Assessment of beaver licences for prime agricultural land

4 August 2023

Prime Agricultural Land (PAL) covers land categories between 1 and 3.1 (based on Land Capability for Agriculture system, Bibby et al. 2008). PAL covers just under 13% of Scotland’s land-cover.

PAL is often low-lying, relatively flat with slopes less than 7 degrees - and with generally light, friable soils at least 45cm deep and reliant on good drainage. This is the most productive land in Scotland and is considered extremely important in terms of national food production and food security issues. The strategic importance of PAL is recognised in National Planning Framework 3 (Scottish Government) and Scottish Planning Policy which recognises it as a nationally important finite resource.

It is recognised that there may be some variation in characteristics of PAL in different geographical locations but in the main, and in the areas where beavers are currently found, PAL is heavily reliant on good drainage systems. These tend to be drained from deep and shallowly sloping networks of drainage ditches and burns. The land itself is then often drained from systems of very shallowly-sloping field drains feeding onto those ditches or burns. Given the value and productivity of the soils in these areas the field boundaries are often very close to the edges of watercourses and drains i.e. there is minimal or no buffer between the productive land and the watercourse.

The productivity of the land is reliant on good drainage and minor rises in water levels in the drainage ditches or burns can cause back up of the field drains for large distances into the fields on account of the shallow profiles involved. This backing-up of the drains if not addressed quickly will waterlog the soils in these areas and can kill crops, grass, fruit or vegetables growing in those areas or prevent establishment of seed. 

Where PAL borders larger watercourses flood-banks are often present which protect the land from flooding caused by fluctuations in the river-levels.

Beavers in Tayside

Beavers have been living in the wild in Tayside since c.2006 having escaped from private collections or as the result of unauthorised releases.  Numbers have grown relatively rapidly, with surveys carried out in 2012 finding evidence of 39 family groups and in 2017/18 recording a roughly threefold increase to 114 family groups including groups that have colonised areas of the Forth Catchment and mouth of the Tay. Farms on the low-lying areas of ground along the River Isla and tributaries and drainage systems in particular have had beavers present for at least 10 years and along the River Earn beavers have also been present for a similar period of time.

Our experience and understanding of beavers and their impact in these PAL areas is extensive. This includes from;

• NatureScot staff visits and knowledge and the use of our expert call-off contractor over the past c.5 years – with written reports provided.
• The work of the NatureScot led Tayside Beaver Study Group that operated from 2012-15 was to record and assess impacts on land use and investigate and trial methods to minimise negative impacts.
• the NatureScot Chaired Scottish Beaver Forum which has focussed largely on Tayside issues.

As a result we have visited many sites across PAL in these areas where there has been conflict with beavers. As beavers start to spread into other PAL areas out with their current distribution we will investigate whether characteristics of the PAL and beaver impacts are akin to our experience in Tayside and our approach will be reviewed and adapted as necessary.

Activities of beavers in relation to Prime Agricultural Land

Beavers are ‘ecosystem engineers’ and their activities can significantly modify the local environment and can produce substantive benefits to nature and people. The most significant impacts from beavers arise from three key activities; dam-building, burrowing and feeding (including felling trees and associated construction activities using the arising materials). These activities are not peculiar to agricultural land but they are discussed in more detail in relation to PAL below. Impacts of each activity are also documented in detail in NatureScot Commissioned Report no.812 and are also documented here in relation to issues in Bavaria.

Dam Building

Beavers build dams in order to raise water levels behind them. Dams are built for a number of reasons including to improve access to potential feeding areas and to raise water levels above entrances to lodges or burrows. Dams will commonly be built on smaller watercourses e.g. burns and drainage ditches. They are not likely to be built on wider river channels.

Damming activity by beavers in the drainage ditches and burns running through PAL can cause flooding and back-up field drains and slow down the speed of drainage. The impact of a single dam can compromise many acres of land in one field.  Dams, if not removed, can also result in scouring of land in their vicinity when water backs up around them and runs around the dam sides. This can cause loss of land as the bank collapses, often taking field boundaries and fences with it. Not only can this reduce the area of land available to farm but this can pose risks to the safety of people working the land in these areas and to livestock.

It is important to note that where dams are built, and particularly within drainage systems, burrowing activity is also likely to take place.

Burrowing

Beavers are strong burrowers and will readily excavate burrows, chambers, canals and tunnels to access areas for feeding. Burrows can extend for a number of metres in from the bank and chambers can be sizeable. In a study in Lithuania the average burrow length of 7 metres with each burrow resulting in removal of an average of 1.3 cubic metres of soil and tens of cubic metres in an individual area of activity. Burrows are often difficult to find because entrances will often be underwater.  Collapsed burrows have been very frequently recorded on Tayside. Burrows can cause bankside erosion and collapsed burrows can be scoured out in particular during periods of high flow of the watercourse, resulting in further significant losses of soil, slumping of land and destruction of fence-lines. The generally light and friable nature of soils on PAL make burrows particularly prone to collapse and can exacerbate erosion.  Collapsed burrows can result in operational delays for land management, damage to machinery and risks to operators, livestock and to the public.

Where beavers are accessing crops adjacent to watercourses they may burrow to gain access to these areas and these burrows can also be subject of collapse and erosion.

Burrowing activities in or near to flood-banks can also compromise their integrity, weakening their structure and, during high-water events (which are relatively common in these areas), ultimately result in the ‘bursting’ of the flood-bank. This can ruin crops or fodder and significant losses of soil and can be extremely expensive to repair. 

Feeding

Beavers are herbivorous and eat a range of herbaceous, aquatic and woody vegetation. Localised damage to crops has been recorded in Scotland and elsewhere but is rarely reported to be significant. More frequently concerns are expressed over the ring-barking and/or removal of bank-side trees. Sometimes these can affect particularly old specimen trees. Whilst this in itself is not likely to constitute damage to the agricultural land, felling into, across or adjacent to water-courses can affect flow and subsequently erosion during flood or high-water events.   

The use of buffer zones

The impacts of beaver activity will generally decrease the further away from any watercourse that they are using. To this end the use of riparian buffer zones has been recommended and documented in a number of cases (See Chapter 5 of the Beavers in Scotland report for summary and references). These involve establishment of buffer zones which are created or maintained to support beavers and create riparian habitats a minimum of 10-20 metres and up to 50 metres or more from watercourses where beavers are present. These can provide significant biodiversity benefits but effectively mean the permanent change of agricultural land into non-agricultural land. If this was to be employed in Scotland, and given the extent of drainage ditches and watercourses throughout PAL , this would necessitate the permanent loss of very significant areas of PAL at a national scale. Any biodiversity benefits would need to be carefully considered against impacts on national crop production /agricultural output.   

Licensing Tests

The approach to licensing on PAL is considered against each of the three licensing tests under Regulation 44 below. Where there is no satisfactory alternative (Test 2), there is subsequently a consideration of appropriate intervention methods:

Test 1 - Licensable purpose

Prime Agricultural Land licences are issued under Regulation 44(2)(g) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. This is for the purpose of, ‘preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries’.

Prime Agricultural Land is most commonly used for arable purposes for cereal crops, vegetables and fruit but also for fodder crops for livestock.

Because of the beaver’s ability to modify the local environment as described above, we consider that when they are present and active in areas of PAL, they can cause damage to these agricultural interests. Further, because of the strategic importance of PAL, its finite nature, and limited national extent we consider that that damage is likely to be serious.

The damage that can be caused to agricultural land is well documented in Scotland and across Europe and North America (e.g. see NatureScot Commissioned Report no.812).   Specific damage on PAL in parts of Scotland has been recorded by NatureScot staff over many years and is summarised in p136 of the Beavers in Scotland Report and documented in more detail in the Final Report of the Tayside Beaver Study Group. The problems associated with damming affecting drainage and burrowing causing erosion and collapses are commonplace. Burrowing in the vicinity of flood-banks is relatively common and can weaken their integrity. Beaver burrowing has been documented in two instances of flood-bank breaches on PAL in Tayside, and is very expensive and time-consuming to repair and can causing significant damage to the land, crops and livestock. The risks associated with beaver burrowing at these sites are confirmed by SEPA advice documented in the same report.

The impacts in Scotland are well-documented by site visit reports by NatureScot call-off contract expert adviser across numerous sites over a five year period, experience by NatureScot staff and  the farming community. 

The relatively generic physical nature of PAL (in terms of soil structure/type, topography and drainage requirements) and our experience of this means that we are confident that the risk of serious damage is likely to apply across most areas of PAL. However, where discussions with landowners/managers, site-visits or from other information available (e.g. from our Geographic Information Systems, GIS) highlight potential exceptions to this assumption NatureScot will investigate on a case-by-case basis to inform assessment of licensing tests, including potential alternative approaches.  This will be particularly pertinent in new areas of PAL colonised by beavers. 

We therefore consider that Test 1 is likely to be passed where beavers are present on PAL but will check each case to ensure that these assumptions can be met.

Test 2 – No Satisfactory Alternative

A satisfactory alternative is an action that would provide a solution to the identified need without having to resort to a derogation. In other words in this case an approach that would prevent serious damage to Prime Agricultural Land without a licence being necessary.

There are a range of measures that could potentially reduce or prevent impacts of beavers on agricultural (and other) interests. These measures are largely focussed on managing the two key behavioural activities that can give rise to damage; damming and burrowing. Some of these measures are likely to require a licence and some are not. These alternatives are summarised below and are covered in more detail in the Annex to this paper, as is their potential applicability to situations on Prime Agricultural Land.

Potential methods of managing the impacts of damming that would not require a licence

There are a range of techniques associated with managing the impacts of damming. These include manipulation of dams, removal of dams, preventing dams being built, excluding beavers from areas where they might build dams, trapping and translocation and lethal control. We consider that all of these approaches may require a licence. Given this we consider that in order to address serious damage caused by damming activities by beavers on Prime Agricultural Land, there is likely to be no satisfactory alternative than to licence actions necessary to resolve that need.

We acknowledge that possible exceptions to this assumption may occur in certain circumstances and this will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.        

Potential means of managing the impacts of burrowing that would not require a licence

There are a range of techniques associated with managing the impacts of burrowing. Green bank engineering and re-alignment of flood-banks are two measures which could potentially be used and which would not require a licence.

Realignment of flood-banks, whilst potentially reducing the risk of burrowing weakening their integrity, is unlikely to resolve issues of erosion of land as a result of burrowing and furthermore would be likely to result in the loss of productive land as a result of moving the flood-bank structure away from the river bank. Therefore we do not consider that this would likely resolve the need for which a licence may be required. Furthermore, the scale and commercial cost of such action is likely to be extremely high. As such we do not consider that this is likely to constitute a satisfactory alternative.

Green-bank engineering approaches have not been well-trialled but may present potential solutions to minimise damage arising from burrowing in the future. Due to their nature they may take time to become established and to be able to gauge their effectiveness. As such we do not consider at this time that our current knowledge of these approaches means that they are a satisfactory alternative to address the need in question.

Therefore we consider that it is most appropriate to trial a range of techniques in this respect and monitor effectiveness before considering them as a satisfactory alternative. As we learn from these trials we should be able to develop our understanding of whether or not they are satisfactory in different situations. We will therefore investigate and implement trials of these techniques, possibly in combination with other schemes.

Given the above we consider that in order to address serious damage caused by burrowing activities by beavers on Prime Agricultural Land, there is likely to be no satisfactory alternative than to licence actions necessary to resolve that need.

We acknowledge that possible exceptions to this assumption may occur in certain circumstances and this will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.        

Deciding which activities will be licensed

Where we consider that there is no satisfactory alternative to address damage other than to issue a licence, we must then consider what the appropriate nature is of the licensed intervention. In other words what licensed activity is most appropriate to be able to satisfy the need for which a licence is granted and with the least impact in terms of the overall aims of the Directive. The potential approaches are presented hierarchically in Table 1 below in relation to impact together with a consideration of the likelihood of the approach addressing serious damage on Prime Agricultural Land.

Table 1. Consideration of licensed interventions, impact and applicability (Lower to Higher Impact)

Approach	Likelihood of success
Dam notching (DN)	Unlikely to resolve drainage issues caused by dams and subsequent damage. Even if successful, is likely to only provide very short-term solution. Exception may be in situations where there may be greater tolerance in terms of drainage but where dams are only causing issues during relatively exceptional or uncommonly high flows. Whilst we consider this unlikely on PAL we will explore opportunities where this may be applicable on a case-by-case basis.
Flow devices (FD)	Can be successful where location of damming is predictable and there is tolerance or already sufficient depth of water behind dam. Both situations are unlikely on PAL where we have existing experience of beaver issues, and particularly in networks of drainage ditches on flatter land. Also need to consider situation/issues elsewhere on the land-unit. However, this option will be pursued if information suggests that approach could be successful.
Discourage rebuilding of dams (DD)	Potential approach where location of damming is predictable and unlikely to occur elsewhere. However, both situations are considered as unlikely to arise on PAL land due to often uniform nature of watercourses. If opportunities to test this approach arise they will be pursued.
Dam removal (DR)	Dam removal can resolve issues experienced form damming activities. To be successful it requires constant vigilance of all drainage ditches and ‘dammable’ watercourses throughout the area at risk and constant effort to remove dams as they arise. This can be extremely time-consuming. The success of dam removal if beavers are still present in the area will therefore likely provide short-term resolution and be repeated constantly. This may also result in additional loss of bankside trees as animals seek new dam-building material each time. Constant dam removal is likely to result in permanent prevention of beavers breeding in the area concerned. In certain situations, such as where there may be very short lengths of watercourses affected by damming or very infrequent activity by beavers licences can be granted for dam removal only.
Physical protection of banks (BP)	This approach is related to preventing burrowing activity only. Whilst it can be effective it can be extremely expensive and impact on many other issues (e.g. hydrology, ecology). May have potential in limited circumstances on a small scale to address localised and predictable impacts. At any larger scale could effectively preventing beavers form using/breeding in particular area.
Exclusion (E)	Relatively untried technique and likely only applicable to certain situations but if successful will provide long-term solution. Will create beaver-free areas. Sites have been/will be identified to trial such approaches. This will help us to learn about wider applicability.
Removal - Trapping/translocation (T)	Can provide medium-term solution to the licensed need. It will only provide a temporary solution as animals will inevitably return to the site over time, It is also not without risks and practical difficulties. Where there is the opportunity for successful trapping and translocation in line with our translocation policy these will be pursued. Translocation will only take place using animals that would otherwise be killed under licence. From the perspective of the conservation status of the Scottish beaver population, unless translocated to sites within Scotland (e.g. Knapdale), translocation has the effect of removal of animals from the population.
Removal - Lethal control (LC)	Lethal control can provide a medium-term solution to the licensed need. It is likely to be continually required as beavers return to these sites. As with translocation, this results in the removal of animals form the population.

 

In practice this means that where damming is a factor in causing or likely to cause serious damage we consider that dam removal alone is unlikely to adequately resolve the need in most cases (largely because of experience and knowledge that beavers will tend to continue to re-build dams again and again), but if circumstances suggest this alone may be appropriate we may licence this action only.  This means that in other cases we consider that removal of animals may be the only way in which the resolution of the problem is likely to be achieved. Even then we consider that continual effort is likely to be required in the longer-term because beavers are likely to re-colonise these areas over time. Licences for activities affecting PAL are therefore likely, unless one or more of the possibilities/exceptions described above are appropriate, to permit the lethal control (but translocation of such animals would also be permitted – see below) of beavers unless information indicates that otherwise. Such licences would also allow for the removal or interference with dams.

Where lethal control is permitted we advocate removal of the family group because removal of individuals is unlikely to resolve the problems being experienced. This is because dam-building and burrowing activities are not dependent on a family group being present i.e. remaining animals will still be likely to build dams or burrows. In addition we consider that removal of one or two individuals can pose an animal welfare risk because of the difficulty of sexing beavers in the field and the fact that even outside of the kit dependency period young animals may still be dependent on adults e.g. for thermoregulation in winter.  

Translocation of animals that might otherwise be killed under licence will be permitted and where such opportunities arise we will use translocation as an alternative to lethal control. This will be achieved by working with the persons skilled in translocation and the farmers experiencing problems. For many reasons translocation projects have to be well-planned and prepared and will often be reliant on readiness at the receptor site including any regulatory requirements. This means that whilst we will know levels of demand for animals for translocation projects, the exact details, including timings, are likely to be variable. Therefore the approach has to be dynamic and we will work with both licence-holders for translocation and for lethal control to be able to identify appropriate donor sites as and when appropriate circumstances arise.  

Ensuring applicability of approach across all PAL

The majority of beaver/agriculture conflicts associated with PAL land that NatureScot has dealt with over recent years have been along the River Isla and Earn areas. The assessment applied above is based upon our knowledge of those cases and of that land. Whilst the physical characteristics of PAL land are largely similar as described, where we receive licence applications for other areas of PAL land in other catchments and sub-catchments, we will make sure that these conclusions are still appropriate. This means that we will monitor the spread of beavers into new areas and in such instances we will arrange site visits to assess the suitability of alternatives to lethal control and to ensure that the licence tests can still be met. This includes consideration of the characteristics of the land and drainage systems and whether the impacts of beavers are comparable, for example The Carse of Stirling. This will include whether there is scope for the development and implementation of mitigation or avoidance measures. In these cases, or where information may suggest that alternative measures may be possible we will explore these.

Ensuring an adaptive approach

Our experience and understanding of issues surrounding beavers and PAL (and other situations), including the applicability of alternative measures and as farming management practices and policy drivers, will change over time. We will also learn more about the feasibility of different approaches, including alternatives to lethal control, particularly through the Beaver mitigation scheme.  This means that our approach to the licensing of actions affecting beavers on PAL is will be able to adapt over time.

Test 3 – Actions will not be detrimental to Favourable Conservation Status

The information below gives the background to our consideration of conservation status of beavers in Scotland as provided on our website. We then go on to consider the potential impacts of PAL licensing.

Background

The first confirmed records of beavers in the Tay Catchment Beavers were from 2006. The Scottish Beaver Trial at Knapdale commenced in 2009 with a small number of animals released. The population in Tayside was surveyed in 2012 which estimated that there were around 39 family groups in the Tay Catchment. A further survey was carried out in 2018 which recorded an increase to approximately 114 family groups and a significant increase in range within and with animals now being found outside of the catchment. The population in Argyll is currently being supplemented to facilitate its expansion.

Prior to full protection being afforded to beavers as European Protected Species unregulated culling of beavers has been undertaken in many areas. The extent of this culling is not known but is thought to be largely confined to the Tayside population.  

In 2019 beavers were formally given European Protected Species status under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. As such they receive special protection meaning that, in general terms, any actions affecting them can only be carried out under licence. This also places a requirement on NatureScot to monitor populations and to ensure that any licensed actions will not be detrimental to the maintenance or restoration of favourable conservation status of beaver populations.

What is favourable conservation status?

The Directive defines the conservation status of a species as ‘the sum of influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations… ’, this applies, for the UK and Scotland, to the Atlantic biogeographic region. 

The conservation status is favourable when:

• population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and

• the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and

• there is, and will probably continue to be, sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.

For most other species of EPS there are reference values against which any assessment of conservation status is made. These are often based upon the data available when the Directive came into force in Scotland in 1994 but because beavers were not present at that time then no such value exists. Therefore we need to consider a more pragmatic approach to assessing and monitoring conservation status in Scotland.

The conservation status of beavers in Scotland

The three ‘components’ for consideration of conservation status are considered below against the information currently available for beavers in Scotland;

- Population dynamics: In Tayside the survey data indicates that the population size, density and distribution increased substantially between the 2012 and 2018 surveys. In Knapdale the population has not increased (although this was not the aim of the Scottish Beaver trial). Current and on-going translocation work will continue with the aim of supplementing the existing population there.

- Range: The recent surveys have shown that the Tayside population has continued to expand in range and has spread beyond the wider Tay catchment. In Knapdale the range of the population has not changed significantly.

- Availability of suitable habitat: Available habitat for beaver from Beavers in Scotland indicates sufficient habitat availability both now and in the foreseeable future.    

In summary, we have recent, good quality survey information which concludes that the Tayside area population is increasing and its range expanding here.  The small, remnant trial population at Knapdale also contributes to the number and range of animals living wild in Scotland.  Given the above we consider it appropriate to conclude that the conservation status of beavers in Scotland is improving.

Ensuring favourable conservation status in the long-term

We have to ensure that the conservation status of beavers in Scotland continues to improve. We consider that the future prospects for beavers are good. We consider that there will continue to be sufficient suitable habitat for now and the future and that the population will continue to grow in number and range.

Once protection is afforded lethal control will be permitted as a management tool under licence. This will particularly be the case in areas where beaver activity is causing serious damage to other public interests such as on areas of our most productive and low-lying farmland (and where we know that lethal control has been on-going for many years prior to protection being afforded). We can therefore anticipate and accept that in such high-conflict areas beaver populations may be at a lower density than elsewhere and that they may in some local areas be possibly absent.  However, the licensing regime will now allow for the level and extent of control to be fully understood.

By continuing to monitor beaver populations in line with our Survey, Research and Monitoring strategy we can ensure that that beavers have a favourable conservation status. Key to this will be satisfying ourselves that the Scottish beaver population continues to increase in both range and number. This will continue to be reviewed and, should there be any indication that this trend is not continuing, we will adapt our approach and Management Framework accordingly.

Assessing the conservation implications of licensing on PAL

Consideration is given below of the potential impacts of our approach to PAL licensing based upon the three components of the assessment of conservation status

1. Population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats

Surveys of the Tayside beaver population showed an increase in the number of active territories from thirty nine in 2012 to one hundred and fourteen in 2017/18. This represents an increase of 292% over a five-year period, which equates to roughly 25% population increase per annum. If this trend continued then the population in 2018/19 (i.e. immediately prior to protection) would be estimate to be just over 140 territories.  In Knapdale the beaver population has recently increased following the initial phases of a reinforcement project (primarily using animals translocated from Tayside) to a minimum of 19 animals present in September 2018.

Up until 1st May 2019 lethal control of beavers was legal. Anecdotal evidence is that beavers have been controlled over much of their range in Tayside up until this date. It is not possible to quantify the level of control in different areas but there have been reports of tens or hundreds of animals being removed in certain locations. Lethal control has been carried out both within and outside of areas of PAL. The 2017/18 survey results showed widespread increases in beaver field-sign densities in many areas of the Tay catchment but localised decreases in some areas on both PAL and elsewhere. It is likely that these decreases were down to culling in those areas. However, despite this unregulated lethal control, the number of territories in PAL between 2012 and 2017/18 still increased substantially.

Lethal control, removal of animals for translocation projects and exclusion of animals from geographic areas is likely to take place under licence at multiple locations on Prime Agricultural Land. We do not anticipate that it will be employed across all such land and have no reason to believe that the levels of control under licence will be higher than that which was undertaken prior to protection being afforded. However, NatureScot will carefully monitor the situation to assess levels of control and exclusion.

It is important to note that we do not anticipate there to be a significant requirement for lethal control of beavers in areas outside of PAL.  The protection afforded to beavers will mean that control that was being carried out in these areas previously should cease* and densities and subsequently productivity in these areas to increase as a result. Given that over half of the population already occurs outside of PAL we expect that, with protection, this should help facilitate further expansion of the population and that this range increase, particularly to the North, West and South beavers will mean that the relative proportion of the beaver population occurring on PAL, and the conflict and need for management as a result, will continue to decrease.

Given the above, together with the regulation of lethal control and translocations in PAL from 1st May and the significant reduction or cessation of control outside of these areas, we consider that this approach is unlikely to affect the overall viability of the population in the Tay and adjacent catchments and subsequently the expansion of this metapopulation. 

*we do note however that there is still potential for illegal control of beavers and we will work with the police and other enforcement agencies to help tackle this as with any other area of wildlife crime.

The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future

The range of the Tayside beaver population has expanded between the survey in 2012 and that of 2017/18. This includes the establishment of multiple beaver territories in the Forth catchment. There is no reason to suggest that this increasing trend in range will not continue, particularly as beaver populations move further away from areas of PAL and therefore where licensed control is more likely to take place. The legal protection now afforded to beavers will mean that control outside of PAL is likely to be much lower and may help in facilitating range expansion and this will be monitored. At the same time it is accepted that removal of animals in areas of PAL will to a degree create a ‘sink’ into which new dispersers will attempt to recolonize and may be subsequently removed to manage conflict. However, dispersal from populations would be expected to occur in multiple directions and across catchment boundaries and not just to areas of PAL. Since the publication of the 2017/18 survey new records of beavers are being reported that support this expectation.     

There is, and will probably continue to be, sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.

The suitability of habitats in Scotland for beavers is explored in some detail in NatureScot Commissioned report no. 875 which identified large areas of suitable habitat across Scotland including within the Tay catchment which is very suitable for beavers. There is nothing to suggest that the availability of suitable habitat for beavers is likely to be reduced.

Summary and ensuring an adaptive approach

We consider that the proposed approach to licensing on Prime Agricultural Land will not be detrimental to the improving trend of the conservation status of beavers in Scotland. We accept that in these areas beaver densities may be lower than elsewhere and sometimes locally absent. However, as the beaver population more widely continues to expand, the relative influence of control of animals on the limited area of land that is classified as PAL will be reduced.

Lethal control has been carried out unregulated in many of these areas (and beyond PAL) for many years, and despite this populations have increased rapidly (c. threefold between 2012 and 2017/18). We consider that regulated control through PAL licences, and significant reductions in lethal control on areas outside of PAL is unlikely to prevent the future increase and spread of the population.

With regulation we will be able to monitor the amount and location of both permitted and actual licensed lethal control. We will also continue to monitor the overall population through repeat surveys. In order to examine impacts in the shorter term we intend to use modelling techniques relying on our existing knowledge of population dynamics combined with licensing data and to ground-truth this with existing information. We will also ensure that we can capture new records of beavers to monitor range changes. We intend to assess these factors within the first year of protection being afforded in order to ensure that our approach remains appropriate.

Should any of this information indicate that the previously recorded trends in conservation status are being or likely to be compromised we will adapt approaches accordingly.    

Annex - Measures to minimise or avoid impacts by beavers1. Managing the impacts of dam-building

Measure	Likely to require derogation/licence?	Detail	Consideration of applicability/likelihood of success of approach on PAL
Do nothing	No	No intervention. Allow beavers and beaver activity to continue. Does not constitute an alternative as such – it does not address the need (i.e. to prevent serious damage)	Due to the nature of the land and the issues described above continued dam-building (and associated burrowing) is likely to lead in loss of productive and strategically important land or the ability to produce from it. This can also include damage to boundary fencing and cause problems for livestock, machinery, operatives and sometimes to the public.
Dam-notching	Yes – may require licence if could affect natal burrow or lodge that may be protected by it.	Dam-notching is the removal of a small section of a beaver dam to increase flow over that section and can allow a partial drop in the water-level behind that dam. It is usually used to lower water levels temporarily and is sometimes suggested to aid fish migration as a seasonal approach.	Dam-notching will often result in the dam being repaired within 48 hours (see p9 of Commissioned report no. 812) and have to be repeated time and time again at some expense and with the risk of more material (e.g. bankside trees) being gathered in order to maintain/rebuild dams. In addition, the ecological need to retain a certain level of water behind the dam (see below re. flow-devices), is likely to mean water depths that are still not ‘tolerable’ in terms of maintaining efficacy of drainage. This is therefore not seen as anything but a very short-term solution that is unlikely to resolve drainage issues caused by dams and subsequent damage. The exception to this may be in situations where there may be greater tolerance in terms of drainage but where dams are only causing issues during relatively exceptional or uncommonly high flows. Whilst we consider this unlikely on PAL we will explore opportunities where this may be applicable on a case-by-case basis.
Flow-devices	Yes – may require licence if could affect natal burrow or lodge that may be protected by it.	Flow devices are pipes that can be incorporated into dams to maintain a water level behind it that can avoid or minimise impacts on the surrounding land (e.g. raising of surrounding water level) whilst also suiting the animal’s ecological ‘need’ for the creation of the dam. Flow devices in particular can be particularly successful in these circumstances are used relatively commonly in other countries. A number have been implemented, including through our mitigation scheme, elsewhere in Scotland and have been successful. For a flow device to be successful it is likely to need c3ft of water to be maintained upstream of the dam (see. E.g. Living with Wildlife: Beavers, Link 2004).	On most areas of Prime Agricultural Land and in the drainage systems around them, the tolerance levels of water level increases are very low (in other words very small rises in water levels can cause disproportionate impacts in terms of backing up of field drains) and in most cases not able to tolerate the levels required for a flow device to work or that the existence of relatively long and similarly characterised drainage elsewhere within the property is likely to mean that beavers will also build dams elsewhere. Therefore we consider that the use of flow devices is not likely to be appropriate in most cases on PAL but will explore cases where the individual circumstances of the case (e.g. where there is a greater gradient or tolerance range of water-level) indicates that this may be possible in order to remove the need for removal of animals. As part of this we need to consider whether the implementation of flow-devices alone or in combination with other measures is likely to resolve any wider issues of damage. It is also important to note that the use of flow devices is often unlikely to prevent issues associated with burrowing.
Discouragement of dam building	Potentially - may require licence if original removal of dam could affect natal burrow or lodge that may be protected by it.	Discouragement of dam building using a variety of techniques has been used in the continent and has been tried where there are repeated attempts to dam at one particular location. They can be used once a dam has been taken down at that location to deter re-building.	The use of these measures in Europe has had mixed success. Where opportunities exist  for this approach (e.g. where single dam is causing a problem repeatedly) they will be trialled but in many cases the uniform nature of drainage ditches and burns across PAL means that it is extremely difficult to predict where new dams will be built and therefore installing such measures are unlikely to be successful.
Dam-removal	Yes – dam removal could affect natal burrow or lodge that may be protected by it. In addition, repeated removal of dams form area could constitute disturbance in terms of preventing animals from using/breeding in that area.	Dam removal can be carried out by hand or, more frequently, by machinery given the often large amount of material involved.	Dam removal is possible and has been carried out by many farmers at many locations and over many years. Dams are well constructed and removal is often time consuming and particularly so without use of machinery. A digger or other machinery can sometimes be used which can make it quicker but this can be expensive and time consuming, and the often deep depth of ditches on PAL can make this more difficult. There are also health and safety considerations about working on and using machinery around what are often steep and deep ditches or burns. Removal of dams is, in many cases, likely to only offer very short-term alleviation of problems. It is rarely a one-off activity and many farmers have to remove dams repeatedly as beavers continue to re-build them. NatureScot staff and contractors have seen many instances where dam removal has been carried out and new dams are repeatedly built. Beavers will often rebuild and fell/collect new material to build these dams which can exacerbate negative impacts. Some farmers in areas of PAL in the Tay catchment have removed over 50 dams from their land over recent years. Dam removal will generally permitted in licences where dam-building may cause serious damage. This will be subject to conditions as to how to carry out these actions sensitively. All applicants will be asked if dam removal alone would be sufficient but we accept that, on our current knowledge and in the vast majority of cases, this is unlikely to be successful. Where it has not been tried before or where (on the basis of a discussion with the applicant, background information we hold or from a site visit) there might be certain characteristics of the land that might make this possible licences can permit dam removal only as an alternative to lethal control. Note that ultimately continual dam removal could be seen as preventing beavers from using or breeding in that particular area
Water-gates / Exclusion	Yes – could be considered as affecting local distribution of animals	It may be possible to exclude beavers from particular burns and/or drainage systems using gates or grilles combined with terrestrial fences.	This is a relatively untried technique. These approaches can require planning permission, flood risk assessments, other regulatory permissions and can affect other protected species by acting as a barrier to their movement. This technique will only be viable in relatively ‘closed’ systems where re-colonisation by beavers is unlikely or reduced and will only be feasible on relatively small watercourses. They can also be very expensive. NatureScot is trialling 3 such cases on Prime Agricultural Land to gauge effectiveness and assess wider applicability. However currently it is not considered appropriate for wider application until we have the results of these trials. Where it is effective we anticipate it may offer a long-term solution in those locations.
Translocation	Yes – involves capture of animals	Capture and removal of animals from areas where their activities are causing or likely to cause serious damage. Practically, in order to do this it is likely to require removal of the family group as any animals left will still be able to cause damage. The practicalities of trapping will depend on characteristics of the site (e.g. the behaviour of the beavers, accessibility etc.) and there are significant welfare considerations to take into account.	Removal of animals will prevent them from causing or continuing to cause damage. This is likely to resolve or alleviate impacts in the medium term as over time new animals are likely to return to fill the space created and therefore further translocation or removal is likely to be required.  Translocation of animals that could otherwise be killed under licence is licensed separately from PAL licences. Trapping, transport and associated animal health requirements require specialist skills and equipment. We will licence suitably experienced persons for projects in line with our translocation policy to trap and remove beavers from land where they may otherwise be permitted to be controlled under licence. To do this we contact licence holders or applicants to arrange liaison with the translocation licence to assess suitability for trapping and, if appropriate, to trap animals. Translocation will have the same impact on the local population as lethal control in that it still involves the removal of animals from that population.
Lethal control	Yes	Removal of animals by lethal control from areas where their activities are causing or likely to cause serious damage can prevent them from causing damage (or further damage). Practically, in order to do this it is likely to require removal of the family group as any animals left will still be able to cause damage. As with translocation, lethal control may only present a temporary solution as new animals return to fill the space created by the removal of the existing animals.	Lethal control of animals will prevent them from causing or continuing to cause damage. This is likely to resolve or alleviate impacts in the medium term as over time new animals are likely to return to fill the space created and therefore further translocation or removal is likely to be required.

 

2. Managing the impacts of burrowing

Measure	Likely to require derogation/licence?	Description	Consideration of applicability of approach on PAL
Do nothing	No	No intervention. Allow beavers and beaver activity to continue. Does not constitute an alternative as such – it does not address the need (i.e. to prevent serious damage)	Due to the nature of the land and the issues described above continued burrowing is likely to lead in loss of productive and strategically important land or the ability to produce from it. This can also include damage to boundary fencing and cause problems for livestock, machinery, operatives and sometimes to the public. Because of the propensity for burrow collapse in this type of ground, there are repeated attempts to build new burrows. Burrow collapse leads to bank erosion and high sediment loading to the river.
Green-bank engineering	No	In some cases it may be possible to increase the resilience of the banks of susceptible water courses by additional planting, particularly of trees like willow or by other natural means of stabilising banks.	These are not particularly well-trialled techniques but are worthy of consideration. Approaches can be expensive and particularly so on longer stretches of banking. They may also take time to be able to be effective or to know if they are effective. Therefore we consider that it is most appropriate to trial a range of techniques and monitor effectiveness before considering them as a satisfactory alternative. As we learn from these trials we should be able to develop our understanding of whether or not they are satisfactory in different situations. Consideration also needs to be made of impacts upon agricultural production (i.e. loss of agricultural land) and land-use policy. May require reduction in beaver pressure prior to establishment. We will investigate and implement trials of these techniques and possibly in combination with other schemes
Re-alignment of flood-banks	No – unless likely to directly affect breeding sites or resting places	Where flood-banks may be threatened it is technically possible to realign them to take them outside of the zone of any potential beaver activity (i.e. by moving them further from the river bank).	Costs of doing so would be extremely high and would likely result in a significant loss of workable land. As such it is not considered as a satisfactory alternative.
Physical prevention	Yes as likely to require destruction or prevention of access to existing burrows.	It is technically possible to use hard-engineering techniques such as use of large rock and gabions to prevent beaver burrowing or to use buried weldmesh or similar.	If successful these techniques could provide long-term solutions. However, approaches are unlikely to be commercially, ecologically or hydrologically viable particularly when considering the generally long lengths of interface between PAL and watercourses that could be affected. A potential exception could be in situations where there are very localised and predictable impacts that would be unlikely to result in displacement of those impacts immediately up or downstream. Where there are opportunities for localised trials of such techniques they may be considered through the beaver mitigation scheme'
Water-gates/Exclusion	Yes – could be considered as affecting local distribution of animals	It may be possible to exclude beavers from particular burns and/or drainage systems using gates or grilles combined with terrestrial fences.	This is a relatively untried technique. These approaches can require planning permission, flood risk assessments, other regulatory permissions and can affect other protected species by acting as a barrier to their movement. This technique will only be viable in relatively ‘closed’ systems where re-colonisation by beavers is unlikely or reduced and will only be feasible on relatively small watercourses. They can also be very expensive. NatureScot is trialling 3 such cases on Prime Agricultural Land to gauge effectiveness and assess wider applicability. However currently it is not considered appropriate for wider application until we have the results of these trials. Where it is effective we anticipate it may offer a long-term solution in those locations.
Translocation	Yes	Capture and removal of animals from areas where their activities are causing or likely to cause serious damage. Practically, in order to do this it is likely to require removal of the family group as any animals left will still be able to cause damage. The practicalities of trapping will depend on characteristics of the site (e.g. the behaviour of the beavers, accessibility etc.) and there are significant welfare considerations to take into account.	Removal of animals will prevent them from causing or continuing to cause damage. This is likely to resolve or alleviate impacts in the medium term as over time new animals are likely to return to fill the space created and therefore further translocation or removal is likely to be required.  Translocation of animals that could otherwise be killed under licence is licensed separately from PAL licences. Trapping, transport and associated animal health requirements require specialist skills and equipment. We will licence suitably experienced persons for projects in line with our translocation policy to trap and remove beavers from land where they may otherwise be permitted to be controlled under licence. To do this we contact licence holders or applicants to arrange liaison with the translocation licence to assess suitability for trapping and, if appropriate, to trap animals. Translocation will have the same impact on the local population as lethal control in that it still involves the removal of animals from that population.
Lethal control	Yes	Removal of animals by lethal control from areas where their activities are causing or likely to cause serious damage can prevent them from causing damage (or further damage). Practically, in order to do this it is likely to require removal of the family group as any animals left will still be able to cause damage. As with translocation, lethal control may only present a temporary solution as new animals return to fill the space created by the removal of the existing animals.	Lethal control of animals will prevent them from causing or continuing to cause damage. This is likely to resolve or alleviate impacts in the medium term as over time new animals are likely to return to fill the space created and therefore further translocation or removal is likely to be required.

 

Contact