{{ubiquityData.prevArticle.description}}
{{ubiquityData.nextArticle.description}}
I write this update the week before Edinburgh’s Court of Session hears our legal challenge to the way NatureScot licenses beaver management. The hearing will take place on the 3 and 4 June. Getting involved in legal proceedings is new territory for Trees for Life, and it is difficult to know what to expect. But we are confident in the strength of our arguments. If beavers cause serious problems for farmers, legal protection should mean that lethal control is a genuine last resort.
It was last May when NatureScot, Scotland’s nature agency, announced that it had licensed the killing of 87 beavers on Tayside. This represented a fifth of Scotland's beaver population, which is a protected species. No one disputes that beavers on lower Tayside can cause real damage. But the obvious question is why non-lethal alternatives are not fully considered to address these problems.
NatureScot’s position is that it is not legally required to do so, even for a protected species. Instead, the agency has been issuing lethal control licenses since 2019, without first requiring consideration of the potential to trap and relocate the beavers to places where they will not cause damage. This is in spite of clear evidence that trapping and relocation is feasible in most situations on Tayside. NatureScot’s own research shows that there are more than 240,000 acres of habitat suitable for beavers in Scotland.
As we explored the legality of the situation, expert advice supported our view that this is a breach of the Habitats Regulations by NatureScot. With the help of specialist advice from lawyers at rewilding charity Lifescape, we have been developing the legal case ever since.
Before starting a formal legal challenge, we wrote to NatureScot last autumn to set out, at some length, why we believe their licensing procedures are unlawful. We asked NatureScot why they were failing to apply the trap and relocate option as often as possible before they license lethal control. We also suggested steps they could take that would lead us to refrain from a legal challenge. Regrettably, they felt unable to take these steps and, conscious of the legal time constraints, we filed a petition with the court last December.
The story since then has been a more public one. We were overwhelmed by the response to a fundraising appeal to enable us to cover our legal expenses. We raised over £60,000 in four weeks. In February, NatureScot sought to deny us legal permission to bring the matter to judicial review. This challenge was overcome and the date for the substantive hearing was set. At the time of writing, this is due to proceed as planned in the first week of June, with a verdict expected by the end of summer at the latest.
We have, of course, considered how this case might affect the farmers who suffer the damage that beavers can do to low lying farmland on Tayside. For us, this situation is a genuine opportunity to move beyond a wildlife conflict, and into a mutually beneficial relationship between land managers and nature. Farmers provide food for our tables and are also in a unique position to help answer both the nature crisis and climate emergency. We believe that they should be publicly supported to do so. We outlined what this could look like in the Scottish Farmer in January of this year.
It remains to be seen how NatureScot’s defence will stand up in court. At the very least, the case will highlight the still unexplained decision to unnecessarily issue licences to kill a protected species. Whatever the outcome of the Judicial Review, can this unnecessary practice really continue?
Thank you to hundreds of individuals who donated to our Crowdfunder appeal to protect beavers in Scotland. We couldn't have got this far without you.