Scottish charity Trees for Life has issued a damning press release about “NatureScot’s mystifying lack of backbone” in relation to a delayed licensing decision on the release of beavers in Glen Affric.
I’ll come to that press release in a second, but it reflects a wider and growing anger amongst conservationists towards NatureScot, and particularly its Wildlife Management department, for some utterly stupid and ill-thought out decisions made in recent months relating to grouse moor licensing and the monitoring of Schedule 1 raptor species.
It’s not just the decisions that have been made, but it’s more about how they were made, with appalling levels of communication, shrouded in secrecy and in some cases, blatant lies have been told. There has been a glaring display of disregard for the views of those in the conservation sector and an overt demonstration of pandering to the demands of landowners, particularly those who own game-shooting estates.
We saw an example of that last autumn/winter when NatureScot made amendments to the grouse moor licences after coming under pressure from the grouse shooting industry. NatureScot didn’t consult with any other stakeholders and instead held secret talks and meetings that resulted in a significantly weakened licence and a massive, gaping loophole that makes enforcement measures for raptor persecution (and other wildlife) crimes on grouse moors pretty much unenforceable (see here). The Scottish Government has acknowledged there are issues and efforts to rectify that mess are ongoing.
There’s also been another NatureScot fiasco running in the background over the last five months relating to licences issued to raptor fieldworkers to monitor Schedule 1 species. I won’t write about that here because it deserves a separate blog or two, which I’ll write soon, but be under no illusion about the levels of anger from a number of conservation organisations about how NatureScot has behaved during the process. There will undoubtedly be repercussions.
And now there’s the beaver licensing fiasco at Glen Affric, with NatureScot being accused by conservationists of “great beaver betrayal” and concerns that some within NatureScot have “succumbed to pressure from outside forces“.
NatureScot’s reputation reached rock bottom in 2018 when it issued a licence to a bunch of predator-hating landowners and gamekeepers to kill ravens in Strathbraan in a five-year experiment, “just to see what happens” (here). That licence was pulled after a successful legal challenge from the Scottish Raptor Study Group resulted in NatureScot’s own scientific advisory committee stating that the scientific rigour of the licence was “completely inadequate” (here).
Since then, relationships between conservationists and NatureScot had improved significantly in recent years, with efforts made by both parties to rebuild trust. It was going well, up until last summer, when it became apparent that someone at NatureScot, or perhaps a couple of them, were clearly making decisions without the ‘openness and transparency” that NatureScot laughingly claims to uphold.
Expect to read more about the fall out, and ramifications, in coming weeks.
Meanwhile, here’s the press release from Trees for Life, issued yesterday:
NATURESCOT ACCUSED OF ‘GREAT BEAVER BETRAYAL’
‘Mystifying’ decision by Scotland’s nature agency comes despite huge public support for return of native species and ‘exemplary’ local consultations
Scottish government agency NatureScot has unexpectedly delayed its decision to grant a licence application for the historic official release of beavers in Glen Affric citing ‘concern among the local community and its representatives’ as a reason for its controversial delay.
Another government agency, Forestry and Land Scotland, submitted a licence application in December, following two years and three phases of extensive local consultation which resulted in two thirds of people involved supporting the release of beavers in the glen.
Steve Micklewright, CEO of Trees for Life said, “This is an astonishing move by NatureScot. After two years of exhaustive consultations that far exceeded the requirements set out by NatureScot and that they have described as exemplary, one has to ask, what more is there to consult on?”
Beavers create wetlands that benefit other wildlife, soak up carbon dioxide, purify water and reduce flooding. They can also bring economic benefits to communities through eco-tourism.
“NatureScot’s mystifying lack of backbone in the face of the nature and climate emergencies betrays so many people in the community who have engaged with this process in good faith and want the hope and renewal beavers would bring,” said Steve Micklewright.
“The agency’s indecision also flies in the face of a Scottish Government directive to its public agencies to return beavers to suitable new areas of the country, and polls showing three-quarters of Scots want to see public bodies delivering on that. Scotland can’t afford its national nature agency to be failing to deliver on its remit on biodiversity in this way. NatureScot needs to be worthy of its name.
“Very senior NatureScot managers were endorsing our gold standard approach to public consultation even after the licence application was submitted, so the fear is agency bosses have succumbed to pressure from outside forces. NatureScot should do the right thing and provide full, transparent answers to explain its inconsistent behaviour.”
ENDS
Notes to Editors
In a recent opinion poll conducted for the Scottish Rewilding Alliance, 73% of respondents said Scotland’s public bodies should identify more sites on their land for beavers.
Scotland’s Beaver Strategy, published by NatureScot in 2022, aims to ensure communities are supported to maximise the benefits of beavers, with negative impacts minimised, and to actively expand the beaver population into appropriate areas.
Trees for Life and FLS have been working in partnership for over two years on the Glen Affric proposal, which would have been the first official release of beavers to the northwest Highlands, four centuries since the native species was driven to extinction.
The rigorous consultations have significantly exceeded the requirements of Scotland’s National Beaver Strategy. This includes three rounds of extensive public engagement, resulting in two-thirds (67%) community support as long as conditions are met, and Trees for Life’s appointment of a dedicated Beaver Management Officer from the local area.
UPDATE 14 April 2025: “Something is very wrong at the heart of NatureScot” – opinion piece by farmer & conservationist Tom Bowser (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
Well over to Wild Justice then.
Nature Scot need to be held accountable in law and challenged. That is why many of us subscribe each month to support action nor words. Secrecy and lies is no way to run such an key establishment who are legally responsible for the establishment of the appropriate licencing and rule enforcements in Scotland. Time to call them out. Happy to chip in some additional funding
ask countryside hotels owners
coffee and souvenirs shop owners.
Shooting estates workers and owners .
what they think about your shit and those clowns that lives in the city not knowing how the Scottish people living in the countryside makes their living
“what they think about your shit and those clowns that lives in the city not knowing how the Scottish people living in the countryside makes their living”
Let me guess… they commit illegal acts killing raptors?
I’ll be happy to chip again in too. Both NS and NE seem to be classic, or should that be tragic, examples of regulatory capture. They have some great individuals working for them on the ground but the senior management values process over outcomes and has forgotten who they work for and what they are there to do.
it begs the question what criteria are used to appoint the top managers.
on merit and qualification or who you know.
There is the legal instrument to challenge the lack of adherence to their statutory duty by Nature Scot.
Doesn’t Mr Johnston own a shooting estate near Moffat and was chair of Scottish Land and Estates for several years?
Could do…
https://fms.scot/fisheries-management-scotland-welcomes-new-chairman-to-succeed-richard-sankey/
https://www.nature.scot/about-naturescot/board-directors-and-committees/our-board/board-members
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/T99UohrIzNx9tOWnI5ue5qgu8vE/appointments
https://www.gunsonpegs.com/shoots/dumfriesshire/balgray-and-raehills-shoot
https://www.thefield.co.uk/features/shooting-in-scotland-22658
https://johnston.simpsonhistory.com/johnstonhistory
https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-wildlife/wildlife-management-contacts
https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2023-11/Wildlife%20Management%20Officer%20areas%20of%20responsibility%20-%202023.pdf
https://www.nature.scot/doc/naturescot-organisational-structure-chart
According to LinkedIn, the Head of Wildlife Management at NatureScot used to be a deer stalker on the Glen Cannich Estate up to 2003, which happens (I believe) to be associated with Glen Affric.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25059437.beaver-betrayal-rewilders-mystified-naturescot-delay/
A reader writes: “Given that there appears to be no cultivated farmland – whatsoever – in Glen Affric, thereby greatly reducing the potential for genuine local objections, it will be very interesting to learn just what the justification for NatureScot’s decision is.”
Thank you. This pretty much confirms what I just said in my own comment. I remember, over 30 years ago, at uni, being shocked to discover, that a large proportion of people on the then English Nature, governing board, were landowners with shoots, and their gamekeepers, which outnumbered conservationists. How does this happen?
Whilst these criticisms of NatureScot and Natural England are fair (and I have just been the personal victim of Natural England lying, partly, but not completely to do, with shooting industry cronyism). I think we need to look at this with a much broader brush. There is clear evidence from other countries, that the same thing occurs, and that is governments, and government conservation bodies, unaccountably kowtow, to land owning and shooting interests. I became aware of this quite some time ago, when I became involved in complaining about Norwegian government’s, bizarre backing of Wolf culls. It ended up with me corresponding with someone from Norwegian Greenpeace. They explained that public opinion in Norway, is against these culls, but the agricultural and shooting lobby, is so powerful, that it gets what they want. I believe it is similar in Malta etc, where the public is against these massacres of migrating birds. The shooting, landowning and farming lobbies, in which there is a lot of crossover, have an inordinate ability to manipulate and subvert government policy, even though it is publicly unpopular, and these are minority lobbies, with not much sympathy or support from the public. Until we find some way, of stopping their ability to subvert governments and their policy, nothing will get better. We need to be able to find out, why governments are so vulnerable to this vested interest lobbying. Personally, I think it is to do, with individuals within government, the establishment, and government bodies, having close relationships with these lobby groups.
“Personally, I think it is to do, with individuals within government, the establishment, and government bodies, having close relationships with these lobby groups.”
I agree entirely. ‘Sporting interests’ – which are often synonymous with land ownership – have had hundreds of years of practise in infiltrating Government bodies (Departments mainly, as well as all the QUANGOs associated with land ownership, even the Food Standards Agency) and (some) Conservation Charities.
After all, they are lead from the very top:-(
The fact that I call them ‘Sporting interests’ shows just how much they have even infiltrated the language, to disguise their activities behind euphemisms of common parlance.
They do not need directly elected representatives, either, because they control/influence the levers of Government. They can even rely upon the ‘professionalism’ of those who draft the legislation… The great ‘joy’ of this – for them – is that they are all unelected: they either do not have to disclose their vested interests – or are not subject to the great public scrutiny as politicians often are. After all, they are also well represented in the class who own or control most of our media:-(
They are very well-versed in not ‘outing’ themselves…
Through their wealth and strategic donations they can even influence conservation charities, sometimes occupying senior positions.
And through their acolytes they also infiltrate any public forum associated with ‘conservation’.
Over many years they have certainly influenced the police and judiciary.
It is like a mafia:-(
Ironically, given that every step to ban the slaughter of wildlife for fun, or on the pretext of protection for livestock, is deemed by the perpetrators to be “class war”, I think that applies much more to these issues. From senior police to judges, sheriffs, magistrates, barristers / lawyers and politicians: they are either of the same peer group as the landowners or aspire to be, which is why they do their damnedest to protect the landowning interests. From failure to prosecute effectively, failure to punish properly, if they do fail to get a case thrown out, failure to apply laws relating to conservation and reintroductions properly, it all smacks to me of our lords and masters telling us serfs to know our place!
This just penetrates into the countryside agencies. Who would have thought that the campaigning Tony Juniper would be so ineffective as head of Natural England? So docile when it comes to persecution of birds of prey, when it comes to the badger cull and the completely unnecessary destruction of the environment, with all of the associated issues for nature, with HS2. It beggars belief that NE has been so quiet and, with the Hen Harrier Inaction Plan, complicit in allowing persecution and disturbance of this threatened species to continue.
When an expert on the mafia, was asked to name the most corrupt country in the world, he said the UK.
Report it to Environmental Standards Scotland. They’ve already challenged NatureScot about their approach to decisions on translocations of beavers once.
Thanks for highlighting this – I didn’t know they existed! I issued an FOI to NatureScot last year over their issuing of licences to kill ravens because of lamb losses on a farm in Blairgowrie. The replies showed that NatureScot issued licences within 24 hours based on “evidence” of some photos of dead lambs with not a raven in sight. And dead ewe that had clearly had a caesarean, but had “‘”been ripped open” according to the shepherd! NatureScot not fit for purpose.
Thank you for this piece. It’s pretty much in line with the way NatureScot does very little to protect wildlife from the deluge of ‘green’ energy developments that are damaging globally important peatland and all types of wildlife in the Highlands. You’d think these industrial developments that involve draining and excavating millions of tonnes of ancient peatland and replacing it with concrete are as ‘biodiversity enhancing’ as the developers’ Environmental Impact Assessments insist they are. I doubt people in the south of England are aware of how much irreparable environmental damage their ‘green’ energy provision is doing to the other parts of the UK used to create it.
I once complained to Natural England about its lack openness and transparency – specifically in refusing my request to attend one of its council meetings as an observer.
One of its lawyers responded, saying NE’s policy was to ‘deliver’ transparency.
I had no answer to that.
“One of its lawyers responded, saying NE’s policy was to ‘deliver’ transparency”
Excellent:-)
Forestry and Land Scotland and Trees For Life have been working for at least 7 years towards bringing beavers back to Glen Affric. I’ve done quite a lot of work, paid and voluntary, with Trees For Life, some of which involved planting lots of willow in Glen Affric in 2016/17 to improve the habitat for beavers in anticipation of a future release. The news that a potential release has been delayed makes me feel betrayed by NatureScot and only increases my contempt for them.
“The news that a potential release has been delayed makes me feel betrayed by NatureScot and only increases my contempt for them.”
The rot usually starts at the top:-(