Delays to decisions regarding beaver reintroductions in Strathglass: Deciding Matters Response

Rachel Nixseaman
May 26
5 min read

Deciding Matters is concerned by the ongoing delays from NatureScot to make a decision regarding a proposal for the reintroduction of beavers in the Strathglass area. Recent reports indicate that extensive lobbying from farmers has resulted in Scottish Government Ministers’ intervention in the process, although it took a Freedom of Information request to make this public knowledge. The lack of transparency and timeliness for making a decision is damaging for the public’s trust in Scottish Government organisations, and in the legitimacy of democratic processes currently delivered following public guidance.

Background

Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) and Trees for Life (TfL) have been working in partnership since 2022 to engage with the Strathglass community regarding a potential proposal to return beavers to Glen Affric, above the Beinn A’ Mheadhoin Dam. In 2023, TfL published the Community Consultation Report which recommended additional discussions with the Strathglass community before any possible beaver release moves ahead. FLS and TfL commissioned Deciding Matters, a Scotland-based neutral, non-partisan, participative democracy organisation, to facilitate these discussions and design a set of recommendations for actions the community would like to see before any potential proposals are submitted.

Deciding Matters worked closely with TfL and FLS to engage with those living locally who may be affected by future beaver reintroduction, conducting one-to-one interviews and hosting a group workshop to understand the specific challenges associated with the local land, and identify priority concerns and risk mitigation measures that could be implemented. This work was built upon conversations and public events which had previously taken place, led by TfL, as part of the initial consultation phase. This process offered an opportunity for residents, landowners and land managers in a targeted postcode area to further engage on this topic. Everyone within the postcode area was invited to engage in the topic through one-to-one interview, workshop, phone call, survey or email via a letter-drop.

This topic of deliberation has elicited highly polarised responses from the community, with individuals having a diverse range of perspectives on the potential reintroduction of beavers into the Glen Affric area, leading to ongoing tensions.

Deciding Matters’ process engaged with individuals with a spectrum of perspectives with regards to the reintroduction of beavers, with a range of relationships with the land, and a diverse array of ages. 64 members of the local community engaged directly with the process, with 48 then completing the follow-up survey and voting activity (the survey and voting activity was shared with all participants, but not completed by everyone).

The final question stated “Do you want Forestry and Land Scotland to submit a proposal to NatureScot for the reintroduction of beavers in Glen Affric (above the Beinn A’ Mheadhoin Dam)?” with a majority of respondents (32 out of 48) replying with “Yes, I want a proposal to be submitted”.

Since then, FLS has submitted a licence application, but no decision has been made.

Transparency and Communication

Since the community consultation came to an end, the Strathglass community have not been given timelines for a decision to be made on a beaver licence application, and no clear indication on how different types of evidence would be utilised and prioritised in the decision-making process has been shared. For example, it is unclear whether local business owners’ views would be prioritised and have weighting over residents' views, or whether research from other areas in Scotland with differing ecological regions would be prioritised over local voices.

While it is essential for Scottish Government organisations, such as NatureScot, to review large evidence bases, including case studies and research conducted across Scotland and more widely, it should be clear to those impacted stakeholders who engage with community consultations the level of weighting that is given to different types of evidence and what exactly is being considered as part of NatureScot’s decision-making process.

If Scottish Government Ministers are intervening with a decision-making process that has a community consultation element, the community should be made aware, and all have the chance to speak to relevant Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers and have their views taken into consideration.

Risk to Future Processes

NatureScot and Scottish Government’s response to this reintroduction process could be seen to undermine and delegitimise future community consultations exploring species reintroduction in Scotland. Impacted individuals may be less likely to engage with an official process, either because they do not see the value in giving up time for a process that does not seem to influence the outcome, or because they can circumvent the process and lobby directly for their desired outcome. There is also the risk that processes which have already taken place, but did not offer additional engagement periods and review from Scottish Government may now not be seen as complete or legitimate. Damaging the trust in democratic processes could remove future opportunities for community deliberation and cohesion, leaving divisive topics to remain polarised. Increased hesitancy around decision-making will ultimately lead to a lack of action around future environmental change-making in Scotland.

If some voices are going to be weighted and prioritised over others in future processes, NatureScot needs to make this guidance clear and give appropriate reasoning. It is important that those most affected are heard and listened to (e.g. landowners and land managers) and this should be balanced with considerations of social equity, environmental and sustainability, and the rights and interests of the community and the wider public.

Deciding Matters asks that NatureScot and Scottish Government issue clear guidance which can inform future democratic processes, setting out clear expectations for who should be involved, the weighting, equity, fairness and prioritisation of decisions e.g. if a group of people should have more stake in the final decision and the types of questions that should be asked. A lack of clear guidance and standardised decision-making processes, including ministerial intervention, could undermine democratic processes not only related to species recovery, but also wider community interests in Scotland.

Deciding Matters’ Delivery

NatureScot has been clear that they “welcome the public engagement that has already taken place and are satisfied it meets with the expectations under the Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations”, and the process has been described as exemplary. Deciding Matters worked closely with both TfL and FLS to determine key lines of enquiry for both interviews and the workshop, and shared the report in its draft form with participants for comment before publishing.

Deciding Matters works to recognised best practice standards, and aligns with relevant guidance including Scottish Government’s Participation Handbook, The National Standards for Community Engagement, and learning shared by the Democracy Network.

Despite this, there were concerns raised regarding the payment of a gift of thanks (participants could claim £20 for taking part in an interview, and £80 for workshop attendance), stating this could skew responses. Paying participants a gift of thanks is best practice within the democratic sector, recognising and valuing the contributions of participants sharing both their time and expertise, and is made available to all. Participant payments are also recommended by Scottish Government. Paying participant expenses and compensating for time removes financial barriers to engagement and enables diverse voices to be heard in democratic processes. Deciding Matters pays participants in all our processes, and will continue to do so.

Requests for Future Processes

Deciding Matters would like to see clear guidance for future community consultation processes (both for species reintroduction, but also for other community interest policy areas), transparent decision-making (including evidence of which individuals and organisations are influencing outcomes at any point in the process that materially impacts community input), and timely responses to ensure those most likely to be impacted are not left waiting in a heightened state of anxiety for unnecessarily long periods of time. Until transparency, communication and timeliness is prioritised, communities across Scotland will be failed by species reintroduction processes.

Timeline