Minutes of the Scottish Beaver Forum
Scottish Beaver Forum meeting minutes - 12 January 2022
FINAL MINUTES
Attendees:
Denise Reed - (Chair) NatureScot
Donald Fraser NatureScot
Ben Baron National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS)
Jenny Bryce NatureScot
Roisin Campbell-Palmer (consultant)
Nonie Coulthard Scottish Wild Beaver Group
Hugh Dignon Scottish Government (SG)
Colin Edwards Scottish Forestry (SF)
Martin Gaywood NatureScot
Simon Jones Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority
Martin Kennedy National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS)
Kenny Kortland Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS)
Kate Maitland National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS)
Scot Mathieson Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).
Karen Ramoo Scottish Land and Estates (SLE)
Sarah Robinson Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT)
David Summers Tay Salmon District Fisheries Board
Helen Taylor Royal Zoological Society Scotland (RZSS)
Alan Wells Fisheries Management Scotland (FMS)
Introductions
Donald Fraser was introduced and will take on the Chair of the Forum when Denise Reed retires from NatureScot in March.
It was noted at the start of the meeting that NFUS had requested a replacement representative to cover staff illness and consequently had three representatives in attendance.
Updates
It was noted that the group had not met since June 2021 as NatureScot wanted to wait until there were decisions from SG on any policy shifts. During the last 6 months there had been a lot of things happening; a review of beaver licensing, publication of the Beaver Management Report for 2020, the 2020/21 survey published, the Judicial Review ruling and a change in Scottish Government’s policy on translocations. Hence many actions from previous meetings were now overtaken.
Licencing review - An update was provided on beaver licensing. The licensing approach had been reviewed during the Kit Dependency Period summer 2021 and changes subsequently made to licences including that licences are no longer applicable in the Kit Dependency Period and that Codes of Practice have been developed to accompany licences as detailed in the Beaver Management Report published in August 2020. Following on from the Judicial Review ruling all licenses now include a Statement of Reasons which reflects on how the 3 licensing tests have been applied to individual licences.
New AP 1 Members requested to see an example of a Statement of Reason (noting these are specific to a licence that is issued) and the Codes of Practice accompanying licences.
Argaty reinforcement translocation - NatureScot are planning to review lessons learned from considering the Argaty translocation licence. Members noted they felt this would be helpful; reiterating the importance of the consultation process and that more guidance for applicants would be helpful on the scope of the consultation process.
New AP 2 Any other written comments on this process from members are invited by 25th January and will be taken account of in a NatureScot meeting scheduled for 27th.
It was clarified that the Minister’s comments on streamlining translocation projects were not regarding the consultation process, but rather how projects are assessed and then implemented.
National Strategy – An update was provided with workshops planned for early February and late February/early March with the organising committee comprising four SBF members, NatureScot and an IUCN facilitator. The first workshop will look at the long term vision and the second workshop will look at short/medium terms actions.
There was some discussion around the purpose of the National Strategy; being to provide a more strategic approach to inform policy, management, mitigation and resourcing.
New AP 3 Members requested to see a full list of the organisations that had been invited to participate.
Those attending will represent their members and hence may canvas some views in advance. It was suggested that interests that have not been involved in SBF to date would not have the same knowledge. Papers are to be shared in advance to try and bring everyone to a good level of knowledge and it is the IUCN role to ensure all voices are heard and informed.
In defining “low conflict” areas it was suggested consideration needs to be given to all sectors, not just land management, and over long timescales e.g. some fisheries impacts may not emerge until beavers are well established in some catchments. This phrase is perhaps unhelpful and should be replaced or clarified.
Interim approach to new beaver translocation policy
The new SG policy was introduced noting the aims are likely to be broadly welcomed, but recognising there may be some nervousness about what this means in practice. NatureScot had drafted a paper setting out our thinking on practical implementation of the policy shift as an interim approach ahead of reviewing the guidance in full. NatureScot intend to publish this interim guidance so it is publically available to meet demand for questions on this policy. It was noted the National Strategy discussions are about to get underway and it is important that the outcomes are not prejudged. It is anticipated the National Strategy will examine future scenarios and this should help inform where the greatest benefits from translocations will arise and where translocations would not be desirable.
New AP 4 Any additional comments on this interim guidance are invited by 31st January after which it would be added to the NatureScot website.
It was noted that this presents significant areas of development over the coming months in addition to developing the National Strategy:
- To review all the guidance in the Beaver Management Framework in consultation with SBF
- To engage with licence holders to remove the barriers to using trapping in place of lethal control wherever possible
- To scope if there are projects that are not dependent on a National Strategy vision that could start to be developed, e.g. to reinforce existing populations or assist dispersal where there are artificial barriers, noting these would still require an appropriate level of consultation and engagement.
It was commented that the views of a wide range of stakeholders need to be heard through the National Strategy workshops; that mitigation for the people bearing the costs needs to be in place prior to considering new areas; that mitigation is defined to narrowly and should encompass all sectors. Trapping was suggested to be a short/medium term approach whilst there are suitable receptor sites and hence the need for lethal approaches down the line should not be overlooked.
There was broad support for seeking well developed strategic applications rather than looking to see projects go ahead quickly. The paper could be strengthened in this area and SG supported that there is no pressure from Ministers to see projects go ahead in advance of the National Strategy being in place.
SG highlighted that mitigation will remain a key part of NatureScot’s activity over the coming years and there has been a commitment to long-term for support mitigation measures as part of NatureScot’s mainstream work. Hence there is already clear Parliamentary support for mitigation.
Noting the concerns raised regarding the adequacy of mitigation.
New AP 5 NatureScot to follow up with FMS, NFUS and SLE and explore the perceptions around effectiveness of the mitigation scheme and if there are specific examples.
Trapping and release programme 2021
An update was provided on trapping levels in 2021, with more licence holders being willing to explore the use of trapping and those that have, reflecting that it has been a useful approach; and is being carried out to a high standard.
It was suggested it would be good to hear from farmers that have engaged with trapping e.g. case studies, but it was appreciated there are sensitivities here.
Staff resources and holding facilities have been increased and capacity could be increased further if there is demand. There is no immediate lack of release sites with ongoing demand for beavers for projects in England, however, the availability of release sites in Scotland could allow greater use of trapping as a mitigation tool; whilst recognising that many areas where beavers are removed will be recolonised.
New AP 6 NatureScot to explore with licence trappers and land managers individually their constraints on trapping with a view to further reducing the need for lethal control.
Mitigation updates
Water-gate projects
These projects have not yet gone ahead due to a range of complex issues affecting delivery. A paper had been circulated to highlight that there has been a lot of work ongoing to develop 3 trial projects. These are proving to be much more complicated than originally anticipated. The original spacing on a water gate proposed to exclude a beaver was 150mm, but following advice from enclosure projects in England this has been reduced to 100m. A 100m spacing could present problems for fish passage and so additional checks on the presence of salmonids are taking place where gates are proposed. Ground checking has also highlighted that additional structures may be required to defend catchments from beaver incursion via alternative watercourses. However, assessing the area and value of land potentially protected by water gates has also been part of the evaluation process and although likely to be expensive to install and maintain, they may still provide value for money and reduce the need for ongoing lethal control. Hence the costs have not been viewed as prohibitive in progressing these projects.
There was some discussion of the grill spacing and importance for salmonids of varying sizes. It was reported the trend in recent years have been for fewer but larger multi-season salmon likely due to changes at sea and hence the importance of allowing as many fish to spawn as possible. It was suggested that in general the smaller the burn the less likely it is to be used by large salmon (e.g. the Balloch burn was more likely to be used by sea trout).
The need to keep the wider community informed about progress with these projects was noted. It was suggested the water gates could present an opportunity to trial a range of grill sizes with regards fish passage.
The importance of maintenance was noted, with autumn to early winter being a critical time for fish. NatureScot agreed that secure/ safe arrangements need to be in place for clearing debris from water gates where these are installed and that water level sensors were planned to alert to raised water levels.
Technical Sub-groups
It was noted that of the three technical sub-groups (environmental support, riparian woodland and burrowing) the NatureScot focus this year has been on progressing the work of the burrowing sub-group. A paper has recently been shared with the group setting out the proposed approach for working with land managers to identify trial sites and developing management proposals.
Future Rural Support
An internal NatureScot paper had been circulated prior to the meeting which listed the AECS and SFG options currently available that could be used in situations where there are land-use conflicts with beavers; principally by ‘making space for nature’. NatureScot staff had been seeking to explore if tweaks to the current measures could help to improve uptake in such situations. We understand the 2021-24 transition period from EU to wholly domestic funding and legislation is now likely to extend until 2025 when the new Agricultural legislation will likely be laid. In practice this means that it is difficult to make significant changes to AECS until the new legislation is in place. Land managers with beavers will be able to access the existing range of support mechanisms and Ministers have committed to AECS being open for annual funding rounds until 2025 so there is now that certainty that will enable people to think through a proposal.
New AP 7 NatureScot will produce a summary of existing SRDP options that can be promoted and circulated to land managers and their agricultural advisors.
There is also a need to continue work to influence the new scheme/ outcomes / support for public goods and how they can be measured. It was recognised there are other forms of mitigation that do not lend themselves to the current SRDP options and would likely need to continue to be supported from mitigation project funds.
It was asked what assurances could be given to land managers seeking to apply to AECS: unfortunately none as it is a competitive scheme.
Scottish Forestry outlined the SNP manifesto commitment to woodlands having a greater role in flood prevention with discussions ongoing between the agencies as to how this can be taken forward. Again there is not scope to change SFG options as they currently exist but wider review of support is expected to take place for 2024.
New AP 8 Scottish Forestry to keep the group updated on progress with these discussions.
Research and monitoring
A publication commissioned by CREW on beavers and physical processes authored by the University of Aberdeen is expected to be published in the next week.
University of Newcastle are continuing work on the beaver population model, now informed by the 2020/21 survey. It is expected to help inform future planning and is hoped to be used in National Strategy planning workshops. There are also plans for a desk based tool to inform operational decisions.
Work is also ongoing by the University of the Highlands and Islands with beavers on an enclosed site looking at gaps in our knowledge regarding their impact on hydrological processes. Trialling of LiDAR is proving to be a very interesting technique for measuring such changes.
Kelsey Wilson is writing up her PhD on the interaction between beavers and deer in woodlands and it remains an action to invite her to a future meeting to present her findings once completed.
Due to Covid restrictions, the NatureScot benefits of beavers graduate placement had focussed on communicating the benefits including developing an App where the public can view and interpret the presence of beavers.
AOB.
A letter had been sent to the Minister (Michael Matheson) on behalf of FMS, NFUS, SLE, RZSS, SWT regarding the need for long term management of beaver impacts. As we learn to live with beavers assurances are being sought that those being impacted will not suffer financially. The letter seeks public support for the lost opportunity costs attributed to land and fisheries managers.
NatureScot outlined there is a balance of expectation to be struck that will evolve as beavers move into new areas. With land management comes a responsibility for wildlife management, but there is a balance to be struck with public support. NatureScot and SG reiterated that a commitment to continued funding of a mitigation scheme had been made.
It was requested that an overview be provided of the role/interplay of the developing National Strategy, the Beaver Management Framework and the Scottish Beaver Forum. It was suggested this would form part of the National Strategy development with some discussion on the future role and form of the Forum likely to be part of this.
Outstanding actions from previous meetings
Actions from 17th June 2021
AP 1 NatureScot to convene another meeting of the ‘Benefits of beavers’ stakeholder group after the 2020/21 survey is published (and associated outputs including dam capacity modelling and recommendations for potential translocation sites within or on the edge of natural range). Overtaken by National Strategy and new translocation policy.
NatureScot is continuing with projects under the umbrella ‘benefits of beavers’, as reported in item 6. Work has also been progresses looking at using an App to help the public visit and interpret beaver sites with existing open access.
AP 2 FLS to engage with graduate placement project. Overtaken. Placement now concluded.
AP 3 Any further comments on the draft guidance documents are to be provided to NatureScot by correspondence. Overtaken to be revised.
AP 4 NatureScot to offer a short meeting of the Scottish Beaver Forum timed to coincide with the publication of the survey and beaver management reports. Overtaken.
Actions from 17th Dec 2020
AP 5 NatureScot to follow up with NFUS and SLE on the previously discussed idea for a blog describing some of the land management impacts. Carried.
Actions from 24th September 2020
AP 2 A copy of Technical sub-group membership to be circulated to the Forum. Overtaken.
Actions from 30th June 2020
AP6 NatureScot to review web guidance on translocations. Overtaken
Scottish Beaver Forum meeting minutes - 17 June 2021
DRAFT MINUTES
Attendees:
Denise Reed - (Chair) NatureScot
Jenny Bryce NatureScot
Roisin Campbell-Palmer (consultant)
Hugh Dignon Scottish Government (SG)
Colin Edwards Scottish Forestry (SF)
Martin Gaywood NatureScot
Simon Jones Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority
Martin Kennedy National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS)
Kenny Kortland, Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS)
Cristin Lambert NatureScot
Kate Maitland National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS)
Scot Mathieson Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
James Nairne Scottish Wild Beaver Group
Karen Ramoo Scottish Land and Estates (SLE)
Sarah Robinson Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT)
David Summers Tay Salmon District Fisheries Board
Helen Taylor Royal Zoological Society Scotland (RZSS)
Alan Wells Fisheries Management Scotland (FMS)
Apologies:
Julie Holmes (SEPA)
Potential beaver benefits projects
NatureScot updated on new research that is planned to study the physical processes relating to beaver dams at an existing enclosure site. NatureScot’s graduate placement is also looking to document and provide examples of where beaver benefits are being observed in the wild, with a view to setting up some simple monitoring/ citizen science projects. Other members offered to suggest sites that could be included.
It was suggested any such research should be objective in assessing positive and negative impacts.
New AP 1: NatureScot to convene another meeting of the ‘Benefits of beavers’ stakeholder group after the 2020/21 survey is published (and associated outputs including dam capacity modelling and recommendations for potential translocation sites within or on the edge of natural range).
New AP 2: FLS to engage with graduate placement project.
Members noted that they were already thinking about potential within range translocation sites.
National Beaver Strategy
The IUCN Conservation Planning specialist Group have been invited by NatureScot to facilitate the co-production of a beaver strategy with the SBF and in consultation with other stakeholders. Jamie Copsey, Director of Training at the IUCN CSPG, presented to the group, setting out the participatory process they use which helps with developing effective plans. The principles of the shared approach were outlined.
The timeframe for developing the strategy was discussed. The effort of developing such a strategy justifies a long-term vision and different scenarios for population increase and range expansion, including new populations. A first workshop is proposed for the autumn, with a second likely in the winter with a view to producing a strategy by next spring.
Management Framework and additional
NatureScot had circulated two draft guidance documents prior to the meeting for comment:
Mitigation scheme review
Translocations – guidance for consultees
Mitigation Scheme – review
- This paper reviewed the operation of the mitigation scheme which has been in place for two years. It includes proposals for improving internal process, need for additional resources and improved communication of the scheme to land managers.
- It was suggested it is not simple to define limits to what help is available under the scheme as there will inevitably be site specific circumstances and expectations will vary regarding what mitigation is appropriate. Management Agreements are produced to clarify the arrangements for more significant works.
- It was suggested we are still in a period when beaver mitigation requires specialist advice and we are still building our understanding of costs and efficacy. But in the longer term beavers could become part of a wider suite of wildlife/ land management approaches.
Translocation guidance
This has been drafted at the request of SBF members to provide reassurance to land and fisheries managers how beaver translocation proposals will be handled by the licencing arm of NatureScot and how they should engage with the process. It aims to supplement the Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations that details the process to be followed by applicants.
Both documents were broadly welcomed.
New AP 3: Any further comments on the draft guidance documents are to be provided to NatureScot by correspondence.
Review of beaver licensing
In 2019 when beaver licences were introduced, NatureScot undertook to review the licencing process after two years of operation. NS has now carried out a comprehensive review of the licensing processes/ the wording of licence conditions, compliance and also of individual licences. Many licences have expired and need to be renewed to remain current.
Licence conditions have been reviewed to improve clarity and enforcement. There is now clearer separation of ‘Musts’ as licence conditions and ‘Shoulds as good practice set out in a new separate Codes of Practice on lethal control and on dam removal. Adherence to these Codes will be a condition of new licences.
Options for different arrangements around the Kit Dependency Period were presented to the Forum. It was noted that there had been good observance of the KDP with no instances of lethal control having been carried out at this time, but that the notifications and clarity around the circumstances that had required dam removal were not operating satisfactorily. Hence two options were being considered, i. that licences no longer cover the kit dependency period and a separate exceptional licence would be required for any actions during this period or ii. that the licence remains year round, but that permission is required from NatureScot prior to taking action during the KDP. It was noted that in both options, NatureScot would need to be able to respond quickly where there were exceptional circumstances that required quick action. SBF members agreed the first option of requiring an exceptional licence during the KDP was the preferred option; provided there were re-assurances around NatureScot being able to respond quickly.
In reviewing individual licences, NatureScot have considered compliance, any mitigation that may have taken place since licences were first issued and a number of site visits have been carried out to assess the ongoing need for licences. Consequently we have updated our assessment of the licencing tests for individual licences prior to issuing renewals. We aim to issue renewals from the end of July and prior to the KDP.
There was discussion of reports of illegal killing and it was noted these need to be reported to PoliceScotland for them to be properly logged and investigated.
Updates
Fish Research meeting - Beaver dams and salmonids
A UK wide meeting had been convened by the Atlantic Salmon Trust involving fisheries conservation NGOS and fisheries managers. There was agreement that to move the debate forward, there is a need for more research into the impacts of beavers on fish passage. There had been discussion of the methods, all of which are contingent on having access to unmodified dams and willing land managers to facilitate such studies. Once there is an agreed protocol, funding sources can be sought, potentially from DEFRA and Marine Scotland. It was suggested the research should be viewed as independent from fisheries interests, with NatureScot/ SEPA leading.
From a practical perspective, it was suggested there could be means of alleviating concerns about leaving dams in place for example by trapping, stripping eggs and rearing fish in a hatchery. It was noted that North American researchers may have some advice on practical approaches. It was suggested that if provided with the aims, objectives and timescales for this work, fisheries and land management organisations could approach their members to be involved.
The potential to trial fish boxes/ flow device designs incorporating fish passage was also suggested.
Forthcoming research from University of Southampton on an enclosed site was discussed; which focuses on brown trout; recognising they have different habitat preferences to salmon.
CREW project
Scottish Government via CREW have commissioned a review of the impacts of beavers on physical processes. This is being carried out by a team lead by the University of Aberdeen. The report will include measures of certainty and gaps in our knowledge. It is expected to be published in late August.
Judicial Review
It was noted that a Judicial Review had been held into NatureScot’s issuing of protected species licences for beavers. The hearing took place over two days in early June and is expected to report within 3 months.
Mitigation Scheme
The mitigation scheme is ongoing and a summary would be included in the forthcoming Beaver Management Report.
It was noted there had been some delays in the progress of the Technical-Sub groups due to NatureScot staff resources. Kirsten Brewster is the new full time SB Mitigation Scheme Project Officer and will be focussing on moving these groups forward; to identify potential solutions and engage landowner support for hosting trials.
2020/21 Beaver Survey
The survey report is currently being independently reviewed and is expected to be published at the end of July.
Beaver Management Report
NatureScot is preparing a report on beaver management (survey, mitigation, licensing) in 2020 and aims to publish this at the same time as the survey report. It was proposed that an extra meeting of the Scottish Beaver Forum be organised immediately prior to the publication of these reports to share the results with the group ahead of them being publically available.
New AP 4: NatureScot to offer a short meeting of the Scottish Beaver Forum timed to coincide with the publication of the survey and beaver management reports.
Minutes of previous meeting and Action points
Actions from 11th March 2021
AP 1 NatureScot agreed it would be helpful to produce some guidance for consultees setting out the application of the SCCT. Discharged.
AP 2 NatureScot to seek an update on beavers around Beauly from Area colleagues.
Ongoing. Area colleagues advised of recent discussions with the Fisheries Trust, recent reports of beavers and had agreed that NatureScot would look to gain an up to date assessment of the number of territories after the Tayside survey work has been completed.
AP 3 All to consider communications around PMs for the next meeting. Discharged.
NatureScot had passed on the correspondence sent to licence holders explaining the reasons why this was important to land management interests. Others considered this also needed to be communicated directly with controllers. A number of meetings with NatureScot Wildlife Management Officers and accredited controllers are being arranged to discuss best practice and develop greater trust around how this information will be used.
Actions from 17th Dec 2020
AP 5 NatureScot to follow up with NFUS and SLE on the previously discussed idea for a blog describing some of the land management impacts. Carried.
AP 6 NatureScot to follow up with NFUS/SLE to encourage controllers to submit carcasses for PM. Discharged.
Actions from 24th September 2020
AP 2 A copy of Technical sub-group membership to be circulated to the Forum. Carried.
Actions from 30th June
AP6 NatureScot to review web guidance on translocations. Carried.
Date of next meeting:
New AP 5 - NatureScot to canvas for dates for a next meeting in September.
Scottish Beaver Forum meeting minutes - 11 March 2021
FINAL MINUTES
Attendees:
Denise Reed - (Chair) NatureScot
Alan Bell Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority
Jenny Bryce NatureScot
Roisin Campbell-Palmer Consultant
Colin Edwards Scottish Forestry (SF)
Martin Gaywood NatureScot
Kenny Kortland, Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS)
Sarah Robinson Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT)
Martin Kennedy National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS)
Kate Maitland National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS)
James Nairne Scottish Wild Beaver Group
Karen Ramoo Scottish Land and Estates (SLE)
David Summers Tay Salmon District Fisheries Board
Helen Taylor Royal Zoological Society Scotland (RZSS)
Alan Wells Fisheries Management Scotland (FMS)
Liz McLachlan NatureScot (for item 1)
Farmer
Apologies:
Hugh Dignon (HD) Scottish Government (SG)
Scot Mathieson, Julie Holmes and Graham Henderson, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).
Beaver Translocations
The ongoing beaver survey being carried out by the University of Exeter in the forth and Tay catchments would include an assessment of the suitability/unsuitability of sites for translocations (from a biological perspective) which would help to guide future proposals.
Any beaver conservation translocation in Scotland would be expected to follow The Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations (SCCT). This is based on growing international experience (IUCN republished in 2013). Published in 2014, it is considered an international exemplar of best practice and covers reintroductions, population reinforcement, conservation and management translocations. The SCCT Form is designed to lead anyone considering a translocation through the process for assessing the risks and benefits and it doubles as the licence application form.
A licence would be required for the trapping, transport and possession (under CNHR 1994) of wild beavers and any releases of beavers in Scotland (under W&CA1981). The Code also provides a framework for assessing the licensing tests.
There was discussion of the degree of consultation required and with which sectors and the consideration in NatureScot’s assessment given to the conservation status of other species. It was outlined that there is no one size fits all process, that the consultation needs to be specific to the proposal, focusing on those most likely to be affected and that other species affected are taken into account by NatureScot through the risk assessment, which would involve seeking specialist advice on affected interests. Scottish Beavers reflected that the process for the Knapdale reinforcement was very thorough and they encouraged a proportionate approach for other applications; that some of the approach was now established; whilst recognising the need to consult with stakeholders to ensure that projects would be successful.
A farmer had been invited to present his proposal for the release of beavers to suitable wetlands on his farm to the Forum. This would provide him with the opportunity: to seek feedback on the proposal from the Forum and for the Forum to explore the processes around determining such an application.
It was outlined that the proposal originated from the general ethos of making space for wildlife on a working farm and from the desire to provide opportunities to move beavers from conflict areas in Scotland, as an alternative to lethal control. It was felt there would be other benefits in terms of biodiversity, water storage and carbon. Territorial beavers are nearby (on the Forth catchment) and could be expected to colonise naturally in the next few years. Their consultation process was outlined and a flavour of the feedback received so far was given. Whilst the feedback has been largely positive some neighbouring land managers have raised concerns including potential agricultural impacts, the potential for greater constraints on land management activities from having a protect species present and impacts on heritage trees. An application to NatureScot is expected to be submitted once the consultation is complete.
NFUS have set out their opposition to further translocations until mitigation has been shown to work, but welcomed the discussion. Others highlighted the urgency for climate and biodiversity actions and the opportunity presented by such projects for monitoring; for example to examine fisheries issues.
It was proposed that some communications could be developed for consultees who may not be sighted on the process; how they can make their views know and to clarify the position on support for mitigation where they may be impacted by a licensing decision.
NatureScot re-affirmed that the existing mitigation scheme in place would apply and as this case could provide learning opportunities, will offer to visit the affected neighbours to look at what mitigation might be appropriate.
New AP 1: NatureScot agreed it would be helpful to produce some guidance for consultees setting out the application of the SCCT.
Updates on Mitigation
A table of indicative mitigation costs for some measures had been circulated with the agenda. It was suggested the order reflected those methods that are most tried and tested (tree protection and flow devices) and potentially increasing costs.
The Mitigation Scheme Project Officer role is to be made full time (to be advertised shortly) and would be refocused on trialling some of the innovative approaches that have yet to be trialled, such as water gates and supporting trials being developed by the technical sub-groups. NatureScot are considering options for future delivery of their mitigation service and intend to see more of the tried and tested work being delivered under contract or by volunteers. The future provision of advice and management interventions would be set up as a framework so potentially multiple suppliers could provide different aspects.
The excellent service currently received by NatureScot from their call-of contract was noted.
There was a request for greater clarify around delivery of the NatureScot mitigation scheme which had been a commitment from the Cabinet Secretary. It was felt the description on the NatureScot website is hard to find and could be misleading. It was also noted that future plans for supporting mitigation and management (including the costs of monitoring for impacts) are uncertain and Non-governmental members of the Form indicated they would plan to raise with Scottish Government the need for long-term funding for mitigation and management. It was suggested the decision to allow beavers to remain in Scotland was taken on the basis that there would be benefits to Scotland, whilst accepting that management would be required. Hence if the public benefits from the reintroduction of beavers, it is also reasonable that the public should pay for the management and mitigation that follows.
There was some discussion particularly around tree protection as to expectations on NatureScot and on land managers; as the beaver range expands and noting that it is not desirable to protect all trees but only those of high value. The interaction with deer management in promoting coppice re-growth and the bigger picture in terms of riparian woodland management and creation were mentioned.
It was suggested that concerns around translocation proposals could largely be addressed by assurances there would be continued availability of support for mitigation costs.
NFUS restated that mitigation should not be funded from agri-environment support. NatureScot offered that management for/of beavers could be part or climate mitigation measures, including wetland creation, riparian planting.
It was clarified there is not a specific riparian planting grant, but existing management (WIP) and creation grants could be utilised. Noting some clarity was needed on how beaver impacts would be viewed on woodland creation projects; with parallels to views of impacts on ‘favourable condition’.
It was agreed to return to this topic at the next meeting for more discussion.
Technical sub-Groups update
The Riparian Woodland and Burrowing sub-groups had met in January. The Environmental Support sub-group is seeking to set out how the work of this group can progress ahead of securing funding of trials, but noting that NatureScot intend to pursue this as a priority. NatureScot aims to develop an outline approach to take to that sub-group.
The Riparian sub-group had focussed on considering what elements would be helpful to comprise a toolbox for woodland managers in the presence of beavers or in areas that beavers may expand into. Including:
- Monitoring methods
- Grants/funding opportunities
- Guidance – seek to integrate rather than beaver specific.
- Mitigation resources (how to, costs, advice).
- Communications e.g. on the evidence/ experience of managing woodlands with beavers.
The group are collectively to contribute ideas via shared document storage. It is anticipated much of this will be existing guidance but would be signposted via ‘a toolbox’. Gaps will then be explored.
The Burrowing group had agreed the focus would be on developing practical mitigation trials. The discussion had recognised that there was some need to first understand the issues and potential solutions in a Scottish context; river size, gradient, substrates etc; and that impacts have already to some extent been documented and hence there are existing candidates for case studies. Is likely that the River Restoration Centre and other expertise within the group would be sought on appropriates techniques. Funding would need to be sourced once proposals for trials are developed and where supported by the land managers.
Ongoing Tay and Forth beaver survey
An update was provided on survey coverage with the field work now completed. It was noted the field signs on Loch Lomond indicated beaver ‘dispersal’ rather than had established a breeding territory. It was noted the results will indicate the minimum number of territories and distribution. A final report is due in July.
The current position with respect to the Beauly beavers has been queried by the local fisheries management board.
New AP 2: NatureScot to seek an update on beavers around Beauly from Area colleagues.
Fisheries management group update
It was suggested the Forth was potentially a better catchment to look at beaver/ fisheries issues and discussions have been taking place about moving this forward and what work would be needed and who needs to be involved. It was noted there has also been discussion around the advice submitted to DEFRA in England.
National Beaver Strategy – Martin Gaywood
The IUCN Conservation Planning Specialist group are available to facilitate this work. NatureScot have drafted an outline starting from first principles to engage over the scope.
This is to be circulated by correspondence and aims to gather some momentum.
Communications
At the last meeting it had been agreed that the minutes would now be produced in such a way that they can be published. Hence the draft minutes from December would be recirculated for approval prior to publishing and we would aim to agree draft minutes and then publish going forward with a relatively quick turn-around so that up to date information can be shared with wider interests.
Terms of Reference for Forum
It was recognised the purpose of the group is evolving as the range of beavers expands. The group currently has a mix of local/national representation. There is some expectation that those attending would liaise with others in their sector; whether there are beavers present at the moment or may be in the future in order to be pro-active.
SF highlighted that they do not represent private forestry interest and asked if Confor should be invited to the Forum or the Riparian Woodland sub-group.
Minutes of last meeting and Actions arising
Actions from 17th Dec 2021
AP 1 NatureScot to instigate development of the Strategy and circulate papers in advance of an initial workshop.
Carried
In hand
AP 2 NatureScot to make stronger statement encouraging interested parties to start to develop conservation projects.
Discharged
Will be included in covering email with minutes to be circulated.
AP 3 NatureScot to include SEPA in further discussions of beaver benefits.
Dropped
Given
AP 4 NatureScot to provide more detail on the process for considering beaver translocation licensing/proposals under SCCT at a future Forum meeting.
Discharged
On agenda
AP 5 NatureScot to follow up with NFUS and SLE on the previously discussed idea for a blog describing some of the land management impacts.
Carried
AP 6 NatureScot to follow up with NFUS/SLE to encourage controllers to submit carcasses for PM.
Carried
Actions from 24th Sept 2020
AP 1. For all to comment on the existing terms of reference and propose revisions.
Discharged
AP 2 A copy of Technical sub-group membership to be circulated to the Forum.
Carried
AP 5 It was suggested that a specific session on fisheries resource management could be organised involving FMS, DSFBs, representation from appropriate SEPA teams and NatureScot specialists.
Discharged
FMS to agree session content and attendees with NatureScot.
Actions from 30th June 2020
AP2 NatureScot to invite PhD students to a future meeting to present their results.
Dropped
Given
AP6 NatureScot to review web guidance on translocations.
Carried
Discussion
It was noted that this issue of beaver post mortems required some careful communications setting out to controllers and licence holders why it is important to carry out and be transparent with respect to PMs and why the public should not interfere with licenced control in order to help rebuild trust.
New AP 3 All to consider communications around PMs for the next meeting.
Items arising for the agenda for the next meeting:
National Strategy
Mitigation Scheme
DONM Thursday 17th June 2- 4.30 pm
Scottish Beaver Forum meeting minutes - 17 December 2020
FINAL MINUTES
Attendees:
Denise Reed (DR) - (Chair) NatureScot
Jenny Bryce (JB) NatureScot
Roisin Campbell-Palmer (consultant)
Hugh Dignon (HD) Scottish Government (SG)
Colin Edwards (CE) Scottish Forestry (SF)
Martin Gaywood (MG) NatureScot
Sarah Robinson (SR) Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT)
Martin Kennedy (MK) National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS
Kate Maitland (KM) National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS)
Scot Mathieson Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
James Nairne (JN) Scottish Wild Beaver Group
Karen Ramoo (KR) Scottish Land and Estates (SLE)
David Summers (DS) Tay Salmon District Fisheries Board
Helen Taylor (HT) Royal Zoological Society Scotland (RZSS)
Alan Wells (AW) Fisheries Management Scotland (FMS)
Apologies:
Kenny Kortland, Forestry and Land Scotland, Julie Holmes and Graham Henderson, SEPA.
2020/21 beaver survey
A map of survey coverage to date was shared, indicating the survey is now ¾ complete. Surveyors have avoided high water levels as field signs would be missed and hence have initially focused on the outer edges of the outline range. Further survey is still to be carried out along parts of the Forth, Fife and lower Tay.
The general observation from survey done to date is of expansion towards the north and west with the main expansions being along the Rivers Dochart and Lyon, in the Trossachs, Angus Glens and on the Forth, with no observed signs on the South Esk. It was noted there are also areas with fewer signs than previous, possibly linked to control and other areas of increased signs linked to possible infilling of territories. It was outlined that the survey includes field signs of all ages but with a focus on establishing active territories.
Beaver National Strategy
NatureScot outlined plans to engage the IUCN Conservation Planning Specialist group as a neutral facilitator to develop the Strategy and they have confirmed they are available to do this.
SBF were assured they would be involved in setting the scope, but with a view to the strategy having a national focus.
New AP 1 NatureScot to instigate development of the Strategy and circulate papers in advance of an initial workshop.
Via CREW – Scotland’s Centre for Expertise for Water, NatureScot have commissioned a review of the hydrological and geomorphological effects of beavers with a view to informing policy on the delivery of ecosystem services. This is due to report in the summer.
Mitigation scheme
There continues to be high levels of demand for advice and management. There had been 38 site visits since October, some sites with multiple visits. 2 additional flow devices had been installed and follow up was continuing on most of the other sites with flow devices as they require monitoring and management. Dam notching has been carried out on several sites, tree protection on many and exclusion fencing installed on 1 site. There has been delays to a water gate installed due to vfm concerns. Tendering for this, and three other water gates is being progressed. There is pressure from the Forum to see progress on this mitigation measure. Winter tree planting is planned on a number of sites. It was confirmed that all requests for advice had been followed up and advice given or a site visit carried out, but it was noted that most sites ‘remain on the books’ and require follow up and hence it was not necessarily a case of regarding them as completed.
Technical sub-groups
The three groups; Riparian woodland, Burrowing; and Environmental Support had all met recently with good engagement, including representation from England. Given the hiatus since the first meetings and the changes in membership, the groups were more or less starting from scratch. Further meetings are currently being scheduled.
Riparian woodland – 1/10/2020 – Agreed that the scope should be broad in terms of beaver woodland interactions with a view to providing a ‘tool box’ for woodland managers to manage the impacts of beavers, build resilience and/or improve habitats for beavers.
Burrowing - 5/11/2020. Agreed the focus should be on developing case studies and mitigation approaches. Was discussed that it would be useful to share experience of what has been tried elsewhere and agreed a presentation on this for the next meeting. Considered it would be useful to get the perspective of SEPA and LAs on natural flood management and flood defences.
Environmental Support Measures 12/11/2020 Agreed the scope was to explore how beaver mitigation and support for the delivery of environmental goods by beavers could be integrated with future rural support. There had been discussion around the spatial targeting of payments and that the impacts and benefits were often not in the same locations. It was discussed that there is potential to trial pilot areas (POBAS type approach) for the types of measures that could be supported. There had been discussion of a training event for farm advisors based on existing advice and mitigation approaches.
Discussion
The Forum was keen to see real progress on these issues. NatureScot have set up these meetings but it is hoped that others will help drive them forward.
There were some concerns about the potential future form of funding for beaver impacts and benefits, the long-term requirement for mitigation and that support payments could lead to conflicts between nearby land managers. NatureScot indicated the purpose of the mitigation scheme is to trial and inform costings/ practicality of mitigation options. Discussion on the shape of future rural support mechanisms is still at early stages and the Forum needs to create the opportunity to influence and take account of beavers. It was suggested that any payments should be considered on a catchment basis.
Beaver benefits meeting
NatureScot organised a meeting in December 2020 of those that had expressed an interest in further work to explore and communicate the benefits of beavers. Attending were the National Parks, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Countryside Trust, SWT, RZSS, RSPB Scotland, SWBG, University of Stirling, an independent consultant and a farmer with an interest in translocation proposals.
The themes and scope for discussion had been outlined, noting the current Scottish Government policy on translocations.
a. Measuring, demonstrating and communicating the benefits of beavers – where beavers are already present, gathering evidence through research and developing monitoring tools for describing beaver benefits – developing demonstration sites and communicating the benefits.
b. Preparing for beavers - gathering pre-colonisation data, stakeholder engagement, improving habitats for beavers and building resilience/ future proofing (identifying risks and opportunities).
c. Population reinforcement proposals – opportunity to discuss strategic guidance on where the greatest benefits/fewest risks will be found, stakeholder engagement, discussion of the licence application process.
The purpose of the meeting was to share areas or work and expertise, discuss priorities, resources and opportunities for collaboration.
The meeting was considered to have been useful and views were expressed that whilst it was originally intended as a one-off meeting, there was value in continuing to meet. NatureScot was asked to give stronger messaging calling for conservation projects proposals.
New AP 2 NatureScot to make stronger statement encouraging interested parties to start to develop conservation projects.
Conservation translocations in Scotland
In May, NatureScot recommended that opportunities could be considered for translocations from high to low conflict areas within and on the edge of the existing range as a means of reducing conflicts and at the same time promoting benefits in suitable areas. Part of the ongoing survey would be to inform a strategic assessment of suitability for translocations within and on the edge of the existing range.
SWT noted that Scottish Beavers work is concluding in Knapdale (final report now published).
It was suggested that impacts on wild fish may be more important in other catchments than they have been in the Tay; and hence was suggested that discussions should take place with neighbouring district salmon fisheries boards/trusts as part of considering any relocation of beavers.
Whilst there could be a perception that translocations offer a time-limited alternative to lethal control for reducing conflicts, it was felt that this could still be an option for quite a long time and that it could help to reduce criticism over lethal control.
SEPA highlighted their aspirations around ‘river woods’. It was suggested there are opportunities to look at natural flood management plans wrt where beavers could present risks and opportunities.
The option for conservation translocations and reinforcements in Scotland is new to the Forum and there was some nervousness expressed about moving ahead whilst the mitigation trials are still at an early stage. It was requested that NatureScot provide clarity around the process for assessing translocation proposals; the Forum needs to understand and be reassured that the process of application and assessment is following best practice as per the Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations.
New AP 3 NatureScot to include SEPA in further discussions of beaver benefits.
New AP 4 NatureScot to provide more detail on the process for considering beaver translocation licensing/proposals under SCCT at a future Forum meeting.
Trapping for translocations
In 2020 there has been increased effort on trapping as an alternative to licenced control of beavers, with continued demand for animals for enclosure projects in England. Animals are fully health screened and genetic samples taken. It was noted that there was ongoing dialogue with licence holders about trapping; NatureScot had purchased more traps; there is sufficient specialist trapping capacity and the holding capacity in captivity is for up to 3 families. This was reassuring that the practical considerations have been adequately addressed to meet demand for animals to be moved to licenced projects.
RZSS are carrying out a genetic study of Knapdale and Tayside beavers compared to source populations.
Planned review of beaver licencing
It was noted it would be 2 years in May since beaver EPS licencing was introduced and NatureScot’s stated intention has been to review the arrangements after two years. Hence checks will be made on compliance (as previously), the use made of licences will be reviewed, along with the ongoing need. Some of the licence conditions are being examined, particularly around the kit dependency period (KTD) with a view to tightening the process but still allowing for exceptional circumstances for dam removal.
NatureScot plan to produce a report on beaver management carried out in 2020 later in 2021; which will include a summary of licence returns and details of trapping and translocations, all in the context of the ongoing survey findings. It was suggested to also include the wider context of other mitigation measures carried out, and transparency around alternatives considered, but was recognised there will still be difficult messages regarding beaver control and costs to land managers.
New AP 5 NatureScot to follow up with NFUS and SLE on the previously discussed idea for a blog describing some of the land management impacts.
Sharing Good Practice event
The programme for a SGP event that had been cancelled in May 2020 had been circulated for comment with a view to developing some virtual training resources. The programme had been set up with a view to increasing understanding of beaver ecology, legislation and responsibilities to a wider audience which included: conservation bodies, local authorities, ecological consultants, ECOW, public utilities such as Transport Scotland and Scottish Water.
Suggested additional contributions:
- A session on beavers and fisheries
- SEPA regulatory aspects.
The Forum will get the opportunity to input and comment further as the format develops.
Action points and matters arising
Outstanding actions from 24th September 2020
AP 1 For all to comment on the existing terms of reference and propose revisions
Ongoing
AP 2 A copy of Technical sub-group membership to be circulated to the Forum
Carried
AP 5 It was suggested that a specific session on fisheries resource management could be organised involving FMS, DSFBs, representation from appropriate SEPA teams and NatureScot specialists. NatureScot to lead on setting this up.
Carried
Outstanding actions from 30th June
AP2 NatureScot to invite PhD students to a future meeting to present their results.
Carried
AP6 NatureScot to review web guidance on translocations.
Carried
Matters arising
AP 1 It was suggested the focus of the ToR could be more national with the development of a national strategy. But that the group should not become too unwieldy for discussion. LLTNPA had recently been invited to attend. The ToR will reflect that the Forum creates a safe space for frank and sometimes difficult conversations.
It was agreed that in the interests of transparency that Minutes of the meeting will be published and made available to other parties.
NatureScot had advised licence holders of the procedures now in place for the collection of animals for post mortem, which included an explanation on why this is important for assessing welfare, genetic and disease considerations and best practice adherence.
New AP 6 NatureScot to follow up with NFUS/SLE to encourage controllers to submit carcasses for PM.
Date of next meeting: 11th March
Last updated:
