There are now 24 European countries that have reintroduced European beaver. There is therefore a wealth of experience to draw on in planning a Scottish reintroduction. We are unaware of any proposals to reverse reintroduction decisions in any European country.

Article 22(a) of the Habitats Directive also states that the reintroduction of Annex IV species (such as European beaver) should take into account the experience in other EU Member States.

SNH have already undertaken extensive consultation with relevant specialists across Europe over the issue of beaver reintroduction. Reviews commissioned by SNH, drawing on the European (and, to a lesser extent, the North American) experience, have been published and are identified in Annex 1. The European experience was also highlighted in the previous Knapdale licence application submitted by SNH, in particular following a specific request by the previous Deputy Environment Minister, Allan Wilson MSP to provide more information on the issue. SNH's response to the previous Deputy Environment Minister was submitted in January 2005 (this has also been included as Annex 3 of the current RZSS/SWT licence application). Therefore this summary report is additional to the previous work undertaken.

This document summarises new information on the European experience collated during October 2007 - April 2008. Most of this information was obtained through correspondence with known specialists based in several European countries.

It should be noted that European specialists were asked, specifically, to address particular concerns that have been reported in relation to the effect of beavers. This short report also concentrates on those countries where beaver management issues have been highlighted in the past. Consequently, the experiences of countries where beaver management concerns are not judged to be such a significant issue are not highlighted to the same extent.

Campbell, R, Dutton, A, & Hughes, J (2007). Economic Impacts of Beaver. Report for the Wild Britain Initiative

This new study has just been published. It used questionnaires and economic tools to begin to measure the potential economic impact beavers might have on wildlife tourism in Britain. It was in effect a scoping study and so its predictive powers are limited. Its aim was merely to begin to consider the relative sizes of the costs and benefits. The authors accessed information from a range of European countries

WildCru concluded that these benefits could be substantial. A beaver release site might bring (tourism multiplier included) over approximately £2 million per year into the local economy, whilst a pessimistic estimate could still yield approximately £0.75 million. Focused eco-tourism could further enhance these benefits, for example, just seven operators in Scotland could inject (tourism multiplier included) over £1 million into the local economy adjacent to reintroductions. Statistical analysis showed that including an enigmatic species, such as the beaver, in a tourism holiday increases its merit by £63 per person.

In comparison WildCru concluded that the potential damages that might be caused by beavers appear small. Negative economic impacts reported from previous reintroductions varied widely and were not related to area, beaver population size or the amount of time beavers had been in areas. Therefore it was not possible to accurately predict likely economic impacts for the UK.

The relative sizes of the costs and benefit of a beaver reintroduction were estimated - benefits could be around 100 times larger than costs.

Halley, D.J. & Bevanger, K. (2005). The beaver - management for hunting, wildlife and environmental resource. A handbook of modern methods for practical management of beaver populations. NINA Report 21.61 s. In Norwegian.

Methods for managing beavers have been set out in a recent publication published by NINA (Norwegian Institute for Nature Research).

Norway is not in the EU and so the Habitats Directive Annex IV provisions do not apply. However, many of the methods set out in the manual (many of them based on methods developed in other parts of Europe and in the USA by beaver management specialist Skip Lisle) are applicable to the wider European situation e.g. harvesting strategies, lethal and non lethal trapping techniques, methods to protect trees, and methods to protect culverts and regulate beaver damming activities. If there were to be any future, localised management issues following a Scottish beaver reintroduction , then some of the methodologies identified would be appropriate, for example:

Anon (2008). Reintroducing beavers into the UK. Briefing paper published by the Salmon & Trout Association.

We received a copy of this document in April 2008. It was produced with input from European specialists. We understand it will be placed on the Salmon and Trout Association's web site (http://www.salmon-trout.org/index.asp) in the near future.

The Association concludes the briefing note with the following text: “Beavers have the ability to bring enormous benefits to the ecology of our watercourses. They have profound and far-reaching impacts on geomorphology, nutrients, sediment, biodiversity and could help offer flood protection. The reintroduction of beavers has the ability to achieve many targets under current political drivers such as WFD and the Habitats Directive. The practicality and benefits of introducing beavers will depend on the location and topography of the local area. We therefore feel that reintroduction should be considered on a catchment basis, and in conjunction with a comprehensive management plan and funding stream”.

Beaver radio tracking methodologies have been further tested and refined by Telemark University College, Norway, generally recognised as a centre of beaver ecological expertise in Europe. There are pros and cons with many of the techniques. Transmitter attachment remains an issue - the Telemark University College method involves punching a hole through the beaver tail, so there are animal welfare (and possibly Home Office licensing) issues that will need to be addressed for any Scottish study. A recent Czech study has encountered high mortality in beavers that has been tentatively linked to the tagging.

In the Czech Republic the beaver monitoring mainly involves non-intrusive identification of winter activity patterns to help determine beaver territories. Beavers in the Danish trial reintroduction are monitored using field signs, and assessments of population size are made through regular, coordinated, visual counts. This does not provide detailed, continual locational information on all beavers but does provide a good estimate of population numbers, a regular assessment of territory locations and an opportunity to liaise with local land owners. Local volunteers are used in the Danish monitoring, which thereby stimulates local interest and involvement.

The flat landscapes and landscape history of the Baltic States are very different to those of Scotland.

In the Soviet period in particular, many of the extensive forest bogs that used to be present were drained for forestry or peasant agriculture. The drains, roads and culverts were generally of limited quality and so vulnerable to beaver activities in such a flat landscape - blocking one narrow ditch in a branching sequence can flood a large area.

Finland also has flat landscapes, and a large population of beavers, but has a more developed infrastructure, agriculture, and forestry practices. Beavers there are much less problematic.

Very large population of about 100,000 animals, with about 1-2 individuals per square km of the country.

Intensively exploited, with over 10,000 beaver skins sold/year.

Beaver tourism opportunities have not been established. Generally negative perception of beaver to date, but this is believed to be starting to change since Lithuania joined the EU and the European importance of the species has become an issue.

Foresters claim significant damage to timber crops from flooding, although beaver specialists believe it is usually pioneer birch stands which are most affected.

In agriculture, beavers will dam drainage routes - however, post-Soviet land reform has meant many of these drainage routes are no longer used.

There are instances of beavers damaging fish pond banks.

Otter populations are believed to benefit from the presence of beaver, as do amphibian populations. Beaver lodges are important to small mammals sheltering from winter conditions. The abundance and diversity of the ground surface dwelling beetles is higher in beaver “meadows” than in control habitats.

No known public health issues reported

Population of about 1500-2000 animals

A national beaver management plan was drafted in 2006 for the Ministry of Environment, and is expected to be ratified shortly and implemented from 2008.

Ensuring good communication between beaver workers and land users (e.g. foresters) has been important, and reduces the likelihood of conflict situations developing. Land owners are more likely to be content to accommodate beavers if they are kept informed, are aware of management techniques and know how to contact beaver specialists to request assistance if required.

Beavers can graze on 5-15cm diameter saplings within 10m of water edge - therefore foresters are encouraged to plant saplings away from the water edge and/or fence them.

In agricultural areas beavers may establish territories on large rivers where there are few/no trees - they will graze on a range of crops if planted close to the river edge, although there are relatively few complaints as damage tends to be limited. Localised flooding from beaver activities probably has more effect than grazing on crops.

Electric fencing works well in excluding beavers, and beavers will avoid the same areas for some months after the fence is removed

The main area of conflict appears to relate to fish ponds used in aquaculture. We understand there have been a small number of breaches in pond banks caused by beaver. Consequently reintroduction is not being recommended in regions where there are high numbers of ponds e.g. in the Upper Vltava and Luznice River areas of south Bohemia.

Tourism opportunities have not been developed yet.

No known public health concerns reported

A trial reintroduction began in Denmark in 1999 at Klosterheden Forest, Jutland with the release of 18 animals. By autumn 2006 there were at least 86 individuals in 25-26 territories, and they have spread from the Flynder river in Klosterheden to three neighbouring rivers outwith Klosterheden.

There are now thought to be about 100 individual beavers, based on April 2007 survey results.

Danish Forest and Nature Agency staff have recorded an increased number of contacts with landowners, primarily in relation to areas of arable land affected by flooding from beaver dams - Agency staff have therefore removed some dams.

Tourism and visitor interest remains high at Klosterheden - in 2005 there were 72 excursions and guided tours run by the Agency with 2,064 participants

There are no reported public health concerns, nor concerns with regard to beaver effects on Natura sites in the area

In September 2007 the Agency applied for permission to release beavers in Northern Sealand. The farmers' organisation has informed the relevant forest district that they have no objections to the release of beavers in their area as long as the beavers will be managed in the same way as at Klosterheden. A decision is awaited from Government.

Bavarian beaver population is now approximately 10,000 animals in 2,500 territories.

The specialists charged with beaver management in Bavaria have informed us that they never hear of problems from two thirds of the beaver territories. In the remaining territories, any problems reported can usually be satisfactorily resolved.

In about 10% of their casework they have to remove the beavers (e.g. situations involving sewage plants, beavers in villages, beavers in commercial fish ponds etc.).

About 500 beavers per year are removed. Most of them are killed, as opportunities to use them in reintroduction projects become fewer.

There are occasional issues with fish ponds - not just from beaver but also from other burrowing mammal species. Therefore, the water management agencies responsible for dykes use mesh guards to make them resistant to burrowing activities (rather than apply for permits to remove beavers).

Agricultural damage is still generally small. A poll organised by the farmers' association in 2000 reported a total annual cost arising from beaver activity of just a few thousand Euros (although note there was no independent assessment of these reports). Apparently this is about the same amount caused by roe deer on Bavarian roads in one hour.

The Bavarian fishermen association published findings in 2005, that fish densities in areas with dead-wood created by beaver are up to 80 times higher than outside.

Beavers are used in tourism, but so far on a small scale through local initiatives - there are plans to increase beaver tourism potential in 2008. In other parts of Germany, there is more extensive use of beavers in tourism e.g. canoe tours.

There is no commercial or recreational hunting of beavers in Germany.

No known public health concerns reported.

The number of conflict situations remains low e.g. occasional reports of felling/bark stripping of fruit trees.

Effects on dykes - Since SNH was last in touch with Dutch colleagues in 2005, there has been one case in which a beaver dug a hole into the foot of a dyke. The cost of restoring this was about 10,000 Euros.

No known public health concerns reported.

No studies on economic effects, but beaver spotting opportunities are believed to be an added attraction to wildlife watchers who visit the reintroduction areas.

Duncan Halley, beaver specialist based at NINA, has referred to statements in which it is claimed that, when examining beaver-fishery interactions, Norway is not a good parallel for fisheries in Scotland because the streams are in very steep sided valleys where the side streams are not useable by salmon because of the high gradient. This does appear to be the case in the west coast fjords of Norway (Stavanger-Kristiansund) but there are no beavers in these areas. However, most of the major salmon river systems (Gaula, Orkla, Namsen, Stjørdalsela, Numedalslaget, etc.) look similar to Scottish systems in general topography - these rivers all have beavers, together with salmon and sea trout spawning in tributary streams. On none of these streams are beaver dams considered a problem for fish stocks.

Parker, H. & R∅nning, O. C. (2007). Low potential for restraint of anadromous salmonid reproduction by beaver Castor fiber in the Numedalslagen river catchment, Norway. River Research and Applications 23, 752-762.

View is that this study has close parallels to a future Scottish situation.

The paper surveys the whole Numesdalslaget river system in SE Norway. It is a typical U-shaped valley with a main stream and tributaries, colonised by beavers from 1957 and with a mature, apparently stable, capacity beaver population, not limited by hunting pressure which is locally light. It is a major sea trout/salmon sport fishing river (apparently not dissimilar to the more heavily wooded sections of the Spey or Dee). There is a large spate every year during snowmelt, and often one or more smaller ones in rainy periods in autumn.

Of the 87 tributaries on the catchment, 51, all wooded (on average 72% with broadleaves, mainly birch, willow & aspen), were surveyed (the rest were mostly above the tree line and not suitable beaver habitat). Only 15 tributaries had ever had records of any beaver dams. In 2003, there were only 3 colonies in total on these tributaries, which had built 5 dams between them. The main river was much more heavily occupied by beavers, and the population there much more stable - densities on the main river were ten times greater and there were no dams. Side stream dams were unusual and ephemeral, often washing out and the territories also typically being occupied rather ephemerally, only 1-3 years.

In such catchments the bulk of the population tends to live on the main river and on any lakes; Duncan Halley's (NINA) view is that this would be the case in Scotland too, especially as a much greater percentage of tributaries small enough to dam are treeless.

Although none of the 14 landowners in the Numesdalslaget catchment derive any hunting revenue from beavers, 64% were unreservedly positive about beavers, 29% had encountered occasional conflicts but were generally positive, 7% (one individual) was unhappy with their presence.

The paper also assessed the potential for dams to cause restraint on salmonid reproduction. It was concluded there would be little effect.

The European beaver is an Annex II species on the EC Habitats Directive. An assessment was therefore undertaken on the number of SACs with beaver present in EU Member States. A further analysis was made to ascertain whether European beaver occurred on any SACs in Europe where the qualifying interests identified for Taynish and Knapdale Woods SAC (which forms part of the proposed trial reintroduction site) also occurred.

The four qualifying Annex I habitats and Annex II species for which Taynish and Knapdale Woods has been classified as an SAC are as follows:

The analysis could not be undertaken with “Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles” as this habitat only occurs in the British Isles. Therefore those European SACs with beavers which also had at least one other type of Annex I “temperate forest” feature (i.e. those with a “91-” Annex IV habitat coding) present were included in the analysis instead.

The results are provided in Table 1 below.

Five countries have exceptions from the Annex II requirements because of their large beaver populations and do not have to submit SACs for which beaver is identified. They are Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania (*note from the table that Lithuania has four beaver SACs listed - it is uncertain why this is so, and may be a reporting error).

A similar analysis was undertaken by SNH as part of its licence application package of 7 January 2002. At that time there were only 85 beaver SACs in Europe, distributed between four countries. This has now increased to 678 SACs distributed between ten countries. About 61% of the beaver SACs occur in Germany.

One of the four countries with beaver SACs from the 2002 analysis was Belgium. However, because the beaver reintroductions there had been unofficial and illegal, the listing of beaver was subsequently removed from all Belgian SACs. There are therefore no Belgian beaver SACs in the current list.

In addition to the ten EU Member States listed in the table, plus the four others with Annex II exceptions, and Belgium, there are a further three Member States which also have beaver present: Denmark, Luxembourg and Spain. All three of these countries are still in the very early stages of beaver reintroduction or natural colonisation and therefore it is likely that sites of sufficient quality to support SAC status have yet to be established.

Note that the vast majority of European SACs where beaver occurs (85.5%) have some type of Annex I “temperate forest” habitat feature present. The majority also have otter present (58.4%) - this is significant in that there is a widely acknowledged view amongst European specialists that beaver presence can have a beneficial effect on otter, for example through the creation of additional wetland habitat which can provide sources of otter prey. There are 98 SACs (14.5%) where beaver and the “lochs with aquatic vegetation” feature which occurs at Taynish and Knapdale Woods, both occur - however, note there may be other SACs where other types of Annex I standing water features also occur.

Reintroduction work and other beaver conservation action has continued across Europe. There has been a recent, significant increase in the number of SACs for which beaver is identified as an Annex II species, and a significant increase in the number of EU Member States with beaver SACs.

Research and management methodologies continue to be developed, and there are good sources of information on best practice. There are certain issues where specific countries have particularly useful experiences which could be useful in a Scottish context e.g. the methods employed in the `trial' and `full' reintroduction in Denmark, the development of a national beaver management plan in the Czech Republic.

Baltic States - These have been highlighted by others recently as examples of where beavers can cause significant damage. It is clear that are many examples of beaver conflict (e.g. damming of drainage routes, damage to fish pond banks, impact on forestry) in the Baltic States. However, it should be noted that the flat landscape, and landscape history, is completely different to that of Scotland. In Lithuania alone there are also 100,000 beavers i.e. an extremely high population in a relatively small country - the high numbers, densities and colonisation rates are different to what would happen in any Scottish reintroduction.

Effects on land uses - The issue of dykes/canals has been raised again recently as the proposed reintroduction site at Knapdale is close to the Crinan Canal. There are records of beavers damaging the bank of a dyke in the Netherlands, and fish pond banks in several other countries, as a result of burrowing activities. There are also, as we were already aware, cases of beaver grazing and damming activities impacting on forestry and agriculture, usually on a localised level close to water edge. Therefore this highlights the importance of ensuring any beaver reintroduction is carefully designed e.g. planning the location of release sites, identifying `buffer zones' from which animals should be removed, establishing suitable monitoring programmes, establishing local beaver management expertise (utilising the experience and methods developed by Europeans e.g. Gerhard Schwab in Bavaria), communicating with land owners and managers etc.

Fisheries -The recent Norwegian study demonstrated that the majority of land owners in a study catchment where both beaver and salmonids occur are positive about the presence of beavers. Further information on the fishery issue was collated for the previous SNH licence application (see Annex 2).

We continue to find no reports of public health concerns relating to European beaver.

The development of beaver tourism opportunities across Europe varies. In the majority of cases it appears to be relatively small scale and localised (exceptions include Denmark). This is an area where Scotland could take a lead, utilising existing experience in developing wildlife watching opportunities.

The recent University of Oxford `WildCru' report concludes that, taking into account the possible costs associated with reintroducing beaver, a reintroduction could bring significant overall economic benefits.