 Welcome to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee's 8th meeting of 2019. Before we move on to the first item in our agenda, can we remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones as they may affect the broadcasting system? We have apologies from Claudia Beamish, member of the committee. The first item in the agenda is for the committee to take evidence on the conservation natural habitats amendment Scotland regulations 2009. That is SSI 2009 oblique 64. This morning, I am delighted to welcome Hugh Dignan, head of wildlife and protected areas, and John Gray, policy offer from the Scottish Government. Also joining us today are Ben Ross from the Scottish Beaver Project and Scheme Manager of the National Operations and Martin Gawyd, species action framework manager of ecosystems and biodiversity unit of Scottish natural heritage. Good morning to you all. I will ask some initial questions before I open up to my colleagues. Can you outline the process—I suppose that I am—for Hugh Dignan, my question. Can you outline the process that the Scottish Government and the SNH have gone through in order to bring forward these regulations since the announcement was made in 2016 that the Government was minded to grant beavers, European protected status? Yes, of course. Broadly, there are two strands of work that we have undertaken in that time. The first of those was a couple of technical exercises. There was an exercise under the Habitat Directorate to do habitat regulations assessment to assess the extent to which allowing beavers to stay and giving them protected status would have an impact on other protected species and protected sites. That piece of work was required to be done and was completed and has been published. In a similar vein, there was also a strategic environmental assessment that looked at the impacts on wider environmental issues of allowing beavers to stay. That was a pretty significant piece of work involving public consultation and assessment of the impacts and so on. Again, that piece of work took some time to do, but it was completed and published late last year, I think, when it actually finally made it to the website. That was the technical and formal process that we needed to go through. Alongside that, it really was a matter of ensuring that stakeholders really understood what we were doing and that we had the chance to listen to their concerns and to work with our colleagues in SNH to design a management system that would provide the legal protection for beavers, but at the same time be flexible enough to ensure that land uses like agriculture and forestry and fisheries and so on could continue to operate in a pretty unimpeded fashion. Where do you hope that we will be in five, ten years' time and that those regulations are in place? I hope that, in terms of the management system that we have developed our understanding and that we will have learnt how to manage beavers in a Scottish context. I am not anticipating that. That will be hugely different from other European countries who have similar land uses and similar issues with beavers, but there will inevitably be some Scottish aspects to the way we manage beavers. We will learn that. In terms of the beavers themselves, I hope that they will be contributing to the biodiversity of Scotland by the wetland ecosystem engineering impacts that they will have and that they will continue their natural range expansion. SSI was supposed to be laid in 2018, early in 2018. Can you give an idea of why there has been a delay and why it is only now that it is coming forward? It has primarily been about discussions with stakeholders. We could have pushed forward the technical aspects, as I mentioned before, but we wanted to be sure that we were properly picking up the concerns of stakeholders and that we were developing the system. They pushed us hard. It is a significant thing. It is the first ever reintroduction of a mammal into the UK, so it is quite a significant step. We really wanted to take the time to make sure that we got it right. I guess we were also learning about the sort of impacts that beavers were having in areas like Strathmore, which is very intensively farmed, and I guess we hadn't quite appreciated the sort of impacts they would have until we started to see them on the ground. There was an element of learning for us, and I think that for the farmers too, and it took time to come up with a system to deal with that. It has really been a case of the delay being about working with the stakeholders to sort of tease out some of their issues and get them to a place where they are comfortable with this statutory instrument. Indeed, that is right. That is a regulation change. Stewart Stevenson wanted to come in. Since the illegal release of beavers in Tayside, we have seen significant impact. I have just heard about the environmental assessments that have been done, but was there a parallel assessment of the economic impact? Obviously, for farmers, this unplanned and unmanaged introduction was non-trivial, but equally, there are potential positive economic impacts. It strikes me that there should have been an economic impact assessment and, indeed, a financial assessment that relates to the costs that the Government might find itself incurring. Was all of that done on the back of this illegal release? At the time of the decision in 2016, there was a report done on I think that it was called Beavers in Scotland, and that had a socio-economic analysis aspect to it. That looked both at Tayside and at the original release site in Napdell. The key thing, though, is that we have learned more since then as beavers have moved into areas of Tayside, and as we have realised the sort of impacts that they can have, particularly in these areas such as Strathmore, where there are particular fields of drainage systems and low-lying land where people are farming in the flood plain. That is something that we have learned. I think that it is quite difficult for us to put a figure on that. I think that the way that we would like to approach it is to prevent damage rather than to pay or to compensate for damage caused. That has really been the focus of our work on the management system. I should also mention that I neglected to mention that Edward Mountain, who is the convener of the Rural Economy, has joined me. Sorry, I forgot to do that. On to questions from Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell, can I turn to the management framework? Can I ask SNH about what legal tests will need to be satisfied in order to issue licences for legal control or other interventions, and how those relate to the requirements in the Habitats Directive? There are three basic licensing tests, if you like, before you intervene to do something that would otherwise be an offence. The first of those is that there is a purpose within the legislation for which you can grant a licence, so the need to intervene, whether that meets one of the purposes. There are eight or ten different purposes within the legislation. The most likely ones for the cases that we have seen are about preventing serious damage to crops and agriculture more widely, or other forms of property or infrastructure there, or if there is anything about preserving public health or public safety. There are a number of different purposes. Those are the two most likely purposes for which you would use. That is the first test. The second test is whether there is a satisfactory alternative to having to go down the route of carrying out something that would otherwise be an offence. The third test is the assessment of whether those actions that are being carried out are likely to compromise the conservation status of beaver populations. Are those compatible with the Habitats Directive? Have you sought a view from the European Commission on that? We haven't sought a view from the European Commission on that, but they are compatible. Those tests apply to all European protected species, and we have a range of European protected species already present in Scotland, and that we are already well-versed with managing. We have to use those tests all of the time for hundreds of licences every year. You haven't sought specific views from the European Commission on that. No, Europe has a lot of guidance out there about how you operate with derogations. The Government wrote to NFUS Scotland last week, and I will read you the text of it. It says that the guarantee that any farmer experiencing or anticipating problems from beavers on prime agricultural land will be given licences to manage beavers if they are required. How can the Government guarantee that the issue of licences will be in line with this key principle that lethal control will be a last resort? There are a couple of aspects to that. First of all, there is this word if required. There is contingent on the being a need for a licence, so we would, as Ben has explained, if it meets one of the purposes. The second aspect that I want to mention is that we have in discussions with the farmers in areas like the intensively farmed parts of TAS, I like Strathmore or Strathur, and we have agreed with them that some of the tests don't need to be replicated for every single application. We understand now that there are no satisfactory alternatives for some aspects of beaver impact that need to be managed. That is not a novel thing. It has happened in other areas of licensing. The actual test requires the licensing authority, but is SNH in this case, to be satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative. It doesn't require the licence applicant to demonstrate every single time that they have tried every other alternative. If the licensing authority such as SNH says that we understand this situation very well, these licence applications are identical. They are about, for example, burrowing into riverbanks which protect vulnerable farmland, or they are about blocking field drains which cause waterlogging in fields. We understand that situation. You don't need to, every single time, replicate the arguments which are used. We are saying where those arguments have been made and where Ben and his colleagues have discussed with farmers, those farmers can expect that they will get a licence. They don't need to continually restate the arguments every time they make an application. Will there be transparency over the licensing regime? In the way that we have transparency for seal culling through Marine Scotland licences, will there be transparency from SNH as to who has the licences, how many beavers have been translocated, how many have been lethally culled, what kind of measures have been put in place, or is that going to be closed off? We have to report back on our licence activities as a whole anyway. There are limits to the information that you can provide at the individual level and there is the data protection legislation about identifying individuals, but we should be able to provide the details of what we are licensing more broadly. We should be very careful that we are not providing people's... Would that be at the level of detail of the seal culling licensing regime that Marine Scotland manages? I am not familiar with exactly what level of detail is provided. I think that it would be useful if you could write back to the committee with details of how this licensing regime is going to be transparent and what it will cover in terms of reporting. Can I bring in some supplementary questions on this particular line of question of Fin Carson? Why should stakeholders, farmers and landers have any confidence in any framework or licensing scheme that is brought in given the failure to prosecute and the wildlife crime which was the illegal translocation of beavers to an area outwith the trial? Why would they have any confidence that we can ensure that the licensing is fit for purpose when it is quite obvious that there was an illegal movement of beavers and that there would be no prosecutions? I think that there are two separate things, two separate issues. The appearance of beavers on Tayside was quite clearly the result of either illegal releases or at best I suppose people either deliberately or allowed animals to escape. It also seemed that it probably wasn't a one-off event and it was difficult I think for us as the authorities to actually to know when it had happened and it was very difficult to gather evidence. I mean these issues were reported to the police, I think the police did investigate but these are incredibly difficult things to prosecute. That clear one-off act by some person who could be prosecuted so I think it was always going to be difficult to pursue people on that basis and I think again we've learned some lessons about how we need to manage that sort of situation and we've strengthened the law around that and I think we're also more conscious of the need to keep an eye on people who have collections of animals or people who may have ulterior intentions in that respect. In terms of the licensing, I understand that licensing is sometimes a controversial subject. It's a controversial subject around certain species but around a whole range of other species it works on a pretty routine sort of basis and I think there is a broad degree of trust in those sort of situations that SNH and Scottish Government are reliable partners and we've worked over the last two years as I mentioned to the convener in building relations with NFUS and assuring them of our intentions and I hope and think that they are pretty reassured by what we've had to say to them on this so I think in many ways the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and we'll see how that goes. There's the legal side of things and there's also best practice as well and I think partly in response to the experience of a situation on Tayside and indeed the white-tailed eagle situation as well in particular through what happened learning from that experience we brought together many of the land use and conservation organisations interested in conservation translocations in general through a body called the National Species for Introduction to try and talk together about how to think ahead how we can be more strategic and planned and utilise best practice more and out of that process we developed something called the Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations which has been signed up to by all the forum members on the land use side and the conservation side so it's very much trying to promote best practice based on internationally recognised guidelines and ensuring that practitioners are very careful about preparing properly consultomy stakeholders ensuring the legal elements are addressed and so on and that was published in 2014 Thank you, convener I just want to go back to the the non-lethal controls the translocation of beavers to non-prime agricultural land and my view is that that will just effectively spread beavers presumably across Scotland to parts of Scotland that they wouldn't otherwise have gone to I note that it's prime agricultural land that has land quality from 1 to 3.1 the Balkus Scotland is non-prime agricultural land and so they are going to have a different regime is that correct in my understanding of that correct that they will be expected by and luck the prime agricultural land will be protected from the ravages of the worst but the non-prime agricultural land will be expected to carry the burden of this PC3 introduction is that a fair assessment? I don't think so The different standards anyway Our assessment of it would be that first of all translocation is not considered to be a primary management tool it's a difficult tool to use, there are welfare concerns for beavers that are translocated and as you have indicated there are always going to be issues about where we release beavers which are translocated and it's definitely not the intention of ministers to seek to expand the range of beavers by translocation so that it's definitely not going to happen Where will you put them then? We're not actually planning to translocate a lot of beavers there will be issues where translocation is the right solution but that will be really dependent on being assured about the costs of it being assured about the welfare aspects and of course most important being assured that there are suitable release sites so as I say it's not really the prime way that beavers can be managed in terms of talking about other areas bearing the brunt of beaver reintroduction I think that the key issue here is that the sort of prime agricultural land that we're talking about in place like Strathmore and other similar areas they are particularly vulnerable to beaver impacts because it is low lying land it's very flat land and that land is susceptible to flooding it's often close to a row bank and so on As you move up the hillside any land where there's a gradient beavers inevitably will have less of an impact in terms of flooding there won't be any issues about blocking field drains and flooding fields in the same way With respect and I should have declared an interest as a farmer but forgive me it's not just in the prime agricultural land there are drainage systems outflow into river systems forgive me but that's a not thing to see if you'll forgive me you have known you for a long time but you know as well as me that it draws the whole of Scotland and not just in prime agricultural land but I think it's the issue is where you have the long very low gradient field drain ditches which can be blocked by beavers and the level rises in those and thus stops the drainage from the field I'm not sure that that particular phenomenon takes place so readily there's some sort of gradient on the land all you need to do is block the drainage mouth and that's the drain blocked and the drains will backfill self evidently well I mean if that is the case well then the beaver licensing and management arrangements will come into play but what we've seen in other parts of the world and other parts of Europe is that it is particularly the flat low lying land which is particularly susceptible to beaver impacts and also farming on a hillside where there is more drainage see less of those impacts and we would expect that to be broadly similar here I'm not saying that we know impacts or that there is no field drainage in those systems I'm just saying that we would expect as a general rule that the impacts will be less in those areas and farmers may well I would hope find that it is easier to tolerate living alongside beavers in those sort of situations From the licensing perspective there is that the fact that we have this approach proposed for prime agricultural land does not preclude licences on other areas of land as you say and those tests that I referred to earlier still apply so if there are impacts that are threatening the livelihood of farmers there the ability to license activities from including dam manipulation to resolve whatever issues being there will still apply and we still propose to be able to send out expert advisers to be able to go out and visit farms to look at that and come up with solutions to those problems the only difference with the prime agricultural land is that we say we recognise through experience the value of that land and the ease by which impacts of beavers can have an impact Can I ask a question just from background because I wasn't on the committee when you were doing the deliberations when you have made the decision if you are going to translocate beavers into a certain area what is the process who do you let know what kind of consultation is there around there what happens with your correspondence with the people that might be affected there actually haven't been many translocations so to date we had the translocations at Napdell for the Scottish beaver trial which is a licensed translocation the situation in Tayside didn't really come out from translocations they came out from some form of well they would have we're not quite sure but some sort of escape or unauthorised release within Tayside I think I'm correct in saying there haven't, I think there might have been one or two small scale translocations a problem beaver from A to B but in terms of your wider question as to how is decision making done I mean from this point it depends on the purpose of the translocations so for example over the next few years we're anticipating that there may be opportunities to do what we call conservation translocations which is where you move an animal for conservation purposes so we anticipate for example having an opportunity to move a certain number, a small number up to 28 animals or Tayside to Napdale as part of a licensed translocation process which is quite rigorously done it has to go through the Scottish code for conservation translocation process I mentioned before which is looking at all the biological and socio-economic risks and benefits making assessments of those, planning and mitigation doing a health screening and so on and then doing the translocation through appropriate workers as far as other sites we anticipate might happen in the future in fact interestingly there's quite a lot of interest in England at the moment about beaver releases and we are lazing with our colleagues down south about the potential of some translocations of Tayside animals to the south we're waiting for further details but again if they do request that it'll have to go through the code approach again the same sort of process as I mentioned before so it's quite a rigorous exercise but there's the opportunity here of using beavers from situations for example on south east Tayside where there is a management problem so you're sort of addressing a management need but then providing a conservation purpose but it's important to emphasise this is probably quite a short term thing there will come a point when there won't be the opportunity to find release sites anymore and we'll have to find alternative ways of managing the beavers so at the moment there are places we might release them Napdale or potentially England but that will probably only be mainly around for the next few years and across a number of release sites we'll go down OK, of course just a couple of other people want to come and fork them back to John Edward Mountain wanted to ask a question, do you still want to? Thank you convener and I would like to make it clear that I attend this meeting as an individual not as a convener of the rec committee and I would also like to declare an interest in that I'm a member of a farming partnership and also I have wild fisheries interest I just want to push on on the translocation bit if I may because beavers tend to live in natural family groups small family groups translocating beavers from one location to another where there are no other beavers is relatively straightforward translocating beavers to areas where there are existing beavers will likely to cause further problems in that area could you just confirm to me that the government has no intention of translocating beavers from one catchment to another considering all the interests and taking public consultation from all stakeholders involved because there is a serious concern that beavers will be moved from Tayside up into the cangorms and could affect people there Confirm that would be the position we would seek to ensure that all the relevant interests were properly consulted and viewpoints taken into account there are no imminent plans the focus right now ministers are concerned is to absorb and learn the lessons and learn how to manage beavers where we've got them rather than seeking to expand their range by translocation We don't have time I'm going back there John Scott's got some additional questions How will SNH monitor the cumulative impact of legal control on beavers including on their ability to naturally spread what is the baseline that this impact will be measured against Do you want to talk about the data that we already have? So we've done two surveys to date, one in 2012 and one in 2018 of beaver population on Tayside So the most recent one which was published in 2018 showed there were 114 beaver territories that we recorded within the Tayside area It probably doesn't mean to say that we know of all of them but we estimate and we have of the population So that represents maybe 320 to 550 animals So that is our baseline in effect so we can use that to therefore make assessments of change in the future So we've already used that 2018 survey to compare the previous 2012 survey to identify where there has been change in range where there have been change in numbers of field signs for example so you can get an indication of where beaver populations are spreading or decreasing and increasing in terms of their presence and we can continue to use that methodology in the future to make assessments of change of beavers in general for whatever cause including impacts of legal control Thank you If the SSI is passed presumably unlicensed legal control of beavers will become a wildlife crime Have there been discussions with Police Scotland about how unlicensed interventions will be approached in the initial period after regulations coming into force and I suppose at the same time you can maybe answer questions about further unlicensed additions of beavers being moved all around the country and regulations are required to ensure that the transition is made smoothly and the elements of wildlife crime you know there's two different types of wildlife crime here there's people moving beavers around the country and also the lethal destruction of beavers I don't think we've had any specific discussions with the Police on monitoring unlicensed killing of beavers at this stage I think it's a point that we will be taking up with them that we do have good on-going relations obviously with Police in the Tayside area around the issue of beaver management and that they've been involved alongside the beaver forum where these issues have been discussed in terms of further releases again I think you know we as I mentioned earlier we have been very clear about the way that we see that ministers have said that it's an offence which is punchy it's difficult to do things about it when you're learning about it several months or years after the event which is what happened in Tayside they chose not to resolve the problem at the time they could have resolved the problem by removing the animals although there was a judgment made on how practical that was they chose not to do anything about it they chose not to remove the animals I didn't think they chose not to prosecute to people there was an interest in exploring the extent to which it would be possible to pursue criminal offences okay, thank you for the time being can dream it okay, thanks if I could turn to the issue of resourcing and ask the panel what demand you're anticipating for the licences and accreditation for lethal control for example, based on any understanding of the current level of unregulated culling and are you satisfied that SNH can meet the demand we are there's two aspects for that one is about the licensing angled ability to issue sufficient licences I'm very confident that we can that that we can do that we are organising the licensing team next week to start to develop the licences and process the first the first of those and we have a list of 15 to 20 farms at the moment who are wanting them but we'd be hoping to work with NFU Scotland Scottish Land and Estates and others to be able to make sure that fully aware of the framework and the service we can offer both in terms of licensing and advice and the mitigation scheme as well in terms of the accredited controller training for lethal control we have three training seminars already planned and booked in approximately two weeks time they will be starting and we have excuse me I turn it with we've got about possibly 30 people at the moment interested in in that but again I'm confident that we can meet the demand okay with regard to the training and guidance are you expecting to have more of these at a later date yes if there is demand for it we can deliver the training okay and specifically with regard to resources what resources will be required for you to fulfil the various new functions including the licensing accreditation for lethal control and also the provision of site based advice presumably there'll be a cost there we've been providing site based advice five or six years now so we're relatively well versed about what that tends to cost us we now have a mitigation scheme as well and I expect that demand will increase there we have money from Scottish Government to help fund the scheme we have about 40 cases at the moment that we're dealing with as potential scheme cases and we're confident that we can deal with those and there is an unknown element to the levels of demand but as I say we have got five or six years history of experience of dealing with farmers primarily farmers it's not all farmers I should say so we I think yes we've got the resources to be able to do that okay that's good to hear Stain with the issue of resources fisheries management Scotland have highlighted that beaver dams can prevent the free passage of fish and that some dams will need to be notched or removed by fisheries managers now whilst the management guidelines allow such work to occur fisheries management Scotland have highlighted the significant resource implications in simply locating the dams prior to any assessment of issues relating to fish passage now that this is clearly a new role for fisheries managers which is not currently funded do you recognise this concern and do you agree that fisheries managers should be supported in undertaking such work in the future we are working with fisheries managers now to look at that part of the scheme is looking at trialling it's not just about trialling there's mitigation techniques such as dam manipulation as you say but it's also about techniques of trying to predict where problems may occur and we've got research on going about modelling where dams are likely to get built based on habitat characteristics and physical characteristics there but we can also explore more novel techniques of being able to monitor water levels or try and use the predictions to be able to see if we can provide efficient ways of surveying water courses to try and look for potential blockage areas you say efficient ways how would you survey we've talked about this is not just for fisheries but for drainage as well we've got automatic sensors for water levels to be able to see whether you can remotely do that and know that a dam has been built in a certain area there's been talk of drone use for looking for dams but I think that's the point of the scheme is about coming up with innovative ways and we do that through our work with Fisheries Management Scotland those approaches the guidance that you've drafted appears to allow the continued shooting of pregnant beavers by farmers and land managers and their kits during the dependency period why is there no closed season for lethal control in the guidance there is presumption against control during that kit dependence period but we have to recognise that some of these problems can occur at any time of the year so a farmer can lose a quarter or a half of a field at any time of the year and that might coincide with the kit dependency period what we've had to do is try and encourage sufficient monitoring is going on to try and prevent that and get early action but we acknowledge that sometimes it will happen and therefore the methods that are subsequently used take account for minimising the welfare implications of those actions so it, whilst it is not the preferred approach we acknowledge sometimes it will be necessary and that will involve adapting how you how you carry out that control to minimise those welfare impacts Do you intend to issue licences for lethal control during the current kit dependency season in the run-up to May? If they are necessary then yes Filly Carson I'm aware that the Scottish Beaver Forum in a technical group are looking at a mitigation scheme Can you give us an idea of what the current status is with the scheme and what the process is for developing it and let us know how stakeholders including landlords whatever can get involved in the process The scheme is up and running we've got about 40 cases as I say that we are looking at at the moment approximately 50 per cent of those are agricultural and the remainder are about woodland damage even spread woodland damage, recreational path damage, riverbank erosion residential issues so we have those cases works have been carried out on a number of those works are planned for others so they're all in various stages of being dealt with one was done last week about maintaining levels of water in a particular small reservoir we installed a device to manage the water levels there we've got other fencing and exclusion options on going ahead on certain farms in Perthshire protection of garden and specimen trees and trials of excluding beavers from certain networks of watercourses and drainage ditches to try and alleviate problems that are being experienced in high risk areas and remove the need for lethal control in those areas so there are a lot of different streams that we're often hearing the term of public money for public goods do you see us moving towards the mitigation scheme incentivising our compensation providing compensation for landowners that support beavers so for example I put in buffer zones or supporting beaver wetlands do you see that as landowners getting payments for example I'm not sure that's the mitigation scheme or whether that's the future of agri-environment arrangements but I mean maybe that's more for you Hugh no I think that's right I mean we would expect in the future to see agri-environment schemes developing in that way where there would be as you say payment for public goods very much so okay John did you have some questions around this thing? Yes I did I just wanted to go back to a question that was asked earlier about flooding the ability of beavers to upset complicated hydrological calculations for natural flood prevention I think particularly of upper T side when the risk of flooding to places like Perth and the complicated hydrology that in the flooding bill that was invidaged would have to be carried out around that and beaver's ability to disrupt that in a period of affordment how do you see that playing out because I think you were involved in the flooding bill Mr Dynion along with me and we know how about taking the tops off floods and beaver dams by definition are always full of water otherwise they wouldn't be there and therefore they are not beneficial anyway in that regard and therefore perhaps to slow down the rate of flow but not in terms of capacity in the captioned area how do you see that being dealt with or is it being discussed at all? Well there's a lot of speculation about it but we don't see any evidence that beavers have caused flooding of that sort at so far and I mean it's very difficult to know of course and I'm not sure that there's much evidence from elsewhere either that the flooding in Eileth a few years back and there was a number of claims made around the potential role of beavers in that and I think that SEPA and SNH and Perth and Kinross Council carried out a pretty comprehensive examination of that and found that there were no beaver impacts on that particular flooding so I'm not really aware that there is any particular concerns causing flooding I'm not suggesting causing flooding but just making the hydrological calculations that have been done to take the tops of floods through natural flood prevention techniques that they will thwart those good intentions those delicate calculations Well I mean as I say SEPA are members of the beaver forum and this is clearly their field and we don't see any particular concerns expressed by SEPA with the positioners as it stands so I mean I'm not an expert in that area I don't really have anything further to say as the SEPA assessment of that And now back to the scripted questions I've been given what opportunities are there for the scheme to contribute to Scotland's wider 2020 biodiversity target I mean clearly Martin I can say more about the detail but one of the prime reasons for being interested in beavers is because of their impacts as ecosystem engineers and their ability to create wetland and the associated ecosystems and invertebrates, birds amphibians and so on which come along with those wetlands so we think that they will make a significant difference to the biodiversity of Scotland that they are being ecosystem engineers they can have there's a lot of evidence now it shows that they can have this positive impact in biodiversity overall and they do that through the creation of these wetlands copious woodlands more patchy habitat more heterogeneous habitat providing a greater range of habitat for a greater range of species producing habitats which some of which are in decline in deadwood or fallen deadwood or wetland areas and so on I'm just going back to the previous point about the flooding if I may I know we were talking about some of the negative impacts and indeed a localised level sometimes beaver flooding can cause a problem but there is actually also a fair amount of evidence now which shows that there is potential for a role of beavers in natural flood management I think we need to find out more about it so this is a really interesting research by Devin where the University of Exeter has been doing work which shows where beaver dams are operating they're having a softening and attenuating effect on peak flow increasing water storage and so on and indeed there is actually a research bid at the moment to try and look at this in a bigger scale and we're waiting for later on for halfway through this year the results of a research bid to see whether we can examine this in more detail look at the potential of using beavers as a tool in natural flood management it would be very interesting I'm sure the committee would be very interested to see that piece of work thank you a further question on that point you mentioned about biodiversity increasing biodiversity as a result of beavers being in their landscape how are you going to monitor that we've got processes in place that you're going to be monitoring the effect that they do we have on biodiversity I think the key thing is I think overall increases in biodiversity is what we're anticipating I think where we'll be focusing most of our attention will be on the natura sites in particular and there because we have a statutory role in terms of looking at the potential impact on beavers we've also got a bearing in mind that they can have some potential outburst impacts on conservation interests as well so we need to acknowledge that for example over at Napdell the Atlantic Hazel Woodland which is present there but we're monitoring the impact of the beavers on the woodland trying to mitigate and also looking at the opportunities for replanting as well you're almost using the beavers almost as a totemic species for creating more woodland in the area as well if there are people out there that are translocating beavers illegally they're interfering with that work because you're monitoring the areas where you know there are beavers and you're building the science evidence around the advantages of having beavers in Scotland Obviously illegal releases of beavers is not a good thing in all sorts of different ways not least the fact that it undermines the whole process of being professional, conservation-orientated process hence the code approach that I was talking about to encourage a much more best practice approach in different ways but yes, I think that clearly there's a lot of opportunity I think for monitoring biodiversity in more detail, our focus is probably going to be mature sites for the meantime simply because of resource issues but I think there's a lot of wider academic interest in the role beavers can play and certainly we've worked with University of Stirling for example which have looked at the role of beavers in terms of biodiversity and showing the sort of positive effects they can have so there's a wider academic community interested in these impacts and there is work going on looking at those sorts of things It's good to hear all that positivity it's been quite a negative session in many ways Can I ask you about the NFUS briefing to committee it talks about pre-emptive work on beavers which suggests to me attempts to try and prevent beavers from naturally spreading into different catchments is that permitted will that be permitted under the guidance and the licensing framework because we are seeing beavers naturally moving into different catchments now on the teeth where I live for example good evidence that has beavers there good evidence that they're spreading further down the teeth potentially into the fourth so do you believe that's a pre-emptive work to prevent beaver populations from developing in other catchments would be something that would be allowed or would that be illegal Can I just say on that the statement that ministers made back in November 2016 recognised that beavers would expand their range naturally and we weren't going to attempt to prevent that at the same time we're not going to be translocating animals to encourage that expansion being the beavers are there in quite significant numbers in taste I'd be recognised that they are expanding their range into the fourth catchment and so on I don't think that that's what the NFU were referring to I think that they were referring to pre-emptive work on farms where they're anticipating that there will be damage from beaver activities and to try and put in place measures to pre-empt that and as I say that is very much in line with a policy that we want to adopt which is about prevention of damage rather than seeking to cure or deal with damage after the event Just to add to that pre-emptive work I agree that that was not my take on what the intention was but there is some work already that has been done or is under way about trying to anticipate those areas where greater issues may be caused and that is about things like modelling where dams may be likely to be built as I say there's been some preliminary work done about looking at flood embankments and potential risks that beavers may pose to those they were the sorts of pre-emptive works that I understood Mr Simpson Thank you very much I think we can do with this fairly briefly we've got 550 animals on Tayside I think I have the previous evidence there which is pretty clear evidence of a successful self-sustaining population but I believe it comes from a relatively small number of antecedents Is there sufficient genetic diversity in the in the population and indeed do I recall correctly that the Natdale population is Norwegian whereas the Tayside is Polish so therefore there is that diversity there Is that correct? So the Natdale animals are Norwegian animals and so the Norwegian animals were Norwegian the ones on Tayside bearing in mind we don't know exactly where they came from but what we've worked out so far we're pretty sure that most of them originally would have come from Bavaria and the Bavarian animals themselves were a result of transactions from various places across Europe because they became extinct in Bavaria previously and were reintroduced in the mid-20th century so in answer to your question Natdale I think when we first started doing this work I think originally the Norwegian animals were decided upon based on the sort of morphological studies of bone and so on we now have these genetic tools which are a fairly novel new thing and yes we are there are issues about the fact that they are not genetically diverse enough in Natdale and so we have been using Tayside animals for the reinforcement exercises going on and we felt that the risk of inbreeding was too great and that it was useful to bring in Tayside animals in terms of Tayside themselves Tayside animals there as I mentioned before we don't know the origin of them but there have been genetic tests done of the animals present I think it's fair to say that the genetic diversity is probably limited it may be an issue down the line in terms of their genetic health and therefore the impact that might have on their physical health and so on I think the jury is out on that one a wee bit and I think it's probably a question of keeping an eye on it overall it was in Europe there are some populations which are extremely inbred and there are 50,000 over 50,000 beavers in Norway now which all came from probably less than 100 animals which were there in 1900 and yet they appear to suffering showing no obvious physical problems or issues at the moment so I think the Tayside situation it's a matter of having a bit of a watching breath keeping an eye on them monitoring their genetics and their health and if for example it turned out there was some particular issue to become a problem for them there might be an argument for bringing in some other stock from other populations to bolster their genetic health Let me just finally move on to a question particularly for Hugh Dignan we're looking at a particular piece of regulation here is there anything in this regulation that would suggest that it would remove the rights of anyone affected by illegal release of beavers to use the civil courts to seek redress from the people who might be thought to be responsible if you're affected by them I don't think so That's the answer I expected I just wanted to get it right We have a couple of minutes left and I'd like to bring in Edward Mountain to ask a question Just going through some of the things that are suggested to help in rivers, outside rivers some of them will be in contravention of controlled activity regulations if a licence is given and farmers are to be to carry out these work who will pay for the car licence? I'd be interested to see which ones you think need a car licence not all do but through the scheme for instance we're looking at a particular Watergate design in one set of in one burn and drainage network we will sort out as part of the scheme we will arrange for the licensing requirements to be met and pay for those To put a machine in the river to remove a dam or breach a dam prevent burrowing, sheet piling rock armour mesh to prevent burrowing all would be in contravention of a car licence or a car licence would be required for the experiences of car licence they're expensive, they're time consuming and somebody's got to pay for it my question Ben particularly to you is will the government be paying for that car licence or will they be waving the fees for farmers who have to deal with it? I think it's probably a question for you whether the government will be paying for it but I would say removal of dams for instance yes you would require a car licence using an excavator within in stream there but most of the work to do that that I am aware of is carried out from the bank using machinery again and that doesn't require a car licence so there are a lot of these things I would say again that do not actually require a car licence so Hugh will the government be paying for a car licence if required? Well it hasn't come up yet I would just like to sort of say we'll think about that the experience that we've seen as Ben is saying is that at present car licences don't seem to be required most dams are on small burns and you wouldn't be able to get an excavator into the burn really it's more a matter of whether it's by hand or by a machine from the bank that's what we've seen and as I said earlier SEPA have played a role throughout in the Scottish Beaver Forum and have been aware of these discussions and have advised that they don't anticipate as a general car licence being required I mean they say that there may be circumstances where a car licence is required but I'm not aware that we've had one of those yet except in areas where perhaps where we're looking at trialling mitigation measures as Ben mentioned with the gates and they're saying we'll be paying for the car licence as part of that but I think it would be something we'd want to look at on a case by case basis at this stage I mean I think that with a lot of this it really is about learning as we go along and seeing exactly what is required, what the costs are and so on I think that's how we would see the situation at the moment John's got a quick question and I can ask a final question before I let you all go I'd just like to ask about Norway as mentioned by one of your colleagues and you say there are 50,000 beavers in Norway I just wonder how they are perceived by the land users in Norway and what is the distribution in Norway, are they all confined to the better agriculture land or are they distributed widely across the country or does the latitude affect the distribution what are the lessons around from Norway? I think that one of the first things about Norway is that they are not part of the European Union in terms of the European protected species status doesn't apply in Norway beavers are hunted there regularly without the need for licence I'm not so sure about the distribution I think that Martin is probably better placed to talk about that I mean they are quite widely distributed through Norway, especially in the southern half of Norway certainly not just agriculture land is quite forested so they are using a lot of that sort of habitat so they are quite widely distributed Are they welcome in Norway? My impression is that broadly yes they do inevitably cause problems in some areas Norway is quite pragmatic they will go in and management in different ways, often involving culling but broadly speaking yes and I think interestingly for us is that we have salmon rivers present in Norway as well and the fishery managers on the Norwegian rivers don't consider beavers to be a problem and I appreciate the differences between Norwegian rivers and the Scottish rivers but that is an interesting aspect in itself and there's a bit of discussion between ourselves and Norwegians about what's going on in terms of their rivers with salmonids and beavers present and what might happen here as well so I think broadly speaking in answer your question it's yes Finally, are there health and safety implications in terms of dam removal where you can't get excavators on to the banks of rivers and barns for individuals having to dismantle dams presumably by hand if there's no other way available what are the health and safety implications of that who would carry the insurance for example for farm workers going on to this kind of project No, I mean we have especially where the beavers have been introduced illegally and with the acceptance, the tacit acceptance of the Scottish Government I don't know what the insurance sort of implications are we can go on and we can carry out some of these activities but I can be insured to do so but I don't know about the farmers I'm sorry I didn't hear what you said but I don't know about the farmer going and removing those what any liabilities are if that's what you mean There's a final question before I wind this session to a close The management framework and it's picking up on some of the questions that Mark Ruskell has the management framework appears to rule out translocation as an alternative to lethal methods if there's a problem Can you see any circumstances where translocation would be used of culling given a culling licence Translocation is being used now in some cases where it will be an option there will be a suite of options not just lethal control either there will be other management options but we have a translocation policy that is saying that where for instance where Martin says there's a recognised conservation project that can be a receptor for it that we can do that and permit translocation there but it that is limited there is the nap tail proposal and there are animals being moved now animals that may be causing problems on the taste side of being moved to nap tail but that is limited in the number of animals that you can move there are projects from down south that we think are likely to be coming up shortly which again we will be able to work with licence holders or farmers to be able to say we can remove these animals rather than reverting to lethal control Will you get to the point where you might have to issue options those options are there but you also have to say that translocation is not without its own risks as well translocation has very real welfare implications as well associated with capture as well as practical considerations as well I want to thank you all for the time you've spent with us today I'm going to suspend this meeting briefly to allow the gallery to be cleared let's move on to the next session the second item on the agenda is to hear evidence from the cabinet secretary for environment, climate change and land reform and her officials on the conservation natural habitats EUX at Scotland amendment regulations 2009 the cabinet secretary is accompanied this morning by Steve Dora, policy manager Michael McLeod, head of marine conservation and Norman Monroe, Scottish Government legal director good morning to you all I have an initial question to ask the cabinet secretary what informal consultation has the Scottish Government undertaken in drafting these regulations and what issues were raised there was no statutory requirement to consult formally but what we did do was engage with stakeholders in the short time that is available people will understand that and we did take comments on board so the drafting changes were made in response to comments on the importance of consulting SNH for the purpose of issuing guidance and officials also worked with key partners including SNH to ensure amendments will work for Scottish interests and we have engaged with DEFRA obviously and other UK administrations on the content of equivalent UK statutory instruments where similar technical amendments are being made so we spoke to others about this but we obviously don't have enough time to do any formal consultation around this so there has been some discussion yes thank you good morning we know that there is a wider Scottish Government consultation taking place on the governance gaps can you set out what the Government's view is on what extent these regulations can achieve equivalence with arrangements the EU arrangement at the moment and where are the outstanding governance gaps we don't really see there being huge governance gaps effectively we are taking the European commission out of the picture for purposes of a post Brexit scenario but all of the various reporting requirements pretty much stay as you would expect so we don't anticipate there being a governance gap in the sense that people think that there is going to be a big problem the equivalence with current arrangements is achieved by this in a sense it's what this is about this is about creating equivalence so there's no change to the existing policy approach and we've only made any changes that we consider to be absolutely necessary so all the protections and standards that we currently have provided by the habitats directive and the relevant bits of the wild birds directive are retained for this legislation so it's really about ensuring that the existing protection regime continues to work effectively that this SSI is about obviously regulations will not be exactly the same as they are because that's not possible outside the EU but what we've got to have available is something which can operate effectively at 11pm on 29 March if that is the appropriate time or whenever that might be and that's what this is very much that technical fix so you're confident that the proper governance structures within place to enforce the rules specifically with regards to the process for designating special areas of conservation does the government consider the new process which we know requires consultation with nature conservation agencies does it achieve the equivalence to the current situation or do you foresee any gaps through losing oversight from the EUC that needs addressed? Well the process for designation achieves equivalence with the current situation that again is what this is designed to do they do the bare minimum to that designation process to ensure that it remains operable so again what is being done is simply to ensure operability at whatever the trigger time is we will continue to act on the advice of SNH and the JNCC when we're doing the designations and we will be following the criteria provided by the Habitat Directive notwithstanding Brexit so we've simply replaced the function currently provided by the European Commission at the next to last stage of the process so effectively again this is literally just about fixing the technical bit that needs to be fixed to make it operable immediately on a no deal well any Brexit actually not just a no deal Brexit Angus MacDonald For the record how do you see the European Commission's function in scrutinising reports currently submitted under the Habitat Regulation being replaced following EU exit? I think we've already spoken a little bit about that that's about the reporting duties that I mentioned earlier the reporting requirements are intended to ensure again that at a minimum they reflect those set out in article 17 of the Habitat Directive and article 12 of the World Birds Directive so we will report publicly on the implementation of the regulations within six years from the date of exit and every six years thereafter what's where we are at present we don't think it's appropriate to set out the format in the regulations because that would introduce a counterproductive degree of restriction effectively what we've done is observe the format for EU reporting changing over the years so again we're just lifting what we do and putting it into the regulations to ensure that we can continue to do it again after the trigger point of Brexit In the absence of EU reporting how will the Scottish Government and SNH approach assessing and comparing biodiversity trends in Scotland with the rest of Europe? We will continue to take advice on this, the reporting requirements again are closely aligned we are going to the UK as a whole will continue to report on a similar basis as it does now there are a contracting party to the burn convention and it's worth remembering that there are other international conventions surrounding a lot of the work we do in an environment that are not reliant on the EU there's been I guess a focus on the EU connection but we need to remember that there are other conventions that apply at the point of any Brexit the UK will continue to contribute to that burn convention and the reporting requirements again as I said before are closely aligned so comparison with published EU reports will still be possible Thank you Mark Ruskell In terms of existing guidance at EU level on interpreting and applying the directives are any of those still to be brought in to domestic guidance I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean by that Will any of the existing guidance at the EU level that relates to the habitats directors are those still to be brought in to domestic guidance Well I don't think unless it's something very specific that you're referring to the answer to that would be there's nothing waiting to be brought in there's nothing to be transposed we're not in the middle of doing anything if that's what you mean we're not in the middle of doing something that might be affected by Brexit so there's nothing that can run across purposes if that's what you're thinking we're fully aligned we're fully aligned at the moment there's nothing new being suggested at the moment that looks like it would give us an issue on obviously if the actual Brexit doesn't happen for another 21 months or two years or whatever I can't speak for the position that might occur at that point but I can only speak about now and effectively this is a preparation for a no deal Brexit and we're having to do it on this timescale for the 29th March to make sure that we're in a solid place for the 29th March so right now the answer to that is no I'm not aware of anything on the horizon that might fall into that category but of course I can't rule out some possibility that might be if Brexit is delayed considerably that there might be something that emerges in that time but we're committed to doing the work that is necessary so in terms of the powers then that are in this SI to issue guidance on the interpretation will you be issuing guidance straight away? we will be working on that so we'll be doing that as soon as is manageable yes the intention is to do that sooner rather than later how quickly after? I don't know with the greatest respect officials at the moment are quite busy just getting all of this done so where publication at the moment will be when this comes into effect so it won't be published in advance because obviously unless Brexit happens this instrument will not happen unless Brexit happens so there isn't a separate publication schedule for the guidance separate from this instrument and the plan is that in the longer term we will review and update existing Scottish guidance but the guidance that goes along with this particular instrument will be published at the time the instrument comes into force and I have no idea when that might be right okay that's a useful clarification I had one more question and that was a concern around the introduction of a proportionality test into the regulations in relation to the way that sites are managed not designated this does seem to be quite a significant divergence from what is currently in the Habitat's directive I understand that it is aligned with what DEFRA wish to do but it does raise in my mind some significant concerns around the appropriateness of management actions on protected sites and whether we could end up downgrading some of that much needed management work that's not the intention can you reassure me as to why this proportionality test is in there it's a new thing why is it in there we're not going to introduce the possibility of permitting activity in protected sites that would otherwise not be allowed the use of the term is proportionate is intended to reflect the relative importance of habitats and species within the UK on an international scale it's clearly defined in the regulation to mean the relative importance of the part of the natural range lying in the UK's territory and the part of the natural range lying outside the UK's territory so it doesn't invoke the EU general principle of proportionality in this context it's effectively about protecting habitats and species that are of international importance and significant in the UK and that's what this is about can I just ask sorry there's an issue about the Scottish cross-bill that I thought this might refer to and it doesn't so I'm still not clear why there's a divergence between what is in the habitats directive that is now appearing in this SI it's bringing in a proportionality test in relation to management I'm not clear by your answer because there are things across the EU that are of great significance that may not be habitat issues for the UK at all and if we simply bring over the whole management without some reference to reality then we run the risk of disproportionately applying rules to things that are not really the issues that we need to be concerned about so we don't there are habitat issues and birds issues and all the rest of it on an EU-wide basis all of which are regarded in that same way but we won't be on that EU-wide basis anymore so we've just got to make sure that we can give proportionate importance to the habitats issue and birds directive issues that relate to the UK and not to the rest of the EU Is there an example of where that might apply where we want to set a different set of approach to proportionality over a certain species compared to another because it's quite a catch-all it's quite a broad thing to bring into this legislation Do you want to pick that up, Michael? Okay, so the concept of favourable conservation status is an EU-wide concept and it's done at EU level on a biographic scale so we're in the Atlantic biographic region so if you remove Scotland and the UK from that process if you want to still uphold that you have to define something in comparison to what the Habitat Directive currently says Habitat Directive requires member states to make a proportionate contribution to the Natura Network based upon the habitats and species that are listed in the directive and are found within their territory so this principle or how it's drafted is trying to replicate the spirit of that provision in the directive it's not about managing individual sites it's about adapting the network as a whole to ensure that it's protecting an appropriate range and proportion of each habitat and species that are found in Scotland and the UK Excuse me what you're describing there is in relation to designation whereas this applies to management two different things if you've got something that's designated how you apply management proportionately is a different question to whether you would proportionally designate a species by geography and everything that you discuss so why is it being applied to management rather than designation? It's not been applied to management it's been applied to the adaptation of the network in the future the provisions for management of sites which is in regulation 48 of the original 1994 regulations that is what transposes article 6 of Habitat Directive of that is the provisions in Habitat Directive that requires you to take appropriate steps to ensure that sites are managed properly we haven't changed that regulation at all that still stands for each and every site that we have what is currently in the Tura network and that provision will apply if we adapt the network to include further sites in the future using the new adaptation provision John Scott Can I ask you why does the power to introduce regulations to amend the schedules and annexes not include requirements to seek expert advice from statutory agencies? We will be seeking advice there isn't an intention not to any amendments will be made on the basis of scientific advice from nature conservation advisers the power taken is necessary to account for future possible technical and scientific progress but we would always do that it would probably be prompted by scientific advice rather than the other way around we can issue guidance in future to clarify how that advice will be formally taken with other UK administrations to ensure consistency across the UK any amendments would be subject to affirmative procedure so there is every intention to take advice It would be well of course one wouldn't doubt your motives at all cabinet secretary but it might be clearer if there was a specific requirement in place in the legislation but anyway can you move on to the next question so the directive doesn't have it either so I think we just need to remember that all we are doing is effectively transposing what exists and not creating new things over and above that to your point can you foresee circumstances where Scottish ministers would amend the schedules or annexes to the birds or habitats directives in a different way from the rest of the UK and would this still fall under a common framework given the regulations created by the UK site network well you've just taken evidence for over an hour on precisely something that we are doing that is different to the rest of the UK and in fairness Michael Gove also had to consider the possibility of reintroduction of links on an English basis that he was entitled to do and the possibility of that kind of decision making is contained within the devolution of environment powers as is so might there be some divergence yes there might there is because we've reintroduced beaver formally or are in the process of doing so formally so they're kind of already arisen there's nothing unusual would I expect there to be massive divergence no I wouldn't expect there to be massive divergence the you know the odd thing coming up will arise out of the specific circumstances that exist in Scotland we're obviously retaining all our current environment powers but there is an existing UK by a diversity framework in place there's current discussions at official level about how we can set up a sort of agreement across the four administrations to ensure at that more general level things are managed properly but can I rule out something well no given that you've just gone through a whole session on precisely a divergence so then to be clear there is latitude for divergence under a common framework notwithstanding the fact that the regulations create a UK site network there is latitude for divergence and you've just got to say something there's a devolution of power and that's recognised and that's always been the case the situation with the beavers is under the current setup and the future one so there's nothing new about this situation thank you very much just a couple of tidy up points if I can put them this way terminologically the Scottish regulations use the term UK site network to essentially replace Newtura 2000 the UK regulations use national site network so that we should have a shared description which is international site network have you any views on all of this as I say I think it's a comparatively modest point in my view the definitions are the same so the terminology is what's in question and I don't think anybody would be surprised to discover that notwithstanding the England and Wales terminology of being national site network that would be a bit of a confusion for Scotland I'm suspecting well wondering whether even Wales is particularly content with a national network that covers both sides of the English-Wales border so we just thought to avoid there being an issue about the difference between national in the UK context that we would simply use a designation site network to make that clearer when people were describing anything as I said the definitions are exactly the same and the same token the UK regulations are there any issues for the powers of Scottish ministers that derive from their regulations I realise that's not directly related to today's discussion but is an adjunct to it no, I think the answer to that is no their regulations create no new powers which apply in Scotland they haven't crossed a line on any of that so they're doing what they're doing there and it's the equivalent exercise to what we're doing here if that's all the questions that members have is there anything that the cabinet secretary would like to say that she hasn't had a chance to say already nope, no thank you very much for your evidence we'll move on to agenda item 3 the third item on the agenda is to invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S5M-16057 that the environment, climate change and land reform committee recommends that the conservation, natural habitats, EU exit Scotland amendment regulations 2009 be approved moved any comments from any members? so the question is that motion S5M-16057 in the name of Roseanna Cunning will be approved, are we all agreed? thank you, we are agreed that's unanimous our fourth agenda oh no hang on we'll suspend now, thank you very much cabinet secretary and your officials we'll suspend briefly our fourth agenda item this morning is to consider whether the following instruments have been laid under the appropriate procedure the first instrument is the environment, EU exit Scotland amendment regulations 2019 that's SSI 2019 a bleak 26 and the second instrument is the marine environment, Scotland, EU exit amendments regulations 2019 that's SSI 2019 a bleak 55 both have been laid under the negative procedure and does anyone have any comments on either of those? I can't see any reason why there should be other than negative instruments so is the committee content for the instruments to be considered under the negative procedure we are so the instruments will be considered as part of the next agenda item to which we have come the fifth amendment and the fifth item on our agenda today is to consider the following negative instruments the four mentioned environment EU exit Scotland amendment regulations 2019 SSI 2019 a bleak 26 and the marine environment, Scotland EU exit amendments regulations 2019 SSI 2019 a bleak 55 any further comments on the instruments nope and are we agreed that we don't want to make any other recommendations in relation to the instruments agreed the agenda today is to consider the following negative instruments the wildlife and countryside act 1981 keeping and release and notification requirements Scotland amendment order 2019 SSI 2019 a bleak 37 and the wildlife and countryside act 1981 for prohibition on sale etc for invasive animal and plant species Scotland order 2019 SSI 2019 a bleak 38 any comments to make in relation to these instruments nope yes I just note that our briefing says the Scottish government is working the UK government and other administrations are on the implementation and I welcome that is the committee agreed that it does not want to make any recommendations on relations to these instruments agreed next meeting on 12 March the committee will hear from Police Scotland the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the Scottish Government's wildlife crime in Scotland annual report 2017 we will now move into private session I ask that the public gallery be cleared as the public part of this meeting is now closed