The tiny village of Upper Vitkov, located in a valley right next to the border with Poland, in the Czech Liberec region, is home to around 100 people living in picturesque homes surrounded by forest.

On first sight, life in Vitkov seems idyllic. But right on the other side of the hill bordering the village, lies the Polish Turow lignite mine, an open-pit quarry stretching over more than 3,000 hectares.

In more than half a century of operations, the mine – which uses an estimated 200 million cubic meters of water a year – has been drying up ground and surface waters in the region, including this Czech village of Vitkov.

Inhabitants of Vitkov point to dried up creeks and tell stories of how they have to dig their wells deeper and deeper to get drinking water. To provide water for the local kindergarten, the municipality had to invest 37,000 euros to dig a well as deep as 70 meters. And most locals have had to use their own money to rebuild their wells over time.

The Turow mine was initially planned to operate until 2020. But now Polska Grupa Energetyczna (PGE) – the Polish state-owned company operating Turow – wants permission to keep digging until 2044. It says the coal is needed to fuel a new 450 MW unit the company is planning to build at the Turow power plant, a project for which financing has already been secured.

But locals in Vitkov, together with their Mayor are alarmed at the prospect of prolonged mining and don’t want it.

“We’ve just had to rebuild many wells in Vitkov after a big flood that hit the village in 2010,” says Michal Canov, the Mayor of Chrastava, under whose jurisdiction Upper Vitkov lies. “We are really worried about what may happen if they expand the mine. We have studies showing that water levels will be hit and we would have to rebuild even wells. We just don’t have money for that.”

Together with other Mayors from the Liberec region, Canov is now pressing the Czech government to ensure the damages from future mining are properly assessed and, if the mine goes ahead, ensure that it will be the Polish beneficiaries that pay the costs.

“The Polish have been insisting there are no negative consequences of their mining on the Czech side, but we have studies that show that there are,” explains Canov. “We may eventually need a neutral, third party, maybe the European Commission, to step in and settle this dispute.”

Information blackout

 Fearing massive damage to the local water systems, the Czechs are struggling to make predictions in order to plan mitigation measures. The Frydlant water company, which manages the water supply in Frydlant, a part of Liberec region, commissioned a study that looks at possible future scenarios. In the worst version – Petr Olysar, the director of the Frydlant water company calls it ‘catastrophic” – water sources for the town of Frydlant and nearby villages will all be disrupted, calling for an investment of 75 million euros to bring in water from the mountains.

Similar sums are brought up by Mayors of other towns and villages in this part of Liberec. Over 30,000 people in Liberec region would suffer from the projected loss of water.

In reality, however, no one can yet correctly estimate the possible damage because PGE has not provided enough information for the Czechs to be able to make more realistic calculations.

This year, the issue has exploded in the Czech Republic, ending up on the agenda of bilateral meetings between the Czech and Polish Prime Ministers and their respective Ministers of the Environment.

The Mayors in Liberec are members or allies of a Czech national party called Mayors and Independents, which promotes the interests of municipalities. The Mayors’ party has representatives in the Parliament (Michal Canov is a Senator) and scores well in local and regional elections. The Mayors’ political clout forced national politicians from other parties to take on the issue earlier this year.

Martin Puta, the Mayor of Liberec region and a former head of the Mayors’ party, says municipalities in Liberec now have as much information as the Czech Ministry of Environment and that they are represented in the negotiations between the Czech and Polish side.

The high-level political pressure has forced an opening up from the Polish side.

PGE said that a Polish-Czech hydrologists expert group was formed this year and has now met twice to exchange information. According to PGE, after these meetings, the Czech Ministry of Environment was still requesting some geological data and additional clarifications which the company has promised will be provided via the expert group.

PGE added that it was considering two scenarios for the future of the mine: in one version, it would shift the mine by 20 hectares in the direction of the Czech Republic, advancing by 200 meters into the Polish border village Opolno Zdroj; in the second, it would leave the village untouched and even withdraw slightly from the direction of the border (in both scenarios, PGE says the overall area of the mine would reduce compared to now). The options would be weighed during the process of getting an environmental permit for the post-2020 mine.

The Czech Ministry of Environment says that the Polish and Czech sides have started exchanging information and in upcoming months work will start on creating a hydro-geological model to anticipate the impact of future mining.

“We are very concerned about the potential loss of drinking water in connection with the mining and the expansion of the mine at Turow in Poland,” the Ministry has stated. “We must add that at the moment it is uncertain whether the mine at Turow will expand.”

Fatalism

Some of the uncertainty over the mine expansion comes from the long permit process PGE must still complete in order to prolong mining at Turow beyond 2020.

Authorities in Bogatynia, the Polish municipality where the Turow plant and mine are located, have started changing plans to include the new location of the mine for its post-2020 operations (they are planning for the scenario where the mine would advance 20 hectares in the direction of the Czech Republic).

But Polish environmental authorities have imposed stringent requirements on PGE for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that must be completed if the mine is to go ahead. PGE will have to take into account the trans-boundary impact of the mine and the opinion of the Czechs (and of Germans, who may be affected too).

“These are some of the toughest requirements I’ve ever seen placed on an EIA,” says Kuba Gogolewski from the Foundation ‘Development YES -Open-pit Mines NO‘, which represents Polish local communities opposing lignite mining. “And as a result, the permission process could take much longer than four years, especially if the EIA is challenged in court, which often happens nowadays.”

In the Polish village Opolno Zdroj, sitting right at the edge of the mine, locals are waiting for their fate to be decided by PGE and Polish authorities. They heard about PGE plans to shift the mine 20 hectares in the direction of their village but not about the second scenario PGE is considering – that of not expanding the mine their way.

A century ago, Opolno Zdroj was a booming spa resort where people from across the Saxony region came to heal from rheumatic and other sicknesses. Today the mineral springs are all dried up as a result of the mining.

A 2015 report by Poland’s national environmental protection body has shown that air in this region is dirtier than national legislation allows for about half of the year (to heat their homes, people in Opolno Zdroj burn lignite from the Turow mine in their ovens and black smoke coming out of chimneys fills the atmosphere.)

The village has about a thousand inhabitants, after some 500 people moved away over the last few years, according to Przemyslaw Kiślak, the village head. Kiślak says the proximity of the mine and the prospect of its planned expansion make it increasingly unappealing to live in Opólno Zdrój.

“You won’t be able to do much over here, you won’t be able to buy bread, you won’t be able to go to the doctor,” he says, summing up what lies ahead.

According to Kiślak, about 30 houses on the edge of Opólno Zdrój bordering the mine will be destroyed to make way for the mine expansion. Some of them – colourful 19^th century villas – already lie abandoned.

Remaining owners look forward to being bought out by the company. A woman who moved to the village over 30 years ago, said it has become impossible to live in the part of the village that is close to the mine. She said she was forced to get a dog because wild animals, boars and deers, would roam in her gardens and on the main road, coming in from the mines.

Mayor Kiślak agreed that it would be better if some people were simply paid to move out. “We can try to protect what will be left of the village, but we cannot protect everything. Now that the mine exists, it makes sense to continue exploiting it. It’s in the strategic interest of our country.”

Hope

Across the border in Liberec, mayor Martin Puta looks at the buying out of Opolno Zdroj as evidence that the mine will expand. “They are building a new block so they will have to expand the mine, there is no other way,” he says.

But Kuba Gogolewski points out that many new power plants face legal and financial challenges in Poland today, and the same is likely to happen to the new Turow unit – potentially undermining the rationale for prolonging the functioning of the mine.

PGE, the largest energy company in Poland, has ambitious expansion plans apart from Turow, including building two new 900 MW units at another plant, Opole, and two new ‘green field’ mines. But the company, which is responsible for implementing the Polish government’s pro-coal vision, has to face tough economic realities: Polish coal is notoriously expensive to produce, burdening companies like PGE which have been mandated by the government to absorb losses in the sector; modernisations to keep up with EU pollution standards are compulsory and expensive; and international financial institutions are increasingly reluctant to lend to coal.

The resistance of the Czechs came as an additional unexpected obstacle for PGE. Unlike the Poles on the other side of the border, the Czechs have only suffered damages from mining – seeing no gains like job creation or budget revenues. They have little motivation to just accept plans made by a foreign company at their expense.

“Last time PGE got a concession for a new mine, Poland was not even in the European Union,” comments Kuba Gogolewski. “Now they have to face strict environmental, social and health criteria. There’s a lot of concern about impact on water this time around too. In this sense, we live in a brave new world. Citizen opposition at another PGE border mine, Gubin-Brody, meant the company never got the environmental permit. This too will be an uphill climb for them.”

This Author

Claudia Ciobanu is a freelance journalist based in Warsaw. Her articles have been published by Reuters, Guardian, al-Jazeera, and others. This story has been written with the support of Foundation “Development YES -“Open-pit Mines NO“.

The Foundation

Foundation “DY-OPMN” is the formal and legal representation of the PolishNational Coalition ‘Development YES – Open-pit mines NO” – a civil society grassroots movement to prevent plans to build new lignite open-pit mines and support the transformation of the Polish economy from the one based on ossil fuels to a resource-efficient and new renewables-based one.  

In April of this year the world marked the 30^th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. The mainstream media, including The Ecologist, was full of reports recalling the events of 26^th April 1986, the delayed evacuation of the population, the struggle to contain the consequences, the ongoing and politically charged debates over the impact on human health and the environment.

http://kommersant.ru/projects/chernobyl/en

The world remembers Chernobyl every April, especially on big anniversaries, but for some people the disaster and its aftermath remain a part of their everyday lives. On 1^st July we interviewed one of the few inhabitants of the ‘exclusion zone’. Ivan Ivanovich Semeniuk, aged 80, lives in the house he built in 1958, in the village of Paryshev, about 20 km from the nuclear power station. He seems fit for his age, manages with help from one of his sons who was visiting when we met with him, was quite lucid and spoke with Anna for around an hour in the local Surzhyk dialect.

Looking back to 26^th April 1986, Iavn recalled that they were ploughing and sowing and ‘no one knew anything’. The authorities said there was ‘nothing to worry about’. But, after six days the village was evacuated. Ivan and his family took little with them – 5 kg of potatoes – as they were told they would be returning after three days. Their livestock was taken away, killed, and buried. The school children, including Ivan’s youngest son, were given potassium iodide and taken to a holiday camp in the Crimea for a month.

Ivan and his family were in evacuation for about a year and half. He recalled that they ‘wandered about’, living in two different places. He was not happy, not well, (either because of the ‘unsuitable climate’ or the radiation) and was very happy to return home. In his account, he was fortunate. The village had been sealed up, guarded, and not looted. Soldiers ‘cleansed’ the gardens, fields, and streets; returning settlers cleansed their own houses and yards. Explaining his decision to return, Ivan told us: “But what else can you do? I built a house here and live here.”

He returned to work as a guard at the nuclear power station and surrounding area, retiring aged around 55 in the early 1990s. He had worked at the power plant before the accident and before  that had worked on a state farm. Since his retirement, Ivan and his wife, who died earlier this year, lived off their land.

Ivan still grows cabbage, tomatoes, cucumbers, carrots, potatoes and beans on his allotment. He gathers mushrooms, berries and medicinal herbs in the forest. A mobile shop, which is supposed to visit every Friday, brings food, household chemicals and basic necessities, which he can buy with his pension which is delivered to him and other elderly inhabitants of the zone. Ivan has mains electricity, and recalls that they did not have to pay for it for two years after he returned.

He draws water from his own well on his land. He has a mobile phone, television and radio, and keeps in touch with the outside world between visits from his son. The Ukrainian authorities tolerate the residence of the elderly samosely – returning settlers – in the zone, although it is illegal and provides them with some social support, but they have ordered younger inhabitants to leave. http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/791%D0%B0-12

When Anna asked Ivan to compare life before and after the accident, at first he started talking about the changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. He complained that in independent Ukraine, hospitals were no longer free and everything was very expensive, but then focused his ire on the high salaries paid to deputies in the Ukrainian parliament. His misunderstanding reminded us that the disaster was just one of the events that have radically affected peoples’ lives in this part of the world.

More to the point, he described how the banks of the nearby river have become overgrown and how the river has turned into a swamp from neglect. Lots of animals appeared in the aftermath of the accident and evacuation of the population: deer, wild boar and bears. Wild animals destroy vegetables growing in the gardens. But Ivan was most exercised by the large packs of wolves, which killed and ate many of the other wild animals, leaving the forest floor littered with animal bones, before the authorities permitted shooting wolves. The previous week, six dogs were taken by wolves.

What of the radiation? Ivan explained how men with dosimeters check levels in the well and the land. He stated that there was now no radiation in the village. He is not afraid to eat vegetables from his allotment just as he did before the accident. (Visitors are warned not to eat anything in the zone.) But, he is not indifferent to the dangers.

He knows there are places with high radiation and claims that he could feel it: “It suddenly feels dry in your mouth; you can’t see the radiation, but it is a sort of wave and beats your bones, ‘knock-knock-knock-knock’; you need to get away, because it can grab you.” (Our radiation specialist, Dr Ian Haslam of the University of Manchester, took a number of readings, which confirmed that levels in the village are now no higher than natural background radiation. He added that the feelings Ivan described resemble those for high dose fields and may have been memories from his experience of hot spots after the accident.)

Around 117,000 people were evacuated from the ‘exclusion zone’ in the spring of 1986. About 2,000, mostly middle-aged and older people, returned after 1988 of and of those whom an estimated 200 people, elderly like Ivan, still live there. Only one other person, an elderly woman, still lives in Paryshev.

And as the world marks future anniversaries, there will be fewer and fewer people like Ivan left in the zone.

For fuller summaries (in English and Russian) and a transcript (in Surzhyk) of the interview, see

http://www.york.ac.uk/history/research/majorprojects/russiasenvironmentalhistory/events/chernobylinterview/ or goo.gl/3nsi94 

These Authors

David Moon is a Professor at the University of York, UK and Anna Olenenk is a Lecturer at the Khortytsya National Academy, Zaporizhia, Ukraine. This interview was part of a wider environmental history project supported by The Leverhulme Trust and the Georgetown Environment Initiative.

Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world. Ninety per cent of Malawians live in rural areas; agriculture makes up 80 per cent of the labour force and 80 per cent of its exports. With so many people reliant on growing things from the ground, disruptions to the climate threatens the wellbeing of an entire nation.

For centuries Malawian farmers have learned the patterns of the seasons – when to plant their seeds in order to capture the rains that watered the ground and brought forth food to eat and sell. But this life-saving knowledge is becoming worthless, as rainfall patterns are distorted by a changing climate and the El Nino weather event, which this year created the worst food crisis in 25 years.

This time 6.7 million people do not have adequate food.

However thanks to solar, the poorest and most remote people in Malawi are turning the power of the sun to their advantage and benefiting from irrigation systems, which are pushing back against the ravages of climate change.

Solar is most commonly known for its potential to transform the world’s energy supply. Solar farms are popping up all over the place, and costs continue to plummet. Only this month the International Energy Agency released figures showing that last year, around the world, half a million solar panels were installed every day. But for Malawian farmers, the magic of solar technology has another and more immediate form of assistance – helping them to water their plants.

In remote Malawi, conventional grid power is unable to reach communities and so cannot be relied on to power irrigation systems when the rains don’t come. And even if grid power did reach these remote regions, the costs would be prohibitive. Likewise, polluting diesel-powered generators are also far from ideal. In some places such running costs mean farmers end up paying more for the energy they use than they can earn from their crops. Thankfully, solar offers a solution. The initial investment to get such schemes up and running may not be as cheap, but it pays off in the long run. Solar-powered irrigation requires no purchase of diesel and no payment of electricity bills. And sunshine can reach places that conventional grid infrastructure cannot – meaning it can be set up anywhere.

What it does require though is some initial investment. A recent solar irrigation scheme in Chikwawa District in Southern Malawi funded by UK, Norwegian and Irish governments, and implemented by Christian Aid, has proven to be so successful it received specific attention from the Malawian state. The appropriately named, Bright Msaka, Minister for Natural Resources, Energy and Mining, praised the scheme for not being built along the country’s main roads to maximise visibility to ‘important people’, but instead in remote places where the need was greatest.

As the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In this case the eating has been of corn all year round. Mother-of-three Maria Moveni, 27, has been using irrigation farming in recent months. She says: “My husband and I have experienced a tough life for some time. During the rainy season we used to cultivate cotton, sorghum and maize of which the yield was not all that good due to frequent dry spells and floods that haunt this community. This affected our livelihood so badly that my family depended on selling firewood. Now I am in a new world of possibilities. Having my own maize in October is like a dream.”

But to ensure such innovative projects become the norm instead of the exception we need to shift the balance of investment away from fossil fuel development and towards clean, green, alternatives.We need more aid spending to focus on such projects to help poorer countries develop in a low carbon way. 

In September a Christian Aid report showed that the World Bank, which speaks often about low carbon development, was funneling millions of pounds towards fossil fuel projects.  This needs to change if the World Bank is going to be taken seriously on its claims to be a champion of sustainability.

Renewables are already starting to improve people’s lives and they have the potential to impact millions more.  We now need to see investment to unlock further progress and speed up this world changing transition.

This Author

Joe Ware is a journalist and writer at Christian Aid and a New Voices contributor for The Ecologist. He can be followed on twitter @wareisjoe

The Scottish Government is minded to allow beavers to remain in the wild in Scotland under the full protection of EU and UK wildlife law, Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham announced today.

This decision follows the escape of beavers from a wildlife park in the Tay catchment in 2001. A viable population established on the Tay and the aquatic mammals have now spread over hundreds of square miles into the Earn catchment. They have been observed as far west as Dochart, near Argyll, and in the headwaters of the Forth.

But as reported on The Ecologist in December 2015, farmers and landowners were permitted by the Scottish government to shoot them in an apparent breach of the EU’s Habitats & Species Directive, causing widespread public concern. Beavers are native across the UK but were hunted to extinction in the 16th century.

Work has now begun to ensure beavers can be added to Scotland’s list of protected species as soon as possible. It will be the first time a mammal has been officially reintroduced to the UK.

Ms Cunningham added that the species will have to be actively managed, in line with practices in other European countries. She and other Scottish Ministers have agreed that:

• Beaver populations in Argyll and Tayside can remain
• The species will receive legal protection, in accordance with the EU Habitats Directive.
• Beavers will be allowed to expand their range naturally.
• Beavers should be actively managed to minimise adverse impacts on farmers and other land owners.
• It will remain an offence for beavers to be released without a licence, punishable by up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

Helen Meech of Rewilding Britain said: “We are delighted that beavers will be allowed to remain in the wild in Scotland. As recent trials have shown, beavers can deliver huge benefits for both people and wildlife through improved water quality, reduced flood risk and habitats for a wide range of species. We also welcome measures to manage the impact of beavers on farmers and other land owners.”

She added that similar protections should be extended to wild beaver populations across the UK: “We urge the UK Government to put in place the same measures to protect and manage beaver populations in England and Wales.”

‘Beavers promote biodiversity by creating new ponds and wetlands’

Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham said: “I have been determined to find a pragmatic approach, which balances the biodiversity benefits of reintroducing beavers with the obvious need to limit difficulties for our farmers.

“I want to put on record my appreciation of the efforts of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, NFU Scotland, the Royal Scottish Zoological Society, and Scottish Land and Estates who have worked in partnership to set out a way forward.

“Beavers promote biodiversity by creating new ponds and wetlands, which in turn provide valuable habitats for a wide range of other species. We want to realise these biodiversity benefits while limiting adverse impacts on farmers and other land users. This will require careful management.

“Today’s announcement represents a major milestone in our work to protect and enhance Scotland’s world renowned biodiversity. But I want to be absolutely clear that while the species will be permitted to extend its range naturally, further unauthorised releases of beavers will be a criminal act.

“Swift action will be taken in such circumstances to prevent a repeat of the experience on Tayside.”

Research has shown that beavers provide important benefits for biodiversity, and watershed management. However, the animals can also cause some difficulties for farmers and land managers in agricultural areas due to the damming of rivers and streams, and consequent local flooding.

Now let’s introduce them north of the Great Glen!

Welcoming the Scottish government’s decision to allow reintroduced beavers to remain in the country announced today, Trees for Life said that it plans to move ahead with investigating the possibilities for bringing beavers to areas north of the Great Glen, working with local communities to identify where they might live without perceived adverse impacts.

Steve Micklewright, Trees for Life’s Chief Executive said: “Today’s decision means that beavers can naturally spread through Scotland in the future. There is a lot of space in the Highlands where they could thrive, improving the region for other wildlife and providing a tourist attraction that will benefit the local economy.”

However, the main obstacle to the natural spread of beavers to the Highlands is geography, he added: “The Great Glen presents a natural barrier to beavers colonising the area on their own from the existing populations in Argyll and Tayside, so the only way to be sure they will return to the northwest Highlands would be to give them a helping hand.

“While it is certain that beavers could live in the Highlands, the next step is to ensure they would be a welcome addition to the landscape. That is why we plan to work out where they would be welcome. Then we plan to enter in to dialogue with the government to explore how we can help them to return to those areas.”

Advice and assistance to farmers

The impacts of beavers in Scotland have been closely monitored by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) at both the official Scottish Beaver Trial site in Knapdale in Argyll and on Tayside.

A study commissioned by SNH showed the beavers were not to blame for floods takiong place last winter. And last spring a Stirling University study based on 13 years observation was published, showing that beavers actually slow floodwaters and thus reduce the impact of flooding, while also increasing biodiversity, assisting soil retention and filtering out pollutants.

The Scottish Government is now required by law to complete a Habitats Regulations Assessment and consider a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Management techniques to prevent beaver damage, such as controlling flow through dams, or protecting valuable trees can be carried out without a licence.

More intensive management techniques, up to and including lethal control, are permitted under the Habitats Regulations for specified purposes and subject to there being no other satisfactory solution, and no adverse effect on the conservation status of the species.

This is the framework that applies in most other European countries and allows beavers to be managed to prevent serious damage to land uses such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries.

The Scottish Government will provide advice and assistance to farmers in understanding their options and helping them implement mitigation and prevention measures.

Oliver Tickell is contributing editor of The Ecologist.

The Scottish Government is minded to allow beavers to remain in the wild in Scotland under the full protection of EU and UK wildlife law, Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham announced today.

This decision follows the escape of beavers from a wildlife park in the Tay catchment in 2001. A viable population established on the Tay and the aquatic mammals have now spread over hundreds of square miles into the Earn catchment. They have been observed as far west as Dochart, near Argyll, and in the headwaters of the Forth.

But as reported on The Ecologist in December 2015, farmers and landowners were permitted by the Scottish government to shoot them in an apparent breach of the EU’s Habitats & Species Directive, causing widespread public concern. Beavers are native across the UK but were hunted to extinction in the 16th century.

Work has now begun to ensure beavers can be added to Scotland’s list of protected species as soon as possible. It will be the first time a mammal has been officially reintroduced to the UK.

Ms Cunningham added that the species will have to be actively managed, in line with practices in other European countries. She and other Scottish Ministers have agreed that:

• Beaver populations in Argyll and Tayside can remain
• The species will receive legal protection, in accordance with the EU Habitats Directive.
• Beavers will be allowed to expand their range naturally.
• Beavers should be actively managed to minimise adverse impacts on farmers and other land owners.
• It will remain an offence for beavers to be released without a licence, punishable by up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

Helen Meech of Rewilding Britain said: “We are delighted that beavers will be allowed to remain in the wild in Scotland. As recent trials have shown, beavers can deliver huge benefits for both people and wildlife through improved water quality, reduced flood risk and habitats for a wide range of species. We also welcome measures to manage the impact of beavers on farmers and other land owners.”

She added that similar protections should be extended to wild beaver populations across the UK: “We urge the UK Government to put in place the same measures to protect and manage beaver populations in England and Wales.”

‘Beavers promote biodiversity by creating new ponds and wetlands’

Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham said: “I have been determined to find a pragmatic approach, which balances the biodiversity benefits of reintroducing beavers with the obvious need to limit difficulties for our farmers.

“I want to put on record my appreciation of the efforts of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, NFU Scotland, the Royal Scottish Zoological Society, and Scottish Land and Estates who have worked in partnership to set out a way forward.

“Beavers promote biodiversity by creating new ponds and wetlands, which in turn provide valuable habitats for a wide range of other species. We want to realise these biodiversity benefits while limiting adverse impacts on farmers and other land users. This will require careful management.

“Today’s announcement represents a major milestone in our work to protect and enhance Scotland’s world renowned biodiversity. But I want to be absolutely clear that while the species will be permitted to extend its range naturally, further unauthorised releases of beavers will be a criminal act.

“Swift action will be taken in such circumstances to prevent a repeat of the experience on Tayside.”

Research has shown that beavers provide important benefits for biodiversity, and watershed management. However, the animals can also cause some difficulties for farmers and land managers in agricultural areas due to the damming of rivers and streams, and consequent local flooding.

Advice and assistance to farmers

The impacts of beavers in Scotland have been closely monitored by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) at both the official Scottish Beaver Trial site in Knapdale in Argyll and on Tayside.

A study commissioned by SNH showed the beavers were not to blame for floods takiong place last winter. And last spring a Stirling University study based on 13 years observation was published, showing that beavers actually slow floodwaters and thus reduce the impact of flooding, while also increasing biodiversity, assisting soil retention and filtering out pollutants.

The Scottish Government is now required by law to complete a Habitats Regulations Assessment and consider a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Management techniques to prevent beaver damage, such as controlling flow through dams, or protecting valuable trees can be carried out without a licence.

More intensive management techniques, up to and including lethal control, are permitted under the Habitats Regulations for specified purposes and subject to there being no other satisfactory solution, and no adverse effect on the conservation status of the species.

This is the framework that applies in most other European countries and allows beavers to be managed to prevent serious damage to land uses such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries.

The Scottish Government will provide advice and assistance to farmers in understanding their options and helping them implement mitigation and prevention measures.

Oliver Tickell is contributing editor of The Ecologist.

The Scottish Government is minded to allow beavers to remain in the wild in Scotland under the full protection of EU and UK wildlife law, Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham announced today.

This decision follows the escape of beavers from a wildlife park in the Tay catchment in 2001. A viable population established on the Tay and the aquatic mammals have now spread over hundreds of square miles into the Earn catchment. They have been observed as far west as Dochart, near Argyll, and in the headwaters of the Forth.

But as reported on The Ecologist in December 2015, farmers and landowners were permitted by the Scottish government to shoot them in an apparent breach of the EU’s Habitats & Species Directive, causing widespread public concern. Beavers are native across the UK but were hunted to extinction in the 16th century.

Work has now begun to ensure beavers can be added to Scotland’s list of protected species as soon as possible. It will be the first time a mammal has been officially reintroduced to the UK.

Ms Cunningham added that the species will have to be actively managed, in line with practices in other European countries. She and other Scottish Ministers have agreed that:

• Beaver populations in Argyll and Tayside can remain
• The species will receive legal protection, in accordance with the EU Habitats Directive.
• Beavers will be allowed to expand their range naturally.
• Beavers should be actively managed to minimise adverse impacts on farmers and other land owners.
• It will remain an offence for beavers to be released without a licence, punishable by up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

Helen Meech of Rewilding Britain said: “We are delighted that beavers will be allowed to remain in the wild in Scotland. As recent trials have shown, beavers can deliver huge benefits for both people and wildlife through improved water quality, reduced flood risk and habitats for a wide range of species. We also welcome measures to manage the impact of beavers on farmers and other land owners.”

She added that similar protections should be extended to wild beaver populations across the UK: “We urge the UK Government to put in place the same measures to protect and manage beaver populations in England and Wales.”

‘Beavers promote biodiversity by creating new ponds and wetlands’

Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham said: “I have been determined to find a pragmatic approach, which balances the biodiversity benefits of reintroducing beavers with the obvious need to limit difficulties for our farmers.

“I want to put on record my appreciation of the efforts of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, NFU Scotland, the Royal Scottish Zoological Society, and Scottish Land and Estates who have worked in partnership to set out a way forward.

“Beavers promote biodiversity by creating new ponds and wetlands, which in turn provide valuable habitats for a wide range of other species. We want to realise these biodiversity benefits while limiting adverse impacts on farmers and other land users. This will require careful management.

“Today’s announcement represents a major milestone in our work to protect and enhance Scotland’s world renowned biodiversity. But I want to be absolutely clear that while the species will be permitted to extend its range naturally, further unauthorised releases of beavers will be a criminal act.

“Swift action will be taken in such circumstances to prevent a repeat of the experience on Tayside.”

Research has shown that beavers provide important benefits for biodiversity, and watershed management. However, the animals can also cause some difficulties for farmers and land managers in agricultural areas due to the damming of rivers and streams, and consequent local flooding.

Advice and assistance to farmers

The impacts of beavers in Scotland have been closely monitored by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) at both the official Scottish Beaver Trial site in Knapdale in Argyll and on Tayside.

A study commissioned by SNH showed the beavers were not to blame for floods takiong place last winter. And last spring a Stirling University study based on 13 years observation was published, showing that beavers actually slow floodwaters and thus reduce the impact of flooding, while also increasing biodiversity, assisting soil retention and filtering out pollutants.

The Scottish Government is now required by law to complete a Habitats Regulations Assessment and consider a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Management techniques to prevent beaver damage, such as controlling flow through dams, or protecting valuable trees can be carried out without a licence.

More intensive management techniques, up to and including lethal control, are permitted under the Habitats Regulations for specified purposes and subject to there being no other satisfactory solution, and no adverse effect on the conservation status of the species.

This is the framework that applies in most other European countries and allows beavers to be managed to prevent serious damage to land uses such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries.

The Scottish Government will provide advice and assistance to farmers in understanding their options and helping them implement mitigation and prevention measures.

Oliver Tickell is contributing editor of The Ecologist.