Beavers
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2502, in the name of Nora Radcliffe, on the trial reintroduction of the European beaver. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes Scottish Natural Heritage's proposal for a trial reintroduction of the European beaver, a proposal which follows the successful reintroduction of the species in 24 other countries, and considers that the Scottish Executive should give serious consideration to issuing a licence for the trial so that it can be determined, in a controlled and properly monitored way, whether the benefits to the environment and tourism observed after previous reintroductions elsewhere can be replicated in a Scottish context without significant adverse effects on existing land uses.
I am very pleased that my motion has been selected for debate this evening; it is very timely. I thank all the colleagues who signed it, especially those who have stayed for the debate.
The Eurasian beaver was—not surprisingly—once widespread throughout much of Europe and Asia. Although the historical evidence suggests that the beaver was widely distributed throughout mainland Scotland, it had been hunted to extinction by the 16th century. For anyone who is interested, the review of the literature and historical evidence that Conroy and Kitchener carried out for Scottish Natural Heritage makes fascinating reading.
There have been previous attempts at reintroduction. Four Canadian beavers were introduced into Bute in 1874 by the Marquis of Bute. Apparently, the first attempt was unsuccessful, but a further seven beavers were added the following year and they settled in and started to build dams. Despite that apparent success, the colony seems to have died out again by 1890.
SNH's current application proposes the reintroduction of European beavers, not Canadian beavers, which is important for two reasons. First, any reintroduced species should be as close as possible to the original stock. Secondly, unlike the Canadian beaver, the European beaver is not a prolific tree feller, so the threat of potential damage to forestry and surrounding woodland is not such an issue.
Historical reintroductions are interesting, but are not much help in determining the pros and cons of a reintroduction now. However, we can learn from more recent reintroductions in Europe. I think that most members will have received a letter from the chief executive of the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland that points out that the current application was made after the study of evidence that was gathered about a number of reintroductions in Europe. Some 24 countries have reintroduced beavers, and it appears that reintroductions to nearly all the countries in which beavers were formerly present have been successful and that the beavers have survived and prospered. From the wider socioeconomic perspective, the reintroductions have been judged to be either successful or, at worst, neutral.
Where there has been local detriment to agriculture or forestry, it has been minimal and confined to areas that are close to the watercourse. Beavers will feed within 50m of the water's edge, but most of their activity will be much closer and largely within 5m of it. Their grazing activities are generally considered to be beneficial. They control scrub and prevent the development of very large trees, which can destabilise banks and contribute to erosion. Some flooding of areas that are close to the watercourse will be caused by beavers' dams, but that is unlikely to cause major difficulties. One benefit that is derived from beavers' dams is that sediment will be trapped, which will reduce pollution further downstream. It has been suggested that beavers could usefully be used to reduce soil erosion in areas with ploughed, agricultural soils. That has been a recorded benefit in Russia and improved water quality has been attributed to beaver activity in Estonia.
However, such issues are for the future in Scotland. In the meantime, the question is whether a closely monitored trial reintroduction of European beavers should be licensed to proceed in Knapdale in Argyll. A great deal of preparatory work has been done on the proposal, to the point at which only by proceeding with the trial can it be demonstrated that the expected outcomes that have been predicted from available evidence elsewhere will be the actual outcomes in Scotland.
There has been widespread local and national consultation on the proposals, which has demonstrated that the proposals have public and professional support. George Lyon—who is the local member—will say more about local reaction and how local concerns have been addressed, but I know that he has satisfied himself that an effective exit strategy is available if pulling the plug at any time is deemed to be necessary. In the light of his local interest and local knowledge, if he is happy, I am happy too.
Professional support has been demonstrated by the range of bodies with relevant expertise that have backed the project. Those bodies include, as far as I can see, all the environmental non-governmental organisations and the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland. Yesterday, I received a supportive e-mail from David Hetherington of the University of Aberdeen's department of zoology, who expressed dismay at the delay in granting the licence.
It seems to me that there are many positive reasons for proceeding. I will start with the more pragmatic reasons. Much has been learned from European examples, but from what I have read, the trial in question will be more useful than many of those examples from a scientific point of view as a result of the initial benchmarking of the area that will be used and the detailed monitoring of natural, hydrological, public health and land use impacts over the seven-year period of the project. The precautionary principle has been adopted so that, if everything goes horribly wrong or even if there are unforeseen consequences short of disaster, the situation will be retrievable if necessary. There is an exit strategy.
On the environmental front, the trial will be an enormously important contribution to the biodiversity of Scotland, restoring a native species that our forebears hunted to extinction. It will cause—if I may use an appropriately aquatic figure of speech—widening ripples of biodiversity by creating improved water and wetland habitat for an astonishing range of other mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, invertebrates and plants. Beaver activity can provide tangible benefits for the human population, too, in reducing run-off sediment in watercourses, in mitigating flooding during spates, and in storing water that is released during dry spells to maintain a water flow.
Tourism is a major contributor to the Scottish economy, and we see in the ospreys at Loch Garten and the red kites at North Kessock the tangible benefits to the economy of wildlife tourism relating to reintroduced species. Whether we proceed to the point at which those benefits can be utilised will depend on what is learned from the trial, and I believe that the argument for proceeding with the trial is persuasive. A decision now would allow arrangements to be made for beavers to be brought over from Norway in time to complete their quarantine before next spring—spring being the optimum time for release. The proposal is for three family groups to be introduced, each comprising an adult pair and their young from this year and last year, which would total up to 18 beavers being released on site. If any of the released females were to become pregnant, little Scottish beavers could be running about in Knapdale next year. I would be delighted to hear from the minister that he proposes to grant the necessary licence soon.
I thank Nora Radcliffe for winning the right to discuss this subject. It seems that there has been a long delay in Government circles in assessing this whole matter. Much scientific work has been done, and the beaver has been reintroduced in 24 countries. To our knowledge, those reintroductions have been successful. It is beholden on the minister to tell us why Scotland is different from so many other European countries and why our biodiversity should not be increased.
I hesitate to offer information. Perhaps Mr Gibson can tell us at what stage and to what degree he believes that there has been a delay on the part of ministers.
As far as I can see, the debate has been going on for years, and the Government has not taken a lead by saying that it thinks that the reintroduction of the beaver is a good idea. Indeed, we wonder whether the minister is going to give a positive message tonight. I certainly hope that he is. Every moment of delay brings us closer to putting the reintroduction back another year, which is the problem of timescale that we are talking about.
The reintroduction of the beaver is probably a little more dramatic than the growing of deciduous trees along Loch Garry, which led to the Loch Garry tree project; nevertheless, that project altered the habitat in the area enormously—indeed, for the better. From the evidence that we have, we believe that the reintroduction of beavers could do the same for wildlife in this country. We are talking about a biodiversity strategy that fits in with the forestry strategy, which I have asked questions about and in which I take a close interest as a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee. It is up to the Parliament to give such experiments a fair wind.
I have not yet heard arguments from land users who are opposed to the reintroduction of beavers. We are talking about Knapdale in Argyll, and it will be interesting to see whether there are any objections from people in that area who think that the reintroduction would be detrimental. Scottish Natural Heritage's consultation has been widespread.
We have an opportunity to increase the diversity of species in this country. Other species have been reinforced or reintroduced. Who can say whether the red deer that we have in this country are native? Reintroduction can only aid biodiversity, just as reinforcement of the red deer with stock from the continent did about 100 years ago.
The Scottish Parliament will be interested to hear what the minister has to say about the reintroduction of the beaver, but I am surprised that it has required us to have a members' debate to get him to take the initiative.
I am delighted that Nora Radcliffe has lodged this subject for debate, as I have been interested in it for some time.
The reintroduction of species that were previously native is, of course, nothing new. As Nora Radcliffe mentioned, people in Easter Ross, where I stay, are often gladdened by the sight of red kites, beautiful birds whose reintroduction to the Black Isle has been a great success. Likewise, the sea eagles on Mull have proved to be a major tourist attraction. That reintroduction has been successful because of consultation that took place of farmers who might have had legitimate concerns about the safety of their stock and because the scheme to compensate farmers for lambs lost to eagles was put in place. If a reintroduction is to be successful and benefit the local economy, there must be full consultation of everyone concerned.
In the case of the reintroduction of beavers, there has been a lot of consultation. We know that there is public support for the reintroduction and we know that land-owning, farming and other land-use organisations have been reassured about any concerns that they might have had.
Some other public concerns have been addressed as well. As everyone here knows, beavers are vegetarian; those large and impressive teeth are for gnawing trees, not people. They do not spread disease. Concerns that they might carry giardiasis seem to be unfounded, as in Norway the level of giardia in places that have beavers is comparable with that in places that have no beavers. In any case, any animals that were introduced to Scotland would have spent six months in quarantine, where any possible health risks could be detected.
The effect of beaver activity on the local environment and ecology is generally beneficial. Some members might remember that, a while ago, it was possible to buy joke mugs with an inscription that said, "Save trees—eat a beaver." I have to say that that was a gross libel against beavers. I know that they fell some trees but, essentially, they coppice trees, which regrow. That process creates a much more varied, rich and diverse habitat than would otherwise exist. Beaver dams might cause small amounts of localised flooding but, overall, they improve flood management by retaining water, and the ponds that they create make for a more diverse and rich ecosystem.
Of course, we are signed up to the European habitats directive, which obliges its signatories to consider the reintroduction of species that have become extinct. As well as our obligation under that directive, there is a sense of moral obligation towards a species that was hunted to extinction by man. After all, as Nora Radcliffe said, we probably had beavers in Scotland until the 16th century. I am told that, in Gaelic, they are known as either dobhair-choin or beathadaich, which shows that they were known as part of the natural flora.
There is a bit of enlightened self-interest in this issue, because of the possibility of wildlife tourism, which Nora Radcliffe mentioned.
Why is this the right time to reintroduce the beaver? Why are some of us approaching the debate with a sense of urgency? We have an ideal site in Knapdale, which is a natural enclosure because of its topography. We have a proper plan to monitor the reintroduced animals, which would be radio-tagged and monitored. Further, we have a willing public. We need a decision to be taken now so that the animals can be captured over the summer and autumn, can be brought here in the autumn and can spend six months in quarantine before being released in the spring. If that does not happen, we could be put back another year, which would be immensely frustrating for the people who have put in a lot of work and have done a lot of research on the issue.
I ask the minister to look favourably on the issue, which has many potential benefits. Now is the perfect time to begin the process of reintroducing beavers to Scotland.
I, too, begin by congratulating Nora Radcliffe on securing the debate. However, I am afraid that I will have to introduce a slightly sour note to a debate that, so far, has been consensual. Some people are surprised that any hostility arises at a proposal to reintroduce an animal such as the beaver, but much of our past experience with the introduction of alien species shows how easy it is to upset the ecology of an area. With the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, we took further action to control the introduction of alien species—both plant and animal—and attempts were made in the legislation to deal with some species that had been introduced in the past. That at least should make us concerned to ensure that we are doing the right thing before we take radical action.
Many people take particular species to heart and have gone to great lengths to protect them. For example, I know that there are an awful lot more foxes now than there were in the past. There are also many more birds of prey. My local population of buzzards never ceases to amaze me, and the damage that it has done to ground-nesting birds, in particular the lapwing, is noticeable to anyone who observes such species. There is also a worry—although it is perhaps unjustified—about the precedent that is set by introducing species such as the beaver. I am sure that the European beaver is largely harmless, but could the precedent ultimately lead to the return of the wolf or even the brown bear in the Scottish Highlands? That is perhaps far-fetched, but it is a concern that we should perhaps discuss all the same.
My main concern is to ensure that, if the decision is taken—and there appears to be a good deal of consensus behind it—the trial is controlled and we get the required information from it, so that we can decide whether or not the action is appropriate. Reports must be made, and must be properly considered by politicians and others, so that we understand the potential impact of a reintroduction.
Considering the matter in its generality, I share many of the fears of those who worry about the principle behind reintroduction. In many cases, it is not necessarily the beaver that we fear, but its sponsors.
I join colleagues in thanking Nora Radcliffe for securing the debate. There has been genuine concern among many farmers in the Knapdale area about the trial project. That is natural—it is the knee-jerk reaction that all farmers would have to the introduction of a new species that might be another pest. Over the past month, during lambing time, the shepherd in my area has reported the death of new-born lambs every single morning from jackdaws and black-backed gulls ripping out their tongues, as well as various other bits of them. Anyone listening to him would understand the concerns that exist. There is nothing more frustrating for someone who is trying to care for and tend for animals.
The major concerns that have been expressed to me are about the damage that beavers might cause to the burns and woodlands in the trial area and to the surrounding land, and about the danger of escapes. Wild mink first escaped from mink farms about 25 to 30 years ago and have caused substantial problems with their indiscriminate killing of other wildlife, not because of hunger, but because they just like killing. A substantial effort has had to go into controlling their population to prevent that. The most important concern is about the need for a proper exit strategy, which guarantees that, if the pilot fails, the beavers can be successfully removed from the area.
Given all the concerns, I am pleased that the minister has taken time to consider seriously the issues surrounding the pilot project. I have walked round the site with people from SNH to see for myself what the benefits might be. The site offers relatively good natural containment, as my colleague Eleanor Scott mentioned. The Crinan canal forms a barrier, helping to prevent escapes from the area. The site is all forestry, which will help to reassure farmers, although it is a major negative in evaluating the pilot project and any impact that beavers might have on intensive agriculture, of which there is none in the area. There is not even a sheep on the hills, because the area is so barren.
There is a good prospect of increased numbers of visitors coming to the area because of the project. In some ways, that is the biggest plus point from the community's perspective. People in the local community believe that the project will bring substantial economic benefits to mid-Argyll. Damage to woodlands should be limited because we are talking about the European beaver rather than the Canadian beaver.
I am persuaded that the exit strategy will work and that there is little risk of beavers escaping into other areas. That is the fundamental point. Once again, I look to the minister to give reassurance on the matter if he gives the pilot project the go-ahead.
It is clear from the Argyll and Bute citizens' panel survey that there is substantial local support for the pilot project. Indeed, the letters that I have received on the matter from constituents are 10:1 in favour of it. Subject to further reassurance about the exit strategy, I am persuaded that the project deserves to get the go-ahead from the minister and I look forward to his summing-up at the end of the debate.
I, too, congratulate Nora Radcliffe on securing the debate. It is good for the Parliament to have an opportunity to debate the matter before the Executive makes a decision on the application.
I have had a small number of letters on the matter from constituents and the two sides—for and against—are equally balanced; those who oppose and those who propose do so with equal vehemence. I am attracted by the idea of the beaver being brought or, as most people argue, brought back, to Scotland. However, the onus is on SNH and the ministers to make their decision on the basis of clear evidence, but it is difficult to get evidence on some of the issues that are involved. For example, were there beavers in Scotland in the past? Some people say that there were not, but it seems that most people say that there were. I have read the study by Kitchener and Conroy.
I will focus on the decision that the Scottish Executive made in 2002, when the application was not accepted and more work was requested. I ask the minister to focus his remarks on the issues that were mentioned at that time. In a letter to John Markland, Allan Wilson asked for more information about the potential risks to agricultural, forestry and salmon interests and for a thorough assessment of any public health risk. He added:
"It would be helpful to know more about the experiences of other countries where European Beaver have been introduced, including any longer term impacts."
I wrote to SNH, which supplied me with information about the European experience, but there is a key need for evidence from other countries where beavers are found or have been introduced. I did not get any detail from SNH about the experience of those countries, but merely a conclusion, which stated:
"There are now 24 countries which have reintroduced beavers, and at least 157 reintroductions have been recorded overall. Occasionally there have been some localised detrimental effects on land uses."
I have heard anecdotal evidence from a tree surgeon who had just returned from Estonia and who said that he could not believe the damage that had been caused to trees there. Perhaps it was caused by Canadian beavers—I do not know. It is said that European beavers do not destroy trees, but I would like to know whether that is the Scottish Executive's view. Above all, I would like to know what evidence SNH has provided about the experience in other countries. Has it provided evidence from each of the 24 countries and will it make that evidence public? It did not make such evidence available to me, and I made a freedom of information request. Perhaps I should go back and ask for more information.
I would also like to know what the quarantine experience and the exit strategy involve. I understand that the quarantine period is six months, but in what circumstances will quarantine be carried out? Does it involve a possible element of cruelty? What is the exit strategy? If we introduce or reintroduce beavers, would not it be cruel to then take them back if it did not work out for us? The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should give an opinion on that.
We remember the cull of hedgehogs. Who was responsible for that? It does not seem like such a good idea now. I make those points to ensure that they are made and not because I know the conclusion. It is not possible to reach a clear conclusion without the evidence for which the Scottish Executive asked in December 2002. I concur with my colleague Rob Gibson that some delay has occurred, but we are in 2005 and the issue is not a huge problem. I would have thought that SNH could have provided the information by now.
I am slightly concerned that SNH might have a conflict of interest because it proposed the introduction of the beaver and has been asked to be the arbiter of all information that relates to the decision. The Executive is responsible for that conflict, because it gave SNH both jobs.
I thank Nora Radcliffe for providing what is probably one of the most perfect topics for a members' business debate. I was delighted to help to launch the Scottish Wildlife Trust's parliamentary campaign to bring back the beaver a couple of months ago and I am delighted to speak in the debate. In the past couple of months, since the launch of that campaign, my understanding of the beaver has increased a lot. That is partly because I visited a trial fenced reintroduction of the beaver on a private estate in Perthshire, to which the landowner invites other members to see beavers operating in the wild ecology.
We in Scotland—from civil servants to non-governmental organisations—are in a learning period about the beaver. I am delighted to note that the National Farmers Union in Scotland recently withdrew many of its concerns about reintroduction of the beaver. The importance of reintroducing the species was brought home to me when I visited the trial reintroduction. When we see beavers in operation, it is clear that they are active environmental managers. Yes—they chop down trees, but they chop them down in rotation and they restrict themselves to riparian areas around wetlands and rivers. The woodlands regenerate—they coppice and sucker. Where felled wood lies, it creates niches and habitats for fish, insects and birds. That is hugely important and has knock-on effects. For example, in Finland, the beaver has been reintroduced and has become a keystone species. Fresh shoots of coppiced trees attract deer, which attract other species that have been reintroduced, such as the lynx and the wolf. The beaver is part of a dynamic ecology. A time may come for us to reintroduce some of those other species, but we need to start with the least controversial reintroduction, which is the reintroduction of the beaver.
On my fascinating visit to the trial reintroduction, I also saw that the way in which beavers position felled wood around a wetland leads to an increased water level, which expands the overall area of a wetland. We need that wetland, which is called willow carr, because it is biodiverse. It absorbs and stores water, which is extremely important, because it can smooth the peaks and troughs of the hydrology of a catchment and thereby reduce the risk of flooding. In an age of climate change, perhaps the beaver is in a small way one of the environmental managers that we need in nature. It can help us to adapt to some impacts of climate change.
A serious policy message exists for farmers, land managers, civil servants and politicians. One key recommendation on land use in the Environment and Rural Development Committee's climate change inquiry report, which was published this week, was that climate change considerations need to be integrated into policy on agricultural subsidies and into land management contracts in particular. Farmers need to be part of the solution. Providing biodiversity is important, but so is flood management. Perhaps the beaver could be part of that in the future.
I have dealt with some of the fluffy stuff and I will move on to the Executive's top line—hard economic growth. The beaver offers tremendous potential for eco-tourism. When I visited the estate that I mentioned, I saw no beavers, but I saw a fascinating and dynamic environment that delighted the children and adults who were on the same trip. That must be good for growth and for tourism.
Knapdale is quite close to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, whose draft plan was launched on Monday—the minister and I attended that launch. In the future, we must have a vision. I would like beavers to be reintroduced into that national park as part of the woodland regeneration scheme that the minister announced at the beginning of the week. I would also like beavers to be reintroduced into the Cairngorms national park, especially if the minister extends its boundary to include highland Perthshire.
However, we will not reach that vision unless we start somewhere. Starting with a trial unfenced but controlled reintroduction of the beaver will allow us to see how things work in practice and to build on direct experience. I ask the minister to do something quite special by reversing an extinction in Scotland. Please, give us a green light to reintroduce the beaver within the next year.
I thank the Scottish Wildlife Trust for sending me a cuddly toy beaver. I have given it to my young daughter, who likes it very much.
The European beaver is, I am sure, a cute little animal, but its sharp teeth and appetite for felling young trees mean that we should not introduce it into south Knapdale even as an experiment. My main reason for saying that is the beaver's ability to eat 200 saplings a year, which could mean that the 20 beavers in the experiment will consume 4,000 young trees. Those would likely be deciduous woodland trees, as the beavers apparently find the Sitka spruce as unpalatable as I do and other conifers are not suitable for their purpose of building dams to create lagoons.
According to Dr Kitchener and Dr Conroy and the work that Fergus Ewing mentioned, beavers were creatures of the south, so there is no historical reason for releasing them in south Knapdale. As someone who happens to live near south Knapdale, I know that we do not want anything that might cause increased flooding in the area. I would have no objection to a trial being carried out in the beaver's historic homelands of East Anglia and the Thames valley. Why has the reintroduction of beavers not been tried in those areas before introducing them into Scotland?
There is evidence that beavers cause a lot of damage in parts of Scandinavia, the Baltic states and Bavaria, where they are thought of as pests. I understand that a recent introduction of the animal into South America resulted in enormous proliferation and chaos. It is important that we learn lessons from those countries that have already introduced beavers.
Beavers undermine banks in a way that can be dangerous. For example, anyone who goes along the riverbank in a tractor could very well end up having a nasty accident if they happened to go over a stretch of ground where the beaver has undermined the bank. Beavers can also flood roads overnight if they build dams near bridges. Again, that can be dangerous.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I will in a minute.
From a tourism angle, I do not understand why there is such a wish to have a new species in Scotland when the environmental bodies can perfectly well establish and encourage the watching of other animals, such as native otters, as a tourist attraction. There are plenty of otters in south Knapdale, so why not watch those?
When the introduction of the beaver was last proposed, it was quite rightly resisted by Ross Finnie and Alan Reid, the local MP. At the time, the proposal was also opposed by the local MSP, George Lyon, as well as by the local National Farmers Union Scotland branch, crofting interests, land managers and angling interests.
Will the member give way?
I cannot, as I do not have time.
As far as I am concerned, nothing has changed to make me reconsider my opinion.
Will the member give way?
Okay. I will give way to George Lyon if I am allowed to do so.
Has the member visited the site to have a look for himself? If he had, he would have found that the terrain is so rough that no tractors could possibly travel over it. There are no roads on the site; the land is used to store water for the Crinan canal, so it is flooded already. May I suggest that he should visit the site before criticising the project?
George Lyon has me wrong there. The damage would be caused not by the trial project but by the reintroduction of beavers into the wild. I doubt that much damage would be caused by only 20 beavers, but let me now come to that point. Apparently, the reason why George Lyon changed his mind was that he was satisfied that, this time, there was an exit strategy. If the experiment involves only 20 beavers, it will not result in much damage, because the people who introduce the scheme will be keen to protect their reputation for common sense.
Although such an experiment may be good for science, it will not mirror what would result from a major release into the wild. Such a release would result in damage being caused to riverbanks and in an increase in unwanted flooding in a country that, after all, has a very high rainfall. Let us bear in mind the fact that farmers who are planting young native trees under Government and European grant schemes, using taxpayers' money, would see their work and investments devastated. The very trees that they are planting for water margins under the countryside premium scheme and rural development programme—in which we are all being encouraged to participate—would be chomped to pieces by the beavers in seconds.
Will Jamie McGrigor take an intervention?
Am I allowed to take an intervention, Presiding Officer?
You are over time, but there is a minute or so in hand, so I shall allow one intervention. You will then have a minute to wind up.
Did Mr McGrigor listen to anything that I said in my speech? I spelled out how the beaver can assist with the development of willow carr woodland.
I listened to a great deal of Mr Ruskell's speech. I was interested in the part when he said that he was thinking next of introducing lynxes and wolves. That might be a good idea after the introduction of beavers, because they would eat the beavers and stay on top of them. If we introduce beavers, there may well be a massive explosion in their numbers, because, apart from foxes, they have no natural predators in this country.
I am sorry to spoil Mr Ruskell's party, but I am cautious. Farmers and people who manage rivers and things in this country face enough drawbacks already without added ones. I am just being cautious and I do not think that there are enough safeguards in place to make people think that there will be any advantage at all in introducing beavers into Scotland. That is why I am taking the line that I am taking. I say to Mr Ruskell, "By all means, have this experiment if you want, but have it in the Thames valley where the things were most prolific, and don't bring them to south Knapdale."
I congratulate Nora Radcliffe on securing this debate and on her constructive approach to the issue. I acknowledge the enthusiasm of the proposal's supporters and I recognise that the proponents of reintroduction want not just a favourable decision but an early decision, to enable the quarantine process to begin, so that Norwegian beavers can be released in Scotland in the spring of next year. It is important, however, not to underestimate the range and complexity of the issues raised by SNH's application. There are some serious questions to be answered before such a reintroduction can go ahead and we will agree to it only if and when we are certain that the answers add up.
I take this early opportunity to lay to rest the suggestion, made this evening by Rob Gibson, that Scottish ministers have been responsible for undue delay in the progress of the application. As I said in the Parliament a few weeks ago, Allan Wilson asked SNH for further information in support of its application in December 2002. That further information was supplied in February 2005. It was, of course, entirely a matter for SNH to determine how quickly it brought that forward, but I should say that SNH has not been among those averring that Scottish ministers have been the cause of delay. Ian Jardine, the chief executive of SNH, wrote to my officials in February, stating that
"due to other pressures on SNH during this period I have not prioritised this work."
That letter is available to anyone who visits the SNH website, so there is no question that ministers have attached a lower priority to the application than the applicant has.
At the same time, ministers would rightly be criticised if we allowed ourselves to be bounced into making decisions that we thought would be popular in the short term, without regard for longer-term impacts. Instead, we must address the issue in a careful and measured way, assessing the known or likely risks against the potential benefits.
Scotland has not had native beavers in the wild for some hundreds of years. They were referred to by Hector Boece of Aberdeen university, among others, hundreds of years ago. To reintroduce them after that period of time would be a significant step and one that might not readily be reversed. Such a project could have serious consequences if there were inadequate consideration of the evidence or if the wrong conclusions were reached.
Alex Johnstone and George Lyon mentioned alien species such as the American mink, but Fergus Ewing reminded us that even the humble hedgehog has caused damage to biodiversity where it has been introduced inappropriately. No one would have thought that the introduction of perhaps four hedgehogs from Glasgow to Uist some 30 years ago would give rise to what is now a serious and adverse impact on our rare wading bird populations in those islands. The hedgehog population in Uist remains at least 5,000, in spite of SNH's management measures, with many more born each year. Breeding performance among European beavers is equally successful. The Swedish example shows an increase from six animals reintroduced from Norway in 1922 to more than 100,000 today.
Fergus Ewing asked about the aspects of the SNH case on which Allan Wilson sought information. There are three main aspects, all of which have been touched on in today's debate: the ecological, the economic and the legal.
Key to the ecological case is ensuring that we are not introducing a risk for Scotland's existing wildlife and habitats. SNH recognises that its proposal has associated risks that need to be addressed. One of those is the salmon parasite Gyrodactylus salaries, which has spread in Norway since the 1970s and has led to contamination of around 40 rivers and a similar number of fish farms. The Norwegians believe that aquatic animals such as beavers may have been one of the ways that the parasite spread through their river system. In more than 20 cases, they have released poison into the river in order to kill off infected fish, but in some larger rivers no means of eradicating the parasite have been found. In the light of that, it may be better to ensure that any Norwegian beaver is completely free of GS in Norway before it sets off for a new life in a Scottish river than to rely on a period of quarantine in the United Kingdom to solve the problem.
The proposal has, as Nora Radcliffe said, potential economic benefits for Scotland and, as George Lyon said, for Argyll in particular. I am keen to ensure that that aspect of SNH's case is properly taken into account. We need to understand potential benefits, but we also need to determine whether there might be negative implications. As we know, country sports contribute about £200 million in visitor revenue to the Scottish economy each year. A large part of that benefit is from angling. In assessing whether the potential economic benefits of reintroduction outweigh the potential damage to existing sources of income, we will need robust evidence both of how the potential extra tourism could be realised and of how potential adverse impacts on freshwater fishing could be contained.
Of course, SNH proposes a trial, under controlled conditions, in an area without significant salmonid populations, but the findings of a trial must be relevant to future activity and scientifically rigorous in all respects. We cannot limit consideration of this case to Knapdale alone. We must look further—as SNH has done—at where the beavers may spread if the trial is a success and leads to their wider reintroduction. We must also examine the long-term management and financing of the proposal, given that it would be funded largely from the public purse. I am currently awaiting revised costings from SNH for what it wishes to be a seven-year trial.
I should mention one particularly unusual aspect of the case, which has been mentioned in the debate. It would be usual for the reintroduction of species to be taken forward by bodies such as RSPB Scotland, for example, and for SNH, as the statutory adviser to Scottish ministers, to comment on such applications. In this case, however, SNH is acting not as the adviser but as the applicant. Non-departmental public bodies such as SNH were set up for good reasons. We believe that it is right in general for ministers to be able to seek advice from such bodies, which have day-to-day responsibilities in implementing Government policies and are accountable through ministers to the Parliament, but also have detailed and expert knowledge of their subject areas.
It is absolutely in order for SNH to act as the applicant when it believes that it is serving an important natural heritage interest by so doing. However, by definition, its so doing means that we are not able to turn to it in the usual way for expert advice. Fergus Ewing suggested that we had asked SNH to advise on its own application—that is not the case. We are not able to do that, because SNH is the applicant. That clearly has implications for our process of examining and considering the application.
In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of ministers to give full and well-informed consideration to all the evidence before they reach a conclusion. There must be no rush to judgment and no easy options: our objective in the matter is simply to get it right.
Meeting closed at 17:54.