Official Report 577KB pdf
Control of Wild Goose Numbers (PE 1490)
The next item on the agenda is consideration of PE1490, lodged by the Scottish Crofting Federation, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the problems created by increasing populations of wild geese. The committee last considered the petition in May 2024 and agreed to await the publication of NatureScot’s delivery plan as part of its review of the national goose management framework before taking further evidence at that stage.
At today’s meeting, we will hear from officials who are involved in developing the plan and discuss how it will address the issues that are raised in the petition. I welcome to the meeting Donald Fraser, head of wildlife management at NatureScot, and Sam Turner, wildlife management team leader at the Scottish Government.
We have allocated around an hour to this agenda item. I will kick off and set the scene. Can you give us an update on the population status of the different goose species and whether there have been significant changes in recent years?
A number of different species are present in Scotland. Some are resident populations and some are international or shared populations. Based on the most recent full census that we did, in 2023, our current estimate of the number of Greenland barnacle geese is just under 50,000. The 2021 census found that the figure for Svalbard barnacle geese was about 36,000. The 2025 census found that the figure for Greenland white-fronted geese was 8,000. We have two greylag populations: a breeding population estimated at just under 50,000 and a wintering population that comes in from Iceland, which was estimated at around 55,000 in 2023, although it could be higher. We also have around 270,000 pink-footed geese that come into Scotland for wintering. Those figures are from 2021.
11:45
There have been significant changes in the trends in those populations over that time. For a number of reasons, we have seen increases in our resident population of greylag geese but there have been some concerns about reductions and decline in Icelandic populations. Pink-footed geese have been doing well over that time, and we have seen sustained populations coming into Scotland, but there have been concerns about declines in Greenland barnacle geese and barnacle geese in general. The most significant recent issue was avian influenza in 2023, which impacted on the population, although, in the past couple of years, we have seen changes in responses to that.
Goose populations overall are quite a mixed picture. There are spatial and temporal differences in how those populations are doing.
Greylag geese appear to have the largest population and are the geese that are most often focused on in relation to agricultural damage. Can you give us an idea of why there is a change in the numbers of those that are resident and those that migrate? Are weather conditions or climate change resulting in these birds staying rather than heading back to Iceland?
Pink-footed geese are the ones that we are getting in the highest numbers, but you are right about the impacts of the increase in the resident population. In that regard, the greylag goose is the bigger issue in Scotland. There is some suggestion that it is down to climate factors. For example, there is the issue of short stopping, which means that, instead of going further south to winter, greylag populations are staying in more northern parts of Scotland, such as Orkney and Caithness and Sutherland. Therefore, we are seeing increased populations further north as a result of warmer winters. That is one factor affecting population distribution or changing populations.
You touched on the potentially different management approach needed as a result of avian flu. Since the last update, have there been changes in national or international obligations that have affected how populations can be managed?
I mentioned that there have been concerns about a decline in the Icelandic population of greylag geese. Through the African-Eurasian migratory waterbird agreement process and the European goose management platform, there has been a change in the status of Icelandic greylag geese to A*, which is recognition of a potential decline in the population and the need for further measures to manage that. In essence, that means that we have to put a management plan in place, working with international partners in Iceland, to ensure that we are putting adequate protection in place for the species. The first part of that is getting a better handle on the numbers of the species, and we have been working with Iceland on that, doing some satellite tagging of birds to get a better handle on where the population is and developing a methodology for better understanding that population. There has been a status change to A* for greylag geese.
The petition exists because of the impact of geese on crofting and agriculture and because of wider concerns about the loss of native grassland or species because the seed base or whatever is not there. Does the A* status make it more difficult to achieve the petition’s outcomes?
Not necessarily, because it is about putting in place a management plan that deals with potential population declines but that also manages impact. That is where we are at in that regard. If the population was seen to decline significantly, we would have to put measures in place to protect the international population. We are still dealing with both a resident and an international population, so measures that are targeted at resident populations can continue, because there is a time when those measures can take place to specifically target those geese. Potentially, protections will need to be put in place, but we are not at that stage yet.
That is helpful.
On the point about species moving south or staying north, I note that we have certainly seen more of the geese in Shetland in recent times.
Will you explain the delay in the publication of the 2022 review and the delivery plan? What have been the reactions of members of the national goose forum to the documents?
We published the policy review back in 2024. I can clarify that, although publication of the documents has been delayed, they have been circulated to local goose management group members. There has been a lot of work and stakeholder engagement with those members in developing the documents and producing the recommendations. It was unfortunate that the publication of some of them was delayed, but the management plan is due to be published over the next couple of weeks, and work has been going on in the background with stakeholders. We have been trying to keep stakeholders engaged as we have been doing the work.
What have the responses been?
There has been a bit of frustration from stakeholders. A lot of work has gone into the documents and the actions, but work has still been going on in the background. The schemes that support farmers and crofters to host protected species and the schemes that help with the management of resident greylag geese have continued to roll over. There has also been continued knowledge sharing while we have been working on the recommendations. Local group members on Tiree and Coll are learning from what is going on in Orkney in terms of different methodologies for controlling resident greylag geese. That work has been going on in the background while we have been working on pulling the policy review and the delivery plan together and getting them out there.
There was a national goose forum meeting on 12 February. The stakeholders want to see the delivery plan and the recommendations taken forward with pace and urgency. That is the feedback that we are getting, and we accept it. Commitments have made to do that, certainly in relation to the key areas of the recommendations on the schemes and the greylag issue in particular.
As you will appreciate, this long-running petition is of great interest to my constituents. You mentioned the national goose forum and the delivery plan, and you mentioned the need for swiftness. The Scottish Government has recognised the problem that exists in some parts of the country with recent funding, not least that relating to Uist. Do you think that, going forward, there needs to be a swifter reaction to extreme situations with some species in some locations?
The goose management process, like most wildlife management, is an adaptive process. It is about understanding the issues that crop up and trying to get the best responses—and timeous ones—to them. Some of this is inevitably tied in to funding and resourcing, and planning for and management of that needs to be done. However, we are absolutely committed to the mechanisms for understanding the issues and what the solutions are.
As I alluded, people regularly raise the issues with me, as I am sure they do with you, specifically in the Western Isles. A particular issue has arisen in Uist, where people have come to me—and, I am sure, to you—to comment on the impact of one species: greylag geese, which are not merely making agriculture difficult but are imminently threatening the viability of traditional forms of agriculture.
Close cropping and the use of seed types that have been used on Uist for the last 2,500 years might simply not be available in a few years’ time if something is not done to deal with the rising number of greylag geese. As I have said, I very much welcome the fact that funding exists, but are you, as an organisation, alive to the imminent concern in some places about the very viability of agriculture?
Yes, absolutely. You have alluded to the funding that has been made available in Uist, but a number of factors, of which geese are a significant and predominant one, are impacting on the machair and seed availability. Since 2012, we have been involved in various methods of adaptive management, and we have been testing and piloting ways of getting reductions in areas. In some areas, we have been successful in getting populations down, but the challenge is in sustaining that.
Unfortunately, after we put those adaptive management approaches in place, we had Covid, and there was a bit of a hiatus in continuing with that sort of management. That has had an impact, and populations have started to build again. One of the challenges, therefore, has been in ensuring that we have sustained management—that we do not take our foot off when it comes to what needs to be done—and that we have the resource and capability in place to maintain populations at those levels.
Finally, when you look at solutions to arrive at what might be considered sustainable numbers of greylag geese in some locations, is the only alternative that you are looking at the shooting of geese and the finding of shooters? If not, what alternatives are you open to looking at in the future?
A number of methods are available, but not all of them are practical. There is egg oiling and egg removal as well as corralling, which happens on Orkney and which, as Sam Turner has alluded, they are looking at applying in other areas. We are open to other methods that are available, but the question is whether they can be practically taken in certain locations.
In NatureScot, we have also been looking at those areas where there is no conservation concern and at deregulating things so that there are effective means of controlling populations—in other words, moving to general licence, allowing the sale of goose meat and so on. We have been working on those aspects.
Thank you. [.]
I think that the roof is going to stay on. For those tuning in, we have all been looking at the roof in a very worried way, because the wind is very strong.
We will move on to a question from Ariane Burgess.
The 2022 review recommended that another specific review of support for goose management take place, to ensure that the schemes are operating in an equitable and transparent manner and to clarify matters around public funding. Has the review commenced, and has the working group that was recommended been set up, too?
No, it has not commenced, but it is about to. At the national goose forum on 12 February, we committed to doing just that and to setting up a process that will involve stakeholders. A number of pieces of work on agricultural support have been going on for some time now, but certain aspects of the schemes, such as payment rates, where they will be prioritised and the species involved, are part of a piece of work that we are just about to initiate.
Once it gets going, what will the programme of work look like?
The review is looking at the current schemes—that is, the five protected area schemes and the greylag aspect, which is slightly separate. We will look at all of that in the round to see where the public finances, which amount to a not insignificant £1.1 million or £1.2 million, are going.
We also need to look at the mechanisms that are in place. Given that quite a lot of the schemes have been in development since 2000, but principally since 2010, a bit of a review is required of how they have been set up, how the payment rates work and what they are based on.
We also need to take a more holistic view. As has been mentioned, the number of greylag geese is becoming more of an issue, so, if we have limited public funding, which we do, where would it be best to target support? That more holistic review will require engagement with stakeholders who are involved in current schemes, so that we consider those impacts, and with those who are suffering impacts that were not felt four or five years ago.
12:00
What was the significance of refreshing the key objectives of the goose management policy? What implications will that have for goose management in the Uists and other places where there has been damage not only to farming, crofting and the economy but to the natural environment?
Although the objectives have been refreshed, they are not totally different from the objectives following the previous review. However, updating them ensures that they keep in line with on-going Government policies, including the Government’s agriculture, biodiversity and climate objectives. We have ensured that the objectives keep in line with Government policies across the board, so that our approach to managing geese dovetails with our approach to looking after our agricultural production and other Government policies.
The objectives reflect the broader strategy that we are sticking to, and the recommendations from the review cover the specific things that we will be considering. The review found that our overall approach is consistent, and we want to stay broadly in line with that, but there are specific recommendations on specific issues, such as the increasing resident greylag population. We want to do more work to develop those proposals.
If you do not anticipate huge change, that suggests that we will be taking a piecemeal approach to managing the issue. Or will there be change so that we can get the population under control and manage it at a reasonable level? It just feels as though the issue is getting out of control.
There was a change in the objectives following the policy review. The two sets of objectives are set out next to each other, so people can see the objectives following the previous review, in 2017, and the updated ones from 2022. The objectives are broadly similar, but they have been updated in line with developments in Government policy over the past five years. The objectives set out broader actions in trying to manage the conflict between agriculture and less-protected geese species.
We will take forward specific action off the back of the recommendations from the review, which include some fairly significant changes. As Dr Allan acknowledged, the review recommended changes to greylag geese management. There will be delivery plans for national populations of certain species, including greylags, and there is a specific recommendation about managing greylag numbers. That represents a bit of a step change in geese policies, which historically have focused more on protected species. There is now an acknowledgement of the issue with greylags, and consideration is being given to how we manage the population with the resources that we have.
The context in which we are operating has changed since the 2000s. Biodiversity and climate policies are now key considerations, and issues such as the use of nitrogen must be taken into account when schemes are developed.
On the wider point, it is right to say that we need a more holistic approach to goose management in Scotland. Instead of focusing on single-species issues, we need to take a more holistic view of the priorities and impacts. Planning ahead, which is being done through the work that we have been talking about, will help to provide a more managed process.
The goose management policy review stated that the goose management schemes would end in April 2023, but the Scottish Government has suggested that that funding has continued in the interim. What does that look like on the ground, and how has work continued within that period of not knowing what is going on?
The schemes have continued for the past two years and there is a commitment to continue them this year on the same basis. The review that we are talking about will look at whether changes to that are needed, but the funding that has gone in is, as I said, about £1.2 million. It is being sustained at the same level. Obviously, some stakeholders are looking for increases, because costs have risen over that time. However, the schemes have been rolled over on an annual basis, and some of our stakeholders are looking for continuity and assurance that that will continue in the medium to longer term, so that they can plan ahead. It is one of the aspects that we will have to look at in relation to the future funding mechanisms and the funding around that; however, the schemes are currently being rolled over on an annual basis.
Does that work for both parties, though? Does it make sense to just carry on and not to commit any further forward than the current moment?
In an ideal scenario, we would have longer-term schemes. However, at the moment, due to the limitations around Government finances, we are limited to single-year schemes. It is not ideal, but it is the situation that we are in, in terms of the level of expectation that we can provide.
I suppose, though, the fact that the funding has continued over every year shows that it is needed.
Yes, and there is the intention to continue the schemes. There is a recommendation to look into longer-term schemes—I cannot remember which recommendation number it is—and what benefits those would offer.
There has been a consistency of approach over the past couple of years, but in terms of what that future funding will look like, there will need to be some kind of transition period for that. The business support has been there for quite a long time, so some transition element will be needed as well.
Has there been an assessment of any costs that could be incurred as a result of not continuing schemes?
Assessments of agricultural impacts have been done for various locations, but not on a Scotland-wide basis. Some of the scheme areas have had economic impact assessments done for them, although some of them are a bit dated. We will be looking at where the impacts are going to be located—at the geographic and spatial elements of that.
The Scottish Government announced an extra £20,000, which brings the funding up to a total of £30,000. As was mentioned, it would be better if it was recurrent funding, so that it could be better managed. What is the additional funding used for? What is the plan for that?
An additional £20,000 has been given this year for a specific acute problem on the Uists around managing the impacts of greylags. That is mainly as a result of not enough seed being harvested, and it is about making sure that there is a specific traditional type of seed that ensures that the machair cropping system can continue next year. That is obviously a small part of the overall goose budgets, but it is quite significant for the greylag budgets.
Ideally, we would be able to continue to offer increased budgets, but, as Donald Fraser outlined earlier, we have a limit on the budgets that we can play around with and utilise. That additional money is to try to deal with that specific acute problem and get the greylag numbers managed over the next year or two, so that that issue is alleviated.
Is it about supporting agriculture but also managing the geese population to reduce the number of greylag geese?
In terms of the greylag, it is almost exclusively for population reduction. These are not payments to farmers; the payments are to the local goose management groups to control the species. That is what will be delivered on Uist over the next two years to support the population reduction.
To pick up on some of what has been said, I note that the goose management policy review described how the management schemes were due to come to an end in 2023. Since then, there has obviously been very welcome funding that has continued the schemes. I realise that there is a limit to how far ahead you can look, but, in the future, how much can or should we plan around a sustained and consistent approach to this environmental issue? I realise that, inevitably, funding will run from year to year, so how can we move forward in a sustainable way?
It is recognised in the policy review, as I alluded to before, that this is now an integral part of goose management policy in terms of consistent greylag management. As has been set out before by NatureScot, either to this committee or the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, we had trials running from 2012 to 2017. The idea behind those pilot projects on greylag management was to provide local goose management groups with the techniques and methodologies to allow them, with limited support from NatureScot, to sustainably manage the populations.
We are in a bit of a different position now, whereby we have recognised that there will need to be on-going Government support and intervention. On a strategic level, that is now in goose management policy, as it is in the review.
There is also recognition that resident greylags move around. Although there are acute problems in certain parts of Scotland, they will still move between certain islands, so tackling them in just one area when there is an acute flare-up is not sustainable and we need to do more to address the situation on a national scale.
On the point about thinking ahead, this is an unusual example of a shared interest between crofters and environmentalists, because the landscape that is provided by crofting or traditional low-intensity agriculture is the environment that is needed by the bird species in which your organisation also takes an interest. I know that, as an organisation, you do this, so will you say more about how you intend to build that useful coalition?
You are absolutely right. There is a lot of interest from the likes of RSPB Scotland in ensuring that greylag numbers are managed appropriately, especially where there is machair cropping. I have had a number of meetings with the RSPB recently to look at what can be done in that regard. I am waiting for a report from the RSPB on the feasibility of the sale of goose meat, which we are keen to use where possible, although I know that that would be limited. The RSPB has done a lot of work over the years on protecting the machair and ensuring that that habitat is protected. We will be keen to work with all stakeholders on the issue.
12:15
We heard Emma Harper welcoming the £20,000 funding. However, that money is for something specific; it is not an increase in funding, so it cannot be dressed up as that.
What is really concerning is that, when I look at the goose policy delivery plan and the section on key projects and priorities for the period from 2025 to 2030, I see that recommendation 5 states:
“Management approaches to goose management will require medium term commitment, as opposed to year on year, to allow farmers and crofters to plan management of their businesses.”
Critically, it then says that
“Future support that depends on funding will be discussed in line with the changes that are being made to agricultural support.”
Finally, it says that—as we know—
“the transition from current arrangements towards future rural support”
is
“unlikely to be ready before 2030”.
That is the wider concern. What is your view of the fact that we are actually going to be in limbo and unable to look at this transition before the new support schemes come in, in 2030, which is quite some time down the road?
As Donald Fraser has set out, there will be a bit of a transition period, but we are still rolling the current schemes on a year-to-year basis, so there is scope to develop that and see whether anything can be done in the medium term between now and the future agricultural support schemes.
That is far from ideal. You will, in effect, be treading water, because you will have no rural support plan in place, or no indications of what rural support is likely to be before 2030.
I still think that we can develop what we have now, while we are in this period of agricultural support transition. Given that we do not know what future agricultural support will look like, we cannot commit to anything now in respect of how the goose schemes and agricultural support will dovetail, but there are things that we can do with regard to the other recommendations in the goose policy delivery plan and our on-going annual schemes to see whether this work can be shored up.
It is far from satisfactory if we are, effectively, treading water and if we are having to put in interim measures because of the Government’s failure to set out that rural support. We are going to have five years of less than adequate—or perhaps I should say less than perfect—solutions because of the lack of a rural support plan.
The future agricultural support is one aspect, but the other aspect is the review that we talked about earlier, which will look at current or future need. That is an important bit of work that we need to do.
The mechanism for the payment is slightly a side issue—the issue is more what is needed and where it is needed. That is the important bit of work that needs to be done, and then we can have the discussion about the mechanisms and the funding levels that are required. It is really important that we get this first piece of work, on putting in place the recommendations in the goose policy delivery plan, done and concluded.
Okay. Thank you. As there are no more questions, I thank the witnesses very much for joining us.
We now move on to formal consideration of our next steps with regard to the petition, and I refer members to paragraph 10 of the clerk’s note, which invites us to consider closing the petition on the basis that, after hearing from officials, we are satisfied that the actions set out in NatureScot’s delivery plan and the national goose policy framework will sufficiently address the problems created by increasing populations of wild geese in crofting areas.
I propose that we include in our legacy paper for the committee next session, which will have responsibility for NatureScot, a reference to monitoring the issue and the implementation of the framework and delivery plan. I propose, therefore, that we close the petition but include those steps in the legacy paper.
Do members have any comments, or are we happy?
I have a comment, convener, although I do agree with what you have suggested. Given that the working group on the area that I was asking questions on has not yet been set up, I think that that it would be great if the successor committee could look at that, too.
Thank you. Is the committee agreed on the approach that has been proposed?
Members.
That concludes our business in public. Before we move into private, and given that this will be our last committee meeting in public, I want to put on record my thanks to all the committee’s members, both those who have been here for the full five years and others who have dipped in and out. I thank all of you for your contributions.
I know that this is not generally done, but I also want to mention the team of clerks behind us. I believe that Emma Johnston has been the only one of the team who has been with us from the start, and I just want to put on record my huge thanks for the support that she has given me as convener through the good times, the bad times and the difficult times. We have had a legislation-heavy agenda over the past five years, and, without her guidance and the support of the team who sit under her, that task would have been made even more difficult for us.
I just want to say thank you to the clerks, everybody who has supported the committee and the witnesses that we have had over the past five years.
We will now move into private session.
12:20
Meeting continued in private until 13:01.
Air ais
Salmon Farming in Scotland