BASC, Forest Research, Country Land and Business Association, Natural

England, The Deer Initiative, The Anglian Woodland Project, National Trust, National Farmers Union, Farming Wildlife Advisory

Group, The Woodland Trust, RSPCA, The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts, British Trust for Ornithology, Royal Society for the

Protection of Birds, Forestry Commission and ConFor. 7 Deer Best Practice Guides England and Wales “making Best Practice Common Practice”

5

woodland provides, and to create the conditions under which woodland can continue to deliver benefits into the future. The objectives of WMGs are:

To contribute to the additional costs of providing more, and higher quality, public benefits that arise from meeting the broad UK Forestry Standard requirements for sustainable woodland management.

To protect, maintain and increase the area of woodland under sustainable management.

To identify and address threats to woodland, prevent decline, and increase the capacity for sustainable management.

5.2. Of specific relevance to the Wild Venison Project, Forestry Commission grants help facilitate deer

management through the provision grant support for deer management planning, deer activity and impact monitoring, high seats and stalking time payments.

6. Woodfuel East

6.1. Woodfuel East is a Rural Development Programme for England-funded project hosted by the

Forestry Commission in the East of England working to deliver a sustainable woodland infrastructure in line with government targets and focusing on currently under-managed and no-management woods.

6.2. The initial target in the East of England was to bring an additional 110,000 tonnes per annum (pa) of

green timber to market as wood fuel by 2013. It was estimated that this would bring an additional 15,000 hectares of woodland into productive management and lead to CO2 savings of 80,000 tonnes pa. Woodfuel East administers grants towards a woodfuel supply chain development project with funding from the Rural Development Programme for England.

6.3. For woodfuel production to be sustained, it is essential that woodland, once thinned, felled or coppiced, is able to regenerate successfully and it can only do this if deer damage is minimised.

7. The Wild Venison Project

7.1. One of the sub-groups set up under the auspices of the East of England Deer Forum was concerned with wild venison. Following discussions within the group and the commissioning of a feasibility study in 2009, a concept for integrating this wide range of complementary reasons for improving deer management led to the development of the idea for a Wild Venison Project (WVP), focussing on generating increasing sales of (i.e. demand for) quality venison by creating a sustainable wild venison supply chain and thus stimulating expert deer management at ground level to meet that demand.

7.2. In March 2010, the Forestry Commission was successful in its bid to The East of England Development Agency to run an East of England Wild Venison Project. It was established in March 2010 with a view to planned completion in December 2013 as a partnership between the Deer Initiative (DI), the Forestry Commission (FC) and the Regional Development Agency in the East of England. The last no longer exists and the contract is now with the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) Team at DEFRA, but the original approval for the project was given by the East of

6

England Development Agency (EEDA), as the designated delivery body of the Rural Payments Agency.

7.3. The Forestry Commission hosted the Wild Venison Project at Santon Downham in Suffolk, contributing £15,000 per annum to cover various costs which are not otherwise eligible for EU funding. Because the WVP ran in parallel to the Woodfuel East Project (WFEP), already hosted by the FC, WFEP was able to provide technical and financial administrative support. Both projects shared a financial officer, who was able to deal with various matters not handled by the DI, such as cash flow projections and financial management.

7.4. Approval for funding from EEDA was made subject to “the development of a methodology for assessing the wild deer population in the region”, and to the establishment of a baseline for measuring the “changes in deer population and the volume of wild venison being marketed over the life of the project”.

7.5. Assessment of the direct impact of the WVP in increasing the volume of wild venison being marketed from the East of England was undertaken by the Deer Initiative. A firm of consultants, Langbein Wildlife Associates, was asked by the DI to devise a means of measuring changes in the numbers of wild deer of different species across the region attributable to the impact of the WVP. A baseline report, setting out a methodology, was produced in March 20118.

8. Aims of the Wild Venison Project

8.1. Under Axis 1 of the RDPE a number of broad, general aims were agreed, based on the eligibility

conditions of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.

These included:

Improvement to wild deer management.

Improvement to the status of woodland Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (and other natural designations) in the East of England.

Reduction in the number of deer-related road traffic accidents.

Support to landowners in the region to increase their agricultural and forestry yields.

Improvement and stimulation of the supply of high-quality wild venison to local markets. 8.2. Just over £580,000 of RDPE funding – from the Axis 1 Rural Development Programme under

Measure 123 to add value to agricultural and forestry products – was to be delivered to businesses and individuals from March 2010 to the end of 2013. This was made up of a capital grant – to support applications deemed to have contributed to the project’s objectives – and a revenue grant to provide funding to pay administrative costs, including the salary of a project officer. Further details are at Appendix 1.

8Langbein, J. Assessing the impact of the East of England Wild Venison Project 2010-2013 on indicators of changes in deer

population abundance. 2011 RDI Associates Ltd Feasibility Study for the Processing and Marketing of Wild Venison in the East of England2009

7

9. Targets for the Wild Venison Project

9.1. In order to “add value to agricultural and forestry products” under Measure 123, the WVP created a

number of proposed outputs which were reported to DEFRA, including a specific number of processing plants, collection and storage facilities, collecting/delivery vehicles purchased, extraction equipment, jobs created and businesses supported (see Appendices 11,12 and 13 for details). In turn, DEFRA reported on the outputs to the European Development Fund. Other outputs included the amount of private sector investment brought into the rural economy (match funding), the added value to venison, and significant improvement in the quality of woodland, especially SSSIs.

9.2. Other proposed and predicted outputs are, of course, closely linked to the aims and objectives of the WVP and to the targets set. Whilst the targets can be measured against practical and tangible results, the outputs are more widely drawn and depend on a much wider range of data, much of which is more difficult to measure.

9.3. These outputs and outcomes are inter-related and are as follows:

Generation of a more sustainable supply of venison and a tripling of the volume of wild venison into the local food chain.

Adding value to culled wild venison of up to £2,500,000 per 10,000 deer.

Reducing the impact of deer damage on agricultural yields.

Supporting 50 landowners through farm diversification.

Reducing road traffic accidents through more effective deer management.

Improving woodland management, especially of SSSI woodland, with 1,300 hectares of woodland brought into improved condition (Milestone 40 as set out in the EEDA Offer Letter).

9.4. Work by the Steering Group to clarify the WVP objectives led to the following diagram to express

both the overall objective of the project and the associated outcomes.

MISSION

Adding value to venison sales

To generate a sustainable wild venison supply chain

Improve woodland

management

Improve and maintain

woodland SSSI condition

Increase agricultural and

forestry business

competitiveness

Creating and sustaining

local employment

Improve woodland biodiversity condition

Making a more effective deer

cull

Reducing road traffic

accidents involving deer

8

9.5. In order to deliver some metrics to support measurement of the specific outputs and outcomes, assessment of the direct impact of the WVP in increasing the volume of wild venison being marketed from the East of England was undertaken by the DI. A firm of consultants, Langbein Wildlife Associates, was asked by the DI to devise a means of measuring changes in the numbers of wild deer of different species across the region attributable to the impact of the WVP. A baseline report, setting out a methodology, was produced in March 20119 and is at Appendix 2a.

10. Implementation

Administration and Organisation of the WVP

10.1. When the project started, a Wild Venison Project Steering Group was set up in order to create a

governance framework, to act as a decision-making forum and to provide support and guidance to the project. The Steering Group was independently chaired and included a wide range of stakeholders. It operated in parallel with an Approvals Panel, which considered and approved applications for WVP funding, taking into account the recommendations made in their reports by the Project Officer (PO) and Appraisal Officer. Details of the Steering Group and Approval Panel memberships and the Code of Conduct are at Appendices 3 and 4.

10.2. The shared responsibilities associated with multiple stakeholders required clarity of definition:

The Deer Initiative undertook to: 10.2.1. Run the project on a day to day basis through the Project Officer who in turn was employed

by The Deer Initiative and line managed by the Deer Initiative’s Regional Deer Liaison Officer.

10.2.2. Use the Regional Deer Liaison Officer to act as Appraisal Officer for the Project applications. 10.2.3. Produce quarterly and annual reports, progress reports and provide additional information

as and when required by the RDPE team in DEFRA. 10.2.4. Work with the FC contact ensuring that all project processes and activities complied with

RDPE requirements. 10.2.5. Participate as a formal member of the Project Steering Committee and Approval Panel. 10.2.6. Report back to the Deer Forum Regional Group on the project’s progress. 10.2.7. Inform FC/Woodfuel East of any “material” change to the project that might cause an

amendment to the milestones/funding schedules and carry out the Compliance Monitoring for the project.

10.2.8. Meet with the Project Officer and FC (Woodfuel East) Team at monthly “Keep in Touch” meetings.

10.2.9. Have in place the necessary indemnity insurance in order to provide “advice” to end beneficiaries.

10.3. The Forestry Commission was the administrative and financial lead accountable organisation taking responsibility for the funding and the operation of the partnership. This lead role was crucial since the Forestry Commission was ultimately responsible for regulatory compliance, including state aid rules with EEDA/DEFRA.

10.4. The Forestry Commission undertook to:

9Langbein, J. Assessing the impact of the East of England Wild Venison Project 2010-2013 on indicators of changes in deer

population abundance. 2011

9

10.4.1. Enter into a formal agreement with EEDA to undertake the project as set out in the RDPE Business Case (21/12/2009) and to the terms and conditions set out in the offer letter dated 5 March 2010.

10.4.2. Make all claims for grant (via the Woodfuel East processes) and take receipt of all payments in accordance with the conditions set out in the offer letter.

10.4.3. Manage the financial procedures in line with the procedures set out by the Woodfuel East project. Run a designated finance package linked to the Venison Project online RDPE database “– and if required organise annual and end-of-project accounts audits”.

10.4.4. Inform EEDA/DEFRA of any “material” change to the project that might cause an amendment to the milestones / funding schedules.

10.4.5. Ensure project and grant beneficiary eligibility and provide the formal signatory on all offer letters sent to the project’s end beneficiaries.

10.4.6. Participate as a formal member of the Project’s Steering Group and Approval Panel. 10.4.7. Carry out annual visits to check the project is delivering on the contract under the Offer

Letter. 10.4.8. Meet with the Project Officer and DI Regional Liaison Officer at monthly “Keep in Touch”

meetings. 10.4.9. Ensure files are prepared ready for RPA compliance checks.

10.5. Diagram Showing the Wild Venison Project’s Administrative Bodies:

EU/UK Government (Funding)

The ‘funding source’ DEFRA/RPA Rural Development Fund for England

East of England Development When EEDA was disbanded responsibility was

passed to Defra Agency/Defra

Forestry Commission

The ‘grant recipient’

Woodfuel East – The ‘sister’

organisation

Provides amin and financial support for

the project (post approval)

The Deer Initiative – The ‘intermediary’

Manages and delivers the project

Steering group and Approval Panel

10

10.6. A WVP Project Officer was appointed on 1st June 2010, employed by the Deer Initiative to work on the project 5 days per week. Line management was by the Deer Initiative’s Deer Liaison Officer (DLO), who acted as the Appraisal Officer when applications for WVP funding were received. The latter contributed approximately 1.5 days per week to the project.

10.7. The project began to market itself in July 2010, with articles promoting the scheme and inviting applications in the local press and specialist publications and with publicity through the partner organisations.

10.8. The role of the Project Officer was to guide applicants through the application process and carry out

supporting administration, including managing input to DEFRA’s reporting and recording systems. The claims processing and payment as well as invoicing to EEDA/DEFRA for the project were undertaken by the Woodfuel East team.

11. WVP Governance

11.1. The WVP Steering Group provided the governance framework for the project. It met on a scheduled

three-monthly basis with concurrent Appraisal meetings to assess and validate applications. Occasional additional meetings were arranged to address specific issues where timings were important. Appendix 4 addresses the detailed requirements to ensure a proper approach was taken and that the WVP was managed with integrity. Early meetings addressed governance, process and planning issues, both to ensure a structured way forward and to create clear objectives across the breadth of potential project outcomes.

11.2. The incentive to applicants was the provision of up to 40% of matched funding for capital items and

also for revenue items such as marketing (initial funding up to 50% was allowable under EU regulations for the first 18 months of the WVP), all with a view to ensuring an improved and sustainable flow of wild venison into the food chain. All Steering Group funding decisions, after processing through the financial officer shared with Woodfuel East, required formal approval by DEFRA before an offer of funding could be made to applicants.

12. Processes

12.1. Widespread marketing of the Wild Venison Project in its first year (for example through the East of

England Deer Forum, through publications such as ‘Anglian Farmers’; ‘In Leaf’; RICS Land Journal and ‘Deer’, the Journal of the British Deer Society, and through the stakeholder organizations represented on the Steering Group) led to considerable interest reflected in queries regarding possible applications.

12.2. The first stage in the process was for an applicant to discuss the project idea with the WVP Officer to

ensure eligibility and consistency with the Project objectives. A Concept Form was then completed both to ensure that the eligibility conditions had been interpreted correctly and that the application fitted both the strategic objectives of the Project and the RDPE measures. Each applicant then submitted a more detailed application form with supporting documentation. Copies of the Concept Form and Application Form are at Appendix 6.

12.3. Having demonstrated how their grant request contributed to the WVP’s objectives (which would be

required for reporting to EEDA/RDPE team at DEFRA), each applicant had to provide evidence of the source of matched funding for the project. Typical sources were retained business funds, bank loans or funding from investors. Funds from public sources such as other grants or the Heritage Lottery

11

could not be used as matched funding. Planned expenditure had to be evidenced by three quotes for each item or activity. Deer Initiative or Forestry Commission staff undertook the appraisal of all full applications received. . The applications went before the Approval Panel for its decision and then the files were sent to DEFRA for final signing off. Rejected applicants were told in writing why their application was not successful.

12.4. All successful applicants were issued with an offer letter valid for a period of 30 days. This offer

letter set out the ‘milestone dates’ particular to the recipient, including the date by which purchases had to be made; the completion date and the date by which the grant claim had to be submitted. It also included a detailed breakdown of the total cost against the grant and the match funding. Each offer letter was signed by a Forestry Commission approved signatory. One copy of the offer letter was signed and returned and the second copy was retained by the grant recipient.

12.5. Once the applicant had completed spend of the grant, he/she submitted a claim with supporting

evidence and this was processed within 30 days. The administration of claims made against the accepted offer was made by the Financial and Administration Officer (shared with Woodfuel East and located with the WVP VPO at Santon Downham).

12.6. All grant recipients had to work in compliance with the relevant Game Food Regulations and Meat

Hygiene Standards. Any planning permission required had to be obtained before submitting a full application. All grant recipients had to comply with the standard RDPE conditions, alongside any conditions specific to a particular application. The universal condition was to provide evidence of contribution to the overall targets for the Wild Venison Project and to display acknowledgement of the grant.

12.7. As the Project involved expenditure of public money, there could be justifiable public interest in how

the money was spent; all grant recipients were therefore visited in a subsequent inspection to verify compliance with the offer letter conditions. In addition, the EU Regulations require that a certain amount of information remains available about who has received money under the Rural Development Programme. This information is available through DEFRA’s annual list of all those receiving financial support under the Programme, published on the Government Website. Compliance checks were carried out by the RPA and, where necessary, processes improved. No fundamental changes proved necessary.

12.8. Following completion of the claim process, it was a requirement of the Wild Venison Project that all

grant recipients had ‘a once in a lifetime visit’ from the Project Officer – the Inspection Visit. This was to check that all purchased items were in place, in use and being used correctly, as well as to verify that the aims and objectives, as stated on the individual offer letters, were being met. A check was made to ensure that there was proper and due acknowledgement of the grant, by means of a plaque/ acknowledgement prominently displayed on the equipment bought. During inspection, each grant recipient was required to answer a series of standard questions to ensure compliance with funding regulations. These are at Appendix 15.

12.9. The time taken for each visit obviously varied according to the complexity of the funded project,

with an hour being the average. With one exception, all equipment was in use and this exceptional situation was resolved and a second visit made to confirm compliance. Many recipients commented on the benefits of the grant scheme and how their purchased items had improved and enhanced their deer management. Several mentioned that sanction of items purchased for game other than deer outside the culling season would be practical and feasible. Chillers could be used all year, with venison during the culling season and other game beyond that. Taking opportunities to maximise

12

use of equipment, especially as each applicant had to supply 60% of the funding, seems practically sensible as well as innovative but remains outside the scope of this project. The inspection visits prompted some very positive feedback from the grant recipients either verbally or by email.

13. Funding

13.1. The project provided funding (generally of up to 40% of the total requirement) to landowners,

businesses and deer stalkers in the region (Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, and Essex) as an incentive to applicants and with the aim of adding value to venison sales. Support could be in the form of capital investment (in items such as extraction equipment, larder/chillers, processing units and delivery vehicles) and revenue infrastructure (such as marketing, branding, and website design). Applicants were also judged under the principles of ‘additionality’ (i.e. a new activity or an improvement to a current activity), and ‘value for money’.

13.2. Until March 2012, the WVP used two different percentage rates for the offer of capital grant under

Measure 123:

50% for equipment related to the extraction of carcasses, as well as chilled storage units and associated infrastructure (primary production)

40% for equipment related to the conversion of carcasses into marketable products (secondary production).

13.3. However, the dual percentage rate meant that when claims were processed, elements of each claim had to be calculated differently, adding considerably to administrative time. At its meeting in March 2012, the WVP Steering Group decided to apply a flat rate of 40% to all claims for capital equipment, whether for primary or secondary processing. This would not be retrospective, for obvious reasons, but would be applicable to all subsequent applications.

13.4. Individual project costs varied from less than £2,000 to more than £100,000, and the majority of applications were for grant assistance with the purchase of capital equipment, rather than for the marketing of produce. Grant assistance from the WVP for capital items – processing equipment, extraction vehicles and so on – meant that the project helped to facilitate increased culling, improved the standard of processing, enabled greater numbers of carcasses to be processed and stimulated the supply of high quality meat to the market.

13.5. There was less enthusiasm among applicants for grant aid for marketing. In fact, there was a clear

disparity between anticipated expenditure on marketing grants and applications received with £35,000 allocated for marketing grants, but less than £5,000 awarded. The WVP Steering Group concluded that this suggested that applicants already had secure outlets for the wild venison produced although, in some cases, it was apparent that supply had not been matching demand. Because of this, in June 2012, the Steering Group decided that £25,000 of the £35,000 remaining unallocated in the marketing budget should be transferred to the capital budget, leaving £10,000 for any applications for marketing support.

13.6. Each applicant was required to provide at least 50% or 60% of the total project cost, depending on

the type of project funded. The applicants were required to provide evidence in the form of a bank or building society statement, accountant’s letter or a letter from the bank authorising an overdraft or loan which would need to cover the entire project cost. This was necessary because grants were paid retrospectively.

13

14. Activities

14.1. Sections 2 and 3 above explain the genesis of the WVP, its stakeholders and broad governance and

process issues. Following appointment of the WVP Project Officer in mid-2010, the primary activities that led to applications and the successful allocation of funding were:

Marketing of the WVP through publications such as ‘Anglian Farmers’; ‘In Leaf’; RICS Land Journal and ‘Deer’, the Journal of the British Deer Society, and through the stakeholder organizations represented on the Steering Group.

Potential applicants contacted the WVP Project Officer (VPO) to discuss eligibility.

Concept Form (see Appendix 6a) completed by an applicant.

Application Form (see Appendix 6b) completed, by an applicant, normally with substantial support from the VPO, including evidence of match funding availability.

Appraisal of application, normally by the Deer Initiative.

Steering Group Approval gained at three-monthly meetings, including formal assessment of the application’s consistency with desired outcomes.

Approved applications signed off by DEFRA (these were not always agreed).

Signed off applications processed by VPO and Offer Letter sent to applicant.

Applicant completes project build, all costs paid for by applicant.

At project completion applicants submitted a completed claim form with original invoices and bank accounts demonstrating that all amounts had been paid.

Claim processed by finance officer

Approved claim for grant paid by finance officer to applicant

Finance officer re-claimed grant paid from RPA at three monthly intervals

Inspection visit carried out by VPO or Eastern Region Deer Liaison Officer

Throughout the process the Reporting On-line Database (ROD) system was continually updated to comply with EEDA and latterly DEFRA regulation.

14.2. ‘Activities’ as defined in the original offer letter from EEDA (see Appendix 1) were those actions

which would facilitate the development of a wild venison supply chain from the countryside in the East of England to end users both in the region and abroad, summarized as ‘from shot to table’. These actions result in a wide range of outcomes, summarized as the added benefits.

14.3. Grants were awarded according to how closely the applicants met the activities’ targets and were

used in conjunction with matched funding from applicants. Applicants were required to show how they would achieve these targets in their formal written applications and these were checked at inspection at the end of each individual project.

14.4. The funded projects range in terms of size and approach from those with a total size of between

£60,000 and £95,000 where regional or county-sized operations have either expanded or invested in new facilities, to initiatives where individual stalkers have, for example, converted garage space by the addition of a chiller and a small preparation area costing as little as £2000.

14.5. The original EEDA Offer Letter set the targets at (generally) quarterly intervals and cumulatively, as

follows:

To December 2010 December 2010 - March 2011 March - June 2011

14

June - September 2011 September - December 2011 December 2011 - March 2012 March - September 2012 September - December 2012 December 2012 - March 2013 March - September 2013 September – December 2013

14.6. The EEDA Offer Letter targets were:

The number of collection storage facilities installed.

The number of collection vehicles purchased.

The number of processing plants installed.

The number of websites designed and the number of marketing initiatives undertaken.

For each year of the project, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, there were targets for the number of jobs created and the number of businesses supported.

Extraction equipment purchased was included as ‘a milestone’ but no actual numerical target was listed. See Appendix 5. 14.7. In summary, through the life of the project, 228 applicants registered interest and 47 successfully

completed, with two applicants having a second application, making 49 successfully funded projects. Ten projects progressed to beyond the main application stage but then withdrew. Seven projects were rejected. Nine applicants completed the concept or application stage only and then did not progress. A further 39 were officially registered as a ‘contact’ on the DEFRA ROD recording system but did not proceed. Finally, 112 names were listed and given a WVP number but no contact details or further activities were recorded (which includes cases where no data consent was given or requested).

14.8. The allocation of grants across the region was as follows:

County Recipients

Bedfordshire 1

Cambridgeshire 4

Essex 11

Hertfordshire 5

Norfolk 10

Northamptonshire 1

Oxfordshire 1

Suffolk 16

Total grant recipients 49

14.9. The 49 successful applicants all used their grants to purchase equipment. In total, 34 collection

storage facilities were purchased; 2 collecting vehicles were purchased; 20 items of extraction equipment were purchased and 17 items for processing. The original offer letter setting up the Wild Venison Project had specified targets in each category and, in some cases, allocated target numbers quarterly for the duration of the scheme (see Paragraph 14.5 and 14.6 above). Meeting these targets has had variable success. Details of performance against the targets are detailed at Appendix 12 and are explained below.

15

14.10. Collection Storage facilities installed. Against the target of 30 collection storage facilities, 36 were actually bought, making it one of the most successful achievements. The 36 collection storage facilities have enabled stalkers and landowners to cull greater numbers of deer at any one time, knowing that they are not dependent on a game dealer having to collect carcasses within four to five hours of being culled. This has increased both the quantity and quality of the venison entering the food chain.

14.11. Collection Vehicles. The two collecting vehicles were purchased by the main game dealers in the

region and the resulting increased capacity has cut down on miles travelled and journeys made to collect carcasses. With only four of the eight Approved Game Handling Establishments (AGHEs) in the East of England collecting from stalkers, the target of six collecting vehicles may have been too ambitious and a concept that individual stalkers or estates would act co-operatively and therefore require a vehicle to collect from all those in a particular co-operative proved unworkable. Two new AGHE applicants who might have purchased failed to complete.

14.12. Extraction Equipment. The target for extraction equipment was not given in the EEDA Offer Letter

but 20 items were purchased, including winches, capstan winches and UTVs (Utility Terrain Vehicles).

14.13. Processing Plants. Processing plants, in which carcasses are skinned, cut up and joints vacuum-

packed, proved popular. The target of 2 processing plants by December 2011 was met with 2 actually purchased and there were a further 15 by September 2013, giving a total of 17 overall. The term ‘Processing Plants’ covered butchery equipment when it was used in connection with the preparation of venison products. Purchasing this equipment enabled applicants to prepare venison to enter the food chain, with sales at farmers’ markets and to local pubs and restaurants.

14.14. Websites and Marketing Initiatives. The original targets of 25 Marketing Initiatives and five

Websites were not met. At the early stages of the Wild Venison Project, it was notable that when approached about marketing during the application stage, many potential grant recipients (particularly recreational deerstalkers) said that they already had outlets for their culls, principally to game dealers, local butchers, pubs and restaurants, at farmers’ markets and to family and friends. (see Table below at 15.2.2). In addition, four of the 11 estates who became grant recipients already had marketing initiatives in place, with the Houghton Estate being a laudable example of ‘high quality own brand venison’ sold into the local food chain but also to London restaurants.

14.15. The same perceived ‘lack of need’ could be applied to website creation, with a shortfall of 4 against

a target of 5. This clear absence of interest led to the Steering Group deciding to refocus funding where it was demonstrably sought. However, with the experience of a large estate –Hatfield Forest – which took advantage of the budget for marketing and produced an informative leaflet about how to cook venison, and one of the game dealers – The Wild Meat Company – which took advantage of money for development of its website, it is considered that more could have been made of these options. This is addressed in the Lessons Learned.

14.16. Jobs Created. Overall, 9.75 recorded jobs were created against a target of 25.

Jobs Created 2010 - 2011

2011 – 2012

2012 – 2013

2013 -2014

CUMULATIVE TOTAL

EEDA Offer Letter Target 5 5 8 7 25

Actual 0.5 2.25 6 1 9.75

16

14.17. Businesses Supported Overall, 44 businesses were supported against a target of 50.

Businesses Supported 2010 - 2011

2011 – 2012

2012 – 2013

2013 -2014

CUMULATIVE TOTAL

EEDA Offer Letter Target 15 15 12 8 50

Actual 7 16 10 11 44

14.18. Both in terms of EU and Governmental (DEFRA) outcomes, creating and securing opportunities for

jobs in the local workforce and supporting local businesses are highly desirable with the financial and social benefits being felt both by individuals and the local economy. The improvement of both the quality and quantity of venison products through a more robust supply chain is similarly desirable. It is clear that the WVP over-estimated the job creation opportunities prior to the start of the Project.

14.19. Experience showed that the majority of applicants were small-scale, often recreational deerstalkers.

These are unlikely to create new jobs as they are individuals although they certainly support linked businesses such as game dealers and restaurants through selling culled deer to them for processing. Some recreational stalkers registered as food businesses in order to process venison for sale themselves, but this principally was as a small- scale enterprise which does not support new job creation. The estates which drew on funds already had gamekeepers in place; the grant enabled them to manage their wild deer more sustainably and improved the quantity and quality of venison reaching consumers, but without the need for additional labour.

14.20. One exception was Hatfield Forest where one job was created for a butcher. This project

demonstrated the very positive effect that a funded project can contribute when a substantial marketing effort is combined with new facilities that enhance deer management. Before the WVP, carcasses only were sold at very low value to game dealers. The grant provided for the processing of all venison on site, and selling it on internally to the site shop, which then marked up the processed product a further 100% to sell to visitors.

15. Delivery Against Outcomes

15.1. As well as the milestone targets for equipment, jobs and businesses set out in the EEDA Offer Letter,

there were a series of outcomes to be realised over and above the targeted activities described above. These included :

Generating a sustainable supply chain of wild venison into the local economy and tripling the volume of wild venison into the local food chain and the local economy

Adding value to culled wild venison of up to £2,500,000 per 10,000 deer.

Supporting landowners in reducing the impact of deer damage on agricultural yields.

Supporting 50 landowners through farm diversification.

Reducing the number of road traffic accidents caused by deer.

Improving woodland SSSI status in the region, to encompass 1,300 hectares. 15.2. Generating a sustainable supply chain of wild venison into the local economy and tripling the

volume of wild venison into the local food chain and the local economy.

15.2.1. To be termed ‘sustainable’, a supply needs to be monitored over a period which is of sufficient length to be meaningful. In the case of the Wild Venison Project, this has not yet been

17

possible. Many of the projects accessing funds through the WVP have been operating for less than two years. Such a limited timescale is not sufficient to give a true picture of whether the project has generated a sustainable supply of wild venison into the local economy and tripled the volume. However, grant recipients are required to submit their cull data and outlets for the five years following receipt of their grant and it will be at the end of this period that any impact on sustainable supply and volume will be quantifiable. As the Wild Venison Project will be closed by then and resources dispersed, the cull data will go to the Deer Initiative’s East of England Officer.

15.2.2. The following figures show the numbers of culled deer from a particular species going into

direct and home sales, into retail, pubs, hotels and farm shops and to game-dealers. They are indicative only as submissions with the detailed breakdown of culls from every grant recipient have not been received.

WVP Venison Outlets 2009 - 2013

Year 2009 - 2010 2010 - 2011 2011 – 2012 2012- 2013

Direct Sales and Home 170 157 1121 1093

Retail 18 26 431 331

Dealers 149 204 573 690

Total 337 387 2125 2114

15.2.3. It is essential that the targets and milestones for the project are realistic and achievable, and will deliver to the sector the support and equipment required. The baseline studies carried out before and after the project must utilise identical methodology, and the methodology used must be clearly set out in the first (pre-project) study.

15.2.4. However, it is possible to identify indicative figures by utilising the available wild venison sales data. Identifying sales on the 12 months before implementing the project, sales in the 12 months after implementation and, where possible, sales in the 12 months after that (i.e. the second year of the project) offers a clear pointer as to progress. The sales increase for Year 1 was +233% over the pre-implementation year. Using all available additional data, extrapolating figures and applying conservative weighting factors, it appears that, based on data from Years 1 and 2 of the WVP, the net increase in wild venison sales across all 48 projects, in five years, is an estimated 630k at current values. This is a cautious estimate as sales are likely to increase significantly as facilities are increasingly used to fuller capacity. Further details of these calculations are in the independent Evaluation Report10

15.3. Supporting landowners in reducing the impact of deer damage on agricultural yields.

15.3.1. Supporting landowners in reducing the impact of deer damage on agricultural yields is also difficult to prove in the relatively short timescale in which the Wild Venison Project has operated. The possible financial impact of deer damage to the eight main Agricultural Census farm types was estimated for each Government Office Region using data from a sample survey of deer damage conducted under a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food contract in the mid-1990s. The farm type in which most damage was recorded was Cereals and in the East of England this was estimated at just under £1 million, or within the range £0.25 to £1.25 million.

10

Evaluation Report The Wild Venison Project, Paul Teevan, December 2013.

18

(Estimate of likely annual cost of deer damage to agriculture in each Government Office (GO) Region based on the mean cost of damage per holding and the modal range of damage costs reported by Doney& Packer 1998).

15.3.2. Two-thirds of agricultural damage is due to fallow deer and roe deer, with red deer being the

next most significant species. Past research has suggested that deer damage to agricultural crops is generally concentrated close to woodland edges and occurs within 1 km of woodlands. Even though agricultural damage by deer may be highly localised, even within single farms, and is of limited significance at the landscape level, it may nonetheless represent a significant economic loss on an individual farm.

15.3.3. The total cost of deer damage to agriculture in the East of England is estimated at between

£1.92 and £4.57 million, with a median estimate of £3.21 million. For this median estimate, £3.11 million represents damage to cereals and £100,000 represents damage to root crops. Some of this damage may be offset slightly by venison or stalking revenue but any such benefits are small in comparison. Because of a lack of data, figures for agricultural losses do not take into account the costs of any deer damage to materials used to protect high-value crops, or any potential economic damage resulting from rejection of an entire crop by buyers, for example due to deer damage or contamination.

15.3.4. In the report Economic Impacts of Wild Deer in the East of England,11 the economic cost of

deer damage to cereal crops was considered to be greatest in Suffolk, followed by Essex; the cost of deer damage to root crops greatest in Suffolk, Norfolk and Essex and the total cost of agricultural damage by deer greatest in Suffolk, followed by Essex, and then Norfolk and Hertfordshire.

15.3.5. Twenty-four landowners received grants for collection storage facilities (chillers) and

extraction equipment to help reduce the impact of deer damage on crop yields. There is a link between deer densities, the cost of deer damage as outlined above and the number of grants made to landowners.

15.3.6. Six grants were made to Suffolk landowners in the area where the estimated cost of deer

damage to agricultural crops is highest. Six grants were made to Essex landowners where the estimated cost of deer damage to agricultural crops is second highest. Five were made to Norfolk landowners where the estimated cost of deer damage to agricultural crops is third highest, and two to landowners in Hertfordshire where the estimated cost of deer damage to agricultural crops is the lowest. In addition, the 19 funded recreational deerstalkers covered land which included farmland or woodland with adjacent farmland and they worked in collaboration with the landowner to manage deer numbers.

15.3.7. In total, 67 996 hectares of land in the East of England region has been included in the WVP

and of this total, 59 918 hectares were arable. On the whole, most projects supported were in areas of high deer densities where the impact on agricultural yield could be locally high. With the lack of any substantial data quantifying crop damage, either before or during the project, it is impossible to state conclusively that there has been an economic impact due to reduction in deer-related damage from additional culling. Though significant reductions in any one area will only be seen after a number of years, slight changes have already been anecdotally been

11

Economic Impacts of Wild Deer in the East of England : Piran C.L. White, James C.R. Smart, Monika Böhm, Jochen Langbein & Alastair I. Ward 2004

19

noted, demonstrating that this project has enabled a reduction in crop damage and establishes a legacy for the future.

15.4. Supporting 50 landowners through farm diversification.

15.4.1. During the application for the original EEDA grant, it was envisaged that 50 landowners would benefit from the Wild Venison Project. The aim of supporting 50 landowners through farm diversification has only been partially achieved as 24 landowners received support to manage their deer numbers. They all purchased collection storage facilities and/or extraction equipment, suggesting that deer population management was their prime concern, related to the need to reduce deer damage to crop yields and to bring woodland into better condition.

15.4.2. All gained additional income from selling the venison, with direct sales the preferred option,

followed by sale to retail outlets and then sale to game-dealers as the least preferred. The equipment purchased enabled them to put higher quality venison into the food chain as it allowed clean extraction over a wider timescale and more effective longer-term storage. In addition, 24 recreational or part-time deerstalkers received grant support and these were in turn supporting at least a further 31 landowners in the project area.

15.5. Reducing the number of road traffic accidents caused by deer.

15.5.1. The aspiration to reduce the number of road traffic accidents (RTAs) caused by deer is a self-evidently desirable and worthy outcome of the Wild Venison Project. However, for a range of data-based reasons it is difficult to quantify the degree of success.

15.5.2. The minimum cost arising annually from deer-related RTAs throughout the region which

resulted in some form of human injury has been estimated at £4,130,96612. This cost was based on standard valuations produced by the Department of Transport for the costs arising from accidents which caused human injuries of different severities. The overall collated report figures were obtained from the RSPCA and the Forestry Commission for the years 2000 to 2009. Minimum and maximum estimates of £162,450 and £638,400 respectively were produced for the annual regional incidence of deer-related RTAs which do not result in human injury. From the costs of human injury and non-injury deer-related RTAs calculated above, the estimated minimum annual cost arising from deer-related RTAs in the East of England was £4,293,416. (These estimates were obtained by applying a valuation derived from data provided by a national insurance company which detailed the settlement cost of deer-related RTA claims. The cost consequences of an accident which causes human injury, whatever the severity, are considerably higher than the cost consequences of an accident which only results in an insurance damage claim).

15.5.3. Analysis with respect to deer-related RTAs shows specific hotspots of risk around Thetford

Forest and in the Essex-Hertfordshire border areas. There were four grant recipients in the areas surrounding Thetford Forest and ten in the area of the Essex – Hertfordshire border. It would therefore be possible to continue to target increased culling in accident hotspots with a view to reducing deer-related RTAs.

12

Monitoring DVC in England to end 2010: Langbein. J. (2011) . Final Report to Highways Agency . Deer Initiative Resarch Report 11/3.

20

15.5.4. However, no current data exists. The Highways Agency funding to the Deer Initiative for collection of figures relating to DVC’s came to an end in March 201113. Moreover, any real reduction in road traffic accidents will become apparent only after a number of years and when figures are supplied to the Deer Initiative from the RSPCA and the Department of Transport. It is therefore too early to judge the degree to which the Wild Venison Project has reduced the number of road traffic accidents in the East of England.

15.6. Improving woodland SSSI status in the region, to encompass 1300 hectares.

15.6.1. The East of England is predominantly a rural region with a landscape of large agricultural estates, many with a nucleus of historic parkland. As well as the largest lowland pine forest in the country - Thetford Forest - it has scattered broadleaved and mixed woodland characterised by vegetation dominated by trees that are more than 5m high when mature, which form a distinct, sometimes open, canopy with a canopy cover of greater than 20%. These stands of broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland may be either ancient or recent woodland and either semi-natural arising from natural regeneration of trees, or planted. In the last decade, native and ancient woods have begun to be valued for their wildlife, history and significance to rural landscapes, as well as their economic importance.

15.6.2. Of great concern is deer damage to these broadleaved woodlands. Long term monitoring by

Natural England has shown that there is little or no damage at very low deer densities but that damage increased rapidly as deer density increased. Their negative impact on forest and woodland ecosystems and their biodiversity comes primarily from their removing the shrub layer, with species such as bramble, ivy and honeysuckle being particularly affected.

15.6.3. High densities of deer, particularly muntjac, have also led to reduction in rare or nationally

important flowering plants such as bluebell, dog’s mercury and oxlip. Direct management of the deer population is therefore crucial in terms of reducing the negative impacts and the Wild Venison Project sought to facilitate this.

15.6.4. To measure success, a target of managing deer populations on 1300 hectares of Woodland

Sites of Special Scientific Interest was set over the whole life of the scheme. This target has been surpassed as a total of 1640 hectares has been listed covering 17 sites.

15.6.5. Natural England has the latest assessment of SSSI condition and using data from its website

www.naturalengland.org.uk, 639 of these hectares are in favourable condition; 997 are in unfavourable but recovering condition, and 100 are classed as unfavourable. This data will be re-visited in 5 years to make a more effective comparison over the longer timescale. Details are at Appendix 12.

15.6.6. Accompanying comments note the impact of deer numbers. There are the negative ‘fails on

structure and process and regeneration potential due to high deer browsing pressure’ and ‘the high deer population is still having a major impact on regeneration, and …. coppicing has ceased until on-going deer population management measures have been successful’ referring to sites in unfavourable condition. Details are at Appendix 12.

15.6.7. The positive ‘deer control is actively managed’; ‘minimal deer browsing on regenerating

coppice’ and ‘now supports a rich ground flora including a large population of nationally

13

Monitoring DVC in England to end 2010: Langbein. J. (2011) . Final Report to Highways Agency. Deer Initiative Research Report 11/3.

21

scarce oxlip – a plant particularly vulnerable to deer grazing’ statements refer to sites in favourable condition. The advisory ‘deer browsing was evident in places and control should be maintained’ and ‘evidence of deer damage minor and deer not perceived to be a problem though this should continue to be monitored regularly’ was expressed for sites in recovering condition.

15.6.8. Change to ‘favourable condition’ is also reliant on other woodland management work

occurring. While deer control and management should be regarded as part of the solution, the Wild Venison Project has enabled this further work to occur, both through providing capital equipment to help deer management and hence woodland condition, and through providing opportunities to inform and discuss with stalkers and landowners their management objectives for woodlands. These opportunities often support Woodland Management Grants administered by the Forestry Commission which can also include Deer Management Plans; this integration is clearly highly desirable in both outcome terms and in the perception of landowners.

16. Lessons Learned

16.1. Setting Up the Project As the first, and pilot, Wild Venison Project, it is of no surprise that a number of planning aspects were based on theoretical estimates and had limited data on which to draw. Following the experience of the East of England Wild Venison Project, such base knowledge is, to some extent, now available. The lessons learned that are detailed below are therefore less criticism of the preparations, planning and implementation of the East of England Wild Venison Project and more practical guidance for future projects based on learning from empirical experience.

16.2. Planning and Performance

16.2.1. The Wild Venison Project was subject to planning and timescale pressure from the start. A project officer was identified and recruited well after the start of the Offer Letter timetable and was faced with considerable pressure to gain project traction and generate progress in the absence of much preparatory work or information. Despite the existence of prior data, complemented by the various studies carried out and documented in the report above, the project started with a limited understanding of a plan.

16.2.2. This shortfall was exacerbated by very limited resources. Both data and project resources are addressed in greater detail below. With the benefit of hindsight, greater preparatory analysis of the region’s needs in terms of sustainable deer management, with consequent focus on the areas of greatest need, might have resulted in improved results in terms of meeting targets.

16.2.3. Conversely, demand from applicants is not subject to control and can only be channelled by the project: if there are no applicants in targeted areas, it is difficult to see how focus on areas of greatest need can be achieved without significantly larger resources, greater flexibility in funding rules and implementation protocols, and increased incentives for applicants.

16.2.4. Whereas many of the targets set were broadly achievable, it is clear that some were either over-ambitious, or misunderstood the nature of the response from potential applicants. In particular, the applicability of the ‘job creation’ target is highly questionable; had this been relentlessly pursued, it would probably have proved to be at the expense of the primary aims of the WVP. It is therefore important to ensure that the original offer letter to fund the

22

scheme sets realistic goals and targets and accepts a degree of flexibility in planning and implementation to accord with local experience and needs.

16.3. Project Resources

16.3.1. The staff resources allocated to the Wild Venison Project are detailed above (see Section 3).

The clarity of the reporting line with the Project Officer reporting to the Deer Initiative’s regional Deer Liaison Officer proved essential in removing ambiguity in a project where many stakeholders held views.

16.3.2. The financial and administrative support provided by the sharing of Woodfuel East staff was

very cost-effective and worked well, although by definition this reduced dedicated Wild Venison Project staff, which introduced constraints on flexibility and control. Whilst efficient, the primary implication of this arrangement was to increase the administrative load on the Project Officer which in turn limited the time spent meeting, advising, supporting and encouraging applicants. A key lesson identified early in the project was the degree to which it was easy to underestimate the support and ‘hand-holding’ required by applicants at every stage of the process.

16.4. Stakeholder Relationships

16.4.1. A key feature of the Wild Venison Project was the range of interested stakeholders – well

reflected in the composition of the Steering Group. Amongst these, the key players involved in the project process and delivery were DEFRA (processes, financial authority and sign off), the Deer Initiative (project delivery) and the Forestry Commission (process and administrative support). Given the resource pressures, the processes across these interfaces were fundamental to the overall success of the project and therefore worthy of some analysis.

16.4.2. The relationship with DEFRA was crucial yet not always easy. The presence of a DEFRA

representative on the Steering Group worked well in providing advice and support, and in being able knowledgeably to represent the Project within DEFRA. However, different people within DEFRA provided sign-off and financial authority for the project.

16.4.3. Over a period of some Governmental turbulence, this proved challenging, with strong

recommendations from the Steering Group being unsupported and rejected with no discernible justification or clear explanation. In addition, the central control and reporting system operated by DEFRA proved to be complex, time-consuming to operate, subject to regular change and hampered by a lack of transparency and feedback; this introduced challenges to a hard-pressed project officer. An example of the effect of these various issues was that, late in the life of the project, it was found that the Project Officer, and therefore also the Steering Group, were unaware of annual significant differences between WVP records of ‘committed spend’ (i.e. what applicants had sought and been authorised) and DEFRA’s monitoring of ‘actual spend’ (i.e. what applicants had actually claimed), which had led to an annual underspend of which the Project was wholly unaware.

16.4.4. An analysis of the underspend helps explain how this happened. The ‘time factor’ was

certainly an issue. The start of the project had a longer than estimated lead-in time so that most of 2010 -2011 was spent on putting administrative systems into place. In addition, each applicant took longer than planned to work through the process, from concept to claim. The ‘unanticipated circumstances’ factor was another issue, with even major (in terms of grant)

23

applicants failing to complete and claim, despite having signed the offer letter awarding the grant. These unanticipated circumstances included instances of a loss of or reduction to and applicant’s income, a failure to achieve planning permission, a failure to acquire the necessary land and changes in the applicant’s personal situation.

16.4.5. The financial and administrative support provided by the Forestry Commission worked

effectively, and was critical to the smooth running of the WVP. One area where improved coordination could have added more value – identified during the project – was developing closer partnership working with Forestry Commission Woodland Officers so that greater mutual support could be achieved between Woodland Improvement Grants and Wild Venison Project grants. This would have helped target those geographical areas where the need for the infrastructure provided by the WVP was the greatest. Many Woodland Improvements Grants enable Deer Management Plans to be written at the same time and these make recommendations which could have informed WVP strategy.

16.4.6. The Steering Group and Approval Panel (Appendix 3) generally reflected interested parties,

and their differing agendas, well. In view of these differing agendas, the independence of the Chair proved a helpful organisational decision. Of the various Steering Group participants, early involvement of a game dealer provided a useful, different perspective; although that member left within a year; it would have been desirable to retain or replace that standpoint. A notable requirement, and one not always met, is for all Steering Group participants both to attend the meetings and engage and contribute to all aspects of the Project. The Steering Group and Approval Panel should, therefore, consist of members who represent their organisation, are prepared to play an active role and continually add value; if this contribution becomes insufficient, members should be asked to resign and be replaced.

16.5. Data Challenges

16.5.1. A characteristic of the project has been the challenge of finding or creating accurate, up-to-

date statistical data on which to base plans and decisions and from which to interpret performance. The project highlighted the gaps in collated data and also that data could and did change over time.

16.5.2. A specific issue in the measurement of outputs and outcomes was the 3-year timescale of the

project and its closure at the end of that period. Many outcomes (woodland regeneration, for example) have longer-term effects that have proved not possible to measure or ascertain within the project. It has only been possible to measure other outcomes (deer culls for example) for Years 1 and 2 which has meant extrapolation and interpretation have to feature as part of the evaluation process.

16.5.3. Deer Vehicle Collision (DVC) data was expected to form a large part of the baseline data

studying population change. This data was collected by the DI through a Highways Agency funded project. In March 2011 funding for this ceased, resulting in limited data sources for this aspect of the baseline report. Data was still available but only from a limited number of sources.

16.5.4. The difficulty in understanding which measures should be used to judge the project’s impact

resulted in targets that experience has shown were not always relevant or appropriate. Other data is simply insufficient: deer-related road traffic accidents are not adequately recorded yet

24

are a major and increasing source of concern. Measuring and recording the outcomes of the Wild Venison Project for the report has to be done whilst the project finalises and therefore performance data does not reflect the long term impact of the project.

16.6. Applicants

16.6.1. It was clear early on in the project that applicants – particularly the individuals such as

recreational stalkers - required a significantly greater amount of support to negotiate the paperwork and bureaucracy associated with being allocated a grant of public money. This could only come from the Project Officer. In many cases, were it not for this dedicated support, the submissions would not have been made. In addition, it proved that it was unwise to assume that applicants understood the options that they might pursue and the Project Officer needed to advocate and suggest as well as support.

16.6.2. This was particularly the case in terms of marketing, publicity, websites etc where an almost

total lack of demand from applicants might have been changed earlier had there been a greater demonstration of their benefits.

16.6.3. During the inspection visits, it became evident that, with some encouragement, more grant

recipients would have taken up marketing and website initiatives. There was general recognition that prospective consumers did not know enough about venison to be willing to pay the sales price, that they were much more likely to purchase if the venison was in the familiar form of sausages or burgers, and that existing purchasers tended to buy from specialist outlets where they were assured of a high quality product. Feedback from those selling directly to the public, at farmers’ markets for instance, showed that many had come to recognise a need for education in how to cook venison in the home and to provide recipes using the different joints and cuts. Such initiatives would have encouraged sales, as would the development of ‘brands’ that denoted the source and quality of the venison entering the food chain, and supporting incentives to buy as many food items as possible from local growers and producers. Of particular note was that no grant recipient reported an adverse or critical reaction from members of the public over their sale of venison. In some cases the opposite occurred with consumers supportive of such a high quality and healthy product.

16.6.4. The organisational and administrative structure has in general worked well. Lessons were

learned as the project proceeded and as methods were found to work or not to work. Modifications were accordingly made, especially to the forms used. In particular, feedback from applicants was mostly about the repetitive information required on both the concept and the application form. Having one form, with the initial section acting as the ‘concept’ and the remainder the ‘application’, would be more straightforward and less time-consuming for all concerned. There may also be a case for smaller projects to have a much simpler application process although this might cause a problem if the applicant then chose to upgrade the application. In addition, future planning needs to recognise the cycle of growth of a project such as the WVP and that it cannot expect to be “up and running” from day one.

16.6.5. Following through from an ‘expression of interest’ is vital, as many potential applicants seem to have been lost at this early stage. However, it is probably best only to allocate a WVP number when the concept form has been received – not before as this can give a false sense of the number of applicants During all stages, from concept to claim, regular ‘diarised’ phone calls and emails need to be made, not only to see if any help is needed but also as a way of monitoring progress and having early warning of potential problems. Understanding why

25

applicants fail to complete, even after a grant has been offered, would help avoid some pitfalls if another such project is implemented. In summary, recognition of the importance of the support provided by project officers to applicants is vital and it is essential that it is fully resourced.

16.6.6. There needs to be greater consistency and firmness regarding the data expected from individual applicants. Even though many applicants find information provision challenging, if it is not supplied correctly or is inadequate, then the application should not proceed. Each applicant needs to provide details of their deer-stalking area, denoting woodland and woodland SSSI both in hectares and displayed on maps; and the ‘costs’ section of the application needs to clearly show the three quotes for each item and whether VAT is included or not. While the Project Officer can help and support, only the applicant can ensure that the information is accurate and complete; the formal appraisal cannot be undertaken until it is. The system of scoring applications (see Appendix 7), adopted during the life of the project, proved a good mechanism to flush out debate and ensure fairness in decision-making, as well as providing clear evidence that applications have been properly and carefully considered.

16.6.7. The WVP has shown that there can be a distinct lack of understanding about the dynamics of deer management by deer stalkers, including the 'experienced' stalker of many years standing. Many underestimate the numbers of deer they have on their particular area and it seems that recreational stalkers are reluctant to take on board the fact that they must reduce deer populations rather than maintain them at levels where they have something to shoot on every visit. Conversely, some stalkers overestimated their ability to achieve the culls which they stated on their application form, potentially exaggerating their predicted cull figures to help obtain their grant.

16.6.8. Evidence of the applicant’s ability to manage deer should also be sought. This could include written accounts of culls achieved or details of damage reduction to arable crops or woodland, both again from the landowner. Undertaking Impact and Activity Assessments with landowners on their areas of responsibility might be a future requirement, so that efficient management can take place and is documented. Where appropriate, there should be evidence from the Forestry Commission that an applicant is performing within the terms of a woodland grant scheme, ideally assessed by the Deer Initiative or at least by a woodland officer who has a good understanding of deer management requirements. Each deer-stalker should provide evidence of the continuation of their learning and gaining of experience after Deer Stalking Certificates Levels 1&2. This could include certified attendance at best practice events and a game dealer statement that stalker X prepares carcasses to a given standard. If adopted, these measures would give a more detailed profile of an applicant’s abilities, over and above what they have provided for this current WVP.

16.6.9. Having a consistent and standardised system of reference for each application is crucially

important, as is ensuring that all amended forms are clearly dated and obsolete versions are filed separately from the active ones. Regular and systematic updating of the DEFRA recording system for each applicant is extremely important, as this is the means whereby the overall progress of the WVP is monitored and online reports compiled to justify the funding.

16.7. Working with partners is also critical to success as they have wider expertise, knowledge and experience and bring with them their own network of contacts. The WVP has benefited from a very pro-active Deer Liaison Officer in the East of England, with extensive local knowledge and contacts, partly gained through active encouragement of deer management groups and collaborative culls.

26

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) provided practical support on some inspection visits and the Forestry Commission’s wildlife rangers gave advice when asked.

17. Conclusions and Recommendations

17.1. The East of England Wild Venison Project has been the first, and therefore the pilot, scheme in what has been an innovative approach to address the UK’s deer population challenge. It has therefore provided the opportunity to test the project scope and its terms of reference as well as delivering empirical evidence of performance. It is notable that the demonstrable success of the project in increasing venison sales by over 250% in its first two years, and achieving an estimated return on investment of over 2.5, was difficult to predict at the start. Therefore, given the national issue of deer population growth and its implications, such success should be built upon. It is recommended that the project be continued in the East of England and started in another region with a view to rolling it out nationally.

17.2. The ‘lessons learned’ have enabled good practice to be identified and any pitfalls recognised, in order to provide guidelines for similar future projects. This section therefore draws on that experience and aims to give an overview of what is required if a wild venison project is to succeed.

17.3. Very few applicants had any experience of grant-supported projects and would not have been able to complete the application process without direct, personal support from the Project Officer. Continued direct contact between the project officer, finance officer and applicant proved crucial to the success of the scheme. Similarly, the Steering Group, with its wide breadth of different perspectives, benefited from the local knowledge and experience of the areas in question and was able to assess applicants’ claims and value for money issues more effectively. It is clear that the regional structure of the East of England Wild Venison Project enabled stronger partnership working, often between groups which already had a history of working together, as well as being able to provide direct local knowledge. It is therefore recommended that any future project or projects should be structured at a regional level. If a national approach to deer management is undertaken, having a regional structure with a thin national umbrella would echo that of many other organisations, not least the Deer Initiative and the Forestry Commission.

17.4. The project has shown that not all the proposed targets were appropriate. Although different local conditions might apply in a future project, it is essential that the targets and milestones set are realistic and achievable. The baseline studies carried out before and after the project must utilise identical methodology, and the methodology used must be clearly set out in the first (pre-project) study. It is recommended that any future Wild Venison Project takes account of the lessons learned from the East of England regarding data gathering, outputs, targets and milestones.

17.5. Addressing the deer population problem cannot sensibly be achieved in isolation. The impact made by deer is on a landscape scale and only by involving all those with an interest in a landscape will such a project be successful. There needs to be a strategic plan for the long-term sustainable management of deer populations which links to the aims and objectives of the woodland management and woodland improvements grants and therefore promotes mutually supportive working. This in turn links to partnership working across the woodland and forestry sector, with wildlife organisations, private landowners, other interested stakeholders, recreational deer-stalkers and deer-related organisations. The Steering Group, with an independent and therefore dispassionate and unbiased Chair, provided the forum to integrate these organisations and to focus their differing agendas. It is recommended that any future project is managed through a diverse

27

Steering Group comprising committed and competent members from all interested organizations and perspectives.

17.6. As a pilot scheme, the East of England Wild Venison Project operated with one dedicated Project Officer and shared administrative resource. This proved challenging and to a limited extent degraded project performance. It is concluded that any project should be better resourced, not only with a project officer but with a finance officer and administrative support. All posts should have detailed job descriptions and training plans to deal with possible personnel changes. It is therefore recommended that a future project is more effectively resourced to ensure the Project Officer can properly fulfil the requirements of the role.

17.7. Finally, there should be a strategic plan for the long-term sustainable management of deer populations which links to the aims and objectives of the woodland management and woodland improvements grants and therefore promotes mutually supportive working.

17.8. The East of England Wild Venison Project has been very useful as a pilot scheme. Testing the project scope and its terms of reference has proved invaluable for any future implementations. The ‘lessons learnt’ have enabled good practice to be celebrated and the pitfalls identified, so providing some guidelines for other such projects. Partnership working across the woodland and forestry sector, with wildlife organisations, private landowners, the timber industry, recreational deer-stalkers and deer-related organisations is essential. The impact made by deer is on a landscape scale and only by involving all those with an interest in a landscape will such a project be successful.

28

Appendices Page

Appendix 1 EEDA Offer letter (Excerpt) 36

Appendix 2 Baseline Studies 38

East of England Deer Populations Monitoring 2009 2013 38

a. East of England Venison marketing / sales Monitoring 2009 2013 55

Appendix 3 Wild Venison Project Steering Group and Approval Panel (Members) 59

Appendix 4 Steering Group and Approval Panel Rules 60

Appendix 5 Key Milestones 63

Appendix 6 Wild Venison project Application Process 67

a. Concept and Application Forms 67

b. Appendix 7 Project Scoring Sheet 78

Appendix 8 Summary of processed applications 80

Appendix 9 Maps of Funded Projects 84

Appendix 10 Project Spend 86

Appendix 11 Who bought What 88

Appendix 12 Performance against outcomes 90

Appendix 13 Cull Collection sheets 92

a. Cull Record Sheet 92

b. Venison Sales Record Sheet 93

Appendix 14 Cull comparisons 94

a. 2011 /12 94

b. 2012 /13 96

Appendix 15 Once in a life time Visit Reporting Forms 98

Appendix 16 Asset Register 100

Appendix 17 Case Studies 101

Appendix 18 Bibliography 104

29

23 March 2010 Steve Scott Forestry Commission East England Office Santon Downham Brandon Suffolk IP27 0TJ FUNDING UNDER THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME FOR ENGLAND (RDPE) East of England RDPE Programme 2007 - 2013 Project Name: Wild Venison Supply Chain Our Project Reference Number: PMS 7517 Vendor Number: XXXXXXXX Relevant Priority Measures: Axis 1 Measure 123 Adding value to agricultural and forestry products. Axis 1 Measure 111 Vocational training and information actions Axis 1 Measure 115 Setting up of farm management, farm relief and farm advisory services as well as forestry advisory services

1. I am pleased to inform you that the East of England Development Agency (“the Agency”) as delegated delivery body of the Rural Payments Agency under the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) has approved your Application for a Grant from the East of England RDPE programme. We now offer The Forestry Commission ("the Grant Recipient") a Grant of £581,508 or 57% of eligible Expenditure (The maximum capital grant is £404,370 and the maximum revenue grant is £177,138) for the Project on the terms set out in this offer letter.

Annual Funding will be as follows:

Financial Year 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total

Total Eligible Costs

£6,360 £297,072 £328,296 £257,684 £128,316 £1,017,728

EEDA Grant - Capital

£0 £123,370 £137,500 £100,000 £43,500 £404,370

EEDA Grant - Revenue

£5,860 £42,732 £44,796 £47,834 £35,916 £177,138

EEDA Grant - Total

£5,860 £166,102 £182,296 £147,834 £79,416 £581,508

% EEDA Grant to Eligible cost

92.1% 55.9% 55.5% 57.4% 61.9% 57.1%

2. This project is State Aid compliant under the Rural Development Regulation using the Temporary

Framework exemption, in conformity with the de minimis Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006

Appendix 1: EEDA Offer Letter

30

incorporating as necessary, until 31 December 2010, the additional aid linked to de minimis included in the EU Temporary Aid Framework set out in Commission Communication (2009/C83/01) and state aid approval

3. The Grant is offered on the terms of:

(a) this letter (including its Schedules) ("the Offer Letter"); and

(b) the attached Standard Conditions of Grant (including its Annexure) (“the Standard Conditions”); and (c) the Project Specific Conditions of Grant contained in Schedule 1 to this Offer Letter ("the Project Specific Conditions"); and (d) any Project Specific Eligible Expenditure contained in Schedule 2 to this Offer Letter ("the Project Specific Eligible Expenditure").

4. The Project consists of: (a) the carrying out of the Project Activities fully described in the Application but

which can be briefly described as: to facilitate the development of a wild venison supply chain from the countryside in the East of England to end users both in the region and abroad, through a suite of activities that will support the sustainable management of woodland and improved storage, processing and distribution facilities. The grant is based on the details contained in your signed application and supporting business plan dated 21 December 2009, received on 23 December 2009 as updated by details in this Offer Letter. (b) the subsequent use of the Assets for the Approved Use during their Useful Economic Life; and (c) the achievement of the Targets contained in Schedule 3 to this Offer Letter, which will further the objectives and relevant measure of the RDPE Programme. 5 The amount of the Grant to be paid has been determined as follows: (a) 57% (being the Contribution Rate) of the Eligible Expenditure up to the Maximum Sum of £ 581,508 (b) Payment of Grant will be in accordance with the Expenditure Profile contained in Schedule 4 to this Offer Letter and also in accordance with Standard Conditions.

Key Milestones of the Project are listed at Appendix 5

31

East of England Wild Venison Project

Part B: Assessing the impact of the East of England Wild Venison Project

2010 – 2013 on indicators of changes in deer population abundance.

(draft) Baseline Report Spring 2011

prepared by Jochen Langbein, Langbein Wildlife Associates

on behalf of

The Deer Initiative Ltd.

Introduction 1. The East of England Wild Venison Project (WVP) supported by the East of England Development

Association and Forestry Commission, commenced in April 2010 and is scheduled to conclude in March 2013. The objectives of the WVP are to improve and stimulate the supply of wild venison to local markets, and in turn improve wild deer management more generally including reducing negative impacts associated with locally overabundant deer populations across the region. To further those aims the WVP provides match funding for suitable applications from landowners, businesses and deer stalkers in the region for capital infrastructure (larder and chillers, extraction equipment, high seats), marketing and training.

2. As a part of evaluation of the success of the WVP in reaching its overall objectives, two subsidiary

studies were requested by EEDA : Part (A) : Assessment of the direct impact of WVP in terms of changes in the volume of wild venison from the East of England being marketed prior and during the lifetime of the project. [Part A is being undertaken directly by the Deer Initiative Ltd.; see separate report Deer Initiative, March 2011]. Part (B) : the wider impact of the WVP in terms of any measurable changes in abundance of wild deer of differing species across the region.

The present draft report is concerned primarily with Part B only.

3. To address Part (B), LWA were commissioned in December 2010 to devise a methodology and draw

together initial independent baseline information against which the impact of the WVP on abundance of wild deer populations across the East of England may be assessed in future years. To answer the core question posed here, does not necessarily require determination of the size of total deer population in the East of England, but more importantly needs to establish:

i) whether deer abundance within the region can be shown to have changed significantly during or after conclusion of the WVP,

ii) and the extent to which any observed changes in deer abundance can in fact be attributed the influence of the WVP rather than other factors.

4. A preliminary outline method prepared prior to commencement of this work (Langbein, October,

2010) was focussed primarily around plans to generate repeatable estimates of total deer

Appendix 2: Baseline Survey Work

32

population numbers for the region as a whole and by counties or other smaller sub-divisions. These estimates being intended to be built primarily through firstly a) initial assessments at a each of 6 - 10 case study areas of relationships between numbers of deer-vehicle collisions (DVC) recorded locally over recent years and any deer density estimated assessed in those same forests or deer management group areas by a standard method over a number of years (e.g. in some areas by dung counts, or thermal Imaging, or visual census in others), followed thereafter by b) extrapolation to the wider region based on the wider distribution of deer vehicle collision records as recorded by the DI’s National DVC project, taking into account as far as possible differences in traffic flow, landscape and other factors.

5. However, following more detailed discussion with members of the WVP team of the remit for the

present project, and also better understanding of the distribution and potential manner of impacts of approved and pending applications for WVP support, it was decided to revise the above approach in a number of ways. The revised approach, which is outlined in further detail below [7], still retains use of changes between years in DVC frequency in different parts of the region as a central component. It differs however in shifting emphasis away from use of case study areas to extrapolate to total population sizes ; to focus instead more directly on assessing whether changes in DVCs (as a proxy of landscape deer abundance) can be shown to differ in a statistically significant manner between those districts in the region with most WVP activity compared against those without least such activity (and similar comparison also with other English regions).

6. The primary reason for the above change in approach, is that even if objective estimates of total

deer population size for the region were obtained in that way, such changes as might be found between the start and end of the WVP could be attributable to many other factors aside from any potential influence of the WVP; e.g. amongst others, milder winters, changes in land use patterns, and including for example other parallel on-going schemes such as the Woodland Grant Scheme (which also provides incentives for improved deer management).

On the other hand, discussion with the WVP of the distribution and scope of applications approved to date and others received, suggest that most projects receiving WVP funding (e.g. for larder and chillers, extraction equipment, high seats; as well as marketing and training) are likely to have greatest impact within the local area (i.e. parish or district) in which the establishments are based; or else the great majority of venison marketed through grant aided projects should in any case be recorded and possible to ascribe to known districts of origin within the region. This therefore provides a much more direct opportunity for testing whether statistically significant changes in landscape level deer abundance as measured by an independent variable (such as percentage changes in DVC frequency by district between years) are realised across the main areas of WVP activity.

Approach

7. For reasons outlined above the revised approach adopted may be summarised as follows: i) The number and distribution of projects approved for WVP support in each year across

the 46 differing local authority districts or unitary authority in the East of England region will be assessed (e.g. see Figure 1. of distribution of currently approved and pending applications)

ii) For each larder, chiller or similar project with a measurable throughput of venison, the approximate distribution of the areas from which the deer (by species) have been taken will be ascertained (i.e. by asking each establishment to record what proportion of total annual throughput was culled within the local district of that establishment, and numbers taken on land in other districts [The basis for recording numbers, species, and

33

origin is already part of requirements of WVP support, while only detail to level of local authority or possibly parish required for the present study]

iii) Based on the above, the 46 different local authority districts may then be divided into

two samples according to whether there has been zero or negligible WVP activity, and others with known culling processed / marketed through WVP aided establishments. The two separate samples of areas may then be evaluated statistically against an independent measure of deer abundance (e.g. percentage changes in DVC frequency by district between years; using in that case e.g. non-parametric rank correlation methods such as e.g. Mann-Whitney’s U statistic) to determine whether observed changes differ significantly between the ‘treatment’ and ‘control’ areas.

iv) The primary source of independent baseline information on changes in deer abundance selected for this study, against which the impact of WVP can be tested, is derived from records of known Deer Vehicle Collisions (i.e. reported deer road casualties found injured or killed at the roadside, and related traffic accidents) collated as part of the DI National Deer Collisions project (i.e. observed changes in the frequency of reported deer road casualties found injured or killed at the roadside or related traffic accidents); as collated as part of the DI National Deer Collisions project since 2003 and supplemented during the present work.

v) Although DVC have been recorded from a wide range of different source organisation by

that project, only some of these provide consistent countrywide coverage across past years. Furthermore, from view of the present project, it is essential that the main sources of information will be possible to obtain in a comparable form also for at least two to three further years; that is, even in the event (as is likely at present) that funding for continuation of the nationwide DVC project in full during 2011/12 may not be available.

vi) With this in mind, and other considerations outlined in more detail later sections of the report, the two main sample sources of DVC data selected for use in this project are:

RSPCA - calls to assist with live deer injured on the road)

FC wildlife rangers call-outs to deal DVCs near FC holdings For East of England Region these two sources alone have provided on average over 750 records of DVCs (with 7633 records available for 2000-2009, excluding further records not yet full available for 2010. In addition, comparable records from these two sources (extending to over 25000 records for the past decade) are available for all other English regions.

vii) For purposed of the present study all past DVC records available to date have been entered into a GIS mapping system, to enable ready extraction by county, district or any other sub-division. Initial examination of these baseline data shows a very high degree of consistency of distribution and frequency of records available by district across years within the East of England region. Table 1. shows the breakdown of the combined total of RSPCA+FC DVC reports in each of the 46 different Local Authority districts within East of England region.

viii) [While at the time of writing only 8 WVP grant applications have been fully approved or

are already up and running, a total of 69 applications are known to have been received overall to date. Discussion with WVP team indicate that around third may be expected to turn into confirmed projects, with 25 project in place by end 2012 being considered a realistic estimate. On that basis using a randomized selection of pending applications

34

plus those already approved, the number of different districts likely to have one or more WVP establishments may be estimated to be around 16] .

ix) [Depending on time when final studies need to be concluded, the most appropriate time period for such statistical comparisons may would be between data for the two or ideally three years before (i.e. 2007-2009) the WVP was set up with data for two or three years post-setting up (i.e. 2011-13) ; but excluding data for setting up year itself] [The actual sub-divisions used to divide the region do not necessarily have to be local authority boundaries, and could alternatively for example be based on more arbitrary units such as 10km map squares].

x) Comparable baseline information for all RSPCA+FC DVC records are also available for all

other regions of England; so that similar statistical analysis may be repeated also for comparison of changes within the full sample of 46 districts in the East of England, against those within any other region of England (e.g. Southeast or Southwest England) where no similar region-wide wild venison marketing schemes are established.

xi) Irrespective of the change of emphasis of the present study on a more direct statistical

assessment based around areas with and without significant WVP activity, additional information has nevertheless still also been gathered for the present project on a) a number of case study areas within the East of England for which aside from DVC

information, estimates of deer density replicated across a number of years are available, as well as cull figures for a number of years [ in particular Thetford Forest, Ashridge Forest, Epping Forest and Monk’s wood and surrounding parts within Huntingdonshire district]

b) a wide range of individual estates from across the region for which information has been provided in confidence to the Deer Initiative on the numbers of deer culled by species and size of management areas.

Though these supplementary baseline data are likely to form a somewhat less crucial part of planned analysis than envisaged originally, they should nevertheless provide valuable extra background information on the rate of change in indicators of abundance (via DVC records and/or direct census methods), as well as use in the parallel studies of measurable changes in volumes of venison being marketed across the region.

Overview of baseline information, and hypothetical projection of analysis (Incomplete draft figures and text sections to complete )

1. General distribution of WVP approved projects and other application received (based on n = 58 with known approximate location)

(illustrating – that even in the unlikely event that all applications were funded, impacts is very likely to be unevenly distributed across districts; with hence a significant sample of districts likely to be available as a control sample where no or at least relatively little impact through WVP would be expected to test against the sample of districts where such impact would be expected)

35

Figure 1.1

36

Figure 1.2 ‘Hypothetical’ Distribution of ‘25 potential WVP projects, based on 8 currently approved projects plus randomised selection of a further 17 from the total of 69 applications overall . (for illustrations only and testing likely available sample sizes of districts with and without local WVP projects)

37

Table 1 - Overall breakdown of collated DVC reports from RSPCA and FC by local authority district and years

District or UTA 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Babergh 7 8 7 14 28 23 28 19 13 13 160 Basildon 1 0 5 1 0 1 3 3 2 0 16 Braintree 9 14 9 11 16 19 29 25 23 15 170 Breckland 72 86 136 119 127 129 177 187 154 133 1360 Brentwood (B) 11 7 12 15 6 13 12 23 20 11 130 Broadland 12 13 18 14 17 19 26 24 24 23 190 Broxbourne (B) 7 8 4 11 6 4 5 11 1 5 62 Cambridge (B) 8 4 11 6 7 7 4 11 6 6 70 Castle Point (B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Chelmsford (B) 9 8 16 11 12 24 23 21 14 15 153 Colchester (B) 1 2 4 8 11 11 10 15 22 16 100 Dacorum (B) 18 28 26 22 27 10 25 23 20 32 231 East Cambridgeshire 0 3 4 8 7 13 14 21 12 22 104 East Hertfordshire 23 30 15 27 31 23 27 39 30 28 273 Epping Forest 18 14 36 19 21 20 43 33 31 22 257 Fenland 1 4 2 1 4 3 2 8 2 6 33 Forest Heath 45 56 54 44 39 47 52 52 51 51 491 Great Yarmouth (B) 2 5 2 9 7 8 8 9 10 11 71 Harlow 5 6 5 7 7 8 7 9 5 6 65 Hertsmere (B) 6 5 6 8 4 4 5 7 8 1 54 Huntingdonshire 9 9 17 19 17 24 19 22 19 14 169 Ipswich (B) 0 6 3 3 1 2 9 2 3 1 30 King's Lynn and W.Norfolk (B) 9 21 16 32 24 19 31 48 46 25 271 Maldon (B) 0 0 3 1 1 0 6 5 2 3 21 Mid Suffolk 8 14 20 13 15 16 27 27 17 19 176 North Hertfordshire 17 15 19 16 15 27 29 30 14 19 201 North Norfolk 8 7 12 11 16 12 14 14 27 24 145 Norwich (B) 1 2 4 5 8 3 2 2 2 3 32 Rochford 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 South Cambridgeshire 10 13 19 19 20 21 30 32 18 26 208 South Norfolk 6 6 13 10 14 14 17 23 23 28 154 St. Albans (B) 9 9 16 6 16 18 20 6 11 9 120 St. Edmundsbury (B) 41 36 35 47 39 40 50 49 46 34 417 Stevenage (B) 7 9 5 9 7 9 6 6 5 6 69 Suffolk Coastal 8 24 20 24 11 23 44 22 26 23 225 Tendring 1 1 1 5 2 2 9 7 4 8 40 Three Rivers 3 5 11 9 9 8 7 12 10 4 78 UTA_Bedford (B) 16 21 16 21 8 11 21 22 11 20 167 UTA_Central Bedfordshire 34 40 41 33 47 38 54 52 41 55 435 UTA_City of Peterborough (B) 10 6 10 7 13 17 23 20 19 11 136 UTA_Luton (B) 3 3 7 10 6 7 8 3 5 6 58 UTA_Southend-on-Sea (B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

38

UTA_Thurrock (B) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 Uttlesford 8 16 29 19 33 28 22 25 26 23 229 Watford (B) 6 2 0 3 4 4 2 1 2 1 25 Waveney 2 4 4 7 6 10 9 16 8 8 74 Welwyn Hatfield (B) 12 15 26 8 10 16 25 21 11 12 156 Grand Total 483 585 719 692 721 755 985 1008 846 799 7633

(grey font indicated districts with on average fewer than 2 reported incidents per year)

39

Figure 3a - Relative distribution of recorded DVCs East of England by district 2007-2009 based on Forestry Commission (fc), RSPCA, plus trunk road agent (ut) data. (filled stars show single or multiple DVC locations; shading shows relative numbers recorded per district).

40

Figure 3b. Change in relative distribution of DVCs recorded through RSPCA and FC records between 2007-2009

2007

2008

2009

41

Figure 4 : Overview of relative distribution of frequency of DVCs recorded per district 2000-2009 (based on RSPCA + FC + Trunk road agent data)

42

Case Study Area – Thetford . Relative distribution of recorded DVCs 2007 2009 by 1km OS tetdrads

Table showing relative breakdown of DVC records by species ; and discussion of restriction of analysis to e.g. fallow and roe ; to avoid possible masking of impact on these species by continuing spread / increase of e.g. muntjac.

43

Fallow

Figure Xa-f Deer Species distribution maps - source NBN gateway http://data.nbn.org.uk/

Muntjac

44

Roe

Red

45

Sika Deer

Provision of a baseline and methodology for measuring future changes in the abundance of deer populations and the resulting venison harvest in the East of England Region Introduction As part of fulfilment of the East of England Venison Marketing Project one of the requirements of the EEDA is that: “ a methodology for assessing the wild deer population in the regions must have been developed, and the baseline established for measuring the changes in deer population and the volume of wild venison meat being marketed over the life of the project.” Aim The proposal outlined below is aimed at producing a 2010 baseline and replicable methodology for assessing changes in the abundance of deer in East of England Region over the time of the project and the resulting venison harvest. Part A - Methodology for measuring future changes in the abundance of deer populations No reliable recent figures or estimates are currently available for either the total number of deer present in the East of England as a whole, nor for any of its six main constituent counties, smaller vice counties or district council areas. Figures for total numbers of deer culled in the region are also unavailable at this time, as there is no legal obligation on landholders to report numbers and types of wild deer culled by them to any statutory authority. A broad estimate for the total number of deer in the East of England Region was put forward by White et. al (2004) as lying between 51,650 and 124,568 with a best estimate of 76,237 . The method by which that estimate was derived was however based on sample deer densities assessed at just a single forest area (Thetford) in East of England; and was used in combination with information on habitat and land use and

46

the relative distribution (but not the actual abundance) of reported deer vehicle collisions to obtain extrapolated estimates of deer abundance across the region. For various reasons, clarified in more detail below, replication of this method along similar lines now and in future years would not offer a good estimator of actual changes in deer numbers in E of E across the period of the Venison Marketing Project, other than at best in as far as changes in that same single forest site accurately reflect changes also across the entire East of England region. We therefore propose a methodology below suited more specifically to assessment of changes in the abundance and distribution of deer in E of E, between the launch of the Venison Marketing Project in 2010 and its scheduled conclusion in early 2014. The proposed approach will be founded on:

i. Gathering information on a number of indicators of deer abundance (visual or TI deer density assessments, cull data) to be obtained from each of 8 to 10 selected case study areas distributed widely across different counties in the E of E; alongside,

ii. Collation of information on deer-vehicle collisions as recorded across the entire E of E region by means of a consistent sample of source organisations (plus more intensive recording of DVCs in case study sites).

iii. deer species presence / absence data by 10 km OS tetrad, as available from recent national BDS and other deer species distribution surveys.

iv. assessment of the interrelationships between different indicators (e.g. case study deer numbers vs. DVC numbers, taking into account differences in road density and traffic flows; DVC incidence vs. single or multiple deer species presence; etc.)

v. use of computer models and a GIS to estimate deer abundance and distribution across the region, based on evaluation of relationships to be determined for each case study sites between deer density, DVCs, road density and traffic variables, as well as influence of presence of different deer species individually or in combination.

More specifically data gathering and analysis to underpin the above approach will include the following: a) The 8 main case study areas proposed at present include Epping Forest (Essex), Ashridge Estate

(Herts/Beds/Bucks), Hatfield Forest (Essex), Thetford main block (Suffolk/Norfolk), Kings (Suffolk) , Rendlesham Forest (Suffolk), Monk’s Wood (Cambs). For each of these areas annual or bi-annual deer abundance data are expected to be available to us through results of either visual census and/or Thermal Imaging counts (carried out by landholders in association with DI, FC or University of East Anglia), as well as information on deer culls undertaken by the main deer managers or DMG involved in each area.

b) DVC records have been recorded for several past years countrywide including the E of E by the DI DVC project since 2003. Although intensity of recording DVCs by that project has been reduced over recent years to focus on collation of records from a reduced set if sample source organisations, information continues to be gathered at present by from several main sources (RSPCA, police human injury records, trunk road agent carcass uplifts) until at least March 2011. In the event that the DVC project should cease to be funded for any reason prior to end of the venison project, it is likely that data from the above sources should nevertheless be possible to obtain for E of E in similar manner again during 2013. In addition, although more intensive collation of DVC records at case study forests ceased to be funded at end 2009, it is proposed to (re)initiate that more intensive collation of DVC records from local rangers and others sources for the E of E case study sites proposed above for purposes of the present project.

c) Available species specific deer distribution data can be obtained from the most recent (2007) published British Society survey, as well as records from other organisation (including BTO, county wildlife trusts and others providing data to the National Biodiversity Gateway ); and will be supplemented with any species information available from DVC records. Species presence /

47

absence information will be used here primarily for assessing the breakdown of estimated deer numbers by species in different areas; but may also in their own right provide an index of change of deer species abundance over the years of the project.

d) The level of DVCs in a given area is influenced both by the number of deer and the level of vehicle traffic, and the exposure of deer to roads within their home range, as well as other factors. For each case study site and each county council area within the E of E region information on the traffic volume and road length (mostly available through county highways departments) will be gathered , to allow changes in variables unrelated to deer abundance to be taken into account. Information will also be gathered to determine whether there have been significant changes in the proportion of different land use categories (broadleaf woodland / other woodland / arable / urban etc. etc.) across the East of England region that may explain any portion of such changes as are noted in deer abundance variables.

e) Several of the indicator variables outlined above can provide indices of change in deer abundance across years in their own right. However – the variable on which information is likely to be available across the entire region (DVCs) is not related in a straightforward manner to deer abundance. Nevertheless, the change in this variable between years, if appropriately accounting for concurrent changes in factors independent of deer numbers (e.g. road length, traffic flow, speed), provide much potential as an estimator of overall changes in deer abundance. Multivariate regression analysis will therefore be applied to determine the proportional influence on changes in DVC rates found between start and end of the Venison project, that may be attributed to actual changes in deer abundance, and proportion attributable to other independent variables. In addition it is proposed to use the relationships determined in case study sites between deer abundance and DVCs (after accounting for road and traffic variables) combined with information on DVCs assessed across the wider region, to produce deer abundance maps by counties or smaller subdivisions.

Although the approach proposed here incorporates some elements of the method used by White et al. (2004), that earlier study was not designed in order to assess year to year changes in deer abundance across the region; and employed the relatively limited information on distribution of DVCs available at the time merely as a proxy to help determine the relationships between deer abundance and other habitat and land-use variables. The latter variables, rather than abundance of DVCs, in combination with deer density estimated from dung count information at a single study forest formed the main basis for overall estimation of deer numbers in that study. Replication to update and re-apply that same method to calculation of total deer numbers in the regions could as such provide a measure foremost of the change in deer density at that single sample forest site; or else even if it were to incorporate data also from the extra study sites proposed here, it would still mainly reflect changes in deer abundance determined only in those specific sample study sites. For the present study, the main requirement is to have a measure that will accurately reflect how deer numbers alter across the entire region over the period of the Venison marketing project. It is proposed here therefore to utilize more directly the now much more comprehensive information available on DVC occurrence across the entire region, to help model changes in deer abundance, whilst nevertheless accounting for the independent influences of concurrent changes in road density and traffic, habitat and land use and other covariates determined. Determination of the rate of change in DVCs (rather than total numbers recorded) between years is likely already to present a useful index of changes in overall deer abundance in the region, provided any changes in traffic variables are taken into account. The computer models and abundance maps proposed here will therefore be aimed foremost to help summarise and visualise better the changes in the various different indices of deer abundance that will be assessed. As such the major part of work for the study will be focussed on assessment of indices of changes in deer abundance (which may suffice on their own to help assess the impact of the venison project), with only a minor allocation of resources at this stage to development of a computer model of the results. It is envisaged that the computer modelling element will be

48

developed in liaison with a university biodiversity department (most likely using established links with either Durham or York University); and that while initial computer models would be developed during the 2010/11 baseline phase of the project, these would be then be reviewed and developed further during 2013/14 in attempt to produce a more refined way of modelling changes in deer abundance on the basis of information on reported DVCs, road density, traffic flow, and habitat data.

Deliverables - Phase 1 (Dec. 2010 – March 2011): i. Baseline indices of deer abundance for the East of England comprising

a) DVC numbers (adjusted for road density and traffic flow) for the entire region and broken down by its constituent county and unitary authorities as reported separately by RSPCA / Police Human injury data / and trunk road maintenance agents.

b) Collation of available visual deer count and TI count information, as well as information on reported deer culls for each of the eight case study sites (sourced from landowner / researchers at each site).

c) Collation of additional DVC records gathered for case study sites, sourced through FC, NT and other private deer rangers at each site.

49

d) Breakdown by deer species as far as recorded in available DVC data across the region, and an assessment of how well this reflects deer species distribution reported in existing national deer presence/absence surveys.

ii. Provisional computer model and estimation of total deer abundance across the East of England region (based on relationships determined between deer density and DVCs in case study sites, extrapolated to wider region according to DVC levels recorded outside of case study sites, accounting for differences in road and traffic and other influencing variables.

iii. Report detailing results of Phase 1 of the study, and expansion on methodology to be applied during Phase 2 of the study (2013/14) to determine the extent of change in deer population numbers since commencement of the Venison Marketing Project.

Part B - Monitoring the resulting venison harvest Establishing the baseline Venison produced in the East of England may either be processed locally or transported to large AGHEs which may or may not be in the Region. There have been a number of attempts over the past ten years to describe the national venison processing chain and identify the scale of production nationally and regionally but there is no statutory requirement to record or report cull numbers or venison production. The most specific published estimate was put forward by White et. al (2004). However a number of other organisations including BASC (2006), CA (2009), ADAS (2006) and MHS (2010) have obtained estimates for national figures which include regional data from which a baseline harvest can be synthesised for the East of England. We also have access to the recent regional FC, MOD, NT and DMG cull figures which provide a check on the data provided by the broader studies. Deliverables - Phase 1 (Dec. 2010 – March 2011): Baseline indices of venison production for the East of England synthesised from:

i. National and regional production estimates by species. ii. Collation of additional cull records gathered for case study sites, sourced through FC, NT and

other private deer rangers at each site in Part A. iii. Breakdown of venison production by deer species as far as recorded in available Partner data

across the region, and an assessment of how well this relates to the national data. iv. Report detailing results of Phase 1 of the study, and expansion on methodology to be applied

during Phase 2 of the study (2013/14) to determine the extent of change in deer population numbers since commencement of the Venison Marketing Project.

On-going monitoring Throughout the project we will continue to monitor the sources above. This will be collated into an annual update on production/processing trends within the Region. In addition we will require all producers and processors applying for grants to submit (where applicable) records of current and historic venison production/processing. This should provide a further check on the national and regional figures provided by our Partners.

50

Establishing the baseline Introduction Venison produced in the East of England may either be processed locally or transported to large Approved Game Handling Establishments (AGHEs) which may or may not be in the Region. There have been a number of attempts over the past ten years to describe the national venison processing chain and identify the scale of production nationally and regionally but there is no statutory requirement to record or report cull numbers or venison production. The most specific published estimate was put forward by White et. al (2004). However a number of other organisations including BASC (2006), CA (2009), ADAS (2006) and MHS (2010) have obtained estimates for national figures which include regional data from which a baseline harvest can be synthesised for the East of England. We also have access to the recent regional FC, MOD, NT and DMG cull figures which provide a check on the data provided by the broader studies. Methodology for determining regional figures Figures have been obtained from a limited number of game dealers in the region and so, in the absence of complete actual returns from game dealers and AGHEs, the best estimate of the number of wild carcases being processed into venison in the region has to be done by extrapolation of regional figures based on statistics gathered at a national level by BASC (2006) et al and by some limited cull returns. This makes the assumption that the average % of deer shot and then sent to AGHEs in East of England is representative of the country as a whole and that the region is “typical”. Appendix A shows the distribution of AGHEs. BASC (2006) estimated that 65% of all deer shot was sent to game dealers. Three dealers have supplied figures for carcasses processed in 2010 - a total of 8780 carcases. Thus, if 8780 represents 65%, the estimated total number of deer shot was approximately 13507. FC (pers comm.) suggest that approx 10-20% of the total population is shot each year, giving an estimated overall population for the region of 67,500 – 135, 000. Munro (2002) estimated that, nationally in England and Wales, the relative contribution to the total cull was: Roe 60% Fallow 17% Red 1.3% Sika 1.6% Muntjac 20%

Thus, based on the figures supplied by dealers and the related assumption (above) that 13507 deer are processed each year, the relative total weights of each species culled in the region (info based on average larder weights in Thetford District in 2010) is as follows:

Appendix 2b: Monitoring the Resulting Venison Harvest

51

species % of total (roughly)

Number processed

Ave weight (kg)

Total kg

roe 60 8105 12 97260

fallow 17 2297 32 73504

red 1.3 176 85 14960

chinese water deer

1.6 216 10 2160

muntjac 20 2702 10 27020

total 100 13496

Using average weights per species (from larder weights supplied above) and based on average prices paid by the dealer per species:

species Total kg Ave price/kg Total value

roe 97260 £2.00 194520

fallow 73540 £2.00 147008

red 14960 £2.00 29920

chinese water deer

2160 £2.00 4320

muntjac 27020 £1.00 27020

total 402, 788

Thus, the estimated current venison value to the region, based on dealers’ returns for 2010, is just over £ 400, 000 Figures from actual cull data from selected estates Using data gathered from a number of sites across the East of England DMG area: (NB these are only a proportion of the total culling activity in the region .) Actual cull figures for case study sites 2008 and 2009

Species Total shot % of total cull

2008 2009 2008 2009

red 44 33 4.15 2.34

fallow 298 397 28.11 28.17

roe 191 235 18.01 16.6

muntjac 522 730 49.26 51.8

chinese water deer 5 14 0.47 0.99

total 1060 1409

There was thus a 33% increase in the total number culled between 2008 and 2009 Using the average weights as above,

52

Total weight based on average carcass weight 2008

Species Number Ave weight (kg) Total kg Total value

red 44 85 3740 7480

fallow 298 32 9536 19072

roe 191 12 2292 4584

muntjac 522 10 5220 5220

chinese water deer 5 10 50 100

total 1060 36, 456

2009

Species Number Ave weight (kg) Total kg Total value

red 33 85 2805 5610

fallow 397 32 12704 25408

roe 235 12 2820 5640

muntjac 730 10 7300 7300

chinese water deer 14 10 140 280

total 1409 44, 238

Thus, the total value to these limited number of sites was £36,456 for 2008 and, for 2009, £44,238. These are only a small proportion of the total number culled, and represent perhaps 10% of the total value as estimated from dealers’ returns (above). Future data gathering Having established a baseline for the number of deer processed as venison, we will ensure better monitoring of numbers through requiring that all producers and processors applying for grants submit (where applicable) records of current and historic venison production/processing. This should also provide a further check on the national and regional figures provided by our Partners.

53

54

WVP Steering Group: Membership and Code of Conduct

WVP STEERING GROUP – members were drawn from the wide range of partner organisations and individuals that make up the East of England Deer Forum, with the aim of providing guidance and governance to the Wild Venison Project

Steering Group 2010 -2011

Steering Group Changes June 2011

Steering Group Changes 2012

Steering Group Changes 2012 – 2013

Name Organisation

Mark Hughes Chair

David Hooton Deer Initiative/ Appraisal Officer

Corinne Meakins Forestry Commission

Mike Seville Country Landowners Association

Resigned March 2012

Tim Woodward /Phil Scott

National Trust Tim Woodward representing Independent

Tim Woodward representing CLA

Nick Rout The British Deer Society

Trevor Banham Forestry Commission

Simon Reinhold / Chris Brooks

British Association for Shooting and Conservation

Caroline Blew Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group

FWAGs abolished so no representation

Alex Dinsdale/Rob Wise (Newmarket NFU)

National Farmers Union Rob Wise took over as representing NFU

Robert Gooch The Wild Meat Company Resigned May

Chris Knock EEDA / DEFRA from Autumn 2010

Gary Battell Anglia Woodland Project / Suffolk County Council

Andrew Hoppit Forestry Commission Left for new role within Forestry Commission May

Andrew Sullivan British Deer Society

Graham Riminton /Anne Mason

Project Officer / Secretary Anne Mason from January 2013

Graham Riminton left for new role within the DI. January

Peter Jagger National Gamekeepers Organisation

Appendix 3

55

Code of individual Conduct for Steering Group / Approval Panel Members This Code describes the responsibilities of member organisation representatives on the East of England Wild Venison Project Steering Committee (hereafter referred to as the WVP Steering Committee) in relation to their individual conduct. Any representative on this Committee will be required, on appointment; to declare that they will be guided by this Code and guidelines provided in the WVP Governance Guidelines document. Principles The following principles shall guide the conduct of representatives on the WVP Steering Committee:

Representatives should act with integrity;

In dealing with public funds, representatives should set and abide by the highest standards of propriety.

Responsibilities and Individual of Member Representatives Representatives need to draw a distinction between their membership of the WVP Steering Committee and their activity in other capacities. Representation is not an impediment to participation in other forms of public work or in the work of forestry and countryside organisations, but the position imposes some obligations. Representatives should at all times act with awareness of their wider responsibilities. They should at all times:

comply with this Code guidelines provided in the Wild Venison Project Governance Guidelines document;

act in good faith and in the best interests of furthering the statutory objectives and aims of the WVP; and

act fully in accordance with the normal principles of financial accountability, giving due consideration to the need to achieve value for money.

Representatives should not:

act in a way which may bring the WVP or the Forestry Commission into disrepute;

use information gained in the course of their membership for personal gain;

disclose confidential information received by virtue of their appointment;

use the opportunity of membership to promote their private interests. As a general guide representatives should not take any action which cannot be publicly explained. Public criticism of the WVP or the Forestry Commission by the representative would not be compatible with membership of the WVP Steering Committee unless the representative makes it clear that they are expressing a personal opinion and not as a member of the WVP Steering Committee. Attendance Member organisations are expected to send a representative to the WVP Steering Committee Meetings. If the appointed representative is not able to attend the meeting a replacement representative will be

Appendix 4

56

provided. If this is not possible apologies will be offered at least 24 hours before the meeting takes place. The office of a member of a committee shall become vacant if the representative has been absent from more than two consecutive meetings of the committee, otherwise than by reason of illness or some other cause approved during the period by the chairman. Declaration of Interests Formal Business Upon the signing of this code of conduct, every representative needs to complete the Woodfuel East Conflict of Interest Register. Any member and/ or representative who has a clear and substantial interest in a matter under consideration by the WVP should declare that interest at any meeting where the matter is to be discussed, whether or not that interest is already recorded in the Conflict of Interest Register. Such declaration should make clear the interest and whether it carries either direct or indirect financial interest to the organisation and /or the individual. If a conflict of interest is expected after agreement of the agenda, this should be made clear at this point and this will be noted in the minutes. If a conflict of interest becomes apparent during a meeting this should be made public immediately. Where such an interest constitutes a direct or indirect financial interest, the representative involved should withdraw from any meeting and not seek to influence any recommendation made by the WVP Steering Committee or Approval Panel relating to the matter under discussion. The Chair of the WVP Steering Committee should take particular care to ensure that no possible conflict of interests in this area is allowed to arise. To assist in this regard representatives are encouraged to disclose any interest that may lead to conflict even although at the time of disclosure the possibility appears remote. Where a member organisation or representative has an interest which is not financial, but which is relevant to the WVP’s business, that interest should be declared. Where the interest is substantial, the representative involved should withdraw from discussions and recommendations relating to that interest. Where an interest arises from membership of a public body and where there is no financial Interest, full participation in the discussion and recommendation is permitted. In all circumstances, representatives should ask themselves whether members of the public, knowing the facts of the situation, would reasonably conclude that the interest involved might influence the approach taken or the actions of the WVP Steering Committee. If so, the interest is sufficient for the representative to withdraw. Member organisation representatives who have any queries or concerns about these matters should discuss them with the WVP Steering Committee Chair. Informal and other business Representatives should apply the same standards regarding the declaration of interests and non-involvement in relevant business in their dealings with WVP staff and in informal meetings of representatives.

57

Gifts, Hospitality and Fees Representatives should treat with caution any offer of gifts, favours, hospitality or fees arising from their position in the WVP Steering Committee. Representatives should consult the WVP Steering Committee Chair in cases of doubt. Register of Interests It is a commonplace of public life that those with responsibility for decision making, particularly concerning money, should ensure that they distance themselves from any possibility of a conflict of interests between their personal interests and public responsibility. The WVP will compile a register of financial and other interests of Steering Committee member organisation representatives that might be relevant to the bodies' activities. The register will be updated once per year. All representatives must declare any personal interest in companies or organisations with which the WVP or the Forestry Commission has entered into contracts. Representatives will be asked once a year to provide details of any business dealings with the WVP in a private capacity. This includes the receipt of non-discretionary grants. Private capacity includes ownership of or employment by an external business that has dealings with the WVP. Role of the Chair The Chair has particular responsibility for providing effective strategic leadership on matters such as:

encouraging high standards of propriety, in particular ensuring that individual members comply with this Code;

providing guidance on priorities to assist in the efficient allocation of resources;

providing an assessment of performance of individual members, on request when they are being considered for reappointment;

ensuring that the Steering Committee in making recommendation, takes proper account of guidance provided by the Forestry Commission;

Selection or presentation of potential new members to the steering committee. The WVP Steering Committee will meet at regular intervals throughout the year with a record of recommendations made taken. Resolution of Difficulties If representatives have difficulty in complying with this Code, or believe that the WVP Steering Committee is proposing to act improperly, they should raise the issue with the Chair who will advise on its resolution. If a representative remains concerned they may seek guidance from the Forestry Commission as Managing Agents of the Wild Venison Project.

58

The Key Targets set as Milestones The EEDA Offer Letter sets out the targets for the project under the term ‘Milestones’. These targets are time-related and linked to the quarterly reporting and financial claim procedure.

M1

The Start Date being the earliest date that expenditure incurred by you in relation to the Project can be Eligible Expenditure

1 Mar 2010 Yes Target met

M2

The Anticipated Completion Date being the date by which you anticipate that you will have achieved Completion of the Project Activities

31 Dec 2013

Yes Target met

M3

The End Date being the final date upon which the Agency shall make any payment of Grant to you.

31 Mar 2014

Yes Target met

M4

Steering Group (SG) - agree constitution, role and membership

23 Apr 2010

Yes Target met

M5

Complete a GIS map of Regions existing and potential wild venison processors

May 2010 Yes Target met

M6 Appoint Project Officer Jun 2010 Yes Target met

M7

Development of associated project application and claims

Jun 2010

Yes Target met

M8

Devise and agree with SG Operational Plan programme for years 1-4: Business Processes Marketing programme Infrastructure programme Link to skills programme

Jul 2010 Yes Target met

M9

Recruitment and sign up “ beneficiaries” for capital and marketing works Approval on application within 10 working days Claims to be submitted by WVSC (Wild Venison Supply Chain) to EEDA quarterly in arrears

Jul 2010 onwards as per Operational Plan

Yes Target met

M10 Steering Group Meetings Quarterly in Yes Target me

Appendix 5

59

year 1; 6 monthly thereafter

M11

Project Review meetings including presentation of Evaluation report

Annually (in April)

Yes Target met

M12 Project Reports to Steering Group/EEDA

Quarterly Yes Target met

M13 First processing plant completed

Dec 2010 No Too soon in timescale of project. Achieved by Dec 2011

M14 3 Collection/Storage facilities completed

Dec 2010 No Too soon in timescale of project.

M15 3 Collecting Vehicles completed

Dec 2010 No Too soon in timescale of project.

M16 1st Website Design completed Dec 2010 No Too soon in timescale of project.

M17 1 Collection/Storage facility completed

Mar 2011 Yes Target met

M18 Collection/Storage facility (cumulative total of 4)

Mar 2011 No By this target was met Sept 2011

M19 Facilitate establishment of Wild Venison Marketing group

Jun 2011 Yes Established 10 February 2011

M20 4 Collection/Storage facilities completed M20 (cumulative total of 8)

Jun 2011 Yes No to cumulative

Target of 4 met but cumulative target shortfall of 3

M21 6 Collection/Storage facilities completed (cumulative total of 14

Sep 2011 Yes No to cumulative

Target of 6 met but cumulative target shortfall of 3

M22 2nd Website Design completed

Sep 2011 No 1 website completed

M23 2nd processing plant completed

Dec 2011 Yes Target of 2 met. AGHE registered premises for cutting. Total by end of project 17: 2 AGHEs; 7 landowners and 8 stalkers purchased.

M24 2 Collection/Storage facilities completed (cumulative total of 16

Dec 2011 Yes No to cumulative

Target met but cumulative target shortfall of 2

M25 4 Marketing Initiatives started (cumulative total of 9)

Dec 2011 No 1 marketing initiative otherwise no interest from applicants.

60

Steering Group decision 8 March 2012 to transfer £20k from marketing to capital budget; approved by DEFRA 12 Sept 2012. Further £5k transferred March 2013

M26 3rd Website Design completed Mar 2012 No No take-up by applicants

M27 4 Collection/Storage facilities completed (cumulative total of 20)

Sep 2012 Yes Yes

Target exceeded with 21 completed

M28 4th Website Design completed Dec 2012 No No take-up by applicants

M29 8 Marketing Initiatives started (cumulative total of 17)

Dec 2012 No No take-up by applicants

M30 8 Marketing Initiatives Started Dec 2012 No No take-up by applicants

M31 3 Collecting Vehicles completed (cumulative total of 6

Mar 2013 No No to cumulative

Need for these restricted to AGHEs because of price and use

M32 3 Collection/Storage facilities completed (cumulative total of 27)

Sep 2013

Yes Yes to cumulative

Targets met

M33 8 Marketing Initiatives started (cumulative total of 25

Sep 2013 No No to cumulative

No take-up by applicants

M34 3 Collection/Storage facilities completed (cumulative total of 30)

Dec 2013

Yes Yes

Targets met Cumulative total 36

M35 Extraction Equipment Dec 2013 Yes No target given but 21 completed

M36 5th Website Design completed Dec 2013 No No take-up by applicants

M37 25 Marketing Initiatives completed

Dec 2013 No No take-up by applicants

M38 Final Report and claim submitted

Dec 2013 Yes

M39 Treble volume of wild venison in market place

Dec 2013

M40 Improved management and in SSSI target condition of 1300ha woodland

Dec 2013

Yes

Exceeded as total 1640 hectares

61

The application process was a two stage process; 1. Concept and 2.Full application. Examples of both forms are shown here: Appendix 6a: Concept Form This was for an applicant to give contact details and an outline of the grant requested and what it would be used for.

Contact Details

Contact Name

Position

Name of Business / Organisation applying for grant

Address

Telephone/ Mobile

Email / Web Address

Business Details

Type of business/organisation (limited company, not for profit etc, and registration numbers. If you are a woodland owner please state the size of your woodland holding. Is your application that of an individual woodland owner or micro-enterprise; or on behalf of a joint venture, co-operative or other form of collaboration? If the latter please include proof of authority.

Category Employees (FTE)

Turnover Or balance sheet total

Y/N

SME (*) <250 ≤€50 million ≤€43 million

(*) See “The new SME definition: User guide and model declaration” European Commission, SME User Guide.

Appendix 6

62

Project Description

Project Title

What are you aiming to achieve with regard to the venison food chain?

How does this project fit into your business plan?

What ‘investment’ items are required to achieve your aims?

What do these ‘investment’ items provide that help you to achieve your aims?

What skills do you and/or your organisation have to implement and administer such a project?

Why do you require grant support for your project? Why should the WVP support your project?

Have you received any other funding under the de minimis regulations during the last 3yrs

Demand for Product or Services

Please provide a brief description of the demand or need for your product or service.

What are the current market conditions in which you will operate?

Have you done any market research?

63

How will you make your proposal a commercial success?

Do you have any agreements or contracts in place?

For deer mgt :-

Area of holding?

Area of woodland?

Species present?

Current cull?

Future cull?

Any SSSIs?

County Wildlife Sites?

Special woodland status?

Objectives for deer control?

Costs and Funding Package

Please indicate how much the proposal will cost e.g. machinery purchase, building works etc…. Please provide a breakdown of the overall figure.

How have these costs been calculated?

Are they based on estimates or actual quotations?

What contributions are you looking for from the Venison Project?

Please indicate how you will fund your share of the proposal costs? Loan, cash, overdraft etc. If you are VAT registered this should not include VAT.

64

Project Timetable

Please provide a timeframe within which your project will operate. This will include start and end dates and dates when you intend to submit grant claims.

Date Activity

Declaration

To the best of my knowledge, the information given in this form and all other information given in support of this application is correct. I authorise the Wild Food Venison Project staff to make any necessary enquiries

Signed

Name

Date

65

Appendix 6b: Application Form This was for an Applicant to give details of the grant request and provide justification for it, together with a breakdown of the costs. Its submission had to be accompanied by three quotes for each item to be purchased and evidence of ability to pay the full cost up-front.

Contact Details

Contact Name

Position

Name of Business / Organisation applying for grant

Address

Telephone/ Mobile

Email Address

Business Details

Type of business/organisation (limited company, not for profit etc). Is your application that of an individual land owner or SME; or on behalf of a joint venture, co-operative or other form of collaboration? If the latter please include proof of authority.

Category Numbers employed (FTE)

Turnover Or balance sheet total

Y/N

SME <250 ≤€50 million ≤€43 million

66

Business Information

I have a Rural Payments Agency Single Business Identifier

(SBI) Number

I do not have an SBI Number Every applicant is required to submit a Creg16 form with his or her application, even if you already have an SBI number. Please, also provide supporting evidence to explain where the balance of funding for the eligible project costs will come from i.e. loan, cash, overdraft etc. A bank statement will suffice in most instances (see Table on page 8).

My SBI Number is: I have attached a

Creg16 form Evidence attached Yes / No

Business Plan

Is your business an existing or a new business. Provide some information.

What structure has your business. How many staff members does the business have and what are their roles.

Have you done any market research. Is there a need for your product or service. Do you have any contracts in place. What is your place in the market?

How will you ensure a sustainable supply of venison? Where does your material originate from?

What is your pricing structure?

What quality control procedures do you have (or intend to put) in place?

What is your production forecast for the next 5 years?

67

For projects requesting £25K of grant or more… Profit and loss forecast for the next 5 years?

A standard template can be provided by the Venison Project Officer on request.

For projects requesting £25K of grant or more… Cash flow forecast for the next 5 years.

A standard template can be provided by the Venison Project Officer on request.

For Projects requesting less than £25K grant… An ‘Options Analysis’ is required…a paragraph on the advantages and disadvantages of each of the following: 1.Do nothing 2.This request 3.Expand further This should include what would happen if the project is not supported by the Wild Venison Project

1. Do Nothing 2. This Request 3. Expand Further

Which assets do you require? Which assets are already obtained and which need to be acquired and how is this funded?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of your business?

68

Deer Management Plan

Area of holding?

Area of woodland?

Current species present?

Current cull?

Future cull level?

Any : o SSSIs? o County Wildlife Sites o Ancient Semi-Natural Woodlands

Objectives for deer control?

I have attached a management

plan (optional)

Project Description

Project Title

What are you aiming to achieve?

How does this project fit into your business plan?

What resources are required to achieve this aim?

What geographical area does your business cover / where is your woodland situated.

How does your project fit with the

69

strategic objectives of the Venison Project and RDPE? Refer to the outputs in Table 2 of the funding guidelines.

Have you identified any positive and/or negative equality and diversity impacts? What equality and diversity considerations are incorporated in the project design? Discuss with VPO.

If you are a large project e.g. involving building construction or modification – How does your project conform to the Excellence Framework / Quality Standards? Discuss with VPO.

Are there Land and Property issues that require resolution?

What systems and checks do you have in place /or propose to adopt, to ensure quality/hygiene standards?

70

Eligible Project Costs and Funding Sources

Please complete the following table to detail the items and eligible costs of your project proposal (e.g. machinery purchase, building works etc). Costs should be exclusive of VAT. If your business is VAT registered, you cannot claim VAT in your application; see the funding guidelines for further information. Please make sure that all project costs included here are eligible project costs; you should discuss them with your VPO if you are not sure. Supporting evidence for eligible costs should be included with this application (i.e. quotations for machinery, building works etc. In the case of second hand equipment purchase competitive quotes are not required but you should guarantee a serviceable life span of at least 5 years). Standard of quotes required: Less than £500 – Two written/printed quotes or references to a catalogue/website listing to show costs are reasonable. More than £500, less than £1,500 – Three written/printed quotes or a reference to a catalogue listing to show the costs are reasonable. £1,500 or above at least three written quotes based on a clear specification of requirement. Please, also provide supporting evidence to explain where the balance of funding for the eligible project costs will come from i.e. loan, cash, overdraft etc.

Eligible Project Costs and Funding Sources (insert extra pages as necessary)

Item Measure Total Eligible

Cost £

Wild Venison Project

Contribution

Balance £

Funding of

Balance

Supporting Information

Y/N

% of total £

Measure 123

Measure 123

Measure 123

Measure 123

Measure 123

Measure 123

Measure 123

Measure 123

Measure 123

Measure 123

Totals

71

Other public funding applied/ to be applied towards same costs as required de minimis aid

Provider of other funding Date (if already granted)

Co-Financing

We are required to assess the reliability of applicants for EU co-financed support since 2000.

Have you received previous European Union co-financed support since 2000? Y / N No If you have answered yes, please provide details. Have you ever been refused EU support due to irregularities since 2000? Y / N No If you have answered yes, please provide details.

Value Added tax

Please indicate your VAT registration status

Are you VAT registered? Y/N No If so, please provide your VAT number: If you are not registered for the purposes of VAT please circle that which applies to you:

We are not eligible to register

We have decided not to apply for voluntary registration

Permissions

Please list here any statutory permission or consents required for the project to go ahead e.g. planning permission. Please provide approval documentation. If planning permission is not in place the project cannot go ahead.

72

Declaration

Please note that a false or misleading statement in your application may mean that approval will be revoked and any grant may be withheld or recovered with interest. To the best of my knowledge, the information given in this form and all other information given in support of this application is correct. I authorise the Deer Initiative staff to make any necessary enquiries. Personal data held by the Wild Venison Project for the purposes of the programme as supplied in this form will be treated in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and I agree to my personal data being used as stated. If any information changes I will inform the East of England Wild Venison Project immediately.

Signed

Name

Date

VPO Support Statement

Name VPO

Signature VPO

Date

73

Project Scoring Sheet

Each project during the project approval stage was subjected to a further test to ensure that consistency was maintained throughout the approval process. The scoring chart follows. Members were expected to agree these, any matters of concern were recorded in the minutes of the approval panel meeting.

Appendix 7

74

Project scoring sheet

Eligibility Value Added

WVP Objectives Defra Outputs If yes :

Defra Milestones If yes :

Collaboration Value for money

Project Name

Bu

sin

ess

Size

De

Min

imis

Oth

er b

usi

nes

s d

isp

lace

men

t

Fin

anci

al N

eed

Ad

dit

ion

ally

Val

ue

Ad

ded

Qu

alit

y W

ild V

enis

on

Imp

rove

d D

eer

Man

agem

ent

Nat

ura

l Des

ign

atio

ns

Red

uct

ion

of

RTA

s

Incr

ease

d a

gri/

fore

stry

yie

lds

Job

s C

reat

ed

Bu

sin

esse

s su

pp

ort

ed

Bu

sin

esse

s cr

eate

d a

nd

gro

win

g

Pro

cess

ing

Pla

nt

Sto

rage

Fac

ility

Extr

acti

on

Veh

icle

Web

site

Des

ign

Mar

keti

ng

Init

iati

ve

Co

llab

ora

tio

n

Cu

ll P

erf

orm

ance

Man

agem

ent

Pla

ns

Total Points

Score Method

Must have all elements Yes/No

Yes/ No

=3 =1 =1 =1 =1 =1 =1 =1 Yes = 1

Dealer? Stalking? Marketing?

Score Yes Yes

= Good = 5 points = Average = 3 points = Poor = 1 point

Less than £10 /Carcase = 5 points Between £10 - £20 = 3 points More than £30 = 1 points

EWGS or Felling Licence = 1

Discussion Items Comments Location Etc.

75

Summaries of all Project Applications Received

Appendix 8a WVP Grant Recipients classified by County The lists here demonstrate the number and value of projects by county in the East of England. The amounts funded do correspond to areas of higher impacts and significant challenges found in the East of England with higher deer densities.

County WVP Reference

Total Eligible Project Cost

Grant

Bedfordshire

64 14 243 6 990

Sub - Total 14 243 6 990

Cambridgeshire

128 3 093 957

72 8 128 2 438

205 5 851 2 340

82 7 674 3 627

Sub - Total 24 746 9 362

Essex

42 9 500 4 750

199 11 804 4 721

141 15 500 6 838

183 5 760 2 304

25 155 247 73 395

154 16 402 6 560

75 6 985 2 794

212 8 616 4 308

61 9 420 3 488

121 33 876 16 938

93 18 862 9 431

Sub - Total 291 972 135 527

Hertfordshire

224 15 476 6190

209 3 119 1 247

7 62 050 31 023

196 3 378 1 351

104 9 000 4 500

89 19 090 8 738

Sub - Total 112 113 53 049

Norfolk

164 1 792 716

66 6 689 3 344

49 26 200 13 100

39 24 980 9 992

Appendix 8

76

10 22 462 9 918

37 15 066 6 220

155 7 733 3 093

166 5 370 2 148

123 11 810 5 785

Sub - Total 122 102 54 316

Suffolk

168 1 400 560

225 2055 822

132 12 882 5 270

69 7 709 3 492

43 1 674 837

13 1 797 858

26 15 548 7 774

213 3 346 1 338

15 96 375 44 719

136 7 705 3 777

220 13 000 5 200

23 13 700 6 725

103 2 696 539

222 19 175 7 670

56 2 356 1 016

36 16 836 8 418

Sub – Total 218 254 99 015

Oxfordshire

223 11 120 2 224

Sub - Total 11 120 2 224

Northamptonshire

108 3 358 1 518

Sub – Total 3 358 1 518

Total Eligible Project Cost

£797 908 Total Grant Funding

£362 001

77

Appendix 8b Wild Venison Projects - Approved Grants which failed to Complete and Claim It is expected with all grant schemes that there will be a number of projects that once approved, will not proceed with the project, the WVP was no exception to this natural drop out and where possible the reasons for the withdrawal have been identified. Eleven Projects failed to complete amounting to 22% of approved projects.

WVP Eligible Funding Grant Reason

3 10697 5259 No contact

5 25 527 12 334 Selling business

28 130 920 62 874 Withdraw over issue of combined use of deer larder

70 3140 1256

73 99 037 48 158 Unable to find premises

97 14 449 7212 Email 12-5-12 withdrawing

118 34 297 13 718 Stalking area changed

175 9000 3600 No contact

176 8683 3479

224 15476 6190 Failed to meet deadlines

Totals 351226 164080

78

Appendix 8c Wild Venison Project Applications which were rejected A number of projects were submitted and either through the appraisal process or following appraisal were rejected, the reasons for the rejection are summarised. Seven projects passed through the application process and failed either through project appraisal or during project approval group meetings.

Rejected projects Eligible funding Grant Reason

71 49 589 19 835 Not SME

100 13 281 5 311 Inadequate documentation

114 3 810 1 524 Poor fit with objectives

158 10 000 4 000 DEFRA - outside region

172 16 806 6 722 Poor value for money

203 51 308 20 523 Not SME

217 28 250 11 300 Poor value for money

Totals 173044 69215

79

Maps

9a Map showing location of successful Wild Venison Projects

Appendix 9

80

9b Map showing area covered by Wild Venison Project Deer Management

81

WVP Project Spend Costs Analysis For each applicant, this table gives a costs analysis. It sets out the total project cost; the grant offered; the actual amount claimed; the difference between the two and the private sector contribution (the amount each project contributed).

WVP Reference

Total Project Cost

Grant Offered Grant

Claimed Underspend Overspend

Private sector funding

7 62050 31023.5 31023.5 0 31026.5

10 22462 9918.45 9918.45 0 12543.6

13 1797.01 858.65 858.65 0 858.65

15 95375 44719 41285.11 3433.89 54089.9

25 155248 73395 63628.07 9766.93 91619.5

26 15548 7774 7774 0 7774

43 1674.26 837.13 837.13 0 837.13

36 16836 8418 8418 0 8418

42 9500 4750 4750 0 4750

37 15066 6220.85 6220.85 0 8845.15

56 2356 1016.55 1016.55 0 1339.45

61 8616.4 4308.2 4308.2 0 4308.2

69 7709.1 3492 2629.14 862.86 5079.96

108 3358 1518 1518 0 1840

49 26200 13100 13100 0 13100

123 11810 5785 5785 0 6025

72 8128.7 2438.14 2438.14 0 5690.56

136 7705 3777.7 3777.7 0 3927.3

66 6689 3344.5 3344.5 0 3344.5

82 7674 3627 3627 0 4047

89 19090.9 8738.4 8738.4 0 10352.5

141 15500 6838 6838 0 8662

93 18862 9431 9298.5 132.5 9563.5

104 9000 4500 4500 0 4500

121 33876 16938 15343.31 1594.69 18532.7

64 14243 6990 6989.7 0.3 7253.3

132 12822 5270.5 5270.5 0 7551.5

154 16402.4 6560.95 6561 0.05 9841.4

128 3093 957.6 957.6 0 2135.4

164 1792 716.8 674.8 42 1117.2

155 7733 3093.2 2060.61 1032.59 5672.39

168 1400 560 560 0 840

199 11804.3 4721.7 4721.7 0 7082.56

75 6985.45 2794.18 2791.78 2.4 4193.67

Appendix 10

82

166 5370 2148 2148 0 3222

205 5851.46 2340.58 2328.16 12.42 3523.3

212 9420 3488 3488 0 5932

183 5760 2304 2304 0 3456

103 2696 539 468.4 70.6 2227.6

39 24980 9992 9992 0 14988

121 33876 16938 15343.31 1594.69 18441.7

213 3346.64 1338.62 1235.31 103.31 2111.33

209 3119.73 1247.89 1247.12 0.77 1872.61

222 19175 7670 7670 0 11505

223 11120.5 2224.1 2224.1 0 8896.38

225 2055.81 822.32 822.32 0 1233.49

228 3954.2 1581.68 1581.68 0 2372.52

23 13700 6725 6725 0 6975

TOTALS 802831 367791 349141 18650 0.05 453519

83

Who bought What

This Table shows the results of the WVP grants, in terms of items purchased; businesses supported and jobs created.

WV

P N

O

Stat

us

Co

llect

ion

Sto

rage

Fac

iliti

es

Extr

acti

on

Eq

uip

men

t

Co

llect

ing

Veh

icle

s

Pro

cess

ing

Pla

nt

Web

site

Mar

keti

ng

Bu

sin

ess

Sup

po

rte

d

Job

s cr

eate

d

Dat

e o

f co

mp

lete

d

7 NT Manager √ √ √ 0.5 2012 Jan

10 Gamekeeper √ √ 1 2012 March

13 Stalker √ 1 2011 Nov

15 Director √ √ √ √ √ 1 2011 Dec

23 Landowner √ √ 1 2011 Oct

25 Owner √ √ √ 1 6 2012 May

26 Farm Manager

√ 1 2011 Oct

36 Manager √ 1 2012 April

37 Stalker √ √ 1 2011 Oct

39 Deer Manager

√ 1 2013 Sept

42 Stalker √ 1 2012 Aug

43 Stalker √ 1 2011 Aug

49 Estate Owner √ 1 2012 March

56 Stalker √ √ 1 0.25 2012 Jan

61 Owner √ √ 1 2012 Jan

64 Manager √ 1 2012 July

66 Gamekeeper √ 1 2012 March

69 Owner √ √ 1 2013 May

72 Owner √ √ 1 1 2012 June

75 Estate Owner √ 1 2013 July

82 Stalker √ 1 2012 March

89 Stalker √ √ √ 1 2012 July

93 Partner √ √ 1 2013 Feb

103 Stalker √ 1 2013 Aug

104 Owner √ 1 2012 July

108 Owner √ √ 1 2012 March

121 Owner √ 1 2012 Nov

121 Estate Owner √ 1 2013 July

123 Stalker √ √ √ 1 2012 July

128 Deer Manager

√ √ 1 2013 June

132 Stalker √ √ 1 2012 Sept

136 Stalker √ 1 2013 March

Appendix 11

84

141 Owner √ 1 2012 March

154 Sole Trader √ √ 1 2012 Aug

155 Stalker √ √ 1 2013 Feb

164 Stalker √ 1 2013 April

166 Estate Owner √ 1 2013 May

183 Stalker √ 1 2013 March

196 Estate Owner √ 1 2012 July

199 Owner √ 1 2013 Feb

205 Stalker √ 1 2013 Aug

209 Estate Owner √ √ 1 2013 Aug

212 Stalker √ 1 2013 July

213 Stalker √ 0.25 2013 Aug

222 Owner √ √ 1 2013 Sept

223 Deer Manager

√ 1 2012 April

224 Owner √ 1 2013 Oct

228 Partner √ 1 2013 Oct

228 Owner √ 2013 Oct

168; 225 Stalker √ √ 1 2012 Nov

85

Performance against Outcomes

The following table shows the Hectares of land under WVP Deer Management

Hectares are divided into arable, woodland (non-SSSI) and woodland SSSI, in accordance with the EEDA targets.

WVP Ref Total

Ha Arable

Ha Woodland

Ha SSSIs

Woodland SSSI Ha

Condition

7 430 159 0 SSSI NNR 271 recovering

10 3237 2995 242 CW 0

13 4005 3600 289 SSSI 116 recovering

15 N/A 0

23 132 75 32 32h ASNW 0

25 N/A 0

26 4249 3642 526 SSSI CW ASNW 81 recovering

36 4856 4604 72 1 SSSI 180 recovering

37 1781 1620 30 1 SSSI 1CW 1

ASNW 131 recovering

39 2225 1618 607 None 0

42 2711 2688 0 1 SSSI 23 favourable

43 5731 5401 0 SSSI 330 47 favourable; 48

recovering

49 878 677 201 1 SSSI 4 CWs 0

56 766 752 1 SSSI 1ASNW 14 favourable

61 1500 1500 0 None 0

62 2630 2480 150 1 CW 1 ASNW 0

64 4250 3850 353 SSSI 47 favourable

66 2024 1928 96 None 0

69 1445 1445 None 0

72 502 487 15 None 0

75 1096 1012 84 4 CWs 0

89 1214 1012 202 None 0

93 607 506 94 1 SSSI 7 favourable

103 303 300 3 None 0

104 290 286 4 None 0

108 610 373 20 SSSI CWS ASNW 217 favourable

121 365 303 62 2 CWs 0

123 810 690 120 None 0

128 2000 1320 680 ASNW 0

132 3237 3157 60 SSSI 20 favourable

136 202 202 0 None 0

141 404 0 404 None 0

154 1468 1357 111 ASNW 0

155 0 0 0 N/A 0

166 1000 676 324 1 SSSI 0

168 546 528 10 1 SSSI 8 favourable

Appendix 12

86

183 1679 1352 327 None 0

196 1011 607 286 1 SSSI 118 recovering

199 0 not given 0

205 1730 1503 175 1 SSSI 52 52 recovering

209 756 650 106 None 0

212 667 590 77 None 0

213 343 309 34 None 0

220 1410 860 550 None 0

222 1300 1220 80 3 CWs 0

223 2023 1214 0 SSSI NNR 0

228 407 370 12 1 SSSI 25 recovering

Total

Ha Arable

Ha All Woods SSSI

woods

68830 59918 6438 1640

997 recovering 383 favourable Sub-Total 1380

(260 not recovering)

87

Appendix 13a Cull Collection Sheets

As part of the commitment of applicants through the Offer letter cull data was to be collected, the outlets that the carcasses then went onto were also recorded

Cull Data collection Form

Cull Year

2011 /12

Date

A

M

P

M

R

o

e

M

a

l

e

F

e

m

a

l

e

M

u

n

t

M

a

l

e

F

e

m

a

l

e

R

e

d

M

a

l

e

F

e

m

a

l

e

F

a

l

l

o

w

M

a

l

e

F

e

m

a

l

e

A

g

e

K

g

E

m

b

r

y

o

M

i

l

k No Guns High Seat time Work time Wigs outings Other deer Seen

Numerical total other deer seen

Totals

Appendix 13

88

Appendix 13b Venison Sales Outlets Collection Chart

Time period

Units = whole carcase

Species Sex Direct sales and home consumption

To retail outlets: pubs, hotels, butchers, farm shops etc

To dealers in game and AGHEs

Total cull

Red Male + + =

Female + + =

Fallow Male + + =

Female + + =

Roe Male + + =

Female + + =

Muntjac Male + + =

Female + + =

C W D Male + + =

Female + + =

Grand + + =

Total

89

Wild Venison Project Data Cull Comparisons

Appendix 14a Cull Data analysis 2011/12

Each applicant was required as part of the offer letter to submit cull data, so that the effectiveness of the WVP grants could be assessed. A large number of projects were not fully running until much later in the project than this year. Therefore there are gaps in the data set.

WVP Ref Cull pre-

application Cull predicted on application

Actual Cull Increase/Decrease on pre-

app

Increase/decrease post app

7 36 50 87 51 37

10 60 120 91 31 -29

13 30 50 28 -2 -22

15 200 350 461 261 111

23 19 25 39 20 14

25 0 0 0 0 0

26 10 20 32 23 12

36 70 100 167 97 67

37 40 80 19 -21 -61

39 60 ?

42 80 120 66 -26 -54

43 100 150 117 17 -33

49 10 15 48 38 33

56 40 60 66 26 6

61 80 100 94 14 -6

62 129 150 123 -6 -27

64 200 350 0 0 0

66 50 75 36 -14 -39

69 25 50 120 70

72 30 50 43 13 -7

75 50 60 50 no change -10

89 150 180 51 -99 -129

93 12 40 7 -5 -33

103 10 15 0 0 0

104 5 15 9 4 -6

108 90 120 93 3 -27

121 30 60

123 8 20 36 28 16

128 70 100 109 9 39

132 25 50 111 86 61

136 6 17

141 40 60 46 6 -14

154 14 30 78 64 48

155 50 200 39 -11 -161

166 50 75 79 29 4

Appendix 14

90

168 15 30 15 no change -15

183 30 50 27 -3 -23

196 100 120

199 90 120 61 -29 -59

205 90 120 48 -42 -72

209 15 40 37 22 -3

212 12 40 57 45 17

213 0 10 1 0 -9

220 26 80 48 22 -32

222 17 48 0 0 0

223 200 300 152 -148

Totals 2474 3915 2791 317 - 1124

91

Appendix 14b Cull Data analysis 2012

WVP Ref Cull pre-application

Cull predicted on application

Actual Cull Increase/Decrease on pre-app

Increase/decrease post app

7 36 50 71 36 21

10 60 120 69 9 -51

13 30 50 18 -12 -32

15 200 350

23 19 25 25

25 0 0 0 0 0

26 230 300 294 54 -6

36 70 100 42 -28 -58

37 40 80 0 0 0

39 60 ?

42 80 120 68 -12 -52

43 100 150 131 31 -19

49 10 15 74 64 59

56 40 60 65 5 25

61 80 100 94 14 -6

62 129 150

64 200 350 185 -15 -165

66 50 75

69 25 50 123

72 30 50 43 13 -7

75 50 60 38 -12 -22

89 150 180 232 82

93 12 40 38 26 -2

103 10 15 13 3 -2

104 5 15 11 6 -4

108 90 120 Mar-00 -9 -39

121 30 60 64 34 4

123 8 20 36 28 16

128 70 100 95 25 -5

132 25 50 111 86 61

136 6 17

141 40 60 44 4 -16

154 14 30 74 60 44

155 50 200 80 30 -120

166 50 75 42 -8 -33

168 15 30 26 7 -4

183 30 50 29 -1 -21

196 100 120

199 90 120 180 90 60

205 90 120 54 -44 66

209 15 40 16 1 -24

212 12 40 42 2 30

213 0 10 1 0 -9

92

220 26 80

222 17 48

223 200 350 139 -61 -211

228 24 24 24 0 0

Totals 2718 4269 2772 54 -1497

93

ARTICLE 24 VISIT REPORT FORM

It is expected that each and every project funded through the East of England Wild Venison Project will receive at least one “life time visit”. This was undertaken by either the Wild Venison Project Officer or the East England Deer Liaison Officer. This form was used during the Inspection Visit. 1. Inspection information

Grant Beneficiary Name:

Grant Beneficiary Address:

Address of inspection (if different to the Address of the Grant Beneficiary):

Project Name:

Project Number/Ref:

Type of inspection:

final or routine

Date of inspection:

2. Summary of findings

Action Outcome

1. Is the project still in the same ownership i.e. is the original applicant person/business/organisation still in control of the RDPE funded project?

2. Do all of the key investments funded by RDPE actually exist and are they as described in the grant application/offer letter/variations letter?

3. Are the original objectives still on track to be delivered by the project?

4. Have the key conditions in the offer letter been met?

5. Is the project still as described in the application and offer letter, and are the investments being used for the purpose for which they were purchased under this project? Have any of the grant aided items been sold or ownership transferred?

6. Is there any indication that the business or the project will be changing in coming years in such a way that the grant investment is at risk (bearing in mind the 5 year rule)?

7. Is there any evidence that other public funds have been used to support this project?

8. Has the project been implemented to an acceptable standard? Is there any obvious evidence the project is not compliant with

Appendix 15

94

legislation or that the applicant is not meeting Defra minimum standards?

9. Is there sufficient evidence to support the RDPE and RDA outputs declared by this project?

10. Is the project taking sufficient actions to publicise the Defra/EU grant aid that has been provided eg correct acknowledgement on websites, leaflets, plaques etc?

3. Details of capital items seen

Offer Letter heading

Item Model/ type Serial No (year of manufacture)

4. Overall Result of Inspection:

Conclusions / Recommendations

Action Required By Whom By When

REPORT COMPLETED BY:

Satisfactory Yes Further info required Unsatisfactory

95

Asset Register Form

Upon individual project completion an “Asset Register” was completed by the applicant, during the inspection visit this was checked.

Applicants Name

Grants Scheme

Grant Amount £

Date of Acquisitio

n

Description of Asset

Price Paid net of recoverable VAT £

Location of Asset

Serial or ID no.

Location of title Deeds

Date and proceeds of Disposal of Asset

Appendix 16

96

Case Studies

Case Study 1: The National Trust at Hatfield Forest, Essex

Hatfield Forest is a rare surviving example of a medieval hunting forest, and is a National Nature Reserve and SSSI. It comprises 392ha (970 acres) of ancient woodland and wood pasture. The woodland supports several rare plants including oxlip and stinking hellebore, while the grassland is home to a variety of flora including bee orchids, pyramidal orchids and adders-tongue ferns. Old pollarded trees support lichens, invertebrates, and mistletoe.

The property is owned and managed by the National Trust, and is a self-financing business unit, relying on income from car parking, membership credits and revenue from forest products, events and small commercial ventures to meet its budget every year. To maintain the biodiversity of this ancient woodland, sustainable deer management is critical, and the venison produced can be made available to visitors and other local outlets.

Current estimates suggest that a herd size of 120 fallow deer (plus an unknown quantity of muntjac) is a population that the Forest can adequately sustain. In order to achieve this level the current annual reduction cull is 150 deer per year. Culling is carried out by qualified NT staff and volunteer stalkers. The head warden on site performs an annual deer census which produces consistent counts using direct thermal imaging observation, faecal pellet analysis and deer impact assessments.

Prior to the application for support from the Wild Venison Project, sales were made in whole unprocessed carcasses at wholesale prices, but it was clear that many potential customers did not want or simply could not manage a whole carcass. Customer surveys suggested that 87% of visitors would buy venison in smaller cuts were it to be made available.

The investment, on a 50% match funding basis (50% National Trust and 50% project grant), has

provided a venison processing unit (chiller storage and a separate processing room), butchery equipment, packing and labelling equipment;

helped to fund local publicity and promotion of the products;

enabled venison to be butchered on site and sold as ‘cuts’ - which can double its value - at the National Trust shop on site and at other local establishments;

created one job for a butcher and will help to safeguard three existing jobs involving deer management and others involving forestry and woodland management;

provided support for ten other local businesses, including adjacent farms managing deer which require a processing facility and the outlets which will be supplied with high quality meat at a reasonable price.

Once the target population is stable, an annual cull of 60 deer will be enough to make the venison processing unit a viable option. At the moment it appears that the reduction cull level is producing a vacuum effect, and deer are making their way from adjacent land into the Forest to exploit the more abundant food source. This effect may be reduced in the future as the local deer management group enables adjoining landowners to increase their cull figures.

Appendix 17

97

Case Study 2: An individual stalker – Mr Mike Cundy

Mr Mike Cundy is a self-employed, part-time deer manager, who is also registered as a food business operator. As he is the holder of the Level 1 Deer Management Qualification, his registration means that he can legally sell carcasses into the commercial venison food chain. His processing equipment is stored in his converted garage.

He stalks on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) STANTA training area, which occupies some 4,500 ha (11,100 acres) in and around the Thetford Forest in Norfolk, on the Rushbrooke Estate in Suffolk, and on several wildlife sites elsewhere in East Anglia. Deer management in these areas contributes to the successful achievement of the overall objectives of the Wild Venison Project.

Mr Cundy proposed spending £1,700 to improve his processing facilities, and he received a 50% grant contribution from the WVP of £850.

The improvements included

A walk-in chiller unit

An electric hoist, for lifting carcasses

Scales

A larder cradle (for skinning) and a carcase mover

The chiller is critical, since its installation means that Mr Cundy can cull and store deer in warmer weather without the extra time and costs incurred in taking carcases straight to a game dealer. Carcasses can be stored until the game dealer is ready to collect them, and since the venison is chilled at the earliest opportunity, the meat quality is improved and a better price is obtained.

With this investment, Mr Cundy will be able to double the number of deer harvested from 75 to 150 per year.

98

Case Study 3: The Wild Meat Company, Suffolk

The Wild Meat Company is the only fully-approved and EU-licensed wild game cutting plant in Suffolk, and is a well-established processing business. High-quality wild game products – including venison – are sold directly to farm shops and local supermarkets in Suffolk. However, market analysis undertaken by an independent consultant on behalf of the applicant showed that the East of England falls behind other regions of Britain in terms of the volume of wild venison consumed14. There appears, therefore, to be a large untapped market in the East of England. Yearly sales indicate a potential growth of 29% in fresh venison consumption and a 260% growth in ready meals using venison. Large numbers of people travel to the region at weekends, as it is relatively close to London, remains comparatively undeveloped, and is popular for weekend cottages and holiday homes.

The company received an offer from the Wild Venison Project of some £45,000 as match funding, which will enable it to fulfil the following aims:

to increase the volume of wild venison processed by 100% over the next five years, from 20 carcasses per week to 40;

increase sales by 10% per year;

achieve a 10% price increase for both the Wild Meat Company and its suppliers;

reduce meat/carcase rejection by 5% per year;

have 10+ suppliers in one supplier group;

support local employment;

create a recognised brand in local multiple outlets.

The grant has enabled this business to expand its capacity, employ extra cutting staff, supply a greater number of farm shops with a consistent high quality supply.

Over the past three years the business has developed markets with local Budgens, Co-op and Waitrose superstores to sell venison in stores local to East Suffolk.

During the application of this project there was significant discussion regarding the provision of a large generator, the business identified that it was storing large quantities of chilled carcasses and cut venison, and a significant risk to this was a power failure, which would spoil the product and render it unfit for human consumption. The provision of a generator was approved. During the storms of November 2013 the power was off at the plant for a period of 75 hours. During this time cutting continued and all product was kept chilled frozen with all the plant operating at usual capacity, thereby saving the business lost carcasses and loss of productivity. The knock-on effect of maintaining a supply was that all orders were also met during this period of time with the added sales income from the outlets that the business also supplied.

14

Dunhumby Institute 2008

99

Bibliography

1. Feasibility Study for the Processing and Marketing of Wild Venison in the East of England; RDI Consultants ; June 2009

2. Modelling large-scale relationships between changes in woodland deer and bird populations; Stuart E. Newson*, Alison Johnston, Anna R. Renwick, Stephen R. Baillie and Robert J. Fuller: British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU, UK: Journal of Applied Ecology

3. Influences of deer browsing, coppice history, and standard trees on the growth and development of vegetation structure in coppiced woods in lowland England; A.C. Joysa,b,*, R.J. Fullerb, P.M. Dolman; Received 10 April 2003; received in revised form 24 March 2004; accepted 1 June 2004

4. The effects of deer browsing on woodland structure and songbirds in lowland Britain ROBIN M. A. GILL ROBERT J. FULLER

5. Achieving Landscape-Scale Deer Management for Biodiversity Conservation: The Need to Consider Sources and Sinks; The Journal of Wildlife Management; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.530; KRISTIN WA¨ BER,1 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK JONATHAN SPENCER, Principal Adviser Natural Environment, Forestry Services, Forestry Commission England, 620 Bristol Business Park,Bristol BS16 1EJ, UK PAUL M. DOLMAN, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

6. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF WILD DEER IN THE EAST OF ENGLAND Piran C.L. White, James C.R. Smart, Monika Böhm, Jochen Langbein& Alastair I. Ward

7. Monitoring the resulting venison harvest: Establishing the baseline; Audrey Watson 2011

Appendix 18