Simon Thorp, a former Director of the Heather Trust, and Coordinator of the Bracken Control Group, calls for a cross-sector approach to Bracken and its management.
There is a danger that we are under-estimating the seriousness of the threats associated with bracken. Bracken has had a good year and the belief amongst landowners and land managers is that its area is increasing and therefore the impact of the associated threats is increasing. Asulox, the principal herbicide, had the twin benefits of selectivity and approval for aerial application.
The withdrawal of this product in October 2023 has significantly reduced our ability to control bracken in large areas, or in remote places where access by machinery is difficult, dangerous or impossible. We are now less able to intervene where it is decided that this is necessary or beneficial.
This year, I supported the development of the interim best practice bracken management guidance, commissioned from Fera Science Ltd, by the UK Nature Conservation Bodies. This sets out the current management options for bracken. Spraying with herbicide is no longer an option and the use of a weed wiper is not encouraged. The shift away from the use of herbicide is understandable, but it leaves those wishing to control bracken, in less-than-ideal conditions, with a problem.
Following its introduction in the late 1960s, Asulox had become the go-to solution for all bracken problems. As a result, little research has been carried out on the effectiveness of physical management methods. There are many questions that need answers. How effective is cutting, bruising or cultivating? What is the best time of year to carry this work out? How can livestock be best used? Could there be a role for herbicide use in the future in places where the risk of using it is assessed to be less than the risks associated with unmanaged bracken?
In this first year following the withdrawal of Asulox, there has been considerable confusion around the support that is now available through agri-environment schemes with conflicting advice being issued. No doubt this will settle down, but it must be accepted that, for the moment at least, only physical control options will be approved for bracken management.
The BCG’s future is uncertain, as it is currently unfunded, but I have recommended that the priority issues that need to be addressed are: Prioritise issues relating to the health of people, livestock and wildlife. Coordinate cross-sector stakeholder input to discussion about bracken and its management. Support the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies in the further development of the Interim Best Practice Guidance and the drafting of the proposed UK Bracken Strategic Framework.
Assist with the development of effective bracken control options in UK agri[1]environment schemes. Give consideration to hosting a national conference to review the approach to bracken. Connect practitioners to researchers and policy makers. Coordinate research activity to facilitate the filling of knowledge gaps. Consider how monitoring of case studies and/or trial plots, possibly on demonstration sites, could improve the understanding of the effectiveness of different management techniques.
For those interested, there is much more information about bracken on the BCG website. Bitesized Bracken Briefings are available on the Briefings page of the website; these aim to provide an easily digested summary of key issues. Arguably, with the loss of Asulox, it is even easier to justify a cross-sector role for the BCG – we need to work together to find the best ways to respond to the opportunities and threats associated with bracken.
I believe that the BCG should continue in some form, but if it is to do so, it requires support from those who can appreciate the value of a cross-sector stakeholder group. If this is you, please get in touch.
Written by Simon Thorp
Related Posts
