Legal challenge to Scottish Government’s beaver killing policy can proceed says Scottish Court of Session
Scotland’s supreme civil court has given Trees for Life permission to challenge the Scottish Government’s beaver killing policy through a judicial review.
The rewilding charity says the Government’s nature agency NatureScot is breaking the law by failing to make the killing of endangered wild beavers a last resort when they need managing.
In December, Trees for Life applied to the Court of Session for a judicial review. Trees for Life’s recent public crowdfunder to cover the legal costs raised over £60,000.
The case aims to ensure a safer future for beavers, which can be key allies in tackling the nature and climate crises because their dams create nature-rich and flood-reducing wetlands. Trees for Life also says any changes to management need to be practical and effective in protecting farmers’ interests.
In a ruling announced today, the Court found NatureScot’s objections to be unfounded and that the case can proceed immediately to a formal judicial review, which the Court will hear later this year.
Steve Micklewright, Trees for Life’s Chief Executive, said: “We’re grateful to the court for granting permission for our judicial review to be heard, which we hope will lead to a more nature-friendly, climate-friendly and farmer-friendly approach to this endangered species in Scotland.”
A judicial review – a court review of official decision-makers’ decisions and actions to ensure they are lawful – can only proceed when there is recognised legal ground and if the applicant has the legal right, known as ‘standing’, to bring a challenge.
Lawyer Adam Eagle, Chief Executive Officer of legal specialist rewilding charity The Lifescape Project, which is spearheading the litigation with Trees for Life, said: “In its decision the Court has found that Trees for Life has the legal right to challenge NatureScot on this important issue, despite the agency’s attempt to avoid the issues being fully aired at a substantive trial.
This step forward also shows that we have a real prospect of succeeding in this legal challenge, which is now scheduled for a final hearing in May this year.”
In legal arguments, Trees for Life’s lead Counsel, Aidan O’Neill QC, explained the importance of this case for the protection of the natural world and successfully argued that Trees for Life’s case has a real prospect of success at the final substantive hearing.
Since the Government declared beavers to be legally protected in 2019, NatureScot has issued dozens of killing licences when beavers have local impacts on farmland – even though laws on protected species require management to have the least possible impact on their conservation.
A judicial review ruling that lethal control should only be a genuine last resort could allow conservationists and others to identify, with proper community engagement, suitable sites across Scotland to which beavers can be moved and be welcome – boosting biodiversity, creating wildlife tourism opportunities and preventing damage to farmland elsewhere.
Currently the Scottish Government is blocking such relocations, even though NatureScot has identified over 100,000 hectares of suitable habitat. This approach is limiting options for Tayside farmers whose crops are damaged by beavers, often putting them in the position of having to shoot the popular animals.
Trees for Life is dedicated to rewilding the Scottish Highlands. See treesforlife.org.uk.
Ends
[registration_form]
Well done Trees for Life. Hopefully we can have a system which stops the systematic killing of beavers with “problem” beavers being translocated within Scotland.
“This approach is limiting options for Tayside farmers who … shoot the popular animals.”
I mean, it is either that or stop ripping our river margins and farming on flood plains on below the natural river level. I suppose if they find trying to be responsible stewards of the land too hard, then they just have to short sighted assholes. They have no other choice, it is either cull or do work which would obviate the need for cullings. See also: Badgers.
There have been approaches to these farmers in helping to mitigate any issues caused by beavers, but the farmers have turned their back on them almost without exception. The Scottish Wild Beaver Group has even brought an expert on beaver mitigation in from the USA to speak at a conference to help the process. It seems recreational martyrdom is more to some peoples’ taste. You’re absolutely spot on about much of the real damage being done by farming not beavers. I’ve seen pictures of beaver ‘damage’ where the actual issue is the farmed land extending right down to the river edge.
Funny how the same angling fraternity that’s so vocal about killing anything that might eat a salmon (they’ve even muttered about dolphins in the Moray Firth needing ‘control’) and beaver dams being a threat too, are utterly silent about the massive amount of gravel burying soil that pours off farms without a wild, riparian buffer. Mind you they’ve also been quiet about the EMBER report, two fishery scientist acquaintances of mine have confirmed that its findings about the effects of muirburn for grouse shooting on hydrology are not good news for salmonid fish in particular. There are whispers dippers are still being killed because they might eat trout and salmon eggs, deafening silence about EMBER though.
“recreational martyrdom”
Oh, I am stealing that turn of phrase. Thank you. 🙂
This is great news. Let’s all hope that Trees for Life’s challenge is successful. Whatever the legal rights and wrongs of this action by NatureScot their decision to shoot these beavers is simply monstrous and inhumane. A programme to relocate them would at least been humane.. NatureScot by their action have been shown up to be complete butchers.
Hopefully a successful challenge will also address the issue of it being okay to have natural expansion in Tayside, but no beavers anywhere else.
A new Cabinet Secretary in the summer might also have a more holistic view, not having had their ear bent by farmers for years.
The Scottish Government would do well to ask NS to develop an expansion strategy for beavers; identifying those areas of least likely conflict and reducing the risks of a genetic bottleneck.
Apologies in advance, know I’ve made this point ad nauseum, but hopefully here it’s from a slightly different angle. People are very unlikely to have grouse moors first come to mind when they think about where beavers could go. Very, very little in the way of tree cover there obviously so that’s perfectly understandable. However, in terms of getting economic and humanitarian benefit from beavers as quickly as possible in regards to reduced flooding it’s areas like this in the high rainfall uplands with little/no present natural tree cover to impede run off where they need to go ASAP.
The grouse moors might say they’re doing their bit by blocking drainage and that well…there’s no real proof muirburn exacerbates floods (oh yes there is!), but they’d be very hard pressed to deny that targeted tree planting compliments peat bog restoration (i.e what they can do with little inconvenience to current operations). So would leaky dams created by inserting woody material in waterways, and this would be amplified by the beaver – the widened water courses and increase in general dampness would also make a hell of a difference re reducing fire risk and spread. Heel in enough willow, aspen, rowan, alder etc, protect it and in a very few years there’ll be enough for beavers to get going – apparently they don’t need nearly as much wood for either food or dam building as many think.
If you’re going to maximize the possibilities for keeping water on/in the hills longer you’ll need to have the full toolkit available to do so. The beaver isn’t just one more item of it,it greatly amplifies at least one other element the holding back of water by naturally forming accumulations of woody material – almost literally they build on the principle.
Add beaver and the scope for change in the uplands – grouse moors included – to naturally and cost effectively reduce flooding sky rockets IMHO. You have to wonder are grouse moor owners beginning to realize this and is some of the animosity and behind the scenes manipulation to oppose their very presence driven even just the teeniest bit by knowing what a danger beavers pose to the traditional driven grouse shooting moor? The hen harrier could be yet another species becoming a beneficiary of the beaver if it makes grouse moor owners decide to finally throw in the towel – people aren’t going to like keeping their home dry being compromised by others killing birds for fun.