ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱDZȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱȱ
ǵȱ
ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱ
ȱ
ǯǯȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ’œœŽ›Š’˜—ȱ™›ŽœŽ—Žȱ˜›ȱ‘ŽȱŽ›ŽŽȱ˜ȱŠœŽ›ȱ˜ȱŒ’Ž—ŒŽȱ
—’ŸŽ›œ’¢ȱ˜ȱ’—‹ž›‘ǰȱŘŖŖŜȱ
ȱ
ȱŠœœŽ›ȱ–¢ȱ›’‘ȱ˜ȱ‹Žȱ’Ž—’’ŽȱŠœȱ‘ŽȱŠž‘˜›ȱ˜ȱ‘’œȱ ˜›”ȱ’—ȱŠŒŒ˜›Š—ŒŽȱ ’‘ȱœŽŒ’˜—ȱŝŞȱ
˜™¢›’‘ȱŽœ’—œȱŠ—ȱŠŽ—œȱŒȱŗşŞŞȱ
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
ABSTRACT
Moss is harvested from various habitats around the world and used commercially by florists and
garden centres in the UK for wreaths, hanging baskets and arrangements. This study aimed to
investigate the harvesting and trade of moss from Scotland’s conifer plantations, from which it
constitutes a ‘non-timber forest product’ (NTFP); there is much worldwide interest in the ability of
NTFPs to deliver conservation and livelihood benefits. Three-hundred and eight harvesters, traders,
landowners, bryologists and informants on the illegal moss harvest were contacted directly with a
response rate of 63% and questionnaires and structured interviews conducted. Although limited by
the timing of the study (which did not coincide with harvesting, making contact with harvesters
difficult), the results of this study indicate that 6 commercial harvesting enterprises, 6% of florists,
17% of garden centres and numerous individuals are involved in the harvest of wild moss in
Scotland; numbers harvesting illegally match those doing so legally. Harvesting of 15 common
species is concentrated in conifer plantations in the south of the country at Christmas and spring
time; although illegal harvests from Sphagnum bogs do occur. The harvest and trade of Scottish
wild moss is worth approximately £0.5 million a year and supports 125 jobs, split evenly between
legal and illegal harvesters; on average very little money is made by landowners through permit
fees. This study concludes that although the trade in moss has decreased dramatically over the last
10 to 20 years, market opportunities exist for Scottish wild harvested moss to replace imports from
the EU and New Zealand. In order to build confidence in Scottish moss traders’ and consumers’
concerns over sustainability and the legal status of harvesting need addressing. The forthcoming
‘code of conduct’ for moss harvesting is welcomed but studies to determine the ecological
sustainability of the harvest are needed.
ȱ
i
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would firstly like to thank my supervisor Alison Dyke, as well as Suzanne Martin and Gregory
Valatin of Forest Research, Forestry Commission Scotland. For their help during the study I would
like to thank Andrea Caldecourt (Flowers and Plants Association), Amanda Calvert, Diane
Campbell (Community Woodlands Association), Emma Chapman (Forest Harvest and Reforesting
Scotland), the Forestry Commission conservancies, John Douglas (South Lanarkshire Ranger
Service), Jamie Farquhar (Forestry and Timber Association), John Farquhar, Elizabeth Kungu
(Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh), Kristin Olesen (Reforesting Scotland), Jake Paul (Rural
Alternatives project, Reforesting Scotland), Jonathon Sleath (British Bryological Society) and
Sheena Standbridge. For their helpful suggestions I thank Jenny Wong (Wild Resources), Samuel
Bridgewater (Natural History Museum) and Hugh Prendergast. This research was funded by the
Natural Environment Research Council, Forestry Commission Scotland, Forestry Commission
(Corporate Forestry Support) and the Scottish Forestry Industries Cluster.
ii
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
CONTENTS
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Contents
List of Tables and Figures
Page
i
ii
iii
v
1. Introduction
1.1 Non-timber forest products and Scotland…………………………………………...
1.1.1 An Introduction to NTFPs…………………………………………………….
1.1.2 NTFPs in Scotland…………………………………………………………….
1.2 Scotland’s moss and its uses………………………………………………………...
1.2.1 Scottish mosses ……………………………………………………………….
1.2.2 Historic uses of moss in Scotland …………………………………………….
1.2.3 Current uses of moss in Scotland …………………………………………….
1.3 The harvest of moss as an NTFP……………………………………………………
1.3.1 The moss harvest outwith Scotland...…………………………………………
1.3.2 The Scottish moss harvest…………………………………………………….
1.4 Rationale for this study……………………………………………………………..
1
1
1
2
8
8
9
10
11
11
14
18
2. Aims and objectives
2.1 Overall aim………………………………………………………………………….
2.2 Specific objectives…………………………………………………………………..
19
19
19
3. Methods
3.1 Research design……………………………………………………………………..
3.2 Data requirements…………………………………………………………………..
3.3 Data collection………………………………………………………………………
3.4 Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..
20
20
22
23
27
4. Results
4.1 Response rates and geographical coverage of survey……………………………….
4.2 Objective 1: The extent of the Scottish moss harvest……………………………….
4.2.1 Who is involved and why? …………………………………………………...
4.2.2 Where is moss harvested from? ………………………………………………
4.2.3 When is moss harvested? ……………………………………………………..
4.3 Objective 2: The commercial trade and market chains for moss …………………...
4.3.1 How much is sold and to whom? ……………………………………………..
4.3.2 What is the trade worth to those involved? …………………………………..
4.3.3 What are the main sources of competition and constraints on businesses
involved? ……………………………………………………………………..
4.4 Objective 3: Assess issues of ecology, management and sustainability with regard
to the Scottish moss harvest and trade ……………………………………………..
4.4.1 Which species are harvested? ………………………………………………..
4.4.2 How are species harvested? ………………………………………………….
4.4.3 Are sites actively managed to increase moss yields? ………………………..
4.4.4 What is the current knowledge and practice of ecological sustainability? …...
4.5 Objective 4: Assess issues of access, legislation and control with regard to the
moss harvest ………………………………………………………………………..
4.5.1 What access arrangements occur between harvesters and landowners? ……..
4.5.2 What impact does legislation affecting the moss harvest have, if any? ……...
4.5.3 What is the potential for the certification of moss? …………………………..
28
28
30
30
33
33
34
34
39
42
44
44
45
46
46
48
48
49
49
iii
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
5. Discussion
5.1 Research methodology and results………………………………………………….
5.2 The current state and future potential of Scottish moss as an NTFP……………….
5.2.1 Socio-Economic considerations………………………………………………
5.2.2 Environmental considerations and control……………………………………
Page
51
51
52
52
55
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………
6.2 Recommendations………………………………………………………………….
59
59
60
References
61
Appendices
1. Questionnaires and letter of introduction/information provided
2. Organisations contacted during this study
3. News articles relating to the harvest of moss in Scotland
4. Useful addresses
67
67
81
83
85
iv
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Page
TABLES
Table 1. Summary of legislation affecting the harvesting of NTFPs, including moss, in
Scotland.
Table 2. Commercial companies known to harvest moss in Scotland and current
knowledge of their harvesting activities in the country.
Table 3. Research requirements to fulfil the objectives, and thus overall aim, of this study.
Table 4. Summary of methods used to approach and initiate contact with stakeholder
groups.
Table 5. Stakeholders surveyed, geographical representation and response rates.
Table 6. Harvesters of moss in Scotland encountered during this study; their potential
numbers throughout Scotland, their purpose and the location, habitat and timing of
harvesting.
Table 7. Percentage of landowners and managers in Scotland who reported having had or
who currently have moss harvesting in their forests.
Table 8. Geographical representation of landowners and managers in Scotland who
reported having had or who currently have moss harvesting in their forests.
Table 9. The quantity, value and origin of the trade in moss in Scotland by florists, garden
centres and wholesalers.
Table 10. The quantity, value and destination of the moss harvest in Scotland by
commercial moss harvesting enterprises.
Table 11. Trends in the trade of moss by florists, garden centres and wholesalers and in
the number of requests to landowners for permission to harvest over the last 5 years.
Table 12. Value of the current harvest of wild moss in the study and for Scotland in terms
of economic value and employment.
Table 13. Sources of constraint and competition on the moss harvest mentioned by
various stakeholders.
Table 14. Moss species harvested and traded in Scotland; principle habitats, conservation
concern and legal status.
Table 15. Harvesting practices of commercial moss harvesting enterprises, florists, garden
centres and individuals.
FIGURES
Figure 1. Map showing the distribution of woodland cover across Scotland.
Figure 2. Moss lining a hanging basket.
Figure 3. Moss in native wood.
Figure 4. Moss in conifer plantation.
Figure 5. Stakeholders in the harvest and trade of moss in Scotland.
Figure 6. Regions of Scotland.
Figure 7. Moss traded by florists, garden centres and wholesalers in Scotland.
Figure 8. Percentage of traders trading in moss of any sort and of specific types.
Figure 9. Percentage of traders trading moss for different uses.
6
15
22
24
28
31
32
33
37
38
39
41
43
45
46
2
10
10
11
20
21
34
35
35
v
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
1. INTRODUCTION
This study set out to investigate the harvesting and trade of moss from Scotland’s conifer
plantations, from which it constitutes a ‘non-timber forest product’. Overall the study aimed to
discover the extent of the moss harvest and to estimate the value of its harvest and trade to those
living in Scotland. It also aimed to consider issues of ecological sustainability, management and
legislation and to explore the potential for development of the harvest and trade.
1.1 Non-timber forest products and Scotland
1.1.1 An introduction to NTFPs
Non-timber forest products or non-wood forest products; NTFPs or NWFPs for short, have been
defined as ‘products of biological origin other than wood derived from forests, wooded land and
trees outside of forests’ (FAO 1999). NTFPs thus encompass a wide variety of plants, animals and
fungi used as food or food additives, for medicines and cosmetics, as fibres for building or
construction, as resins and gums, and for decorations and cultural purposes1. NTFPs are used both
to meet subsistence needs and for trade and can therefore impact greatly on the socio-economic
status of those involved. The poor are disproportionately dependent on NTFPs which fulfil a
‘safety net’ role in times of hardship (Belcher et al 2005), whilst the total global import value of
NTFPs in 2002 was calculated as US$8.3 billion, representing an increase of 50% over the
previous ten years (FAO 2005). The harvesting of NTFPs has obvious implications for forests and
woodlands; certain species and habitats may be threatened by over-harvesting or unsustainable
harvesting practices, although equally, recognition of the importance of NTFPs and their
sustainable harvest may help conserve both species and habitats. NTFPs are thus important in
terms of the sustainable use of forests, the livelihood systems of very large numbers of people and
in meeting commercial demands for products (Arnold & Ruiz Perez 1996). With regards to
commercial exploitation, local trading of NTFPs within countries is thought to hold the greatest
potential for both poverty alleviation and sustainable forest management (FAO 2005). It is thought
that NTFPs are thus ‘emerging globally as a tool for the establishment of sustainable forest
communities’ (Duchesne & Wetzel 2003).
Whilst the role of NTFPs in developing countries and tropical forests has received much attention
and is relatively well researched and understood, it is increasingly apparent that NTFPs have
something to offer developed countries and temperate forests (Wong & Dickenson 2003). The
‘Quebec Declaration on Strengthening Global Partnerships to Advance Sustainable Development
1
NTFPs are increasingly taken to include ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration or watershed
management, but these services will not be discussed further here.
1
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
of Non-Wood Forest Products’; which came out of the XII World Forestry Congress in 2003, is
based on a rationale which includes the increasing evidence of the importance of NTFPs in the
North (World Forestry Congress 2003). The impact and benefits of NTFPs can differ widely
between developing and developed countries; given the relative lack of poverty and abundance of
alternative livelihood strategies available in the latter, certain issues remain the same however and
there is a need to understand the economic, social and ecological roles played by the subsistence
and commercial use of NTFPs in both. For example, in the Pacific North-West of the United
States, the value of the matsutake mushroom harvest over a forestry cycle is greater than the value
of the timber (A. Dyke pers. comm.), whilst Canadian sales of NTFPs were worth US$241 million
in 2000, contributing significantly to the welfare of rural and First Nations communities (Duchesne
et al 2000).
1.1.2 NTFPs in Scotland
SCOTLAND’S FORESTS
Seventeen percent or 1,334,000 hectares of Scotland is
covered by forests (Forestry Commission 2005a); a
significant increase from approximately 4% at the
beginning of the 20th century which was due to the
need for a strategic UK timber reserve following
World War II. Subsequent tax incentives saw
thousands of hectares afforested with mainly nonnative conifer species such as Sitka spruce Picea
sitchensis and Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta and
currently 79% of Scotland’s forests comprise conifer
plantations (Forestry Commission 2005a). A survey in
1999 revealed that 43% of Scotland’s forests were
managed by the Forestry Commission Scotland and
43% by individual owners, with the remaining 14%
being shared between private business (8%), forestry
and timber-based business (2%), public-bodies, local
authorities and charities (1% each) and community
Figure 1. Map showing the distribution of
woodland cover across Scotland. Courtesy of
Forestry Commission.
groups (<1%) (Forestry Commission 2005a). Whilst all forest-owners have specific land-use
objectives, the last approximately 20 years has witnessed a shift away from timber production
2
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
towards multiple land-use values and ‘sustainable forest management’2. This is thought in part to
be a response to falling timber prices and a loss of employment in timber-based forestry (Dyke &
Primrose 2002); the value of wood is currently worth half of what it was in the early 1990’s and
forestry employs merely 0.2% of the population (Scottish Executive 2006a). This shift is reflected
in EU policies, such as the EU Forestry Strategy, which support a move from ‘production’ to
‘service provision’ in rural areas and specifically to sustainable forest management and
multifunctional roles in forests (Scottish Executive 2006a). There is also increasing demand for
‘public-good from public-money’, as private landowners as well as state-owned land, have
benefited from public money through the Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme3. The recently released
Draft Scottish Forestry Strategy 2006 focuses on achieving outcomes over the next 10 to 25 years
which contribute to ‘improved health and well-being of people and their communities’,
‘competitive and innovative businesses contributing to the growth of the Scottish economy’ and a
‘high-quality, robust and adaptable environment’ (Scottish Executive 2006a). The harvesting and
trade of NTFPs have a potential role to play in delivering these outcomes of multiple-use and
sustainability; being able to contribute economically, socially and environmentally.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The development and marketing of NTFP-based businesses is included in the Draft Scottish
Forestry Strategy 2006 as a way for forestry to encourage economic sustainability and rural
diversification (Scottish Executive 2006a). NTFPs can offer business opportunities for harvesters,
landowners, forest managers, community groups, traders and manufacturers; 31 such businesses
are listed in the ‘NTFP Business Directory’ of the Forest Harvest website4, including ones which
sell beers produced with spruce needles and birch sap, FSC certified venison and plant oils as
ingredients for foods, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics (Forest Harvest 2006a). The likely
profitability of any NTFP-based business will depend on the costs of extraction, processing,
storage, transportation, equipment and labour (Neuman & Hirsch 2000, Miekle 2003) although a
study examining 16 case-studies of NTFP-based businesses around the world found that product
marketing and sale were the most important factors in businesses’ overall success (Marshall et al.
2003). Although the bulk of profits from NTFPs often accumulate up the market chain, away from
harvesters (Neuman & Hirsch 2000), it is thought that market chains i.e. links between producers
and consumers, in Scotland are currently under-developed and need expanding in order to allow
2
‘Sustainable forest management’ recognises the need to combine social, economic and environmental
values of forestry and to ensure that these continue into the future (Scottish Executive 2006a).
3
The Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme provides funds for woodland creation and management but is
currently being revised as from 2007 the bulk of forestry support will in the future be delivered through Land
Management Contracts (LMCs) (Scottish Executive 2006a).
4
The Forest Harvest website is dedicated to the promotion of sustainable NTFPs harvesting in Scotland.
3
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
NTFP-based businesses to flourish (Miekle 2003). Businesses which ‘add-value’ by processing
‘raw’ products in some way; for example making a jam out of harvested blackberries, can greatly
increase their profits, as can those who share processing equipment (as well as labour and
intellectual resources) with other harvesters or local businesses (Dyke 2002). Marketing of NTFP
products is extremely important and may potentially be enhanced through branding products as
‘wild’, ‘organic’ or ‘Scottish’ for example, or through official ‘certification’ of some kind.
Certification of forests and their products ensures that they have been sustainably managed and
certification schemes include the ‘UK Woodland Assurance Standard’ (UKWAS) and the Soil
Association’s ‘Woodmark’ (Forest Harvest 2006b). In order for traders to market timber or NTFPs
as certified however their origin must be traceable (unfortunately with NTFPs this can often be
problematic) and there must also be consumer awareness of and interest in certification and its
trademark in order to justify the fees and thus costs incurred by harvesters and/or traders.
Certification demands harvesting practices which ensure the sustainability of the NTFP resource
however and this is critical for the long-term success of any NTFP-based business.
SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Not only can NTFPs provide economic livelihoods for people, but their collection can bring
personal, social and community benefits. The revival and sharing of indigenous knowledge was the
key outcome for participants in an NTFP-based project in the Russian Far East, aimed primarily at
community economic development (Shmatkov & Brigham 2003). Almost one-quarter of people in
Scotland have gathered NTFPs and a recent study found the most remarkable aspect of the
contemporary Scottish NTFP harvest to be ‘the joy and passion expressed by gatherers’, with
harvesters benefiting from healthy lifestyles, feelings of well-being, a connection to countryside
and basic enjoyment (Emery et al. 2005). The physical and mental health rewards from the
collection of NTFPs are thought to benefit all sections of society and research into this is on-going
through a current EU ‘COST Action’5 E39: Forest, Health and Well-Being, which relates
specifically to forest products and health (Forest Research 2006). Wong and Dickenson (2003)
however point out the tough, physical nature of the harvesting of certain NTFPs on a commercial
scale. Whilst it is hoped that job creation through NTFP-based businesses can help to sustain rural
communities, by also actively engaging people in the design and management of local woodlands
the Draft Scottish Forestry Strategy 2006 hopes that local and transferable skills will be developed
and provide an entry point for community ‘empowerment’ and ‘capacity building’ (Scottish
5
COST is an intergovernmental framework for European Co-Operation in the field of Scientific and
Technical Research; it allows the co-ordination of nationally funded research on a European level through
‘COST Actions’ which cover basic and pre-competitive research as well as activities of public utility
(European Science Foundation 2006).
4
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Executive 2006a). In 2005 the Forestry for People Advisory Panel concluded that ‘people are now
very much at the heart of Scottish forestry’, however the Draft Scottish Forestry Strategy 2006
states that ‘the challenge of forestry is to do significantly more than it is currently doing, with the
social agenda as a central part of its work’ (Scottish Executive 2006a); encouraging and enabling
people to benefit from NTFP harvesting could help fulfil their ‘challenge’. Care must be exercised
however as concerns have been raised regarding the impact of (new) commercial harvesting on
(long-term) harvesters collecting for personal use; for example some domestic fungi collectors are
not happy about commercial collecting for wholesalers (Anderson & Chapman 2006).
ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
One of three main goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity; to which 150 countries became
signatories at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, is ‘the sustainable use of the components of biological
diversity’ (CBD 1992). Signatory nations have a responsibility to integrate a consideration of the
sustainable use of biodiversity into national decision-making and also to adopt measures to avoid
or minimise adverse impacts on biological resources. The sustainable harvest of NTFPs in Scotland
is therefore one potential route to biodiversity conservation; however careful management is
essential as overexploitation of traded NTFPs is common (Belcher et al 2005). The harvesting of
NTFPs can also affect ecological processes at a number of scales, from population dynamics of the
species involved to compositions and dynamics of ecological communities to local environmental
processes (Ticktin 2004). Rates and methods of NTFP harvest are critical in determining
sustainable levels of collection, as are the biological characteristics of NTFP species including rates
of reproduction or strategies for propagation (Neuman & Hirsch 2000). Although exact methods
for sustainable harvest are seldom known and can depend greatly on local circumstances anyway;
certain rules can be applied such as not unnecessarily uprooting plants, not hunting out of season,
not taking all of a plant or species in one area and taking care not to damage the habitat (Forest
Harvest 2006c). ‘Codes of conduct’ are one way of increasing the ecological sustainability of
NTFP harvests, as well as potentially increasing understanding and trust between all stakeholders if
developed collaboratively. Fungi are the only NTFP in Scotland to have a Code; the Scottish Wild
Mushroom Code, which urges gathers to follow 'nine key rules of responsible behaviour’ and has
advice for land managers and scientists (Forest Harvest 2006d). If codes of conduct were
incorporated into certification schemes and stipulated as a condition of landowners granting
permission for harvesting, sustainability of the NTFP harvest would be encouraged.
5
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
IMPLICATIONS OF LEGISLATION AND CONTROL
Tenure and property claims are contentious issues with regard to NTFPs the world over (Neuman
& Kirsch 2000) and Scotland appears to be no different; particularly given the variety of legislation
affecting the harvesting of NTFPs (Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of legislation affecting the harvesting of NTFPs, including moss, in Scotland.
Legislation
Scottish Common Law
Relevance
Everything ‘between the centre of the earth and the heavens’ is the property of
the landowner’ and ‘the accession of fruits’ means that that includes all produce
on the land i.e. NTFPs
States that it is an offence to intentionally pick, uproot or destroy any wild plant
Wildlife & Countryside
in Schedule 8 (see below) or on protected land, without the landowners’
Act (1981) and
permission. You are not allowed to uproot any other wild plant without the
amendments under the
landowners’ permission, although you can pick them.
Nature Conservation
Schedule 8 lists species afforded complete protection from disturbance, sale or
(Scotland) Act 2004
possession, with or without the landowner permission.
Land Reform (Scotland) Allows access to all land in Scotland, as long as the access complies with the
Act 2003
Scottish Outdoor Access Code (see below).
Makes no special provision for the harvesting of NTFPs for individual use, but
if done without landowner permission for commercial purposes it is now a
criminal offence, whilst previously it was only a civil offence.
Scottish Outdoor Access States that ‘customary picking of wild fungi and berries for your own
Code
consumption is not affected by the legislation’, but does not include ‘being on or
crossing land or water for the purpose of taking away, for commercial purposes
or for profit, anything in or on the land or water (for example, mushrooms or
berries picked for commercial use)’.
Forestry Commission
When on Forestry Commission land, ‘no person shall in or on the lands of the
Byelaw
Commissioners: dig up, remove, cut or injure any tree, shrub or plant, whether
living or not, or remove the seeds therefrom, or dig up or remove any soil, turf,
leafmould, moss, peat...’
Sources: Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, Land Reform
(Scotland) Act 2003, Scottish Outdoor Access Code 2004, Forestry Commission Byelaws 1982, Dyke 2006,
Forest Harvest 2006e.
The legislation affecting NTFP harvest is often contradictory with the result that ‘a state of legal
pluralism exists in Scotland’ (Dyke 2006). Many people in Scotland consider it a customary right
to harvest NTFPs for personal use and do just that, ignoring that it constitutes common law theft
under Scottish Common Law; similarly, ignoring its own byelaws, the Forestry Commission
regularly holds fungal-forays on its land (Forest Harvest 2006e). Changing harvesting for
commercial purposes without landowner consent from a civil to criminal offence is considered ‘an
important change whose consequences in practice are not yet known’ (Forest Harvest 2006e). In
fact, there is currently no case law pertaining to the harvesting of NTFPs in Scotland (Dyke 2006).
At a recent seminar on NTFPs in Scotland, the need to review and clarify existing legislation was
identified, along with the importance of promoting awareness of legislation amongst all
6
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
stakeholders; however it was felt that ‘access to NTFPs is a basic human right’ (Anderson &
Chapman 2006). The need for a culture of responsibility rather than increased levels of regulation
was discussed and it was announced that Forestry Commission Scotland are intending on
rescinding byelaws covered by the new Access Code.
In terms of control, two-thirds of Scotland’s forests and all state-owned forests are managed
according to the UK Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS) (Scottish Executive 2006a) and this
ensures the sustained yield of NTFPs through standard 2.2 which states that ‘authorised harvesting
of non-timber woodland/forest products does not permanently exceed, or diminish, the long-term
productive potential of the woodland/forest’; the means of verification for which is ‘evidence from
records and discussions with owners/managers that quantities harvested are in line with sustainable
growing rates and that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts’(UKWAS Steering
Group 2000). The problem is that the sustainable growth rates for most NTFPs are either not
known or have not yet been documented.
INCREASING INTEREST
General interest in issues of economics, society and the environment has lead to a more specific
interest in the use and value of NTFPs amongst a wide variety of people, including land managers,
policy makers, rural development specialists, researchers and individuals (Emery et al. 2006). A
number of practical initiatives aimed at increasing the profile and developing a culture of Scottish
NTFPs include a dedicated website Forest Harvest which includes a wealth of information on
NTFP-related events, research, products, harvesting, managing and trading; including a Scottish
NTFP business directory (www.forestharvest.org.uk). An NTFP email group was established
through this website in 2002 in order to facilitate discussions on NTFPs across Scotland. Late in
2005 Reforesting Scotland6 initiated their ‘Rural Alternatives’ project which aims to promote a
knowledge and culture of NTFPs and to explore options for developing small-scale enterprises
related to the sustainable harvest of NTFPs in community woodlands across Scotland (Reforesting
Scotland 2006). It currently works with four community groups, the experiences of which it hopes
will be applied and of benefit to communities throughout Scotland.
A number of excellent research projects and publications have also been produced which provide a
picture of the current state of the use of wild plants (not only from forests) and their
commercialisation in Scotland; ‘Flora Celtica: Sustainable Development of Scottish Plants’
6
Reforesting Scotland is a networking organisation of those active in the ecological and social regeneration
of Scotland through forestry.
7
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
(Milliken & Bridgewater 2001), ‘Commercial Use of Wild and Traditionally Managed Plants in
England and Scotland’ (Sanderson & Prendergast 2002), ‘Non-Timber forest Product Study’ (Dyke
& Primrose 2002) and ‘Wild Harvests from Scottish Woodlands. Social, cultural and economic
values of contemporary non-timber forest products’ (Emery et al. 2006). A study covering the
whole of the UK was produced entitled ‘Use of Living Resources in the UK – A Review’ (Murray &
Simcox 2003) and for Wales ‘Current status and development potential of woodland and hedgerow
products in Wales’ (Wong & Dickenson 2003). The Forestry Commission Scotland is also
currently engaged in research on the role and value of Scottish NTFPs through their project
‘Evaluation of the Value of Forestry for People in Scotland’ (S. Martin pers. comm.).
Many of those interested in NTFPs in Scotland recently attended the ‘Future of Wild Harvests in
Scotland’ seminar which attracted more than 70 land managers, collectors, buyers, processors,
researchers, funders and policy-makers (Anderson & Chapman 2006). Issues addressed at the
seminar included the commercial exploitation of NTFPs and consequences for household and
small-scale users, supporting the public good provided by NTFPs, the impact of the Land Reform
(Scotland) Act 2003, sustainable utilisation of NTFPs and cultivation of NTFPs. This seminar will
be mirrored on a global scale in November 2006, when the ‘1st International Non-wood Forest
Products Symposium’ will be held in Turkey (Karadeniz Technical University 2006).
1.2 Scotland’s moss and its uses
1.2.1 Scottish mosses
“On a global scale our bryophyte flora is truly outstanding in its wealth of species and luxuriance”
David Long, Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh (Foreword, Rothero (2005) Naturally Scottish:
Mosses and Liverworts). The bryophytes are a group comprising mosses, liverworts and hornworts
and Scotland is home to a unique flora of such ‘lower plants’ (RBGE 2006a). Just fewer than 1,000
species of bryophytes are found in Scotland and these represent 87% of the UK total, more than
60% of the European total and an incredible 5% of the world’s total; with new discoveries still
regularly being made (Rothero 2005). Scotland’s damp climate is the principle factor for such a
diverse bryophyte flora which flourishes in the absence of long periods of drought and frost-free
winters (Rothero 2005). The varied geology of Scotland and its geographic position also create a
multitude of habitats for mosses, which can be found in such varied surroundings as Atlantic
woodlands and heaths, raised mires, montane springs, arable fields and sand dunes. Typically arctic
and tropical species can be found as little as 10-20 miles apart (RBGE 2006a). Species of the
oceanic west coast are particularly important on a global scale and include several endemic species
8
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
(G. Rothero pers.comm.); however other species may be common throughout the country (Watson
1981).
As with many species and habitats, bryophytes are threatened by both habitat change and climate
change, with specific threats coming from overgrazing, undergrazing, widespread use of herbicides
and fertilisers and the spread of urbanisation (Hill et al. 2004, Rothero 2005). Two-hundred and
fifty five species currently appear on the UK Threatened Bryophyte Database, which includes 176
listed in the 2004 British Red Data Book, 45 UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species, 28
protected under Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and a number under
various annexes of the EU Habitats Directive (British Bryological Society 2006).
1.2.2 Historic use of moss in Scotland
As with many wild plants across the country, the people of Scotland have made use of their moss
resource for thousands of years. In the past moss was used as a packaging material, for lining pits
for vegetables, for bedding and for walls in stone houses, particularly around the chimney to keep
out wind and to prevent heat setting fire to the wooden frame (Rothero 2005). Moss was also used
as caulking (a filler) by Bronze and Iron Age boat-builders and this use apparently continued until
the early 19th century in the north of Scotland (Rothero 2005). The absorptive and antiseptic
properties of Sphagnum mosses have long been known and for centuries they have been used as
wound dressings. During World War I the use of moss for this purpose increased hugely as people
were encouraged to ‘join the war-effort by heading to the hills to collect moss’, which was used on
the frontlines (RBGE 2006a). Records show a peak of one million Sphagnum dressings being used
by British forces per month, with the main centre for production in Scotland located in the Borders,
Dumfries and Galloway (Rothero 2005).
Sphagnum moss is also the main constituent of peat which forms a unique and major habitat in
Scotland, covering around 10% of the country (Rothero 2005). For centuries peat has been used as
a fuel for heating and cooking and peat cutting still continues in the traditional labour-intensive and
small-scale way in the north-west of Scotland today. Large-scale extraction of peat for the
horticultural trade is a contemporary practice and along with drainage for agriculture and
afforestation is blamed for the destruction and damage of 94% Great Britain’s peat bogs since the
beginning of the 20th century (RBGK 2006, SNH no date). Whilst many areas of peat bog receive
protection through the UK Biodiversity Action Plan or as Sites of Special Scientific Interest or
9
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Special Areas of Conservation7, local threats from commercial peat extraction still exist in
Scotland. In June 2006, Scottish Natural Heritage responded to this threat by committing £2.4
million to peat bog protection through the South Scotland Bog Scheme, which will offer financial
support and advice to farmers and land managers for restoring bogs on their land (SNH 2006).
Since the Victorian era; when moss gathering was a
‘small industry’, the horticultural and floristry industries
have used various types of moss as linings in hanging
baskets, in wreaths, in flower arrangements and around
the base of potted plants (Rothero 2005). This moss
gathering industry is ‘now showing signs of a significant
revival’, with moss being harvested from non-native
conifer plantation (Rothero 2005) and it is this
harvesting with which this study is primarily concerned.
Figure 2. Moss lining a hanging basket.
1.2.3 Current use of moss in Scotland
Conifer plantations harbour a much reduced moss flora when compared to other habitats and are
dominated by a few common species typical of acid habitats (Wong & Dickinson 2003). It is thus
these plantations which harbour moss as a potentially sustainable non-timber forest product in
Scotland. A clear distinction between the harvesting of mosses from native habitats such as peat
bogs or bryophyte-rich Atlantic oakwoods versus from
non-native
conifer
plantations
is
therefore
an
extremely important one. The unique Scottish
bryophyte flora is already threatened by habitat and
climate change and by commercial-scale extraction for
peat (Rothero 2005) and thus it is thought important
that as an NTFP moss is harvested with sustainability
and conservation in mind at all times. Rothero (2005)
highlights the fact that moss in all habitats performs an
important ecological role in terms of water retention
and in providing shelter and humidity for a wide
Figure 3. Moss in native woodland.
7
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan is the UK’s response to the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and lists species
and habitats which require conservation measures and set out how to achieve this. Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSIs) are designated for their biological or geological interest in the UK, whilst Special Areas of
Conservation (SACs) are important internationally.
10
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
diversity of invertebrates, and that ‘even within the most uniform of plantation woodland there are
interesting habitats and species’. Despite such
concerns it has been claimed that moss from conifer
plantations is a ‘genuinely renewable resource’ (Pugh
2003) and by some that moss ‘has probably been the
only profitable harvest to come out of many of our
forests over the last 30 years’ (Goodstock 2006).
Indeed, one of the objectives of the ‘Strategy for the
conservation of lower plants and fungi in Scotland’ is
‘using plant diversity sustainably’ and the collection of
moss for the horticultural trade is specifically
Figure 4. Moss in conifer plantation.
mentioned, along with wild fungi for the food trade
and seaweed collection for alginates (Long & Ward 2005). A ‘code of conduct’ for the moss
harvest in Scotland is in fact currently being developed in response to the perceived increase in the
activity in Scotland; it is being co-ordinated by Plantlife Scotland8 using the facilitator of the
Scottish Wild Mushroom Code, as mentioned above (A. Dyke pers. comm.).
1.3 The harvest of moss as an NTFP
1.3.1 The moss harvest outwith Scotland
Globally, the total import value of moss and lichens in 2002 was US$25.5 million, up from US$9.3
million a decade before (FAO 2005). The global trade in moss mainly comprises Sphagnum
mosses which are used as a medium for orchid growing in Japan and increasingly across Asia;
estimates of one New Zealand moss exporter suggest that 85% of world trade goes to Asia, 10% to
the US and just 5% to Europe (N. Brown. pers. comm). Until the 1960’s moss was harvested in
Japan for domestic orchid cultivation, however when supplies started to run-out the moss harvest
moved to Taiwan and then New Zealand and is currently expanding to Chile (Donex 2006,
Moutere River Co. 2006).
NEW ZEALAND
Moss harvesting in New Zealand focuses on Sphagnum cristatum and S. subnitens from swamps
and cutover forest throughout the West coast of the South Island, mainly from privately-owned
land but also publicly-owned land managed by the Department of Conservation, although not from
national parks and other protected sites (Moutere River Co. 2006). Harvesting is done by hand on a
8
Plantlife Scotland is part of Plantlife International; a charity dedicated exclusively to conserving all forms
of plant life in their natural habitats.
11
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
rotational basis every three to five years, depending on the site conditions, with 10-20% of the
shorter strands of moss left; bags of moss are either carried to waiting lorries or flown out by
helicopter (Moutere River Co. 2006). Between 1989 and 1995 studies on the multiple-use of
indigenous forests in New Zealand, including the sustainable development of the moss harvest,
were carried out (Tilling 1995 and references therein). They state that systematic scientific
observation and field and laboratory studies suggest that the moss harvest can be ecologically
sustainable if care is taken and re-seeding resorted to; the West Coast was also considered
‘fortunate [in] that a great deal of sphagnum moss occurs on degraded land and cutover forest
where there is not a significant conflict between environmental and development values’. In 1997 it
was estimated that over 5,000 tonnes of wet moss are harvested per year from the West Coast alone
and even then, almost ten years ago, it was a multimillion-dollar activity (MAF 1997). Twelve
moss exporters were operating from the West Coast at the time, between them supporting 61 fulltime equivalent jobs, although it was thought that as many as 1,000 full- and part-time jobs may be
supported by the industry as a whole (Tilling 1995). Conflicts between harvesters operating on
different scales and between harvesters and the Department of Conservation were however evident
and various associations created in order to foster improved relationships between all parties. The
Sphagnum Moss Packers Association is a current informal group which meets every 2 months to
discuss the state of the industry and which aims to foster communication, standards and trust within
the industry (Moutere River Co. 2006). Growth trials of Sphagnum moss in glasshouses have
begun on New Zealand though and it is thought that these may eventually lead to commercial
growing (Parks & Wildlife Service Tasmania 2006).
CHILE & SOUTH AMERICA
The Chilean moss harvest is also made up of Sphagnum harvested from swamps and is generally
carried out with the backing and expertise of New Zealand companies (Moutere River Co. 2006).
Concerns over the sustainability of the harvest and effect on local communities have been raised
and studies of the harvest are emerging (Mancilla no date, Pardo Munoz 2002, Crignola & Ordonez
2002). WWF Chile is actively working with landowners on small-scale harvesting enterprises to
ensure sustainable harvesting practices and local livelihood benefits (C. Guala Catalan pers.
comm.). Local communities in the Columbian Andes are apparently harvesting moss from conifer
plantations for sale in local cities, despite it being illegal; although very little money is currently
made, prior to it becoming illegal the harvest would have been economically important (A. Duque
Montoya and A. Corrales Osorio pers. comm.). Researchers at the Universidad Nacional de
Colombia are currently studying the harvest to ascertain its sustainability.
12
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
THE UNITED STATES
In the United States there is a substantial commercial trade in moss harvested from natural forests
in the Pacific North-western state of Oregon and much research on the harvest has been carried out
(Peck 1997, Peck & McCune 1998, Peck & Muir 2001, Muir 2004, 2006, Muir et al. 2006, Peck
2006). A recent study by Muir focussing on the quantity and value of moss harvested in the area
estimated that mean yearly harvests for the years 1998 and 2003 were between 4.6 and 18.4 million
air-dry kg, with sales estimated as being worth between US$6 million and $165 million per year in
both imports and exports; a huge range of figures but one which indicates the problem of
researching a largely untracked industry (Muir 2004, 2006, Muir et al. 2006). Approximately 35%
of land managers who responded to the study had issued permits for moss harvesting in the
previous five years, generating in comparison yearly revenues of just $19,650. More than a dozen
people were found along the market chain; however it was not possible to tell how many people
made a living from moss nationwide. Although ethical harvesters were found to leave clumps of
moss behind to help regeneration, concerns over the sustainability of the harvest exist and some
state and national forests have banned harvesting. Botanists’ studies indicate a ‘growback cycle’ of
15-20 years, which is twice as long as harvesters use; supporting the arguments of some biologists
who state that moss is “mined rather than sustainably harvested”. ‘Mossers’ felt that they should be
allowed to harvest moss however, particularly before loggers destroyed forests. Active
management to conserve moss resources has been recommended including promoting certain
substrates and heights within the canopy from which to harvest, controlling rates of harvest,
instigating rotation periods and prohibiting harvests from forests managed towards old-growth
(Peck & McCune 1998, Peck 2006).
WALES
An excellent study of NTFPs in Wales (Wong & Dickinson 2003) reports that the moss harvest in
Wales supports up to five large companies (defined as enterprises which employ others to help
with harvesting) and 50 individual harvesters, some of whom have been harvesting for up to 35
years. The moss harvest is highly profitable with typical mossing incomes of £40,000 and some
individual harvesters generating up to 25% of their annual income from moss, without which their
farm businesses are not considered viable. The harvest occurs in private and publicly-owned forest
under permits which involve highly variable fees of between £500 and £10,000 per year. The
income from such permits is generally only enough to break-even in terms of administration costs
to the landowner however and this situation is thought to do little to encourage landowners to
actively manage their forests for moss. Moss is sold mainly to foliage traders, with some going
directly to local garden centres and nurseries. Harvesters reported earning between £225 and £400
13
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
a day, with one earning up to £100 an hour (excluding time spent on delivery). Harvesting entails
seasonal or casual labour however and is an extremely physically demanding job. Welsh harvesting
companies report being constrained by a lack of labour for harvesting and also by competition from
imports of moss from New Zealand. This international competition may be somewhat limited as
imported moss is dried which reduces its quality. It is however sold as from ‘managed and
renewable sources’, whilst no such claim or marketing brand can be made for Welsh moss as the
market chain is not tracked, even despite the fact that some moss comes from forests certified as
‘sustainably managed’ under the UK Woodland Assurance Scheme. Welsh moss harvesters are
also concerned by the perceived threat of the conservation lobby, which is understandably cautious
over the harvesting of moss from peat bogs or protected sites but it is thought over-zealous when it
comes to plantations. Moss harvesters believe that conservationists overestimate the impact of
harvesting from plantations and assert that clear-fell has far greater impact than moss harvesting
ever could. Little processing of moss, for example into liners for hanging baskets, is done in Wales
and this reduces the potential to ‘add value’ to the moss and in so doing increase profits from the
harvest.
1.3.2 The Scottish moss harvest
INDIVIDUAL HARVESTERS
A survey carried out by the Forestry Commission Scotland in 2003 found that 24% of people in
Scotland had gathered some form of tree or plant material in or around woods or forests in the
previous 5 years; one quarter of these had gathered what was categorised as ‘other plants or plant
materials e.g. flowers, herbs, moss, fern, lichen or seed’ (Emery et al. 2006). More recently the GB
Public Opinion of Forestry 2005 found that 27% of woodland visitors across Great Britain had
collected some form of forest product for personal use; of which 13% had collected
‘decorative/floral/craft products (foliage, branches, stems, moss, lichen and weld)’ (Forestry
Commission 2005b). A recent survey of the contemporary Scottish NTFP harvest found that
mosses were put to purely personal use (whilst other NTFPs were also used for gifting, trade or
sale), specifically for craft, garden and medicinal purposes (Emery et al. 2006).
COMMERCIAL HARVESTERS
Harvesting for commercial purposes also occurs in Scotland and at least three companies have
moss harvesting operations in Scotland (Table 2). The true extent of the harvest, i.e. quantities
harvested, harvest locations; and the value of the harvest, both in terms of economic turnover and
the number of jobs supported are however undocumented.
14
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Harvesting methods
• From young conifer plantations
• Rake mosses, filter other vegetation & pack
into bags
• Remove bags from forest with Snowcat track
vehicles
• Never harvest from protected sites, hardwood
or broadleaved habitats, tree trunks, rocks or
bogs
• Harvest mainly Pseudoscleropodium purum
but never Sphagnum moss
• Operate under long-term agreements with
landowners
• Operate a ‘sustainable harvesting’ strategy to
ensure continued crop for the life of the
plantation
• Only harvest moss over 5 inches long, only
half the moss in any area and leave 2-3 years
before returning to previously harvested sites
• Particularly good forests managed to increase
moss yield
• Harvest Sphagnum moss for hanging baskets
through florist trade
History of harvest
• Harvested in Wales for 20
years before moving to
Scotland in 1980 to take
advantage of larger plantations
• Ceased trading November
2005
• Harvested in Wales for 20
years and Scotland for 5 years
for 2 months each year
• Operate from Tomintoul,
Banffshire
• Primarily trade in foliage but
also moss
Company
Welsh Moss
Booths Moss
& Foliage
McPherson
Atlantic
• Unknown
• Unknown but they
pay landowners a
certain amount for
permission to
harvest
Extent/Value of
harvest
• Unknown
• Milliken &
Bridgewater
2001
• Milliken &
Bridgewater
2001
15
Source of
information
• Pugh 2003
• A. Dyke pers.
comm.
Table 2. Commercial companies known to harvest moss in Scotland and current knowledge of their harvesting activities in the country.
S.C. Staddon
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Mosses harvested
It is known that Sphagnum spp, Polytrichum spp, Pleurozium schreberi and Pseudoscleropodium
purum are harvested for commercial purposes, however harvesters in Wales apparently distinguish
mosses simply as ‘yellow’, ‘green’, ‘sphagnum’, ‘blanket’ or ‘bog’ (Milliken & Bridgewater 2001,
Pugh 2003, Wong & Dickenson 2003, Forest Harvest 2006f). Given the tendency of different moss
species to grow in close proximity to others, it is assumed that a greater number of moss species
than those given here are actually being collected during harvesting activities however.
Harvesting sites
In general, young conifer plantations i.e. before canopy closure, are favoured sites for commercial
harvesting due to the large surface area available for moss growth, the ease of working between
rows of trees with few branches and good light levels (Pugh 2003, Wong & Dickinson 2003). Light
levels are critical in the growth of moss as some shade will reduce the growth of grasses and other
vegetation which compete with mosses, whilst too much will kill all vegetation, including mosses
(Pugh 2003, Wong & Dickenson 2003). In terms of species, harvesting sites include plantations of
Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis, Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii, Scot’s pine Picea alba and
Hybrid larch Larix x. eurolepis, although no single preferable species has been identified (Pugh
2003, Wong & Dickinson 2003). Edaphic factors are also important and moist soils rather than
mineral soils or dry areas are preferred (Pugh 2003). Whilst potentially ideal conifer plantations are
common across Scotland, commercial moss harvesting activities are currently known only from
Ayrshire and East Lanarkshire (A. Dyke pers. comm.).
Harvesting activities
Moss may be harvested by hand or raked into piles, from which grasses and other vegetation are
filtered out before being put in to bags (one hundred-weight bags filled half full to avoid
compaction) and the bags hauled to a roadside from where they are collected by tractors,
motorbikes, 4x4’s, argocats or Snowtrack track vehicles (Pugh 2003, Wong & Dickinson 2003).
Whilst one company, Booths Moss & Foliage, only ever harvest half of the moss in any area
(Milliken & Bridgewater 2001), it is not known whether all commercial harvesters follow this
practice. Harvesting of moss may occur at any time of year (Emery et al 2006), although there
appears to be a peak in commercial harvesting activities from October until May (Pugh 2003,
Wong & Dickinson 2003). It is not possible to harvest when moss is frozen and so harvesting
during the winter months is highly weather dependent (Pugh 2003). The demand for moss
increases around March/April/May and continues for small amounts into June (Pugh 2003, Wong
& Dickinson 2003).
16
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Silvicultural techniques exist which may increase the yield of moss from a forest. These include
brashing; where branches are removed to allow greater light penetration and thinning; where
certain trees within a stand are removed in order to leave more space for the others, which also
allows greater light penetration (Pugh 2003, Wong & Dickinson 2003, Forest Harvest 2006f).
Booths Moss & Foliage are known to deliberately manage forests for increased moss yields in this
way on particularly good sites (Milliken & Bridgewater 2001), however the extent to which this is
done by other harvesters or indeed landowners is not known. Harvesting moss just prior to clearfelling a site would clearly appear to have minimal ecological or environmental impact as all
ground cover is destroyed during the clear-felling process. When harvesting on the same piece of
land, a rotation period of 2-3 years between visits to the same harvesting site is considered by a
number of harvesters to be sustainable and harvesters working in this way have reported no
decrease in supply during up to 25 years of harvesting (Milliken & Bridgewater 2001, Wong &
Dickenson 2003). The potential impact of continuous-cover forestry9 on moss yields or harvests is
unknown, although Welsh harvesters fear that it may have a negative impact (Wong & Dickenson
2003), presumably due to increases in light levels.
Extent and value of the Scottish moss harvest
One study which dealt with the potential for NTFP-based enterprises in Scotland (Dyke &
Primrose 2002) revealed from a survey of 19 florists that the general perception of buyers of moss
in the floristry industry was that the demand for and trade of moss is on the increase. The sale of
moss and other non-floral decorative products were estimated to be worth £11 million at retail for
florists alone in Scotland.
The recent study of the contemporary NTFP harvest in Scotland, which concentrated on its social,
cultural and economic values through a survey of 30 individual harvesters (Emery et al 2006)
revealed that when considering all 208 NTFPs mentioned by harvesters, livelihood values10 were
‘overwhelmingly non-market’, comprising subsistence use, gifting and the informal cash economy.
Health, well-being and a connection to the countryside were other benefits derived on an individual
basis from the harvesting of NTFPs including moss.
9
Continuous-cover forestry (CCF) is a silvicultural technique which assumes a continuity of forest cover
under which trees will, ideally, naturally regenerate, so that there are never significant areas bare of trees.
The technique is a departure from even-aged stands of mono-specific trees which are felled in large blocks,
which is currently the norm in Scottish plantation forestry. (A. Harrison, Forestry Commission Scotland pers.
comm.)
10
‘A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities
required for a means of living.’(Chambers & Conway 1992)
17
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Overall the true extent and value of the Scottish moss harvest, particularly the commercial harvest,
remains undocumented. Compared to New Zealand, the US or Wales, very little is known about the
commercial moss harvest in Scotland, for example the number of enterprises involved, the
quantities traded, the market chains, the economic profitability, the number of jobs supported and
the extent of competition or constraints on businesses involved; in addition much remains to be
understood about the ecological sustainability of the harvest and issues of legislation and control.
1.4 Rationale for this study
The first issue raised by the ‘Quebec Declaration’ on NTFPs is that ‘there is a profound lack of
information necessary to realise the full benefits of NWFPs for individual, community and national
well-being; decision-makers, forest managers and resource users alike lack information about
economic, ecological and social characteristics of NWFPs and their uses’ (World Forestry
Congress 2003). It is apparent that this statement is true with regards to moss as an NTFP in
Scotland. The recent ‘Wild Harvests’ seminar on Scottish NTFPs identified a need for research on
the extent of NTFPs, species dynamics, sustainable yields, harvesting techniques and impacts, and
an evaluation of economic, cultural and health benefits (Anderson & Chapman 2006). One
Objective of the ‘Strategy for the conservation of lower plants and fungi in Scotland’ is ‘using
plant diversity sustainably’ and the Strategy’s targets include providing data and input into codes of
conduct to inform sustainable harvesting for local and commercial use (Long & Ward 2005). As
previously mentioned, a code of conduct for moss harvesting is currently being developed. In line
with all of the above, this study aims to gather data and document the harvesting and trade of moss
in Scotland. It hopes to be able to input into the development of the full potential of the moss
harvest from Scotland’s forests in a sustainable manner with regards to both biodiversity
conservation and livelihoods.
As the first ever dedicated study of the wild moss harvest in Scotland, the results obtained will
contribute greatly to a growing body of research on a wide variety of NTFPs in Scotland. It is
hoped that it will conclude in recommendations for developing the potential of the wild moss
harvest in Scotland and that it will be useful in the current development of a code of conduct for
those involved in the moss harvest in Scotland, as mentioned previously. The results will also be
used by Forestry Commission Scotland to complement their forthcoming studies on the role and
value of Scottish NTFPs. As well as culminating in an MSc dissertation a summary of the findings
will be disseminated to all those involved and it is hoped that they will be published in an academic
journal.
18
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 Overall Aim
This study set out to investigate the harvesting and trade of moss from Scotland’s conifer
plantations, from which it constitutes a ‘non-timber forest product’. Overall the study aimed to
discover the extent of the moss harvest and to estimate the value of its harvest and trade to those
living in Scotland; it also aimed to consider issues of ecological sustainability, management,
legislation and control. In light of these it finally aimed to explore the potential for future
development of the harvest and trade.
2.2 Specific Objectives
A number of specific objectives, each with a number of research questions, have been identified in
order to fulfil the aim set out above:
1
To examine the current extent of the Scottish moss harvest
Who is involved and why?
Where is moss harvested from?
When is moss harvested?
2
To examine the commercial trade and market chains for moss in Scotland
How much is sold and to whom?
What is the trade worth to all those involved?
What are the main sources of competition and constraints on businesses involved?
3
To assess issues of ecology, management and sustainability with regard to the Scottish
moss harvest and trade
Which species are harvested?
How are species harvested?
Are sites actively managed to increase moss yields?
What is the current knowledge and practice of ecological sustainability?
4
To assess issues of access, legislation and control with regard to the Scottish moss harvest
and trade
What access arrangements occur between harvesters and landowners?
What impact does the legislation effecting moss harvesting have, if any?
What is the potential for the certification of moss as a sustainably managed resource?
19
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
3. METHODS
3.1 Research design
This study was conducted over a 14-week period between 22nd May and 28th August 2006. The
study employed social science research methods including semi-structured interviews and
questionnaires with the main stakeholder groups involved in the harvesting and trade of moss in
Scotland (Figure 5). Stakeholders were identified based on discussion with my supervisor and
preliminary reading.
Figure 5. Stakeholders in the harvest and trade of moss in Scotland. It should be noted that
harvesters, traders or landowners may overlap, and represent two or all three of these interests, i.e.
private landowners may also harvest and sell through their own garden centre.
20
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
In terms of sampling design, it was hoped to talk to stakeholders across Scotland (Figure 6) in
order to obtain results which reflect the state of the moss harvest throughout the country. As moss
is currently known to be harvested from Lanarkshire and Ayrshire (A. Dyke pers. comm.), a
concentrated effort was however made to contact landowners in this region of southern Scotland.
Figure 6. Regions of Scotland.
1. Stratchlyde
2. Dumfries & Galloway
3. Borders
4. Lothian
5. Central
6. Fife
7. Tayside
8. Grampian
9. Highland
Not marked/shown:
10. Western Isles
11. Shetland
12. Orkney
Interview themes and questionnaires were carefully designed to ensure that all the necessary data
were collected to fulfil the objectives and overall aim of the study (see section 3.2). Both
quantitative and qualitative data were collected, for example quantities of moss traded and profits
made, as well as thoughts on the potential of a central wholesaler of Scottish forest products
including moss. Errors and biases in responses were kept to a minimum by following the guidelines
of Valentine (1997) and Parfitt (1997), such as ensuring that questions were not ‘leading’. All
participants were made aware of the objectives of the study and where the data would be used; they
were also ensured of anonymity and confidentiality. Some telephone interviews were recorded with
participant consent. In recognition of the time given by participants in the study, a one-page
summary of the studies’ findings was offered to all.
Due to the nature of any such investigation, i.e. a large amount is unknown at the start, a
‘snowballing’ (purposive) technique was used to gain contact with individual stakeholders; this is a
technique which involves using one contact to recruit another, who in turn puts you in touch with
another etc. etc. (McQueen & Knusser 2002). In order to minimise any potential biases,
snowballing started from a variety of sources including my supervisor, other researchers,
collaborating organisations; and harvesters, landowners and traders once identified. Several
‘postings’ for information or contacts were also placed on websites, e-bulletins and at woodland-
21
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
based events in Scotland. Due to the nature of the snowballing technique, the exact number of
contacts which would be made was unknown at the beginning of the study.
The research was carried out in collaboration with Forestry Commission Scotland through the
Northern Research Centre of Forest Research. The Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Natural
Heritage, Plantlife Scotland, Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh and Reforesting Scotland were
asked to comment on the proposal for the study in order to increase its relevance to those actively
engaged in NTFPs in Scotland.
In order to quickly improve my own moss identification skills I attended a moss identification
course run by the Field Studies Council at the beginning of the fieldwork period.
3.2 Data requirements
In order to gather all of the data necessary to fulfil the aims of this study, each objective and
research question was considered in turn, determining the data required and who to approach for
each (Table 3).
Table 3. Research requirements to fulfil the objectives, and thus overall aim, of this study.
Objectives
Data required to address research
& research questions
question
Objective 1: To examine the current extent of the Scottish moss harvest
1.1 How is involved and why?
Numbers of harvesters and purpose
of harvest i.e. end-use
Main stakeholder
group to approach
Harvesters
(Landowners)
Informants on illegal
harvest
1.2 Where is moss harvested from?
Geographic locations of harvest,
Harvesters
habitat type involved and
Landowners
landownership
Informants on illegal
harvest
1.3 When is moss harvested?
Timing of moss harvesting
Harvesters
(Landowners)
Informants on illegal
harvest
Objective 2: To examine the commercial trade and market chains for moss in Scotland
2.1 How much is sold and to whom?
Quantities harvested
Harvesters
Quantities traded
Traders
Market chains
(Landowners)
2.2 What is the trade worth to all those
Economic profits
Harvesters
involved?
Numbers of jobs supported
Traders
Landowners
Perceived competition and
All
2.3 What are the main sources of
competition and constraints on businesses constraints of all involved
(cannot be pre-empted)
involved?
22
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Table 3. Continued.
Objectives
Data required to address research Main stakeholder
& research questions
question
group to approach
Objective 3: To assess issues of ecology, management and sustainability with regard to the Scottish
moss harvest and trade
3.1 Which species are harvested?
Species of moss harvested and
Harvesters
traded
Traders
(Bryologists)
3.2 How are species harvested?
Methods, intensities, rotation
Harvesters
lengths
(Landowners)
Harvesters
3.3 Are sites actively managed to increase Extent of different types of
Landowners
moss yields?
‘management’ by harvesters and
landowners
3.4 What is the current knowledge and
Extent of knowledge of ecological
Harvesters
practise of ecological sustainability?
sustainability
Traders
Extent of acting on knowledge
Landowners
Objective 4: To assess issues of access, legislation and control with regard to the Scottish moss
harvest and trade
4.1 What access arrangements occur
Types arrangements
Harvesters
between harvesters and landowners?
How often are these arrangements
Landowners
followed
Informants on illegal
harvesting
4.2 What impact does legislation have, if
Extent of knowledge of legislation
Harvesters
any?
Extent of acting on knowledge
Traders
Landowners
Informants on illegal
harvesting
4.3 What is the potential for the
The opinion of all those involved
Harvesters
certification of moss?
and reasons behind them
Traders
Landowners
Bryologists
3.3 Data collection
From Table 3 it was possible to produce a set of questions to be asked of each stakeholder group,
either through an interview or as a questionnaire (Appendix 1). The most appropriate method of
approaching respondents with these questions was determined based on considerations of potential
response rates, completeness of information, numbers of responses and time availability. In reality
it depended greatly on the response of those contacted, for example although a telephone interview
was ideally wanted due to a lack of response a postal questionnaire had to suffice. The help
provided by those in positions to assist in the study in terms of providing contact details also made
a big impact on the study. The initial sources of contact for each group were also considered i.e. to
start the ‘snowball rolling’ (Table 4).
23
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Table 4. Summary of methods used to approach and initiate contact with stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder group
Harvesters
Commercial
Traders
Individual
Florists
Garden Centres
Wholesalers
Representatives
Landowners
Private landowners
Forestry Commission
(FC)
Community
Woodland
Groups
Conservation
Bodies
Bryologists
Informants on
illegal
harvesting
General
British Bryological
Society (BBS) ViceCounty Recorders
Professionals
Police Wildlife Crimes
Officers
SNH Licensing Officer
Various
Other researchers
Method of approach
Telephone interviews
Telephone interviews
Telephone questionnaire
Telephone questionnaire
Telephone questionnaire
Email questionnaire
Visits to warehouses
Telephone calls
Email questionnaire
Postal questionnaire
Email questionnaire
Postal questionnaire
Telephone interview
On-line questionnaire
Email questionnaire
Telephone calls
Email questionnaires
Initial sources of contact
Supervisor
Previous research
None
Website listing
Website listing
Website listing
Various websites
FC Conservancies
Forestry & Timber
Association
FC website
Community Woodlands
Association
Individual websites
Email/Postal questionnaire
BBS website
Face-to-face meetings Email
questionnaire
Email questionnaire
Supervisor
Phone interview
Electronic ‘postings’
SNH website
Various websites and
e-bulletins
Various publications
Emails
Police website
Harvesters
All harvesters that were found throughout the study were interviewed as making contact was
considered to be difficult due to their not being a constituted group. Initial contact details were
based on previous research and publications and on the suggestions of others throughout the study.
Harvesters were interviewed over the phone in order to obtain as much information as possible
through allowing the conversation to flow naturally.
Traders
Florists and garden centres were contacted from details provided on the website www.accessplace.com, which is based on the Thompson Directory as after some searching this was found to be
the most comprehensive listing. It lists the towns within each of Scotland’s 32 counties and for
each town provides business’ names, addresses and telephone numbers. In order to sample evenly
across the country, one town was chosen at random from each of the 32 counties and a florists and
24
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
garden centre from each were contacted (not necessarily from the same town in each area).
Additional florists and garden centres were also contacted at the suggestions of others throughout
the study, but the results of these were kept separately. Florists and garden centres were asked a
questionnaire over the phone in order to guarantee a high response rate.
Scottish
wholesalers
were
also
contacted
from
an
initial
website
listing
at
http://findit.scotsman.com, which after some searching was found to be the most comprehensive
listing. Other wholesalers were contacted when details were provided by others throughout the
study. Wholesalers were asked a questionnaire over the phone in order to guarantee a high response
rate. Wholesalers in England and Holland and moss exporters in New Zealand were also contacted
based on general internet searches using www.google.co.uk and asked questions over email or the
phone if possible. Trades associations were also found through internet searches and from
suggestions from others throughout the study. They were also either emailed with questions or
phoned, depending on what contact details were available.
Landowners
It proved difficult to obtain private landowner details due to the Data Protection Act 1998 and the
illegality of passing on such information by organisations. In order to overcome this problem
landowner responses were gathered by contacting forest agents, whose details were supplied by the
Forestry Commission Conservancies, of which there are five. Forest agents whose interests covered
at least two of the five Conservancy areas were contacted and the resulting spread of interests was
fairly even across the country. In addition, the Forestry and Timber Association agreed to forward
a short set of questions on email to members on their e-list; the members represent landowners,
forest managers and other interested parties. There was no doubt some overlap between those
contacted in these two approaches, but this was considered unavoidable in the situation. In order to
gather responses from state-owned forest representatives, the 15 Forestry Commission Scotland
District Forest Officers were contacted, in addition to some central contacts in the Commission.
Other than those who necessarily received questions through an email, all landowners were posted
questionnaires. This was done as the response rate was considered likely to be high.
Community Woodland Groups
The Community Woodlands Association (CWA) were the initial contact for community woodland
groups and they allowed me to post a request for members to complete an on-line questionnaire
through their monthly e-bulletin. The questionnaire was constructed on www.surveymonkey.com
and the direct link included in the e-bulletin. Speaking to those at the CWA this was considered the
25
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
approach most likely to obtain results in that it was easy and immediate for groups to follow the
link. A low initial response rate prompted me to email individual groups through selected links on
the CWA website, as again the CWA could not provide me with full contact details of all groups
due to the Data Protection Act. Certain groups were also contacted based on suggestions of others
throughout the study. In addition, contact was made with the four case-study groups of Reforesting
Scotland’s Rural Alternatives project; a project aimed at exploring options for developing smallscale enterprises related to the sustainable harvest of NTFPs in community woodlands across
Scotland.
Conservation Bodies
The main conservation bodies across Scotland were contacted based on details available on their
individual websites; these included Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Wildlife Trust, National
Trust for Scotland, RSPB, Woodland Trust, Cairngorm National Park and Loch Lomond and
Trossachs National Park. They were emailed as the response rate was considered likely to be high.
Bryologists
All Vice-County Recorders for the British Bryological Society (BBS) were contacted, as were a
number of professional bryologists and botanists. Contacts were from the BBS website and
suggestions from my supervisor. Again, they were emailed as the response rate was considered
likely to be good, although some were spoken to on the phone for extra information, or met in
person.
Informants on illegal harvesting
The Wildlife Crimes Officer for each of the eight police forces in Scotland were contacted, as well
as the Licensing Officer for Scottish Natural Heritage. Other informants were also contacted at the
suggestion of others throughout the study. A mixture of phoning and emailing was used to contact
these informants, depending on what details were available, although the Wildlife Crimes Officers
were initially emailed as it was thought that the response rate would be high.
General
In order to ‘advertise’ the study widely in an attempt to generate contacts and information a
number of ‘postings’ were made including on the Forest Harvest and Reforesting Scotland
websites (www.forestharvest.org and www.reforestingscotland.org), the NTFP-Scotland e-group,
the FAO’s Non-wood Forest Products e-Digest, and Bryonet, an international e-group for
bryologists. Cards calling for information and announcements about the project were also made at
26
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
the ‘Future of Wild Harvests in Scotland’ seminar in May and at ‘Treefest’, a woodland-based
family event in Edinburgh in June (through the stall of Reforesting Scotland). Contact was also
made with other researchers of NTFPs throughout the UK, either by phone or email.
3.4 Analysis
After each questionnaire or interview the written results were checked in order to ensure all
information was collected and recorded correctly. Quantitative data arising from questionnaires and
interviews were inputted into Microsoft Excel and basic descriptive statistics conducted; for
example the average or range of a set of figures. Depending on the data concerned, quantitative
results were tabulated or graphed in order to demonstrate and highlight trends. Qualitative data
were initially carefully read and considered, and common themes searched for in order to allow
answers to be coded and summarised and inputted again into Microsoft Excel in the form of tables.
27
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
4. RESULTS
4.1 Response rates and geographical coverage of survey
In total 308 people were contacted directly during this study, with an overall response rate of 63%
(Table 5). In addition 300 members of the Forestry and Timber Association (FTA) e-group were
indirectly contacted, as were an unknown number of people through various e-groups and websites
relating to NTFPs and mosses; generating an additional 16 (FTA) and 9 (e-groups/websites)
responses. The total number of responses to the survey was therefore 220. The response rates of the
different stakeholder groups varied between 17% (community woodland groups; although this is
low it is higher than expected based on discussion with the Community Woodlands Association)
and 94% ((potential) moss traders; none of whom in Scotland declined taking part in the study).
There was generally a wide geographical representation from amongst each group, although
harvesters and wholesalers were necessarily limited in distribution (refer to Figure 3 for regions of
Scotland). The Northern Police Constabulary was unfortunately not represented in the results as the
Wildlife Crimes Officer representing the region was off on long-term sick leave with no
replacement.
Table 5. Stakeholders surveyed, geographical representation and response rates. (Geographical
representation is mainly given as the regions of Scotland; Strathclyde is split into ‘N’ for the
northern counties of Argyll and Bute, and ‘S’ for the southern counties of Ayrshire and
Lanarkshire, if known).
Stakeholder group
Geographical
representation
of responses
Number
contacted
Number
replied
Response
rate (%)
Borders
N. Strathclyde
Highland
Total
4
2
50
1
5
1
3
100
60
All regions
Grampian
All regions
Grampian
All except
Borders and
Highlands
Highlands
(England, New
Zealand, Chile)
(UK, Dutch,
International)
Total
33
1
31
1
18
33
1
31
1
18
100
100
100
100
100
1
11
1
11
100
100
13
7
54
109
103
94
Harvesters
Commercial companies
Individuals
Traders
Florists - web listing
Florists - suggestions
Garden Centres - web listings
Garden Centres - suggestions
Wholesalers - web listing
Misc. - suggestions
Non-Scottish traders
Horticultural organisations
28
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Table 5. (Continued)
Stakeholder group
Landowners/Managers
FC District Forest offices
Forest agents - across Scotland
Forest agents - south Scotland
Miscellaneous
PLUS…
Forestry & Timber Association
e-group members
Community woodland groups
Community Woodlands
Association members
Rural Alternatives Groups
(Reforesting Scotland project)
Misc. – suggestions
Conservation Bodies
Various organisations
Total
Bryologists
BBS Vice County Recorders
Misc.
Geographical
representation
No.
contacted
No.
replied
Response
rate (%)
15
42
15
13
22
8
87
52
53
1
73
300
1
44
16
100
60
5
Highland
Central
Strathclyde
Dumfries &
Galloway
Borders
Highland
N. Strathclyde
Dumfries &
Galloway
N. Strathclyde
Total
76
10
13
4
3
75
1
81
1
14
100
17
All regions
10
10
5
5
50
50
All regions
12
10
83
3
15
3
13
100
87
8
7
88
3
11
4
4
308
(608)
3
10
3
3
195
(211)
100
91
75
75
63
(35)
(Scotland)
(International)
(International)
(Scotland,wider)
-
1
6
1
1
-
(Scotland,wider)
Total responses
-
0
220
-
All regions
All regions
S. Strathclyde
Dumfries &
Galloway
Lothian
Borders
All
Total
All regions
All regions
Total
Illegal harvest informants
Police Wildlife Crimes
Officers
Miscellaneous
Researchers
All regions
S. Strathclyde
Total
NTFP researchers
All regions
Total
OVERALL TOTAL
(Including Forestry and Timber Association)
PLUS…
NTFP Scotland e-group
Bryonet' e-group
FAO's NWFP e-Digest
Forest Harvest website: 'News'
& 'Projects' pages
Reforesting Scotland website
29
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
4.2 Objective 1: The current extent of the Scottish moss harvest
4.2.1
Who is involved and why?
At least six commercial moss harvesting enterprises are currently thought to be operating in
Scotland (Table 6); another operated until two years ago and one until November 2005. These
commercial enterprises generally sell moss unprocessed to wholesalers, although some may
process the moss as Christmas wreaths for example and sell it themselves.
Some florists and garden centres harvest part or all of their moss supplies. Two florists (6%) and
five garden centres (17%) of those surveyed systematically harvest moss from the wild i.e. local
woodlands, forests or open spaces (Table 6). Another two florists and two garden centres use moss
from their own or others’ gardens; one of each as their main supply of moss but the other two to
supplement what they buy from wholesalers. It is estimated that approximately 49 florists and 34
garden centres across Scotland may harvest all or part of their moss supplies from the wild11. One
florist and one garden centre were also spoken to as (from other sources) they were known to
harvest moss, but they have not been included in the above calculations. One garden centre spoken
to harvested moss from their own woodlands a number of years ago and have cultivated it since in
order to use it specifically for displays during floral shows.
Only one individual moss harvester was encountered during the study; one that makes Christmas
wreaths sold on behalf of a local charitable Community Trust (Table 6). In addition another
harvester was indirectly discovered through the crafts they make using moss (bags ‘of a local
wood’, containing cones, leaves, bark, mosses and lichens), which are sold through local shops. It
is thought that a larger number of such small-scale harvesters may exist. One community woodland
group for example reported individuals harvesting on a small-scale foraging level for personal use,
but did not know how many people were involved. In addition, one other community woodland
group expressed an interest in harvesting moss for use in nappies, but to date none has actually
been harvested. Due to the timing of the study no individuals harvesting and processing moss into
wreaths or for hanging baskets for sale unofficially through car-boot sales at Christmas or in the
spring (as is thought to occur), were unfortunately encountered.
11
Based on the survey having systematically sampled 33 out of a total of 807 florists in Scotland (4%), 30
out of a total of 204 garden centres (15%) and 18 out of a total of 25 wholesalers (72%). The total numbers
of florists, garden centres and wholesalers are based on an exhaustive search of the Yellow pages.
30
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Commercial
Charitable
Commercial
Personal use
34
(many moreb)
9
2
Garden
centres
Individuals
Highlands
Highlands
Highlands
Dumfries & Galloway
Borders
Tayside
S. Strathclyde
Highlands (2)
Grampians
Tayside
Lothian
Highlands (5)
Conifer plantation
Forest/woodland
Forest/woodland
Airport grounds
Garden
Forest/woodland
Conifer plantation &
wet moorland
Garden
Forest/woodland
Forest/woodland (2)
Conifer plantation
Garden
Garden
Forest/woodland (3)
Public
Unknown
Community
n/a
Private
Private & Public
Unknown
Private
Unknown
Unknown (2)
Public
n/a
n/a
Public (2)
Private
Private
n/a
Unknown
Public
Unknown
Land
ownership
Christmas
(Harvested once and now
cultivates it)
Christmas
Unknown
Unknown
Sept.-June
Unknown
Christmas
Unknown
Christmas (2)
Christmas
All year
All year
Christmas & Spring (2)
Christmas
Christmas
All year
Christmas
All year
Unknown
Timing d
31
members
members of
of 18 such
a community
woodlands
woodland
overall equal
7 cases
Commercial
Tayside (2)
Conifer plantation (2)
Private (2)
Christmas (2)
Illegal
to legal
involving
harvesters
S. Strathclyde (3)
Raised bog (2)
Unknown (2)
Christmas (2)
commercial
the police in
Conifer plantation
Public
Spring
harvesters
last
Dumfries & Galloway
Raised bog
Unknown
Spring
5 years
Borders
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
a
Numbers encountered during the study were extrapolated for the whole of Scotland if the total number of the survey population was known.
b
Scottish Opinion Survey – Woodland: September 2003 revealed that 6% of people in Scotland had gathered plant material in the previous 5 years, including moss.
c
Location is given as the regions of Scotland; Strathclyde is split into ‘N’ for the northern counties of Argyll and Bute, and ‘S’ for the southern counties of Ayrshire
and Lanarkshire.
d
Timing is generally given as Christmas: November and December; or Spring: April and May.
Commercial
49
Conifer plantation
Conifer plantation
Conifer plantation
N. Strathclyde & Borders
Dumfries & Galloway
Borders (2)
5
Conifer plantation
Grampian
Commercial
Florists
Commercial
harvesters
Habitat
Location c
Number
involved in
Scotlanda
>6
Harvesting
group
Numbers
involved
in study
6
Purpose
Table 6. Harvesters of moss in Scotland encountered during this study; their potential numbers throughout Scotland, their purpose and the location,
habitat and timing of harvesting.
S.C. Staddon
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Commercial harvesters spoken to estimate that more illegal harvesting occurs in Scotland than
legal harvesting (Table 6). One of the florists and one of the garden centres was found to be
harvesting illegally. Seven cases of illegal harvesting activities were reported during the study,
although the police think that the crime is more common than they realise. Of those cases where
someone was caught one case did not go to court for technical reasons, one resulted in a £5,000
fine, one in an undisclosed fiscal fine12, and in one someone was charged and went to court where
the harvest was found to be linked to criminal activities. Two-thirds of the police-reported cases of
illegal harvesting occurred in November; indicating that the moss was intended for making
Christmas wreaths, with the rest in April or May; therefore for use in hanging baskets. None of the
landowners or managers surveyed reported any illegal harvesting activities in their forests,
although it is known to occur on state-owned land.
One-third of all landowners or managers spoken to reported having moss harvesting activities in
their forests either currently or in the last 10 years (Table 7). This equates to 18 landowners and
managers; 10 of which reported harvesting by commercial enterprises, one by a local garden centre
and one by individuals for charitable and personal use (six landowners were either unsure of the
purpose of the harvest or did not provide that information). Moss harvesting appears to occur more
widely in state-owned forest than privately owned forest13. Unfortunately it is not possible to
predict anything about the total number of harvesters from these figures as harvesters often operate
in more than one forest.
Table 7. Percentage of landowners and managers in Scotland who reported having had or who
currently have moss harvesting in their forests.
Forest ownership
Harvesting in past Harvesting currently
Total
10 years in forests
in forests
(past and present)
State-owned
23%
31%
54%
Private (through FTA email*)
13%
13%
Forest agents across the country
18%
10%
28%
Forest agents in south of Scotland**
38%
38%
Overall
14%
17%
31%
* ‘FTA email’ refers to the survey sent indirectly to members of the Forestry and Timber Association which
generated responses directly from private landowners i.e. not via agents.
** Based on a sub-sample in this area as it was thought to be widely harvested.
12
Fiscal fines are given for minor offences and if they are paid will result in no prosecution or recorded
convictions against the accused (BBC 2006).
13
43% of Scotland’s forests belong to the state and are managed by the Forestry Commission Scotland
(Forestry Commission 2005a).
32
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
4.2.2 Where is moss harvested from?
Moss was found to be harvested from the wild in all regions of Scotland except the Central, Fife
and Lothian regions (Table 6). Two-thirds of all commercial moss harvesting enterprises operate in
the south of the country however; with half in the Borders alone. Traders harvesting moss from the
wild come from all over the country, not just the south. Almost three-quarters of the cases of illegal
moss harvesting reported also occurred in the south. Bryologists contacted were also aware of moss
harvesting mainly in the south of the country in south Strathclyde, with one report from Tayside.
Landowners and managers from all over the country reported moss harvesting activities, although
these activities have stopped in all state-owned forests and some forests managed by agents in the
south of the country in recent years (Table 8).
Table 8. Geographical representation of landowners and managers in Scotland who reported
having had or who currently have moss harvesting in their forests. (Given as ‘north’ (Highlands
and Grampians), ‘central’ (north Strathclyde, Central, Tayside and Fife) and ‘south’ (south
Strathclyde, Lothian, Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders), as responses did not specify
regions).
Forest ownership
Harvesting in past 10 years in
Harvesting currently
forests
in forests
State-owned
Central & South
North & Central
Private (through FTA email*)
South
Forest agents across the country
South
North & Central & South
Forest agents in south of Scotland**
South
* ‘FTA email’ refers to the survey sent indirectly to members of the Forestry and Timber Association which
generated responses directly from private landowners i.e. not via agents.
** Based on a sub-sample in this area as it was thought to be widely harvested.
The majority of moss harvesting, and all commercial harvesting, is carried out in conifer
plantations; although some florists and garden centres harvest from local forests/woodlands (type
unknown) or their gardens and half of the illegal harvesting cases reported were from raised bogs
(Table 6). Whilst most of the landowners and managers with harvesting on their land manage a mix
of conifer plantation and broadleaf woodlands, they only allow harvesting in the former.
All types of moss harvester; commercial, trader, individual and illegal, appear to harvest from a
variety of publicly and privately owned land (Table 6).
4.2.2
When is moss harvested?
Moss is harvested all year round in Scotland but there are significant increases in harvesting
activities in November and December; leading up to the sales of Christmas wreaths, and to a lesser
degree in April and May; for use in hanging baskets (Table 6).
33
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
4.3 Objective 2: Examine the commercial trade and market chains for moss in Scotland
4.3.1 How much is sold and to whom?
Mosses and their trade
Moss is generally traded in Scotland as three types; ‘flat moss’, ‘bun moss’ and ‘Sphagnum’14
(Figure 7). Flat moss and bun moss both grow within the UK and northern Europe; the former
consists of a mix of species found commonly in forests and the latter is Leucobryum juniperoideum
(see Table14 section 4.4.1 for more details on species). ‘Sphagnum’ may be a mix of different
species of this genus, either from the UK or abroad. Overall 70% of florists, 60% of garden centres
and 22% of wholesalers spoken to trade in moss of some sort; they use different types for a variety
of different purposes (Figures 8 & 9). Reasons given for not trading in moss included use of
alternatives (mentioned by 40% overall), worries over sustainability and legality of the moss
harvest (29%) and dealing only in cut flowers (18%).
a
b
d
c
e
Figure 7. Moss traded by florists, garden centres and wholesalers in Scotland. a) Flat moss, b) Bun
moss, c) Sphagnum moss, d) Flat moss used by florists to cover the base of potted plants, e) Novel
arrangement made by florists using moss.
14
‘Reindeer moss’, otherwise known as ‘Finland moss’ or ‘glycerined moss’, is also traded is but this is in
fact a lichen. ‘Spanish moss’ or Tillandsia usneoides, is also traded but this is not a moss either, actually
coming from the Bromeliaceae family and originating from the south-eastern United States to Argentina
(Wikipedia 2006). These species were ignored in this study.
34
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
80
60
40
20
pe
( ty
t ra
di
ng
in
O
th
er
m
os
s
un
kn
ow
n)
Fl
at
m
os
s
Bu
n
m
os
s
Sp
ha
gn
um
0
Florists
Garden centres
os
s’
Wholesalers
‘M
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
Figure 8. Percentage of
traders trading in moss of
any sort and of specific
types. (It should be noted
that florists are known to
refer incorrectly to flat
moss as Sphagnum and so
the figure given for
florists for Sphagnum is
not considered
unreliable.)
Percentage of traders
100
Percentage of traders
100
80
60
40
20
W
rr a
re
ng
at
em
hs
en
t
Ba
s/
wr
se
ea
of
th
po
s
tte
d
pl
Ba
an
se
ts
o
Li
f
bu
ni
ng
lb
po
ha
ts
ng
Ba
in
gs
g
ba
fo
rh
sk
an
et
s
gi
ng
ba
sk
et
Un
s
pr
oc
es
se
d
Fu
ne
ra
la
Ar
ra
ng
em
en
ts
0
Florists
Garden centres
Wholesalers
Figure 9. Percentage
of traders trading
moss for different
uses.
Moss is used in general floral and funeral arrangements and often to cover the base of potted
plants. It is used to form the base of wreaths which are typically covered with holly or other
foliage; the moss acting as an anchor and keeping the foliage moist and looking fresh for up to 2
months. Wreaths may be made by wrapping moss around a wire ring although they are often
bought pre-made; they are made of a variety of moss species as some report using flat moss whilst
others use Sphagnum. Garden centres sell moss in the form of small bags for customers to line
hanging baskets with in the spring time and also to cover the bases of (generally) hyacinth bulbs at
Christmas time.
35
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Quantities traded
As moss can hold up to 20 times its own weight in water, quantities of moss are generally not
referred to in weights but some other measure, such as boxes or bags. Flat moss is typically traded
in polystyrene boxes (Figure 4a), bun moss in small wooden boxes (Figure 4b), whilst pre-made
wreaths and bags of Sphagnum for hanging baskets are sold as individual units. Moss harvested in
Scotland is generally referred to in ‘fertiliser bags’, ‘80l bags’, ‘bin bags’ or ‘carrier bags’;
although commercial harvesters also refer to ‘dry tonnes’. These various measures were converted
into a common quantity in order to allow calculations and comparisons to be made; the common
quantity is a ‘box’ based on the polystyrene box in which flat moss is traded, as this is the most
commonly referred to quantity by traders. A box was estimated to contain roughly the same
amount of moss as a carrier bag and be enough to make 4 wreaths; a fertiliser or 80l bag was
thought to contain 8 boxes worth and a bin bag 16 boxes worth.
Exact quantities traded for different uses e.g. arrangements or hanging baskets, were not
determined as many respondents could only provide information on the total quantity of moss they
trade. The data collected did however showed that in terms of quantity (cf. Figure 6), wreaths
account for at least half of the moss traded by florists and at least two-thirds of that by garden
centres, with bags of moss for hanging baskets generating roughly one-quarter of the trade for
garden centres. The quantities of moss traded by individual businesses varied dramatically, for
example one florist traded at least 600 times as much moss as another (Table 9). Florists who
harvest moss themselves trade on average around ten times more moss than do those who buy from
wholesalers; whilst harvesting-garden centres trade in twice as much as those who buy from
wholesalers. By extrapolating the results of the study for the country as a whole, it is clear that
florists have the greatest share of the moss trade; trading roughly 80% by quantity. It is also clear
that Scottish wholesalers far from close to providing florists and garden centres with their moss
requirements, selling only 4% of the quantity used by them.
36
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Table 9. The quantity, value and origin of the trade in moss in Scotland by florists, garden centres
and wholesalers.
Florists
Garden centres
Wholesalers
Quantity
Quantity traded per business in study
Quantity traded in study in total
Quantity traded in Scotland*
0.5 – 450 boxes
800 – 1,047 boxes
20,000 – 26,175 boxes
6 – 300 boxes
825 – 876 boxes
5,500 – 5,840 boxes
104 – 600 boxes
814 – 1024 boxes
1,130 – 1,422 boxes
Value
Value of trade per business in study
Value of trade in study in total
Value of trade in Scotland*
£4 - £9,000
£6,400 - £20,940
£160,000 - £523,500
£48 - £6,000
£6,600 - £17,520
£44,000 - £116,800
£832 - £12,000
£ 6,512 - £20,480
£9,040 - £28,440
Origin**
Percentage buying from wholesalers
Percentage harvesting from gardens
Percentage harvesting from the wild
87%
9%
9%
61%
11%
28%
100%
-
Wild harvested moss in Scotland
Quantity traded in Scotland*
1,800 – 2,356 boxes
1,540 – 1,635 boxes
Value of trade in Scotland*
£14,400 - £47,115
£12,320 - £32,704
* Based on the survey having systematically sampled 33 out of a total of 807 florists in Scotland (4%), 30 out
of a total of 204 garden centres (15%) and 18 out of a total of 25 wholesalers (72%). The total numbers of
florists, garden centres and wholesalers are based on an exhaustive search of the Yellow pages.
** Percentages may not add up to 100 as traders buy moss from more than one source. These figures do not
include the florist and garden centre spoken to because they were known to harvest moss from the wild.
Market Chains
The majority of moss traders in Scotland buy their supplies from wholesalers, either in or outwith
Scotland (Table 9). All of the Scottish wholesalers spoken to who trade in moss source it from
England or Holland. One of the two English wholesalers spoken to get small amounts of moss from
Scottish harvesters; one illegally from ‘gypsies’, but the vast majority buy moss from Europe
(mainly Scandinavian countries) or New Zealand. Apparently 85% of mosses traded in the
European Union (EU) come from inside the EU whilst 40% of those from outside originate from
New Zealand (The Flowers and Plants Association pers. comm.).
Moss commercially harvested
Commercial moss harvesting enterprises in Scotland appear to harvest on average 5-10 dry tonnes
of moss per year (Table10). For all of the six commercial enterprises known to currently operate
(section 4.2.1), this equates to between 30 and 60 dry tonnes per year. Unfortunately the figures on
dry tonnes cannot be converted into bags (or vice versa) as the weight of bags of (wet) moss when
collected vary between 5kg and 25kg and depending on the degree of saturation of the moss,
anywhere between 0.25kg and 25kg of this may actually be moss (based on moss being able to
hold up to 20 times its own weight in water); the range of potential figures involved is very large
i.e. 2 orders of magnitude.
37
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Table10. The quantity, value and destination of the moss harvest in Scotland by commercial moss
harvesting enterprises.
Enterprise*
Quantity traded
Destination
75% wholesalers in England
20% garden centres
5% ‘other’
unknown
unknown
garden centres & farm shops
2**
>5-10 dry tonnes
unknown
unknown
3
>5-10 dry tonnes
unknown
unknown
4
<5-10 dry tonnes
unknown
unknown
5
<5-10 dry tonnes
unknown
unknown
6
5-10 dry tonnes
unknown
unknown
7
5-7 dry tonnes
unknown
unknown
8
30,000 bags
£30,000***
unknown
9**
4,000 bags
£400***
unknown
10**
* Sources of information: 1 & 2 were spoken to directly, 3-7 were based on knowledge of enterprise number
1 and 8-10 were based on knowledge of landowners whose forests the harvest was from (only 3 landowners
knew or reported anything about the quantities involved. These figures cannot therefore be summed as it is
not known to what extent they may overlap.
** No longer harvesting.
*** Based on the price of bags sold to traders as £1 (Wong & Dickenson 2003).
1
5-10 dry tonnes
Value
(to harvester)
unknown
The destination of most commercially harvested moss is unfortunately not known, however
enterprise number 1 (Table10) sells ‘very little’ in Scotland, partly as they assume that “if people
[in Scotland] want it they will go and collect it themselves”.
Trends
Overall, 65% of traders perceived a decrease in the trade in moss over the last 5 years, 20% no
change and 20% an increase (Table 11). Traders perceived recent decreases of between 5% and
66%; however a number of traders spoke of a ‘dramatic’ decrease in the trade of moss over the last
10 to 15 years, with one English foliage wholesaler estimating that the trade is currently worth just
5% of what it was 30 years ago, when their family started the business. Those that perceived an
increase considered it to be between 20% and 35%. Two-thirds of the landowners with harvesters
on their land who commented on a trend in requests for permission to harvest over the last 5 years
reported that they had stayed the same.
38
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Table 11. Trends in the trade of moss by florists, garden centres and wholesalers and in the number
of requests to landowners for permission to harvest over the last 5 years. Figures are given as a
percentage of those traders or landowners who responded; not the percentage of increase or
decrease.
Trend
Decrease
Reasons
Stayed the same
Reasons
Increase
Reasons
Florists
48%
• alternatives*
• too labour
intensive to make
wreaths
26%
Garden centres
72%
• alternatives*
• concerns over
origin (legality &
sustainability)
11%
Wholesalers
75%
• alternatives*
25%
Landowners
17%
66%
22%
• fashion in funeral
wreaths
• personal taste
11%
(25%)
17%
• more customers
• just in wreaths
refilling hanging
baskets with
moss themselves
* Alternatives to moss include sisal, jute, raffia, fabric, glass nuggets, recycled crushed CDs, coffee beans,
nut shells, seafood shells (a by-product of food industry) and low growing plants (A. Caldecourt, Flowers
and Plants Association pers. comm.).
4.3.2 What is the trade worth to those involved?
Economic value
Traders were asked if they could estimate how much moss was worth to their business in terms of
annual turnover, however this proved to be very difficult; some said it contributed 1% or less to
their turnover whilst others said simply ‘very little’, ‘negligible’ or that they ‘wouldn’t miss it’.
Some florists and garden centres reported adding nothing on for including moss in an arrangement,
whilst others added £1 or £2; however no data was provided on the number of arrangements etc.
The value of the trade was therefore based on the quantities sold using an average reported cost
price for a box of (flat or bun) moss of between £4 and £10. The retail price of moss was calculated
by using an average reported mark-up of 100%. This may be an overestimate for the wholesalers
who may buy and sell moss at a lower price. Transport costs were not considered as many traders
reported that their purchases are delivered to their door.
The trade in moss in Scotland (of all origins) is calculated to be worth between £204,000 and
£640,300 to florists and garden centres combined; with florists making roughly four times as much
as garden centres (Table 9). The trade is worth between £9,040 and £28,440 to wholesalers. The
value of the trade in moss as a percentage of the entire floristry and horticulture industries in
Scotland was calculated as between 0.07% and 0.24% of the £215.2 million Scottish floristry
39
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
industry and 0.09% and 0.25% of the £45.898 million Scottish horticulture industry15. Although
these are small amounts of the total industries’ value, one garden centre pointed out the importance
of moss in keeping businesses open during the ‘slack’ period over Christmas, when wreaths are
sold. Another uses moss in displays at floral shows, which don’t generate money directly but which
are incredibly important with regards to marketing.
Traders across Scotland who harvest moss from the wild make between £26,720 and £79,819
(Table 9 & 13); equivalent to between 0.007% and 0.02% of the floristry industry and 0.03% and
0.07% of the horticultural industry (based on calculations as above). Unfortunately the commercial
harvesting enterprises spoken to in the study declined to comment on the value of their harvest in
terms of economic output. It was also unfortunately not possible to convert the quantities of moss
given by some harvesters in dry tonnes into bags (as described above under Moss commercially
harvested), for which the retail price is known. It was possible however to calculate what some of
the commercial harvests reported through landowners and managers were worth (Table10) and
using the average reported ‘mossing income’ of £40,000 in Wales in 2003 (Wong & Dickenson
2003); which is not dissimilar to the value of the commercial harvest calculated based on
landowner information (‘enterprise 9’, Table10) (Table 12). The individual harvester spoken to
who harvests moss to make into wreaths for sale at Christmas does so in support of a local
Community Trust; this generates around £2,000 a year which is enough to pay 75% of the Trusts’
loan repayments on the purchase of a local historic building (Table 12). More examples of this kind
may well exist across the country.
Money is also made by landowners who grant permission for harvesting on the basis of a permit
fee, although 21% report that the fee does not in fact cover the cost of administering the fee. Of
those that do make a profit, 36% ‘only just’ cover their costs whilst 43% report covering them by
‘a lot’. Fees charged over the last ten years range from nothing (for small-scale or charitable
purposes) to between £50 and £5,000 a year for a certain area, to between 28.5 pence and 50 pence
per half-hundred weight or fertiliser bag; making £200 for one landowner and £12,000 for another.
There are no obvious differences or trends between the types or amounts of fees charged by stateowned forest and privately-owned forest representatives. The current average flat rate fee is £850,
making landowners spoken to in the study who currently have commercial enterprises £7,650 a
year in total (Table 12). Whilst the state own 43% of Scotland’s forests, no figures exist on the total
15
Based on the following figures: UK floristry industry is worth £2 billion, there are 7,500 florists in the UK
(Flowers and Plants Association pers. comm.) of which 807 are in Scotland (Yellow Pages). Scottish
horticulture based on flowers and nursery stock is worth £45.898 million (Scottish Executive 2006b).
40
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
number of private woodland and forest owners (J. Farquhar, Forestry & Timber Association pers.
comm.); it was thus considered impossible to extrapolate the figure made by private landowners in
this study for those across the country in total.
The illegal wild moss harvest in Scotland is considered to be worth at least the same as the legal
harvest by commercial enterprises. The illegal moss harvest also entails costs however; one
reported case involving state-owned forest was estimated as costing £33,876 in lost revenue plus
£396 in staff costs. Of those illegal harvesters receiving fines, the amount was specified in only one
case; £5,000 for making 2,000 wreaths.
Table 12. Value of the current harvest of wild moss in the study and for Scotland in terms of
economic value and employment.
Stakeholder
group
Harvesters
Commercial
Florists
Garden centres
Individuals
Total
Economic value
in study
Employment in
study
(FTE)‡
Economic value
for Scotland
Employment
for Scotland
(FTE)
£240,000b
£576-£1,885
£1,848-£4,906
£2,000
£244,424£248,791
62
0.004-0.01d
0.03-0.07d
62.034-62.08
>£240,000
£14,400-£47,115
£12,300 - £32,704
>£2,000
>£268,700£321,819
62
0.11-0.37d
0.17-0.48d
62.28-62.85
Landowners
& managers
State-owned
£2,550c
£2,941e
c
Privately-owned
£5,100
>£5,100
Total
£7,650
>£8,041
Illegal harvesta
Total
£240,000
62
>£240,000
62
OVERALL
£492,074124.034-124.08
>£516,741124.28-124.85
TOTAL
£496,441
£569,860
‡ FTE: Full-Time Equivalent
a
Based on quantities, and therefore value and ‘employment’ being equal to commercial enterprises.
b
Based on average ‘mossing income’ of £40,000 (Wong & Dickenson 2003) and six currently operating
commercial harvesters.
c
Based on average current flat sum charged of £850 and currently three state-owned forests and six
landowners with commercial harvesting enterprises.
d
Based on average number of FTEs in florists and garden centres in study of 3.15 and 5.7 respectively; 49
florists and 34 garden centres estimated to harvest wild moss (section 4.2.1); study sampling 4% and 15% of
florists and garden centres in Scotland respectively.
e
Based on 23% of the 86.6% response rate from state-owned forest representatives having commercial
harvesters and making £2,550.
Overall the harvest and trade of wild harvested moss in Scotland is worth more than £516,741£569,860 (Table 12); 42-46% of which is made by legal commercial harvesting enterprises, 6-14%
by small-scale harvesters, 42-46% by illegal harvesters and only 1-2% by landowners. This is
considered an underestimate overall and for landowners in particular, as figures from the study
41
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
could not be extrapolated for private landowners, the total number of which is not known. These
figures should therefore be treated with extreme caution, particularly as the figures are based on
numerous extrapolations.
Employment
The commercial harvesting enterprise spoken to employs 2 full-time staff and 10 seasonal staff
working full-time hours between September and June. Assuming, as above, that the other five
enterprises known by this enterprise work on a similar scale overall, it is estimated that commercial
moss harvesting enterprises in Scotland support 62 full-time equivalent jobs (Table 12). No figures
exist on numbers specifically employed in florists and garden centres in Scotland and so the
number of florists and garden centre employees supported by the wild moss harvest in Scotland
was calculated based on the average employees per business spoken to, the number of florists and
garden centres in Scotland estimated to harvest wild moss and the value of moss to the florist and
industry trade. The number of full-time equivalent jobs supported in this way is less than one;
meaning that over 99% of the employment created by moss harvesting is in the harvesting itself. It
was assumed that the numbers of harvesters employed (informally) by the illegal harvest are equal
to those by the legal commercial harvest, given that the quantities harvested by both groups are the
same.
4.3.3 What are the main sources of competition and constraints on businesses involved?
Those involved in the harvest and trade of wild moss in Scotland are subject to business constraints
and competition from a variety of sources (Table 13).
The idea of a central wholesaler for Scottish forest products, including moss, was raised with
harvesters and (potential) moss traders as a possible way to boost the industry through increasing
markets for and availability of Scottish wild moss. One of the commercial harvesters was against
the idea however as they have no problem finding markets for their moss. Of the florists, garden
centres and wholesalers spoken to, half would potentially be interested in the idea but one-quarter
would not, mainly because they do not sell enough moss to make it worth their while dealing with
an additional supplier (many buy all their produce and sundries from just one or two suppliers). Of
those interested in the idea, one was a garden centre which currently harvests moss illegally, their
interest stemming from the fact that ‘it [their moss supplies] would then be within the law’.
42
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Table 13. Sources of constraint and competition on the moss harvest mentioned by various
stakeholders.
Stakeholder
group
Commercial
harvesters
Constraints & competition mentioned
• Staff – difficult to find as work physically demanding and working environment not
good
• Sites – moss yields unpredictable, “you have to chase” good sites
• Access – can take up to half of time creating access routes
• Permission – landowners may refuse access or impose restricting conditions
• Imports – competition from New Zealand Sphagnum imports
• Illegal harvesters – “spoil it” for the legal harvest by harvesting from protected sites
etc., generating concerns over sustainability and legality of harvest
Traders
• Suppliers – buy all stocks form one supplier who delivers to florists’ doors
• Alternatives – moss replaced by easier and cheaper alternatives which “the customer
wants”
• Transport costs – English wholesalers supplying throughout UK can import from
mainland Europe more cheaply than from Scotland
Landowners & • Other land-use options – moss harvesting may be in conflict with these e.g. deermanagers
stalking, shooting, amenity, biodiversity conservation
(3 reports of harvesting requests refused on such grounds)
• Silvicultural management – may decrease moss yields/increase time to harvest e.g.
*
thinnings make it more difficult and time-consuming to harvest moss
• Low economic incentive – 21% of landowners’ permit fees did not cover
administration costs
• Relationship with harvester – e.g. 2 landowners reported refusing harvesting requests
from unknown harvesters and restricting permission to local trusted businesses
General
• ‘Bad press’ – from (perceived) unsustainability; roughly one-third of traders do not
sell moss because they believe it to be illegal or are worried over sustainability e.g.
one trader stopped selling it because ‘David Bellamy said it was bad’ and one
commercial harvesting enterprise spoke of the ‘sticky period’ 10-15 years ago when
this comment was made. One garden centre was put off selling moss after seeing
reports of illegal harvesting in Lanarkshire in the local press; articles entitled ‘Moss
thieves put countryside at risk’ and ‘Police step up their hunt for moss harvesting
gangs’, they centred on moss harvesting from peat bogs and from all habitats without
landowners’ permission, with one talking of ‘a new breed of thieves – the moss
harvesters’**.
* Most conifer plantations are thinned at the age of 25 - 30 years and thereafter every 5-7 years. Trees are
removed in order to create more space between remaining trees so they grow thicker and stronger. Thinnings
are used for making paper pulp or boards. (Forestry Commission 2006).
** The Scotsman 4 December 2002 and East Kilbride News 4 December 2002 respectively (Appendix 3).
As most harvesters harvest from other people’s land, landowners, if they wish to be, can be a
considerable constraint to the harvest. When asked if they would like to see an increase in moss
harvesting in the future however, eight landowners said they would whilst six said they were
unsure (mainly state-owned forest representatives) (two felt they did not know enough about the
harvest to comment). Of those wanting to see an increase in the harvest, reasons included
additional income and for creating local employment; summarised by one who wrote ‘[it is]
admittedly not anything to set the world alight but all income is welcome’, but that ‘you need to
sort out the management of this very carefully so it does not cost you more than you get to
administer’. Despite not having any direct experience with moss harvesting, even land-owning
43
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
conservation bodies across the country considered that if done sustainably and avoiding sensitive
or protected areas, moss harvesting activities would potentially receive their support.
4.4 Objective 3: Assess issues of ecology, management and sustainability with regard to the
Scottish moss harvest and trade
4.4.1 Which species are harvested?
In total over 15 species of moss were reported as being harvested in Scotland; most as a mixture
traded as flat moss or just ‘moss’; bun moss is traded but does not appear to be harvested (Table
14). The commercial moss harvesting enterprises spoken to were both able to name the species
harvested; one harvests 95% Sphagnum and 5% Polytrichum and Pleurozium schreberi, the other
Sphagnum and an unknown species. The individual harvester who picks to make wreaths for
charity does not know the species harvested but never picks Sphagnum. The majority of the florists
and garden centres who harvest moss are unsure what species they are picking; 80% and 67%
respectively, whilst 20% and 22% respectively claim they harvest Sphagnum; although as
mentioned previously florists may refer incorrectly to flat moss as Sphagnum, casting doubt on
whether Sphagnum is harvested by florists or not. Eleven percent of landowners reported
Pseudoscleropodium purum as the species harvested from their land (one of these that Sphagnum
was never harvested) and 33% Sphagnum; whilst 56% were either unsure or did not provide that
information. Half of the police-reported cases of illegal harvesting involved Sphagnum, including
Sphagnum papilosum, S. magellanicum, S. falax and S. capilifolium; the former two are listed in
the Local BAP for South Lanarkshire. The other cases involved forest species including
Pleurozium schreberi, Pseudoscleropodium purum and Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus.
The majority of the 15 species of moss harvested and traded in Scotland are common, widespread
and of no real conservation concern; this includes all those traded as flat moss (Table 14). The
trade in Bun moss Leucobryum juniperoideum is however a concern to bryologists as this species;
and the other UK species in its genus L. glaucum, naturally grow in wide cushions which can cover
quite extensive areas, growing up to 70 years old but becoming readily detached (Watson 1981).
44
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Table 14. Moss species harvested and traded in Scotland; principle habitats, conservation concern
and legal status.
Species
Principle habitats*
Conservation concern and
legal status**
Flat moss or ‘moss’
Brachythecium rutabulum
Moist woodlands, river banks and marshes
-
Lowland grasslands, woodlands, marshes
and other wet areas, roadsides
Acid woodlands, heaths, moors, marshes,
bogs, montane habitats
Woodlands, hedgerows, marshes, fields
-
Calliergonella cuspidatum
Dicranum scoperium
Eurynchium praelongum
Hyloconium splendens
Hypnum jutlandicum
Pleurozium schreberi
Polytrichum spp
Pseudoscleropodium purum
Rhytidiadelphus loreus
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus
Rhytidiadelphus triquetros
Thuidium tamariscum
Bun moss
Leucobryum juniperoideum
Sphagnum
-
Acid heaths, damp moorland, variety of
woodlands and grasslands
Heath and acid woodlands
-
Conifer forests, woodlands, heaths,
moorlands
Variety of heaths, moorlands, woodlands,
bogs
Grasslands and heaths
Woodland, montane habitats, heath
Variety of grasslands and heath
Variety of grasslands and open areas in
woodlands
Variety of lowland and montane habitats
-
Acid heaths and woodlands
Variety of bogs, marshes, damp moorland
and woodlands
-
Forms hummocks up to 70
years old
5 species in Red Data List
1 species under Schedule 8 of
W&C Act and UKBAP
All species under Annex V of
EU Habitats Directive
All Sphagnum acid bogs under
Annex 1 of EU Habitats
Directive***
* Source of information: Hill et al. (1990, 1992, 1994), Watson (1981)
** Source of information: Threatened Bryophyte Database (RBGE 2006b)
*** Red Data List lists all species considered of conservation concern, Schedule 8 of the Wildlife &
Countryside Act (W&C Act) lists species protected from collection by law, UK Biodiversity Action Plan
(UKBAP) lists priority habitats and species whose conservation needs priority attention, EU Habitats
Directive lists habitats and species in the European Union in need of conservation under various Annexes;
Annex 1 refers to ‘natural habitat types of Community interest whose conservation requires the designation
of Special Areas of Conservation’ and Annex V to ‘animal and plant species of Community interest whose
taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures’.
4.4.2. How are species harvested?
The majority of moss harvesting in Scotland is carried out by hand, with only one report of
harvesting using a blade on the end of a strimmer (a commercial harvester). A variety of harvesting
practices are used, mainly reflecting the scale of harvesting i.e. small-scale harvesters (florists,
garden centres and individuals) are more indiscriminate but take only small amounts of moss
(Table 15). One case of illegal moss harvesting stated that harvesting was ‘indiscriminate’.
45
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Table 15. Harvesting practices of commercial moss harvesting enterprises, florists, garden centres
and individuals.
Harvester
Commercial
enterprises
Florists &
garden
centres
Rotation
length
5 years
Amount taken
50%
Length of moss
taken
5” long
2 years
3 years
2-3 years
2 years
1 year
‘all of good quality’*
‘don’t take everything’
-
top 2/3 or ¾ of plant
-
1 year
Individual
1 year
harvester
* This is estimated to be around 50%
-
Other
‘re-separating of moss on
damaged areas’ i.e. vegetative
propagation
‘leave it in a good state’
has harvested the same site for
50 years
only takes ‘small amounts’
Of the 18 landowners and managers with moss harvesting activities in their forests, six impose
conditions on harvesters relating to the method of harvesting; one (representing state-owned forest)
specifies that only up to 60% of the moss in an area can be collected, that it must be done by hand
or rake, which species may be harvested and what harvesting rates. The conditions of two
landowners relate specifically to the length of moss which can be harvested and one to the rotation
of harvesting sites (all state-owned forests).
4.4.3 Are sites actively managed to increase moss yields?
One of the two commercial enterprises spoken to actively manages harvesting sites to increase
moss yields by brashing and felling. The other enterprise brashes and fells in order to create access
routes for quad bikes to collect the bags of harvested moss, although it wasn’t specifically
mentioned relating to increasing moss yields. Twenty-two percent of landowners and managers
with harvesting in their forests reported that harvesters manage sites to increase moss yields, whilst
one landowner (5%) managed for this purpose themselves. None of the florists or garden centres,
who harvest moss on a small scale, reported managing harvesting sites in any way.
Although certain sites are managed to increase moss yields, it does not necessarily ensure an
increase, as for example, one commercial harvester spoke of putting a large amount of effort into
managing a site, the moss on which never grew above 3 inches therefore below the length they
harvest at i.e. the effect of management is unpredictable.
4.4.4 What is the current knowledge and practice of ecological sustainability?
The ecological sustainability of the moss harvest in Scotland depends on a number of things; the
species harvested, the methods of collection, the length of moss taken, the quantity of moss taken
46
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
in total and from any one area, the frequency of collection and the impact on surrounding habitats
and environment. As demonstrated by the species harvested (section 4.4.1) and the methods
employed by harvesters and imposed by landowners and managers (section 4.4.2), the situation
regarding the ecological sustainability of the moss harvest in Scotland is extremely varied.
Both of the commercial harvesters spoken to are aware of the ecological sustainability of the moss
harvest and employ various methods to ensure this; they defend the sustainability of the harvest by
the fact that they have harvested for the last 26 years, visiting some sites five times in that period,
with no noticeable decrease in moss yields. A ‘Methods Statement’ provided by one commercial
harvester to a forest agent mentions minimising pollution from vehicle leaks by proper
maintenance and minimising disturbance to wildlife such as ground-nesting birds by moving to
other areas. Of the florists and garden centres harvesting moss, only one reported knowing that
certain species of moss are protected by law; a florist who harvests from their garden in
Midlothian. These harvesters are obviously working on a vastly different scale to commercial
enterprises however; between 2 to 10 bin bags full versus 5-10 tonnes respectively, meaning the
ecological impacts are potentially far smaller. This does however depend on the exact species
being harvested and the habitat from which the moss is harvested, for example whilst all
commercial harvesters pick in non-native conifer plantations, the forest or woodland type harvested
by some small-scale harvesters is unknown.
It is obvious from the species, methods and habitats involved in the illegal moss harvest, that
ecological sustainability is not a priority, with half of all reported cases involving Sphagnum
species taken from raised bogs. Illegal harvesting was in one case described as ‘indiscriminate’ and
was considered to have caused ‘extensive damage’ to a 10.83 ha area of forest; removing the entire
flora in certain areas, changing ground flora, damaging the peat structure and effecting cranberry, a
Local BAP species in South Lanarkshire, where the harvest took place. The damage caused by
another case of illegal harvesting from a raised bog was described as ‘severe’ and it was estimated
that it would take 5-10 years for the moss to regenerate.
In terms of the general trade in moss by florists, garden centres and wholesalers across Scotland,
only roughly one-quarter knew anything about the ecology or sustainability of moss; 17% of
businesses talking about moss being of ‘limited supply’ and 9% about certain species or areas
being protected. The customers of only 9% of the traders’ ask questions regarding the origin or
sustainability of moss, and this is reflected in the fact that only 6% of the traders question in turn
their suppliers of moss.
47
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Of the landowners or managers who have harvesting in their forests, 44% claimed to know
something about the ecology or sustainability of the moss harvest, whilst 33% did not (the rest did
not provide such information). All landowners who were asked if they impose any conditions or
restrictions on harvesters said they do, with ten conditions relating to the area harvested, five to the
quantity, four to vehicle access and six to methods. It is not known if these conditions are based on
ecological or sustainability concerns or other considerations however.
Bryologists contacted during the study held a variety of views regarding the ecological
sustainability of the current moss harvest in Scotland. They range from considering the collection
for horticultural purposes from conifer plantations to be acceptable to being ‘totally against it’.
Three bryologists raised concerns over the effect on other species of both plant and animal, two
over the scale of the harvest, one over the possibility of harvesting rare species of bryophyte along
with the targeted common species and one over unregulated harvesting. Three bryologists
suggested that bryophyte-rich areas such as rock faces and stream banks should be avoided and two
that bog and lowland Sphagnum be avoided.
4.5 Objective 4: Assess issues of access, legislation and control with regard to the Scottish
moss harvest and trade
4.5.1 What access arrangements occur between harvesters and landowners?
The majority of moss harvesting in Scotland in undertaken by harvesters on land owned by others.
Neither of the commercial enterprises spoken to own the land they harvest and 80% of the florists
and garden centres who harvest in local woodlands, forests or open spaces do so on others’ land.
None of the landowners and managers spoken to harvest moss from their own land.
Both of the commercial enterprises spoken to report harvesting on state-owned and privately
owned land through ‘long-term contracts’, although the exact length was not stated. They both pay
a permit fee, one of which involves a sum of money per bag harvested; the exact amount involved
was not disclosed. It was thought by one enterprise that payments per bag were used by landowners
who trusted their harvesters; who generally report unchecked the number of bags collected, whilst
those landlords that are more suspicious of harvesters will charge them a set sum per year or area.
The four florists and garden centres who reported harvesting moss on state-owned land do so for
yearly permit fees of between ‘a few pounds’, £10-15 and £30-40. One florist reported harvesting
moss from woodlands belonging to a local private landowner in exchange for supplying
arrangements of flowers for free throughout the year on special occasions. One garden centre is
supplied with moss for free from a local gardener who picks it out of the gardens he works in as
48
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
part of his job. The individual who harvests for charity does so from state-owned forests under a
contract which is renewed on a yearly basis for free. Three-quarters of landowners and managers
require permission to be sought by all harvesters and one-quarter by commercial harvesters only.
It is thought that as more illegal harvesting occurs in Scotland than legal harvesting, therefore at
least 50% of the harvest is carried out without landowners’ permission.
4.5.2 What impact does legislation effecting the harvesting of moss have, if any?
Legislation effecting the harvesting of moss in Scotland includes the Land Reform (Scotland) Act
2003, Forestry Commission bylaws, Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981), Nature Conservation
(Scotland) Act 2004 (see Table 1). It is apparent that some harvesters and traders of moss are aware
of them whilst others are not. Only three people mentioned any specific piece of legislation by
name; two representatives of state-owned forest and one from a forest agent, all referring to the
Wildlife & Countryside Act.
The commercial enterprises spoken to all knew of the need to obtain landowners permission to
harvest, as did 88% of the florists and garden centres who harvested moss from local woodlands,
forests or garden centres. Despite knowing of the need to ask landowners’ permission to harvest,
one of the garden centres has harvested from state-owned forests for 50 years without ever asking
for that permission. One florist seems to be unaware of the legislation as they also harvest without
permission. As stated previously, at least 50% of the harvest is carried out without landowners’
permission, meaning that the legislation is ineffective in half of all cases.
Forty percent of all traders of moss in Scotland (not just those who harvest it locally themselves),
thought that harvesting moss in the wild in Scotland was ‘illegal’. Only 14% knew that it was legal
with landowners’ permission and all but one trader either harvests themselves or buy from a local
supplier. Only one trader reported making demands on their suppliers with regards to legislation
and that was a garden centre who buys moss from a local independent harvester who they ensure
only harvests with landowner permission.
4.5.3 What is the potential for the certification of moss as a sustainably managed resource?
Although not currently certified in its own right, almost half of the forests from which wild moss is
currently being harvested in Scotland are certified under the UK Woodland Assurance Scheme
(UKWAS); this is true of commercial harvesting enterprises, florists and garden centres who
harvest from woodlands or forest, and landowners with harvesters in their forests.
49
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Only one commercial harvester was asked if they thought the certification of moss would be a good
thing and they thought it would. Around 40% of florists, garden centres and wholesalers of moss
across the country thought it would be a good idea, rising slightly to 45% amongst those actually
harvesting moss themselves. Roughly two-thirds of landowners and managers across the country,
both with and without harvesters on their land, thought that some form of certification would be a
good idea, with one-quarter saying it depended for example on “how extensive the harvest
becomes”, “on the value – if it is a relatively low value product then certification costs would be
prohibitive” and 2under the wider umbrella of non-timber forest products”. One florist stated that
they would use more moss if they were satisfied of its origin and sustainability, potentially through
a certification scheme. A police Wildlife Crimes Officer discussed the problem of licensing the
Christmas trade in moss wreaths and the difficulty of auditing the trail from the point of origin to
sale. Presumably some sort of certification would address these problems.
50
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Research methodology and results
This study contacted 308 people directly with an overall response rate of 63% (range 17%-94%).
Compared to similar studies this response rate is average; others reporting 43% (Muir et al. 2006),
66% (Wong and Dickenson 2003), and 84% (Dyke & Newton 1999). The number of people
contacted however was high; Wong and Dickenson (2003) contacted over 150 whilst Muir et al.
(2006) contacted 251. The geographic coverage of people contacted was good, with all regions of
Scotland represented by most groups other than harvesters, who were naturally limited in their
geographic spread to suitable harvesting locations. The survey of (potential) moss traders i.e.
florists and garden centres, involved contacting one from each county as this gave good geographic
coverage; however ideally the survey should have been stratified in some way in order to speak to
more businesses where more exist i.e. in urban areas.
The main limit to the research is that it did not have enough contact with moss harvesters; it was
only able to talk to two commercial harvesters, although more are known to operate. If the study
had been conducted at a different time of year, either November/December or April/May i.e. when
much of the harvest is occurring, it is thought that many more harvesters could have been
contacted. For example moss used in Christmas wreaths is known to be traded (unofficially)
through car-boot sales and it is possible that by visiting a number of these in locations where
harvesting is known to occur, that people harvesting and processing the moss into wreaths and
trading it in such places could have been contacted. The effect of this is that the true extent and
value of the industry, from the harvesting end and unofficial trade in particular, is underestimated
in this study i.e. the moss harvest is more widespread; making more money and providing more
employment, than reported here.
Another problem encountered in the study was obtaining economic values for the harvest and trade
of moss; to many this information is sensitive and one harvester chose not to reveal the value of
their harvest. For florists and garden centres it was difficult to estimate the value of their trade in
moss as it comprises such a small amount of their total trade and income; many preferred to say
just “very little” or nothing at all in fear of biasing the results by guessing a figure. These problems
may have been reduced by meeting people face-to-face to build up more of a rapport and more
trust, but this would have involved huge amounts of time and travel as some respondents live
outwith Scotland. Also, florists in particular are hugely busy at all times of day and it may have
proved difficult to get staff to agree to spend a long time in a face-to-face interview.
51
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
The final limitation to the research, which is inevitable in any such study, comes from converting
quantities and values given in a variety of units and from extrapolating such figures. The outcome
is that there could be considerable under- or over-estimation in the results presented here and as
such all figures should be treated merely as indicators of value etc., not absolute amounts.
5.2 The current state and future potential of Scottish moss as an NTFP
5.2.1 Socio-Economic considerations
The entire harvest and trade of wild harvested moss in Scotland is worth £516,741-£569,860 and
supports 124-125 full-time job equivalents; roughly half of these figures are accounted for by
illegal harvesting. These figures are tiny when compared to those of the entire floristry, horticulture
or forestry industries in Scotland, but are not incomparable to other Scottish NTFPs; the wild
mushroom harvest for example was estimated to be worth £406,000 and to support 20 full-time
equivalents in 1998 (Dyke & Newton 1999). A previous NTFP study found moss and ‘other nonfloral decoratives’ to be worth £11 million at retail to florists alone (Dyke & Primrose 2002); the
results of this study would indicate that the majority of this must be from the ‘other’ products as
even moss of all origins in this study was estimated to be worth only between £160,000 and
£523,500 to florists a year. Exact economic and employment values were not calculated during
research on the Welsh moss harvest; however it was considered one of only two of a wide range of
NTFP-based businesses which were ‘profitable and provided significant incomes’ (Wong &
Dickenson 2003). Context is important however and the harvest is hugely significant to certain
enterprises or individuals involved; the Community Trust for example, whose loan repayments for
purchasing a local historic building used as a ‘Heritage Centre’ are paid for almost entirely from
the profits of moss-based Christmas wreaths, representing an income of £2,000 a year.
Some of the commercial moss harvest in Scotland leaves the country for sale to English
wholesalers, although around Christmas the proportion of moss harvested, processed and sold
locally; for example through unofficial car-boot sales as wreaths, may be high. The results of the
current study would indicate that the majority of moss traded in Scotland originates from outwith
the country however; 84% of florists and 63% of garden centres getting their supplies in this way.
Around 85% of these supplies, particularly of flat moss and bun moss, come from within the EU
(much from Scandinavian countries), with supplies of Sphagnum for hanging baskets appearing to
come mainly from New Zealand and Chile. The exact proportion of the EU trade in mosses
accounted for by Scottish moss is unknown; however it is likely to be small, given that most moss
is imported. The Scottish moss harvest is constrained by high transport costs within the UK, as
demonstrated by London-based foliage wholesalers choosing to import moss from other EU
52
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
countries equal distances to Scotland away, as costs are lower. Given that there is little that can be
done to reduce transport costs and given that there is a demand for moss in Scotland which is
currently filled by imports, an obvious market exists for Scottish moss in Scotland. The same
mosses grow in Scottish conifer plantations as they do in other EU countries, where flat and bun
moss are imported from (see section 5.2.2 for discussion relating to bun moss); Sphagnum grows
not only in raised bogs (from where the harvest in many cases is illegal and should be discouraged
in all), but also in Scottish plantations. One commercial Scottish harvester spoken to does not sell
in Scotland, partly as they presume that “if people want it there, they can go and collect it
themselves”. This is certainly the situation in some cases; 6% of florists and 17% of garden centres
were found to harvest their own moss from the wild, however not all traders do so, therefore
creating this market opportunity for Scottish moss.
The idea of a central wholesaler of Scottish forest products, including moss, appealed to around
half of the traders spoken to, although many replied that they didn’t sell enough to make it worth
their while, even if, as one said “I personally would be delighted to make use of a ‘free’ forestry
product and to see the money stay in Scotland”. If it were to be attempted it is clear that it would
have to fulfil criteria such as a good price, quality and potentially delivery to traders’ doors;
although as one florist pointed out, if only small quantities are bought (as many florists do for
general use in arrangements throughout the year), then it could be posted; keeping transport costs
to a minimum. A central wholesaler could deal in a variety of moss and moss products;
unprocessed flat moss and bun moss, for which there is a year-round demand; processed, i.e. premade, wreaths at Christmas all year for funerals; and potentially Sphagnum for hanging baskets,
with quantities enough for one or two baskets bagged up ready for sale to traders’ customers.
Although it may make buying locally sourced Scottish moss easier for traders, commercial
harvesters spoken to did not like the idea of a wholesaler however, which would be viewed simply
as another ‘middle-man’, trading through whom would decrease already slim profit margins. It
would most probably be useful to smaller-scale harvesters who may find it more difficult to access
markets and who may be more interested in processing moss in some way before sale (no such
small-scale harvesters were discovered during the survey to ask however, presumably as they only
operate around Christmas and/or spring time). In order that it did not compete with already
established commercial enterprises discussions with all those involved would need to be had if
such a wholesaler were to be established; however, if other commercial harvesters also sell in
England, as the one spoken to does (which seems likely as none of the traders spoken to buy
directly from local harvesters), maybe there would be little competition. The alternative is to try
and persuade commercial Scottish harvesters to sell to general Scottish wholesalers at the same
53
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
time as creating a market demand amongst Scottish traders for Scottish moss; thereby keeping the
money in the country.
Overall the trade in moss in Scotland has decreased dramatically over the last 10-15years. This is
due in a large part to cheaper and easier-to-use alternatives but also, and not insignificantly, to
worries over legality and sustainability. Some florists are currently using increasing amounts of
moss thanks to fashions in floristry designs; a result also found in a previous NTFP study (Dyke &
Primrose 2002), but the continuation of this trend in the future is not secure and by the very nature
of fashions will most likely decline at some point. Unlike mushrooms; the only other Scottish
NTFP studied in real depth, which are undergoing an increase in demand thanks to television
programmes and books encouraging the use of wild fungi in cookery (Dyke & Newton 1999), moss
seems to have peaked as a trade-able commodity some time ago. The study of the Welsh moss
harvest concluded that ‘there are probably few opportunities for growth in this sector’ (Wong &
Dickenson 2003). It is not to say that the demand for moss will never increase, but some spoke of
moss as “having had its day”; a comment which should not be ignored. Rather than suggest that by
trading in Scottish moss this decline could be turned around, a more realistic aim would be to
maintain the current quantities of moss traded, to replace moss imports with moss harvested in
Scotland and to slowly build confidence in its use by traders and consumers alike. This latter aim
will also depend on a ‘marketing campaign’ to re-educate both traders and consumers as to the
‘facts’ of the moss industry, including its legality and sustainability (see section 5.2.2). The
increase in community woodland ownership in Scotland means increasing access to land and
opportunity to harvest NTFPs by individuals; one community woodland group spoken to are
interested in harvesting moss form their forests to use in nappies and it may be that an increase in
the harvest and use of moss on such a small-scale increases in the future.
Landowners with moss harvesting activities in their forests may make some money but, as one
landowner put it, “[it’s] nothing to set the world alight”. Many landowners appreciated the fact that
any added income is good however and in the current climate of diversification in both rural and
forestry enterprises; as supported by the Scottish Forestry Strategy which specifically mentions
NTFPs as a potential source of additional income, moss harvesting certainly has something to
offer. One timber harvesting company responding to the request for information from Forestry and
Timber Association members said they would be interested in knowing more for example. Other
land-use activities clearly come above moss harvesting in the priorities of all types of landowners
and managers in Scotland though. Landowner profits from moss harvesting were also found to be
small both in the US and Wales (Muir et al. 2006, Wong and Dickenson 2003), with the
54
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
researchers in Wales suggesting that profits from moss harvests should be shared more equitably,
giving landowners a greater share in order to encourage silviculture and management which may
increase moss yields and thus future profits for all. This is potentially true in Scotland too, although
efforts by the landowner would need to be seen to significantly increase moss yields in order to
persuade in particular small-scale harvesters to part with what are already slim profits. On a
commercial scale this may have more relevance, although given the unpredictability of moss yields
in terms of responding to management interventions, discussion between all those involved would
first be needed in order to assess the likely success of what may be seen by some as a controversial
move.
Whilst conflict over ownership and access between landowners and harvesters was found in the
case of the wild mushroom harvest (Dyke & Newton 1999), it was not really noted in this study.
Although some individuals do harvest moss illegally without landowner permission, several of the
cases of illegally harvested moss reported were linked to organised crime and other criminal
activities, suggesting that the illegal act is not in defiance of a belief in ‘foragers’ rights’, as may be
the case in the mushroom harvest. The relationship between landowners and harvesters is however
important, as several landowners spoke of only letting known and trusted harvesters on their land,
whilst harvesting traders spoke of having good relationships with the managers of the land on
which they harvest. Developing good working relationships and trust is therefore essential to the
future potential of the industry. Whilst Wong and Dickenson (2003) state that the ‘only perceived
threat to the future of moss collection [in Wales] is the conservation lobby’, no such direct threats
were noted in Scotland. All of the land-owning conservation bodies spoken to in Scotland would in
fact potentially support sensitive and sustainable moss harvesting on their land if it didn’t conflict
with other land-use priorities. One threat mentioned by commercial harvesters in Scotland however
was the illegal harvest done by ‘gypsies’ who “spoil it” for the legal harvest by collecting from
protected sites etc., thus generating worries over the sustainability of the harvest.
5.2.2 Environmental considerations and control
The big issue in terms of environmental considerations and the ecological sustainability of the
moss harvest is the difference between moss harvested from non-native conifer plantations versus
from Sphagnum bogs and to a lesser extent from sensitive areas such as rock faces and stream
banks. As it is occurring in a non-native habitat which is subject to major cyclical disturbances i.e.
clear-fell, the former is arguably sustainable whilst the latter is clearly not; being in ecologically
sensitive and often legally protected sites. Some commercial harvesters deal only in non-Sphagnum
species for this reason, whilst others harvest up to 95% Sphagnum, albeit from plantations where it
55
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
if often taken from drains. All Sphagnum species are listed on Annex V of the EU Habitats
Directive and their harvest should therefore be subject to ‘management measures’. What this means
in practice however is not clear, although it is assumed that the management is at the discretion of
the landowner or manager. The actual measures required however are not fully known and thus
landowners and managers are currently potentially under- or over-estimating requirements.
Bun moss Leucobryum juniperoideum which is harvested from outwith Scotland but traded here is
of concern however, given the potential old age of the hummocks which are harvested. All those
species of moss commonly harvested in Scotland (excluding some Sphagnum species which were
recorded in an illegal harvest) however, are widespread species with no particular conservation
concern or legal status. The harvest of the occasional rare species at the same time as the common
species is however of concern to bryologists, particularly as their identification can be difficult and
often not possible without a microscope. The general consensus seems to be that harvesting of
moss can be done in conifer plantations on a cycle of 2-5 years at a commercial scale, if care is
taken to leave 50% of the moss and only moss which is longer than 5 inches. Although this may
allow moss to re-grow to quantities enough to satisfy the next harvest, the exact bryological,
ecological and environmental effects over such a cycle are not known. One pre- and post-harvest
bryological survey has been undertaken in state-owned forests, as have a few trial plots
investigating regeneration rates of different species (E. Kungu pers. comm.). A full-scale study is
however desperately needed if doubts regarding the sustainability of the moss harvest are to be
addressed fully. Such an investigation should ensure real-life management conditions, where
‘management’ refers to 3 levels; methods of harvest e.g. percentage of moss harvested, length of
moss taken; associated harvesting practices e.g. brashing, access routes; and general forest
management e.g. for commercial timber production such as clear-fell (after Ticktin 2004), i.e. not
just regeneration rates of mosses in the lab. An assessment of the total Scottish moss resource is
also required. Such investigations should involve not only bryologists but also harvesters and
landowners in order to use the knowledge of the harvest known by all and in order to develop the
trust that these groups place in the results and recommendations.
A ‘code of conduct’ for all those involved in the harvest of moss in Scotland is currently being
developed by Plantlife Scotland with the expertise of A. Dyke, who facilitated the Scottish Wild
Mushroom Code. The results of this study demonstrate the need for such a code, as issues of
sustainability and legality are high on the agenda. It is hoped that the results of this study can be
fed into the code, particularly regarding what is considered best practice amongst harvesters and
landowners.
56
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
A huge amount of misinformation exists in the moss trading world in Scotland. Forty percent of all
moss traders spoken to thought that harvesting it from the wild was ‘illegal’; only 14% knowing
that it is legal with landowners’ permission. Many florists claimed that “you have to buy it from
someone; you can’t just go and pick it”; although it is true that ‘you can’t just go and pick it’, you
can do with permission from the landowner. Being in contact with some national horticultural
organisations it became apparent that even they are not clear on the legislation. Roughly one-third
of florists, garden centres and wholesalers in Scotland who do not sell moss, do so because they
either believe the harvest to be illegal or because they are worried over issues of sustainability.
Some form of ‘marketing campaign’ is clearly required to reassure traders over concerns of
illegality and sustainability; for the latter based on the results of a sustainability study as described
above. Articles in widely-read floristry and horticultural publications could go a long way to reeducating traders with regards to the ‘facts’ of the moss harvest and trading industry. Even floristry
and horticultural courses could include these facts, as some of the florists who had been told that
they ‘have to buy moss from someone’, were told so during training courses. Equally, consumers
need to be told of these facts as it is customers who drive the actions of traders. This could be
achieved again through publications or better still, by the most popular of media, television;
…maybe David Bellamy could be asked to do the honours.
A continuation of this need to address the ‘bad press’ suffered by moss harvesting is the
certification of the commercial industry in order to ensure sustainable harvesting practices are
employed and to re-assure consumers of this. Moss is included in Standard 2.2.2 of the UK
Woodland Assurance Scheme (UKWAS) along with other NTFPs such as foliage and berries, the
requirement is that ‘authorised harvesting…does not permanently exceed, or diminish, the longterm productive potential of the woodland/forest’ (UKWAS Steering Group 2000). The
sustainability studies described above are required in order to determine these ‘potentials’ however.
Certification also involves fees and whilst in theory it could deliver these aims, if its cost is
prohibitively high, it will not be adopted widely enough to have any real impact. Mention has been
made to the certification of Scottish NTFPs as a group and that it could be more effective if
harvesters group together in order to share costs (Dyke 2002); however such issues were felt to be
beyond the scope of this project (for information on the certification of NTFPs see Shanley et al.
(2002)).
Moss differs from other Scottish NTFPs in that its harvest is generally only carried out on a
commercial scale from non-native conifer plantations. The recent study by Emery et al (2006) on
the value of NTFPs in Scotland found that most NTFPs are favoured by a diverse mix of native
57
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
habitats, which suggests that encouraging their harvest by people in Scotland would increase the
demand for native habitats, thus aiding biodiversity conservation. The same cannot be said of
moss; in fact its harvest is defended as being inconsequential when compared to the ecologically
far worse practice of clear-fell in plantations. Despite the diversification of Scotland’s forests, nonnative conifer plantations are not about to disappear; although traditional forestry in Scotland
makes very little money, huge amounts of interest and hope are placed in the potential of woodfuel
to address energy needs in the face of climate change and local timber to provide the materials for
sustainable and affordable housing. These resources will come from plantations, in whatever form
they evolve be it continuous-cover forestry or other systems, thus ensuring that the habitat for moss
as an NTFP is secure. As an interesting aside, it has been shown that removal of moss can help
regeneration of native Scots pine Pinus sylvestris (Edwards 1980), which would indicate that
harvesting moss from a conifer plantation prior to its conversion to native Scots pine could be of
conservation benefit.
58
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
Despite the methodological limitations of this study it was able to discover something about the
numbers and purpose of moss harvesters in Scotland, where the harvest occurs and which species
are impacted, how Scottish wild harvested moss fits in to the wider trade in moss, the value of the
Scottish wild harvest in terms of turnover and employment, and issues of sustainability, legislation
and control.
The harvest of wild moss in Scotland has value to those involved to the tune of roughly £0.5
million a year and 125 jobs; it is important to those harvesting on various scales, to traders and to
landowners in terms of land-use diversification. Although the overall trade in moss has decreased
dramatically over the last 10 to 20 years, opportunities in the floristry and horticulture market do
exist for Scottish wild harvested moss.
As a non-timber forest product from non-native conifer plantations, moss is generally considered
sustainable; from Sphagnum bogs it is not. Bun moss Leucobryum juniperoideum; harvested within
Europe but traded in Scotland, is not considered a sustainable product. Moss harvesters are
generally aware of harvesting practices required to ensure sustainable supplies of moss; it is
however believed that a study of the sustainability of the moss harvest with regard to bryological,
ecological and environmental effects is required to reassure all those involved and on which to base
future promotion of the industry. A forthcoming ‘code of conduct’ for moss harvesting in Scotland
is welcomed and it is hoped that results from this study can contribute to this, particularly
regarding considered best-practice amongst harvesters and landowners.
The illegal harvest of moss without landowners’ permission or from protected sites needs to be
tackled; firstly to ensure the ecological sustainability of the harvest and secondly in order to raise
the profile of the industry i.e. away from illegality and unsustainability. Tougher fines and
penalties are required for harvesters and those trading with them.
59
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
6.2 Recommendations
Based on the results and conclusions of this study, several recommendations are made:
•
Disseminate results of this study and general information on legality and sustainability of
the industry as far as it is currently known; primarily to florists, garden centres and
wholesalers amongst whom there is a large amount of misinformation regarding the
industry, and to landowners and managers in order to demonstrate the industries’ potential.
By S. Staddon with remaining resources from this study.
•
Feed the results of this study into the forthcoming code of conduct for moss harvesting in
Scotland, particularly those regarding considered best practice by harvesters and
landowners.
Currently being developed by Plantlife Scotland with expertise from A. Dyke, Scottish
NTFP specialist.
•
Conduct a study of the bryological, ecological and environmental sustainability of the wild
moss harvest and total moss resource in Scotland, involving harvesters and landowners and
resulting in recommendations of best-practice for both.
Using researchers at the Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh (who have already made
preliminary investigations) with funding from the likes of Scottish Natural Heritage,
Forestry Commission Scotland or Scottish Forestry Industries Cluster.
•
Conduct a ‘marketing campaign’ based on the above sustainability study, aimed primarily
at traders and consumers in order to promote the industry.
Co-ordinated by the likes of A. Dyke with funding as above as a continuation of that study.
60
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
REFERENCES
Anderson R. & Chapman E. (2006) The Future for Wild Harvests in Scotland. Report of a seminar
on Non-Timber Forest Products. Beauly 10th and 11th May 2006. Scottish Forest Industries Cluster.
http://www.forestryscotland.com/pages/displaypressrelease.asp?pr=171&loc=latest [Accessed
26/07/06]
Arnold J.E.M & Ruiz Perez M. (1996) Framing the Issues Relating to Non-Timber Forest Products
Research. In Current Issues in Non-Timber Forest Product Research. pp.1-18. M. Ruiz Perez &
J.E.M. Arnold (Eds), CIFOR, Indonesia.
BBC (2006) Crime Fighters: Justice. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/fighters/scotscrownoffice.shtml [Accessed 02/08/06]
Belcher B, Ruiz-Perez M. & Achdiawan R. (2005) Global Patterns and Trends in the Use and
Management of Commercial NTFPs: Implications for Livelihoods and Conservation. World
Development, 33, 1435-1452.
British Bryological Society (2006) Threatened Bryophyte Database. http://rbgweb2.rbge.org.uk/bbs/Bryodiversity/tbdp.htm [Accessed 25/07/06]
CBD – The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). Available at
http://www.biodiv.org/convention/default.shtml
Chambers R. and Conway G.R. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the
21st century. Discussion Paper 296. Institute for Development Studies, Brighton.
Crignola P. & Ordonez A. (2002) Perspectivas de Utilization de los Depositos de Turba de la Isla
de Chiloe, Decima Region de los Lagos, Chile. Simposio International de Geologica Ambiental
para Planificacion del Uso del Territorio. Puerto Varas, 4-6 de Noviembre 2002.
Donex (2006) Sphagnum moss. http://www.donex.co.nz/sphagnum_moss.html [Accessed
26/07/06]
Duchesne L.C. & Wetzel S. (2003) Planning of non-timber forest products with timber resources of
Canadian forests: Need for integration and research. Forestry Chronicle, 79, 853-859.
Duchesne L.C., Zasada J.C. & Davidson-Hunt I. (2000) Non-timber forest product industry in
Canada: Scope and research needs. Forestry Chronicle, 76, 743-746.
Dyke A. (2006) Legislation and harvesting. Presentation given at The Future for Wild Harvests in
Scotland. Report of a seminar on Non-Timber Forest Products. Beauly 10th and 11th May 2006.
Scottish Forest Industries Cluster.
http://www.forestryscotland.com/pages/displaypressrelease.asp?pr=171&loc=latest [Accessed
26/07/06]
Dyke A. (2002) Development of Non-Timber Forest Products in Scotland: Learning from Finnish
Experience. Scottish Forestry, 56, 165-168.
Dyke A. & Primrose D. (2002) Non-Timber Forest Product Study. Scottish Forest Industries
Cluster, Edinburgh. Available at
http://www.forestryscotland.com/pages/publications_detail.asp?id=12
61
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Dyke A. & Newton C. (1999) Commercial Harvesting of Wild Mushrooms in Scottish Forests: Is It
Sustainable? Scottish Forestry, 53, 77-86.
Edwards I. (1980) The Conservation of the Glen Tanar Native Pinewoods near Aboyne,
Aberdeenshire. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen.
Emery M, Martin S. & Dyke A. (2006) Wild Harvests from Scottish Woodlands. Social, cultural
and economic values of contemporary non-timber forest products. Forestry Commission,
Edinburgh. Available at
http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/website/forestresearch.nsf/ByUnique/INFD-5WBLHH
European Science Foundation (2006) New COST: What is cost? http://www.cost.esf.org [Accessed
26/08/06]
FAO (2005) The State of the World’s Forests 2005. FAO, Rome.
FAO (1999) Towards a harmonised definition of non-wood forest products. Unasylva, 198, 63-64.
Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/x2450e/x2450e0d.htm#TopOfPage
Forest Harvest (2006a) NTFP business directory. http://www.forestharvest.org.uk/bdirectory.htm
[Accessed 27/07/06]
Forest Harvest (2006b) Certification and labelling.
http://www.forestharvest.org.uk/certification.htm [Accessed 27/07/06]
Forest Harvest (2006c) Sustainable harvesting. http://www.forestharvest.org.uk/Sustainable.htm
[Accessed 27/07/06]
Forest Harvest (2006d) The Scottish Wild Mushroom Code.
http://www.forestharvest.org.uk/Mushcode.htm [Accessed 27/07/06]
Forest Harvest (2006e) Gathering NTFPs - Access issues.
http://www.forestharvest.org.uk/access.htm [Accessed 27/07/06]
Forest Harvest (2006f) Moss. http://www.forestharvest.org.uk/species/hairmoss.htm [Accessed
16/04/06]
Forestry Commission (2006) Forest cycle. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-5NNEP3
[Accessed 17/08/06]
Forestry Commission (2005a) Forestry Statistics 2005.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/foreststats.nsf/byunique/woodland.html [Accessed 25/07/07]
Forestry Commission (2005b) GB Public Opinion of Forestry 2005. Forestry Commission,
Edinburgh. Available at
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/SCOTTISHPUBLICOPINIONSURVEY2005.PDF/$FILE/SCOTT
ISHPUBLICOPINIONSURVEY2005.PDF
Forestry Commission Byelaws 1982. Available at
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcbyelaws1982.pdf/$FILE/fcbyelaws1982.pdf
62
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Forest Research (2006) Forests, trees and human health and well-being.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-66LJNL [Accessed 29/07/06]
Goodstock (2006) The Green Harvest. http://www.goodstock.co.uk/good_htm/thegreen.htm
[Accessed 16/04/06]
Hill M.O., Preston C.D. & Smith A.J.E. (1994) Atlas of the bryophytes of Britain and Ireland.
Volume 3. Mosses (Diplolepidae). Harley Books, Colchester.
Hill M.O., Preston C.D. & Smith A.J.E. (1992) Atlas of the bryophytes of Britain and Ireland.
Volume 2. Mosses (except Diplolepidae). Harley Books, Colchester.
Hill M.O., Preston C.D. & Smith A.J.E. (1991) Atlas of the bryophytes of Britain and Ireland.
Volume 1. Liverworts (Hepaticae and Anthocerotae). Harley Books, Colchester.
Karadeniz Technical University (2006) 1st International Non-wood Forest Products Symposium.
http://www.ktu.edu.tr/nwfp/ [Accessed 27/07/06]
Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Available at
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/20030002.htm
Long D. & Ward S. (2005) Strategy for the conservation of lower plants and fungi in Scotland.
Plantlife International, Salisbury. Available at http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/assets/savingspecies/saving-species-publications/fungi-lower-plants-stategy-Scotland.pdf
MAF – Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (1997) NZ country rpt 1997. Criterion 2:
Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems.
http://www.maf.govt.nz/forestry/montreal-process/nz-country-rpt-1997/criterion2.htm [Accessed
13/06/06]
Mancilla E. (no date) Proyecto "Evaluación del impacto económico y social de la extracción de
Pompoñ (Sphagnum) en la Isla de Chiloé". Proyecto apoyado por fundación Senda Darwin.
www.sendadarwin.cl
Marshall E., Newton A.C. & Schreckenberg K. (2003) Commercialisation of non-timber products:
first steps in analysing the factors influencing success. International Forestry Review, 5, 128-137.
McQueen R. & Knusser C. (2002) Research Methods for Social Science. An Introduction. Prentice
Hall, Harlow.
Miekle M. (2003) Editorial. Reforesting Scotland, 29, p.11-12. Spring 2003. Reforesting Scotland,
Edinburgh.
Milliken W. & Bridgewater S. (2001) Flora Celtica: Sustainable Development of Scottish Plants.
Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, Edinburgh.
Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/orange/sdsp.pdf
Moutere River Co. (2006) Sphagnum moss - Sustainable management practices.
http://www.moutere.com/stories/storyReader$31 [Accessed 27/07/06]
Muir P.S. (2006) Moss is a cash crop for mountain people in the United States of America. NonWood News, No.13, April 2006.
63
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Muir P. S. (2004) An Assessment of Commercial “Moss” Harvesting from Forested Lands in the
Pacific Northwestern and Appalachian Regions of the United States: How Much Moss is Harvested
and Sold Domestically and Internationally and Which Species are Involved? Final Report to U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangerland Ecosystem Science
Centre. http://oregonstate.edu/~mccuneb/MuirReport.htm [Accessed 01/04/06]
Muir P.S., Norman K.N. & Sikes K.G. (2006) Quantity and value of commercial moss harvest
from forests of the Pacific Northwestern and Appalachian regions of the U.S. The Bryologist, 109,
197-214.
Murray M. & Simcox H. (2003) Use of Living Resources in the UK – A Review. UK Committee for
the IUCN. Available at http://www.iucn-uk.org/PDF/iucnWLRresources.pdf
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. Available at http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3148
Neuman P.R. & Hirsch E. (2000) Commercialisation of NTFPs: Review & Analysis of Research.
CIFOR & FAO, CIFOR, Indonesia.
Pardo Munez J.J. (2002) Diagnostico, Quantitative y Qualitative del Pon Pon (Sphagnum spp.) en
la Decima Region, Chile: Uso, Manejo y Proteccion. Simposio International de Geologica
Ambiental para Planificacion del Uso del Territorio. Puerto Varas, 4-6 de Noviembre 2002.
Parfitt J. (1997) Questionnaire Design and Sampling. In: Methods in Human Geography. (Eds) R.
Flowerdew & D. Martin. Longman, Harlow. pp. 76-109.
Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania (2006) Plants of Tasmania Sphagnum Moss - Sustainable
Use and Management http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/veg/spag/spag.html [Accessed 13/06/06]
Peck J.E. (2006) Towards sustainable commercial moss harvest in the Pacific Northwest of North
America. Biological Conservation, 128, 289-297.
Peck J.E. (1997) Commercial moss harvest in northwestern Oregon: Describing the epiphytic
communities. Northwest Science, 71, 186-195.
Peck J.E. & Muir P.S. (2001) Harvestable epiphytic bryophytes and their accumulation in central
western Oregon. The Bryologist, 104, 181-190.
Peck J.E. & McCune B. (1998) Commercial moss harvest in northwestern Oregon: biomass and
accumulation of epiphytes. Biological conservation, 86, 299-305.
Pugh J. (2003) Welsh Moss: Finding a niche in the market. Reforesting Scotland, 29, p.11-12.
Spring 2003. Reforesting Scotland, Edinburgh.
RBGE – Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh (2006a) Bryology at RBGE.
http://www.rbge.org.uk/rbge/web/science/research/crypto/bryo.jsp [Acessed 16/04/06]
RBGE – Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh (2006b) Threatened Bryophyte Database. http://rbgweb2.rbge.org.uk/bbs/Bryodiversity/tbdp.htm [Accessed 16/08/06]
RBGK - Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (2006) Gardening without Peat.
http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/ksheets/peat.html [Accessed 25/07/06]
64
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Reforesting Scotland (2006) Rural Alternatives: Community NTFP Project.
http://www.reforestingscotland.org/projects/rural_alternatives.php#top [Accessed 19/04/06]
Rothero G. (2005) Naturally Scottish: Mosses and Liverworts. Scottish Natural Heritage, Perth.
Sanderson H & Prendergast D.V. (2002) Commercial uses of wild and traditionally managed
plants in England and Scotland. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Surrey.
Scottish Executive (2006a) Draft Scottish Forest Strategy 2006. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
Available at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-6C3D4G
Scottish Executive (2006b) Scottish Agriculture – Output, Input and Income Statistics. Scottish
Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2006/03/28134957/4 [Accessed
10/08/06]
Scottish Outdoor Access Code 2004. Available at http://www.outdooraccessscotland.com/default.asp
Shanley P., Pierce A.R., Laird S.A. & Guillen A. (eds) (2002) Tapping the Green Market.
Earthscan Pubilcations, London.
Shmatkov N. & Brigham T. (2003) Non-timber forest products in community development: lessons
from the Russian Far East. Forestry Chronicle, 79, 113-118.
SNH – Scottish Natural Heritage (2006) News. Bogs bourght back from the brink. 14/06/2006
http://www.snh.org.uk/press/detail.asp?id=1463
SNH – Scottish Natural Heritage (no date) All About Sphagnum moss.
www.snh.org.uk/Scottish/species/lowerplants.asp [Accessed 16/04/06]
Ticktin T. (2004) The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 41, 11-21.
Tilling A.J. (1995) Sphagnum moss: issues associated with the sustainable development of a nontimber forest product in New Zealand. N.Z. Forestry, February, 30-34.
UKWAS Steering Group (2000) Certification standard for the UK woodland assurance scheme.
Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. Available at
http://www.ukwas.org.uk/assets/documents/ukwasstandard.pdf
Valentine G. (1997) Tell me about…: Using Interviews as a Research Methodology. In: Methods in
Human Geography. (Eds) R. Flowerdew & D. Martin. Longman, Harlow. pp. 110-126
Watson E.V. (1981) British Mosses and Liverworts – Third Edition. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Wikipedia (2006) Spanish Moss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_moss [Accessed 01/08/06]
Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). Available at http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3614
65
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Wong J. & Dickinson B. (2003) Current status and development potential of woodland and
hedgerow products in Wales. Wild Resources Limited, Bangor. Available at
http://www.wildresources.co.uk/projects_wales_ntfp.shtml
World Forestry Congress (2003) Quebec Declaration on: Strengthening Global Partnerships to
Advance Sustainable Development of Non-Wood Forest Products. XII World Forestry Congress,
Quebec City, Canada, 20September 2003. Available at http://www.sfp.forprod.vt/edu/discussion/
66
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
APPENDIX 1: Questionnaires and letter of introduction/information provided
Questionnaires used with various stakeholder groups:
a.
Harvesters – Commercial enterprises (over the phone)
b. Harvesters – Individuals (over the phone)
c. Traders (Buyers) (over the phone)
d. Landowners and managers (postal questionnaire)
e. Landowners and managers (email questions through Forestry and Timber Association)
f.
Conservation bodies (email questions)
g. Community Woodland groups (questionnaire used as basis for on-line survey)
h. Bryologists (as email questions)
i.
Letter of introduction/information provided
67
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1a
68
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1a Continued
69
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1b
70
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1b Continued
71
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1c
72
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1c Continued
73
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1d
74
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1d Continued
75
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1e
76
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1f
77
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1g
78
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1h
79
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 1i
80
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
APPENDIX 2: Organisations contacted during this study
Harvesters
Booths Moss & Foliage
McPherson Atlantic Ltd
Paul Haley Scottish
Christmas Trees
Welsh Moss
Traders &
representatives
33 anonymous florists from
across Scotland
31 anonymous garden
centres from across
Scotland
18 wholesalers from across
Scotland
Adomex International
British Florist Association
Donex
Dutch Agricultural
Wholesale Board
Federation of International
Trade Associations
Flora Holland
Flower Council of Holland
Flowers & Plants
Association
Florist & Wholesale Buyer
Gardman
Gro-Pacific
Grubbenvorst Flowers
Horticultural Trades
Association
J. Eagon
LBS Horticulture
Moutere River Co.
Pacific Blooms
Pacific Wide
Rainbow Florist Supplies
Ronald Paterson & Son
Royal Horticultural Society
Supermoss
Weerman
VBA-Aalsmeer
Verenigiging van
Bloemenveilingen
Yaldstone International
Landowners & Managers
A. Nesbit
A. Little
ABJ Consultancy Services
Aspen Forestry
Bartholomew Partnership
Belmont Forestry
Bell Ingram
Bentleys Woodland
Management
Bidwells
Border Consultants
Border Woodland Services
Bowlts
C. MacBrayne Woodland
Consulting
CKD Galbreath
D. Scrutton
David Cross & Associates
Forestry & Timber
Association (and members)
Forestry Commission
Scotland – Forest
Conservancies & Forest
District Offices
Fountain Forestry
IM Forestry
John Clegg & Co.
Langton Vaughn
Associates
Lonsdale Forestry
M. Page
Mark Hamilton Landscape
Services
Oliphant Forestry
R. Gray
RTS Creiff
Scottish Natural Heritage
South Lanarkshire Ranger
Service
Scottish Rural Property &
Business Association
Smiths Gore
Tilhill Forestry
Woodland Management
Services
Community Woodlands
Community Woodlands
Association (and members)
Reforesting Scotland
(Rural Alternatives project)
Conservation bodies
Cairngorms National Park
Loch Lomond & Trossachs
National Park
National Trust for Scotland
Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds
Scottish Natural Heritage
Scottish Wildlife Trust
Woodland Trust
Bryologists & Botanists
A. Amphlett
British Bryological Society
Bryonet
C. Miles
D. Chamberlain
D. Genney
D. Holyoak
D. Long
D. Long
E. Kungu
G. Rothero
J. Peck
K. Raistrick
K. Watson
N. Hodgetts
P. King
P. Muir
R. McCance
R. Corner
Researchers
J.Wong
H.Prendergast
H.Sanderson
S.Bridgewater
W.Milliken
Illegal harvest informants
B.Ross, Scottish Natural
Heritage
D.Kelly, Scottish Natural
Heritage
E. Stewart, Forestry
Commission Scotland
Police Wildlife Crimes
Officers at all Scottish
Police Forces
South Lanarkshire Ranger
Service
81
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 2 Continued
Miscellaneous
A.Duque Montoya, Universidad Nacional de Colombia
C. Guala Catalan, WWF Chile
L.Fortin, Université de Moncton campus de Shippagan
Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department
82
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
APPENDIX 3: News articles relating to the harvest of moss in Scotland
S.C. Staddon
83
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
Appendix 3 continued…
84
S.C. Staddon
Masses of Moss: But how much and what is it worth?
APPENDIX 4: Useful addresses
1) NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS (NTFPs)
Forest Harvest
Website dedicated to NTFPs in Scotland; full of useful information plus a directory of NTFP-based
businesses. http://www.forestharvest.org.uk
NTFP e-group
Email group dedicated to encouraging debate and exchange of information of those interested in
NTFPs, primarily in Scotland. http://www.forestharvest.org.uk/eforum.htm
FAO Non-wood forest products (NWFPs)
The Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Forest Department conduct research on NWFPs, coordinate the ‘NWFP Digest (e-bulletin), an on-line journal focusing on issues of note in the world
of NWFPs, and bi-monthly newsletter ‘Non-wood News’.
http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=2301&sitetreeId=6367&lang
Id=1&geoId=0
2) MOSSES
British Bryological Society
Dedicated to mosses and liverworts, the Society conducts research, produces publications, provides
information and much more. http://www.britishbryologicalsociety.org.uk/
Threatened Bryophyte Database
An up-to-date on-line database of all mosses and liverworts considered threatened in the UK and
their status according to various categories.
http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/bbs/Bryodiversity/tbdp.htm
Bryonet
Email group dedicated to bryophytes and provided by the International Association of Bryologists;
international researchers and bryologists exchange information.
Administered by Janice Glime: [email protected]
New Zealand moss
Website of one NZ moss exporter with comprehensive information regarding all aspects of the
moss harvest in NZ, plus information on Chile. http://www.moutere.com/stories/storyReader$54
3) HORTICULTURE AND FLORISTRY
Flowers and Plants Association
Independent promoter of all commercially grown cut flowers and indoor plants in the UK; provide
information, advice and inspiration. http://www.flowers.org.uk/
Horticultural Trades Association
Represents British garden centres and other garden retail businesses, landscapers, growers and
suppliers to the garden trade; provides business information, conducts market research and offers
membership subscription. http://www.the-hta.org.uk/
British Florist Association
Represents the British florist industry; provides help, advice, business information and membership
subscriptions. http://www.britishfloristassociation.org/
85