 Y Llywyddyn nhw ydyn nhw'n gweithio ar y 19 hiad i'w cymryd ar eich bodi arferwain y Llywodraeth Cymru i ddod am gael hyn yn ddiwrnodd gwysig o bobl yn rhan o bwysig i'w cymryd yr olig. Agenda item 1 is Public Petition PE01490. The first item today is to take evidence and round table format on this petition on the control of wild geese numbers. It has been lodged by Patrick Crosa on behalf of the Scottish Crofting Federation, who is here with us today. I welcome Patrick, chief executive Scottish Crofting Federation, and ask people to go round the table and introduce themselves. Good morning, Patrick. Kara's next. Andrew Burr from NFU Scotland. Odie Behmish, South Scotland MSP and Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change. Oustin Robertson, Western Isle Council, I chair the council's joint consultant. Dave Thompson MSP, Skylach Abernwyrnwyrnwch. Ashilddon MSP, Angus Northam Merns. Bas Hughes, Head of the Species Conservation Department at the Wildfireland Wetlands Trust at Slimbridge. Fogoson MSP, West Dumfries. Marina Curran-Colthart, Local Biodiversity Officer, Argyllinbugh Council. Jim Hume MSP, South Scotland. Paul Walton, Head of Habitants and Species for RSPB Scotland. Angus Wood Donald MSP for Fogar East. Graham DMSP for Angus South. Rob Gibson MSP for Caithness, Sutherland and Ross and the convener of the committee. I refer members to the public papers. I have a structural proposal to suggest about how we deal with these matters. First of all, we should look at the science of the issue of numbers. Secondly, we should look at the methods of control. Thirdly, we should look at markets that have begun. Fourthly, we should think about what the Government is doing. And fifthly, we should think about the way ahead. I'll repeat that. So, science first, methods of control. Second, markets third, Government action fourth and the way forward fifth. If we deal with them in those ways, we'll be able to focus better. It may overlap, but it may be that we need to say things about what the Government is doing in relation to some of the previous ones. If I kick off on the science just now, I'd like to put it into the context of the African Eurasian Waterbird agreement. I think that we can't get an idea about numbers and species until we think across Europe and our international agreements to be able to ensure that all species have a fair habitat to live in. So, I'd just like to open it up by asking about the different goose species, because there are different problems in different areas and there are different problems in different countries. And in order to answer the petition, I don't think it's possible just to deal with things in the narrow context of, let's say, the US or whatever, that we may reach a conclusion that there needs to be a wider solution. But that's roughly where I'm starting. So, different goose species, the problem in different areas, the problem in different countries, or the issues in different countries. Does anyone want to kick off on those? Just indicate and then we'll bring you in. Paul. OK, thank you very much. So, it can be quite confusing if you look down the list of goose species. I mean, you're exactly right. In essence, in terms of the issues for agriculture here in Scotland, there are really kind of two kinds of geese. The one is the breeding resident grailag goose population, which has increased very markedly with the past few decades, which is a legal quarry species, so can be legitimately legally hunted in the open season and can be shot under licence during the closed season. And the RSPV doesn't have any problem with that. We're not an anti-hunting organisation in any way. And it's the species for which we have well under 5% of the world population. So, we are not in that international context that Rob mentioned there. We're not hugely significant. So, that's the breeding grailag. And that is the species, which is the key issue in the crofting areas. So, these very high-nature value farming areas that we have are almost uniquely high value for biodiversity in areas like the US. The key issue is the breeding grailag goose. And I think it's really important to make the distinction between those and the migratory species, the principal problem one of which is the Greenland and Svalbard barnacle goose. OK. Now, for the Greenland barnacle goose, which is one because of an issue on Isla, we have in Scotland 75% of the world's population. So, we are a very considerable international significance for that species. It's a species that's protected under annex one of the birdsty directive, which the grailag goose is not. It's not a legal quarry species. And so, in conservation terms and biological terms, there's a really important distinction between those two. And I think that's very important. There are other goose species. There are other quarry species like the pink-footed goose, which is migratory. There's the Greenland white-front goose, which is also protected and is declining in number. In terms of barnacle goose numbers, what we've seen is big increases, partly as a conservation success and partly as a result of increasing nitrogen input into farmland since the Second World War. That population has increased markedly. And on Isla has stabilised out since about 2006, statistically. So, it's stabilised at a far higher level in Isla, for example. Okay. I'm sure a lot of people want to come in. Graham Daze indicated. Just a sort of scene. Second question. Good morning. Roughly what are the numbers and how reliable is the data? By the way, yes. So, in terms of barnacle goose, the data are reliable. So barnacle goose on Isla because there are both international counts and monthly field counts as well. So, the data that we have on that species is very good. If we move on to the grey lags, we have excellent surveys of grey lags on Orkney. So, we know that there are about 20,000 geese on Orkney. On the US, there are some concerns about the counts because the numbers that are counted in the productivity don't seem to tie up. So, there's some more work to be done there. On Cull and Tyree, we've got good data. So, most of the grey lag populations, apart from the US, we have good data as well. Graham, I want to comment about the data in the US. Christian. They have been collecting data in the US for about 30-odd years. The US goose management committee have been having two counts for probably over 30 years now. The one thing that was fairly reliable, the numbers were rising every year. Crofters would argue that the numbers given were not as high as they should have been. But the one thing that was quite clear was that the numbers were going up consistently each year. The barnacle, of course, which was mentioned by Paul earlier on, has become a huge problem in the US now. Crofter referenced them yesterday to me as being like locusts in a field. They are becoming an increasing problem in the US, but we've had the grey lag for 30-odd years. The one consistent thing is that the numbers have been going up. Bas Hughes. Just to clarify, on the US, there are mainly grey lag geysers and not many barnacle geysers at all. We're talking about those two main species and you've heard about the others who are in smaller numbers, some in decline. What does the science say then about moving on to the methods particularly that have been used to try and control the methods? I think that we need to get some other people into this discussion because you'll know how your farmers and crofters have been acting there. Does anyone want to talk about that? Right, Andrew. If I can speak specifically about Islay, there's a long history there of trying to minimise the impacts through various scaring techniques. It's what are called scary men that pop up in the field and gas guns and you name it, it's been tried. I think the view, certainly, of our farming members on Islay is that they're willing to give these a go, but what they find is that the geysers become habituated to them and their effectiveness declines over time. It has been said in the past that in terms of methods, money is a satisfactory method for dealing with the problem. If you'd spoken to our members on Islay 10, 20 years ago, they would probably have accepted that, maybe grudgingly, but they did. They've now come to the realisation that money really just stores up problems for later on because as the geysers have grown, the budgets have declined and now there isn't sufficient budget to compensate for the impacts that are being had. Moreover, they now feel we're actually not even able to farm in some instances. We're effectively farming to feed the geysers and we have very little else that comes off the land. From their point of view, in terms of methods, money is no longer an acceptable method there. They feel that things really have to move on to a different phase now. Marina. In following on from Islay, you mentioned there the compensation. Certainly in terms of the landscape of Islay, I think certainly the farming and crafting community have a very major contribution to it. From what I have lead and researched, there's certainly a will to change management. Objectives to create a balanced approach to farming on Islay, make it more sustainable and also crafting. With trying to get that balance, there has to be a bit of tweaking on the farming side in terms of land management and on the goose management side as well. Patrick. I think the feeling that I get from Crofters and from discussions within our organisation is that it's not really working what's being done. Whilst we don't necessarily have all the answers, we probably don't have answers as such at all really, I think it's important that we recognise that the numbers are just going up and up. This is why we launched the petition. I thought it was a very good point that was brought up in evidence that we should be looking at how people are dealing with goose control in other countries. There was the example of the Norwegian project. It's something that we have been thinking about. Some people are complaining about the fact that there's this public money going in constantly to a national goose management programme that's been running for years and years and yet the numbers just keep going up and up. From our point of view, as a community group, we would argue that perhaps the main successes from past programmes, the prime success being the Maca Life project has been a programme that involves the local people. External top-down interventions just don't seem to work. The only way that they would work is if you had a massive coal programme that's going to cost huge amounts of money. I don't think anyone wants to go there. Planning a management scheme that is going to be sustainable, I think that's the point. The only way it's going to be sustainable is to use the people that are there on the ground that know what the problem is and know the issues involved with control of geese in these local situations. Dave Thompson. Just arising from what's been said already this morning in terms of, there's obviously a real issue and a real problem. It would be nice to think that we could get a solution that would be Scotland-wide and it would deal with the problem and that would be it. Already, we've heard from bars about the lots of grey lag in the Uist and the western isles, the barnacles in Eile, grey lag are a quarry species, the barnacles are protected. Strikes me, you can't apply the same solution, obviously, to those two different things. If we've got 75 per cent of the world's population of barnacle, as Bas said, and a lot of them in Eile, then obviously that creates a particular issue and a particular problem. I just wonder about the methods of control. We may well just have to have different methods of dealing with it in different parts and it strikes me as a layman that a surfeit of grey lag, which are a quarry species, looks to me like a really good food source that should be utilised for the benefit of everyone. Why aren't we applying a solution in relation to grey lag, which would allow them to be short and then marketed? I know there's rules and regulations that prevent that at the moment, but it strikes me that that's a bit daft. They could either be sold for human consumption or they could be turned into animal feed or something like that. Okay, there's the issue of recreating markets and so on, but I'm sure again we could deal with that. I just wonder if that isn't the pretty obvious answer to the grey lag problem. The barnacle problem is a different one, which I think maybe we could look at separately. We may get some comments first on the grey lag issue and the fact that we should be able to let people shoot them and sell them. We've been into the marketing area, but yes, we will most certainly do that. Baz wanted to come in and Graham Day and Alec Ferguson and a point I'm going to make, and Oostian, right in that order. So Baz Hughes first. I was actually going to make the clarification that Dave just did, just to remind people that we are talking about two completely different situations with grey lags and barnacle geese. I think we're all in agreement that the grey lag populations that are increasing in the crofting areas and potentially affecting the high nature value farming areas are a problem and that's why SNH have introduced their adaptive management pilots. In those pilots, again, people will know from the papers that there are trials of sales and while we are cautious about those sales, if they're properly licensed and properly managed, then they seem to be working reasonably well, certainly on Orkney. I think if that sale was then to be applied to other more common, excuse me, and migrant goose populations like Pinkfooted goose, then there is a danger of creating a large market, admittedly from a large goose population at the moment, but those sort of commercial wide harvesting activities, the reasons why many of our goose populations went down at such low levels 30 or 40 years ago. We would not be opposing those trials of sales of geese in the crofting areas, but we would have a very different position if that model was to be applied to the more common goose species, even if it was regulated. I am very much a layman in this, but I wonder if we shouldn't be trying to think out the box here and this really isn't it out of the box suggestion. On the east coast of Scotland we have a considerable problem with seagulls and we were looking at solutions to this. We looked at the situation in Venice with the pigeons where they controlled the numbers by lacing feed with contraceptives. I wonder when we are talking about Orkney with 20,000 grey-wag geese, which presumably is the dominant species, whether you can combine trying something like that with a shooting programme. It is better at the left field, but it is just a thought. I can certainly bring people in with that thought, Alex Ferguson. I was interested when Andrew Barrow said that his members on Eile felt that this needed to move to a new phase, I think was the description you used. I just wondered whether you might just be able to expand on whether they have a combined view of what that new phase should be, if that's appropriate, convener. We're at a sensitive phase in the discussions about this, so I'll try not open pangor of box here, but this document, which is the Eile of Sustainable Goose Management Strategy, is currently in draft form. That's being developed by our local members, SNH and Scottish Government, and we believe sets out the way forward for a more sustainable strategy over the next ten years at least. It acknowledges that there are protected species here that are being talked about, and it does talk about combining methods, but it also sets a target population in a range, a sustainable range, and a programme of monitoring and evaluation on things like agricultural damage, because that's a key consideration here. We are very supportive of this. We believe SNH and Scottish Government have matured in their understanding of the issues and accepted that there's a problem here that needs to be dealt with, but it needs to be dealt with in a legally robust way. We are hopeful that in the near future this document will be approved, it will go, and we'll start seeing real change there on Eile. But it's not going to be an overnight fix there. This is the our protected species. We need to be comfortable that we're within the bounds of the law, but without getting ourselves tied and not about being 100% sure in every single last little detail, because if we wait to that point or even close to that point, we'll be here in ten years time. That's the key risk is that we hang around and wait for every single last bit of data to be perfect, and therefore in action and the status quo remains. The pilot scheme at the moment the newest where you are allowed to sell the geese, goose meat. The people shooting the geese have to be licensed of course, and they have to have done hygiene training. The people, the premises selling it has to be licensed, but they're only allowed to be sold and used itself, and of course demand is absolutely huge for it. The thing we would like to see is that it's kind of open sale to be allowed to sell them off island, which we're not allowed to do at the moment. Clearly cartridges, things like that, shot very, very expensive, so there's some return to those taking part if we have that. So there's definitely potential there. Indeed the issue about marketing and so on is something we will bring you back in on, and Dave as well if it's on that point, but Paul was still talking about the science here I think now and the methods. What I really wanted to refer to was what Dave Thompson said there, which is this idea of kind of locally appropriate solutions are kind of evolving. That's exactly what's been happening since the 1990s. We have had, as someone referred to, seven local goose management schemes in total running throughout Scotland with the Scottish Government support and funding, secretariat often by SNH. But each one has been different, so the Uist one was different, very different from the Islay one, the one in Struthbeg and the one in North East with Pinkfoot Geese was very different as well. That's exactly the way it was. The reason we are here is because Scottish Ministers took a decision to cut the budget for goose management. When that happened, don't get me wrong, it wasn't for spurious reasons. This was post the financial crisis 2008-2009 when constraints were exceedingly tight on Ministers. This is one of the things that Ministers had a look at and decided that the amount that they spent on goose management had to change and cuts were made to budgets and then things started to fall apart. A situation that had very carefully evolved as a balance between the agricultural interests and agriculture damage and the conservation interests and getting value for the public purse, which were the three main aims of goose policy in Scotland. At the moment it's quite interesting these debates because these are debates which have been running for quite a long time. It's just that with the turnover of officials people can't quite remember. But I think that's a very, very important point. It's a complex issue but it really requires luckily adapted solutions. Thank you. Can I follow that up? In the RSPB submission, you are very clear in saying that the science in relation to all this is not sufficiently robust. If one is to have effective local management schemes, presumably you would argue there needs to be more robust science behind it, do you have any suggestions how one can increase the quality of the scientific evidence behind these schemes given the constraints on budgets that exist? Apologies for being strong on this point, but it depends on the different situations. For the grey lags in Orkney, for example, there's a lot of hunting that goes on in Orkney, sport hunting. But in Scotland, the gathering of data on hunting bags is exceedingly poor in relation to other European countries and beyond in America and places like that. We have no idea how many geese are being shot by people who are coming from Italy, etc. On sporting hunting visits this country. That is something that we would argue really ought to be addressed during the Wain Act. There was discussion around this matter. There was exploration of a system of voluntary bag recording. There has been no science around how accurate that actually is. I would suggest if you are going to go for this adaptive management approach, I scientifically underpinned managing populations to certain preordained levels, you really need to know that additional mortality. That's one example. With the barnacle goose on Isla, there's another huge gap in our knowledge in terms of what's the efficacy of lethal versus non-lethal scaring. That might seem to a farmer who's supporting thousands of geese. 75% of the world population doesn't necessarily mind. That's not the first thing in their mind. But there's a legal question here under the European birds directive which is around the idea of a viable alternative solution. Unless we understand what lethal scaring can give you by shooting the birds and what non-lethal scaring can do in terms of agricultural damage, then you really don't have the basic picture. We have been calling for this for 15 years and the research hasn't been done. That's into the pot. You mentioned Dave Thompson. I'll let him come back just now before I develop Claudia, Nigel and Andrew. Thank you, convener. I'm aware that the various different schemes have been running for a number of years and that there are pilots and all the rest of it. What I was trying to get at and probably put it very badly is that we haven't got very far. I don't think it's just purely down to government cutting cash because you could keep on throwing cash at it in an ever-growing way as I think Andrew Bauer was suggesting in relation to Eili and what he's actually achieving at the end of the day. The point that Houston Robertson made about allowing the geese to be sold off the island, I mean what I'm really saying I suppose is have we not done enough in terms of the pilot certainly in relation to say UST and so on to actually then move this out and broaden out the ability to sell geese, not just restrict it to UST for instance. We could go on forever pulling together data and Dr Paul Walton says we don't have nearly enough and we should have been doing it 15 years ago or whatever, but we're in a situation just now where there's a real problem. I think there's probably enough evidence and I don't think you need to wait, as Andrew Bauer said, to get every last I dotted and T crossed in terms of your data before you can make decisions. Because decisions have already been made in the past with even less data than we have just now, so it just strikes me that a very simple and straightforward solution would be to broaden the pilots in UST, allow the geese to be sold so we can begin to create a market. Why do we need to wait that much longer in order to do this? So if people have answers to that I would welcome hearing the reviews and that. To broaden it again you're getting in a wee minute to Claudia Beamish and Nigel Donne. Thank you convener. I'm glad that this some aspect of it, the local goose management schemes has been raised because initially as indeed a lay person myself of course it does seem to be an interesting way forward. I hope convener that when we come to the point about the Scottish Government that we will be able to discuss if there are funding implications for this but I'll hold back on that part of it until we come to Scottish Government. There were two quick points I wanted to put in about the issue of lead shot if we're talking about management and its use or not use and what the alternative is if we're talking about actual culls. So the issue around tourism which has been highlighted to me in relation to Islay and I'm not advocating that that is something that is necessarily a way forward but there are issues around an interest in tourists seeing the geese flying which is a very dramatic sight obviously so I'm just putting those things in. I wouldn't know the difference between 5,000 and 10,000 though. Anyway Nigel Donne? Simply, Ax Ferguson went in the direction that I was actually going to go about the science but I'm just wondering if I can come back to Paul Walden and a couple of thoughts. The first and I think I'm with Dave Thompson on this, you never get complete data that's the obvious lesson of life and that you just have to work with what you've got and always try and explore what you need. If I heard Dr Walden a right he suggested that a few years ago the balance was about to right and I'm not trying to over egg this but I think you also then said we don't have enough science so we don't know and I'm just a bit confused as to how those two tie together. But I guess my real question is what do we need to do to improve the science without spending megabucks because we know it's not there. Can somebody put some priority on actually where we should be, where we need to do the science? Will you get a chance to come in a minute because Andrew Bauer could perhaps in his response also tell me a bit about the fouling of the soil which farmers are most concerned about with the large numbers that we're talking about. Just to pick up on Dave's point from earlier on about the markets and you know that may well be part of the solution. Certainly we've found an orcney part of the problem there is there are so many geese that when you scare them off one part of the island you might get a shot, you might cull a few, they move to the offshore islands and they stay there it's more difficult and costly to deal with them thereafter. So there are logistical problems now, you could put more money into it and that might solve them but I would doubt it. The situation on Isla, Paul talked about balance a few, we were in balance a few years ago. I think that money had in effect bought people's silence and bought their kind of acceptance of problem to a certain level. That's now, we're now in a completely different sphere. The population may have stabilised but it's stabilised at a level that's unsustainable and we really need to be taking action now and imperfect data needs to be improved on. There's plans on Isla because of this project to establish 26 I think it is exposures so plots where geese are kept out. How could we practically help at the moment? I know I've just said that money's not the solution but the farmers for whom those exposures are going to have a practical impact on their farm may find it easier, more acceptable to get on board with a really substantial bit of monitoring on agricultural damage if there's help with the impacts on their farm because of those exposures. Because of the way Isla farming operates those 26 exposures it's going to be difficult to find the land to put them on with the right type of crop in the right rotation. So this is a short term problem, more money there might help but we know that overall money is not necessarily going to sort the problems. This will deliver more science, it won't deliver perfect science, it won't deliver perfect data but absolutely I would agree with Nigel Dawn you need to proceed on the basis of the best available evidence that you've got and improve as you go along. We can't stand still right now. The suggestion seems to be that I'm somehow being excessively pedantic in order to delay things and dotting every I and crossing every T. Well the current Isla plan Andrew showed there. This relates I say again to a migratory species alright. There's been no approach to the other countries where this species occurs, Greenland and Iceland. Okay in terms of what you think about us halving the population of these geese which is one of the potential was in the range that Andrew talked about. That's not a detail. That's pretty fundamental. We haven't actually measured agricultural damage and what impact these measures might have on agricultural damage. That is the whole point of these goose schemes. I would say that that isn't a detail or dotting an I. There's some pretty fundamental gaps and I think that's quite a long way to go. Now we are part of the discussions. Okay. The mention of the Norway scheme for pink footed geese which I remind you is actually a quarry species unlike the barnacle goose can be legally hunted. The thing that sets that example apart is that all parties were engaged right from the start in devising how that scheme came about. Conservationists, hunters and farmers. Here it hasn't really been the same regard to the Isla one is being the Scottish government and SNH officials and the NFUS visiting European Commission together and hatching this plan and putting it down in front of us when there are clear gaps in the knowledge. I stand by what I say. I think these gaps in the knowledge are quite important. Does that answer your questions Nigel Don about the science that we need to gain knowledge of? I don't think it answers it completely but I think Walton's made the point that there are large gaps in the data which ought to be there to model this properly. I think that's a fair comment. Marina, on the advance. In terms of farm management obviously there are certain farming interests on Isla particularly and they are in research models and they have been very successful in terms of encouraging geese. I've been looking at some of the opportunities that are there in terms of legal derivation particularly under the article 9 EC Browds Directive to allow a certain amount of geese to be shot to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forest, fisheries, water, agriculture and crofting that are affected. So in terms of maybe a short term solution to get things back on an ebbing keel would certainly be worth considering at a government level. The other interest I want to discuss is the tourism aspect to Cloddi Beamish referred to it. In terms of Isla in general people just don't go to Isla to see the wildlife although it's wonderful biodiversity. We have some of the best examples in Britain in Argyll and Butte and they also want to get a flavour of the culture of the island as well and it's dominated by farming and crofting and that again has to be rebalanced because feels look different when they have been eaten down by the variety of geese that exists. So to get that balance back on track I think there are certain there's modelling to be done but also there's a legal aspect that can be engineered to suit but even on a short term basis to get it back on an ebbing keelter. The first one is that in terms of science needs for barnacle geese there are legal implications as well because obviously you need to try non-lethal solutions before you can actually legally get a derogation under the birds directive and there may well be scientific evidence needed which is what Paul has just said to allow that process to be legal and obviously those birds there has been birds being killed so there are questions at the moment about whether the current culling is actually legal for barnacle geese. Another science gap is evidence of economic damage and economic impact on farmers. So after visiting the island and knowing the people up there it is clear that the level of payments that the farmers are getting aren't as high as calculated by the model used by SNH and also the figures that are used I think haven't been updated since 2008 so there may well be an issue but my main issue there is more. We've not seen the evidence of economic impact on farmers when it probably exists. The only study that's been done by Beben in 2012 had case studies of three farmers two of which were being under compensated by 17 and 21 thousand pounds a year one just by 1000 but there are 100 farmers on either so I think the best thing that could be done is some sort of economic analysis so we've got all of our cards on the table and we all know whether what is being said is true. That would help and the final point I'd like to make is that the science for the barnacle goose is very complicated and there is a lot more needed and we would be very happy to table a paper on this if that would help but the science required to fix the adaptive management grey lag pilots in the areas that Dave's mentioning. They are easily fixed. There's a few minor tweaks that are needed for a few tens of thousands of pounds and that could be fixed very easily so the grey lag situation can be fixed easily. It's a barnacle goose situation that is a lot more complicated. Andrew Bauer, Paul Walton and Ooston Robertson. Barification there has mentioned about getting a derogation. We can choose as a country to derogate. The Scottish Government can choose if it decides that it's confident in what it's doing it derogates from the birds directive. The legal challenge from the European Commission or the calling in of that decision would happen if somebody complained about it and the obvious groups that might would be RSPB or WWT who would object what was being done. It's not a matter that this is something that has to be approved by the European Commission. We've sat down with them. They've said this is something that Scotland needs to sort out itself. We are not sitting here doing the big brother thing. You get on and you sort it out. If there's a major problem, yes, we might look at it but we might not. We mustn't get paranoid about the idea of applying for a derogation. Yes, we need good science. Yes, we need to improve things as we go along but the solution is in our hands so I think that's very important that we bear that in mind. In relation to that I've just reminded everyone that the precedent that is set tends to be quite important. The birds directive is one of the most effective pieces of conservation legislation in human history. It is measurable and demonstrates a massive impact on those annex one species and it's being positive. If Scotland decided to set about having its 75% of the world population of that species I think it's quite likely that I would actually attract some scrutiny although Andrew's quite right, can't say for sure. The point that I'd like to make is that there seems to be a flavour around this discussion that basically Scotland is full of people chomping at the bit to get out to shoot these geese and solve the problem. There is quite a big issue around this which is the actual feasibility of doing that. It is not easy. I think Andrew actually alluded to this. It's not actually easy to shoot very large numbers of geese. The Minister, a couple of years back, doubled the bagged limit on Isla because there are barnacle geese shot under licence on Isla which we do not agree with but we haven't pursued that opposition. But when that doubled, we got complaints from visitors to Isla saying that the shooting itself was more visible. They may not notice differences between 10,000 and 5,000 geese, but they do see the shooting. If we are going to really increase that further it's going to be pretty obvious because it's going to be difficult to do and there are going to be a lot of people out there. So the whole business of adaptive management, i.e. controlling the population, actively controlling the population, which shouldn't be confused with the previous schemes, this is an idea that has been trialled for grey lags for the past couple of years in Orkney. But the idea of doing that is entirely untested. And what I would just like to say to get back to the actual, what I think is the spirit of the petition, which is about the crofting areas in the US, is that the Machar life scheme, which has been mentioned before, which the RSPB was really very integral to getting off the ground and operationally was kind of running it as well, it took over the US Goose scheme with a view to seeing that cuts were going to be made in that budget. And with the application we think at minimum of about £80,000, £75,000 a year, the crops on the US were effectively protected. The total area of late harvested arable crops on US, which delivered a huge biodiversity value, has increased under that project and the number of crofter complaints went down to zero. And the number of geese shot under licence actually decreased and we used non-lethal scaring methods. We had children building, scarecrows, etc. A goose plucking machine was bought by the project, etc. We're trying to build that locally sustainable industry. And the RSPB has been really involved in that and is supportive of that sort of thing. Christian Robertson. In terms of evidence, and I've lived with this over the last 30, 40 years in the US, we've seen the damage geese has done over that period. The crofting practices have changed, you know, to move with the problem that exists and certain areas have been given up to the geese basically because they can't be protected. And to be fair to Paul, the scheme, the EU Life Machr programme did work because there was a heavy emphasis on crop protection, which is the big issue in use. There's a fair income comes into use on the back of the work that's done on the Machr. But the worry now is at the end of the project what's going to happen next. But the evidence is there, when the protection isn't there, on what can happen to the crops in use. Crofters just give up and I've been told quite clearly in the last few days that that's what they're going to do. They're not going to keep putting in hours and hours of work and time to protect the crops for no return. When the geese have been through it, it's like our old rollers have been through it. Okay, Andrew Bauer, we've looked at this science and methods issue. I'm trying to draw that section to a close so that we can look at some of the others that arise. Just a quick point in there, NFU Scotland, our members on Islay, our members in Orkney, our members in all these affected areas understand that they have, and Scotland has legal obligations. That these birds are here to stay, we're not calling for the eradication of these species, we are calling for a more sustainable number. I think there's a question in here about people's right to farm. Yes, they have wider obligations, they receive direct support, and with that comes obligations to deliver public goods, but at the same time I think it's only fair that they be able to run their business in the most sustainable way that they can, and they be able to produce food, which is primarily what they're there to do, and for some of them, particularly in places like Islay, that's becoming almost impossible. Angus MacDonald. Yes, thanks, convener. Just a quick question to Councillor Robertson. Can you give us an update on exactly where the funding situation is for the Macharife project? Is there a prospect of it continuing or not? I don't think so. Maybe Paul can answer that, but no. Yes, I can answer that. So it was a four-year project, and it didn't just look at geese, it did lots of other things as well, machinery needed for spreading traditional seaweed, fertilizer, et cetera, et cetera. It has just ended. We were keen to do a second life-funded project, EU-funded project, which the European Commission tells us is quite normal for that sort of project. However, the SNH were unable to assist with the co-financing, which would have been essential to do it, and it didn't work financially. So we're left with this situation. What we did then was we went to SNH and said, look, you're going to do this adaptive management for the geese on UST, which is managing the population down, but that is untested, and it is not actually the active crop protection, which is precious small areas, globally unique arable Machar. Okay, and we figured out that it would cost £75,000 to £80,000 a year just to do a bit of crop protection. SNH very generously found £40,000 to fund that. What would be extremely useful and positive output of this discussion would be if we managed to get the extra just to make a full crop protection scheme for the next few years until we can see whether adaptive management population regulation actually does work in terms of protecting those crops. I say again a globally unique biodiversity resource that is based on the extensive cattle crofting system of the US. There are 35 unique races of small oats, rhai and barley on the UST alone that will be lost if people switch to mainland varieties. For a few tens of thousands of pounds, we can really protect that, and I think that would be good value for money. I put that to the committee. Okay, thanks, Comedian. This may be a private from the minister next week. Yeah, indeed. That is the point of this gathering evidence so that we can cause the government. Baz and Patrick, just to wrap up this section before we move on to markets. Just at the information gap that Andrew has just highlighted there, he mentions that there are many farmers on ILO, that are really on the wire, so they might be being put out in business by a geese. Let's collect the evidence and see what proportion of farmers are in that situation, because I think that we need that information to put whatever level of goose control might be discussed in the context. There are questions in my mind about what crops are trying to grow, whether they're trying to grow for the local industry, stuff like that, which I don't know the details of, but I guess it could become very technical indeed, but we can probably follow these things up after the committee. Patrick, you're wanting to come in just now. Just a quick one. Is the clarification really... I just wanted to say that the petition that we put forward was specifically to look at the crofting areas. ILO has few crofts and lots of barnacles, and the US has lots of crofts and few barnacles, but on the US, people are saying that barnacles are starting to become more of a problem. But the point is that it's the grey legs that are the serious problem. These are the residences we've gone on and on. So it's just a point of clarification, really. I just wanted to ask Baz, because Baz a minute ago said, the answer to controlling the grey legs is very easy. Sorry, it's not me to ask another person giving evidence, but if you don't mind, if he could clarify that, is it easy? Sure. As we've been pointing out all the way through, the barnacle situation is very different to the grey legs situation. Obviously, the barnacle geese are causing problems for farmers on ILO. I don't know how many farmers on ILO. Maybe some of them are very happy with the payments that they get. It may well be a small number of farmers who are getting paid quite a lot of money if having geese on their land. I don't know, but again, that's why we need more information. With the grey legs, the pilots are largely working well. The Orkney pilot, the numbers of birds that were shot, this current season has exceeded the target of 5,500. It was 5,900. It's been properly monitored in terms of numbers, so we know, because we do the surveys every summer, exactly how many birds are there, with a little bit more information in terms of the bag, in terms of the age ratios in the bag. I think we would have a largely fit-for-purpose monitoring scheme on Orkney. The other pilots are moving in a similar direction, and the pilot that was just proposed for Lewis and Harris was an excellent proposal that came to NGMRG, so those schemes are working very well. The complications arise when we're shifting the discussion away from your original petition to Islay. We are all trying to find ways in which we can get a steer from the Government about how it's going to handle all these local situations. The petition means to an end, not just for people in the US, but in other places too, so we've got to take that into account. We're moving really on to the issue about markets, which Jim was going to say some things about just now. Thank you very much, convener, and just to say, it's not just a problem for the croffling areas down in south-west, in Salwy, in Samiff, perhaps, there's problems there with both the varieties we're talking about, as Alex Ferguson and Claudio will know too. Just going on to markets, it's been briefly touched on already between every threat and there may be an opportunity, and we've talked about sport hunting and wildfowling as an opportunity. Is that opportunity being explored enough? Are there any barriers at the moment? Are we actually having perhaps a situation that might be similar with deer, where the hunting of wildfowling is maybe restricted to those with the largest purse who are maybe being encouraged to shoot a couple and that's it? Or are we using that as perhaps, or missing an opportunity with that to actually control them in a controlled way? Fair enough what Andrew Bowers mentioned about, you shoot a couple and then, if you're a good shot, then they disappear to the next island, but if you had somebody on the next island or in a certain position, you could control that better. So it would be interesting to see if that's been explored enough and what the barriers are to that not happening at the moment. Also, just exploring uses of the goose as a product, one shot obviously. I know there's been some small programmes but we're missing opportunities regarding using it as a food for humans and also perhaps a food for other things like fishmeal for feeding fish, I should say. Who wants to kick off on that one? It's Andrew Bowers. Certainly Orkney would be the example that I would look to because that's where you have a very large population of grey-like geese and they already have the pilot for the sale. It'll help. I think if you were able to free up new markets, that would help even more because at the moment they're restricted to the on-island markets. You're expecting people to go out there. There may be some modest support available to them for shot and things like that but the limit on how many you can shoot is the people's goodwill, their time, the cost to them. Therefore, if you're creating new markets and they know that there's going to be somewhere that they can sell, then they are obviously more inclined to go out there and do more shooting and that will be the challenge particularly on Orkney is to find enough people willing to do enough shooting to bring their numbers down from the very, very high levels that they're at at the moment. It's interesting to see what you mean by that and also somebody else mentioned before about specified Italian shooters. I know they're very keen on shooting wildfire so it's not just a case of finding people perhaps in Orkney to shoot them but we encourage people to visit Orkney as part of a shooting experience for example. As far as I'm aware there's already a lot of groups coming from places like Italy to Orkney. That brings with it its own challenges because obviously they want geese there on tap and if you've had somebody in doing some shooting prior to that for the purpose of control then they might not get the experience that they're looking for. Our view I think would be that you need to try and find a balance perhaps with more emphasis on the control of numbers. What I mean by freeing up is that you need to open up the mainland market. There are very strict conditions at the moment on what can be done. We're not suggesting that you should remove it and turn it into free for all. But if these people were able to sell into the mainland in Scotland and UK markets then suddenly there would be a completely different nature to this. Through the convener who is talking about strict conditions could you explain what these strict conditions are and who are improving these? I think the councillor was describing them earlier on it's about how the data that's collected who's doing the shooting, where these birds are being processed, how they're being sold, where they're being sold. So a lot of that would remain in place but I think the key thing would be to say you can sell rather than being able to sell through the butcher and cut wall or something like that suddenly you can sell into the fine establishments of Edinburgh or Glasgow or London or wherever else it might be and suddenly there is a demand there and people will obviously put more time and effort into the shooting on Orkney. Baz, Paul and then Houston. You can say that if that was to happen then there would be a demand for goose meat of course the wood and that's where you start getting into possible population level impacts. But I was just going to make a related point following up from what Claudia said. We need to be mindful that some of these birds are being shot with lead and there are human health concerns as well as wildlife health concerns around lead. The Food Standards Agency did offer or issue some advice based on a study in Scotland just a couple of years ago which basically said that groups that consume a lot of game are at risk of human health effects so particular groups that were included were pregnant women, children and people who eat a lot of game basically. The lead ammunition group is due to report within the next couple of months in terms of the wildlife health and the human health risk assessment. So there wouldn't be an issue here in terms of markets if all of these birds were being shot with non-lead or non-toxic shot but some aren't. Gease would be above grass water but it is illegal to use lead over water at the moment anyway. Paul Walton. First point I'd like to make about with regard to hunting and shooting is that we are just again to reiterate that we are really not good at collecting data on how many birds are being shot in this country. I think the committee should have urged the committee to consider that. With regard to also seeing these goose birds there's just thousands and thousands of them. The Solway barnacle goose population they are ones that are completely set for Nile once they breed in Svalbard, not Greenland. That population post-war was down to 500 individual birds and that for the goose population go up and down quite naturally. That's the edge of extinction and that's because of commercial hunting. So I would suggest that a too gunghoa attitude to opening up sale of carcass would be wrong. At the same time, the idea of geese being shot and it simply being wasted I personally find quite boring actually. I think something ought to be done about it. The key point here is that we really have to do it quite carefully and in a controlled manner. That is why the current pilots that are piloting the sale of goose carcasses, the US and Orkney we're fine with that. But we want to see if the regulation of it that SNH is put in place which we agree with is actually effective before we open up to a situation where demand may drive the number of geese that are called rather than any science that we do. I think that's a real danger around the world if there's been instances where that's happened. Before we make it fully commercial I think we need to just tread quite carefully and in a kind of way that we test things and we get the right data and particularly the right data from hunting banks. Bustian, please. Back to the licence issue. Specific licences are issued to the people that are shooting as well as the premises. So the people that are shooting have to have the licence and they have to have done the hygiene training as well. Licences can be issued to others but they can only give them away and they also have to use a special shot if they're being sold to these premises. They can't use the lead shot. It's been very successful in US since it started. Of course, one of the companies in US in claims who have a baker in Butcher are talking of extending on the mac of the success of it. But to go back to Paul's point earlier on it's very difficult to get that number of people that will have an effect on the numbers but clearly already this year a number of crofters are applying for the licence. A number of them are concerned obviously about having to do this course on hygiene. I think the ones that have done it have quite enjoyed it. It's not been as oner as I think they thought. There is potential there to expand the economy of US but there's a demand from outside too being given to this company so if we could extend it outside the US it would be a big help. Claudia, Dave, Paul and back to Jim. Thank you convener. Is there any concern about in relation to shooting stocks if they are grazing together? I'm sure we'll get an answer to that as we go on. Dave Thompson? Just to follow on on the market aspect of the pilots and I mean does anybody have the reason why a good sound reason why the market shouldn't be opened up more widely out of Orney and out of US because it strikes me if you're going to encourage the development of the shooting and the marketing during the pilots then you need to allow the folk like the folk in US that Oustin mentioned who are creating a market you need to allow them to develop that so they can actually justify whatever investment they need to make in the processing and to me this is a perfect example of where you should have local processing in the place where these birds are shot so that the jobs and the added value stays in the islands but you need to allow them to do that if the pilot is so restrictive in the sense that the legislation doesn't allow the selling of it out with US then that's going to hinder the pilot you're not going to get a true scientific assessment of the effect whereas if the market was opened up you are going to have a much better situation I would have thought and it will help to speed up the whole process so there's that point and just how long does the like so this pilot need to run before folk are going to be happy that they know what it's going to lead to it's going to be fine, it's going to be plenty so this time next year we can say it's been a success, let's extend it or are folk going to look for five or ten years of the pilot well indeed there's only so many goose burgers you can eat if you live in the US so the question about markets and so on are obviously something that's dear to any economist's heart Paul, Walton, Jim Hume Andrew Bauer to begin with the point of clarification so the grey light goose can be shot in the open season without a licence but then during the closed season during the spring and summer you need a licence to do it but that's not necessarily a problem but I defer to Patrick and Euston's greater connections but one issue which has arisen in crofting areas that I have discussed several times is that if a deer causes damage on a croft the crofter can shoot the deer if a goose is causing damage on a croft it's all about who holds the sporting rights and because the estates get money from goose shooting in the open season during the period when the crofters want to protect their crofts which is in the late summer as the seed matures that critical period which is also the seed not just of the grain but of the wild flowers that are so important in that grain there has been an issue around the estates being quite reluctant to actually give that permission and I think that is something that is perhaps a manageable issue that the committee could consider because I think crofters do not feel as free as they might. I do not know if Huston has a comment on that. Back on the point that Paul has made it is quite clear that the community-owned estates of Storys for example and much more proactive in terms of shooting geese than the privately owned estates I will leave that at that. Indeed, we understand what you are talking about. Jimmy Hume That is quite interesting we have talked about using the goose as a shooting target and there are problems with that obviously a couple of shots and they are all off and fly away but other methods that can be used are used in other parts of the world I am thinking of nets or fired over them to collect larger numbers at a time is there anything done with that is that legal? Just to finish up on that. Andrew Bower You can comment on that and whatever. There are quite a range of different things that have done nets specifically I am not sure others in the room may know just the point I was going to make reflecting back in the markets some of the comments that have been made are around free for all and opening things up we are not proposing that at all that is not what we are describing here at the very beginning of this session Paul described how the grey lag population we have less than 5% of the world's population here and Baz said if we are not careful with the shooting of grey lags we will have population level decline that is actually what we are aiming for here that is the objective to do with the grey lags as population level decline and so long as controls remain we see no problem with selling into mainland markets there it is not that this is free for all but if you are using people you are bringing income in you are not suddenly throwing the floodgates opening and wrecking the vast majority of the global population you are bringing down the level of a quarry species of which we hold a small proportion of the global total so I think there is absolutely no reason why that mainland market shouldn't be available Ooston did you have a point on the point of nets it says you cannot use the following methods to kill or take birds bird lime similar to the old rafter but nets is one of the ones you can use Baz and then Marina Andrew has prompted me perfectly for what I was going to say which was anything that needs to be done with the same process as the Norwegians took forward so the way they developed the plan I think as Paul has already said was involve all stakeholders from the start and they actually got to a situation where they agreed population which is something that we've never done in this country before my concern though about the demand is just how many birds we've actually got to offer so for example if you do increase demand market demand for the Auckland birds the target there is to shoot 5,500 birds a year I think for 3 or 4 years to get it down to the target population level and then the number of birds available would be a lot less we would get to a situation where if there was a big demand then there might not be the product there to provide as well quickly on that point if that's alright I can understand exactly what you're saying there but if the populations drop and that's what we're looking to achieve with the grey lag here and there are then lesser than available through the licensing or whatever method we want to use those that are going to come on to the market then the value of those birds increases so that the income for those shooting a lesser amount actually stays at a reasonable level which would encourage them to continue to shoot that reduced amount but you've then got a quality product that is of high value which you can add even greater value to locally by processing on locally and I think that could only be a good thing It seems to be a sort of a gone-ho attitude it's not easy to shoot a goose you have to be a pretty good shot I don't believe there's that many people on the islands that are particularly good at discharging a goose we have good examples of specialists in terms of controller fox numbers prior to lambing I think there's an opportunity for collaborative working in terms of meeting a market demand that it's not just one craft or one farm that's actually benefitting that as a collective surely it'll be a better idea and better able to manage that and monitor it as well that if things are being worked on a collective particularly meeting a market demand that would be much fair all around Thank you Patrick To ask whether more consideration could be used for alternative methods as well the question about netting and the question of using contraceptive in feed and that's well known I don't know whether it works with geese but it certainly works with other with control of other species and I guess the way that has been used is trying to interrupt breeding cycles with egg oining for example which I don't know whether it's hugely successful or not I certainly know that geese are much cleverer than you'd expect geese to be and start to work out when their nest has been tampered with so the idea of interrupting breeding cycles is good because it could achieve the objective of reducing the geese numbers but then as Dave keeps saying I think if we can do it in a way that we're using this resource and using local people to manage this so that it is sustainable makes a lot of sense I think Just a couple of points one on this on contraception now it has been used in a couple of instances but the problem we have is a technical one which is that we haven't got contraceptives that are species specific yet and if you start chucking estrogens about in the environment there can be all sorts of unintended consequences it can be really tricky for non-target species if they somehow get access to it and consume it and that has been the really big problem that doesn't mean to say that it won't be possible in the future and I think what I would say is that we should all encourage research on what's called immuno contraception in terms of a species specific nature but I think it's probably not a bit of a non-starter at the moment although it has right enough been used in Venice and I've seen the effects of that egg oiling has been trialled in Scotland and scientists have said that it's not really going to work because these goose populations are largely dependent on the adults rather than their breeding success do you see what I mean? It's just the biology of it however some people on Tyree thought it was quite effective actually so there we go so it's got question marks around some of the other methods the one thing I just wanted to before it just vanishes and I'm sorry if this is stepping back a bit Claudia's point about mixed flocks there are mixed flocks and the barnacle geesan isla mix with the threatened Greenland white fronted goose the current proposal says we're not going to shoot at roosts we're not going to disturb the roosts they also acknowledge that the two species occur together and we feel that one of the problems with the current proposal for isla is that the Greenland white fronted goose will be disturbed by massively increased shooting and that is an issue that hasn't been addressed fully yet a question about science here from Graham Day I'm hoping to think about it the way forward in a minute or two something we should touch on earlier we've talked about the impact of these geese on the local economies and on food production but I just wonder if there's any science any data there as to whether there isn't an impact on human beings human health and animal health because if you think about the issue that we're encountering on farm land here where dogs are allowed to roam wild and do their business it just strikes me if we've got 20,000 geese doing their business as it were is there anything to say that that's an impact on through water courses or on the interaction with animals is there anything there that we should be concerned about Patrick? I can only give a non-scientific answer to that and that's that the crofters find the fouling of pasture to be a huge problem because the cattle need to eat the grass and if it's fouled like you say thousands of geese doing their business on it then the cattle don't want to eat it so it is a big problem In addition to those health impacts on the cattle there's potential environmental risk I think Orkney council their evidence talked about potential impacts on drinking water supplies in Orkney we're also aware that there are exceedingly high levels of nitrates in and around Loch Strathbeg in Aberdeenshire which is a very large goose population as well so yes as with any living thing there's inevitable consequences there but it's not just the animals that are in it as well I was just going to say that we do know that geese do carry some bacteria that can cause for example food poisoning in humans but I don't think there's any link being proven so hypothetically that there could be an issue but I don't think it is Houston The next news to have said it's caused a problem with sheep at lambing but we've not had them put that in writing they'll say it verbally but they won't kind of say that it's a the other issue that we should have mentioned earlier is that gray black have had an impact on other bird species as well like the corn bunting Indeed we've got quite a lot of questions to ask the minister about when we see him and therefore we have to think about the way ahead just now we've had quite a lot of hints from many of you about the ways that you think that we should go it's up to us to try and treat this petition as a means to actually get better solutions from the Government not just the questions about how much cask is into it but science and many other things Do any of you have a sort of final thoughts about the way in which we proceed just now so that you can guide us in our contemplation of the way ahead right Andrew Bauer splitting it down for the quarry species and the protected species I think for the quarry species given that we're talking about very large numbers of a population that is not globally significant that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be care and consideration over what's done but I think we can proceed in a more robust manner there and certainly we would see the opening up of mainland markets for gray-like goose carcasses as being the best way to achieve that certainly the short and medium term for the protected species Eila has been at the forefront of suffering the impacts but because of that they are so much further down the road in most other areas therefore certainly what we would be keen is that this committee give its wholehearted support to the Scottish Government to SNH to the local farmers there in the implementation of this plan because this if it's to have any chance anywhere else with protected species about finding a sustainable balance then this document and the effort that's gone into that is the best way to get there if this stalls if we hang around naval gazing for another 10 or 15 years you know I don't like to think about what the consequences would be for places like Eila it would not be good at all Marina the document there for Eila the adaptive management approach I think we have to recognise one size does not fit all the different issues on different islands but in terms of sorry other species the broader sense in terms of biodiversity where you have a population explosion in terms of geese per se other species are going to suffer the bird species such as chaff corn craig corn bunting and also the habitats as well you know we rate ourselves in terms of our species rate habitats to hillground etc so to have a balanced approach in terms of trying to redress that balance I think that's a good start in terms of the minister's approach okay, Paul Bolton I think one of the main points for us is that the government needs to increase the level of support for crop protection on the US I think that's a terribly important mark for biodiversity second point I'd make is that a draft strategy that is evidently incomplete in terms of fundamentals in terms of actual goose damage and how numbers of geese relate to that in terms of how we relate to other members state on the flyway of those species now how they may react and how Scotland acts in terms of the actual economics of the situation these are fundamental issues that really need to be addressed before we can charge ahead with what I think is an incomplete strategy okay, so I would have to say that I've not discussed many of the areas that are beginning to be affected in my constituency which stretches from crofting areas in the west to areas where Greenland, White Front and all the rest of it are being conserved by the RSPB and others in agri environment schemes but also at Lochai in Easter Ross where a lot of grain farmers are beginning to complain about the levels and numbers of geese in that area so you can understand why we need to have horses for courses to mix metaphors but we do need to require many forward to take into account the circumstances in this species and I think we've got to a stage where most people have provided us with a whole range of information to allow us to take this forward this petition opens a door to quite a lot of opportunity for us to get better schemes to get better science and to get better support but it's a matter of seeing how we can lever these out of the current system but I'm hoping that in the new common agriculture policy that there will be room in the rural development part of it to try and help this as well as the basic development of science which is protected in the Scottish Government's budget for the Scottish Rural University colleges and so on so thank you very much everybody for that input all of you have contributed very pertinent points thank you to all the witnesses before I bring the public part of the meeting to a close at its next final meeting before the summer recess on the 25th of June committee will hold its final evidence session on the control of wild geese numbers petition with the minister and other business so thank you very much for coming we're going to clear the room fairly soon after a short meeting and move into private