Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Official Report 294KB pdf
Contents
Petition
Control of Wild Geese (PE1490)
The next item is consideration of petition PE1490, by Patrick Krause, on behalf of the Scottish Crofting Federation, on the control of wild geese numbers. At its meeting on 27 November 2013, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, a number of local authorities with goose management schemes in their areas and other relevant organisations to seek their views on the issues that are raised in the petition. The committee agreed to consider the petition further once the responses had been received.
I refer members to the papers before them and invite comments on the responses. We want to come to a conclusion about how to take the matter forward.
I do not know very much about this matter, but I wonder whether anyone could tell me how scaring a bird helps. It seems to me that it might leave your field, but it will go somewhere else to find something to eat. If it ends up in your neighbour’s field, I am not sure how that is helpful. If it goes to a natural feeding ground, that is another matter. However, my question would then be why the bird was not there in the first place.
Scaring is not the answer. I have seen in Stornoway that, if you move the geese on, they come back in no time.
It might be an idea to highlight the fact that the Public Petitions Committee, of which I am a member, recognised the seriousness and urgency of the matter that the petition deals with and passed it to this committee immediately, rather than going through the normal motions of approaching the Government for a response and so on. It is good that the Public Petitions Committee did that, as it is a major issue for coastal crofting communities.
I welcome the submissions. It is clear from them that there is a clear and a growing problem. It is ironic that, at one point, the geese were endangered, but we are now hearing that the crofters’ way of life is endangered as well.
The responses from crofters have highlighted the fact that, as the Crofting Commission has advised, the current size of the goose population in some coastal crofting areas is unsustainable for continued effective use of crofts, with the knock-on effect that crofters are discouraged from working their crofts, as they cannot secure their crops.
We have seen that the adaptive management plans and the local goose management schemes seem to be a way forward, but I agree with the petitioner’s response to the minister’s letter, which states that the Scottish Crofting Federation does not believe that
“goose management should be placed under a competitive SRDP scheme”.
I think that we need to hear more from the Scottish Government regarding funding for more adaptive management plans and goose management schemes.
We are hearing from coastal crofting communities that the goose problem is out of control and that it is the single biggest threat to island crofting. The petitioner’s response to the minister’s letter says that the Scottish Government needs to address this
“national problem ... as a matter of urgency in order to avoid catastrophic results for remote populations and internationally valued environments.”
The use of the word “catastrophic” highlights how strongly people feel about the issue.
In an edition of the West Highland Free Press from exactly a year ago this week, Rebecca Cotton, project manager for the machair life+ environmental programme, stated:
“Despite our tireless efforts—last year we shot over 4,000 greylags—the numbers are still rising. Crofters have said that they can tolerate a population of 3,300 to 4,000”.
The article went on to say:
“At the moment, there are around 10,000 geese in the Uists and that population is growing. Ms Cotton added: ‘We all talk about the need to retain young people as the most important contribution to the sustainability of the Western Isles, but in crofting terms there will be nothing left for the young people unless we do something about the goose problem now. Unfortunately the Machair Life+ project finishes this year and we haven’t, as yet, secured another phase.’”
The issue has since moved forward in the Uists and they are now able to sell on the meat from the carcases. However, there is clearly a serious issue here and it is incumbent on the committee to look at it more closely and, hopefully, ensure that there is a more proactive response from the Government.
Alex Fergusson, did you want to speak about Galloway?
Certainly not about Galloway, but I wanted to back up everything that Angus MacDonald has said. There seems to be quite a difference between the responses that have been received—all of which have a pretty common theme—and the minister’s response. As the petitioner says,
“the Scottish Government response does not bring comfort”.
Given that there is clearly a huge problem here and that the responses from everyone except the Scottish Government tend to take one position, my view is that, when we are looking at our forward work programme, we should ask the minister to come and speak to us about the issue.
I do not say this necessarily in defence of the Government, but the actions that the Government takes have to be evidence based. There are a lot of claims. I am not suggesting that what has been said is not accurate, but such claims must be evidence based. That is why I can perhaps understand the minister’s approach. While I agree that we should have the minister before us, I would also like to be able to question some of the stakeholders, to drill down into what they are claiming in their written evidence. There might be a benefit in doing both.
I would not want to take away from the other evidence that has come in, but I want to highlight evidence from environment non-governmental organisations. RSPB Scotland in particular acknowledges the concerns that the situation with greylag geese is out of control. We have the evidence, but it is important to question that evidence and then, with the agreement of the committee, to take those points forward with the cabinet secretary.
I know that the migratory geese are now arriving, because they are arriving on the Clyde, two fields away from where I live. If we are going to look more closely at the issue, we should do so as quickly as possible. Further, such consideration should be as brief as possible, only because of the need to get something in place for this season, if at all possible.
I agree with every comment that has been made. The response from Aberdeenshire Council says:
“At present it is forbidden to shoot—or even shoot at (to scare)—quarry species between 1 February and 30 August, limiting the options for farmers to deal with large flocks of returning geese in February/March. Moreover, geese shot legally in Aberdeenshire (ie between 1 Sept and 31 Jan) may not be sold for human consumption. This seems rather a waste”.
That could develop into a case for using carcases as a useful source of protein, as Angus MacDonald said. Another business could be born from that.
I believe, like most of the committee, that there should be a session on the matter to take further evidence.
10:15
I point out to Claudia Beamish that the geese are winter visitors, so they will be clearing from the area now and going north.
I am quite content with the way things are going in the committee, but I would also like what Aberdeenshire Council said to be noted. Other areas of Scotland that are not crofting areas will be affected. Without naming them or presuming to know any of them, I think that it would be worth while to keep in mind that the issue is probably not purely for crofting areas.
Absolutely. For me, the best overview that we received was from the Crofting Commission, whose response says:
“The Crofting Commission believes strongly that local land managers, informed and supported by a specialist, highly trained central agency such as SNH, have the skills, knowledge, interest and ability to develop and deliver management plans for goose populations.”
It suggests central back-up but local management, which I am all in favour of. The issue must begin to be set in order so that it can be dealt with. Therefore, we might interrogate that.
There is another point in the submission from the Crofting Commission—below the previous quotation, on page 7 of paper 2—about the African-Eurasian waterbird agreement, which the goosehunt project in Norway is part of. There are two types of geese: those that stay in one place and migratory geese. I think that pink-footed geese are involved in the Norwegian project and that pink-footed geese are protected, particularly here, along with certain other species. We are dealing with the issue on the basis of two types of use of our land—temporary and permanent.
The point of mentioning that is that our migratory geese cause problems in the north of Norway. They are therefore a problem for both Norway and here. We have to take an overview of the numbers in Scotland or parts of Scotland, use that as the benchmark on whether they are threatened—as Angus MacDonald said, it used to be the geese that were threatened, but nobody could suggest that that is the case now—and take a wider view. Therefore, if we take evidence, we should get international views. RSPB Scotland and others have focused on issues that are related to management in Scotland, but we cannot possibly allow that to be the boundary.
We have heard all the arguments and we can go through them in a fashion that allows for a proper look at the issue, but we have to go back to the petitioner and point out that although there are points of huge stress—obviously on the landscape in the Uists and other islands—people scare geese not just from one field to another but from one island to another island and so problems now exist where there were no problems in the past. That is why a wider management strategy with a local management element in which people take responsibility must be looked at.
We are trying to avoid using lead shot, but the shooters in Orkney have pointed out that steel shot does not fire as far, so it is more difficult to shoot the birds with it. We must find some way to tackle that particular problem, as well.
The papers open up a myriad of issues, and I would like to think that we could get a really good session that allows our Government to tackle the issue in an international context but with local management controls in place and backed up as needs be.
It was mentioned that there is a question in relation to the SRDP. We have to look seriously at whether that is the best route for the work, or whether it should be pest control.
Those are some of the thoughts that I had from reading the submissions. If anyone else wants to come back in just now, that is fine. I am sure that we can draw this discussion to a close fairly soon.
Like you, convener, I was struck by the Crofting Commission’s submission, in particular the focus on the need for local input. One of the differences that I referred to earlier was that the argument for the need for local input was very forceful, whereas the minister suggested that there is already a considerable amount of local input. We need to drill down into the issues, to find out where we are.
I do not want to prolong this discussion unnecessarily. I fully support the comments that have been made.
Between us, we have a range of things that we want to find out. The clerk’s paper offers a number of approaches, which are on page 4. Let us have a think about this.
We can either write to the minister or invite him to give oral evidence—that is the simple question. I think that we want to invite him to give oral evidence, but members have also said that they want to take evidence from stakeholders. We are therefore looking at two sessions: one with stakeholders and one with the minister. We should point out to people the focus that we want to have, on the basis of this discussion. Do we agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.
Good. That is very useful. Thank you very much.