 The 20th meeting of this year of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Before we go ahead, mind you to turn off your electronic equipment apart from those who are using tablets for the purposes of this meeting. Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business and private and the committee should decide whether to take items 4 and 5, consideration of its letters to the Scottish Government on resource use and the circular economy and on the land reform review group final report in private. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. The agenda item 2 is subordinate legislation. Second item today is the committee to consider the following negative instruments. Plant Health Scotland amendment order 2012, SSI 2014, SSI 2014 slash 140 and specified diseases notification and slaughter amendment and compensation Scotland order 2014, SSI 2014 slash 151. Members should note that no motion to annul has been received in relation to these SSIs. I refer members to the paper and ask if there's any comment now. There are no comments. If the committee has agreed to do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. We move to agenda item 3, Public Petition PE 01490. The third item today is for the committee to take evidence from the minister for environment and climate change in a petition to control wild geese numbers. The petition was lodged by Patrick Krause on behalf of the Scottish Crofting Federation. I welcome the minister. Good morning to you, Paul Wheelhouse, and you can introduce your officials and I invite you to make any opening remarks that you require to. Thank you, convener. I have to my right Eileen Stewart, who's head of policy and advice at SNH, and I've got Andrew Taylor from the Scottish Government who advises me on matters such as geomanagement and goose management. If I may, I'll give my opening remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee and describe some of the work that the Government is taking forward in relation to supporting protected goose populations and managing the impact of geese on crofting and agriculture, often on islands or in coastal areas of course. First of all, I would like to emphasise the conservation success that goose management has provided over the years with populations of some species recovering from dangerously low levels. Goose management is a complex issue and clearly sometimes a contentious one, which is why we seek to maintain dialogue and consensus through stakeholder groups, and in particular the national goose management review group or MGMRG. The group is chaired by Scottish Government and supported by SNH. Its members include farming, crofting, sporting and conservation interests. I recognise that geese can, in certain areas and at certain times, cause serious agricultural damage. Serious impacts tend to be localised in particular areas, such as on Islay, but there is also a general level of goose impact associated with the movement of migratory species, such as parts of Caithness. Local goose management schemes are the principle mechanism to support geese and agriculture. Islay was the first scheme and is the largest by far, but there are others on the Solway, Contire, Strathbeg, Southwalls and Orkney, and those are funded by SNH. From 2010 until this year, the two schemes on the US and Tyrien call have been funded under the Macker life scheme, with wider objectives relating to preserving traditional cereal production and soul-supporting biodiversity of other bird species. Goose management was an important aspect of that to prevent damage to the cereals, and the goose control latter two schemes continue as adaptive management trials, which will come too shortly. There was some discussion over whether the SRDP could be used to help fund goose management schemes. The group looked at that and stakeholders were pretty unanimous in that they felt that the SRDP would not be a suitable vehicle to deliver that funding, but I am happy to discuss that further. I know that you are interested in that. That was due to the competitive nature of the scheme, the existing budgetary pressures and the localised nature of goose impacts. Goose management remains funded directly via SNH, and £1.2 million per annum is directed to supporting farmers and crofters in managing geese. Goose management policy has evolved over the years, and the national goose group has had a dual role in overseeing local schemes and advising ministers on national policy. The policy is reviewed periodically, most recently in 2010. Goose management policy has for some time been guided by three high-level objectives. Firstly, to meet the UK's nature conservation obligations, secondly, to minimise the economic loss to farmers, and thirdly, to maximise the value of money of public expenditure. The Government's response to the 2010 review welcomed the report, particularly the recognition that goose management schemes had been a conservation success and that the local approach should be continued. We also recognised the challenges in relation to a few vulnerable species, such as Greenland white-fronted geese on Islay and the coverage of the schemes in certain areas and the issues around rising costs. Finally, the study undertook to pursue an adaptive management approach in relation to geese, and I will describe some of this work next. Over the last two years, SNH has been developing adaptive management pilots, designed to prevent serious agricultural damage on Scottish islands from resident grey-lagged geese. Pilots are running on Orkney, the EWIS, Tyree and Coal, and a Lewis and Harris scheme is due to start this year. The pilots have been developed with local input and have been generally welcomed by local crofters and farmers, and they differ in design due to local conditions. SNH have used the powers available to them in legislation to licence the limited sale of wild goose carcasses arising from the pilots. The general prohibition on the sale of meat from wild geese was introduced for conservation reasons, and we recognise the concerns of certain stakeholders in weakening those controls. However, we believe that there are sufficient safeguards in place to allow the sale in those cases, and the move has been a success. Finally, ministers announced in 2012 that SNH would examine how to develop an adaptive management approach to goose management on isla. Clearly, this is a very controversial step, and I have assured stakeholders that we would only proceed with these measures if we were certain that this could be done in a manner compliant with domestic and European legal obligations. The isla project is on-going, and SNH is in the process of consulting interested parties on the draft strategy. Part of this work includes consulting EU member states on international aspects of managing migratory goose populations. In closing, convener, in summary, I think that we can agree that we are dealing with a complex and contentious issue and that there is no one-size-fits-all approach or solution for managing geese. We also value discussion and consultation and seek to maintain a consensus where we can. That has been a brief description of the work that we are involved in, but I am happy to take any questions that the committee may have. I would like to kick off. We want to try and, if possible, although we know that the flocks get mixed to keep the questions separate with regard to the migratory species and those of the resident population. That allows us to focus for a start on isla and, before we move on to the wider discussion about drailags, do you have a view on the sustainable number of barnacle geese on isla? This is clearly something that a considerable amount of effort is going into studying. What I would say is that we have a knowledge that in Scotland we have about 65,000 barnacle geese. That constitutes a very high percentage of the world's population of Greenland barnacle geese. We recognise that we have a responsibility to the international community to manage that population sensitively, while obviously taking account of the agricultural impact that it has. We are reasonably confident in the numbers because of the work that goes into monitoring the take-off of birds through lethal, scaring the bag limit, as it is called, on isla. There are particular mechanisms to make sure that there is an accurate count of how many are killed and the resident population that goose numbers on isla in terms of barnacle geese are coming back down again. We have a total of 46,500 geese of all species on isla in the current year, which is a reduction from the previous year. The suggestion is that it is slightly over 40,000 barnacle geese at this point in time. That is much larger than it was in previous decades and the information that we have. We are reaching a point where we are hosting in those areas the largest number of birds that have been seen in the time of our record. Am I correct? Yes. If it would help the committee, I can give some figures just to our understanding. This is, I should stress, unseasonal average figures, so the average numbers throughout the whole season for barnacle geese have risen from about a low point in the period that I have in front of me of 2,102 of about 33,452 barnacle geese to 46,903 by 2012-13. There was a peak prior to that before numbers came down slightly. We believe that the numbers are lower than that now. Nearer 40,000 is not possible to say exactly why they have come down in the past year. There may be things happening elsewhere in their range in Greenland, but we will be investigating to what extent the activity that we undertook in the past 12 months has helped to disperse the population. The question about dispersal is important because there is a displacement effect than other areas that are being affected by barnacle geese in particular. That is potentially true, convener. If we move the geese from Islay, then they potentially go to other parts of their natural range. We talked about better data there for a minute. Are you happy that our figures are robust? How well are we collating the information, for example, when they are shot? What would you suggest were the means whereby we improve that data? In Islay, we are reasonably confident that the numbers are accurate because of the legal requirements that affect anx1 species. There is strict monitoring of the numbers that are taken. As I said, each year we set a bag limit to the number that can be lethally scared or euthanised. That is then divided up into individual farmers, so they have a specific allocation. They then have a legal duty to report in terms of how many they actually take. It is worth saying that not always is the case that the full bag limit is actually taken. That has been the case in previous years where it fell below what had actually been set. Because of that requirement, we are unable to collate the data and understand to what extent there has been a number taken that particular year. However, I can maybe invite either Aileen or Andrew McShugh who would prefer Andrew to be the best person to take this in terms of the on-going monitoring of the numbers. The counts are very good on Islay. There is very good information available on Islay as well as there is monthly counting in relation to payments under the Islay local goose management scheme. That information is very good on Islay. It would be fair to say that we have data for other populations of geese, grey lag, other species. I would say that Islay is probably the best quality data that we have of all the populations under study. It was put to us that there could be a better collation of those figures for grey lag geese, which get mixed up in the same flux as barnacles we understand, but that tends to be less of a problem in Islay than on other islands. How much less of a problem? Is the grey lag problem increasing in Islay as well? I visited Islay last year, convener, and I certainly heard some anecdotal evidence that grey lag numbers were. We are still modest, but they had been increasing. There is also, just to give you a sense of the dynamics here, that grey lag geese seemed to learn quite well from what is actually happening in terms of the scaring activity. For what I have been told, I did not observe that myself, but what I am told by local farmers and, indeed, those colleagues from SNH and the Scottish Government who are with me, that they are finding themselves moving towards the Greenland white fronts, because the Greenland white fronts are not being tackled by the lethal scaring activity and are moving away sometimes from hanging with the barnacle geese who are being targeted for action. I was joking about the point earlier on with colleagues, but when you hang with a cross, you get shot with a cross. I think that the grey lag geese are smart enough to realise that they should stick with the Greenland white fronts, but the numbers are modest in Islay. There are much more substantial grey lag numbers in Orkney where there has been a significant issue. We had to take additional action on adaptive management with the support of the members of the national goose management review group to do that, but the numbers are difficult to monitor, even in Orkney, because much of the activity on the mainland is on the Orkney mainland, and we believe that some grey lags may have been dispersed to surrounding islands in the archipelago, and we need to improve our understanding of how many have moved. Indeed, we could perhaps come on to some of the things to do with grey lags in a minute or two. Claudia Beamish Thank you very much, convener. Good morning, minister, and to both of you as well. Could I just ask in relation to mixed flocks, which you have begun to outline already, minister, but in terms of the mix on Islay, I understand that the barnacle still mix with the threatened Greenland white-fronted geese. Just in terms of what was highlighted by the RSPB, whether there is any form of risk assessment being done or likely to be done in relation to the habitats directive as to what the implications of that could be, bearing in mind that there are global implications. Well, the first thing to say is that we remain concerned about the future of the Greenland white-fronted geese on Islay. Their numbers have not been holding up well, and they have, whether that's down to competition for feed with other species or whether there are other factors at play, climatic change or indeed issues to do with their other grounds that they are on in Greenland and elsewhere, it's impossible to say. You are right though, Claudia Beamish is right that the Greenland white-fronts mix with barnacle geese, which makes it all more difficult to target action on the barnacles when you are trying to employ scaring behaviours to try to move them off of ground because you are also affecting the Greenland white-fronts. There is some suggestion from what I have been told by those who are expert in this issue that there are some types of ground that are preferred by Greenland white-fronts that barnacles do not like, so if you could encourage more habitat of that kind, it would help the Greenland white-fronts, it would allow you to split off the white-fronts from the barnacle geese and therefore have more impact in terms of your adaptive management process on the barnacle numbers. But we are clearly in the course of developing a dossier of what we are doing. We have to demonstrate to the commission that we are treating very sensitively both the impact on barnacles but particularly the Greenland white-fronts, which are from the period when the schemes were last reviewed. The Greenland white-fronts were flagged up as the major conservation concern and it was agreed that more activity would be targeted to helping them in the future, so it is something that we have very much got in mind that we have to continue to monitor it but I believe that Eileen wants to come in at this point too. Just to provide some reassurance, when we design the schemes before they are set up and running, we undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment which does look at all of the species of conservation interests which obviously includes Greenland white-fronts and have to go through an analysis to make sure that any of the management measures that we are putting in place, including scaring and lethal scaring, won't have an adverse impact on the Greenland white-fronts and so one of the measures that is put in place is that when people are given licenses to shoot barnacle geese, they can only use those when Greenland white-fronts aren't in the same field, so people on the ground are very aware of the need to target the effort at barnacles and are very aware of the special concern that we have on Greenland white-fronts and as the Minister said we are looking at more ways that we can undertake management specifically to support Greenland white-fronts and to try and separate out their habitat diversification to allow that management to be more targeted. Could I come back briefly on the more broadly minister in terms of the management plan for the future in Islay, whether you have any concerns about what has been highlighted by conservation groups about the feeling that it might not have been involved in those structures for taking forward the stakeholder views and I wondered if you had any comment on that. I have had a number of quite lengthy discussions with RSPB and when I went out to Islay myself I went to visit the RSPB reserve there and we have always been open to dialogue with the RSPB and indeed they are involved in the national geese management review group as our WWT. Conservation groups have an interest and I would just say if there are other groups that have a desire to be involved then to communicate that to us but I have not been made aware by anybody so far saying we don't feel we are being involved in this. I am certainly aware of the concerns that RSPB have about the approach but I believe that they have been well consulted and indeed I have invited RSPB to, in the case of the Islay situation, to bring forward their own suggestions if they have any of how we can perhaps manage the habitat along the lines that Islay and myself have been just discussing how we can manage the habitat to try and provide either more sacrificial feeding areas for geese using underused land, maybe neglected land, which might be suitable or other approaches that they can bring forward so I certainly would welcome any suggestions they have. I was going to mention management methods now. Andrew Bauer from NFUS brandished a report which he said was about to become active in Islay. When can we expect to see that published so that we can understand the implications of their proposals for adaptive management? I will invite Eileen to comment on the report. It is an on-going study. We gave a commitment in the running to my visit to Taila and, subsequently, we would work with local stakeholders to try and identify a strategy for adaptive management that would be working in sympathy with our obligations under the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive and also in trying to manage the serious agricultural damage that I saw for myself when I was there. To put things in perspective, when I visited Mr Craig Archibald's farm, I saw one field with 2,000 to 3,000 geese in it and they were feeding very voraciously, I have to say. There is definitely quite clear evidence of impact at a local level, but the study is on-going. We have to identify one thing that we do have to understand. We have just seen the recent drop that I have discussed earlier on in goose numbers. We need to understand to what extent that is a response to something happening outside of Scotland, whether it is something that is a response to the adaptive management that we are already doing in terms of the legitimate lethal scaring activity that is authorised through the bag limit. It is finally balanced. We have to be sure that the limit that we have set each year is not threatening the conservation status of the species. There is work going on on that basis, but perhaps Eileen could give you more detail on the status of the report itself. The draft island goose management strategy is in its second draft version at the moment and it is on our website and available for download at the moment. We can certainly pass on the link to the committee. The first version was circulated to all the key stakeholders, including RSPB, WWT, NFUS and so on. We have had constructive comments from a number of those parties and we have tried to take them on board in the second draft, which is available now. We had a meeting of the national goose management review group yesterday when all those parties were around the table and we spent over an hour discussing the management strategy then. There have also been discussions and meetings on Islay. There was an open meeting two nights ago where people were invited. There were notices all around the island and people were invited to come and discuss the strategy and we are seeking as wide input as we can get. It is quite a lengthy document. It runs to about 70 pages. Obviously, there is quite a lot in there, but we are trying to address all the issues around geese and ensure that the conservation status is at the heart of it, but to try and do what we can to find a sustainable solution that also reduces the impact on the farming activity, it is very live on an ongoing piece of work. Okay. Do you want to comment at this point, Alex? If that is all right with you, we will raise this later, but we have got there already. I wonder if, just to follow on from that, one of the concerns that was raised with us in our stakeholder meeting was, obviously we are talking about migratory species, so other countries are involved. I just wondered whether anybody could comment on what discussions have taken place with countries such as Greenland and Iceland and, indeed, with the European Commission, given that many of them will be affected in the life cycle of these species. Certainly, Mr Ferguson, we are aware that we have an obligation to consult countries like Ireland where there is a significant issue with migratory species like barnacles, Iceland, Greenland and, forgive me, the Netherlands. We have written to all of these administrations outlining our emerging approach and inviting them to give feedback. I believe that there has been some informal discussion with the Irish officials, not minister-to-minister, but with officials, but we haven't yet had formal feedback from Ireland on their position and the implications, but it is something, clearly. Sorry, Minister, we have written to the Netherlands to meet intent to write to the Republic of Ireland group meetings. If you want, for the points that you make so that we can all hear it. In case you didn't pick that up, Andrew, I was saying that we haven't yet formally written to the Irish, but we have written to the Netherlands, but we can get further information on that. Certainly, we need to engage with these Governments because of the very high share of the global population and the implications that it will have for its own biodiversity objectives in its own countries. It is just the responsible thing to do before we step forward. We obviously want to speak to the Commission on the basis of having consulted our near neighbours about the implications for them and to demonstrate that we have tried everything we can other than adaptive management to manage the problem. Can I just sort of get a final clarification just to put the concern that was raised with us hopefully to bed? I take it that where possible you would take any representations made from these other countries into consideration when finally approving the plan that is being worked on? Absolutely. The intent is to get their genuine feedback and, obviously, if they have any concerns, we need to try and address those concerns about the approach. It will also help us to understand what measures they are taking in their own country. Perhaps there may be measures that are being taken in Ireland that could be useful to us. It is almost a fact-finding element to it as well. Graham Day, a supplementary on this. If I may convene, I will just try to clarify something. When we talk about my greater species inevitably, it seems that their behaviour is being altered at times by the impact of climate change. Has there been any work done to determine how the numbers that we are seeing are being impacted upon by climate change and whether the behaviour of the patterns might be changing? If so, have we any indication of whether that will lead to an increase in numbers going forward or a decrease? It is purely gut fuel. I do not have any empirical evidence to back this up, but I invite Eileen and Andrew to comment if they feel that they have further evidence that climate change will be having an impact and that it is changing weather patterns. Therefore, the migratory patterns of geese might be affected. Whether that means that this is a long-term trend that will continue to grow, I do not know, but there is certainly some suggestion in the case of Orkney that that has been a contributing factor to the substantial growth in resident population of geese that we are staying in Orkney year round, which is why we have targeted our action at the resident population and avoided shooting during periods when migratory geese are visiting Orkney. It is quite tightly defined, so we know that we are only hitting the resident population there to try to bring them back down to something like the levels that they used to be, but there is a huge expansion. I think that they went from a few thousand very quickly up to 20,000 and all year round impact on agricultural land and given the importance of the beef heard in Orkney and grazing land for the viability of the farming community there. It was felt that climate change is having an impact. How do we monitor that? We are developing our research programme as a Government and groups such as climate exchange and others are involved in looking at the impact of climate change on Scotland, but SRUC and others are potentially asked to look at the issue, but I would like to comment on what research we are doing on the impact of climate change in this area. Yes, thank you. There is quite a lot of work going on, looking at populations and population trends, while I from Wetlands Trust do work for us and have an annual contract to monitor key tabs of the numbers, trends both in this country and overseas, so we do have that very good data and we can do analysis of how that is changing in relation to climate changes. We are also undertaking more tagging of birds as well and ringing of birds to try and see if there is any change to movements and behaviours within the UK, so I think that it is an area of active investigation and something that we should continue to focus on. I suspect that you have gone most of where I was hoping you would get me, but I guess my question is, are we seeing trends, and I think we are, which suggests that in many ways this is a global issue and that what the Scottish Government is doing, clearly we have territorial responsibility, but these birds are responding to global weather patterns. Really the Scottish Government and all of us have to be informed by a global model of where birds are going to go because it might just be that over the next 10 years these populations will shift themselves and shooting them now is actually irrelevant. Clearly it is one of the things we have to be very, very mindful of is the conservation status of a globally important species and while I think the migration in this case is maybe on a regional level if you take Northern Hemisphere rather than entirely global population, one of the problems that we have in identifying whether it is climate change or another factor is that we do not know what is happening to the geese when they are at the other end of their range up in Greenland. Clearly there is a huge climatic change happening there, but to the extent to which that is actually driving the change in population levels and migratory patterns is hard to tell. You are absolutely right, Mr Don. We have to work with our international partners because this is not just an issue that affects Scotland. We have a responsibility to a species that they probably value very much in their own countries and therefore we have to be very mindful of that and make sure that nothing we do jeopardises the global future of the species. We have to tread very, very carefully in taking forward any adaptive management approach to make sure that it is sensitive to that issue while trying to do what we can to alleviate the problem that is cruelly being fell at a local level in Placelot Islay. Time to move on about management methods now. Do you consider that shooting a barnacle geese in Islay is compliant with the birds directive? We have had a corrective from the RSPB about the interpretation of the way in which the court case was dealt with because we understand the detail of that. We do not need to go into the detail of it such, but are you happy with the compliance issue? We talked earlier about the detail work that goes into understanding exactly what is happening in Islay in terms of the bag limit and how it operates and how many birds are actually killed in terms of the lethal scaring. It is crucial that we are able to have the monitoring data to be able to back up our claims to Europe that we are not jeopardising the conservation status of the species and that we know precisely how many have been taken, how many are still there and the proportion in terms of the viable population to ensure that it is future as a species that we are taking. If, for example, it transpires and we confirm that the numbers have fallen this year, we have to look seriously at the limit that we have set for the current year too high in that context because if it is having a detrimental impact on the population, we have to be very mindful of that. In an ideal world, we would have perhaps a more dispersed pattern of barnacle geese. We are unlucky or the people of Islay are very unlucky, lucky in many ways because they are tremendous spectacle and I understand they are very attractive to tourism, but at the same time unlucky from the point of view of the farmers in that it is hitting their best quality land. We have to help them to manage that situation but be very mindful that we need good quality data, which is one of the issues that came out of the previous court case about the ability to monitor and record and ensure that the bag limits are not being exceeded is absolutely crucial. We put a lot of effort in it, as Eileen Stewart and Andrew have explained, to make sure that that takes place. I am talking about controlling the geese short of shooting them. Are there other methods because the question of scaring has been questioned about the displacement effect? What appears to be the case when you have non-lethal methods, is that they are effective for a short period, but the birds are intelligent, they adapt and, as I have explained, there are particular species that seem to be particularly adaptable. Unfortunately, there is only a short-term benefit from that activity. I have seen for myself when I visited Islay some scaring activity being conducted while we were visiting one of the farms. We could see a neighbouring field where the geese were being moved on with lethal scaring and they flew approximately about half a mile and dropped down in another field. I think that there is a challenge there. There is a relatively limited amount of very good-quality agricultural land in Islay, which is highly important for the livestock industry there. Unfortunately, the geese are moving two and a half, three and a half thousand of them at one go from one field to another, so they are merely moving the problem and displacing it around the island. It is even more complex, as I said earlier, in places such as Orkney, where perhaps you are displacing them from one island to another. There is maybe not a similar level of scaring activity going on that island, and therefore they start to hammer those fields. We have to be very conscious of the fact that we need to try every method that we can, a short of lethal action, but at the same time it clearly does not seem to work in the longer term. Hence why we have challenged other stakeholders to come forward with ideas that might help us. Are there other long-term approaches, the point that Eileen Stewart made earlier on, about separating off geese different species so that we can maybe help the green and white fronts by giving them more of the habitat that they prefer and then take more decisive action in terms of managing the barnacle geese problem? I know that that might be a bit left field, but it has been suggested that canon netting of geese before they are dispatched could possibly be a method that was used if you are confident that you are able to separate out the different species of geese. Is this something that has been tried? If I could maybe bring in Eileen Stewart on that one, convener? It is done under licence, usually, to ring bards, to capture them and then release them. If that was done in the context of controlling geese, obviously, they would then need to be dispatched in some compliant method, but it would need to be done under licence. I was speaking to the shareholders previously, and most of us at the Royal Highland show conversations strayed into this issue. There is a general recognition that geese are actually quite hard to shoot. I just wondered what training, if any, is offered to ensure that any shooting that takes place is effective, and what training, if any, is offered to the farming community in a general sense for goose control? It is certainly a very important issue, and we have actually encountered difficulties in Orkney, as I believe that committee members are probably aware, with the use of non-led shot being insufficient weight to actually take down a goose and avoid injuring the goose and allowing it to live on. Obviously, the welfare implications of not actually killing the goose outright. There is a bit of a challenge in ORSPB, and we are concerned about the use of lead shot. We are trying to work very closely with BASC to support the use of non-led alternatives. I believe that I am not a shooting expert myself, but I believe that BASC is the one that is being trialled. Obviously, it is clearly taking advice, and I believe that BASC is involved in helping to train or give people advice about how to target geese, but perhaps I will ask Andrew if he has got any further information on that, which might be helpful to the committee. Some shooting is done through employed marksmen, who are obviously professional and they are. They know what they are doing. Some of the schemes that are volunteer shooters use shotguns, and they tend to be keen shooters anyway. As we have said, we have had workshops with BASC and some of the island areas to support that as well. Jim Hume about netting. Just to clarify on the netting, I asked a question last week about netting, and that was a possibility that we were told from some of the witnesses that netting was illegal. Could you clarify the situation whether it is illegal or not illegal, or is it under special circumstances? I understand that it would be illegal unless it is done under licence. I understand that it is used largely to capture birds to ring them and then release them. You mentioned it through the convener, obviously. You mentioned in your remarks about dispatching them as well. I presume that you have been destroying them. If it was to be done in the context of control, they would need to be, having caught them, you would then need to dispatch them in some way. So there are licences that are happening at the moment for netting, not just for ringing, but also for dispatching the bird? It is not done in this country. I believe that they have done it in Netherlands. So is that a potential option? I understand that. I think that they gassed them in the Netherlands. Graham Dey, supplementary. Gaskies in Scotland. Perhaps more humane note. One of the topics that we discussed previously on the committee was the possibility of introducing contraceptive into feed, which is a tactic that has been used in Venice to deal with the pigeons. It was suggested to us that that was not particularly eroded, that we would want to go down. In the context of Orkney, straying away from Iowa, where there is a huge concentration of a particular species, is that an option there? I think that the problem that we would have in any—I understand the potential value of that approach—is that it is indiscriminate, potentially, other conservation species, or how conservation species could be captured. Whether it is other type of goose, in the case of green and white fronts, perhaps in other island areas, or it may be another bird altogether, which would have a high conservation value. Therefore, we could have the risk that we could damage our conservation objectives in other respects. While I understand the potential effectiveness of it, we would have a concern that we would pick up other species that would potentially be damaging effects on. Obviously, if we did it in Iowa, the main concern would be green and white fronts and the potential to cause serious problems for an already threatened population. However, I accept the principle, but it would just be difficult to find a practice. I accept that argument in relation to Iowa, but I wonder if, in Orkney, it might be a more viable option, given the concentration of one species there. If I may invite Eileen, would it be just to comment on the Orkney, whether there are those risks in Orkney? I think, again, it's something of a possible long-term option. Certainly, at the moment, we're not aware of any work on that area. As the minister said, there are issues of how most of these things, it's more to do with how you would administer them in a safe and humane way, is as much of an issue and avoid the indiscriminate kind of impacts as developing the actual contraception. I don't think it's certainly a short-term measure that is likely to be useful to us. Just to take us back to the issue of the lead shot, which you highlighted in relation to the weight of the shot and the fatality issue. I understand that there's new evidence or new recommendations from the Food Standards Agency on the toxicity of lead shot. If I'm right, I think that at the moment it's illegal to use lead shot on wetlands but not on terrestrial ground. I'm wondering about the implications for that. There has been advice from the Food Standards Agency, as you'll know, about the dangers of eating too much game that has been shot with lead shot. If you've got any Scottish Government evidence, you could highlight for us on that issue and whether there is a view being formulated on it. Certainly just to confirm, it's my understanding that just for the record that the lead shot is not being used over wetlands, I think specifically as one of the training issues that has been taken forward. Clearly there would be potentially any health concerns would be something that needs to take into account of in terms of the scheme and also the sale of carcasses, clearly would be an issue in that situation. If I can maybe convene with your permission to ask Andrew just to comment on the detail there in terms of what we're doing to manage that issue at a local level. Indeed. I mean, for example, in the Orkney scheme there's no lead shot being supplied through the scheme and the shooting does not take place over wetlands and it's done overstable so there's no issue there of shooting over wetlands. I understand there was advice, precautionary advice from the Food Standards Agency Scotland a couple of years ago about excess consumption of lead shot game for pregnant women and young children, I think. The scheme would take account in the marketing of wild goose meat of any labelling requirements that were there. I understand from the evidence that we've been given that there is new advice from Food Standards Agency about consumers more broadly than the two groups that you identify in terms of eating less and I'm just wondering whether the Scottish Government is addressing that issue. Certainly, convener, if it would be helpful, we'll look at the advice that's been issued and come back to committee with any thoughts on whether it has implications for the existing scheme but if that would be helpful to the committee. I mean, there is a UK group, the lead ammunition group is looking at this issue in some detail and I do understand it's due to report in a couple of months. We'll look forward to getting that apart from the thing else lead shot breaks your teeth and we can move on to markets for geese watching, shooting and so on. We heard about goose shooting on Orkney's and other areas and looking for different markets et cetera but also perhaps there's a bit of a clash between sporting shooting obviously and professional controllers. I'm just wondering if there's anything within the licensing arrangements that could help to address that. If I may convener, I probably have to defer to Andrew Taylor on that level. Clearly sport shooting makes a contribution to controlling geese and as well as benefits to a local economy through tourism. Sport shooting would take place in the open season whereas licences would be in the closed season. It would be the case that because the licensing in the open season, they get this right, they're there for the spots, shooters are you suggesting that the closed controllers aren't able to shoot when the actual sporting season is? Yes, for example in Orkney the scheme does overlap, it comes into the shootings and it does come into September, it does overlap. I mean attaining the take in Orkney for example does rely on both the efforts through the adaptive management pilot and the sporting take is an important part of that and you have to take that into account through getting their bag returns and counting towards the target take. I think that my convener Eileen Stewart wants to contribute to this if that's possible. Just to reassure you that all of the local pilots are working very closely with the sporting shooting groups in these various different areas and very much the adaptive management work is trying to add on and support the sporting activity so as far as possible it would be great if the sport shooting was able to carry out the control and it wouldn't require any extra effort so we don't want to displace that. What we're trying to do is focus additional effort particularly on Orkney when in the early part of the season under licence there isn't any sport shooting allowed during August and July and August but that's when the crop damage is being suffered so the adaptive management work is focusing early on the year to try and reduce that impact but then the sport shooting is then coming in later in the year so they're very much acting in tandem and the local groups are ensuring that all of the numbers and data is being collected from all of those different parties so that we have a good overall picture of the numbers and can monitor and so on so they are quite well dovetailed and we are very conscious of not wanting to impact on the sporting activity. Another point, did you we're going to say something more on this point? No, I'll give it a number of people right. Dave Thompson, Alec Ferguson and Nigel Dawn. Thank you convener and morning ministers and Eileen and Andrew. It's just to kind of follow on from the point that Jim was raising there and the conflict between sport shooting and shooting for other purposes and the sale of the geesh into the public and so on. I mean we heard from some witnesses who were saying that people, estates that are primarily looking at sport shooting can pose a problem in a sense because although a crofter has a right to shoot a deer if it's eating his crops or her crops, they have no right to shoot the goose because the goose belongs to the estate and they would need permission because of the sporting rights in relation to geesh. But if you look at community-owned estates like Storys, it's much easier to get an agreement to allow crofters to deal with the geesh on their land and there does seem to be a conflict between these two things. I just wonder if we could comment a little bit on that. I mean I'm aware there are potentially a number of different aspects of this issue which relate to land tenure. One example would be if you looked at the wildlife tourism aspect of it. I know that there are agricultural holdings views seeking to deal with this situation but there's little incentive for a tenant to invest perhaps in bunkhouse or accommodation to exploit that market opportunity if they're not going to get the value back from the investment they make. So there are some legal barriers sometimes that prevent that but in terms of the actual sporting activity itself I can see how the point might arise that you would need consent of the landowner to obviously shoot on the ground if that wasn't part of the existing tenancy rights that you had. What we need to do in terms of managing a number of species conflicts not just geesh but similar issues with other species is to try and make sure that the always who are affected by in a potentially negative way can also see the value of the species in a positive way and maximise the opportunity there might be in this case if a tenant farm or a crofter in this case is suffering agricultural damage and they can see no gain in it for themselves in terms of perhaps generating a sporting income whereas a quarry species I should stress then that limits the opportunity for them to be able to adjust to it and say okay I can live with the geese being here because I'm getting something back from from nature having delivered a large goose population to my area so there is a challenge there I think and something we know if the committee's got any any evidence and I'd be happy to look at it. I was interested in what Eileen Stewart was saying about the involvement of the sporting sector if I can call it that as well but referring back to something that Dr Walton of RSPB said to us when we had the round table session he said I actually asked him about any suggestions about how he could increase the quality of scientific evidence that was available and he came back very strongly he in fact he apologised for being fairly strong on the point was his exact words but he said a lot of sport hunting of gray lags in Auckland he goes on but the gathering of data on hunting bags is exceedingly poor in Scotland compared with other countries we have no idea how many geese are shot by people coming from places such as Italy on sport hunting visits if if we are to have the the proper robust science that I would not argue needs to be behind any scheme adaptive or otherwise do we not need to address that point somehow? If it may, I might address it but I just briefly to say that for purposes of brevity that clearly I understand the point that is being made I agree that the more information we have on the population levels and indeed the amount of activity in a sporting sense is undertaken and therefore the reduction in population level that's there that will help us and form our policy both government and DDSNH but maybe Eileen wants to comment on the on the detail yes thank you I mean Paul Paul's absolutely right there isn't mandatory bag returns for all the sort of sport shooting and that does mean that in in the global sense we don't have that data on shooting effort and and that does make it a more difficult complex picture to unravel I think there's a distinction with the the pilots that are being operated at a local level and with the island groups because we have a relatively small number of people who are all contributing and providing data and we are we we think there's a high level of consistency with the data they're providing and the models that we have population viability models so we can see what we expect the population to do and we can monitor what that would do with different levels of take so at the moment that is all suggesting that the data we're getting is very good from from both the voluntary sport shooting and the adaptive management pilot but I think that's why we've chosen to take for those pilots in island situation where we've got a reasonably coherent groups of people who work together it doesn't make it far more difficult to roll these things out on a on a national level clarification and Nigel Dawn thank you convener I just wanted to come back on Eileen Stewart's comment that there was some management shooting ahead of the season and I'm just wondering whether we could adapt the season so that you didn't have to pay people to do what they would otherwise pay you for the privilege of doing well certainly in uh I'll let Eileen come in on the direct point but Cleab where we have situation in in Orkney it seems to be somewhat different from from say Isla in terms of its impact we have and established as Andrew Taylor said established community of people who sport shoot in in Orkney already and therefore you've got a considerable number of people who are willing to support the rollout of the adaptive management pilot and therefore you're able to reduce the cost of the management pilot as well and obviously resale of carcasses helps in that respect too so we have got more than one model if you like working in Scotland is the way I would put it in therefore so not only would you have to take account the seasons and different circumstances but also we've got the deployment situation is quite different in perhaps a small island where there might be a relatively small number of farmers that are getting hit very hard but there's no sporting community there to support them and then we have to bring in basket shooters and special smartsmen maybe to help out whereas Orkney is quite different but in terms of length of season I can maybe ask Eileen Stewart just to comment on that. It is something that has been proposed and has been given some preliminary discussion at the national group level and I think it's still something that's worthy of further consideration obviously the control through licensing allows us to be quite prescriptive about numbers and where and what's taken but if the issue is you know one that is better dealt with through changing licenses then that's something that can be reviewed so it's maybe something that we can think further about. Okay Nigel Dawn sorry Claudia Beamish yeah keep up okay could ask you just building on the questions about the hunting bag data whether there's any prospect of Scottish Government looking at the possibility of more generally looking at bag data building on the pilots for beyond the islands well I appreciate the point made by Eileen about the the fact that islands are easier to monitor perhaps that whether there's anything more generally being mooted. Yeah actually we've carried out some work on looking at developing a voluntary system for all huntable birds in Scotland and we've worked with BASC and GWCT to build on their current game bag you know survey systems and so there's work being done on that and we hope to develop that. Jim Hulme. Just a final sort of part on the market for for geesex evidence that the government to impose restrictions on sales of geese out with communities especially out with islands therefore it seems a bit odd that you wouldn't allow a sold geese to go on to the mainland I just wonder why those restrictions are there and if the government would actually consider looking at that again and allow the sale of shot geese across across Scotland or even further afield. I invite Eileen or Andrew to correct me if I'm wrong about this but I believe there has been actually an area of consensus between the sport shooting community BASC and indeed the conservation groups like RSPB and WWT in the past that actually there needed to be a ban on commercial sale of species for conservation reasons because there was a concern that there was over exploitation of the resource in the past and as I've said we got down to a point where some species were at very low levels and were in danger of facing serious challenge to their viability in Scotland so the current ban was imposed as a conservation measure to move this if you like kind of moral hazard almost of commercial exploitation of the goose species for shooting and also would have potentially reduced the population that were needed for sport shooting as well so the sport shooting activity a bit like we have the challenge with salmon conservation if the numbers get down to a level sufficient level then you start to risk the viability of the actual sporting activity itself so SNH has used its power to license the limited sale of wild goose carcasses arising from the trials on Orkney in the US and only local sale is permitted for a limited period of the trial in order to avoid the possibility of other geese being illegally sold and there would be an issue if you were trying to develop a market more generally and provide an employment opportunity perhaps in the islands I can understand the desire to do that clearly in fragile economies where you're looking for new opportunities you would then have a challenge if you're marketing to mainland perhaps there might be a sufficient demand you wouldn't be able to guarantee a supply and then there would become a sort of a risk that you're having to perhaps push numbers harder than they need to be pushed in order to maintain the guaranteed level of supply to fulfill contracts etc so I think there is a risk in kind of scaling up this activity and making it a commercial operation in the truest sense and really the desire was to introduce this to avoid an unnecessary waste of you know it's sad that we have to to have lethal activity in relation to geese which are a wonderful species here and it was a desire to avoid that you know carcasses going to landfill and being utterly wasted we then explored with the European commission whether we'd be able to do so and indeed if we do extend or offered to extend this process to other areas where the adaptive management is being brought in Lewis and Harris perhaps elsewhere we will need to seek permission from the commission to do so and it's on the understanding it is on a limited basis and it's not a truly commercial operation it's just for local sale that we're able to achieve that so we have to be very very careful and bear that in mind in all cases is it perhaps a case that we're past the stage where the geese are being overexploited the population has got to a stage where it's unsustainable you sort of mentioned there that you couldn't supply all year round well there's many other food substances which are seasonal of course and people don't expect to have geese all year round or strawberries all year round or true it's a slightly different situation though i mean we have a situation where we have perhaps through the adaptive management process if we're doing it properly and we're monitoring the the level of the bag limit that's being taken and the impact in terms of the viability of the species each year annually there might come a time where we have to say sorry we can't shoot any this year and that's something we have to face up to that you could create an industry around this and then suddenly tell them sorry you're not allowed to kill any this year because the population is to pick up the point mr dawn made about international obligations and having to lize with our neighbours and partners on the health the conservation health of species we could you know have a situation where we're basically putting people into redundancy because we could no longer we could no longer exploit that that commercial opportunity because we could be putting people into into jobs opportunity if we do allow that that's true but i think you know you you would it might be somewhat irresponsible when we know as we've said this year we've seen a substantial reduction in barnacle goose numbers okay it's a different species it's not the one we're talking about in orcney but there could come a time when we see a substantial reduction in grey lag numbers perhaps because of climate changes mr day said or other factors in other parts of the range where we'd be effectively responsible snh Scottish government saying sorry you're out of a job so we have to be very very careful about this and the primary purpose of having the sale of carcass was to avoid the unnecessary waste of a valuable food resource at a time when we're unfortunately having to take this action to reduce numbers in orcney and elsewhere but let's do it in a way that's not a wasteful of that you know it's a real shame if we're shooting these geese and their carcass we're going to waste and not being used at a time when they could be used for local food that was the desire rather than trying to create a new industry which which i appreciate that if you had certainty of numbers and you could manage that over a period of time you could build up an industry but we're not in that position i believe at the stage do we have numbers or percentages of the amount of geese that are shot that actually go to the food chain or in the geese that are shot that are actually i'm not familiar with that level detail for me and maybe ask Eileen Stewart. Yes at the moment the numbers have been relatively small something like about a thousand geese from orcney have gone into the food chain i don't have up-to-date figures from the uist but it's a relatively small scale activity at the moment and so it was you know felt to be probably more appropriate for it to be a local industry and that was to some extent what some of the stakeholders are saying they wanted this to be a you know local community initiatives to support local jobs and and you know give them another kind of asset on the island so um there is that element and i think probably the other thing just to mention is that one of the other challenges would be if if you opened this more widely it would be very difficult to distinguish between um a grey lag goose breast and a green and white front so that's obviously one of the other risks that we want to avoid is is um you know the wrong sorts of geese ending up in in the food chain so that's another thing that we just need to be aware of if i may convene there you see a hundred a thousand sorry of the orcney geese end up in the food chain i presume that's per year do we know how many are are actually shot all together in in orcney it's around about 5000 so i think at the moment it's sort of building up because obviously this is just a a new initiative and so people have only just become licensed and so on so i think we were expected to grow a little bit but it's it's never going to be a you know a very mainstream activity i don't think it's purely an anecdotal comment convener but i was just recently in orcney for the islands ministerial working group and was keen to explore whether goose burgers which are now being produced are on the market and uh it was actually quite difficult to find them so i think it is as island institute said still an emerging area and uh you know it's not necessarily they don't appear in local restaurants in great numbers or as a local resource so that might be an opportunity locally to make something all that while it lasts to to maybe market it to local tourists as a as a a unique product in a Scottish context very good thank you Dave Thompson thank you convener minister um i'm just wondering if you get elaborate a little bit because i'm slightly confused about why restricting the the market the sale of them to orcney as opposed to allowing the folk who are processing them and producing the burgers or indeed you could have goose patty as well and that would keep as well once you've got it into a into a jar it doesn't have a shelf life that's very short surely that the control would be over those who are allowed who are licensed to shoot them and those who could be licensed to process them the actual market restricting it to orcney or uist i don't see how that actually affects the numbers short if you control the the shooting and the processing is that not enough surely and then that would allow them to build their market a bit more widely because i mean the grey lag there's lots of them yeah that might change in the future but if we're monitoring it closely we're going to see that change beginning to happen so license conditions could then be tweaked so instead of someone being able to shoot a thousand a year they might just be able to shoot 500 so we would have the ability to you know deal with it through the licensing because i'd be really keen to try to create jobs in us for instance you know local folk who could set up a processing business as i say doing burgers or doing something like party that's got a longer life so i'm just wondering if you could comment on that well i certainly sympathise with the points that mr tomson expressed i mean clearly if there were no concerns that we had about either the stakeholder views we've got to work very carefully with the stakeholders on this as i'm sure the committee will appreciate and only take them as far and as fast as we can we have to have confidence the number of points that were raised earlier on about understanding mr Ferguson and understanding exactly how many are being shot what their impact is on the on the population level so there's all the backdrop if you like of having to be very clear about what is actually happening on the ground in terms of the adaptive management process how many are being taken and give confidence to stakeholders and the commission that we are managing this effectively that can trust the data they're seeing that there is no risk to the conservation health of the of the species and it may well be in time that you can get to position where you have a regular adaptive management pattern that you and the stability of the population is such you know exactly how to do that and that might give a more favourable climate for the employer in this case to establish a business but all we're saying is there's a risk at the moment there we could end up in a situation where we're working one year to the next at the moment in terms of population numbers and we might have to draw a line and say sorry this year there's no there's no shooting activity at all because some calamity perhaps weather related might have devastated the the flock elsewhere or here and we have to be very mindful of that we then have to do everything possible to help the geese boost their breeding numbers to sustain the future so we could have to put things into reverse in some respect so I'm just conscious that there's that aspect the conservation issue is underpinning all of the concerns we have about let's try very carefully here we're just we're just exploring this issue for the first time in some years I mean to be very careful about how we progress but I do understand the point that's been made if you could generate long term sustainable jobs like this without risking the conservation status of the species and I think that that would be a useful outcome in the sense that you know we clearly the allowing the sale of the carcasses does allow those who are helping support the process to get something back from from this in terms of sustaining the cost of shooting and undertaking the control work so you know it would help sort of recycle some money back into into the management process but we just have to be very careful about how we we tread and keeping the market tight at this stage was felt for the reasons that Eileen gave you know I mean by which we could manage understand exactly what's happening be able to show an audit trail almost of what's going on in terms of the sale of the carcasses and what they've been used for and I have in mind that you know you potentially have a risk of not being able to sustain the level of activity needed to support a bigger contract you know where you were maybe selling to thousands of customers in the main line we are talking about a thousand geese at the moment and that would hardly scratch the surface of potential demand very briefly just a quick follow-up point we did hear a bit of evidence as well that some some crofters in particular are thinking about stopping work on their crofts because the sheep are just decimating them if they stop working their crops then the stuff that the geese are eating disappears then the geese don't have food and the geese die so the longer we take you know it sounds as if yeah we need to do more and get more evidence you know if people stop working their crofts then you could have a repercussions from that the food isn't there for the geese and and therefore you've got a problem I wouldn't want this to drag out too long you know absolutely I mean we we are absolutely aware of the impact on farmers and crofters I would stress or make a plea through the committee it's just an observation that we've had in the last four years I think only twice have the crofting federation attended national goose management review group meetings and the deed we had one yesterday which they were unable to attend so you know we need better engagement from printing well video conferencing we we have offered that and indeed they can dial in to the meetings but we don't have regular engagement I would really strongly encourage the great regret there hasn't been that degree of involvement in the national goose management review group in the way that the NFUS, BASC, SLE, RSPB and others are very actively involved so if there are if there are other bodies live close to Edinburgh and you know I mean we're talking about real difficulties for people who actually require to be at meetings of the sort and that would make a plea that we find a way to do that well that has been offered convener I've offered video conferencing to the crofting federation for that reason but I understand the individuals involved actually live quite close to Edinburgh so it's not necessarily a barrier to attending meetings in Edinburgh but you know we have a need for and I've written on this basis to I believe in the past to to to crofting federation to ask them to please to participate in these meetings but assuming that can happen we will get a better understanding of these precisely these kind of implications because I want to understand as best I can how we can help crofters in this situation. Clearly the pilots are designed to help in some of the particularly strong crofting areas but if there are other areas that we're not covering in the pilots then obviously I would invite the committee and indeed members who've got a close crofting interest like Mr Thomson to let me know and then we can take that on board. Thanks for that. I think try and move on to other government actions which Cara Hilton wants to lead on just now. Thanks convener and good morning minister and panel. A key issue that was discussed at the stakeholder round table last week in which you've already touched on yourself was the balance between conserving geese populations and obviously the right of crofters to work their crops so can I ask how the government can help to strike this delicate balance especially given the spending constraints for the goose management schemes is more limited indeed in some cases has been caught quite significantly. Well it's indeed a very important area as Mr Thomson was also highlighting that we need to work closely with crofters. I appreciate that many crofters struggle those that are trying to make a living from from crofting full time you know really struggle as it is and clearly many others don't generate sufficient income from crofting to general living so they're having to work in other areas as well so they may be also constrained in terms of the time they can spend in managing an issue when there's geese presenting themselves on their crop. So it's clearly an important issue. I touched upon it in the outset that there's certainly thinking at the moment is that SRTP isn't necessarily the right vehicle to deliver additional support but I'm keen to explore to what extent we can help. There is some funding available for example for cooperative working through SRDP and it was really just an idea we were discussing earlier on that we can explore so I apologise to the committee I haven't done much thinking on this in detail but it might be possible perhaps crofters collaboratively to find a way at a local level to manage a problem where it's presenting at an area level either to find land that could be used on a sacrificial basis that could be used to feed the geese effectively and take pressure off the remaining grazing land they have or some other method to try and get them to encourage them to collaborate. So we'll have a little investigation as to whether there's other parts of SRDP that can support in this case but I would say that we have while there was it's true that we had a review which suggested that we to some extent reduce some activity in certain areas of focus on green and white front geese for the reason we discussed earlier that their conservation status is much weaker. We have in the course of the discussion engaged with stakeholders increased the budget again to back to almost where it was previously so they're now up to £910,000 they get in 2013-14 and we're still to have discussions with them about what we do in the current financial year in terms of the final outturn. So we have responded to the budget and where there has been evidence of pressure has gone back up so the spend per goose if I can call it that is almost at a record level now so back up to almost £20, there's £19.50 per goose actually on the island so not the ones that we're shooting but just the number of geese is 40, six and a half thousand geese in Isla and you know we're spending significant sums of money. So I think you know it's not true to say I know the petition sets out that that funding has been cut or stopped and that's not true. There is an issue with the macker life project which has maybe changed focus so we're now doing adaptive management and funding it through direct funding from SNH rather than through macker life and the budget is slightly higher but it does take in it's not a like for like comparison there are other things in the budget that SNH are paying now which you know sort of goes beyond what was in the macker life project so it's not strictly speaking in comparison but the funding is now slightly higher there too so there is still funding there we take it very seriously the budget is £1.2 million which is not insignificant at a time of budgetary pressure and we are trying to respond where there's clear evidence as there was in Isla of significant damage and while we try and find a longer term solution because it's arguable that continuing to fund in the way we are isn't necessarily a sustainable solution in itself so we need to find a way of helping the crofters and farmers help themselves in many cases but also provide them with support that doesn't grow the problem because literally we're feeding grass to basically feed geese and that's creating a problem where more geese are being attracted to those very well fertilised and seeded fields. Yeah just a minute it's a follow-up in respect to the adaptive management schemes can ask if there are actual targets in place to reduce the goose numbers and if so how are these determined, monitored and assessed? Well certainly in case of Orkney because it's a quarry species the grey lag we set about a bag limit of 5,000 to specifically reduce the resident population over a period of time back down to where it used to be about three or four thousand resident geese it's now had reached 20,000 and rising and with a growing migratory population as well for the reasons I was discussing with Mr Day earlier that was compounding the problem so we've taken a specific figure there to try and reduce with consultation with stakeholders, reduce the numbers down of resident geese while not affecting the migratory population. In the case of barnacle geese there have been views expressed to us by local farmers and from Islay that the figure of less than 30,000 would be sustainable but we have to do a lot of work obviously to establish what is a truly sustainable population of barnacle geese numbers on Islay and that figure is yet to be identified but I don't know whether Eileen Stewart would briefly want to just comment on that. Yes I mean just to support what the minister said all of the pilots do have target populations that they're aiming for and those were developed on the basis of sort of scientific data on what would be a sustainable population and trying to work out what we actually looked at the amount of improved grassland in these different areas and what they could potentially support without having an undue impact on agricultural activities and then there's a process of negotiation with local stakeholders to get a final agreed target and so each year an annual bag is agreed and so we're working towards those targets and monitoring to see where the progress is being made. I think for all of the pilots to date we haven't managed to achieve the shooting levels that we've set so actually you know that that is one of the biggest challenges to get sufficient activity to maintain that sort of downward trend but we are working with local stakeholders to develop these models and these schemes. Angus MacDonald in the maca life project etc. Yes thanks convener picking up on your comments minister regarding the maca life project we had some discussion about it last week and you know clearly it deals with the impact of excessive grail eggs on the crops on the maca. Now the RSPB said that it had been pressing for the project to continue but funding hadn't been found and Paul Walton of the RSPB said that SNH had offered to provide 40,000 of funding towards a project to manage geese to help conserve the traditional crop varieties but an additional 40,000 was required and that's why the project hasn't gone forward. You just mentioned a couple of minutes ago about other action that has been taken to take the place of the maca life project. Can you expand on that? Can you tell us what other action is being undertaken and whether that is going to be as successful as the maca life project which seemed to be working? Well certainly if I could say the outset I recognise the valuable work that's been done in the maca to the maca life project and the habitat there is outstanding. It's first class in terms of its impact on biodiversity and promoting the welfare of birds but also invertebrates as well and particularly pollinators like bees I think that's fantastic. The funding that we are providing in 2014-15 for the Uists for example is 45,400 pounds and that is for 2014-15 which is higher than the funding I believe just under 40,000 that was provided through maca life but you're right Mr McDonald it's a different basis point that was making to Cara Hilton as well that it's funded on a slightly different basis and obviously this is about adaptive management so it's specifically about managing the difficulties we have with geese rather than a wider project looking at a habitat in the case of maca life. The original maca life project also involved EU, RSPB, SNH and the local authority in this case ran for four years and it was to promote biodiversity of ground nesting birds so hence the different focus in this case. Geese management did form part of the project and included geese scaring for the purposes of crop protection of traditional cereals which in turn provided a habitat for the birds such as a corn bunting in particular which we've had some great success with. The geese management element on the use is now being carried out through the adaptive management trial and furthermore since 2011 SNH has funded additional advisory support to enable crofters to access rural priorities options as well through SRDP to provide funding and support traditional maca cultivation and so that potentially could continue under the SRDP as programmed in terms of the agri environment so we'll need to have a look at what the detail could be delivered on a similar basis to support the traditional cereal production which obviously helps with the habitat for the corn bunting and other ground nesting birds and obviously the greening measures that the cabinet secretary has announced in CAP as well would equally apply in crofting areas to those non-crofting areas so we have a number of different tools that could be supplied so I recognise the point that RSPB made about the quantum of funding but we're not just saying that the adaptive management budget is the only thing that we're going to be spending in those areas that's specifically targeted at geese management but there are other funding pots through SRDP through the equivalent of rural priorities funding to support the traditional aspects of what crofters do and indeed I was discussing with Patrick Rousa at Royal Highlands show and Flynn just what more I would like to do in terms of celebrating the high nature value farming aspects of crofting and to work to build on that through SRDP to another measures to try and support them in what they're doing which would have the desired impacts that RSPB I think would want to see in protecting the macker itself so I guess it's something we need to evolve on but I'm sure I welcome any views that Mr McDonald or others have on that. Is there a prospect of you going back or looking at the macker knife project in future years if the new systems don't quite get the results that you're hoping for? I'd be very sorry if we saw a deterioration in the quality of what is a absolutely superb habitat so I can give an assurance that I will keep an eye on the issue in terms of the prospects for the macker and work with colleagues in the agriculture team to develop SRDP which actually helps to support that sort of scheme but you know what we have to do is focus on the outcome we want and is macker life the right kind of project to do it if that is the case then I'm sympathetic but you know we have to focus on in this case we've got adaptive management we need to protect the livelihoods of the crofters and farmers from serious agricultural damage from geese at the same time we've got our obligations under biodiversity duties and our targets for 2020 to try and work with stakeholders such as crofters to protect what biodiversity we have and enhance that if we can and I'll give an undertone to do that but Eileen may want to comment I'm sorry convener may want to comment on what other things we can do to support the projects um yes certainly um I think it's just important to recognize that the macker life project is is was very good project but it was very broad based um and obviously had the support of European funding so you know was able to undertake a variety of works and the purpose of those European life projects is to trial new approaches to you know develop innovation and so on and so what we are hoping with adaptive management pilot is it's effectively it's an evolution so we will take you know a lot of the successes and a lot of the mechanisms that we used in the macker life but evolve it in a way that's sort of sustainable in the long term so one of the approaches under the macker life project in relation to geese was was effectively non-lethal scaring by and large so you know it was scaring and and obviously the geese are moving around the crofting areas and as as numbers get larger then obviously that task gets harder and harder so the adaptive management approach is is targeting um a geese reduction so that then you know the resulting population is more easy to manage and and effectively crofters will be able to start taking control of that themselves and and there'll be a sort of more a smaller problem to deal with at the end of it so I think what we're doing is we're in a when a process of transition to a new approach and we hope at the end of the adaptive management pilot that we'll have a much more manageable um you know problem that we can deal with in the longer term without that degree of sort of funding support so we haven't stopped sort of the macker we've evolved and many of the activities are maintained through this coming period but and and we obviously do review on an annual basis and we'll be able to amend if if you know problems emerge I think so I'm just picking up on your point regarding the larger numbers on on us the increasing numbers clearly that's creating the overspill that's moving on to Lewis and and Harris and the minister mentioned in his preamble that that work is starting there this year is at a timescale for that well I believe that um we're looking uh well place like Tyree for example it's another area it's affected to to have a something in place for August and then look to stand later on the year I believe Lewis and Harris are slightly later than that but let me just invite Andrew just so it's August as well so but hopefully we'll start the adaptive management then I mean just for for the record I believe while the figures aren't as solid in terms of the population on on us and obviously we want to firm up on that we believe there's about seven thousand um resident Grey Lag East now on on us it's getting to be significant numbers and on us yeah and bebecula so it's a significant number of of geese thank you follow up on government action from Graham Day thank you convener come at this from a slightly different direction minister we've talked about conservation of species we've talked about to protect and farming comes we've talked about biodiversity but it does strike me that if you've got tens of thousands of geese doing their businesses it were on farmland that must have the potential to have an adverse impact on the natural environment both in terms of pollution and water courses and perhaps impact on other species I think the use have been mentioned as a species that are being an animal that's been impacted upon I just wonder what information is available on this and whether this may be as much a reason to take action as the fact that the geese are damaging crops and impacting on farm and crop farm and croft income and food production well the two aspects of it I can very briefly just mention the impact on other species first because I think that's that's also something I should note the evidence I saw from my list showed clear destruction of corncrate corridors where geese had got in behind fences and just stripped the grass completely bare so there are issues certainly from point of view of impact other conservation priorities at a local level which we have to factor in but in terms of the impact on health and the wider environment of doing the business as you politely put it I think it's a significant issue there we are aware that it's not uncommon for for or not unknown I should say for Salmonella to be transmitted from geese to sheep but it's not thought to be common so I'll just make the correct point I picked up concretely and geese are not generally regarded as a reservoir of infection but it's not unknown so it's possible that there could be a transmission of Salmonella from geese to sheep we are you know aware as I say of some other impacts on biodiversity geese can be a source of infection and obviously clearly we have excrement of any kind involved it can impact on water quality although we're not where this is at necessarily being substantiated in Scotland but it's obviously something if emergent evidence does emerge that there's a localised impact and clearly we would take that into account I know institutions like Mordon for example are looking at the impact of livestock on particularly deer and cattle and sheep on water quality they haven't to date I'd believe looked at geese in that respect but it's something clearly where you have got a very concentrated number of geese somewhere like Islay or indeed U.S. or Orkney that there could be a additional exacerbating factor that could cause problems with water quality so certainly something we need to keep an eye on but we don't have a wealth of evidence in this area but it's not unknown for for Salmonella to be transmitted to sheep thank you very much minister we are happy to get you know the evidence you've given us to put this in perspective and of course we'd like to write about this a bit further when we reflect on what's been said it seems to me that in terms of the science that we're getting clear ideas about the numbers and why they're being distributed where they are but in terms of the response and in particular related to the response of the quarry species we're talking only about a seasonal cottage industry we're not talking about major numbers we're talking about the marketing of a small number of goose burgers we're also talking about small populations that couldn't possibly perhaps eat that number of goose burgers if they were seeking a choice of any sort in their diet but it would seem to me that you might want to think about this in terms of the total allowable catch approach which we have in fishing whereby local people could know what number of geese could be processed in the following season on the basis of the up-to-date knowledge that you have and that we recognise that perhaps the small abattoirs that exist for things like turkeys in the case of one that I know of near Alpo in the case of other small abattoirs and haras and other places that they might well be able to cope with the numbers concerned so without you know disparaging your remarks about creating an industry and then making people redundant I think people are used to seasonal small cottage industries in that case and therefore if you're thinking about this in the way forward I'd hope that you'd make sure that we do see that as a perspective that could help at crofting income in those areas so finally just to ask you about this we want to see everyone collaborating we want to make sure that the crofting federations collaborating to noted thank you very much but there's been quite a number of issues raised here and those raised in the petition were specific to the crofting areas but do you see this because there are different situations in the different localities that are affected as some means to create a national plan that takes into account a differentiated way forward? I would regard it being important that we keep an eye on while there may be local extenuating circumstances, local conditions that need to tweak schemes at a local level so they're appropriate that we need to have a mind that we have a consistency where that's appropriate in approach so on a like-for-like basis if the circumstances are similar you try and be fair and have a consistency applied that will obviously help in terms of demonstrating what we are doing to the commission that we are dealing with things in a consistent way as well give clarity and transparency about what we're doing I think we always have to be mindful there are local circumstances that may play might actually be in many ways in some cases impossible for even a cottage industry to develop in certain locations just because of lack of available skills or facilities indeed I know there have been suggestions about mopping up the additional product if I can call it that from in Orkney and other places using it for fish feed for example and other opportunities that have been presented there are some technical issues there that apply because of apologies I have to read this out because it's a transmissible spongiform encipelopathy tse scotland regulations and the implications they have for processing animal proteins into the food chain and there are certain prohibitions in place for for using say poultry products but because of these are wild birds rather than poultry there may be some some difference in interpretation that can apply but even if there was no such prohibition on using poultry products in this way the protein would have to be processed in an authorized feed plant so there are some technical and that requires a bit of investment and scaling up to to be able to deliver that so it's not as straightforward as it may seem but I do take the point on board about needing to be mindful of the opportunities that could arise for a small scale industry at a local level but we just have to be careful that we bring our stakeholders with us in this they have been supportive of this approach to date in terms of allowing the sale of carcasses we have to be careful we don't push them too far and are faster than they're willing to go thank you very much for your evidence and I thank your officials as well because we've had an illuminating session and it'll give us some thought about how we respond and keep decisions about this petition and how we go forward in the forefront of our minds so as we agreed earlier we're going to move into private a minute or two to deal with letters on resource use and circular economy and the land reform review group final report the final meeting this is the final meeting before the summer recess with the committee due back on the 6th of august so with that in mind I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who's taken part in and organised the committee meetings this year to ministerial teams to witnesses and so on it's been very helpful to us all your valued contributions have helped drive the work of the committee forward and it's a pleasure to be able to do so so thank you very much and we'll now move into private