Download SNH Commissioned Report 524

Scottish Natural Heritage
Commissioned Report No. 524
Derogations for protected species in
European reintroductions
COMMISSIONED REPORT
Commissioned Report No. 524
Derogations for protected species in European
reintroductions
For further information on this report please contact:
Sally Blyth
Scottish Natural Heritage
Great Glen House
INVERNESS
IV3 8NW
Telephone: 01463 725 231
E-mail: [email protected]
This report should be quoted as:
Pillai, A., Heptinstall, D., Hammond, M., Redpath, S. & Saluja, P.G. (2012).
Derogations for protected species in European reintroductions. Scottish Natural
Heritage Commissioned Report No.524.
This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage.
This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the authors of this report
should not be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage.
© Scottish Natural Heritage 2012.
COMMISSIONED REPORT
Summary
Derogations for protected species in European
reintroductions
Commissioned Report No. 524 (Project no 13388).
Contractor: Pillai, A., Heptinstall, D., Hammond, M., Redpath, S. & Saluja, P.G.
Year of publication: 2012
Background
The purpose of this research is to provide recommendations on the legal opportunities to
resolve conflicts and secure benefits in the relationships between land managers and
reintroduced species protected under Annex IV(a) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats
Directive) and Annex I of Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation
of wild birds (codified version) (the Birds Directive). The management of Habitats Directive
Annex IV(a) and Birds Directive Annex I species, both meriting special protection under
European law, is a matter of current interest in Scotland in relation to the reintroduction of
protected species. The Habitats Directive Annex IV(a) listed Eurasian Beaver is presently
the subject of a trial reintroduction scheme in Scotland. The Birds Directive Annex I Whitetailed Eagle has recently been reintroduced and the Red Kite has already been reintroduced
into four locations within Scotland.
The first part of the research involved a review of the legal frameworks established by the
Habitats and Birds Directives for the reintroduction of species, the special protection of
species and derogations from that protection (section 3.1 of this report). Given that there are
499 species and groups of species listed under the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive
alone, the first part of this research focuses on the examination of six species, all of which
are, or were, native to Scotland. The following species are of interest because they are
protected under Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive and they have presented particularly
complex management challenges: Lynx lynx (Eurasian Lynx); Canis lupus (Grey Wolf); and
Ursos arctos (Brown Bear). The following species are of particular interest because they
have been reintroduced or are in the process of a formal or trial reintroduction in Scotland:
Milvus milvus (Red Kite) (reintroduced); Haliaeetus albicilla (White-tailed Eagle)
(reintroduced); Castor fiber (the Eurasian Beaver) (trial reintroduction).1 Each of these
species is in receipt of special protection under the Directives and any deviation from that
special protection requires a formal derogation in compliance with Article 9 of the Birds
Directive and Article 16 of the Habitats Directive. One of the main objectives of this research
was to determine to what extent European countries have had to resort to the formal
derogations procedures for these protected species and the results of that research are set
out in section 3.1.4 and Appendix 3 to this report.
1
Scottish Beaver Trial. Official home of the Scottish Beaver Trial, (The Royal Zoological Society of
Scotland / Scottish Wildlife Trust), available at http://www.scottishbeavers.org.uk/. Last visited on 23
March 2012. Details of the independent monitoring programme coordinated by Scottish Natural
Heritage can be found at www.snh.gov.uk/scottishbeavertrial.
i
Concurrently a survey was conducted of all reintroductions of species listed under Habitats
Directive Annex IV(a) and Birds Directive Annex I across all the EU Member States (see
section 3.2). This survey formed the basis of the selection of case studies for further detailed
consideration. In addition, a survey was conducted of non-EU European countries examining
the reintroduction or presence of the six species of particular interest to this research (see
section 3.2 and Appendix 2 to this report).
The final part of the research involved six case studies examining the experience of
managing key species of Scottish interest in five EU Member States (Ireland, Sweden,
Latvia, Netherlands and Germany) and one non-EU country (Norway) (see section 3.3). The
case studies focused on the human-species conflicts and management strategies for the
Eurasian Beaver, the White-tailed Eagle, the Grey Wolf and the Eurasian Lynx. The
research concludes with a set of recommendations for Scotland to ensure the protection of
reintroduced species under the Habitats and Birds Directives, whilst resolving conflicts with
land management activities and allowing economic development to flourish (section 4).
Main findings
European legal review and derogations for protected species






The system of legal protection for animal species protected under Annex IV(a) of the
Habitats Directive and Annex I of the Birds Directive is strict.
The only circumstances in which the deliberate taking or killing of species protected
under Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive or Annex I of the Birds Directive are
permitted are:
where the country is excluded from delivering protection to that species under an
express exclusion in the annexes to the Directives; or
with a derogation under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive or Article 9 of the
Birds Directive.
The European policy guidance on the implementation of the strict protection of species
suggests that Member States can take a flexible and pragmatic approach to the
protection of these species. Nonetheless, there are difficult, grey areas surrounding
the interpretation of both the Birds and Habitats Directives, including the
circumstances where derogations from the special protection of species are
permissible, as illustrated by the discussion in section 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 and the case law
review (Appendix 5 to this report).
EU policy guidance in relation to species protection and interpretation, particularly in
relation to ‘disturbance’ and ‘deterioration’ of breeding and resting sites is instructive
and there is a developing body of jurisprudence from the European Court of Justice.
However, there remain uncertainties in the interpretation of the provisions and in the
flexibility for national implementation.
This research reveals that in practice derogations have been used to manage all the
Habitats Directive Annex IV(a) species examined here: the Eurasian Beaver, Brown
Bear, Eurasian Lynx and Grey Wolf. Moreover, derogations have been used to
manage these species in countries where they have been reintroduced, although there
has been no resort to derogations under the Birds Directive for either the Red Kite or
the White-tailed Eagle in Ireland, which is the only country outside the UK to have
reintroduced these species.
Recent case law relating to hunting of the Annex IV(a) Grey Wolf in Finland and the
initiation of enforcement proceedings against Sweden over the same issue suggests
that Member States must act carefully in devising management strategies for protected
species which require derogation from the strict, special protection set out in the
Directives.
ii
Survey of animal species reintroductions






There are 499 separate listings of species, or groups of species, on Annex IV(a) of the
Habitats Directive and Annex I of the Birds Directive.2
Of the 499 species and groups listed, 65 individual species have been identified as
having been reintroduced within the EU in a total of 129 individual reintroduction
projects.
Of the 65 species reintroduced, 62 are known to have been reintroduced since the
relevant Directives were implemented as part of 111 separate reintroduction projects.
23 EU Member States have been involved in the reintroduction of a species from
either Annex and, of those 23 countries; all have reintroduced a species listed on
either Annex I of the Birds Directive or Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive since
implementation.
The results of the EU-wide survey of reintroductions are set out in Appendix 1 to this
report.
A survey of non-EU European countries examined the reintroduction or presence of six
species: the Eurasian Beaver; Eurasian Lynx; Grey Wolf; Brown Bear; Red Kite; and
White-tailed Eagle. The survey identified the presence of one or more of the six
species in 13 non-EU European countries. Only one case of reintroduction was
identified for the six species within non-EU European countries; the Eurasian Lynx in
Switzerland (see Appendix 2).
Case studies





2
3
The focus of the six case studies (Ireland, Sweden, Latvia, Netherlands, Germany and
Norway) was on the management options available to deal with conflicts between
reintroduced species and land managers.
The case studies reveal varying experiences of species reintroduction projects. For
example, the long established reintroduction of the Eurasian Beaver in Latvia has
given rise to widespread and serious concerns, whilst in the Netherlands, where the
species has been reintroduced relatively recently,3 people are generally pleased with
the reintroduction of the species. Conflicts arise over the real or perceived impact of
reintroduced species on other species, habitats or forestry, hunting and agricultural
practices. Conflicts may also arise between land users and conservation organisations
or agencies because of the sense of the reintroduced species being imposed on them
against their will. However this research does not attempt to address the latter issue
here.
Notwithstanding the wide variation between perceptions of impact by species in the
case study countries, similar concerns do arise in relation to particular species. For
example White tailed-Eagle predation on lambs in Ireland and lambs and reindeer
calves in Norway; damage to forestry, agricultural crops and waterways in relation to
the Eurasian Beaver in Germany, the Netherlands, Latvia and Norway; damage to
livestock as a result of predation by the Grey Wolf in Sweden and Norway and as a
result of predation by the Eurasian Lynx in Norway.
A range of, predominantly non-legal strategies (or strategies that do not require a legal
basis), are used for managing the impacts in the case study countries, e.g:
compensation for loss or damage to property or livestock; financial support for
livestock management strategies such as indoor lambing; support for strategies to
exclude or discourage species such as electrified fencing.
Four of this study’s five EU case studies demonstrate resort to derogations under
Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive to manage the species relevant to this study. A
This number excludes species still listed on the annexes but now known to be extinct.
The beaver was reintroduced to Latvia in the 1930’s and to the Netherlands in 1988.
iii




striking example is the use of 623 derogations in relation to the management of the
Eurasian Beaver in Bavaria, Germany, where pragmatic approaches are adopted to
the destruction of breeding and resting sites where there is a threat of serious damage
to property or risk of flooding (e.g. in the distinction drawn between natal dams and
lodges).
The case studies also highlight the fine balance to be achieved between the protection
of species and the protection of human interests. Sweden’s wolf hunting policy
illustrates that the criteria for derogation must be strictly adhered to in order to avoid
the risk of infringing European law.
Germany’s management of the Eurasian Beaver appears to be in line with the law and
has not, as yet, been challenged despite the routine killing of beavers under
derogation and the issuing of permanent derogations for the ‘scaring away’ of beavers.
Germany has a healthy and growing population of beavers and the killing of beavers
under strictly controlled conditions is recognised by the national authorities as the only
satisfactory alternative to manage the species where problems arise.
Sweden’s strategy for licensed hunting of Grey Wolves by contrast has been
questioned by the European Commission as the species is not at favourable
conservation status and quotas for hunting have not been based on an assessment of
the impact of the derogation on the species or on a species management plan. As a
result Sweden has ceased the licensed hunting of Grey Wolves and is in the process
of rethinking its approach to the management of this species. This may lead to an
increase in illegal killing of Grey Wolves and to greater conflict.
These cases illustrate that the special protection measures set out in the Habitats
Directive are strict and that the derogations procedure is only intended to be used in
exceptional circumstances. Yet, resort to derogations can be a necessary and
pragmatic solution where species are at favourable conservation status and a clear
species action plan is in place to enable species protection to continue alongside
human economic activities.
Recommendations for Scotland




Although the strict legal protection afforded to species under Annex IV(a) of the
Habitats Directive (and correspondingly Annex I of the Birds Directive) on the face of it
offers all species listed there the same level of protection under the law, EU policy and
jurisprudence confirms a species by species approach is required.
The key to addressing the legal requirements under EU law is to have a national
species management strategy in place which addresses the needs of the species, the
threats faced by the species as well as the problems it poses for human activities, as
well as management strategies which are in line with the law.
The extensive use of derogations in practice suggests that SNH can and should plan
to put strategies in place, including resort to derogations under specified
circumstances.
Section 4 of this report makes a number of general and specific recommendations for
the management of reintroduced species in Scotland.
iv
Acknowledgements
The researchers are grateful to the anonymous interviewees in the case study countries for
their participation and assistance. We are also grateful to Sally Blyth and Martin Gaywood at
SNH for coordinating this research project and for providing information and guidance, inter
alia, on SNH policies and procedures. Useful feedback on the draft report was provided by a
number of individuals at SNH and the subsequent amended draft report was presented and
discussed at the National Species Reintroduction Forum in February 2012. The authors are
grateful to the forum members for written and verbal feedback. The authors have sought to
take all feedback into account in this final report, although it is inevitable given the short
timescale for this research that it has not been possible to cover all issues of interest.
Thanks are also due to Professor Colin Reid at the University of Dundee School of Law for
useful discussions in relation to the early stages of this research and for insightful comments
on the final draft. The authors are grateful to the University of Aberdeen School of Law for
facilitating this research and to the Rural Law Research Group members for their support.
Finally, two German University of Aberdeen LLM students, Katharina Merkel and Christine
Zuleger, deserve special mention for checking research and providing translation of German
Federal and Bavarian State nature conservation law.
v
Table of Contents
Page
1
INTRODUCTION
1
Background
Objectives
Scope
1
2
3
1.1
1.2
1.3
2
METHODS
2.1
2.2
2.3
3
Review of EU legal framework for species protection and derogations
Survey of animal species reintroduction projects
Case studies
RESULTS
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.3.8
4
4.1
4.2
5
5
7
7
10
Review of EU legal framework for species reintroduction, protection
and derogations
Survey of European reintroductions of specially protected species
Case studies
Background to the case studies
Ireland
Sweden
Latvia
Netherlands
Germany
Norway
Case study discussion
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion Points
Recommendations
10
27
30
30
32
35
38
42
44
53
62
67
67
68
5
CONCLUSION
76
6
REFERENCES
77
APPENDICES
83
1. EU reintroductions of species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive and
Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive
83
2. Results of the investigation of the reintroduction of selected species in non-EU
European countries
88
3. Derogations for selected species
90
4. List of case study interviews
96
5. European Union case law review
97
6. References for survey of EU and non-EU European reintroductions
109
vi
1
INTRODUCTION
The primary concern of this research is to contribute to the understanding of how species
reintroductions can be facilitated whilst providing mechanisms for dealing with conflicts
between the reintroduced species and landowners and managers. A need for this research
arose from discussions at the Scottish National Species Reintroduction Forum which
highlighted the need to provide more clarity on the issue, based on the European
experience. ‘Reintroduction’ has been defined by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) as an attempt to establish a species in an area which was once part of its
historical range, but from which it has become extirpated or become extinct.4 Multiple scales
of reintroduction exist ranging from local level reintroduction; where a species is moved a
few kilometres into an area in which it was previously present but is now absent, to the
regional and the national level reintroductions; where species are reintroduced to a region or
country where they have been extirpated. This research investigates national and regional
reintroductions of species.5 This research is primarily concerned with certain species
protected under Annex IV(a) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive) and
Annex I of Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds
(codified version) (the Birds Directive).
The research involved:
1.
a review of the EU legal framework for reintroduction, special protection and
derogation from that special protection;
2.
a survey of animal and bird species reintroductions across EU Member States and in
non-EU countries;
3.
six case studies addressing the experience of managing key species in five EU
Member States (Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Latvia) and one non-EU
European country (Norway).
The final part of this report considers the implications for Scotland in relation to how
reintroduced species can be actively managed after reintroduction, in accordance with EU,
UK and Scottish law, in order to avoid conflicts with land managers and owners and to allow
economic development to flourish, as well as to maximise the positive benefits, such as
tourism and recreational enjoyment that these species can bring.
1.1
Background
The management of Habitats Directive Annex IV(a) and Birds Directive Annex I species,
both meriting special protection under EU law, is a matter of current interest in Scotland in
relation to the reintroduction of protected species. The Habitats Directive Annex IV(a) listed
Eurasian Beaver is currently the subject of a trial reintroduction scheme in Scotland.6 The
Birds Directive Annex I White-tailed Eagle has recently been reintroduced in Scotland7 and
the Red Kite has already been reintroduced into four locations within Scotland.
4
IUCN. 1998. Guidelines for Reintroductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist
Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK (henceforth, IUCN Guidelines, 1998)
5
Appendices 1 and 2 deal with national and regional reintroductions of species in areas where the
species have been extirpated.
6
Scottish Beaver Trial. Official home of the Scottish Beaver Trial, (The Royal Zoological Society of
Scotland / Scottish Wildlife Trust), available at http://www.scottishbeavers.org.uk/. Last visited on 23
March 2012. Details of the independent monitoring programme coordinated by Scottish Natural
Heritage can be found at www.snh.gov.uk/scottishbeavertrial.
7
The White-tailed Eagle was reintroduced to the West coast of Scotland in 1975 and, recently, to the
East coast in 2007.
1
This research aims to consider the legal implications of the reintroduction and special
protection of species under the Habitats Directive Annex IV(a) and Birds Directive Annex I
and to explore the management strategies (both legal and non-legal) for addressing or
preventing conflicts and maximising benefits. On one hand, these reintroduced species merit
special protection because they make a valuable contribution to biodiversity by helping to
restore ecosystem function, addressing moral arguments about the restoration of lost
species and improving human enjoyment of the environment. On the other hand, these
species will have, or be perceived to have, some impact on other species or on human
economic activities. Reintroductions may also lead to discord between the agencies
responsible for reintroduction and other stakeholders where the stakeholder’s property or
interest may be put at risk by species perceived as being imposed on the local land against
the stakeholder’s will.8 It is necessary to be aware of the legal protection covering these
species and of the mechanisms for detecting, reporting and resolving issues where there are
competing economic, conservation or other interests. There is some evidence to suggest
that people will be more accepting of reintroductions if effort is spent on outreach and
information sharing beforehand.9
The relatively recent reintroduction into Scotland of species meriting special protection under
Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive and Annex I of the Birds Directive is a matter of some
concern given that landowners and managers will not yet have strategies in place to deal
with these species, nor past experience to rely on. However, other countries across Europe
do have experience of the reintroduction and management of these species and part of the
purpose of this research is to benefit from that experience.
1.2
Objectives
The objective of this research is to provide guidance for Scottish Natural Heritage and its
partners on how reintroduced species can be managed within the constraints of the law.
Within that overarching objective, further objectives are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To identify all national and regional scale reintroductions of species protected under
Annex I of the Birds Directive and Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive within Europe;
To determine the extent of resort to derogations from the special protection measures
under those directives for the six species of particular interest to this study;
To examine the experience of other European countries in managing particular
species using case studies from five countries within the EU and one non-EU
European country. The case studies seek to determine what problems or concerns
land managers face and which strategic management approaches are in place to
address these concerns.
To provide recommendations for Scottish Natural Heritage and its partners on how
reintroduced species can be actively managed after reintroduction, in accordance with
European and Scottish law, in order to avoid conflicts with land managers and owners,
as well as to maximise the positive benefits, such as tourism and recreational
enjoyment that these species can bring.
8
See, Arts, K., Fischer, A., and Van der Wal, R. 2012. ‘Common stories of reintroduction: A discourse
analysis of documents supporting animal reintroductions to Scotland’, LUP, in press.
9
Morzillo A.T., Mertig A.G., Hollister J.W.& Garner, N.J. 2010. Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Local
Support for Black Bear Recovery Strategies. Environmental Management,45, (6), 1299; Heydon, M.J.,
Wilson, C.J. & Tew, T. 2010. Wildlife conflict resolution: a review of problems, solutions and
regulation in England. Wildlife Research, 37, 721.
2
1.3
Scope
The research is broad in scope and has been completed within a short time-frame.10
Therefore, it is not the purpose of this research to provide a comprehensive discussion of all
of the relevant issues. It is primarily concerned with the use of derogations and other legal
and non-legal11 strategies for the management of reintroduced species which are protected
under the Habitats Directive Annex IV(a) (animal species meriting special protection) and the
Birds Directive Annex I (bird species meriting special protection).
Given that there are 499 species listed under the Habitats and Birds Directive alone, and of
those 499, 65 individual species have been identified by this research as having been
reintroduced within the EU, the first part of this research, the legal review, focuses on the
examination of six species, all of which are, or were, native to Scotland: the Eurasian Beaver
(Castor fiber); the White-tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla); Milvus milvus (Red Kite); Ursos
arctos (Brown Bear); the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus); and the Eurasian Lynx12 (Lynx lynx).13
The first three species are of particular interest because they have been reintroduced or are
in the process of a formal or trial reintroduction in Scotland: Milvus milvus (Red Kite)
(reintroduced); Haliaeetus albicilla (White-tailed Eagle) (reintroduced); Castor fiber (the
Eurasian Beaver) (trial reintroduction). The last three species are of interest because they
are protected under Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive and they present particularly
complex management challenges.14 Thus the discussion of the legal framework for species
protection and, most importantly, the review of derogations from that protection reflect an
emphasis on these species.
For the purpose of selecting case studies it was decided to concentrate on four species: two
of which are the focus of ongoing or trial reintroduction projects in Scotland (White-tailed
Eagle and Eurasian Beaver); and two of which reflect particularly challenging management
situations in Europe (the Grey Wolf and the Eurasian Lynx).
The research is limited to animal and bird species as opposed to plants. There are 644 plant
species receiving special protection under Annex IV(b) of the Habitats Directive. Whilst the
reintroduction and special protection of plant species is an area of importance, and may be a
fruitful area for further research, it is unlikely to present the same types of management
challenges as animal species.
This research focuses on human-species conflicts surrounding animal and bird species
reintroductions. It is not concerned with conflicts between species and between the
reintroduced species and protected habitats. While there will invariably be overlap between
these two issues, the constraints of this research mean that it is predominantly concerned
with the possible approaches to conflicts between the species and land owners and
managers relating to activities such as farming, shooting, fishing and forestry. Full
10
The research was conducted between 17 November 2011 and 23 March 2012.
‘Non-legal’ strategies are defined as strategies which do not require legal intervention to secure and
may include practical management strategies such as fencing to exclude species. Legal strategies
would include for example, the use of legally binding land management agreements between
landowners and nature conservation bodies.
12
See, Hetherington D., Miller D., Macleod C. & Gorman M. 2008. A potential habitat network for
Eurasian lynx in Scotland. Mammal Review, 38, 285.
13
The research will refer to the English names of the relevant species. The tables of European
reintroductions and derogations found in appendices 2 and 3 to this report refer to both English and
Latin names to ensure the proper identification of the species.
14
The presence of these large carnivores in areas inhabited by humans can have consequences for
farming (livestock as prey), hunting (competition for wild ungulates as prey), human sense of safety,
human recreation (predators discouraging or attracting tourism) and on nature management and
protection.
11
3
consideration of species-species and species-habitat impacts is recommended as one of a
number of key areas for further study.
Given that the research examines the use of derogations for managing reintroduced species
and other legal and non-legal methods of managing conflicts between the species and land
managers, it is necessarily focused on the negative aspects of reintroduction projects. While
case study interviewees were asked to comment on the benefits, or positive aspects, of
reintroduction projects, by the very nature of this research the emphasis was on the
problems resulting from reintroductions and the resulting management strategies, along with
the need for resort to derogations. This was unavoidable given that one of the main aims of
the research was to explore the circumstances in which derogations are relied upon. It is
beyond the scope of the current research to provide a survey of stakeholder views to
determine both positive and negative experience of reintroductions but this would be a
valuable area for further research.
This research has focused on European experience of reintroductions and on the European
legal frameworks. A broader review including in particular, USA experiences and legal
approaches to reintroduction may be useful in the future.
4
2
METHODS
This report presents the results of a three part research project. It includes:
1.
2.
3.
a review of the legal and policy framework for the special protection of species under
EU law in relation to Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive and Annex I of the Birds
Directive; the implications of that protection for reintroduced species (including a case
law review in Appendix 5); and a review of derogations from that protection (Appendix
3).
a survey of European species reintroduction projects:
a.
across the EU Member States (Appendix 1); and
b.
a survey of species reintroduction in non-EU European countries for the purpose
of identifying a non-EU case study for comparison (Appendix 2);
an examination of existing experience in six countries as case studies of the
management of reintroduced species or, where there have been no reintroductions, of
the management strategies for relevant species.
It concludes with a discussion of the management strategies (legal and non-legal) available
for reintroduced species or potential candidates for reintroduction in Scotland and
recommendations for Scotland (section 4 of this report).
2.1
Review of EU legal framework for species protection and derogations
The first part of the research was a legal review considering the potential legal implications
of species reintroductions, the protection afforded to the key species under the Habitats and
Birds Directives, and the use of derogations for protected species.
2.1.1 Desk-based literature review of European legal and policy framework
The research was conducted by a desk based literature review of EU, European and
domestic legislation, policy documentation, case law, and academic literature. The research
drew on the resources of the European Documentation Centre in the University of Aberdeen
Taylor Library.15 The results are presented in section 3.1 and Appendix 5 of this report.
2.1.2 Review of derogations from the Habitats and Birds Directives
A review was undertaken of derogations from the Habitats16 and Birds Directives17 between
2001 and 2008. Information was gathered from composite reports, compiled by the
European Commission, of the biennial reviews of derogations under both Directives for all
EU nations. The results of that review are discussed in section 3.1 below. Furthermore,
Appendix 3 provides an overview of all derogations within all reporting periods18 relating to
the six species of particular interest to this study: the Eurasian Beaver; Eurasian Lynx; Grey
Wolf; White-tailed Eagle; Red Kite and Brown Bear.19 Appendix 3 reveals how extensively
resort is being made to the derogations process in relation to these species, as well as
15
A guide to the European Documentation Centre is available at
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/library/about/taylor/edc/. Last visited on 23 March 2012.
16
European Commission Composite Reports on Derogations from the Habitats Directive
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_habitats/index_en.htm. Last visited on 23
March 2012.
17
European Commission Composite Reports on Derogations from the Birds Directive
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_birds/index_en.htm. Last visited on 23 March
2012.
18
In so far as that information is available and subject to the methodological constraints outlined
below.
19
The review focused on these species for the reasons outlined earlier (see Section above 1.3).
5
showing the types of derogations used20 and the grounds for those derogations. It is
important to note that derogations are not issued solely in relation to problems arising from
the activities of protected species. Monitoring work that causes disturbance to breeding or
resting sites can require derogation as can the translocation of individuals for the purpose of
breeding and reintroduction programmes elsewhere.
Additionally the research examined whether the derogations related to a reintroduced
population of the species and that is reflected in the final column in Appendix 3, which
indicates whether the species was reintroduced in the country of interest. In the vast majority
of cases, where a reintroduced population is present, the derogation relates to the
reintroduced population; however, due to the lack of information contained within the
European Commission's composite reports (discussed below), it cannot conclusively be
determined that the derogation does not refer to a natural population, if such a population
occurs in the country.
Although the present research has undertaken a careful review of the derogations, based on
the available information, there are significant methodological weaknesses in the European
derogation reporting procedure itself and these have been acknowledged by the European
Commission.21 These include variability in quality and frequency of reporting by Member
States and variability in accuracy and completeness of the information provided by the
Member States. For the purposes of this research there are a number of significant
difficulties. Firstly, the composite report on derogations for the period 2009-2010 is still not
publicly available as not all countries have yet submitted reports for the period. Secondly,
even for those periods which are available, the reporting by individual nations to the
Commission is poor and, in several cases, non-existent with the result that the subsequent
compilation of national reports by the EU is below the standard that would be expected.
Individual country reports often lack specific details such as grounds for the derogation and
actions taken under the derogation, and sometimes, even lack basic information such as the
species involved in the derogation.
In addition to these methodological weaknesses in the reporting procedure the
Commission’s own composite reports suffer from a lack of structure and often summarise
information to such an extent that none of the relevant details remain. In many cases it is not
possible to tell how many derogations have been issued in relation to a particular species in
a given country, and even if it is possible to identify the number of derogations it is not
always possible to identify the number of licences to which these derogations relate or the
number of animals impacted. The Commission’s composite reports are also prone to
contradictory statements. There seems to be little consistency in the way that the composite
reports are compiled and little consistency in the way that Member States reports are
summaries and assessed. Given the inadequate reporting process for derogations from the
Birds and Habitats Directives; the derogation information provided in Appendix 3 to this
report should be seen as providing an indication of the minimum number of derogations
which occurred between 2001 and 2008, but it cannot provide a definitive list as inevitably
some derogations will have gone unreported.
20
Due to the unsatisfactory nature of the European Commission’s reporting process (discussed
below) this information is included in Appendix 3 when it has been available. In many instances the
nature of the derogation is not specified in the composite reports and these are highlighted in the
appendix as ‘unspecified’.
21
European Commission, Composite European Report on Derogations in 2007-2008 According to
Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and
Flora (The Habitats Directive) 2011, (henceforth, European Commission, Report on Derogations
2011).
6
2.2
Survey of animal species reintroduction projects
The review of European reintroductions of animal species listed under Annex IV(a) of the
Habitats Directive and Annex I of the Birds Directive provides an overview of European
species reintroductions to enable case study selection. The research comprised the
following steps:
1.
Identification of all EU countries where species listed under the relevant directives
occur;
2.
Identification of all EU countries where species listed under the relevant directives
have been reintroduced;
3.
Identification of non-EU European countries where the six species of particular interest
to this research occur;
4.
Identification of non-EU European countries where the six species of particular interest
to this research have been reintroduced.
The results of the above are summarised in section 3.2 of this research and can be found in
full in appendices 1 and 2.
The above research was undertaken as a desk-based literature review which utilised a
variety of academic and “grey” literature sources. Academic literature was searched for
using the Scopus, Web of Knowledge, and Conservation Evidence databases. Grey
literature was found by a combination of web-based searches using the Google search
engine and consultation with databases such as the ICUN Red List Database and the
Birdlife International Species Database. A full bibliography for the findings presented in
appendices 1 and 2 can be found in Appendix 6 to this report. Further, the sources of the
information contained in Appendix 1 are indicated in the final column of that table as a
numerical reference which corresponds to the list of references in Appendix 6.
2.3
Case studies
The second part of the research was a detailed examination of a small number of case
studies. For the purpose of selecting case studies it was decided to concentrate on four
species: two of which are the focus of ongoing or trial reintroduction projects in Scotland
(White-tailed Eagle and Eurasian Beaver); and two of which reflect particularly challenging
management situations in Europe (the Grey Wolf and the Eurasian Lynx). The case studies
build on the information gleaned from the survey of species reintroductions.
2.3.1 Selection of case studies
The initial review of species reintroductions highlighted the high number of reintroductions
that have occurred across Europe. Investigating every reintroduction project would not have
been feasible within the timeframe of this report because there are 129 individual projects,
therefore; six countries were selected as case studies for discussion from five EU countries
and one non-EU European country for comparison. Case studies examine specific countries,
rather than species specific reintroduction projects so that the experience of species
reintroduction could be considered alongside the legal, institutional and policy framework for
the given country.
7
The criteria for the selection of the EU case studies were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The country must have reintroduced one or more of the species of interest to the
present research.
The reintroduction(s) will preferably have occurred since the implementation of the
relevant legislation.
Where no reintroductions of the relevant species have occurred within Europe, such as
for the Grey Wolf, case studies were selected from countries where conflicts have
been identified and management strategies are in place to deal with existing
populations of those species.
Reintroductions should where possible have led to the establishment of a selfsustaining population as such projects are likely to have encountered any potential
problems and developed management strategies accordingly.
Accessibility of English language information.
Accessibility of contact information for potential interviewees.
The criteria for the selection of the non-EU European case study were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Countries with an established population, either naturally or through reintroduction, of
the following species: Eurasian Beaver; White-tailed Eagle; Eurasian Lynx and Grey
Wolf.
Identification of problems with management of these species and disagreements
between different stakeholders.
Accessibility of English language information.
Accessibility of contact information for potential interviewees.
2.3.2 Case study methods
The third part of the research was a study of five EU Member States and one non-EU
European state. These case studies investigated the current management structures in
place for a variety of different focal species within each country.
The primary objective of the case studies of five EU Member States was to examine:
1.
The use of derogations in that country/region.
2.
The problems which have arisen from the reintroduction projects in these
countries/regions.
3.
Legal and non-legal management strategies used to address these problems.22
The detailed case study of a non-EU European state examined how the presence of
controversial, but highly protected, species are managed in a country not subject to the Birds
and Habitats Directives.
The case studies are based in part on a desk-based literature review and in part on a series
of telephone interviews. The desk-based literature review provided the legal and policy
framework. The problems and management strategies were identified by a series of
telephone interviews with a small number of relevant stakeholders. The aim was to have
telephone interviews with at least one representative from each of the following:
22
The interviews also sought views on the benefits gained from the reintroduction projects. However,
it is acknowledged that this does not provide an adequate survey of the benefits of species
reintroduction but reflects the subjective views of selected interviewees in a small survey where the
primary focus was on the management of conflicts.
8
1.
2.
3.
4.
the competent authority and/or other relevant government agencies;
the body responsible for the reintroduction project or for the management of the
relevant species
independent experts
organisations representing land managers, land owners and land users.
In practice some stakeholders would not, or could not participate in the research, which is,
perhaps, unsurprising given the time constraints of the project, as well as language barriers.
Some stakeholders provided a written response only. A list of the interviews undertaken is
included in Appendix 4 to this report.
The telephone interviews with stakeholders addressed the following issues:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The background to reintroduction or distribution of the species in the country.
The concerns (if any) of land managers, land owners, land users and other relevant
groups surrounding the reintroduction and/or presence of the species.
The legal and non-legal management strategies in place for the species.
The benefits (if any) that have arisen from the reintroduction / presence of the
species of interest, especially with regard to benefits to local communities.
9
3
RESULTS
3.1
Review of the European legal framework for species reintroduction, protection
and derogations
3.1.1 Introduction
The Habitats Directive aims to benefit biodiversity through the maintenance or restoration of
a ‘favourable conservation status’ for natural habitats and species of wild flora and fauna of
‘Community interest’.23 The EU Biodiversity Strategy seeks to ensure that the biodiversity
and the ecosystem services it provides are ‘protected, valued and appropriately restored’.24
The Habitats Directive makes provision for the special protection of species of ‘Community
interest’ in Annexes II, IV or V of the Directive. Species of ‘Community interest’ is defined as
meaning species which are endangered, rare or endemic but requiring particular attention.25
Annex IV listed species are those which merit a system of strict protection under the
Directive. Animals are listed in Annex IV(a) and plants in Annex IV(b).
In principle all species listed under Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive receive the same
level of protection under the law (detailed below). However, there are certain exclusions
within the Directive in relation to specific species in particular countries or parts of countries.
Further, the European Commission guidance and jurisprudence of the European Court of
Justice has consistently pointed out that the protection afforded to species must be looked at
on a ‘species by species’ basis. Thus, while the European legal framework does not
differentiate between species in terms of the special protection afforded, in practice there will
be distinctions between the level of protection afforded to certain species. In other words, the
particular attributes of the species will be taken into account in determining what constitutes
disturbance of the species and destruction or deterioration of its resting places or breeding
sites.
Similarly, in principle, all species protected under Annex I of the Birds Directive 2009/147 are
in receipt of the same special protection measures. Article 4 of the Directive states that
Annex I species shall be subject to special conservation measures concerning their habitat
in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution.
This part of the paper provides a brief overview of the EU legal framework as it relates to the
following issues:
-
Reintroduction of species (Section 3.1.2. below)
Special protection of species under the Habitats Directive Annex IV(a) and Birds
Directive Annex I (Section 3.1.3)
Derogations from that special protection (Section 3.1.4)
Review of derogations for the six species of particular interest to this research, with
particular reference to reintroduced species (Section 3.1.5)
Species protection and derogation in Scotland (Section 3.1.6)
23
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora (henceforth, Habitats Directive), Articles 2 and 3.
24
European Commission, Report on Derogations 2011.
25
Habitats Directive, Article 1(g).
10
3.1.2 Reintroduction of species
Is there a duty to reintroduce species?
Is there a legal obligation under international or European law to reintroduce extinct species
to their former habitat? There is evidence within the texts of some international and
European nature conservation laws of legal obligations to reintroduce species to their former
habitats. However, inconsistencies between the legal instruments and definitional difficulties,
particularly relating to what constitutes ‘native species’, render the question of whether there
is a legally binding obligation to reintroduce species open to some discussion.26
The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979) (the
Bern Convention) was the first wildlife treaty to encourage its contracting parties to
reintroduce species. Under Article 11(2) of the Convention the contracting parties undertake:
(a)
to encourage the reintroduction of native species of wild flora and fauna when this
would contribute to the conservation of an endangered species, provided that a study is
first made in the light of the experiences of other contracting parties to establish that such
reintroductions would be effective and acceptable;
(b)
to strictly control the introduction of non-native species.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), to which the UK is a signatory,27 affirms the
international commitment to the recovery of species. Article 9(c) creates a qualified
obligation on contracting parties ‘as far as possible’ and ‘as appropriate’ ‘to reintroduce
threatened species into their natural habitats under appropriate conditions’.
This qualified obligation to reintroduce threatened species has not been translated into
European law in the same terms. The Birds Directive does not impose any obligation to
reintroduce species or to consider the desirability of doing so, although it appears to foresee
that reintroductions will be necessary measures to ensure bird conservation.28 The Habitats
Directive does not create any legal duty to reintroduce species but it does impose an
obligation under Article 22:
‘to study the desirability of reintroducing the species in Annex IV, that are native to their
territory where this might contribute to their conservation, provided that an investigation,
also taking into account experiences in other Member States or elsewhere, has
established that such reintroductions contributes effectively to re-establishing these
species at a favourable conservation status and that it takes place only after proper
consultation of the public concerned.’
It can be said that Article 22 simply creates an obligation to ‘study the desirability’ of
reintroducing species. The obligation applies where such species reintroduction ‘might’
contribute to the conservation of the species, but this must be evidence-based.29 It is
provisional on an ‘investigation’ being undertaken to establish that ‘such reintroductions’
have contributed effectively to re-establishing these species at a favourable conservation
status. That ‘investigation’ must take into account experience from other Member States or
elsewhere. Further, any reintroduction should only take place after proper consultation with
the public concerned.
26
See, Rees, P. A. 2001. Is there a legal obligation to reintroduce animal species into their former
habitats? Oryx, 35,(3), 216.
27
The UK signed up to the Convention on Biological Diversity on the 12th June 1992.
28
Birds Directive, Article 9(1)(b) permits derogations ‘for the purposes of repopulation, [and] of
reintroduction.’
29
See also Habitats Directive, Article 18.
11
The result is a highly qualified obligation to consider reintroduction, but clearly no positive
obligation to reintroduce species. Nevertheless, the reintroduction of species does fit within
the overarching aims of the Directive. Article 2(2) of the Habitats Directive states that
measures shall be designed to maintain or ‘restore’, at favourable consideration status,
natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of community interest. The reintroduction
of species would fall within the measures intended to deliver favourable conservation status.
Implementing reintroduction in practice
The duty to study the desirability of reintroduction under Article 22 is also provisional in the
sense that it applies to the reintroduction of species that are ‘native to their territory’. The
term ‘native to their territory’ is not defined by the Habitats Directive, yet the definition of this
term is vital to the interpretation of the law. Nor does the Directive indicate how far back in
time a Member State should look in order to establish whether or not a particular species is
native to the territory. In the absence of definition of this term Member States have some
freedom to interpret it as they see fit,30 subject to the relevant policy guidance discussed
further below.
A recommendation of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to Member States on
the reintroduction of species set down criteria for responsible reintroductions. Although not
legally binding, it recommended that Member States:
1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Carry out reintroductions only after conducting research to:
determine the causes of extinction;
analyse past and present ecological characteristics of the area concerned;
propose remedies for the causes of extinction;
enumerate management measures to be taken before, during, and after the
reintroduction;
(e)
establish which subspecies or ecotypes are closest to those that are extinct or are
best suited to the reintroduction area.
2. Authorise reintroduction only after remedying the causes of extinction and restoring
biotopes where necessary.
3. Prohibit reintroduction where adverse effects on the ecosystem are feared.
4. Inform the local population and interested groups of the reintroduction project.
5. Prohibit collecting from a population where this would constitute a threat to it.
6. Limit the duration of reintroduction projects and, if unsuccessful, give up further
attempts.
7. Ensure scientific support, supervision and documentation until the reintroduced
individuals are integrated into the local biological community.
8. Inform the European Committee for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,
and if necessary the governments of neighbouring countries, of reintroduction projects
31
and, if possible, co-ordinate reintroductions among the countries concerned.
The IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions provide the leading policy framework for species
reintroductions worldwide.32 They provide a guide for reintroduction and have no binding
force in law, although they are widely accepted as the most authoritative guidance on
species reintroduction. ‘Reintroduction’ has been defined by the IUCN as an attempt to
establish a species in an area which was once part of its historical range, but from which it
has become extirpated or become extinct.33 The IUCN Guidelines have been accepted by
30
See, Rees, P. A. 2001. Is there a legal obligation to reintroduce animal species into their former
habitats? Oryx, 35,(3), 216.
31
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Number R (85) 15 1985 of the Council
of Europe Committee of Ministers to Member States on the reintroduction of species 1985.
32
IUCN Guidelines, 1998. The IUCN Guidelines for Reintroduction are in the process of being redrafted at the time of writing of this report.
33
IUCN Guidelines, 1998.
12
the UK nature conservation agencies and the Scottish position on reintroduction is discussed
further below at section 3.1.6.
3.1.3 Special protection of Habitats Directive Annex IV(a) species and Birds Directive Annex
I species
Article 12 of the Habitats Directive and Article 5 of the Birds Directive establish systems of
special protection for the species listed in Habitats Directive Annex IV(a) and Birds Directive
Annex I. Annex IV(a) species in need of strict protection include, for example, the Wild Cat
(Felis silvestris), the Otter (Lutra lutra), the Brown Bear, the Grey Wolf, the Eurasian Beaver,
the Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx) and the Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardina).
Table 1. Status of mammal species of interest to the research under the Bern
Convention and Habitats Directive
Eurasian
Beaver
Eurasian
Lynx
Grey
Wolf
Brown
Bear
Bern Convention
Appendix III
Appendix III
Action Plan
Lynx
Appendix II
Action Plan
Wolf
Appendix II
Action Plan
Bear
Habitats Directive
Annex II
Annex II
Annex II
(priority)
Annex II
(priority)
Annex IV(a)
Annex IV(a)
Annex IV(a)
Annex IV(a)
As the EU is one of the parties to the Bern Convention, the protection afforded to species
under Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive must be applied in a manner that is consistent
with the Bern Convention. Contrary to their differentiated protection under the Bern
Convention, the status of Eurasian Beaver, Eurasian Lynx, Grey Wolf and Brown Bear is
practically uniform under the Habitats Directive. All four are among the strictly protected
species of Annex IV(a). All four also occur in Annex II, which lists the species for which
protected areas must be designated as part of the Natura 2000 network. The only distinction
is that the Grey Wolf and Brown Bear are indicated as priority species, whereas the Eurasian
Lynx and Eurasian Beaver are not. Guidelines on Population Level Management Plans for
Large Carnivores (Carnivore Guidelines) were issued in 2008 to provide recommendations
for the application of the Directive to Eurasian Lynx, Grey Wolf, Brown Bear and Wolverine.34
34
Linnell, J., Salvatori V. & Boitani, L. 2008. Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for
Large Carnivores, a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE). July 2008. Report prepared for the
European Commission July 2008.
13
Where species are listed under Annex II and Annex IV(a) the Commission considers that
these species should benefit from protection under Article 6 and under Article 12. It is not
within the remit of this research to look at the protection afforded to species under Annex II
of the Habitats Directive, but it is recognised that it may be significant, for example, in
relation to the possible future designation of sites for the protection of the Eurasian Beaver if
formally reintroduced in Scotland.35
For species listed in Annex IV(a), Article 12 of the Habitats Directive deals with the special
protection measures.
Article 12(1) Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of
strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range
prohibiting;
(a) deliberate capture or killing in the wild.
(b) deliberate disturbance of the species.
(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild.
(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.
(2) Member States shall prohibit the keeping, transport and sale or exchange, and
offering for sale or exchange of specimens taken from the wild.
(3) The prohibition referred to in paragraph 1(a) and (b) and paragraph 2 shall apply to all
stages of life of the animals to which this Article applies.
(4) Member States shall establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of
the animal species listed in annex IV(a). Member States shall use the information to
decide whether to take further action to ensure incidental capture and killing does not
have a significant negative impact on the species concerned.
The special protection measures for bird species protected under Annex I of the Birds
Directive, including the White-tailed Eagle and the Red Kite, are similar to the provisions of
the Habitats Directive Article 12. Article 5 of the Birds Directive states:
Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a general system of
protection for all species of birds referred to in Article 1, prohibiting in particular:
(a) deliberate killing or capture by any method;
(b) deliberate destruction of, or damage to, their nests and eggs or removal of their nests;
(c) taking their eggs in the wild and keeping these eggs even if empty;
(d) deliberate disturbance of these birds particularly during the period of breeding and
rearing, in so far as disturbance would be significant having regard to the objectives of
this Directive;
(e) keeping birds of species the hunting and capture of which is prohibited.
Features of the special protection measures
The special protection measures under the Habitats and Birds Directives are characterised
by prohibitive measures and preventative measures, which must be backed up by effective
enforcement at national level.36 The special protection of species is also dependent upon
effective monitoring of species.
35
The Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the
Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, Environment Directorate-General of the European Commission,
February 2007 (henceforth, European Commission Guidance 2007) states that ‘In relation to the
species protection section, it is important to recognise that proactive habitat management measures
(such as restoration of habitats and populations and the improvement of habitats) are not an
obligation under Article 12 of the Habitats Directive, even though they might be under Article 6’ (see
para 61).
36
See, Case C-103/00 Commission v Greece [2002] E.C.R. I–1147; Case C-518/04 Commission v
Greece [2006] E.C.R. I-42; Case C-221/04 Commission v Spain [2006] E.C.R. I-4515.
14
Prohibitive measures
Article 12(1) prohibits the deliberate capture or killing in the wild of Annex IV(a) species, as
well as the deliberate disturbance of the species and the deliberate destruction of eggs or
the deliberate taking of eggs from the wild. Deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or
resting places is prohibited regardless of whether or not the action was deliberate. Only
species in their ‘natural range’ benefit from this special protection.37 The strict protection of
Annex IV(a) species under Article 12 has been the subject of considerable discussion at EU
policy level due to the apparent difficulties with interpretation of, inter alia, ‘deliberate
disturbance’, ‘deterioration’ and ‘destruction’. The Environment Directorate-General of the
European Commission has produced formal guidance on the strict protection of animal
species of community interest under the Habitats Directive to assist with the interpretation of
these provisions.38 However, ultimately, it rests with the European Court of Justice to provide
a definitive interpretation of the Directives. Therefore, the guidance provided will evolve in
line with any emerging jurisprudence on this subject, and also with experience arising from
the implementation of Articles 12 and 16 in the Member States.
Article 12(1)(b) of the Habitats Directive and Article 5(1)(d) of the Birds Directive prohibit the
‘deliberate disturbance’ of Annex IV(a) and Annex I species respectively. Such disturbance
involves the ‘deliberate’ as opposed to accidental disturbance of species. Disturbance (e.g.
by noise or light) may be direct or indirect. Disturbance will have a negative effect on the
species which is likely to be detrimental, e.g. by forcing them to flee. Disturbance for the
purposes of Article 12 need not be ‘significant’.39 Factors taken into account in determining
whether a species has been disturbed include: intensity, duration, frequency of repetition of
the disturbance; species reaction to the disturbance and the particular sensitivities of the
species; the season or the life cycle of the species e.g. breeding or rearing young; and
sensitive periods e.g. breeding, rearing, migration and hibernation. In all circumstances a
species by species approach is required. There is a body of case law arising from the
European Court of Justice relating to ‘disturbance’ under both the Habitats and Birds
Directives and in relation to the protection of species and the protection of habitats (see
Appendix 5 to this report for a review of relevant case law). Deterioration of a breeding site
or resting place under Article 12(1)(d) takes place when a positive action directly reduces the
functionality of the breeding site or resting place.40 Deterioration must be human induced.
Deterioration to breeding sites expressly includes “areas required for... nesting
construction”.41 Deterioration is determined on the basis of species by species approach
(discussed further below).
Preventative measures
Article 12 of the Habitats Directive requires more than the implementation and enforcement
of prohibitions. Member States must adopt preventative measures. The special protection of
Annex IV(a) species has a ‘preventative character, requiring Member States to avoid and
prevent a number of situations that could negatively impact on species’.42 The ECJ has held
that the first paragraph of Article 12 ‘requires the Member States not only to adopt a
comprehensive legislative framework, but also to implement concrete and specific protection
measures’.43 Further, the strict protection under Article 12(1) presupposes the ‘adoption of
coherent and coordinated measures of a preventative nature’.44 Preventative measures
37
The definition of ‘natural range’ is discussed further below at Section 3.1.4.
European Commission Guidance 2007.
39
Ibid, paras. 37 and 38.
40
Rudfeld, L. 2005. Contribution to the interpretation of the strict protection of species (Habitats
Directive Article 12). Article 12 Working Group, 6 April 2005.
41
European Commission Guidance 2007, para 58.
42
Ibid, para 28.
43
Case C-183/05 Commission v Ireland [2007] E.C.R. I-137, para.29.
44
Ibid. para 30.
38
15
should seek to address foreseeable threats even before those threats have become a
reality.45 Further ‘even if a species has favourable conservation status and is likely to have
this in the foreseeable future, Member States should take preventative measures to protect
the species by effectively prohibiting the activities indicated in Article 12’.46
The Commission guidance provides some examples of preventative measures including:
information campaigns to raise awareness among a general or targeted public of the
protection requirements for certain species; action to have species protection taken into
account by relevant economic sectors (e.g agriculture, forestry) to avoid the negative
impacts of certain land-use practices (including training, codes of conduct, guidance
documents); inspections and preparation of national conservation plans for specific
species.47 The need for preventative measures would seem to be particularly pertinent in
relation to ongoing activities such as forestry or agriculture.48
‘Ongoing activities should best be guided so as to avoid conflicts with the species
protection provisions in the first place. Tools such as planning instruments, systems of
prior consent, codes of conduct and concrete information or guidance are options here.
Such measures should:
a)
form part of the requisite measures needed under Article 12 to “establish and
implement an effective system of strict protection”,
b)
incorporate the strict protection requirements,
c)
offer flexibility, i.e. while recognising that absolute protection for all individuals of a
species cannot be guaranteed, ensure that any harmful action takes full account of
the conservation needs of the species/population concerned,
d)
have the advantage that they potentially protect the person engaging in an activity
(i.e. from prosecution) as long as the person adheres to the measures,
e)
be accompanied by a legal framework for strict protection which ensures adequate
enforcement by the regulatory authorities in the case of non-compliance,
f)
help define appropriate levels of surveillance (required under Article 11 of the
Directive) and determine how these should be funded,
g)
be in line with Article 2(3) by taking account of economic, social and cultural
49
requirements.
Monitoring and surveillance
Article 11 of the Habitats Directive obliges Member States to establish an appropriate
surveillance system to monitor the conservation status of species of Community interest (as
listed in Annexes II, IV and V of the Directive). According to the ECJ, Article 11 requires
states to ‘guarantee’ that surveillance of Annex IV(a) species ‘is undertaken systematically
and on a permanent basis’.50 The Court regards surveillance as a necessary ingredient of
the special protection under Article 12.51 The European Commission guidance states that
‘Good knowledge of a species… and regular surveillance of its conservation status over time
(as required in Article 11) are essential preconditions for any meaningful conservation
45
The European Commission Guidance 2007 states at para 21 that: ‘It is ... evident from the wording
of Articles 12 and 1(i), and from the objective of “maintaining” a favourable conservation status, that
Member States are bound by their obligations under Article 12 even before any reduction in numbers
of the species has been confirmed or the risk of this protected species disappearing has become a
reality.’ This view is supported by the case C-103/00 Commission v Greece [2002] E.C.R. I-01147
para 31 and case C-518/04 Commission v Greece [2006] E.C.R. I-42 para 21.
46
European Commission Guidance 2007, para 21. This view is supported by the cases: C-103/00
Commission v Greece [2002] E.C.R. I-01147, C-518/04 Commission v Greece [2006] E.C.R. I-42 and
C-183/05 Commission v Ireland [2007] E.C.R. I-137.
47
European Commission Guidance 2007, para 23.
48
Ibid, pages 31 and 32.
49
Ibid, para 28.
50
Case C-6/04 Commission v United Kingdom [2005] E.C.R. I-9017, para 68.
51
C-183/05 Commission v Ireland [2007] E.C.R. I-137, para 13; See also case C-6/04 Commission v
UK 2005 E.C.R. I-9017 para 68.
16
strategy’.52 Importantly, surveillance of the conservation status of animal species is also
necessary for appropriately applying derogations under Article 16:
‘In order to determine whether any action would be detrimental to maintaining that
species at a favourable conservation status, national authorities must have sufficient
information available to assess the conservation status of the species, and to predict the
likely effects of any proposed derogation.’53
In addition to the surveillance of conservation status, Member States are under a specific
duty to monitor the incidental capture and killing of Annex IV(a) species.54 Member States
must take the conservation measures necessary to ensure that such killing does not have a
‘significant negative impact’ on the species involved.55 The import of this requirement is
illustrated by Case C-308/08 Commission v Spain relating to the prevention and monitoring
of road kill impacts on the Iberian Lynx in Spain.
Proportionate and appropriate
Measures under Articles 12 and 16 must be implemented in a proportionate and appropriate
manner.56 The measures taken by Member States should adequately address the objective
pursued, i.e. maintaining favourable conservation status, while also taking account of
economic social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics.57 This also
calls for a species by species approach.58 However the guidance states that:
‘Flexibility and proportionality should not be misunderstood as concepts that reduce the
obligations on Member States to act in an effective way, but need to be seen as providing
room for authorities to adapt their way of implementation to the specific circumstances of
each case (in conservation status terms, but also in social, economic and cultural
terms)’.59
Flexible and pragmatic
Article 12 of the Habitats Directive covers a high number of species, which are not only rare
but also regionally and nationally abundant therefore a ‘flexible approach’ to the
implementation of Article 12 is needed. Although the Annex IV(a) species are all afforded the
same protection under the Directive, the application of the provisions of the Directive may
vary on a species by species basis e.g. in relation to Article 12(1)(b) where the sensitivities
of the particular species are taken into account in determining what constitutes ‘disturbance’.
These issues are discussed further below in relation to the interpretation of Article 12.
Protection of Annex IV(a) species requires a species by species approach and, as a
consequence of this approach, the possibility of proposing amendments of the annexes
cannot be excluded.60
Species by species approach and species action plans
The European Commission guidance states that ‘efficient use of the different species
conservation instruments requires a species-by-species approach’.61 Article 12 requires
active protection measures for Annex IV(a) species. Species action plans can constitute an
52
European Commission Guidance 2007, para 52.
Ibid para 51.
54
Habitats Directive, Article 12(4).
55
Habitats Directive, Article 12(4).
56
European Commission Guidance 2007, para 53.
57
Habitats Directive, Article 2(3).
58
European Commission Guidance 2007, para 57.
59
Ibid para 58.
60
Rudfeld, L., Article 12 Working Group, “Contribution to the interpretation of the strict protection of
species (Habitats Directive Article 12)” 6 April 2005 page 8.
61
Ibid para 36.
53
17
effective means of implementing the special protection laid down in Article 12.62 Where such
plans or comparably comprehensive measures specifically tailored to Annex IV(a) species
are not in place, the ‘system of strict protection contains gaps’ entailing violation of the
Habitats Directive.63 Thus species protection plans are strongly recommended.64 Such plans
are also crucial in order to avoid problems with derogations (discussed below at Section
3.1.5).
3.1.4 Derogations from species protection
The significance of the special protection of the Annex IV(a) species is that there are no
exceptions to that protection unless carried out through formal derogation procedures,
subject to approval by the Commission according to Article 16 of the Habitats Directive.65
Similarly there is a formal derogation procedure in place for Birds Directive Annex I species
under Article 9 of the Birds Directive. A table of all the reported derogations in relation to four
Habitats Directive Annex IV(a) species and two Birds Directive Annex I species of particular
interest to Scotland is included in Appendix 3 of this report. The practice of using
derogations across the Member States is discussed further below after consideration of the
grounds for and conditions of using derogations.
Article 16 sets out rules whereby Member States may derogate from the protection
provisions of the Habitats Directive. Derogations, or exceptions to the special protection
afforded under Article 12 may only be issued under Article 16(1) provided that:
-
-
there is no satisfactory alternative;
they are not detrimental to the maintenance of the species at a favourable
conservation status in their natural range; and
the grounds for the derogation fall within the categories listed in Article 16(1).
Thus, Habitats Directive Article 16 lays down a three stage test with certain conditions to be
met for a derogation to be permissible. The European Commission Guidance states that the
derogation provisions need to be interpreted restrictively.66 They must deal with precise
requirements and specific situations and it is up to the competent authority in a Member
State to ensure that derogations do not go against the objectives of the Directive.67 Failure to
satisfy any of the three tests discussed below may render a derogation invalid and lead to
enforcement proceedings under European law.
62
Case C-183/05 Commission v Ireland [2007] E.C.R. I-137, para. 14. For example, action plans and
management plans for large carnivores have been compiled by the Large Carnivore Initiative for
Europe. See their website at www.icie.org. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
63
Case C-183/05 Commission v Ireland [2007] E.C.R. I-137, paras 14 and 18. See also case C383/09 Commission v France [2009] O.J. C312/26.
64
Trouwborst, A. 2010. Managing the Carnivore Comeback: International and EU Species
Protection Law and the Return of Lynx, Wolf and Bear to Western Europe. Journal of Environmental
Law, 22,(3), 347.
65
Although see also European Commission guidance 2007. Some countries have permanent
exceptions written into the Habitats Directive in relation to particular species. For the species of
interest to this study the exceptions are: (1) Grey Wolf (Canis Lupus): Latvia; Greek populations north
of the 39th parallel; Estonia; Spain (north of Duero); Bulgaria; Lithuania; Slovakia; Finland (within
reindeer management areas as defined in paragraph 2 of Finish Act No. 848/90 of 14 September
1990 on reindeer management); (2) Eurasian Beaver (Castor fiber): Latvia; Estonia; Lithuania;
Poland; Finland; Sweden (3) Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx): Estonia. There are no exceptions in relation
to the Brown Bear (Ursos arctos).
66
European Commission Guidance 2007, page 53. Supported by cases, Case C-247/85 Commission
v Belgium [1987] E.C.R. I-03029, para 7; Case C-262/85 Commission v Italy [1987] E.C.R. I-3073 and
Case C-118/94 WWF Italy v Regione Veneto [1996] E.C.R. I-1223, para 21.
67
European Commission Guidance 2007, para 54.
18
1. There is no satisfactory alternative
A derogation will only be allowed where there is no satisfactory alternative. The difficulty lies
in determining what does and does not constitute a ‘satisfactory’ alternative. It falls upon the
competent national authority (Scottish Natural Heritage in Scotland for terrestrial cases and
Marine Scotland for marine cases) to consider the solutions and make this evaluation. ECJ
case law68 has established that in determining a satisfactory alternative it is necessary to
address the following questions:

What is the problem or specific situation that needs to be addressed?

Are there any other solutions?

If so will these solve the problem or specific situation for which the derogation is
sought?
In any case recourse to derogation must be a last resort.69 According to the Advocate
General in Case C-10/96 the term ‘satisfactory’:
“may be interpreted as meaning a solution which resolves the particular problem facing
the national authorities, and which at the same time respects as far as possible the
prohibitions laid down in the Directive; a derogation may only be allowed where no other
solution which does not involve setting aside these prohibitions can be adopted”.
2. The derogation must not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species at a favourable
conservation status in their natural range
Derogations from the protection afforded by Article 12 may only be granted if ‘not detrimental
to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at favourable conservation
status in their natural range’.70 In April 2005 the Habitats Committee agreed on a
harmonised framework for evaluating the conservation status of species and habitats.71 The
conservation status of a species may be determined at a variety of population levels (from
global to local) and geographical scales (EU; biogeographical region; Member State;
individual Special Area of Conservation). In the absence of unambiguous jurisprudence from
the ECJ it is not clear which of these levels constitute the benchmark for the fulfilment of
Member States obligations under the Habitats Directive.72 The European Commission
guidance reiterates the general definition set out in Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive which
contains the main parameters (population, dynamics, range, sufficient habitat, prospects of
long term viability) for defining favourable conservation status. It also highlights the
possibility of specific definitions on a species by species basis.73 For the purpose of
derogations the EU Commission Guidance states that favourable conservation status should
be determined at population level.74 It goes on to explain that an appropriate assessment of
a specific derogation will in many cases have to be at both biogeographic or national and
lower (local or site) level in order to be meaningful in ecological terms and in order to give a
68
Case C-10/96 Ligue royale belge pour la protection des oiseaux ASBL and Societe d'etudes
ornithologiques AVES ASBL v Region Wallonne, intervener: Federation royale ornithologique belge
ASBL [1996] E.C.R. I-06775; Case C-182/02 Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux & Ors
(Environment and consumers) [2003] E.C.R. I-12105.
69
Advocate General’s Opinion in C-10/96 Ligue royale belge pour la protection des oiseaux ASBL
and Societe d'etudes ornithologiques AVES ASBL v Region Wallonne, intervener: Federation royale
ornithologique belge ASBL [1996] E.C.R. I-06775, para.33.
70
Habitats Directive, Article 16(1).
71
See, Document DocHab-04-03/03 rev.3 ‘Assessment, monitoring and reporting of conservation
status – preparing the 2001-2007 report under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive’. Available at
http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/monnat/home. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
72
Trouwborst, A. 2010. Managing the Carnivore Comeback: International and EU Species Protection
Law and the Return of Lynx, Wolf and Bear to Western Europe. Journal of Environmental Law, 22,
(3), 347.
73
European Commission Guidance 2007, para.16.
74
Ibid, para 50.
19
complete picture of the situation.75 The guidance emphasises the importance of ‘repeated or
regular monitoring’ to give an indication as to the ‘appropriateness and effectiveness of the
conservation measures chosen’.76
It is notable that, whilst derogations must not affect the conservation status negatively,77 the
case law and the European guidance confirm that the status does not necessarily have to be
favourable in advance before derogations can be granted.78 This may be significant where
derogations are sought for species that have been recently reintroduced and are not yet
established. In Case C-342/05 Commission v Finland 200779 the Court held that in
exceptional cases derogations may be permissible in respect of populations which are not at
favourable conservation status ‘where it is duly established that they are not such as to
worsen the unfavourable conservation status of those populations or to prevent their
restoration at a favourable conservation status’.80 The judgement explicitly affirms the
interpretation from the Commission’s 2007 guidance that the removal of one or a few
animals can be neutral in the sense that the prospect of a favourable conservation status is
not impaired.81
According to the Commission’s 2007 guidance, however, such a flexible approach is
possible only when the ultimate achievement of a favourable conservation status is
warranted through ‘a clear and developed framework of species conservation measures’.
There is, therefore, an important role to be played by species protection plans. Species
specific conservation plans, even though they are not legally required by the Directive, could
give guidance on the implementation of derogation schemes on a species-by-species
basis.82 In the view of the Commission these may be an essential tool in demonstrating the
compatibility of derogations with the Habitats Directive.83 The firmer the plan – i.e. the more
likely it will ensure a favourable conservation status – the greater the opportunity for granting
derogations where these are desirable. Such plans would have to be adapted regularly in
the light of improved knowledge and monitoring results.84
Derogations are only permissible when not detrimental to the favourable conservation status
of species ‘in their natural range’. How is ‘natural range’ to be determined for the purposes of
species reintroductions? The European Commission’s 2007 guidance provides little
assistance in determining the meaning of the ‘dynamic’ concept of ‘natural range’:
‘The natural range describes roughly the spatial limits within which the habitat or species
occurs…. A natural range as defined here is not static but dynamic: it can increase and
expand… If the natural range is insufficient in size to allow for the long-term existence of
that habitat or species, Member States are asked to define a reference value for a range
that would allow for favourable conditions and work towards this, for instance by fostering
of the current range. When a species or habitat spreads on its own to a new area or
territory or when a species has been reintroduced into its former natural range (in
75
Ibid, page 61.
Ibid.
77
Habitats Directive, Article 16.
78
Case C-342/05 Commission v Finland 2007 E.C.R. I-4713; Rudfeld, L., Article 12 Working Group,
“Contribution to the interpretation of the strict protection of species (Habitats Directive Article 12)” 6
April 2005, page 5.
79
See Appendix 5 to this report.
80
Case C-342/05 Commission v Finland 2007 E.C.R. I-4713, para 29.
81
Trouwborst, A. 2010. Managing the Carnivore Comeback: International and EU Species Protection
Law and the Return of Lynx, Wolf and Bear to Western Europe. Journal of Environmental Law, 22,
(3), 347.
82
European Commission Guidance 2007, page 63.
83
Ibid.
84
Ibid.
76
20
accordance with the rules in Article 22 of the Habitats Directive), this territory has to be
considered part of the natural range.’85
The guidance is, however, reasonably clear that when a species spreads on its own to a new
area or territory or when a species has been reintroduced into its former natural range (in
accordance with Article 22 of the Habitats Directive) this territory has to be considered part
of the natural range. By contrast, when individuals or feral populations of an animal species
are introduced deliberately or accidentally by man to locations where they have never
occurred naturally, or where they would not have spread naturally in the foreseeable future,
these are considered to be outside their natural range and consequently they are not
covered by the Directive.86 This presumably would cover circumstances where the species
formerly did occur naturally, but could not have spread naturally and would apply to any
accidental or deliberate release of animals.
3. The grounds for the derogation must fall within the categories listed in Article 16(1).
Article 16(1) also sets out five categories of grounds on which derogations may be granted:
(a) in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats;
(b) to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries
and water and other types of property;
(c) in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative
reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature
and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment;
(d) for the purpose of research and education, of repopulating and re-introducing
these species and for the breeding operations necessary for these purposes,
including the artificial propagation of plants;
(e) to allow, under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a
limited extent, the taking or keeping of certain specimens of the species listed in
Annex IV in limited numbers specified by the competent national authorities.
Conformity to these grounds must be demonstrated if countries are to avoid challenge by the
European Commission. The Finnish wolves case87 confirms that preventative killing of
species is only allowed where research has ‘established that the hunting is such as to
prevent serious damage’.88 Trouwborst has argued that derogations based on ground (c)
above (human safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those
of social or economic nature) are hardly conceivable in relation to the Eurasian Lynx and
Grey Wolf, which shun human contact.89 The review of derogations undertaken during this
research reveal that ‘public safety’ has, in fact, been cited amongst the grounds for
derogations involving the killing of the Eurasian Lynx in Finland, Latvia, Romania and
Sweden (see section 3.1.5. below and Appendix 3 to this report). Derogations on this ground
are, however, most common in relation to the Brown Bear. The Carnivore Guidelines state
that on rare occasions ground (c) may be invoked in respect of large carnivores ‘for the
removal of rabid, aggressive, habituated or other specific individual animals that
demonstrate unwanted behaviour’.90 The Commission has emphasised that Article 16(1)(a)
85
European Commission Guidance 2007, para 19.
Ibid.
87
C-342/05 Commission v Finland [2007] E.C.R. I-04713
88
Ibid, para 47; See Appendix 5 to this report.
89
Trouwborst, A. 2010. Managing the Carnivore Comeback: International and EU Species Protection
Law and the Return of Lynx, Wolf and Bear to Western Europe. Journal of Environmental Law , 22,
(3), 347.
90
Linnell, J., Salvatori V. & Boitani, L. 2008. Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for
Large Carnivores, a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE). Report prepared for the European
Commission July 2008, page 30.
86
21
cannot justify the removal of Eurasian Lynx, Grey Wolves or Brown Bears because of their
impact on common prey species such as roe deer or red deer.91
The prevention of serious damage to property (ground (b) above) is a common ground for
derogation for actions relating to the large carnivores and, also, to another species of
interest in this research: the Eurasian Beaver. In relation to large carnivores it covers the
elimination of so-called ‘problem animals’, but the killing of animals, for example the Grey
Wolf or the lynx, can be part of a long-term management strategy where the conservation
status of the species is favourable and hunting is limited and carefully regulated. The 2007
European Commission Guidance cited Latvia as an example where the Eurasian Lynx was
favourable at the national level and limited and carefully regulated lynx hunting forms part of
a comprehensive and long-term lynx management plan. According to the European
Commission Guidance published in 2007 this practice was in conformity with Article
16(1)(e).92 However, the European Commission’s composite report on derogations for the
period 2007-2008 concluded that the derogations relating to the lynx in that period could be
in conflict with the species protection measures set out in the Habitats Directive. In that two
year period 211 individuals were killed, compared to 112 in the previous reporting period.93
This highlights the dynamic nature of conservation objectives and the need to put adaptive
management strategies in place as the conservation status of the species changes.
Derogations, as illustrated above, must be justifiable on the basis that they will not be
detrimental to the maintenance of the species at favourable conservation status.
It is clear that any measures which relate to the capture or killing of Annex IV(a) species
must be ‘selective’, ‘limited’ and ‘strictly supervised’ by the competent national authorities.94
Article 15 lays down the conditions governing the capture or killing of animal species listed in
Annex IV(a) under such derogations. In carrying out actions under this article Member States
must prohibit the use of all indiscriminate means capable of causing local disappearance of,
or serious disturbance to, populations of the species concerned.95
It is also significant that derogation can be sought in the interest of protecting wild fauna and
flora and conserving natural habitats. This ground may be important in relation to
reintroduced protected species where the species has a negative impact on other protected
species and habitats.
The Birds Directive lays down a similar framework for derogations from the special
protection afforded to Annex I bird species and Article 9 provides:
Member States may derogate from the provisions of Articles 5 to 8, where there is no
other satisfactory solution, for the following reasons:
(a)
— in the interests of public health and safety,
— in the interests of air safety,
— to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water,
— for the protection of flora and fauna;
(b) for the purposes of research and teaching, of re-population, of re-introduction and for
the breeding necessary for these purposes;
(c) to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture,
keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers.
91
European Commission Guidance 2007, page 54.
Ibid, page 57.
93
See Appendix 3.
94
Habitats Directive, Article 16(1)(e).
95
Habitats Directive, Article 15.
92
22
3.1.5 Review of
species
derogations
for
protected
species,
particularly
reintroduced
The Habitats Directive Article 16(2) requires Member States to report to the Commission
every two years on the derogations applied under Article 16(1) and the Commission must
give its opinion within 12 months. If the European Commission considers that a Member
State is in breach of its obligations under Article 16, it will notify the State accordingly. If the
matter is not rectified to the Commission’s satisfaction it may bring the matter before the
European Court of Justice to obtain a ruling.96
It is difficult to get a clear picture of the extent of the use of derogations across the EU in
relation to reintroduced species, or indeed in relation to the management of relevant species
for the reasons discussed in the methodology to this report (section 2.1.2). Notwithstanding
these difficulties it is possible to make some pertinent observations about the use of
derogations. The number of derogations used by Member States varies considerably
between Member States: from 2 granted in Estonia to 1010 granted in the UK in 2007-2008.
In this period a substantial number of derogations were issued in the interests of public
health and safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest. A further
substantial number were connected with the prevention of serious damage, in particular to
crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property. A number related to
damage to livestock resulted from the Brown Bear, Grey Wolf and Eurasian Lynx e.g. in
Romania. Almost all the derogations granted under Article 16(1)(e) (to allow, under strictly
supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking or keeping of
certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV(a) in limited numbers specified by the
competent national authorities) relate to the selective killing of particular species e.g. the
Eurasian Lynx and Brown Bear in Sweden. The Commission found that derogations for the
killing of specimens are mainly applied to prevent serious damage to particular crops,
livestock, forests, fisheries, water and other types of property and in some cases to justify
the harvesting quota relative to a particular species.
A table of all the reported derogations in relation to four Habitats Directive Annex IV(a)
species (the Eurasian Beaver; the Eurasian Lynx; the Grey Wolf and the Brown Bear) and
two Birds Directive Annex I species (the White-tailed Eagle; the Red Kite) which are of
particular interest to this research is included in Appendix 3. Furthermore a survey was
conducted of the use of derogations for these species across all the European Member
States.
Over the whole reporting period (2001-2008), the derogations relating to these species were
as follows:

There were 1,487 derogations for the Eurasian Lynx. Of those, only two
derogations were for countries in which the Eurasian Lynx had been reintroduced
(one in France and one in Italy). The majority of the derogations relate to the
killing of lynx on grounds of public safety and prevention of serious damage to
livestock.
96
See for example C-342/05 Commission v Finland [2007] E.C.R. I-04713 where the Court held that
the Republic of Finland was in breach of the grounds of derogation in its authorising of wolf hunting.
23

There were 931 derogations for the Brown Bear97 relating to a minimum of 1,583
individuals.98 The vast majority of those derogations were for killing in the interest
of public safety and for the prevention of serious damage. Of the total number of
derogations for the Brown Bear, ten derogations related to countries in which the
Brown Bear had been reintroduced. The countries concerned were France and
Italy.99

There were 845 reported derogations for the Eurasian Beaver.100 Of those 845
derogations, 839 derogations relate to eight countries in which the Eurasian
Beaver has been reintroduced.101 623 of those were German derogations (see the
German case study on the Eurasian Beaver in Bavaria in section 3.3.6 below). A small
number of the derogations for the beaver relate to ‘research, education or
reintroduction’ and may, therefore, be viewed as positive conservation measures. The
majority relate to the capture, deliberate disturbance and killing of beavers and the
destruction of breeding sites or resting places in the interests of public safety or to
prevent serious damage to property.

There were 57 derogations relating to the Grey Wolf across the reporting period for a
minimum number of 398 individual animals. The majority of derogations relate to the
killing of Grey Wolves to prevent serious damage to livestock. The Grey Wolf has
not been reintroduced anywhere in Europe and there are, therefore, no
derogations in relation to reintroduced Grey Wolf populations. The Swedish case study
set out in section 3.3.3 below provides an example of the use of derogations in the
management of a species which has repopulated the country naturally.

There have been a small number of derogations for the Red Kite and White-tailed
Eagle in the period but in the majority of cases the means of and grounds for
derogation are unspecified.102 For both species the only other reintroduction project
outside the UK is in Ireland and no derogations for those species have been issued
in Ireland during the reporting period.
3.1.6 Species protection and derogation in Scotland
The relevant legislation implementing the Birds and Habitats Directives in Scotland is found
in a number of different sources and can be rather complex. GB’s regulatory framework for
nature conservation is set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and a vast array of
amending and implementing measures, which is further complicated by the considerable
97
This is the minimum number of derogations for this species because, for the reasons explained in
the research methods, the European Commission’s reporting procedure is inadequate. On 11
occasions over the reporting period countries have reported an ‘unspecified’ number of derogations
for the Brown Bear. Each of these instances has been counted as one derogation, but could clearly
relate to multiple derogations.
98
In 18 cases the number of individuals impacted by the derogation is reported as ‘unspecified’,
therefore, by counting each of these instances as one individual this provides the minimum number of
individual animals affected.
99
The only other country in which the Brown Bear has been reintroduced is Austria. It is not possible
to determine whether Austria has, in practice, derogated from the special protection afforded under
Article 12 in relation to the Brown Bear because Austria has not reported to the European
Commission on derogations in the time period examined in this study i.e. 2001-2008.
100
The points made in notes 97 and 98 above also apply to the reporting of beaver derogations and
mean that the figures cited must be taken as a minimum.
101
Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Germany and Hungary.
102
A number of these derogations must relate to species reintroduction projects. It is beyond the
scope of this research, however, to look behind the information set out in the European Commission’s
reporting process, which would be a very significant undertaking.
24
divergence between the law in Scotland and in England and Wales.103 The Habitats Directive
was implemented in GB by the Habitats (Nature Conservation etc) Regulations 1994 and
subsequent amending regulations104 which sought to bring it into line with the requirements
of the Habitats Directive.105 The 1994 Regulations have now been consolidated and updated
for England and Wales by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.106 In
Scotland, the Habitats Directive is transposed through a combination of the Habitats
Regulations 2010 (in relation to reserved matters) and the 1994 Regulations. The Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 has been extensively amended by the Nature Conservation
(Scotland) Act 2004 etc and most recently by the Wildlife and Natural Environment
(Scotland) Act 2011.
Bird species listed under Annex I of the Birds Directive are listed in the schedules to the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Red Kite is listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife
and Countryside Act and the White-tailed Eagle is listed on Schedules A1 and 1A of the Act,
which protects nests and birds throughout the year and was inserted into the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.
Protection for those species listed under the Habitats Directive is achieved in Scotland by
the 1994 Regulations as amended.107 In Scotland European Annex IV(a) species whose
natural range includes any part of Britain are listed under Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
(Note: The Eurasian beaver is not on this list at present because the desirability of
reintroducing the species in Scotland is still being assessed by SNH through a trial
reintroduction approach). In Scotland it is an offence to deliberately or recklessly kill, injure,
capture, any individual or to harass any individual or group of wild animals. It is an offence
deliberately or recklessly to disturb an individual while it is rearing or caring for its young or
occupying a structure or place used for shelter or protection. The offence extends to the
deliberate or reckless disturbance of animals in certain circumstances, not just while using a
place of rest or shelter. Further, deliberately or recklessly taking or destroying their eggs is
an offence. The protection for breeding and resting places is strict and now also includes
protection through the application of the Environmental Liability Directive.
In practical terms this means that land managers whose activities may disturb listed species
can only proceed if they meet strict criteria for the granting of a licence to enable a
derogation from the protection measures. The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland)
Act 2011 along with the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Amendment (Scotland)
Regulations 2011 have allowed Scottish Ministers to delegate all their species licensing
function to Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). The requirements of Article 16(1) of the Habitats
Directive are transposed into regulation 44 of the 1994 Regulations (as amended). Licences
are only available for certain purposes listed in regulation 44(2). The purposes include
scientific or educational purposes, conservation, ‘preserving public health and safety or other
imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic
nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’ and the
103
For comment on the complexity of UK nature conservation law and the issue of devolution see
C.T. Reid. 2009. Nature Conservation Law, 3rd Edition, W Green.
104
The main relevant regulations for present purposes include the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc)
Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/80); the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc)
Amendment (No.2) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/349); Offshore Marine Conservation
(Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1842); Conservation (Natural Habitats etc)
Amendment (No.2) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/425); Conservation (Natural Habitats etc)
Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/155).
105
Conservation (Natural Habitats &.) Regulations SI 1994/2716. The regulations did not fully
implement the Directive resulting in infraction proceedings in 2005 in case C-6/04 Commission v UK
[2005] ECR I-5261. See C.T. Reid and M. Woods. 2006. Implementing Nature Conservation Law.
Journal of Environmental Law, 18, (1), 135.
106
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 SI 2010/490.
107
See note 105 above.
25
prevention of serious damage to property including crops, livestock and fisheries. A licence
can be granted only where there is no satisfactory alternative and the action will not be
detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species at favourable conservation
status in their natural range.108 Licences can be granted to individuals or to a class of
persons and a licence must specify the species affected, the maximum number of
specimens that can be taken and the methods to be used.109
As is commonly the case, the UK has no legislation relating specifically to the reintroduction
of species. Reintroductions within the UK will be guided by the JNCC policy on
translocations.110 The IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions are accepted by all the UK
statutory nature conservation bodies. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)
policy for species translocations seeks to establish a policy for the UK which is in line with
the IUCN guidelines. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, makes no specific provisions
for the encouragement of reintroductions, but does strictly control releases to the wild. The
Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 includes provisions which are
important for species reintroduction, and will make it an offence to release, allow to escape,
or cause any animal to be outwith its native range.
3.1.7 Conclusions from the legal review
The significance of the special protection of the Eurasian Beaver under Annex IV(a) of the
Habitats Directive and to the White-tailed Eagle under Annex I of the Birds Directive is that
there are no exceptions to that protection unless carried out through formal derogation
procedures, subject to approval by the Commission according to Article 16 of the Habitats
Directive or Article 9 of the Birds Directive. However, the policy framework, the case law and
the experiences of the case study countries examined in the following part of this report
suggest that at European level a reasonably pragmatic approach is taken to the special
protection of these species.
The system of legal protection for animal species protected under Annex IV(a) of the
Habitats Directive is strict but the protection afforded to species under Article 12(1) of the
Habitats Directive leaves some uncertainty in the interpretation of the provisions and in the
flexibility for national implementation. EU policy guidance in relation to species protection
and interpretation, particularly in relation to ‘disturbance’ and ‘deterioration’ of breeding and
resting sites is instructive and there is a developing body of jurisprudence from the European
Court of Justice. The European policy guidance on the implementation of the strict protection
of species suggests that Member States can take a flexible and pragmatic approach to the
protection of these species. Nonetheless, there are difficult grey areas surrounding the
interpretation of both the Birds and Habitats Directives as illustrated by the discussion above
and the case law review (Appendix 5 to this report).
The only circumstances in which the deliberate taking or killing of species protected under
Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive or Annex I of the Birds Directive are permitted are:
where the country is excluded from delivering protection to that species under an
express exclusion in the annexes to the Directives; or
with a derogation under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive or Article 9 of the Birds
Directive.
108
Ibid, regulation 44(3); The Scottish Natural Heritage has produced guidance on the tests which is
available at http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B896394.pdf and http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B896418.pdf.
Last visited on 23 March 2012.
109
Ibid, regulation 45.
110
McLean, I.F.G. 2003. A Policy for Conservation Translocations of Species in Britain. Joint Nature
Conservation Committee. Available from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2920. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
26
The use of derogations under the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive have been reviewed
(Appendix 3 lists all the reported derogations for the six species of interest to this research:
Eurasian Beaver; Eurasian Lynx; Grey Wolf; Brown Bear; Red Kite and White-tailed Eagle)
and the results have been summarised and discussed in section 3.1.5 above. The research
reveals a surprisingly high recourse to derogations for specially protected species under
Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive and demonstrates that derogations to capture, kill or
otherwise interfere with protected species are part of the long-term management strategies
adopted for certain species in particular countries, e.g. the Eurasian Lynx in Latvia or the
Eurasian Beaver in Germany. The fact that a species has been reintroduced into a country in
order to restore it to its former natural habitat does not seem to discourage the use of
derogations to manage the species and Germany’s management of the Eurasian Beaver is a
particularly pertinent illustration of that point. Nevertheless, derogations can only be used in
circumstances where they meet the tests set out in Articles 16(1) of the Habitats Directive
and Article 9 of the Birds Directive.
3.2
Survey of European reintroductions of specially protected species
3.2.1 Survey of reintroductions of species listed under Annex I and Annex IV(a) of the Birds
and Habitats Directives respectively within European Union Member States
The review of Annex I of the Birds Directive and Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directives
revealed 499 species, or groups of species, listed on the annexes; although this figure
excludes species that are listed on the annexes and now known to be extinct. Once the
inventory of protected species relevant to this research was established, the geographic
range of each species was recorded; including the listing of all EU Member States where
individual species occur (Appendix 1). Having established the geographic distribution of the
species listed under Annex I of the Birds Directive and Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directives
within the EU, research was then undertaken to identify if any of the species had been
reintroduced within EU range states; and, if the reintroduction had occurred prior to, or after,
the relevant Directive was implemented (Appendix 1).
The survey revealed that, of the 499 species or groups of species listed under the relevant
annexes of the Birds and Habitats Directives, 65 species had been reintroduced to EU
Member States in a total of 129 separate reintroduction projects. Of the 65 species that been
reintroduced, 62 of these had been reintroduced since the appropriate legislation was
enacted in a total of 111 separate reintroduction projects.
Our review suggested reintroductions were seen as a conventional and valuable
conservation tool across EU Member States with a total of 23 EU Member States
reintroducing species listed under either Annex I of the Birds Directive or Annex IV(a) of the
Habitats Directives. Of these 23 countries all had reintroduced species since the relevant
legislation was implemented.
When the reintroductions were analysed by taxa there was a bias towards reintroductions of
vertebrates over invertebrates (see Table 2 below). Only seven invertebrate species from
just two taxonomic groupings (Lepidoptera – notably all four species were butterflies, and
Mollusca) were reintroduced from a total 128 invertebrate species of nine separate
invertebrate taxonomic groups listed. With only 5.5% of all invertebrate species listed having
been reintroduced into an EU Member State, this contrasts with the figure of 16% of all
vertebrate species listed having been reintroduced into an EU Member State. In total 58
species of vertebrate from all 5 taxonomic groups listed were reintroduced into an EU
Member State out of a total of 371 vertebrate species listed. (This research has only
reviewed national and regional, rather than local, reintroductions. It is possible that many of
the reintroductions for ‘smaller’ species are done at the local level.)
27
Of the six species of particular interest to this research (Eurasian Beaver, Brown Bear,
Eurasina Lynx, Grey Wolf, Red Kite and the White-tailed Eagle), all have been reintroduced
into an EU Member State with the exception of the Grey Wolf (see Table 4 below).
Interestingly the Eurasian Beaver has been reintroduced into 18 separate European Union
Member States, far more countries than any other species of particular interest to this study;
and a considerably greater number of times than any other species listed under Annex I of
the Birds Directive or Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directives.
Full details of the reintroductions of species listed under Annex I of the Birds Directive and
Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directives within EU Member States can be found in Appendix 1
of this report.
3.2.2 Survey of the presence of the six species of particular Interest to this research within
non-European Union European countries
The survey of the presence of the six species of interest to this research (Eurasian Beaver,
Brown Bear, Eurasian Lynx, Grey Wolf, Red Kite and White-tailed Eagle) in non-EU
European countries revealed the presence of at least one of the species in 13 separate nonEU European countries (Appendix 2). Additionally all six of the species of particular interest
were found to be present in at least one non-EU European country (see Table 3 below). The
three mammalian carnivores were found to be widespread across many non-EU European
countries, with the Beaver and the White-tailed Eagle also found in several countries.
However, the Red Kite could only be confirmed breeding in one non-EU European Country
(Switzerland), although it may breed in very low numbers (<10 pairs) in several non-EU
states in Eastern Europe and North Africa.
Re-introductions of these six species were not found to be as widespread in non-EU
countries as they were in EU Member States (see Table 4 below); probably reflecting the
healthier populations of these species that are generally found in these countries, as well as,
the lack of resources and technical expertise found in these countries to carry out
reintroductions. Full details of the presence and reintroductions of the six species of interest
in Non-EU European States can be found in Appendix 2 of this report.
28
Table 2. Taxonomic breakdown of species listed under Annex I and Annex IV(a) of the
Birds and Habitats Directives respectively, including analysis of reintroductions of
these species to EU Member States
No. Listed Under
Relevant Directive
No. Reintroduced to
EU Member State
%
Reintroduced
Mammals
42
13
31
Fish
8
2
25
Amphibians
48
9
19
Birds
190
27
14
Butterflies & Moths
41
4
10
Molluscs
33
3
9
Reptiles
83
7
8
Woodlice
1
0
0
Beetles
26
0
0
Preying Manti
1
0
0
Dragonflies
13
0
0
Grasshoppers & Crickets
11
0
0
Spiders
1
0
0
Sea Stars & Sea Urchins
1
0
0
Taxonomic Group
Table 3. Survey of the presence of the six species of particular interest to this
research within non-European Union European Countries with a comparison of the
presence of the six species in European Union countries
Number of EU Member States Present Number of Non‐EU European Countries Present Eurasian Beaver 20 6 Brown Bear 14 11 Eurasian Lynx 17 9 Grey Wolf 18 12 Red Kite 20 1 White‐tailed Eagle 23 6 English Common Name 29
Table 4. Survey of reintroductions of the six species of particular interest to this
research within non-European Union European countries
No. EU Member States
where Reintroduced
No. Non-EU European Countries
where Reintroduced
Eurasian Beaver 18 3 Brown Bear 3 0 Eurasian Lynx 6 1 Grey Wolf 0 0 Red Kite 3 0 White‐tailed Eagle 2 0 English Common Name
3.3
Case Studies
3.3.1 Background to the case studies
The reintroduction of certain species has the potential to cause concern among some land
owners or users as individuals will lack experience and knowledge of living with and
managing the species concerned. This is perhaps even more likely for species meriting
special protection under Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive or Annex I of the Birds
Directive. Understanding of the management options available; both within and out with the
legal system for reintroductions of specially protected species is essential for the creation of
effective reintroduction plans and also may help to allay concerns among local communities.
The objective of this case study review is to learn from the experiences of reintroductions
and subsequent species management within other European countries. Where there has
been no reintroduction of a particular species, as is the case for the Grey Wolf in Sweden,
the research examines how authorities and land users adapt to the presence of the species
as it naturally recolonises its former range. Six European case studies examine the
management of the following four species: Eurasian Beaver; Eurasian Lynx; Grey Wolf; and
White-tailed Eagle.
The six case study countries; Ireland, Sweden, Latvia, Netherlands, Germany, and Norway
provide an opportunity to examine a variety of management strategies for specially protected
species both within and out with the EU:
1.
Ireland provides the only other example of a reintroduction project for the White-tailed
Eagle within the EU. (Section 3.3.2.)
2.
Although the Grey Wolf has not been reintroduced into Europe, Sweden allows an
examination of the management strategies for this species as it naturally recolonises
its former range; a situation analogous to a reintroduction. (Section 3.3.3.)
3.
Latvia demonstrates an extremely challenging scenario where a history of inadequate
management has led to the presence of a large and high density population of
beavers. Due to its large population of beavers (c.80,000 -100,000) Latvia had an
exception in relation to its beaver population inserted into the Habitats Directive at the
time of its accession to the EU. (Section 3.3.4.)
4.
The Netherlands is one of the most heavily cultivated and densely populated states in
the world with a compact infrastructure and an extensive network of water
management channels. It represents an interesting case study as it relates to
30
reintroduction in an area of high human inhabitation and, also, in an area with complex
hydrological demands. (Section 3.3.5.)
5.
Germany provides a case study of an EU country reintroducing a large carnivore, the
Eurasian lynx, and also provides an example of a country with a long-established
beaver management programme. (Section 3.3.6.)
6.
Norway provides an excellent non-EU European case study as the climate and
habitats found in parts of Norway have many similarities to Scotland. This case study
examined the management of the Eurasian Beaver; Eurasian Lynx; Grey Wolf; and
White-tailed Eagle within Norway. Although not a member of the EU and, therefore,
not bound by the Habitats or Birds Directives, Norway is a signatory to the Bern
Convention.111 (Section 3.3.7.)
Each case study presents a summary of the findings of the telephone interviews with the
relevant stakeholders. A similar format is adhered to for each of the case studies, they
outline:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The background to the reintroduction or the presence of the species within the case
study country.
The legislative framework for protected species within the country, including
legislation specifically relevant to the species of interest to the case study.
The institutional framework within the country for species management, including the
competent authority; and, where available, the relevant policy framework.
Details of relevant derogations where appropriate.
Concerns arising from the presence of the species within the country
Current management strategies in place for the species within the case study
country.
Benefits resulting from the presence of the species within the country and, where
applicable, the reintroduction process.
The desk-based literature review contributed to the findings of points one to four, while
points five to seven were based on stakeholder telephone interviews. The aim was to
interview representatives of the following four areas for each case study:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The competent authority and/or other relevant government agencies.
The organisation responsible for the reintroduction project or involved in the
management of the relevant species.
Independent experts.
Representatives of land managers, land owners and land users.
In practice not all stakeholders would participate in the interviews; however, good coverage
was attained for many countries (see Table 5 below) and overall a range of views are
discussed within the case studies. Although the benefit of the presence of the species was
discussed with all interviewees, it is acknowledged that the research did not directly survey
the beneficiaries. Therefore, the discussions of the benefits or positive attitudes towards the
species concerned are anecdotal and not comprehensive.
111
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979) (Bern
Convention) (henceforth Bern Convention).
31
Table 5. Completed stakeholder interviews for case study countries
Country Competent Authority and/or Relevant Government Agencies Organisation Responsible for Reintroduction or involved in management of relevant species Independent Expert Representatives of Land Managers, Owners, or Users Ireland X X Sweden X X Latvia X X Netherlands X X Germany X X X X Norway X X 3.3.2
Ireland
Ireland is the only EU country outside the UK to have formally reintroduced the White-tailed
Eagle. As of 2011 77 individuals have been released in Ireland since 2007 and, as Whitetailed Eagles reach sexual maturity at five to six years of age, none have yet to breed –
although pairs have already formed. Immature birds range widely and have now been
recorded in most of the counties of Ireland. The White-tailed Eagle has been reintroduced by
the Golden Eagle Trust (GET) in partnership with several Irish Government agencies.
Legislative Framework
The following legislation implements the provisions of the Birds Directive and the Habitats
Directive in Ireland:112

Wildlife Act 1976 (Act No. 39 of 1976) as amended113
This Act and its amending provisions are the principle acts implementing the Birds
Directive and the Habitats Directive in Ireland. The relevant provisions relating to
specially protected species, including the White-tailed Eagle, are found in Part IV and
Part V of the Act.

European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997114 as amended115
These regulations implemented the Habitats Directive into Irish law.
112
The implementing legislation is accessible on the Irish government website
www.irishstatutebook.ie which sets out the Acts of the Irish Parliament (Oireachtas), statutory
instruments and a legislation directory. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
113
As amended by the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 (Act No. 38 of 2000) and the Wildlife
(Amendment) Act 2010 (Act No. 19 of 2010).
114
S.I. No. 94/1997.
115
The European Communities (Natural Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 (S.I. No. 233/1998)
These regulations amend the European Communities (Habitats Directive) Regulations, 1997 in order
to change the definition of Habitats Directive to include the amendments made by Council Directive
No. 97/62/EC of 27 October 1997
32

European Communities (Natural Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations 2005116 These
regulations further amend the Wildlife Act 1976 (as amended by the Wildlife
(Amendment) Act 2000) in order to bring domestic law into line with the Habitats
Directive.

European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011117
These regulations implement many of the objectives of the Birds and Habitats
Directives. In implementing the Birds and Habitats Directives, these regulations grant
the Minister power to prohibit activities which may "cause the deterioration of
natural habitats or the habitats of species or the disturbance of the species... in so far
as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the Habitats
Directive."118

European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) (Control of Recreational
Activities) Regulations 2010119
These regulations make it an offence to carry out recreational activities which are
likely to cause damage to specially protected sites or species. They provide the
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with the power to
address threats to sites and species protected under the Birds Directive and the
Habitats Directive caused by damaging recreational activities.

European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) (Restrictions on use of
Poisoned Bait) Regulations 2010120
These regulations protect the species listed in the Birds Directive Article 1 and
Annexes IV(a) and V(a) of the Habitats Directive, by prohibiting the poisoning of
these species by the use of poisoned animal bait. Poisoning can, however, be
authorised under these regulations by a licence issued by the Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Institutional Framework and Competent Authority

National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)121
This is the statutory nature conservation authority in Ireland. Its remit includes a duty to
develop the necessary policies and arrangements for the implementation of the EU Habitats
and Birds Directives. This includes the granting of licences under the Wildlife Act 1976 as
amended. The National Parks and Wildlife Service, a part of The Department of Arts,
Heritage and the Gaeltacht,122 works in partnership with the Golden Eagle Trust123 to
oversee and manage the White-tailed Eagle Reintroduction Project in Ireland.
Policy Framework

National Biodiversity Action Plan 2011-2016124
116
S.I. No. 378/2005.
S.I. No. 477/2011.
118
Regulation 28(1)(c).
119
S.I. No. 293/2010.
120
S.I. No. 481/2010.
121
See the National Parks and Wildlife Service website at www.npws.ie/. Last accessed 23 March
2012.
122
See the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht website at http://www.ahg.gov.ie/en/. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
123
See the Golden Eagle Trust website at http://www.goldeneagle.ie/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
124
Accessible in English from the Irish government website at http://www.ahg.gov.ie/en/. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
117
33
This action plan is a product of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and has
been “developed in line with the EU and International Biodiversity strategies and policies.”125
The purpose of the Biodiversity Action Plan is to outline the policy approach adopted by the
Irish Government to biological conservation and recovery. It sets out Ireland’s vision for
biodiversity with a list of seven strategic objectives; each with numerous targets and actions.
Target 10 covers the “continued rehabilitation or restoration of biodiversity elements”
although the strategy does not specifically address the issue of reintroduction of species.
Derogations
There have been no derogations under Article 9 of the Birds Directive in relation to the
White-tailed Eagle in Ireland.
Concerns or Conflicts with Land Management Activities
The Irish White-tailed Eagle reintroduction is in its early stages and no individuals have yet
to breed. Consequently the distribution and settlement patterns of the reintroduced eagles
are not yet known and it is too early to accurately determine what the impact of the Whitetailed Eagles will be. However, the following concerns about potential future problems have
been highlighted by the interviewees:




Livestock, specifically lamb, predations
Suppression of development of rural areas, including specific concerns over
windfarm developments.
Fish predation, specifically in relation to Salmon.
Spread of livestock disease.
The scientific evidence from both Norway and Scotland suggest lamb predation to be
extremely low, additionally there is no scientific evidence of White-tailed Eagles spreading
diseases or causing a decline in fish stocks. However, these are still perceived concerns for
some land users in Ireland.
An additional and significant concern was related, not to the management of the birds
themselves, but to the lack of consultation on the reintroduction and to the ineffective
provision of information to farmers following the reintroduction. It was reported by one
interviewee representing farmers that local hill farmers believe that they were not consulted
properly before the reintroduction and little or no effort was made to address or acknowledge
their concerns. A public meeting held before the reintroduction between farmers and
representatives of the GET saw the farmers vote overwhelmingly against the proposal.
Similarly that interviewee reported that once the reintroduction was initiated the farmers
believe there was little effort to communicate with them or listen to their concerns. A leaflet
was published by the GET on the reintroduction project but it was not effectively distributed
to farmers by the competent authority and consequently many farmers remained unsure
about the process.
This issue has been highlighted by the report, Farming the Inveragh Uplands, which relates
to an assessment of farmers attitudes towards wildlife, in which they were asked to express
a view about the reintroduction of the White-tailed Eagle:
125
‘Minister Deenihan Launches Second National Biodiversity Plan’, The Department of Arts, Heritage
and the Gaeltacht Press release 09 November 2011. Available at
http://www.ahg.gov.ie/en/PressReleases/2011/November2011PressReleases/htmltext,16237,en.html.
Last accessed 23 March 2012.
34
Most respondents (44.4%) held no opinion and felt they were not affected by the
reintroduction. 13.9% were in favour of the reintroduction and looked forward to seeing
the birds, while also being able to see the benefits of the project for attracting visitors in
the area. 11.1% had adopted what is best described as a ‘wait and see position’,
denoting a certain fear that lambs might be preyed upon, yet rejecting the outright
negative stance taken by a further 30.6%. Common across all respondents, however,
was the criticism that no consultation process had taken place prior to the reintroduction,
with farmers feeling that sometimes obscure objectives of nature conservation were given
precedence over local concerns.126
Management Strategies
As part of the monitoring plan, all the reintroduced birds are individually wing-tagged and
additionally some individuals also have radio-transmitters or satellite transmitters to aid in
analysing movement patterns. As the birds have yet to settle and breed there are few other
management plans in place, however; there are discussions about the provision of a
compensation scheme for farmers who can prove losses to the eagles and financing is
available to convert to indoor lambing. The co-ordinators of the reintroduction are also
looking to expand the provision of information to farmers.
Benefits
It is too early to tell what the benefits of White-tailed Eagle reintroduction in Ireland will be
but the interviewees suggested the reintroduction has already stimulated additional tourism
in County Kerry and is anticipated to create significantly more tourism revenue once the
birds begin nesting. However, one interviewee noted that the farmers see little of the
economic benefit from additional tourists. One interviewee also suggested that the
reintroduction of the White-tailed Eagle may have produced a cultural shift in education, with
environmental education taking a higher priority on the curriculum.
3.3.3 Sweden
The Grey Wolf was previously found across Scandinavia; however, it was hunted to
extinction by the beginning of the 20th century. Although it has not been reintroduced to
Sweden, it has naturally recolonised there - a situation analogous to a reintroduction. Since
the first individuals crossed over from Russia in the 1970s the population has now expanded
to c.275-300 individuals.
Legislative Framework

Swedish Environmental Code 1998127
The Environmental Code consolidates fifteen prior Acts. It sets out the fundamental
environmental rules which facilitate the creation of more detailed and specific laws
to govern environmental issues.128

Species Protection Ordinance129
126
Kramm, N., Anderson, R., O’Rourke, E., Emmerson, M., O’Halloran, J. & Chisolm, N. 2010.
Farming the Inveragh Uplands: A tale of humans and nature. University College Cork. The report is
the product of a three year research project studying the links between biodiversity and farming
systems on the Inveragh peninsula.
127
Available in English from the Swedish Government website at www.sweden.gov.se.Last accessed
23 March 2012.
128
Part Two, Chapter 8, Section 1 specifies that the government has the power to issue rules relating
to the prohibition of the killing or capturing of wild animals.
129
Species Protection Ordinance 2007:845. Not available in English.
35
The Species Protection Ordinance creates more specific rules than the general
provisions within the Swedish Environmental Code. The Species Protection
Ordinance governs the taking, killing, trading or capturing of protected animal
species; thus implementing aspects of Part Two Chapter 8 of the Environmental
Code. In doing so this Ordinance implements aspects of the Birds and Habitats
Directives.
Institutional Framework and Competent Authority

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (‘Swedish EPA’)130
The Swedish EPA is an agency which works on behalf of the Swedish Government. It
is responsible for carrying out research into environmental issues and developing and
implementing environmental policy. The Swedish EPA is also responsible for
managing the land environment in Sweden including coordinating work on the Swedish
Natura 2000 sites. The Swedish EPA works in coordination with other governmental
bodies in managing environmental issues. These include, but are not limited to, the
Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management131 (SwAM) which is responsible
for managing the sea and freshwater environment in Sweden and the Swedish Forest
Agency132 which is responsible for managing forest environments. The Swedish EPA
also works closely with local county administrative boards to coordinate Actions Plans
for endangered species. (For example, see the National Action Plan for the Whitetailed Eagle (Haliaeetus Albicilla) 2009 to 2013).133
Policy Framework

A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life134
The Swedish Government has established 16 environmental quality objectives which
form the basis for its national environmental policy. These objectives include the
delivery of ‘A rich diversity of plant and animal life’ through the conservation of
species and their habitats and the sustainable use of species for hunting and fishing.
Responsibility for fulfilling this policy objective lies with the Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency.135
Derogations
Sweden has issued derogations in each reporting period relating to the killing of the Grey
Wolf to prevent serious damage to livestock (see the table of derogations in Appendix 3 to
this report).136
130
See the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvardsverket) website at
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/.Last accessed 23 March 2012.
131
See the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management website at
http://www.havochvatten.se/en/start.html.Last accessed 23 March 2012.
132
See the Swedish Forest Agency website at http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/en/.Last accessed 23
March 2012.
133
Available on the Swedish EPA website in Swedish only.
134
Available in English from the Environmental Objectives Portal website at http://www.miljomal.se/Global-meny-/In-English/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
135
See also, The Swedish Government Inquiries, Report of the Inquiry on the Environmental
Objectives System, to the Minister for the Environment 2009. Available in English from the Swedish
Government website at http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/13/55/25/8ae6a419.pdf. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
136
Although beyond the scope of this case study it is also interesting to note that Sweden has also
issued derogations across the reporting period in relation to the Eurasian Beaver and Brown Bear.
36
Concerns
Although it was not possible to interview representatives of land user groups the
stakeholders interviewed did discuss the following concerns arising from the presence of
Grey Wolves:

Predation of young reindeer and interference with reindeer herding.

Attacks on hunting dogs and subsequent disruption of hunting activity; an important
economic activity in some parts of rural Sweden.

Predation of deer and moose, especially the young, causing the possible decline of
quarry species.

Predation of livestock, specifically lambs.

Some rural inhabitants are anxious about Grey Wolf attacks and are afraid of letting
their children walk to school unsupervised or walking dogs in Grey Wolf areas.
Mitigation Strategies

Licensed hunting
The interviewees cited licensed hunting as the main management option for the Grey
Wolf in Sweden and suggested that there is a deliberate policy to keep the north of
Sweden, where reindeer populations are large, Grey Wolf-free. (The interviewees were
not aware of any legal challenge to this strategy (see comments below)).

Use of electrified fences to prevent predation during the lambing season.
In practice, desk-based research has shown that the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency had licensed the hunting of Grey Wolves during specific dates with the years of 2009
and 2010137 without justifiable basis for derogation under the Habitats Directive. In January
2010 four environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) (the Swedish Society for
Nature Conservation, WWF/Sweden, the Swedish Carnivore Association and Animal
Welfare Sweden) wrote to the European Commission claiming that the 2009 decision on the
licensed hunting of Grey Wolves contravened EU law. The NGOs asserted that the licensed
hunt breached Article 12 of the Habitats Directive and that the exemptions in Article 16 do
not allow hunting for the purpose of management of a species that did not have a favourable
conservation status in the region. Further, they argued that restrictions on the reindeer
herding areas transgressed Article 12. The Commission examined the complaint and in June
2010 wrote an initial letter to the Swedish government. There followed communications and
meetings throughout the remaining year. In December, the Commission issued a
summarising document, arguing that licensed hunting contravened the Habitats Directive.
When the Swedish government continued with its policy of licensed Grey Wolf hunting, the
European Commission was forced to initiate enforcement proceedings against Sweden by
way of a formal notice to the Swedish government at the end of January 2011. The Swedish
government replied to the Commission in late March. The Commission’s reasoned opinion
came in June and the Government responded.138 A second licensed hunt was called off
137
On 17 December 2009, the Swedish government granted the opening of a wolf hunting season as
of 15 January 2010, allowing the shooting of 20 wolves. More than 6.700 hunters participated in the
hunt. This decision was the second one to authorise licensed hunting in Sweden (on 17 December
2009, Sweden allowed the hunting of 28 wolves in early 2010).
138
For a detailed discussion see J. Darpö, Brussels Advocates Swedish Grey Wolves, Swedish
Institute for European Policy Studies, European Policy Analysis September Issue 2011. Available at
http://www.sieps.se/en/publikationer/brussels-advocates-swedish-grey-wolves-20118epa. Last
accessed 23 March 2012; Reasoned Opinion addressed to Kingdom of Sweden on account of its
failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 and 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union, Brussels 16 June 2011, 2010/4200, K(2011) 4030 Final.
37
following the reasoned opinion.139 The Swedish government claims that there is no official
policy to keep the north of Sweden Grey Wolf free and there will be no licensed hunting of
Grey Wolves in Sweden in 2012.140
In short, the infringement case concerns breach of Article 12 of the Habitats Directive,
without having legal grounds for derogation under Article 16.1(e). The Commission's
concerns relate to Sweden's use of a derogation for a licensed hunt, not its separate use of
specific derogations for shooting of a more limited number of Grey Wolves in order to
prevent serious damage to livestock. Aspects of Swedish Grey Wolf policy which raise
questions in respect of Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive include: the unfavourable
conservation status of the Swedish Grey Wolf population; the arbitrary ceiling of 210 set for
the number of Grey Wolves in Sweden; and the absence of a management plan for this
protected species. The Finnish Grey Wolf case has formed an important part of the debate
over Sweden’s approach to Grey Wolf management.141
Benefits

3.3.4
Although there is unease in rural areas, many of the urban population of Sweden
appreciate the Grey Wolf’s presence.
Latvia
Latvia was one of the first European countries to reintroduce the Eurasian Beaver, having
started their reintroduction in the 1930s. Once reintroduced the Latvian Beaver population
remained at manageable levels throughout the Soviet period. However, with the fall of the
Soviet Union came major land use changes in Latvia, notably the large scale abandonment
of agricultural land. The abandoned flat and low-lying agricultural land contained many
thousands of kilometres of drainage ditches which soon became overgrown with Willows
(Salix sp.), thus creating an ideal habitat for the beaver to thrive with little risk of human
disturbance. This unique set of circumstances has resulted in the establishment of an
extremely high density of beavers in Latvia, which now has an estimated population of
80,000-100,000 individual beavers.142 As Latvia had a large self-sustaining and viable
population of Eurasian Beavers upon accession to the EU in 2003 it had a permanent
exception in relation to the Eurasian Beaver inserted into the Habitats Directive.143
Legislative Framework
The relevant legislation framework addressing beaver management in Latvia includes:144
139
Europa Press Release ‘Commission urges Sweden to respect nature legislation in protecting
endangered wolves’, Brussels, 27 January 2011. Available at
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/95&format=HTML. Last accessed 23
March 2012.
140
See J. Darpö, Brussels Advocates Swedish Grey Wolves, Swedish Institute for European Policy
Studies, European Policy Analysis September Issue 2011. Available at
http://www.sieps.se/en/publikationer/brussels-advocates-swedish-grey-wolves-20118epa. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
141
C-342/05 Commission v Finland [2007] E.C.R. I-04713.
142
Halley, D. J. & Rosell, F. 2002. The beaver's reconquest of Eurasia: status, population
development and management of a conservation success. Mammal Review, 32, 153.
143
Habitats Directive Annex 4 as amended expressly excludes the population of beavers in Latvia
from the special protection provisions.
144
Fully updated legislation is available in Latvian from the Latvian Journal website (www.likumi.lv.
Last accessed 23 March 2012), a website maintained by a state company. A English translation of the
Hunting Act can be accessed on the following website: http://www.vvc.gov.lv/. Last accessed 23
March 2012.
38

Hunting Act (107 (2872), 23 July 2003)
The Beaver is treated as a game species in Latvia and is, therefore, regulated under
the Hunting Act 2003. The Hunting Law and its associated regulations constitute the
legislative framework managing all hunting activities in Latvia. Authority to grant
licences to hunt is bestowed upon the State Forestry Service. This Act also makes it
illegal to hunt without a licence.

Hunting Regulations (183 (2948), 30 December 2003)
These regulations outline the species which may be hunted and the periods during
which they may be hunted. Regulation 3.2.15 expressly permits the unlimited hunting
of the Beaver from the 1st of August to the 30th of April. Read in combination with the
Hunting Act, a licence can be acquired from the State Forestry Service to hunt the
Eurasian beaver between the 1st of August and the 30th of April.
Institutional Background

State Forest Service145
The State Forest Service is a state administration civil institution which is supervised
by the Ministry of Agriculture. It is responsible for managing the state owned forests in
Latvia and implementing government policy. ‘LVM Recreation and Hunting’ is
responsible for managing hunting within those forests. As the beaver is treated as a
game species in Latvia, the main body responsible for the Beaver in Latvia is the State
Forestry Service. However, the Latvian Nature Conservation Agency intervenes in the
management of the beaver in cases where the presence of beaver impacts on
protected species and habitats.

Nature Conservation Agency146
The Nature Conservation Agency is the body responsible for the management of
Specially Protected Nature Territories in Latvia (including Natura 2000 sites) which are
the primary mechanism of protecting endangered species. The Nature Conservation
Agency also works closely with Regional Environmental Protection Boards and is
responsible for the issuing of licences to reintroduce species into Lativa. The Nature
Protection Agency is also responsible for the coordination and supervision of Species
or Habitats Management Plans arising from Section 17 of the Law on the Conservation
of Species and Biotopes. For example see the Latvian State Forestry Research
Institute’s Action plan for the conservation of Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in Latvia.147
Also see the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) conservation plan.148

The Latvian Hunters Association (LATMA)149
This non-governmental organisation has been established with the mandate of
promoting hunting, providing advice to hunters and to cooperate with governmental
bodies in the creation of hunting laws.
145
See the State Forest Service website at http://www.lvm.lv/eng/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
See the Nature Conservation Agency website; at
http://www.daba.gov.lv/public/eng/nature_conservation_agency/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
147
Available in English from the State Forest Service website at
http://www.daba.gov.lv/upload/File/DOC/SAP_Lusis-07_EN.pdf. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
148
Available in English from the State Forest Service website at
http://www.daba.gov.lv/upload/File/DOC/SAP_Vilks-08_EN.pdf. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
149
Information regarding the Latvian Hunters Association can be accessed in Latvian on their website;
http://www.latma.lv/lv/asociacija/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
146
39
Policy Background

National Programme on Biological Diversity150
The National Programme on Biological Diversity outlines several strategic objectives
including; to “maintain and improve natural species diversity” and to “maintain and
improve the diversity of ecosystems and their natural elements”. The National
Programme on Biological Diversity contains a chapter dedicated to Nature protection.
Within this chapter there are provisions encouraging the promotion of beaver
hunting.151
Derogations
Latvia has a permanent exception in relation to the Eurasian Beaver inserted into the
Habitats Directive. Therefore, it does not need to make recourse to derogations in relation to
this species.152
Concerns
All of those interviewed in relation to Latvia raised concerns about the extremely high
densities of beaver found there. Concerns were raised surrounding the beaver’s impact on
agriculture, forestry, transportation, publicly owned spaces and private properties. Specific
problems included:





Widespread impacts on the state and private forestry industries; a significant export
industry for the Latvian economy. Most damage relates to flooding of forested areas
and subsequent tree mortality but flooding of access tracks is also an issue.
Widespread impacts on agricultural land including; flooding of crops, damage to
drainage ditches, damage to irrigation channels and damage to flood defences.
Disruption to infrastructure e.g. flooding of roads and damage to flood protection
schemes.
Impacts on public lands e.g. tree felling in public parks, including in the capital Riga
Localised negative impacts on other European protected species e.g. Freshwater
Pearl Mussel Margaritifera margaritifera.153
Management Strategies for the Eurasian Beaver
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the large scale abandonment of agricultural land
in Latvia resulted in a network of overgrown irrigation channels and drainage ditches which
have created the ideal habitat for beavers to thrive. Beaver populations in Latvia have
increased exponentially in the last two decades and the population still appears to be
increasing. The current population of c.100,000 beavers can therefore be attributed to the
150
Approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on 1 February 2000. Available in English from the Ministry of
Environmental Protection and Regional Development website at
http://www.varam.gov.lv/eng/dokumenti/politikas_planosanas_dokumenti/?doc=3304. Last accessed
23 March 2012.
151
See the National Programme on Biological Diversity, para 16.1.10.
152
Although beyond the scope of this case study it is worth noting that since accession Latvia has
used derogations fairly extensively for the killing of Lynx lynx. The European Commission Report on
Derogations (European Commission, Composite European report on derogations in 2007-2008
according to Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive) 2011) concluded that the derogations relating to Lynx lynx
could be in conflict with the species protection measures set out under the Habitats Directive (see
appendix 3 to this report).
153
Margaritifera margaritifera, Protected under Annex V of the Habitats Directive.
40
lack of land management over a wide area which resulted in the creation of a perfect habitat
from which beavers could establish themselves and then spread into other areas.
In Latvia there is no co-ordinated, national strategy to control the expanding beaver
population or to decrease current densities. The lack of government intervention is seen by
many, especially those in the forestry industry, as a major national problem and a barrier to
solving the issue. Current beaver management is locally centred and consists of the
following:

Beavers are classed as a game species under Latvian law and therefore the
government agency responsible for beaver management is the State Forestry Service.
However, in practice, the State Forestry Service has little to do with controlling
Beavers, other than on state forestry land.

Hunting rights in Latvia are attached to land ownership and cannot be separated;
however, land owners can lease their land to hunters associations or individual
hunters. It is the responsibility of whoever uses the hunting rights of a land to keep the
Beaver populations under control on that land. Not only are the hunting rights on
private land leased in this way but the hunting rights of public land (including stateowned forests) are also often leased to hunting associations.

Consequently, local hunters are the managers of beaver populations across much of
Latvia. However; hunters have little desire to hunt beavers as there is little skill
involved; it is not a trophy species; and there is only a small market for its fur, meat or
secretions.

Subsequently most hunting of beavers is done by landowners putting pressure on
hunters to manage the beaver populations. Many hunters resent this obligation and
would prefer to invest time in managing other game species e.g. deer.

In an effort to increase the hunting of beavers in Latvia the government has recently
extended the hunting season to the longest of any mammal in Latvia (1st August to 30th
April)154 and has placed unlimited quotas throughout the country;155 however, these
efforts do not seem to have been effective.

The solution to reaching a lower population of beavers in Latvia is seen by many to be
motivating of recreational hunters to kill more beavers; however, no one has yet
developed a method to achieve this.

There is little interest in non-lethal management of beavers within Latvia as there is
nowhere available to translocate problem beavers within Latvia.

Non-lethal management strategies, including buying and maintaining beaver
fencing, beaver paint, beaver netting and other anti-beaver devices, are not
considered realistic in Latvia due to the prohibitive cost.
Benefits

154
155
All our interviewees mentioned the biodiversity benefits of beavers in Latvia; however,
none of our interviewees could describe any other benefits to presence of beavers in
Latvia.
Hunting Regulations (183 (2948), 30 December 2003), Regulation 3.2.15.
Hunting Regulations (183 (2948), 30 December 2003), Regulation 3.2.
41
3.3.5 Netherlands
The beaver was previously extinct in the Netherlands but a reintroduction project began in
1988. The population is still relatively small with c.600 individuals but numbers are
increasing. Of the twelve provinces in the Netherlands, beavers are present in ten, although
in some provinces only a small number of individuals are present.
Legislative Framework

The Nature Conservation Act 1998156 (25 May 1998) as amended
(Natuurbeschermingswet 1998)

Flora and Fauna Act 1998 (Act of 25 May 1998, containing rules for the protection
of wild plant and animal species (Flora and Fauna))157

Hunting Regulations (§ 1. Hunting Acts, falconer deeds and deeds decoy)158
Institutional Framework and Competent Authorities

National State Forestry Agency (Staatsbosbeheer)
Founded in 1899, Staatsbosbeheer is an organisation commissioned by the
Government of the Netherlands. Its responsibilities include nature conservation and it
is responsible for managing a significant proportion of the nature reserves within the
Netherlands some of which are registered Natura 2000 sites. Its general mission is to
guarantee the quality of the green living environment for humans, plants and animals
and to stimulate a lasting relationship between people and nature for now and future
generations.

Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat)159
The Rijkswaterstaat is the overarching government body responsible for the
management and maintenance of the main water systems in the Netherlands. It, and
its 10 regional agencies, work closely with many other organisations including the
Association of Regional Water Authorities160 which is comprised of 25 regional water
authorities. Significantly the Rijkwaterstaat, along with many other institutions, are
responsible for the management and maintenance of waterways and dykes, which
can be damaged by beaver activity.

Beaver Working Group of the Dutch Mammal Society161
The Beaver Working Group, recently renamed as ‘CaLutra’, carries out monitoring
studies and research of the beaver population in the Netherlands. Furthermore it
provides a network of people to collect data on the spread of the beaver and to look
for solutions or propose mitigation strategies where possible.
156
Available in Dutch at http://wetten.overheid.nl/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
Available in Dutch at www.st-ab.nl. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
158
Available in Dutch at www.st-ab.nl. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
159
See the Rijkswaterstaat website at http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/en/. Last accessed 23 March
2012.
160
See the Association of Regional Water Authorities website at http://english.uvw.nl/. Last accessed
23 March 2012.
161
See the Dutch Mammal Society website at http://www.zoogdiervereniging.nl/. Last accessed 23
March 2012.
157
42
Policy Background

Biodiversity Works For Nature For People Forever, July 2008162
The Government of the Netherlands, through various ministerial bodies, is primarily
responsible for the production of environmental policy. Biodiversity Works outlined the
Dutch Government’s core objectives for addressing biodiversity loss in the 4 years
from 2008 to 2011. This is the most recent, relevant government policy publication
available. Key policy objectives include; the preservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity, halting biodiversity loss, increasing public awareness through education
and communication of the importance of biodiversity. The programme also describes
the relevant national and international policy framework. It does not specifically
address the issue of species reintroductions.

The Habitat-Based Approach: A New Species Policy September 2007163
A special group was set up in 2003 called the Task Force Impuls Soortenbeleid which
had the objective of developing cooperation and integration of environmental policy. It
has produced this report which details a different policy approach to management of
species within the Netherlands. The habitat-based approach, which involves grouping
together species protection based on the type of supporting habitat for those species,
is outlined in this document.

Nature For People, People For Nature July 2000164
This older document outlined nature policy and consolidated a number of prior
environmental policy strategies. This document focused on the environmental strategy
and addressed the translation of the strategy into a policy programme.
Derogations
The Netherlands has issued derogations in the 2007-2008 biennial reporting period in
relation to the Eurasian Beaver. The majority of the derogations allowed deterioration or
destruction of breeding sites or resting places (see the derogations in Appendix 3 to this
report). No animals were killed.
As the beaver population is still small the interviewees reflected that there have been few
problems to date; although they noted that as the population increases the beavers are
increasingly impacting on human activities. Current concerns include:

Beavers are consuming crops, particularly beetroot.

The Netherlands is reliant on an extremely dense network of dykes across the country.
Beavers have been recorded burrowing into dykes, up to 20m on occasions, and this
causes concerns among the dyke management authorities.

Beavers only build dams when water levels are too low; however water levels in the
dykes are relatively stable and consequently beavers do not tend to build dams in the
Netherlands. Therefore, there is little concern arising from dam building activities.
162
Available from the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation website at
http://english.minlnv.nl/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
163
Ibid.
164
Ibid.
43
Management Strategies
Beavers are monitored intensely within the Netherlands, including through a series of
microphones running along the dykes to listen for the squeaks beavers make as they move
around. This monitoring allows for problems to be identified quickly, for example rangers
monitor the beaver sites to assess their impacts on dykes and immediately report any
problems to the relevant authorities. Specific responses to beaver damage include:

Under Dutch nature conservation legislation, farmers are compensated for damage to
their crops as a result of beaver activities. But only if the farmer fully obeys all nature
conservation regulations.

Dykes are being modified to make them ”beaver-proof”; for example special coatings
are applied, stone reinforcements are placed on the dykes, and special fencing is
erected to deter the animals. Additionally it has been realised that beavers are not
attracted to dykes if there is no tall vegetation in the vicinity; subsequently forestry
management is being used to deter beavers from some areas.

Additionally dykes and the surrounding landscape can be engineered to make them
unattractive to beavers if the authorities wish to keep beavers away from a certain area
e.g. dykes protecting housing developments. New developments are beginning to
incorporate designs that are unattractive to beavers.
Benefits

Biodiversity has benefitted from the beaver’s ecosystem engineering.

Many members of the public are fond of the beaver and it receives overwhelming
public support.

Monitoring work on the beavers is often undertaken by youth volunteers and is
providing an excellent opportunity for young people to enjoy nature and discover a
career in conservation.

Increased tourism, especially to join in night-time beaver safaris.
3.3.6 Germany
Germany presents an interesting case study as it is a European Union Member State that
not only has a long-established Eurasian Beaver reintroduction programme, but also has a
recently established reintroduction programme for a large mammalian carnivore, the
Eurasian Lynx. The populations of both species appear to be healthy and increasing.
Eurasian Beavers were reintroduced into Bavaria in the 1960s and since then the population
has expanded to cover most of Bavaria. It is estimated to be between 12,000 and 15,000
individuals. In many parts of Bavaria the Beaver population has reached the natural carrying
capacity of the land, hence the rapid geographic range expansion of this species.
The Eurasian Lynx was reintroduced into Harz National Park in central Germany in 2000 and
the population is still small (<50 individuals) although reintroduction of new individuals has
now ended. The reintroduction project began in the state of Lower Saxony; however, the
population range has now extended into the neighbouring states of Saxony-Anhalt and
Thuringia.
44
Legislative Framework
The German legal system operates under a federal structure which makes direct comparison
with the Scottish legal system potentially problematic. Federal states within Germany, while
subject to federal law, each adopt differing environmental laws addressing reintroduction and
species protection. The relevant legislation described here relates to three of the sixteen
states of the Federal Republic of Germany, namely, Bavaria, Lower Saxony and SaxonyAnhalt. For the purposes of this study focus will be on the state of Bavaria for an analysis of
beaver reintroduction and the states of Lower Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt for the lynx. The
following provisions outline the federal law provisions applicable to all states and the regional
state specific provisions.
Federal Law

Law on nature protection and landscape conservation (Federal Nature Conservation
Act) 29 July 2009 (BNatSchG) as amended.165
The Federal Nature Conservation Act is the overarching federal law which implements
the Birds and Habitats Directives in Germany. (Prior to this act, the federal law created
a framework on nature conservation to be implemented by states within state specific
laws).

The Federal Nature Conservation Act centralises the creation of environmental law to
the federal government. It deals with the creation of the Natura 2000 network and
outlines the special protection afforded to certain types of fauna and flora.

The provisions for special protection for European protected species are set out in
section 44 of the BNatSchG. It is an offence: to pursue, capture, injure or kill any wild
specimen of specially protected fauna species; to disturb such species, particularly
during periods of breeding, rearing hibernation and migration; and to take away,
damage or destroy breeding sites and resting places of specially protected species,
regardless of their stage of development.166

The Act makes provision for exceptions or derogations from this special protection
under section 45.167 Under section 45(7) the Federal competent nature conservation
authorities may grant exceptions in the following circumstances:
1.
To prevent considerable damage to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, water management
or other economic activities;
To protect wild flora and fauna;
For the purpose of research and education, of repopulating and reintroducing or
measures of artificial rearing or reproduction serving these purposes;
In the interests of public health, public safety, including the defence and protection of
the citizens and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment;
or,
For other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
2.
3.
4.
5.
165
Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (Federal Nature Conservation Act) (current version 2012. Last major
amendment 29.07.2009). A translation is available in English from the World Intellectual Property
Organisation website at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
166
Ibid. Sections 44(1), (2) and (3).
167
Ibid, Section 45. . Section 45 states that the provisions of Article 16 of the Habitats Directive and
Article 9 of the Birds Directive are to be observed. However, it goes on to state that the governments
of the Lander may grant general exceptions by means of regulations.
45

An exception may only be granted if there are no reasonable alternatives and there is
no deterioration to the maintenance of the population of a species, and insofar as
Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive does not contain further requirements.

In addition to the power of the competent Federal authorities to grant exceptions, the
state governments or Länder may grant general exceptions by means of regulations
(also by virtue of section 45(7)) and this is further discussed below.
Bavarian Legal Framework

Bavaria Nature Protection Law (Law over the protection of nature, the care of the
landscape and the recovery in free nature (Bavarian nature protection law BayNatSchG) 1 March 2011).168

Regulation on the permission of exceptions of the protection regulations for particularly
protected animal and plant types (Protection of species - legal exception regulation AAV) From 3 June 2008169

This Act contains a number of exceptions from the protection afforded in the Federal
Nature Conservation Law. Section 2 provides a special exception for the beaver which
amounts to a general derogation from the special protections afforded under the
Habitats Directive. In order ‘to prevent considerable economic damage and for reasons
of public safety’ sections 2 to 7 permit the capture or killing of beavers in certain
circumstances. Section 2(1) it permits the killing of beaver between 1st September and
15th March as a general exception to BNatSchG.

Further, section 2(1) provides that beaver dams (always excluding occupied beaver
lodges) may be removed provided that occupied beaver lodges are not disturbed. The
implications of this provision in practical, beaver management terms are discussed
below under management strategies and are further considered in the discussion
section at the end of this chapter.

Exceptions under section 2(1) are allowed in enumerated circumstances:
1.
In the areas of sewage works, channels for water power, hydroelectric power stations
and endangered dams and flood protection plants, like dykes, bunding and dams.
In relation to public roads specified by the competent authority where necessary to
prevent significant economic damage or for the purpose of public safety, provided that
there is no satisfactory alternative and that the population remains at favourable
conservation status.
2.

The exception does not apply in nature reserves and national parks specified in
BNatSchG, nor in areas of community significance as specified in Bavarian nature
protection law (BayNatSchG).
168
This Act governs the protection of the flora and fauna in Bavaria. It amends the earlier Bavarian
Nature Protection Law of 23 December 2005 and the Nature Protection Auxiliary Law of 29 June
1962. Part 4 deals with the protection of plants and animals and the creation of the Natura 2000
network. A copy of the text is available in German at http://www.gesetze-bayern.de/. Last accessed
23 March 2012.
169
A copy of the text is available in German at http://www.gesetze-bayern.de/. Last accessed 23
March 2012. The following text gives an initial interpretation of the protective provisions of this Act.
More work is required to verify the detail of the provisions and how these relate to practical
management of beavers on the ground.
46

Section 2(5) and (6) specifies who is allowed to conduct the measures and how to
conduct them. Section 2(7) specifies that the number location and date of the catching
or killing of beavers has to be reported to the competent authorities immediately.
Saxony-Anhalt Legal Framework

Nature Conservation Act of Saxony-Anhalt (LSA NatSchG) of 10 December 2010170
Working in coordination with the Federal Nature Conservation Act, this Act implements
the Habitats and Birds Directives in the state of Saxony-Anhalt. Section 25 grants the
competent nature conservation authority to derogate from the special protections
granted within the Federal Nature Conservation Act where such derogation is in-line
with the provisions in the Federal Nature Conservation Act or Article 14 of the Habitats
Directive.
Lower Saxony Legal Framework

Implementation Act of Lower Saxony to the Federal Nature Conservation Act
(NAGBNatSchG) 19 February 2010171
Part 5 of the Act transposes the Federal national law protections on natural parks into
regional law; thus forming the overarching framework governing the management and
protection of national parks in Lower Saxony.
Institutional Background

Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
(Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktor Icherheit: BMU).172 Federal
Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt fur Naturschutz: ‘BfN’) (since 11 Feb
2011)173
The Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU)
is responsible for formulating the government’s policy for ecological matters including
the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives. It is also responsible for
environmental protection. The Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) provides
the German government, particularly the BMU with the scientific basis for decisions
and identifies areas where policy choices need to be made. The BfN also works in
close cooperation with authorities in each of Germany’s sixteen states. The aim is to
ensure that policies are applied uniformly and comparably nationwide. The BfN also
works in close cooperation with nature conservation Non-Governmental Organisations
(NGOs) and maintains contact with businesses and numerous associations; for
example representatives of the forestry, sports and tourism industries.

The Bavarian Environmental Agency174
The Bavarian Environmental Agency, an agency of the Bavarian State Ministry of the
Environment and Public Health, is the primary body responsible for managing
environmental protection and nature conservation in Bavaria. Its work includes the
170
Available in German from the Saxony-Anhalt county website at www.sachsen-anhalt.de. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
171
Available in German from the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change website at
http://www.umwelt.niedersachsen.de/portal/live.php?navigation_id=2138&_psmand=10. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
172
See the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety at
www.bmu.de. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
173
See the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation website at http://www.bfn.de/. Last accessed 23
March 2012.
174
See the Bavarian Environmental Agency website at http://www.lfu.bayern.de/wir/index.htm. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
47
creation of policy strategies, goals for environmental protection and wildlife
management. It is also the primary body that implements the Birds and Habitats
Directives by landscape management and by carrying out work such as bird
monitoring. Its wildlife management working group has produced management plans
for the lynx, Brown Bear and Grey Wolf in Bavaria.175

National Park Service176
The national parks service is responsible for managing the Harz national park which
covers the states of Lower Saxony and Saxony Anhalt.
Policy Background

National Strategy on Biodiversity177
The core policy document developed by the Federal Government of Germany is its
National Strategy on Biodiversity. The strategy outlines Germany’s biodiversity policy.
The 2007 strategy includes targets such as halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010, the
restoration and protection of habitats by 2020 and the protection of endangered
species.
Derogations
Germany has issued 623 derogations for the Eurasian Beaver due to the expansion of its
population and related to the increase of conflicts with water supplies agriculture and
forestry178 (see Appendix 3). Some derogations allowing the ‘scaring away’ of the Eurasian
Beaver have been issued on a permanent basis. The most recent European Commission
Report on Derogations (2007-2008) concluded that German derogations relating to the
Eurasian Beaver (particularly those relating to preventative measures and permanent
derogations) are probably in conflict with the species protection measures under the Habitats
Directive, although no action has yet been taken against the German government in relation
to this issue.
There have been no German derogations relating to the Eurasian Lynx.
3.3.6.1
Management of the Eurasian Beaver in Bavaria
Concerns
Although we were unable to speak to any individuals, or groups representing individuals,
who were directly affected by the presence of beavers in Bavaria; a literature search and a
discussion with a representative of Bavarian beaver managers reported the following
concerns arising from the presence of beavers in Bavaria:

Localised damage to crops arising from either beaver’s consuming crops or flooding
caused by beaver activities.
175
Available in German from the Bavarian Environmental Agency website at
www.lfu.bayern.de/wir/index.htm. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
176
See the National Park Service website in English at http://www.nationalpark-harz.de/en/. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
177
Available in German only from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and
Nuclear Safety website at http://www.bmu.de/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
178
European Commission, Composite European report on derogations in 2007-2008 according to
Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
(the Habitats Directive) 2011.
48

Localised damage to forestry both from flooding and subsequent tree mortality and the
harvesting activities of beavers.

Localised impacts to multiple rural land use activities arising from damage to access
tracks, caused by either subsidence of access tracks as a result of beaver’s burrowing
or flooding of access tracks.

Damage to irrigation channels and drainage channels ditches, as well as, flood
defences.

Localised impacts on local fisheries.

Localised flooding of publicly owned land.

Impacts on local infrastructure including the near-flooding of water treatment or
sanitation works and flooding of public highways.
Management Strategies
During the early stages of the reintroduction, when the beaver population was at a low
density and confined to a relatively small geographic area, there was little co-ordination of
beaver management within Bavaria and management was mostly of a reactive nature.
Beavers that were identified as problem beavers were often translocated to other areas
within Bavaria. Additionally, many Bavarian beavers were transported to other European
countries to assist with restocking or reintroduction programmes.
More recently the Bavarian beaver population has expanded rapidly and beavers are now
present in most areas of Bavaria, sometimes at the natural carrying capacity of the land.
Consequently translocation of problem individuals is no longer as useful a management tool
and this issue, combined with the end of demand for surplus beavers for European
restocking and reintroduction programmes, resulted in the creation of a co-ordinated
Bavarian beaver management strategy in 1996.
In Bavaria there are now two full-time, state-wide ‘beaver consultants’ who provide practical
guidance and advice to the Bavarian State officials and local municipality officials on the
management of beavers. They also train and oversee a network of c.200 local, volunteer
beaver consultants.
If a Beaver is causing a land owner concern the current procedure is:

Make contact with the local volunteer beaver consultant.

The local consultant will then visit the site, assess the situation and then decide on the
appropriate management tool. This will be in consultation with the full-time beaver
consultants if the case is particularly problematic or complex.

The management options provided by the local beaver consultant will either be lethal
or non-lethal in nature.

Non-lethal management options include providing advice on the use of anti-beaver
fencing, anti-beaver paint, anti-beaver netting (for protecting the banks of water
courses) and scaring devices. Non-lethal management can also include translocating
individuals (although as explained above this approach is currently little used) and
reducing the height of dams to lower the risk of flooding or to stop flooding in progress.
49

If the beaver consultant decides lethal measures (generally trapping and humane
dispatch), translocation, or modification to natal dams is required then a licence must
be issued by the local municipality as these acts require derogation from the Habitats
Directive. Generally these licences are always issued if the local beaver consultants
deem this to be necessary.

Permits from local municipalities normally take two to three days to process.

In an emergency situation (e.g. flooding of sewage works or public highway) a licence
can be issued immediately by telephone as long as a local beaver consultant has been
consulted.

Permits from local municipalities normally take 2/3 days to process; however, in an
emergency situation (e.g. flooding of sewage works or public highway) a licence can
be issued over the phone as long as a local beaver consultant has been consulted.
The use of local beaver consultants in this way is seen as vital as often, even though local
land owners or officials may initially desire a lethal option, the beaver consultants can
suggest more effective non-lethal solutions. Local beaver consultants also have greater
standing in local communities and can use their local knowledge, in combination with their
training, to devise the most appropriate solution.
Local beaver consultants come from a variety of backgrounds (including hunters, fisherman,
conservationists, teachers, police officers). All the local beaver consultants receive training
from the “Akademie for Naturschutz und Landschatspflege” or ANL, the nature conservation
training academy of the Bavarian Ministry of the Environment. The training consists of a four
day seminar which covers; basic beaver ecology, beaver management and surveying
practices, conflict resolution and nature conservation law. The training concludes with an
oral examination.
An independent beaver expert described the killing of beavers in Bavaria as “a last resort as
it is not an effective, long term strategy for dealing with problems”. The Bavarian beaver
population occurs at such high densities, and is increasing at such a high rate, that any gaps
in beaver territories that occur as a result of killing individual beavers are quickly filled by
incomers from surrounding territories. Nonetheless, approximately 700 beavers or 5% of the
Bavarian population are humanely killed each year. It is worth noting, however, that the first
beaver was not killed as part of the management plan until 2002; more than 30 years after
the reintroduction was initiated.
The Bavarian Ministry of Environment and Health has published guidance on beaver
management.179 It provides that where a beaver has been removed by intervention (capture
of killing) then beaver constructions which are no longer in use can be removed without
restriction. In other cases the removal of beaver dams may be carried out under the
exception provided by section 2(1) of the Bavarian AAV. In line with the legal framework
established under the Bavarian AAV, the guidance provides for a distinction to be drawn
between beaver dams which are in use and those not in use. Those not in use can be
removed (at any time of year), without restriction, provided that occupied dams are not
disturbed. The guidance acknowledges that it may be necessary for an expert (e.g. a beaver
consultant) to ascertain whether a dam is in use.
179
Available in German only: Bayerisches Staatsministerium fur Gesundheit und Umwelt, ‘Richtlinien
zum Bibermanagent’
http://www.stmug.bayern.de/umwelt/naturschutz/recht/doc/bibermanagement/bibermanagement.pdf
(Last accessed on 20.6.2012).
50
A further distinction is drawn between natal and non-natal dams. A Bavarian Ministry of
Environment and Health report on beaver in Bavaria explains that beaver areas serving as
beaver breeding and resting places, particularly dams, are strictly protected.180 However, in
exceptional cases where there is serious damage or danger to public safety a competent
person may remove beaver dams, provided that occupied, natal dams are not disturbed.
Benefits
The interviewee reported that the re-establishment of beavers in Bavaria has significantly
benefitted biodiversity. As beavers are ecosystem engineers they have recreated habitats at
a far cheaper cost than could be done by man. Additionally there has been speculation that
the presence of beavers has helped to reduce the effects of catastrophic flash floods as their
engineering works slow down the water and retain it upstream. The presence of the beaver
has not been considered a particularly significant boost for tourism in the region, as tourism
is already a well established industry in the area.
3.3.6.2
Harz National Park Eurasian Lynx reintroduction
Concerns
As the reintroduction project is relatively recent; the Harz National Park lynx population is still
small (c.50 individuals) and is mostly located on state forestry land within the park. This has
reduced the opportunity for the animals to come into contact with other land uses and
consequently few concerns have been raised by local landowners or users at this time.
The concerns that have been raised are as followed:

Concerns have been raised over the killing of livestock; however, since the start of the
reintroduction in 2000 fewer than 10 farms animals have been killed by lynx. As
livestock are not often kept in forested areas in Germany the interviewee did not
consider livestock predation to be a particularly important issue.

Hunters have been concerned over the effect of lynx on game species, specifically
Mouflon (Ovis aries), Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) and Roe Deer (Capreolus
capreolus). Potential controversy is reduced as hunters prefer to hunt red deer while
lynx prefer to hunt roe deer. However, the presence of lynx can cause both deer to
become more secretive and therefore harder to hunt.

Since the lynx reintroduction began the local mouflon population has significantly
declined; lynx do eat the mouflon and there is currently a controversy over how great
the effect of lynx predation is on the overall population decline.

Overall the concerns of hunters are measured as the local hunting association, the
Lower Saxony Hunters Association (LJN), is a major partner in the reintroduction
programme and invests a lot of resources in communicating the benefits of the lynx to
hunters and other rural land users.

Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) were reintroduced into Harz National Park in the early
1990’s and the population initially thrived. However, once the releases stopped the
population began to decline and now the population is threatened with imminent
180
Available in German only: Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt, ‚Biber in Bayern – Biologie und
Management’ (Nov 2009)
http://www.bibermanagement.de/Biber_in_Bayern__Biologie_und_Management.pdf (Last accessed
on 20.6.2012).
51
extinction. The tail end of this decline, when the capercaillie population was already
very low, coincided with the release of Lynx into Harz National Park and subsequently
some locals made a link between the two events. However, the Capercaille population
was declining for a considerable period of time before the reintroduction of the lynx
and the interviewee did not consider that they lynx contributed significantly to the
capercaillie population decline.

The Harz National Park wildcat (Felix sylvestris) population is of regional importance
and as lynx occasionally kill wildcats there have been concerns about the effects of
lynx predation on the Harz National Park wildcat population.
Management Strategies
The current lynx management strategies consist largely of monitoring and research of the
lynx population dynamics and dispersal. Research on the impact of lynx on other species,
specifically mouflon and wildcat is also undertaken. As the lynx has only recently been
reintroduced there has, as yet, been no need to manage the lynx in regard to land owner
concerns. As the lynx population eventually expands outside the state forestry lands
tensions may arise between those reintroducing the lynx and land users. There are currently
no plans in place to address potential land owner and land user concerns. The Lower
Saxony Hunters Association (LJN), a major partner in the reintroduction, conducts education
activities to support the lynx reintroduction.
Although lynx is historically classed as a game species under German and state law, it is
currently not hunted in the Harz National Park. Indeed, it is unlikely to ever be hunted as this
would contravene Germany’s European and international obligations for species
conservation. Killing of lynx would require derogation under Article 16 of the Habitats
Directive and there have been no such derogations to date.
Benefits

Lynx have contributed to overall ecosystem health and biodiversity conservation due to
their role as a top predator.

Many local communities now take pride in their lynx populations and several local
companies have rebranded to incorporate the lynx in their marketing.181

The lynx has contributed to an increase in local tourism and many tourist agencies and
companies, including the Harz National Park, use the lynx as an advertising symbol.
The national profile of Harz National Park has been greatly increased by the presence
of the lynx.

As part of a marketing campaign one town now refers to itself as ‘Lynx City’ and
successfully attracts many tourists, especially as enclosures with captive lynx are
located near the town. As lynx are so difficult to spot in the wild these captive lynx,
which cannot be released into the wild, are used as an educational tool by the Harz
National Park.
181
This includes a printing company with more than 300 employees that changed its entire advertising
and branding strategy to incorporate the lynx and now has a 20m high lynx painted on its factory wall
by the side of a major highway.
52
3.3.7 Norway
Norway provides a case study for the management of Eurasian beaver; Eurasian lynx; Grey
Wolf; and the White-tailed Eagle within a non-EU European country. As it is not part of the
EU, Norway is not bound by the special protection measures afforded by the Birds and
Habitats Directives and is therefore not restricted in the same way as EU Member States are
in the management strategies that it can adopt. However, it is important to note that Norway
is a signatory to the Bern Convention.
None of the four species examined here have been reintroduced into Norway. However, all
four species experienced a significant population decline in the early twentieth century,
which either led to their extinction in Norway or to their absence in many parts of the country.
Since then the populations of all four species have increased and they have begun to
naturally recolonise much of their former range. As this process is analogous to a
reintroduction project the perceptions of many Norwegians to these species are similar to
that of a reintroduced species.
Legislative Framework
As Norway is not a member of the EU implementing legislation for the EU Birds and Habitats
Directives do not exist. Norway is a signatory to the Bern Convention and national
environmental legislation must be compliant with provisions of the Bern Convention which
are relevant to species protection. The legislative framework stated here focuses on the core
measures for species and environmental protection in Norway.

Nature Diversity Act (Act No. 100 of 19 June 2009 Relating to the Management of
Biological, Geological and Landscape Diversity) as amended182
The core act governing the protection of species is the Nature Diversity Act 2009
which protects 'priority species' and their habitats. It updates some provisions of the
Nature Conservation Act of 1970. The Act also provides a comprehensive regulatory
system for the introduction of new species into the environment. Section 5 contains the
general objective to "maintain species and their genetic diversity for the long term and
to ensure that species occur in viable populations in their natural ranges." Section 23
permits the creation of regulations for priority species in order to assist in their
preservation.

Wildlife Act (Act No. 38 of 29 May 1981 Relating to wildlife and wildlife habitats) as
amended183
This act outlines the management of wildlife and the habitats of wildlife. It establishes a
principle of protection over all wildlife. Section 13 provides the relevant municipality
with the ability to grant permission to kill beavers which cause damage to crops or
property or to remove a beaver lodge to prevent flooding. Chapter 5 outlines rules for
the hunting of beavers. Local regulations have been created in the various
municipalities within Norway to govern hunting law.

The Nature Conservation Act (Act No. 63 of 19 June 1970 Relating to Nature
Conservation) as amended184
182
Text available from the Norwegian government website at
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/nature-diversity-act.html?id=570549. Last accessed 23
March 2012.
183
Text available from the University of Oslo Library through the World Law Guide webpage at
www.lexadin.nl. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
184
Text available from the Norwegian government website at
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/md/reg/19951995/0001/ddd/pdfv/239979-t-1149.pdf. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
53
The general objective of the Nature Conservation Act is to protect the natural habitats
and wild flora and fauna of Norway. This act provides the ability to protect and
preserve rare species. It also affords the power to protect and preserve habitats and
governs the creation of protected landscapes.

Forestry Act185
The Forestry Act governs the management of the forest areas within Norway. Section
13 grants the ministry the ability to create regulations to impose restrictions on forest
management where the forest is particularly valuable for biodiversity.
Institutional Framework and Competent Authority

Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management;186 a government agency under the
Ministry of the Environment187
In Norway the Directorate for Nature Management is responsible for the development
of policy and strategies and administrative tasks related to the protection of biological
diversity and outdoor recreation. Its remit includes the following:
- Implementation of plans for protected areas;
- Management of predators and other wildlife including migratory species;
- Management of watercourses;
- Supervision of ‘natural areas’;
- Management of Norway’s participation in international conventions concerning
biological diversity, e.g. the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the North
Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO);
- Compilation of the Norwegian Nature Index which is designed to record overall
trends for the state of major ecosystems throughout the country and to provide a
readily available overview of whether Norway is making progress towards its
goal of halting the loss of biodiversity.
For administrative purposes, the Directorate of Nature Management is divided into
sections, namely: Section for Forests and Management of Species; Section for
Biological Diversity and Biosafety; Section for Outdoor Recreation and Land-Use
Management; and the Section for Marine and Water Environment Protection.

The Norwegian Nature Inspectorate
The Norwegian Nature Inspectorate is a part of the Directorate of Nature Management
and is responsible for the inspection of the environment. Its role also includes the
prevention of environmental crime and the provision of information and advice to the
public about the environment.
Policy Framework

Report No. 26 to the Storting (2006-2007)188 - The Government’s Environmental
Policy and the State of the Environment in Norway
This white paper has been designed to provide a complete overview of the Norwegian
government's environmental policy. The paper outlines the strategic objects for each of
the four priority areas identified within the document. Chapter 6 addresses the
185
Text available from the University of Oslo Library through the World Law Guide webpage at
www.lexadin.nl. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
186
See the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management website at http://english.dirnat.no/. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
187
See the Ministry of the Environment website at http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md.html. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
188
Available with excerpts in English from the Ministry of the Environment website at
http://www.regjeringen.no/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.
54
government's biodiversity policy and includes a section on "Sustainable use and
protection of species, populations and genetic resources".
This policy document can be usefully read in conjunction with the older reports on the
environment; Report No. 21 to the Storting (2004-2005) The Government’s
Environmental Policy and the State of the Environment in Norway and; Report No. 24
to the Storting (2000-2001) The Government's Environmental Policy and the State of
the Environment.189
3.3.7.1
Eurasian Beaver in Norway
The demand for fur caused a large decline in Norwegian beaver populations and by the early
20th century only a small remnant population of c.100 individuals remained in the Telemark
region of Southern Norway. Since then a combination of increased legal protection, direct
conservation action, and natural immigration from Sweden has resulted in a large population
increase to an estimated current population of c.70,000 individuals. The population increase
has also led to a large range expansion and beavers can now be found in a continuous
population from the southernmost tip of Norway to the north of Trøndelag in central Norway.
Beaver populations are often at the ecological carrying capacity of the land, and in many
places have been for 20-30 years.
Concerns

It was noted by interviewees that due to the ease with which problem beavers can be
dealt with, either by hunting in the open season or by applying for a licence in the
closed season, conflicts between conservationists and land owners and users over
beavers rarely occur in Norway.

The concerns that arise from beaver populations in other countries, such as Latvia, do
not exist at the same scale within Norway, despite the broadly similar population size.
The interviewees did not report widespread damage from beaver activities and
interviewees commented that beavers cause little controversy in Norway.

The lack of extensive areas of flat land in Norway undoubtedly contributes to the lack
of controversy surrounding the beaver in Norway as beavers are unable to flood large
areas of land. However, localised flooding of access tracks or field margins does
occur.

There is some concern over the sporadic damage to property as a result of tree felling,
although this mostly affects wooden cabins located in woodlands that are used by
families as weekend or holiday retreats.

The representative of the Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers reported that
hunters and fisherman do not see beavers as a problem and, as it is legal to hunt
beavers in Norway, they often appreciate the extra quarry species that beavers
provide.
Management Strategies

The Eurasian Beaver is a game species in Norway with an open season running from
the 1st October to 30th April. Outside of the open season recreational hunting is not
allowed and the beaver’s natal dams are protected.
189
Available in English from the Ministry of the Environment website at http://www.regjeringen.no/.
Last accessed 23 March 2012.
55

During the open season beaver hunting quotas are set by local municipalities with the
quota for the municipality reflecting the status of the local beaver population. In areas
with a high beaver population local municipalities may set unlimited quotas and in
areas with a newly established beaver population the local municipality may set no
quotas i.e. the local municipality will prevent the hunting of beavers until the population
will be able to withstand hunting without it reducing the favourable conservation status
of the species.

Although beavers are widely hunted in Norway they are not highly prized by hunters as
a game species because the quantity of meat is low, the fur currently has little
economic value, and there is little skill or excitement in hunting beavers.

When a beaver population is at a high density, 15-20% of the population can be
hunted without causing a population decline. As hunting beavers is not highly prized in
Norway when a local municipality sets an unlimited quota for the municipality this
represents an acceptance that the local hunters will never be able to kill enough
beavers to cause a population decline, as opposed to, a plan to eradicate beavers
from the municipality.

Between 2,200 and 2,700 beaver were hunted annually between 2000 and 2007
according to figures released by Statistics Norway, the Norwegian Governments
National Statistics agency.

If an individual beaver is causing problems (e.g. by flooding access tracks) outside the
open season a licence to kill the problem beaver or damage a dam can be obtained
from the local municipality. Concerned landowners must apply to the municipality’s
environment officer and municipal officials will then decide if the licence will be
granted. Summer licences are rarely declined, especially in areas with high beaver
densities. In areas where the beaver has only recently returned the licences are not
granted as frequently although licences are still granted.

The Norwegian public agencies do not provide compensation for beaver damage as
problems are normally resolved by killing problem beavers; either in winter or with a
summer licence.
Benefits

The ecosystem engineering works that beavers perform in Norway have many positive
benefits for biodiversity.

The presence of beavers provides hunters with another quarry species.

Visitors to rural areas enjoy seeing beavers and signs of beavers, although there is
limited (if any) structured beaver tourism in Norway.
3.3.7.2
Eurasian Lynx in Norway
A state bounty was issued for Lynx in 1846 and by the mid-20th century the lynx was absent
across most of Scandinavia. In the late 1960’s the Norwegian population started to slowly
increase and by the 1990’s the population had started increasing more rapidly. During the
beginning of the 21st century the population stabilised and in 2010 75-80 family groups were
present throughout Norway consisting of between 441 and 470 individuals.
56
Concerns
The presence of lynx has led to concerns within three rural land use groups; reindeer
herders, roe deer hunters and sheep farmers.

Reindeer herder’s are concerned about the additional mortality lynx may cause,
especially to younger animals.

Some roe deer hunters, mostly smaller land owners, have concerns about lynx
reducing local deer populations. Not only can lynx reduce local populations of roe deer
through additional mortality but the presence of lynx can be enough to cause deer to
vacate an area. Additionally lynx presence can cause local deer to become more
fearful and subsequently harder to hunt. The concerns of some hunters on a local
scale contrasts with the support lynx receive on a national scale from hunters,
including from The Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers (Norges Jeger-og
Fiskerforbund - NJFF) which represents 120,000 Norwegian hunters.

Lynx attacks cause the death of several thousand sheep annually in Norway. Sheep
are kept in doors for most of the year; however, during the summer months they are
kept outside, unfenced and unsupervised and are consequently vulnerable to lynx
attack. The risk is exacerbated as sheep are often kept in or near woodlands in
Norway.
Management Strategies
Overview
Eurasian Lynx is a game species in Norway and has never been protected except for 1993
when hunting was suspended to allow the government to restructure lynx hunting
regulations. Prior to 1993 there were no lynx hunting quotas, but the regulations were altered
in response to a well publicised and controversial killing of a lynx mother and her two cubs.
With the introduction of the new regulations in 1994 Norway now manages its lynx
population through a quota management system with state issued, but locally managed
quotas, fulfilled by hunters through ordinary, recreational hunting. As part of this
management strategy:

There is a lynx open season, 1st February – 31st March, chosen as before this date
dependent kittens may not survive the loss of their mother and because after this date
hunting may interfere with mating behaviour.

The country is divided into eight management regions, each overseen by a committee
composed of regional politicians. Committee members receive support from local
government officials and government biologists.

Central government dictates the hunting quotas, as well as, lynx population targets for
each committee but the committee can decide how to meet these targets. Committees
have the right to impose sub-quotas of number of males and females or adult and
juveniles that can be hunted.

Norway’s national reproductive target for 2010 was 65 litters and this was reached with
75-80 family groups present, comprising of between 441 and 470 individuals. The
national lynx quota for 2011 was 175 with 136 lynx hunted. Since the start of the quota
system the annual quota has never been reached.
57

If a regional management committee allows the lynx population to fall below the central
government targets for three consecutive years then the right to manage lynx
populations will be lost and the powers will revert to central government. At the time of
writing this has not happened.

In order to prevent over-harvesting of lynx, an answer machine is in operation that
informs hunters if the regional quota has been reached. Hunters are expected to
consult this regularly while hunting.

All lynx kills are reported and inspected by state wildlife or game rangers.
In addition to the regulation of winter hunting of Lynx, summer hunting permits can be
granted if a specific lynx is causing a nuisance. Without snow to follow tracks with, summer
lynx hunting is extremely difficult hence the authorities are quite willing to grant summer
licences in the expectation that they will often not be met. In the reporting period 2010-2011
four lynx were killed in Norway as ‘nuisance’ animals.
The Norwegian government also pays compensation to livestock farmers and domestic
reindeer herders for losses arising from lynx predation. Some livestock farmers are not
satisfied with this payment, especially as, reportedly, some may lose >30% of their herd to
lynx attacks. They would rather see a reduction in the lynx population.
Public Response to the Management System
The current management system receives strong support from both conservationists and
hunters. The system is valued by hunters as it actively engages hunters in the management
of the lynx and consequently provides them with an additional game species. It also ensures
lynx do not reach a level where deer hunting may become impacted; although there are
limited cases of localised lynx impacts on deer populations. The Norwegian Association of
Hunters and Anglers is extremely supportive of the system and considers it “a very good
system”, this contrasts significantly with their view of the current Norwegian Grey Wolf
Management system (see section 3.3.7.3 of this report).
Conservationists support the current system as it ensures the lynx population in Norway will
remain stable. However, some concern is raised about the government set national
population limit. The current population target is not based on a scientific estimate of a viable
lynx population size for Norway, but is instead arbitrarily based on the 1997 national
population estimate. The current limit does appear to be sufficient for the lynx to survive in
Norway, and as the Norwegian population is not a discrete population but part of a wider
Scandinavian population, in that context it can be seen as a healthy population.
The authors of this report were unable to interview representatives of the livestock industry
or reindeer herders in Norway. However, discussions with the interviewees and the high rate
of livestock loss to lynx predation (estimated at 6,000 – 9,000 per annum by the independent
expert interviewed for this report) suggest there is considerable concern among livestock
owners and herders in Norway about current lynx numbers and many would prefer a
decrease in the lynx population throughout Norway.
Benefits

Hunters have benefitted from the presence of lynx and the current management
system as they now have the possibility of an additional quarry species. However, this
benefit is not equally shared as few hunters get the possibility to hunt lynx as it occurs
at low population densities.
58

Hunters also appreciate the chance to be involved in the management of a species.

It is not possible to commercialise lynx-watching tourism or lynx-hunting tourism due to
the lynx’s reclusive behaviour and its presence at low population densities.
3.3.7.3
Grey Wolf in Norway
Government bounties for Grey Wolves were issued in the 19th century and by the 1960’s the
Grey Wolf was extinct from Scandinavia. Natural recolonisation by Russian individuals
occurred in the 1980’s and 1990’s and within Norway there are currently three reproducing
packs, all confined to the Wolf Management Zone near the Swedish border. Additional
individuals cross the border from Sweden into other parts of Norway but are not permitted to
form reproducing packs. The total Norwegian Grey Wolf population is between 25 and 30
individuals.
Concerns
Many land use groups have concerns about the current Grey Wolf population in Norway
including; sheep farmers, reindeer herders, moose hunters, deer hunters, as well as, many
people living in rural areas who do not participate in these land use activities. Concerns
include:

Both reindeer herders and sheep farmers are concerned about the effect of Grey
Wolves on their livestock and often do not support the presence of wolves in Norway

Hunters are concerned about Grey Wolf attacks on dogs during moose hunting and
the effect of wolves on deer numbers and behaviour.

The Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers which represents 120,000
Norwegian hunters is not opposed to the presence of Grey Wolves in Norway;
however they object to the current Norwegian wolf management strategy. They would
prefer to see Grey Wolves more widespread across Norway, but at a low population
density.

They also believe hunters should have the right to kill problem Grey Wolves as they
believe only some wolves attack and kill hunting dogs and these wolves should be
removed.

They would prefer to see Grey Wolves managed under a similar system to the
Norwegian lynx management system; however, they believe wolves should never be
allowed to reside in Western Norway, where sheep farming dominates, and northern
Norway, the reindeer rearing area. The Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers
also believes the current wolf management system doesn’t work as they believe the
Grey Wolf population density within the management zone is too high leading to
unnecessary conflict with local communities and the appearance that Grey Wolves
have priority over local needs.

Many people in the wolf management zone fear the Grey Wolf’s presence and are
concerned about the possibility of wolf attacks on children and pets.

Additionally conservationists are not content with the current system as it restricts
Norwegian Grey Wolves to a small, vulnerable and genetically bottlenecked
population.
59
Management Strategies

Grey Wolves have been legally protected in Norway since 1973.

The current population is restricted to three reproducing packs, confined to a wolf
management zone along the southern edge of the Swedish border.

Some individual Grey Wolves disperse across the border from Sweden into areas
outside the wolf management zone; however, they are not allowed to form
reproductive packs.

Legal hunting of Grey Wolves, both inside and outside of the wolf management zone,
is permitted during the winter open season and the quotas are set nationally by central
government. The quotas are political and not based on scientific evidence.

Outside of the legal hunting season, permits can be issued for the hunting of individual
nuisance wolves. Often nuisance wolves are killed by government wildlife officials
using equipment unavailable to ordinary hunters e.g. helicopters.

Hunters resent the involvement of state wildlife officials in removing nuisance wolves
and would rather they were given sole responsibility for this role.

If a member of the public witnesses a Grey Wolf attack they are allowed to intervene
and kill the wolf.

Within the wolf management zone government education programmes aim to reduce
the fear among local residents and programmes are also run to reduce illegal hunting
of Grey Wolves within the management zone.
Benefits
Conservationists welcome the presence of the Grey Wolf, as do many people in Norway –
particularly in urban areas.
3.3.7.4
White-tailed Eagle in Norway
Before receiving legal protection in 1968 government bounties were issued for White-tailed
Eagles causing the population to significantly decline. Surviving individuals were confined to
remote and inaccessible coastal skerries where human populations were absent. This led to
many conservationists incorrectly assuming that the White-tailed Eagle was a coastal
species. Hence it’s incorrect alternative name of Sea Eagle.
In recognition of its small and vulnerable population the Norwegian Ornithological Society
initiated a major conservation project, Project Sea Eagle, in the 1970s with the aim of
increasing the Norwegian population. Following this intervention the Norwegian White-tailed
Eagle population has rapidly increased and is now estimated to be c.2,500 pairs nationally.
Norway currently has the largest White-tailed Eagle population of any country.
Concerns
It was not possible to interview representatives of the livestock industry, reindeer herders,
foresters or windfarm developers in Norway. However, discussions with an independent
expert suggest that these land use groups had only limited and localised concerns about the
presence of White-tailed Eagles.
60

Some reindeer herders and sheep farmers claim to lose livestock to White-tailed Eagle
attacks. However, following a Norwegian research study the Norwegian Government
does not consider these claims to be genuine and consequently does not pay
compensation to sheep farmers or reindeer herders.

The independent expert considered conflict between foresters and White-tailed Eagle
conservationists to be minimal. The majority of Norwegian forestry is conducted in
winter, when the ground is frozen, and this minimises disturbance to White-tailed
Eagle nests.

Additionally the independent expert concluded that the amount of trees available for
foresters and White-tailed Eagles in Norway was great enough that foresters were
able to shift their operations to accommodate nesting White-tailed Eagles and Whitetailed Eagles could quickly find replacement nesting locations if their nesting site was
felled in the winter.

The construction of a wind farm on the Smøla Archipelago resulted in, and continues
to cause, the mortality of White-tailed Eagles (7-10 per annum). Despite this mortality,
numbers of breeding pairs on the Smøla Archipelago remains stable as pairs have
shifted their nest sites away from the areas of high disturbance around the turbines to
areas of lower disturbance along the coast. 
The independent expert concluded that the Norwegian population is large enough to
accommodate the additional mortality of 7-10 birds per annum. However, if many wind
farms were to be built in Norway with the same rate of mortality as Smøla then the
White-tailed Eagle population may decline.

However, the extensive body of research generated by the Smøla wind farm should
assist developers in ensuring the mortality levels witnessed at Smøla do not occur
again. Consequently, the independent expert concluded that increased wind farm
developments in Norway will most likely not lead to a significant increase in additional
mortality for Norwegian white-tailed eagles. The independent expert did not believe an
increase in wind farm developments, and a healthy white-tailed eagle population were
mutually exclusive in Norway.

A representative of the Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers stated that
hunters and fishermen do not consider White-tailed Eagles a problem species for any
of their activities.
Management Strategies

White-tailed Eagles are strictly protected in Norway, and have been since 1968.

Originally compensation was paid to reindeer herders and sheep farmers for losses
from White-tailed Eagle predation. Compensation has now been discontinued due to
research conducted by the Norwegian Government which suggested White-tailed
Eagles were responsible for an insignificant level of livestock mortality.

Reindeer herders have recently petitioned the government for compensation for loses
arising from White-tailed Eagle predation but this has again been refused due to lack
of evidence.

Tree felling is not allowed to occur within 50m of an occupied White-tailed Eagle nest.
61

The developers of new wind farms have to prove the development will not cause
significant harm to White-tailed Eagle populations.
Benefits
Many Norwegians take great pride that their country supports the largest White-tailed Eagle
population of any nation and White-tailed Eagle watching is often viewed as integral part of a
holiday to rural, and especially coastal, Norway. White-tailed Eagle tourism is common place
in Norway with one town, Bodø, referring to itself as ‘The Sea Eagle Town’ with a
membership club available to tourists if they successfully see a White-tailed Eagle in the
town. Many tourism companies offer White-tailed Eagle safaris.
3.3.8 Case study discussion
As Ireland is the only EU country, other than the UK, to have reintroduced the White-tailed
Eagle; it provides the most appropriate case study for this species. However, since the
reintroduction is in its early stages, it is difficult to draw many conclusions from the Irish
experience to date. The interviews did highlight the concerns of farmers over lamb predation
and there are limited strategies in place to address this issue. However, given that there is
little scientific evidence to suggest that White-tailed Eagle do pose a significant threat to
lambs; the proposed management response is, perhaps, appropriate.
The most significant concern highlighted by the Irish case study was not related to the
management of the species but to the management of the expectations and interests of land
owners and managers who perceive their working activities to be impacted by the
reintroduction. The case study highlights the need for effective stakeholder consultation in
reintroduction projects to be undertaken prior to the start of the reintroduction. Engagement
with stakeholders at an early stage allows for management strategies and monitoring
protocols to be altered to take account of stakeholder concerns. Effective communication
with affected parties must then continue post-reintroduction, including the provision of
information on the realistic threats posed by the reintroduced species and, where
appropriate, on the management options available to address them.
The Eurasian Beaver has been very successful at recolonising many of the countries where
it has been reintroduced. Latvia, Germany (Bavaria), the Netherlands and Norway provide a
range of interesting case studies relating to the management of the Eurasian Beaver. The
case studies reveal some consistency between the issues considered problematic; generally
relating to beavers interference with farming, forestry, access routes and water courses.
Although there are some consistencies on the issues considered problematic, the extent to
which they are perceived as a problem varies considerably between the case studies. In
cases where numbers are low (e.g. Netherlands) or management is considered effective
(e.g. Germany, Netherlands and Norway), there are few concerns. However in Latvia, where
the beaver was reintroduced in the 1930s, a unique set of circumstances has enabled the
species to reach very high population densities throughout the country. The population is
now large, management is ineffective and the species is viewed by many as a pest.
Latvia has had a permanent exception in relation to the Eurasian Beaver inserted into the
Habitats Directive Annex IV(a) since it’s accession to the EU. Therefore, it does not need to
make recourse to derogations in relation to this species and beavers can be legally hunted
and killed. Despite this, the main concern relating to beaver management in Latvia is that
there is no co-ordinated strategy from central government to address problems arising.
Rather, responsibility seems to fall on local landowners and hunters. The lack of government
intervention in what is seen by many, especially those in the forestry industry, as a major
national problem is considered a barrier to solving this issue. Due to the reliance on
unmotivated local hunters, beaver management is often inadequate, patchy and
62
uncoordinated across much of Latvia. This allows the Latvian beaver population, which has
already expanded due to land use changes, to expand even further. Recent efforts to extend
the beaver hunting season do not seem (according to interviewees) to have caused any
decrease in beaver populations so far. Without a co-ordinated, national strategy in place, the
beaver population continues to expand and, for some of the interviewees, the problems
associated with the beaver seem to outweigh the benefits of the reintroduction.
Given the unique set of circumstances that occurred in Latvia; the post soviet collapse of
agriculture leading to the abandonment of large areas of low-lying agricultural land with a
complex network of dykes and ditches, it is highly unlikely that the Latvian situation would
ever be replicated in Scotland. However, Latvia does provide an example of the need for
effective management plans and provides a warning for the consequences of not responding
to changing conditions.
The Netherlands provides an example of a relatively recent Eurasian Beaver reintroduction
(1988) where it appears no significant concerns have yet arisen. This is despite the
challenges beavers can potentially cause in such a densely populated, intensively managed
and hydrologically complex landscape. The management of the beaver falls to governmental
bodies and resort is had to derogations for the destruction of breeding or resting sites where
appropriate, although there has been no killing of beavers in the Netherlands to date. The
Netherlands case study demonstrates the importance of monitoring and research as the
intensive monitoring efforts have allowed the identification of potentially problematic
behaviours before serious damage can be caused. Additionally the research and
implementation of beaver unfriendly dykes should allow for easier management of the
Eurasian Beaver in the Netherlands.
The length of the Eurasian Beaver reintroduction project in Bavaria (over 40 years) provides
an interesting case study for the potential long term management strategies that are required
for a beaver reintroduction. Initially beaver management in Bavaria was not well co-ordinated
and was mostly reactive in nature. The main management solution was either preventative
measures e.g. anti-beaver paint, or translocation of problem individuals into areas where
they could not interfere with human activities. This strategy was successful when the
population was small and the population density was low. However, as the population has
reached carrying capacity for large areas of Bavaria it is no longer practical to translocate
individuals.
This led to a rethink of the Bavarian beaver management programme and the
implementation of a well co-ordinated network of expert beaver consultants who are
available to quickly provide effective advice to concerned land owners and users. The
management strategy now allows land owners and users to get advice before problems get
out of control and the system works to not only reduce land owner and user tension; but also
leads to a reduction in beaver killings as beaver consultants are often able to provide nonlethal management advice.
In combination the German federal nature conservation law and state law provide a legal
framework which ensures the protection of the species, whilst providing exceptions. The
German federal legal framework ensures that at national level the beaver receives the strict
legal protection required under the Habitats Directive. Yet exceptional measures can be
justified in individual cases according to s45(7) of BNatschG. The Bavarian law provides for
general exceptions regulated under section 2 of AAV.
Our interviews suggest that this strategy allows for the swift and effective implementation of
derogations and results in the death of 5% of the beaver population each year. Although this
additional mortality clearly does not affect the level of population growth in Bavaria it does
highlight that, once a beaver population establishes itself, the regular use of lethal methods
63
may be needed. This extensive resort to derogations for the beaver in Bavaria has, however,
been highlighted as a matter of concern for the European Commission although no formal
proceedings have to date been pursued against Germany and there is no indication at the
present time that there are likely to be.
The Bavarian beaver management plan therefore seems to provide a successful example of
matching the needs of land users with the conservation need of the beaver population. The
independent expert consulted in Bavaria stressed that their solution only came about after
the lessons learnt from years of ineffective management and poor communication with land
owners that led to unnecessary frustrations and antagonism between land users and
conservationists. Although the system has led to a reduction in conflicts and has continued
to allow the beaver to thrive it is open to criticism for being expensive and overly
bureaucratic.190
A further interesting point about the Bavarian beaver management strategy is the distinction
drawn between natal and non-natal dams. The Federal Conservation Act Section 19
requires the protection of the “breeding sites and resting places” of Annex IV(a) species, in
line with the Habitats Directive.191 In Bavaria, for practical purposes, this has been
interpreted to mean that natal dams are protected, while non-natal dams are not protected.
While the German Federal law has clearly transposed the provisions of the Habitats
Directive Article 12 correctly, it is not clear whether the interpretation of this provision to
exclude non-natal dams and lodges is in compliance with the requirements of the Directive.
Similarly, the status of the application of general exceptions to the protection of beavers in
European law is unclear.
In Norway, where beaver management is not subject to the constraints of the Habitats
Directive, problem beavers can be dealt with either by hunting in the open season or by
applying for a licence in the closed season. Conflicts between conservationists and land
owners or users over beavers appear to exist rarely in Norway. As effective legal
management options are available to land owners for the control of beavers on their land this
reduces animosity between land owners and government and diminishes the view that
outside authorities are imposing restrictive burdens on local communities. It is believed very
few beavers are illegally killed in Norway because of the accessibility of legal management
190
It was not possible for the purposes of this research to determine the exact cost of the Bavarian
beaver management strategy but one interviewee suggested the following figures for 2011: €350,000
in compensation payments for damage to forestry, agriculture and fish hatcheries: €90,000 for the
employment of two full-time beaver consultants, including travel and office expenses: and €360,000
per annum in monthly payments to local beaver consultants. Local beaver consultants receive a
nominal payment of between €100 and €200 per calendar month, this figure calculated from an
average of €150 per month i.e. 150x200x12 = 360,000. It was not possible to determine the costs
involved in the provision of preventative measures by municipalities e.g. beaver netting. These costs
are borne by individual municipalities and the information is not centrally collated. Similarly there may
be travel expenses for local beaver consultants but this information is not readily available. It is
perhaps worth noting that the European Commission made a statement on the conformity of the
Bavarian beaver compensation payments with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
concluding that the compensation payments are compatible with the Treaty. See European
Commission Statement on State Aid / Germany (Bavaria), Aid No.SA 33516 (N/2011), Compensation
for damage caused by beavers, Brussels 2009. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/241705/241705_1284059_87_2.pdf (accessed
20/06/12).
191
Federal Conservation Act 2010 Section 19(1) Any damage to species and natural habitats within
the meaning of the Environmental Damage Act, any damage that has significant adverse effects on
reaching or maintaining the favourable conservation status of habitats or species. Section 19(3)
provides that the ‘natural habitats’ referred to in 19(1) include the breeding sites and resting places of
Annex IV species.
64
options. It is worth contrasting the situation in Latvia and Norway. Both have large
populations, yet perceptions of problems vary hugely. In Latvia, there is a feeling that the
problem is out of control, there is no government intervention and Eurasian Beaver problems
are identified by landowners and controlled by hunters as a game species. However, hunters
have little interest in hunting the Eurasian Beaver, so control measures are ineffective. In
Norway, by contrast, the state provides a solution to the problem; making it easy for land
managers to get a licence to deal with problems, so they feel that they have control over the
issue. These case studies suggest that an effective way of managing future problems and
conflicts of interest in relation to the Eurasian Beaver may be to involve both landowners and
the state in designing an inexpensive and non-bureaucratic, legally compliant programme for
dealing with problems as and when they arise.
Sweden provided an opportunity to consider management strategies in place for the Grey
Wolf, which has not been reintroduced anywhere in Europe. Although there has not been a
formal reintroduction of the Grey Wolf in Sweden, the Grey Wolf has recolonised there
naturally, having been hunted to extinction in the first half of the 20th century. Attitudes
towards the Grey Wolf are more extreme and reflect the increased risk this species
represents. As a large carnivore the Grey Wolf presents a particularly challenging set of
circumstances for management and there are many well-founded concerns relating to
predation on semi-domestic reindeer, livestock, wild deer, as well as, concerns surrounding
attacks on dogs, effects on hunting and human fear of Grey Wolf presence.
The main management strategy to address these issues in Sweden has been licensed
hunting. This appears to have been undertaken without the basis of a justifiable derogation
under the Habitats Directive. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency had licensed
the hunting of Grey Wolves during specific dates with the years of 2010 and 2011. Recently
a second licensed hunt was called off following action taken by the European Commission in
the form of a reasoned opinion. Nevertheless, it seems that Sweden has continued to pursue
a deliberate policy to keep the north of Sweden, where reindeer populations are large, wolffree.
In Norway only three packs of Grey Wolves are allowed to survive in specific regions.
Outside these regions they are killed. Whilst conservationists are concerned that the Grey
Wolf population is too small and not viable, hunters and farmers consider that there are too
many wolves and that they pose a threat to human life, livestock and hunting practices.
Problem Grey Wolves are killed by government officials, but conflicts of interest are ongoing
and bitter.
The small Eurasian Lynx population in Bavaria is thought to have boosted the local economy
and so far has led to few conflicts, although hunters have expressed some concerns. The
lynx mainly occur in state forests and away from livestock areas. In Norway the population is
widespread and causes some conflicts regarding the predation on sheep, reindeer and roe
deer; particularly with farmers. However, compensation schemes are in place. There is also
a quota dictated by central government that allows hunters to remove a certain number of
individuals form specific regions. The population is monitored by rangers and the scheme
has support from both the hunting and conservation communities.
The case studies reveal the use of derogations for reintroduced protected species. Although
there have been no derogations for the White-tailed Eagle in Ireland, the other four of this
study’s five EU case studies have used derogations under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive
to manage the species relevant to this study:

Germany has issued a total of 623 derogations relating to its Eurasian Beaver
population and related to the increase of conflicts with water supplies, agriculture and
65
forestry.192 Some derogations allowing the scaring away of the beaver have been
issued on a permanent basis. The Composite Report on Derogations193 concluded that
the German derogations relating to the beaver (particularly those relating to
preventative measures and to permanent derogations) are probably in conflict with the
species protection measures under the Habitats Directive. At time of writing the
European Commission has not instigated any action against Germany on this issue or
issued any formal warning.

The Netherlands has issued derogations in the 2007-2008 biennial reporting period in
relation to the Eurasian Beaver. The majority of the derogations allowed deterioration
or destruction of breeding sites or resting places. No animals were killed.

Sweden has issued derogations in each reporting period relating to the killing of the
Grey Wolf to prevent serious damage to livestock.

Latvia has a permanent exception in relation to the Eurasian Beaver inserted into the
Habitats Directive.194 Therefore, it does not need to make recourse to derogations in
relation to this species. However, since accession to the EU it has used derogations
fairly extensively for the killing of the Eurasian Lynx. The European Commission
Report on Derogations (2007-2008) concluded that the derogations relating to the
Eurasian Lynx could be in conflict with the species protection measures set out under
the Habitats Directive, although no formal action has been instigated.
The final conclusion, therefore, that one might make in relation to derogations for protected
species is that for the species of interest to this research, with the exception of the Whitetailed Eagle, derogations appear to be an important aspect of the management strategies to
deal with reintroduced species, albeit that the use of a derogation should be a matter of last
resort. The circumstances in which it might be appropriate to resort to the use of derogations
for reintroduced protected species are further discussed in the following and final chapter of
this report.
192
The exact number of derogations relating to the Eurasian Beaver in this period is not stated but the
killing, capture, disturbance, and destruction of breeding and resting sites are specifically cited as the
main types of derogations, resulting in the killing of 537 individuals and 164 captures (European
Commission, Report on Derogations 2011, page 20). Similarly, during the 2003-2004 reporting period
one of the main reasons for derogations was reported as the prevention of serious damage by the
Eurasian Beaver (European Commission, Composite European Report on Derogations in 2003-2004
According to Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild
Fauna and Flora (The Habitats Directive) 2007).
193
European Commission, Report on Derogations 2011.
194
When the Baltic countries were given this exception on their recent accession to the EU they
already had substantial Eurasian Beaver populations.
66
4
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1
Discussion points
Maintaining consistency with the Habitats and Birds Directives must be the central priority for
Scotland and the rest of the UK. The key question for Scotland is how to maintain or restore
a viable population whilst effectively managing the conflicting interests of all parties
involved? The reintroduction of species may bring significant benefits in increased
biodiversity and in ecotourism. However, reintroduction projects need to find a balance
between securing these benefits and protecting the rights of those who may suffer economic
loss as a result. Many of the species considered for reintroduction in Scotland have
disappeared from Scotland’s ecosystems because they were considered a threat to
livelihoods. Therefore any schemes that attempt to reintroduce such species are likely to
face some form of opposition from some members of rural communities. It is important,
therefore, that these potential disagreements and conflicts are considered and prepared for
at the outset.195
The reintroduction into Scotland of species meriting special protection under Annex IV(a) of
the Habitats Directive and Annex I of the Birds Directive may give rise to some concerns for
some landowners and managers given that they do not have past experience to rely on in
the management of these species, for example the Eurasian Beaver (although this is still at
the trial reintroduction phase in Scotland). The survey of European reintroductions reveals
that reintroductions are widespread across many of the European states and there is
considerable experience elsewhere of managing the species which are of particular Scottish
concern. The case studies serve to highlight some of the lessons that can be learnt from the
experience of other European countries for the White-tailed Eagle, the Eurasian Beaver, the
Eurasian Lynx and the Grey Wolf. Albeit for a small number of animal species and for a
small number of selected case studies they demonstrate a range of legal and non-legal
management strategies to deal with concerns or conflicts arising. The case studies show
that the perceived success of reintroduction programmes varies across species and
countries and they highlight some important factors related to this. The ecological
characteristics of the species are obviously important, specifically; 1) their ability to
reproduce and disperse, 2) the impact they have on other species and habitats, 3) whether
suitable habitats and food are available. As important are social factors such as what the
perception is of the impact of reintroduction and the degree of threat to traditional hunting
practices, to land use and livestock, to human life and to habitats. Another key social aspect
is how effectively communities and stakeholders feel that they can deal with problems
should they arise.
These case studies highlight important considerations for the reintroduction of potentially
problematic species that have been discussed elsewhere.196 It is important that
reintroductions should involve wide and open consultations with stakeholders, so that fears
can be understood and appropriate evidence collated before and during a reintroduction.
Any scheme should incorporate effective monitoring, evaluation and remedial management,
not just for the short-term when the population is small, but also the longer-term issues in the
event of a scheme being successful. It is clear that when populations are established, some
management schemes can be expensive, although these costs could be reduced through
involvement of stakeholders in managing the problem (e.g. the use of hunters to hunt the
Eurasian Beaver in Norway).
195
See Hayward, M.W. & Somers, M.J. eds. 2009. Reintroduction of Top-order Predators, WileyBlackwell.
196
Ibid.
67
4.2
Recommendations
Evidence from the case studies outlined in this report indicates that reintroduced species
and humans can co-exist without conflict. However, this success is only possible if potential
problems which might arise from the reintroduction are identified in advance thereby allowing
for appropriate management strategies to be put in place. In order to develop appropriate
legal and non-legal management strategies for reintroductions of species listed under Annex
I and Annex IV(a) of the Birds and Habitats Directives respectively, a series of
recommendations (both general and species specific) are presented below. The general
recommendations apply to all specially protected species which have been reintroduced or
are capable of consideration for reintroduction in Scotland. Specific points relate to the
management of the Eurasian Beaver, currently under trial reintroduction in Scotland, and the
White-tailed Eagle, which has recently been reintroduced.
4.2.1 General recommendations
The findings of the legal review and the case studies form the basis of the general
recommendations outlined below. These recommendations are applicable to any future
reintroductions in Scotland of species listed under Annex I and Annex IV(a) of the Birds and
Habitats Directives respectively.
General Recommendation No. 1 - Consultation
1) An initial consultation of ecological and conservation experts is essential to ensure
the proposed reintroduction is not only ecologically feasible but will also contribute to
the favourable conservation status of the species in question.197
2) Additionally, and of equal importance to the ecological study, is the consultation of
members of the public, especially those stakeholders who may be impacted (both
positively and negatively) by the reintroduction.
Both of these consultations are required under Article 22 of the Habitats Directive which
provides that Member States shall:
study the desirability of re-introducing species in Annex IV that are native to their territory
where this might contribute to their conservation, provided that an investigation, also
taking into account experience in other Member States or elsewhere, has established that
such re-introduction contributes effectively to re-establishing these species at a
favourable conservation status and that it takes place only after proper consultation of the
public concerned.

This report recommends that consultation of the ‘public concerned’ should be part of
the process of investigating and designing any reintroduction from the earliest
opportunity.

The ‘public concerned’ should be defined as widely as possible, but should particularly
include land users, landowners and managers. These stakeholders should be
engaged in the process of designing the reintroduction from the earliest opportunity.

There will undoubtedly be concerns within communities about proposed
reintroductions as communities will lack prior knowledge of living with and managing
the species concerned. The consultation process should, therefore, aim to identify
197
This would be in line with the IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions (IUCN Guidelines, 1998) and
with Article 22 of the Habitats Directive.
68
these concerns and subsequently engage concerned members of the public in the
planning of the reintroduction project.

Through dialogue with concerned members of the public the organisation responsible
for the reintroduction should investigate how the reintroduction plan can be modified,
and potential management strategies developed, to allay the concerns of
stakeholders. This will only succeed if stakeholders engage in the process in a
constructive and meaningful manner.

Where there is little or no available evidence of the size of a potential impact from the
reintroduction of a species, then an adaptive management strategy should be
implemented with a mutually agreeable monitoring protocol informing the choice of
mutually agreed management options. Scotland already has some experience of
monitoring the effects of a reintroduced species in relation to a concern from land
users. Studies of reintroduced White-tailed Eagle predation of lambs were published in
2001198 and 2010;199 however, in contrast to what is being recommended in this report,
neither of these bodies of research were proactive pieces of research resulting from
consultation with land users. They were both reactive reports commissioned many
years after the reintroduction in response to long held land user concerns. However, it
should be noted that the west coast White-tailed Eagle reintroduction began in the
1970s, before the publication of the IUCN Reintroduction Guidelines. A far more
proactive approach has been undertaken for the more recent east coast White-tailed
Eagle reintroduction project which has been running over the last few years.

Additionally if robust evidence is available which suggests that the concerns of
members of the public are not well founded then this should be presented in an easily
accessible format before the reintroduction begins in order to avoid misplaced
animosity towards the species concerned.

Consulting stakeholders during the formation of reintroduction plans may also indentify
areas of mutual benefit, for example tourism opportunities, as well as identify areas
where land users can directly contribute to the project, such as monitoring
programmes, and the reintroduction plan can therefore be amended to maximise these
benefits.
The above approach of engaging ‘the public concerned’ to identify potential future benefits
as well as to address potential future problems is analogous to a Horizon Scanning
approach.200 Although limited in number, our case studies showed the involvement of land
user groups in species management contributed to increased support for the species within
that land user group; for example, beavers and hunters in Norway or reintroduced lynx and
hunters in Harz National Park, Germany.
198
Marquiss, M., Madders, M., Irvine, J. & Carss, D. 2001. The impact of White-tailed Eagles on
Sheep Farming on Mull, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report.
199
Simms, I. C., Ormston, C.M., Somerwill, K. E., Cairns C.L., Tobin, F.R., Judge. J. & Tomlinson, A.
2010. A pilot study into sea eagle predation on lambs in the Gairloch area - Final Report. Scottish
Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.370.
200
Sutherland, W.J. & Woodroof, H.J. 2009. The need for environmental horizon scanning. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, 24, 523.
69
General Recommendation No. 2 - Monitoring
Monitoring is a central component of the Habitats Directive and Member States are required
to:
1) undertake surveillance of the conservation status of priority species;201
2) establish a system to monitor incidental capture and killing of species listed under
Annex IV(a);202 and
3) undertake scientific research in order to meet the objectives of Article 2
(conservation of biodiversity while taking account of economic, social and cultural
requirements and regional and local characteristics) and Article 11.203

Given the requirements set out in the Habitats Directive, future Scottish reintroductions
of animals listed under Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive should have a detailed
monitoring programme in place prior to the start of the reintroduction. This monitoring
programme should be capable of providing biological information pertinent to
assessing the conservation status of the species as well as information on the rate of
incidental capture and killing.

As a result of the recommended consultation (General Recommendation No.1) specific
research projects may be established to identify the impacts of the reintroduced
species on a specific area of concern. If the results of this research support the
concerns of the stakeholders then management strategies should be modified
accordingly as part of an adaptive management strategy.

A detailed monitoring programme is also essential for the approval of derogations from
the Birds or Habitats Directives. The Commission will only approve derogations if “no
satisfactory alternatives are available” and the “derogation is not detrimental to the
maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation
status in their natural range”.204

In practice this means that an effective monitoring programme must be in place from
which the conservation status of the species can be demonstrated and the likely
impact of any proposed derogation on that species can be determined.
General Recommendation No. 3 - Species Working Groups

As the populations of reintroduced species expand the concerns members of the
public may have are likely to change. In order to react swiftly and appropriately to
these new, emerging concerns this report recommends the formation of species
specific working groups of relevant stakeholders. Modelled on the National Species
Reintroduction Forum these working groups will provide a focal point for debate and
discussion surrounding the reintroduced species and will be involved in the
development of the adaptive, species specific management plans discussed below.
201
Habitats Directive, Article 11.
Habitats Directive, Article 12.
203
Under Habitats Directive Article 18(1) Member States ‘shall encourage the necessary research and
scientific work having regard to the objectives set out in Article 2 and the obligation referred to in
Article 11. They shall exchange information for the purposes of proper coordination of research
carried out at Member State and at Community level.’
204
Article 9 of the Birds Directive and Article 16 of the Habitats Directive.
202
70
General Recommendation No. 4 – Species Specific Management Plans

A species-specific approach to the special protection set out in the Habitats and Birds
Directives is essential.

Scottish Natural Heritage should ensure species specific management plans are
produced for reintroduced species or planned reintroduced species.

A Species Management Plan which addresses the specific needs of the species, any
threats to that species or problems raised by that species is essential to avoid
problems with
derogations.

The Species Management Plan should also address the issue of determination of
favourable conservation status in relation to the particular species.
General Recommendation No. 5 – Resort to Derogations

The fact that a species has been the subject of a reintroduction does not preclude the
use of the formal derogation procedure for that species in order to address human
concerns such as damage to property including livestock, crops or forestry. In fact, the
review of the experience of other European countries suggests that resort to
derogations for some species can be a necessary part of the management strategy for
the species, e.g. the Eurasian Beaver in Bavaria in Germany.

The strict conditions for derogations under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive must be
met otherwise the UK may face enforcement proceedings by the European
Commission as illustrated by the Finnish wolves case and the more recent action over
Grey Wolf hunting in Sweden. However, this may lead to more conflict.

Any plans to derogate from the protection of reintroduced specially protected species
must therefore be carefully considered in the light of Article 16 of the Habitats
Directive, Article 9 of the Birds Directive, the European Commission Guidance
published in 2007 and the case law of the European Court of Justice.

Effective monitoring of reintroduced species (in line with General Recommendation
No.2 above) is essential to enable SNH to determine the likely impact of any proposed
derogation on the favourable conservation status of species.
4.2.2 Species-Specific recommendations
4.2.2.1
White-tailed Eagle
A management strategy for the White-tailed Eagle should address the issues set out in the
general recommendations above in relation to consultation, monitoring and management.
Effective consultation with the public and the sharing of information on the impacts of Whitetailed Eagles is essential in order to address the concerns of stakeholders and to ensure the
effective protection of the species. Some illegal killing of White-tailed Eagles has occurred in
both Norway and Ireland and stakeholders developed an aggressive campaign against a
possible reintroduction of White-tailed Eagles into south east England.205 Continued
205
See, for example, ‘The war of the Sea Eagles’, Guardian News, 21 March 2010. Available from the
Guardian News website at www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/21/sea-eagles. Last accessed
23 March 2012.
71
monitoring of the species is important as it should not only facilitate a better scientific
understanding of the species but also allow Scottish Natural Heritage to have a reasonable
appreciation of the possible impacts on human activities. In particular, research should
highlight any changes in predation patterns.
Given that derogations from the special protection afforded under the Birds Directive Article
5 are only permissible where there is no other satisfactory solution, derogations for bird
species such as the White-tailed Eagle and Red Kite, are unlikely to be an appropriate
response to most of the land management concerns raised in this research. Alternative
strategies to address impacts on livestock farming and on forestry should be explored in the
first instance and might include compensation for loss of livestock, support for changes to
lambing practices and the agreement of exclusion zones around nest sites.
It is conceivable that there may be exceptional circumstances where the grounds for
derogation might need to be considered in relation to significant developments in the public
interest, such as windfarms or quarries. This is a complex issue which would have to be
considered in the light of the regulatory frameworks for these developments and national and
local policy objectives.
4.2.2.2
Eurasian Beaver
Experience from across Europe suggests that reintroducing the beaver to Scotland will bring
significant biodiversity benefits and has the potential to provide wider socio-economic
benefits, for example through the stimulation of eco-tourism. However, European experience
also demonstrates that it is likely the beaver will impact on human activities, albeit on
intermittent and localised basis. The nature of these impacts will vary depending on the
population size and, consequently, this report makes recommendations for both short-term
post-release management, as well as, longer term population management.
Short-term Recommendations
After release the population will remain relatively small with a low population density. Despite
this, the beavers will still have the potential to cause intermittent and localised problems,
such as those outlined in the case studies, e.g. flooding, crop damage, tree mortality,
damage to water engineering works. In many cases it may be possible to resolve the issue
by discussion and agreement or by the provision of specialist advice, with no positive
intervention in the management of the species being required. However, in situations where
intervention is required then the following hierarchy of responses is recommended – ranging
from non-destructive actions short of derogation to actions requiring derogation:
72
The non-destructive actions short of derogation that are suggested here are used
extensively across Europe and have been shown to be effective. However, in some
situations these may be impractical and therefore more direct action is needed. In Germany
a narrow approach has been taken to the protection of ‘breeding and resting places’,
permitting the removal of an unoccupied, non-natal dam (i.e. a dam which does not contain a
lodge and is not necessary to provide access to a lodge). In the absence of guidance from
the European Commission or case law from the ECJ on this point, the legal status of this
approach is not certain and further research will need to be undertaken on this issue. All
other direct actions listed here (scaring devices, removal of dams associated with a lodge,
translocation and killing) will require a derogation and must, therefore, be carefully
considered against the tests for a derogation discussed in section 3.1.4 of this report.
A hierarchy of responses with derogation as a last resort are suggested here as the
Commission requires evidence to be provided that no satisfactory alternative is available
before it accepts derogation. Derogation may be needed where the preventative actions
(e.g. fencing) do not work or where a beaver is putting key infrastructure at risk, for example
a sewage plant. During the earlier stages of release the population will have a restricted
geographic range and will occur at a low population density. This will provide favourable
conditions for translocation of problem individuals to areas of suitable habitat where they will
cause less interference with human activities and therefore the killing of individual problem
beavers is unlikely to be necessary during this time. Indeed, the Bavarian beaver
reintroduction did not resort to killing of problem beavers until thirty years after the start of
the reintroduction (although, it must be noted that the Bavarians enjoyed the flexibility to
translocate problem beavers elsewhere in Europe for a considerable period of time. This is
no longer the case as most countries now have sufficient beaver numbers).
Long-term Recommendations
If the beaver were to be formally reintroduced to Scotland it is likely that eventually the
population would occur over a large geographic area at a high population density, relative to
the carrying capacity of the area, with few additional territories available. As discussed
previously it is inevitable that, in some localised occurrences, beavers will interfere with
human activities; as has occurred widely across Europe. While the population is small one
action of last resort for problem beavers might be to translocate problem individuals.
73
However, the practicality of this option will be reduced as fewer territories become available
to translocate individuals to, or the distances involved in translocation become impractical.
This situation was reached in Bavaria in the 1990s. There could also be other reasons why
translocation may not be judged appropriate.
In such circumstances it is possible that the killing of beavers may become the most
practical and cost-effective management option. In Bavaria the killing of beavers under
derogation has become routine. Although this is not in line with the strict interpretation of the
Habitats Directive, as highlighted by the European Commission’s composite reporting on the
use of derogations, Germany has not been challenged and is, perhaps, unlikely to be
challenged considering the favourable conservation status of the species in Germany. Any
action on the part of the European Commission to challenge the use of derogations relating
to the beaver would seem like over-enforcement in that light and not in line with the
European Commission’s policy of taking a pragmatic, flexible, species by species approach
to protected species.206 The framework for species protection under the Habitats Directive
must be pragmatic, flexible and species specific. Where the population of the species is
clearly within favourable conservation status, management strategies which require
derogation are permissible provided there is no satisfactory alternative and the means of and
grounds for derogation fall within the requirements of the legislation. Germany has a clear,
centrally administered but locally delivered management strategy for addressing the
problems arising from having an expanding, healthy beaver population. It is conceivable that
there may be circumstances in the future where the killing of beavers in significant numbers
may be necessary and can be justified as part of a beaver management strategy for
Scotland.
It is also possible, as a long-term strategy, perhaps not for Scotland but for the wider EU,
that consideration should be given to amending the status of the beaver as an Annex IV(a)
protected species. Article 19 of the Habitats Directive contains the mechanism for the
alteration of Annex IV where such amendments are necessary due to technical and scientific
progress. It requires a unanimous vote by the European Council as a result of a proposal
from the Commission.207
Implementation of Management Options
The implementation of the management options described above requires a balanced
management strategy that takes account of both the conservation requirements of the
beaver and the needs of land users. The Bavarian management plan appears to strike a
balance between these two needs and it is recommended that this strategy be carefully
considered if the beaver is to be reintroduced to Scotland.
The benefits of the Bavarian Plan include the following:

The use of local, volunteer beaver consultants is not only cost-effective but also allows
local knowledge to be used to provide the most appropriate solution to a problem
beaver.

The use of local beaver consultants encourages local ownership of beaver populations
and increases community support for the presence of beavers.
206
See discussion in Section 3.1.4 above relating to the European Commission Guidance 2007.
A number of countries have exceptions inserted into the annexes for particular species. For
example see, Directive 97/62/EC of 27 October 1997 adapting to technical and scientific progress
Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which inserts
exceptions into Annex 2 of the Habitats Directive for Finland and Sweden. This suggests that there is
some limited scope for alteration in the annexes.
207
74

As local beaver consultants are fully trained and supported by full-time beaver
consultants they contribute to the monitoring process required by the Habitats
Directive and are able to make informed decisions about the most appropriate
management strategies. Often advising the use of effective non-lethal methods instead
of quickly resorting to lethal methods; therefore, reducing the need for derogations.

The use of a large number of local volunteer beaver consultants allows for a quick
response to concerns land users may have. The presence of trained local consultants
provides reassurance to local land users.

The system provides a clear, locally accessible, transparent and immediate process
for dealing with problems.
Although the Bavarian management system has many benefits it is open for criticism as
being overly bureaucratic and expensive. In addition to the expenses of the 200 volunteer
beaver consultants and the two full time beaver consultants the cost of mitigation measures,
e.g. beaver fencing, is also born by the government. This report does not recommend
adoption like-for-like of the Bavarian management approach. This would be in contradiction
to General Recommendation No.1 (above) which would suggest that a management
strategy should only be adopted after careful consultation with experts and members of the
public. However, the key features of the Bavarian approach which are considered
particularly beneficial should be considered in the design of the Scottish management
strategy for the species.
75
5
CONCLUSION
One of the central objectives of this research was to inform strategies for dealing with
conflicts between reintroduced species and land management activities. The research has
shown that there is considerable experience of addressing these concerns in other
European countries and that management strategies are available, including as a last resort
derogation from the special protection of species, which can effectively address the
concerns of landowners and managers and avoid detrimental impacts on the species
concerned. Evidence from the case studies outlined in this report indicates that reintroduced
species and humans can co-exist without conflict provided effective management strategies
are put in place which anticipate and address concerns.
76
6
REFERENCES
6.1
International and European Union Law
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979) (Bern
Convention).
Council Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds
(codified version) (The Birds Directive).
Council Directive 97/62/EC of 27 October 1997 adapting to technical and scientific progress
Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora (The Habitats Directive).
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Number R (85) 15 1985 of the
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to Member States on the reintroduction of species
1985.
European Commission, Composite European Report on Derogations in 2007-2008
According to Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and
of Wild Fauna and Flora (The Habitats Directive) 2011.
European Commission, Composite European Report on Derogations in 2003-2004
According to Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and
of Wild Fauna and Flora (The Habitats Directive) 2007.
European Commission, Our life insurance, our natural capital: EU Biodiversity Strategy to
2020, COM 2011 244 final.
Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under
the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, Environment Directorate-General of the European
Commission, February 2007.
IUCN. 1998. Guidelines for Reintroductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Reintroduction
Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 1992.
6.2
Case Studies: Law and Policy
6.2.1 Ireland
Law
European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) (Control of Recreational Activities)
Regulations 2010 S.I. No. 293/2010.
European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 S.I. No. 477/2011.
European Communities (Natural Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 S.I. No.
378/2005.
77
European Communities (Natural Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 S.I. No.
233/1998.
European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997 S.I. No. 94/1997.
European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) (Restrictions on use of Poisoned Bait)
Regulations 2010 S.I. No. 481/2010.
Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2010 (Act No. 19 of 2010).
Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 (Act No. 38 of 2000).
Wildlife Act 1976 (Act No. 39 of 1976).
Policy
‘Minister Deenihan Launches Second National Biodiversity Plan’, The Department of Arts,
Heritage and the Gaeltacht Press release 09 November 2011. (Available at
http://www.ahg.gov.ie/en/PressReleases/2011/November2011PressReleases/htmltext,1623
7,en.html. Last accessed 23 March 2012.)
National Biodiversity Action Plan 2011-2016. (Available at http://www.ahg.gov.ie/en/. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.)
6.2.2 Sweden
Law
Swedish Environmental Code 1998.
Species Protection Ordinance 2007:845.
Policy
A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life (Available at http://www.miljomal.se/-Global-meny/In-English/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.)
The Swedish Government Inquiries, Report of the Inquiry on the Environmental Objectives
System, to the Minister for the Environment 2009. (Available at
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/13/55/25/8ae6a419.pdf. Last accessed 23 March
2012.)
6.2.3 Latvia
Law
Hunting Act (107 (2872), 23 July 2003).
Hunting Regulations (183 (2948), 30 December 2003).
Policy
National Programme on Biological Diversity, Approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on 1
February 2000. (Available at
http://www.varam.gov.lv/eng/dokumenti/politikas_planosanas_dokumenti/?doc=3304. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.)
78
6.2.4 Netherlands
Law
Flora and Fauna Act 1998 (Act of 25 May 1998, containing rules for the protection of wild
plant and animal species (Flora and Fauna)).
Hunting Regulations (§ 1. Hunting Acts, falconer deeds and deeds decoy).
The Nature Conservation Act 1998 (25 May 1998).
Policy
Biodiversity Works For Nature For People Forever, July 2008 (Available at
http://english.minlnv.nl/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.)
The Habitat-Based Approach: A New Species Policy September 2007 (Available at
http://english.minlnv.nl/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.)
Nature For People, People For Nature July 2000 (Available at http://english.minlnv.nl/. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.)
6.2.5 Germany
Law
Bavaria Nature Protection Law (Law over the protection of nature, the care of the landscape
and the recovery in free nature (Bavarian nature protection law – BayNatSchG)) 1 March
2011)
Law on nature protection and landscape conservation (Federal Nature Conservation Act) 29
July 2009 (BNatSchG).
Nature Conservation Act of Saxony-Anhalt (LSA NatSchG) 10 December 2010.
Regulation on the permission of exceptions of the protection regulations for particularly
protected animal and plant types (Protection of species-legal exception regulation - AAV) 3
June 2008.
Policy
Implementation Act of Lower Saxony to the Federal Nature Conservation Act
(NAGBNatSchG) 19 February 2010.
National Strategy on Biodiversity (Available in German at http://www.bmu.de/. Last accessed
23 March 2012.)
6.2.6 Norway
Law
Forestry Act.
Nature Diversity Act (Act No. 100 of 19 June 2009 Relating to the Management of Biological,
Geological and Landscape Diversity).
The Nature Conservation Act (Act No. 63 of 19 June 1970 Relating to Nature Conservation).
79
Wildlife Act (Act No. 38 of 29 May 1981 Relating to wildlife and wildlife habitats).
Policy
Report No. 26 to the Storting (2006-2007) The Government’s Environmental Policy and the
State of the Environment in Norway (Available with excerpts in English at
http://www.regjeringen.no/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.)
Report No. 24 to the Storting (2000-2001) The Government's Environmental Policy and the
State of the Environment. (Available with excerpts in English at http://www.regjeringen.no/.
Last accessed 23 March 2012.)
Report No. 21 to the Storting (2004-2005) The Government’s Environmental Policy and the
State of the Environment in Norway (Available with excerpts in English at
http://www.regjeringen.no/. Last accessed 23 March 2012.)
6.3
General References
Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2007/80).
Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Amendment (No.2) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI
2007/349).
Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Amendment (No.2) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI
2008/425).
Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (SSI
2011/155).
Conservation (Natural Habitats &.) Regulations SI 1994/2716.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 SI 2010/490.
Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1842).
Arts, K., Fischer, A., and Van der Wal, R. 2012. Common stories of reintroduction: A
discourse analysis of documents supporting animal reintroductions to Scotland. LUP, in
press.
C.T. Reid. 2009. Nature Conservation Law, 3rd Edition, W Green.
Document DocHab-04-03/03 rev.3 ‘Assessment, monitoring and reporting of conservation
status – preparing the 2001-2007 report under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive’. (Available
at http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/monnat/home. Last accessed 23 March 2012.)
Europa Press Release ‘Commission urges Sweden to respect nature legislation in protecting
endangered wolves’, Brussels, 27 January 2011. (Available at
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/95&format=HTML. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.)
Halley, D. J. & Rosell, F. 2002. The beaver's reconquest of Eurasia: status, population
development and management of a conservation success. Mammal Review, 32, 153.
80
Hayward, M.W. & Somers, M.J., eds. 2009. Reintroduction of Top-order Predators, WileyBlackwell.
Hetherington, D., Miller, D., Macleod, C. & Gorman M. 2008. A potential habitat network for
Eurasian lynx in Scotland. Mammal Review, 38, 285.
Heydon, M.J., Wilson, C.J., & Tew, T. 2010. Wildlife conflict resolution: a review of problems,
solutions and regulation in England. Wildlife Research, 37, 721.
J. Darpö, Brussels Advocates Swedish Grey Wolves, Swedish Institute for European Policy
Studies, European Policy Analysis September Issue 2011. (Available at
http://www.sieps.se/en/publikationer/brussels-advocates-swedish-grey-wolves-20118epa.
Last accessed 23 March 2012.)
Kramm, N., Anderson, R., O’Rourke, E., Emmerson, M., O’Halloran, J. & Chisolm, N. 2010.
Farming the Iveragh Uplands: A tale of humans and nature, University College Cork.
Linnell, J., Salvatori V. & Boitani, L. 2008. Guidelines for Population Level Management
Plans for Large Carnivores, a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE). Report prepared
for the European Commission July 2008.
Marquiss, M., Madders, M., Irvine, J. & Carss, D. 2001. The impact of White-tailed Eagles on
Sheep Farming on Mull. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report.
McLean, I.F.G., Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2003. A Policy for Conservation
Translocations of Species in Britain. (Available at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2920. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.)
Morzillo A.T., Mertig A.G., Hollister J.W. & Garner, N.J. 2010. Socioeconomic Factors
Affecting Local Support for Black Bear Recovery Strategies. Environmental Management,
45, (6), 1299.
Reasoned Opinion addressed to Kingdom of Sweden on account of its failure to fulfil its
obligations under Article 12 and 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild flora and fauna under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union, Brussels 16 June 2011, 2010/4200, K(2011) 4030 Final
Rees, P. A. 2001. Is there a legal obligation to reintroduce animal species into their former
habitats? Oryx , 35,(3), 216.
Rudfeld, L. 2005. Contribution to the interpretation of the strict protection of species
(Habitats Directive Article 12), Article 12 Working Group. 6 April 2005.
Simms, I. C., Ormston, C.M., Somerwill, K. E., Cairns C.L., Tobin, F.R., Judge. J. &
Tomlinson, A. 2010. A pilot study into sea eagle predation on lambs in the Gairloch area Final Report. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.370.
Sutherland, W.J. & Woodroof, H.J. 2009. The need for environmental horizon scanning.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 523.
‘The war of the Sea Eagles’, Guardian News, 21 March 2010. (Available at
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/21/sea-eagles. Last accessed 23 March 2012.)
81
Trouwborst, A. 2010. Managing the Carnivore Comeback: International and EU Species
Protection Law and the Return of Lynx, Wolf and Bear to Western Europe. Journal of
Environmental Law, 22, (3), 347.
82
Appendix 1. EU reintroductions of species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive and Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive
Species English Common Name Spermophilus citellus Spermophilus citellus Spermophilus citellus Spermophilus citellus Spermophilus suslicus Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Cricetus cricetus Cricetus cricetus Cricetus cricetus European Ground Squirrel or Suslik European Ground Squirrel or Suslik European Ground Squirrel or Suslik European Ground Squirrel or Suslik Speckled Ground Squirrel Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver European Hamster European Hamster European Hamster Taxa Occurs Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Czech Republic Germany Poland Slovakia Poland Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Poland Romania Slovakia Solvenia Sweden Belgium France Netherlands 83
Post Legislation Reintroduction? Derogation of Reintroduced Pop. 2001‐2008? Reference Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N N N Y N N N N Y Y Y N N N Y N N N N N Y N N 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Lutra lutra Lutra lutra Lutra lutra Lutra lutra Mustela lutreola Mustela lutreola Mustela lutreola Mustela lutreola Felis silvestris Felis silvestris Lynx lynx Lynx lynx Lynx lynx Lynx lynx Lynx lynx Lynx lynx Lynx pardinus Cervus elaphus corsicanus Bison bonasus Bison bonasus Bison bonasus Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata Testudo hermanni Emys orbicularis Emys orbicularis Gallotia simonyi Brown Bear Brown Bear Brown Bear Otter Otter Otter Otter European Mink European Mink European Mink European Mink European Wildcat European Wildcat Lynx Lynx Lynx Lynx Lynx Lynx Iberian Lynx Corsican Red Deer European Bison European Bison European Bison Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal Austria France Italy Netherlands Spain Sweden UK Estonia France Germany Spain Germany Spain Austria Czech Republic France Germany Italy Slovenia Spain France Poland Germany Lithuania Y y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Pyrenean Chamois Mammal Italy Y Y Spain Lithuania Spain Spain Y Y Y Y Y N N N Hermann's Tortoise European Pond Turtle European Pond Turtle El Herro Giant lizard Reptile Reptile Reptile Reptile 84
2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 6 7 7 2 Lacerta agilis Coronella austriaca Natrix tessellata Vipera ursinii Triturus marmoratus Alytes muletensis Alytes obstetricans Bombina bombina Bombina bombina Bombina bombina Rana iberica Rana lessonae Pelobates fuscus Pelobates fuscus Bufo calamita Bufo calamita Hyla arborea Hyla arborea Hyla arborea Hyla arborea Acipenser naccarii Acipenser sturio Valencia hispanica Maculinea arion Maculinea teleius Maculinea nausithous Parnassius apollo Patella ferruginea Patella ferruginea Theodoxus prevostianus Sand Lizard Smooth Snake Dice Snake Meadow Viper Marbled Newt Mallorcan Midwife Toad Common Midwife Toad Fire Bellied Toad Fire Bellied Toad Fire Bellied Toad Iberian Frog Pool Frog Common Spadefoot Common Spadefoot Natterjack Toad Natterjack Toad European Tree Frog European Tree Frog European Tree Frog European Tree Frog Adriatic Sturgeon Atlantic Sturgeon Valencia Toothcarp Large Blue Scarce Large Blue Dusky Large Blue Apollo Butterfly Ribbed Mediterranean Limpet Ribbed Mediterranean Limpet N/A Reptile Reptile Reptile Reptile Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Fish Fish Fish Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Mollusca Mollusca Mollusca 85
UK UK Germany Hungary Spain Spain Spain Germany Latvia Sweden Spain UK Italy Sweden Estonia UK Austria Germany Latvia Sweden Italy France Spain UK Netherlands Netherlands Czech Republic France Spain Hungary Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 2 2 2 7 2 2 2 7 7 2 2 2 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 9 10 2 2 Unio crassus Ciconia nigra Ciconia ciconia Anser erythropus Tadorna ferruginea Aythya nyroca Aythya nyroca Oxyura leucocephala Oxyura leucocephala Pandion haliaetus Pandion haliaetus Milvus milvus Milvus milvus Milvus milvus Haliaeetus albicilla Haliaeetus albicilla Gypaetus barbatus Gypaetus barbatus Gypaetus barbatus Gyps fulvus Gyps fulvus Gyps fulvus Aegypius monachus Aegypius monachus Aegypius monachus Aquila adalberti Aquila chrysaetos Aquila fasciatus Falco naumanni Falco naumanni Thick‐shelled River Mussel Black Stork White Stork Lesser White‐fronted Goose Ruddy Shelduck Ferruginous Duck Ferruginous Duck White‐headed Duck White‐headed Duck Osprey Osprey Red Kite Red Kite Red Kite White‐tailed Eagle White‐tailed Eagle Bearded Vulture Bearded Vulture Bearded Vulture Griffon Vulture Griffon Vulture Griffon Vulture Black Vulture Black Vulture Black Vulture Spanish Imperial Eagle Golden Eagle Bonelli's Eagle Lesser Kestrel Lesser Kestrel Mollusca Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Sweden Italy Netherlands Sweden Bulgaria Italy Spain France Spain Spain UK Ireland Italy UK Ireland UK Austria Italy Spain Bulgaria France Italy Bulgaria France Spain Spain Ireland France France Spain 86
Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N Y 7 11 2 2 2 2 12 2 2 2 2 13 7 2 14 15 2 2 16 7 2 17 7 2 18 2 7 2 7 19 Falco peregrinus Falco peregrinus Falco peregrinus Tetrao urogallus Tetrao urogallus Grus grus Crex crex Porphyrio porphyrio Fulica cristata Otis tarda Columba junoniae Bubo bubo Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Fringilla teydea Peregrine Falcon Peregrine Falcon Peregrine Falcon Capercaillie Capercaillie Common Crane Corn Crake Purple Swamphen Red‐knobbed Coot Great Bustard Laurel Pigeon Eurasian Eagle Owl Red‐billd Chough Blue Chaffinch Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Austria Germany Poland France Germany UK UK Portugal Spain UK Spain Germany UK Spain 87
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N 20 21 20 22 22 23 24 25 7 2 2 26 27 7 Appendix 2. Results of the investigation of the reintroduction of selected species* in Non-EU European countries
*Eurasian Beaver, Eurasian Lynx, Grey Wolf, Brown Bear, White- tailed Eagle and Red Kite
Species Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Castor fiber Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Ursus arctos Lynx lynx Lynx lynx Lynx lynx Lynx lynx Lynx lynx Lynx lynx Lynx lynx Lynx lynx English Common Name Country Reintroduced? Existing Scottish Reintroduction? Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver Brown Bear Brown Bear Brown Bear Brown Bear Brown Bear Brown Bear Brown Bear Brown Bear Brown Bear Brown Bear Brown Bear Eurasian Lynx Eurasian Lynx Eurasian Lynx Eurasian Lynx Eurasian Lynx Eurasian Lynx Eurasian Lynx Eurasian Lynx Belarus Norway Russia Serbia Switzerland Ukraine Albania Belarus Bosnia Croatia Macedonia Montenegro Norway Russia Serbia Turkey Ukraine Albania Belarus Bosnia Croatia Norway Russia Serbia Switzerland N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 88
Lynx lynx Milvus Milvus Canis lupus Canis lupus Canis lupus Canis lupus Canis lupus Canis lupus Canis lupus Canis lupus Canis lupus Canis lupus Canis lupus Canis lupus Haliaeetus albicilla Haliaeetus albicilla Haliaeetus albicilla Haliaeetus albicilla Haliaeetus albicilla Haliaeetus albicilla Eurasian Lynx Red Kite Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf White‐tailed Eagle White‐tailed Eagle White‐tailed Eagle White‐tailed Eagle White‐tailed Eagle White‐tailed Eagle Turkey Switzerland Albania Belarus Bosnia Croatia Macedonia Montenegro Norway Russia Serbia Switzerland Ukraine Turkey Belarus Moldova Norway Russia Turkey Ukraine N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 89
N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Appendix 3. Derogations for selected species*
*Eurasian Beaver, Eurasian Lynx, Grey Wolf, Brown Bear, White- tailed Eagle and Red Kite
English Name Country of Derogation Year of No. Derogation Derogations No. Individuals Reason Actions Derogation for Reintrodcued Population? Brown Bear Bulgaria 2007/08 8 4 Research capture and GPS collar N Brown Bear Bulgaria 2007/08 11 6 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Brown Bear Estonia 2004 30 12 in the interest of public safety kill N Brown Bear Estonia 2005 1 23 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Brown Bear Estonia 2006 1 20 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Brown Bear Finland 2001 90 101 in the interest of public safety kill N Brown Bear Finland 2002 75 96 in the interest of public safety kill N Brown Bear Finland 2003 94 71 in the interest of public safety kill N Brown Bear Finland 2004 138 74 in the interest of public safety kill N Brown Bear Finland 2006 unspecified 78 unspecified kill N Brown Bear Finland 2007 unspecified 89 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Brown Bear Finland 2008 unspecified 90 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Brown Bear Finland 2005` unspecified 72 unspecified kill N Brown Bear France 2001 3 unspecified education, safety unspecified Y Brown Bear France 2002 3 unspecified education, safety unspecified Y Brown Bear France 2004 1 unspecified research, education transport Y Brown Bear Greece 2001 2 unspecified unspecified capture, keep in captivity N Brown Bear Greece 2002 1 unspecified unspecified capture, keep in captivity N Brown Bear Italy 2002 1 unspecified research capture Y Brown Bear Italy 2005 unspecified 11 research radio‐collar Y Brown Bear Italy 2007/08 unspecified unspecified in the interest of public safety, research kill, bring into captivity Y Brown Bear Lithuania 2004 3 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Brown Bear Romania 2007/08 unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified N Brown Bear Slovakia 2004 81 unspecified unspecified unspecified N 90
Brown Bear Slovakia 2007 87 25 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Brown Bear Slovakia 2008 58 31 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Brown Bear Slovakia 2005/06 unspecified 148 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Brown Bear Slovenia 2005 unspecified 91 in the interest of public safety kill N Brown Bear Slovenia 2006 unspecified 126 in the interest of public safety kill N Brown Bear Slovenia 2007/08 28 163 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Brown Bear Spain 2001 1 unspecified unspecified keeping in captivity N Brown Bear Spain 2002 1 unspecified unspecified keeping in captivity N Brown Bear Spain 2003 1 unspecified research unspecified N Brown Bear Spain 2004 1 unspecified research unspecified N Brown Bear Sweden 2001 1 57 in the interest of public safety kill N Brown Bear Sweden 2002 1 62 in the interest of public safety kill N Brown Bear Sweden 2003 74 unspecified in the interest of public safety kill N Brown Bear Sweden 2004 101 unspecified in the interest of public safety kill N Brown Bear Sweden 2005 unspecified 115 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Brown Bear Sweden 2007 8 unspecified public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Brown Bear Sweden 2008 15 unspecified public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Beaver Belgium 2001 151 unspecified research, education, reintroduction transport Y Eurasian Beaver Belgium 2002 1 1 research, education, reintroduction transport Y Eurasian Beaver Belgium 2004 1 1 research, education, reintroduction kill Y Eurasian Beaver 2005/06 8 unspecified unspecified deliberate disturbance Y 2005/06 6 unspecified unspecified deliberate disturbance Y 2007/08 31 unspecified unspecified unspecified Y Eurasian Beaver Belgium Czech Republic Czech Republic France 2004 1 unspecified research, education, reintroduction transport Y Eurasian Beaver France 2005 2 unspecified research, education, reintroduction capture Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2001 1 1 research, education, reintroduction capture Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2001 1 1 research, education, reintroduction deliberate disturbance Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 13 16 in the interest of public safety capture Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 7 unspecified research, education, reintroduction capture Y Eurasian Beaver Eurasian Beaver 91
Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 21 44 to prevent serious damage capture Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 18 1 in the interest of public safety deliberate disturbance Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 1 unspecified research, education, reintroduction deliberate disturbance Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 40 unspecified to prevent serious damage deliberate disturbance Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 4 unspecified in the interest of public safety destruction of breeding/resting sites Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 46 unspecified to prevent serious damage destruction of breeding/resting sites Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 1 unspecified research, education, reintroduction keeping in captivity Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 4 1 in the interest of public safety kill Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 7 7 research, education, reintroduction kill Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 52 77 to prevent serious damage kill Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2003 3 6 in the interest of public safety transport Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 31 60 in the interest of public safety capture Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 33 60 prevention of serious damage to livestock capture Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 4 38 research, education, reintroduction capture Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 26 4 in the interest of public safety deliberate disturbance Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 55 unspecified prevention of serious damage to livestock deliberate disturbance Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 1 unspecified research, education, reintroduction deliberate disturbance Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 2 unspecified flora and/or fauna conservation destruction of breeding/resting sites Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 6 unspecified in the interest of public safety destruction of breeding/resting sites Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 12 unspecified prevention of serious damage to livestock destruction of breeding/resting sites Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 14 unspecified research, education, reintroduction keeping in captivity Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 5 unspecified in the interest of public safety kill Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 2 127 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 8 9 research, education, reintroduction kill Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2004 4 7 research, education, reintroduction unspecified Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2005 91 unspecified prevention of serious damage to livestock unspecified Y Eurasian Beaver Germany 2006 110 unspecified prevention of serious damage to livestock unspecified capture, kill, destruction keeping in captivity Eurasian Beaver Germany 2007/08 unspecified unspecified unspecified Eurasian Beaver Hungary 2004 1 2 research, education, reintroduction 92
Y disturbance, Y Y Eurasian Beaver Hungary 2004 1 20 research, education, reintroduction transport Y Eurasian Beaver Hungary 2005 2 unspecified research, education, reintroduction unspecified Y Eurasian Beaver Hungary 2006 2 unspecified research, education, reintroduction unspecified Y Eurasian Beaver Hungary 2007/08 2 unspecified reintroduction unspecified Y Eurasian Beaver Luxembourg 2007/08 6 6 unspecified capture and release Y Eurasian Beaver Netherlands 2003 1 1 research, education, reintroduction unspecified Y Eurasian Beaver Netherlands 2007/08 unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified Y Eurasian Beaver Slovakia 2005/06 unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified Y Eurasian Beaver Slovakia 2007/08 unspecified unspecified flora and/or fauna conservation unspecified Y Eurasian Beaver Spain 2007/08 2 unspecified unspecified kill N Eurasian Lynx Belgium 2001/02 unspecified unspecified research, education transport N Eurasian Lynx Finland 2001 155 58 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Finland 2002 48 38 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Finland 2003 115 52 prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Finland 2004 176 67 prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Finland 2005 97 85 prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Finland 2006 98 82 prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Finland 2007 137 119 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Finland 2008 235 185 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx France 2001/02 1 unspecified prevention of serious damage kill Y Eurasian Lynx Italy 2007/08 unspecified unspecified reintroduction capture Y Eurasian Lynx Latvia 2005 unspecified 74 prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Latvia 2006 unspecified 38 prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Latvia 2007 unspecified 107 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Latvia 2008 unspecified 104 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Romania 2007 unspecified 22 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Romania 2008 unspecified 28 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Sweden 2001 127 117 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Eurasian Lynx Sweden 2002 114 90 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Eurasian Lynx Sweden 2003 109 69 prevention of serious damage kill N 93
Eurasian Lynx Sweden 2004 37 27 prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Sweden 2005 unspecified 14 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Sweden 2006 unspecified 56 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Eurasian Lynx Sweden 2007/08 28 115 public safety, prevention of serious damage kill N Grey Wolf France 2001 6 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Grey Wolf France 2002 6 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Grey Wolf France 2004 2 1 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf France 2005 unspecified 1 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf France 2006 unspecified 2 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Germany 2003 1 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Grey Wolf Hungary 2004 2 12 research capture N Grey Wolf Italy 2002 1 unspecified research capture N Grey Wolf Italy 2005/06 unspecified 2 research capture N Grey Wolf Italy 2005/06 unspecified 3 research, education, reintroduction capture N Grey Wolf Romania 2007 unspecified 143 unspecified kill N Grey Wolf Romania 2008 unspecified 169 unspecified kill N Grey Wolf Slovenia 2004 4 4 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Slovenia 2007 unspecified 7 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Slovenia 2008 unspecified 3 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Slovenia 2005/06 4 12 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Spain 2007 1 3 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Spain 2008 1 3 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Spain 2005/06 2 13 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Sweden 2002 2 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Grey Wolf Sweden 2003 2 1 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Sweden 2004 1 1 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Sweden 2005 unspecified 1 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Sweden 2006 unspecified 2 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Sweden 2007 2 2 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N Grey Wolf Sweden 2008 8 8 prevention of serious damage to livestock kill N 94
Red Kite Belgium 2002 1 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Red Kite Germany 2002 29 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Red Kite Germany 2003 3 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Red Kite Germany 2004 23 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Red Kite Italy 2002 1 unspecified unspecified unspecified Y Red Kite Poland 2004 1 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Red Kite Spain 2002 16 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Red Kite Spain 2003 20 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Red Kite Spain 2004 21 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Red Kite Spain 2006 1 7 reintroduction unspecified N Red Kite UK 2002 23 unspecified unspecified unspecified Y Red Kite White‐tailed Eagle White‐tailed Eagle White‐tailed Eagle White‐tailed Eagle White‐tailed Eagle UK 2004 2 unspecified unspecified unspecified Y Germany 2002 3 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Germany 2004 7 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Poland 2004 4 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Slovakia 2004 2 unspecified unspecified unspecified N Sweden 2005 1 unspecified air safety unspecified N *blue text = granting of a 5/6 year licence *red text = granting of permanent derogations for "scaring away beavers" 95
Appendix 4. List of case study interviews
Country Species Organisation Germany Beaver Self‐employed specialist Germany Lynx Lynx Project, Harz National Park Ireland White‐tailed Eagle Kerry White‐tailed Eagle Re‐introduction Ireland White‐tailed Eagle Kerry Branch, Irish Farmers Association (IFA) Ireland White‐tailed Eagle Kerry White‐tailed Eagle Re‐introduction Latvia Beaver Fest‐Forest Latvia Latvia Beaver Latvian Ministry of Environmental Protection Latvia Beaver Latvian Nature Conservation Agency Netherlands Beaver Dutch Beaver Working Group Netherlands Beaver Staatsbosbeheer Norway Beaver NINA – Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Norway Beaver Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers (NJFF) Norway Lynx NINA – Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Norway Lynx Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers (NJFF) Norway White‐tailed Eagle NINA – Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Norway White‐tailed Eagle Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers (NJFF) Norway Wolf NINA – Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Norway Wolf Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers (NJFF) Sweden Wolf Governmental Commission on Large Carnivores Sweden Wolf Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) 96
Appendix 5. European Union case law review
C-412/85 Commission v Germany [1987] E.C.R. I-03503
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against Germany on the
basis that, by authorising derogations from the protections for Birds contained within Article 5
of the Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC) without complying with the criteria outlined in
Article 9, the German Government had failed to correctly transpose the Birds Directive into
national law. Article 5 provides for general prohibitions on the deliberate killing, capture or
disturbance of the species of birds referred to in Article 1 of the Birds Directive.
German law prohibited acts which would amount to a breach of Article 5 of the Birds
Directive. However derogation from the prohibition was permissible where “the acts
concerned take place in the course of ‘the normal use of the land for agricultural, forestry or
fishing purposes’ or in the context of ‘the exploitation of the products obtained from such
activities.’”
The German Government argued that the ‘normal use of land’ did not authorise derogation
from Article 5 on the basis that compliance with the provisions within Article 5 was part of the
normal use of land. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held, dismissing Germany’s
arguments, that the ‘normal use of land’ was not defined therefore it did not exclude activities
which would amount to a breach of Article 5. The ECJ thus held in favour of the Commission
and the German Government was held to have failed to implement the Birds Directive as the
grounds for derogation did not constitute one or more of the reasons listed in Article 9.
Furthermore the ECJ held that where a Member State seeks a derogation from the
protections in Article 5 based on the justifications in Article 9, the Member State “must
restrict the derogation to cases in which there is no other satisfactory solution”. The
derogation must also be based on at least one of the reasons listed in Article 9(1)(a), (b) or
(c) and must meet the criteria listed in Article (9)(2). The purpose of the criteria in Article 9(2)
is to “limit the derogations to what is strictly necessary and to enable the commission to
supervise them.”
This case is significant as it means that where the Scottish Natural Heritage seeks to
introduce a derogation from Article 5 based on a justification within Article 9, that derogation
must be in a case where there “is no other satisfactory solution” and be compliant with the
criteria in Article 9.
C-252/85 Commission v France [1988] E.C.R. I-02243
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against the French
Government for failure to implement the Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC) within the
prescribed period (by the 6 April 1981) contained in Article 18 of the Directive.
The Commission alleged that the French Government had failed to fully implement Article
5(b) (prohibiting the deliberate destruction of, or damage to, nests and eggs) and (c)
(prohibiting the taking of eggs) of the Directive by only legislating for the protection of nests
and eggs during the close season. The French Government argued that the species of birds
concerned do not nest during the hunting season; therefore there was no purpose in
protecting their nests and eggs throughout the year. The European Court of Justice (ECJ)
held in favour of the Commission on the basis that the prohibitions in Article 5(b) and (c) of
the Birds Directive "apply without any limitation in time". The uninterrupted protection was
justified on the basis that “many species re-use each year nests built in earlier years.”
Furthermore the EU Commission alleged a breach of the Birds Directive as the French
Government had derogated from the protection in Article 5 by excluding certain species of
bird from protection. The French Government argued that derogation from Article 5 was
97
justified due to “the threat which the birds represent to mussel farming, other species of sea
birds and air safety.” The ECJ held in favour of the Commission on the basis that the facts
indicated the French Government failed to justify the derogation using the criteria in Article 9.
In addition the Commission argued that French law contains a general authorisation allowing
the keeping of protected birds. This was held by the ECJ to be in breach of Article 5(e) which
prohibits the keeping of protected bird species.
This case is significant as it establishes the principle that the protections afforded to birds
under Article 5 apply all year round. Furthermore where a derogation is sought it must be
justified under one of the principles in Article 9.
C-339/87 Commission v Netherlands [1990] E.C.R. I-00851
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against the Netherlands on
the basis that the Netherlands had failed to implement the Birds Directive (Directive
79/409/EEC) into national law within the specified time period (by the 6 April 1981).
The Commission argued that Netherlands law permited the hunting of several species which
are protected by Article 7 of the Birds Directive. The Netherlands Government argued that
the hunting derogation was justified as maintaining an open season for hunting was the only
method of preventing the species concerned (Carrion crow, jackdaw and magpie) from
causing serious damage to agriculture. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that a
derogation in order to prevent serious damage must be based on at least one of the reasons
listed in Article 9(1) and meet the criteria in Article 9(2). The ECJ held that the provisions
under national law did not meet these requirements and found in favour of the Commission.
Furthermore the Commission argued that the Netherlands Government was in breach of
Article 9 by not specifying the methods which may be used to hunt and kill bird species. The
Netherlands law permitted the hunting of certain birds by the use of any appropriate means
and without limitation in terms of time. Finding in favour of the Commission, the ECJ
emphasised the fact that the prohibitions on methods of capture within the Birds Directive
must be laid down in legislative provisions in order to ensure legal certainty. Member States
are thus under an obligation to adopt laws or administrative provisions to ensure the Birds
Directive is adequately transposed.
The Commission also alleged that the Netherlands law on derogation relating to the
prevention of damage did not accurately correspond to the wording of Article 9. The
Netherlands Government argued that the protection within Article 9 was observed by
ministerial pratice. The ECJ held that the Netherlands was in breach of its obligation to
implement the Directive as the “the criteria which the Member States must meet in order to
derogate from the prohibitions laid down in the directive must be reproduced in specific
national provisions”. The ECJ stated that “mere administrative practices, which by their
nature may be changed at will by the authorities, cannot be regarded as constituting proper
compliance with the obligation on Member States to which a directive is addressed, pursuant
to Article 189 of the Treaty”. However the ECJ did hold that "the transposition of a directive
into national law does not necessarily require the provisions of the directive to be enacted in
precisely the same words in a specific express legal provision, and that a general legal
context may be sufficient if it actually ensures the full application of the directive in a
sufficiently clear and precise manner."
This case is significant as it establishes the principle that any derogation for hunting must
satisfy the criteria in Article 9(1) and must specify the criteria required in Article 9(2).
Moreover member states must transpose the requirements of Article 9 into national law and
not merely rely on ministerial or administrative practice.
98
C-374/98 Commission v French Republic [2000] E.C.R. I-10799
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against the French
Republic on the basis that France had; [A] failed to designate the Basses Corbières site as a
special protection area (SPA) for the conservation of certain species of birds listed in Annex I
of the Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC); [B] failed to adopt special conservation
measures concerning the habitat of protected birds, contrary to Article 4(1) and (2) and; [C]
failed to take appropriate steps in relation to the Basses Corbières site to avoid disturbance
of the species protected on that site and deterioration of their habitat likely to have a
significant effect, as a result of the opening and working of limestone quarries. The
European Court of Justice held in favour of the Commission.
[A] Failure to Designate the Basses Corbières as a SPA
The Basses Corbières site contains a variety of Annex I Birds including a pari of Bonelli's
eagles and also constitutes an important area for the migration of birds of prey. Based on the
facts the ECJ held it was clear that the Basses Corbières should have been classified as a
SPA. Therefore the French Government had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of
the Birds Directive.
[B] Failure to adopt special conservation measures
The Commission argued that the special conservation measures required by Article 4(1) of
the Birds Directive had not been sufficiently implemented by the French Government as the
measures put in place were designed to protect the bio-tope of the Bonelli’s eagle and did
not provide a complete protection of all the protected bird species under the relevant
provisions of the Birds Directive. However the ECJ held that the measures in place were
capable of providing the relevant protection despite only being targeted at the Bonelli’s
eagle. Therefore the Commission’s argument was rejected.
Furthermore, the Commission also alleged that the measures did not apply to a particular
area measuring 950 hectares in size which for a long standing period had been home to
large birds of prey such as the Bonelli's eagle, the golden eagle, the peregrine and the eagle
owl, and of a corvid such as the red-billed chough. This area, it was argued should have
been classified as a SPA. The evidence led indicated that the protection was insufficent and
therefore the ECJ held that the French Government had failed to implement the Directive by
not classifying the site as a SPA.
[C] Failure to take steps to prevent the disturbance and deterioration caused by the
limestone quarries
The Commission submitted that the opening and working of limestone quarries within the
Basses Corbières site amounts to a breach of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (Directive
92/43/EEC) and is likely to cause disturbance to the species present and a deterioration of
their habitat. Specifically, for the Bonelli’s eagle, there was a reduction in the hunting territory
and disturbance to reproduction due to visual and noise pollution arising from quarrying
activity. Further the Commission argued an appropriate study of the effects of opening a
quarry on the Basses Corbières site should have been carried out. The Commission argued
that “the cultivation of prey for Bonelli's eagle, the scientific monitoring of that species, the
construction of a merlon and a plan for managing the natural environment, besides the fact
that they do not concern the other bird species requiring protection, cannot compensate for
the disturbance and deterioration caused, since the latter have not been assessed”.
The French Government counter argued by stating that there was no scientific evidence to
demonstrate any disturbance caused by the quarries on the Bonelli's eagles. Moreover the
Bonelli’s eagle was present before the "tautavel quarry began operating in 1968, and that it
has since maintained itself on the site without the working of the limestone noticeably
causing a disturbance of the species." Furthermore, "nothing in the monitoring of that
species, carried out by local bird protection associations independent of the administration,
99
supports the conclusion that moving the Tautavel workings to Vingrau might have negative
effects, the nesting area of Bonelli's eagle being in any event unaffected by either of the
working sites."
The ECJ held that the Habitats Directive Articles 6(2) to (4) are not applicable to areas which
have not been classified as SPAs. Therefore Article 6 was not applicable and the ECJ held
in favour of the French Government.
This is significant as cases where an area should be designated as a SPA but are not will
amount to a breach of the Birds Directive. It also demonstrates that it is possible to
successfully implement the protective measures required by Article 4 of the Birds Directive
indirectly using other protective measures. Finally it demonstrates that where an area is not
designated as a SPA the requirements in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive are not
applicable. The facts of this case suggest that it is of particular relevance to the adoption of
measures to protect the White-tailed Eagle.
C-103/00 Commission v Greece [2002] ECR I-01147
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against the Hellenic
Republic alleging that the Hellenic Republic had failed to implement a system of strict
protection for the sea turtle Caretta caretta and in doing so breached the Habitats Directive
(Directive 92/43/EEC) Article 12(1)(b) and (d).
The bay of Laganas on Zakinthos is considered to be an important breeding area for the
Caretta caretta. Upon conducting a visit to Zakinthos to ascertain whether protective
measures for the sea turtle had been implemented, Commission officials discovered that the
protective measures were inadequate. Commission officials reported; “There were no
notices on the beaches; there were pedalos and boats in the sea area where their use is
prohibited; there were a significant number of beach umbrellas and deck-chairs on various
beaches (Kalamaki, Gerakas, Dafni); there were illegal buildings and recent works on the
beach at Dafni.” And “mopeds were being driven on the sand beach to the east of Laganas.”
The commission argued that the Hellenic Republic had breached Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of
the Habitats Directive by failing to implement a legislative framework to protected the sea
turtle against deliberate disturbance during the breeding period and deterioration or
destruction of its breeding sites. The Greek Government counter argued citing a number of
legislative measures which had been enacted designed to facilitate the protection of the
Caretta caretta on the island of Zakinthos.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that the provisions in force did not sufficiently
provide effective protection of the habitat, specifically “the sea and land areas of the bay of
Laganas”. Therefore the Greek Government had failed to meet its obligations under Article
12(1)(b) and (d) by failing to take all the requisite specific measures to prevent the deliberate
disturbance of the animal species concerned and the deterioration and destruction of its
breeding site during its breeding period. The ECJ highlighted the erosion which had been
caused to the beaches by the construction of access routes to the beach and the noise
arising from human activity as factors. The ECJ therefore held that the Greek Government
had failed to adopt a legal framework for the strict protection of Caretta caretta against
disturbance and deterioration of its breeding sites.
Furthermore the ECJ held that the use of mopeds, specifically the noise pollution produced,
on the beach used by the Caretta caretta turtle for breeding amounts to a deliberate
disturbance of the species and thus a breach of Article 12(1)(b) of the Habitats Directive. In
addition the presence of buildings on the beach amounts to a deterioration or destruction of
the breeding site and the presence of small boats near the beaches amounts to a “source of
danger to the life and physical well-being of the turtles”.
100
This case is significant as it highlights the fact noise pollution, construction and human
presence can amount to a deterioration or disturbance of a protected species and its
breeding sites. Furthermore the failure to take action to prevent disturbance or deterioration
of a species breeding site amounts to a breach of Article 12(1)(b) and (d).
C-434/01 Commission v UK [2003] E.C.R. I-13239
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against the United Kingdom
on the basis that the UK had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 16 of the
Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) by failing to implement a system that guarantees if
planning permission is granted to develop a site which contains a protected species the
appropriate authority complies with the conditions contained in Article 16(1)(c) of the
Directive when considering whether to grant a derogation from the protections in Article 12.
The Commission argued that the appropriate nature conservation agency or other authority
responsible for granting a licence to derogate from the protections contained in the Habitats
Directive relies on information provided from the local planning authority to determine
whether a derogation falls within Article 16 and there are no other satisfactory solutions. The
Commission argued that the criteria used by local planning authorities when granting
planning permission was not as rigorous as the criteria contained in Article 16(1)(c) of the
Habitats Directive. More specifically, the Commission alleged that the local planning
authority is not required by law prior to granting planning permission to enquire as to whether
there are other satisfactory solutions to a proposed project or that a potential derogation
resulting from a proposed project is based on one of the criteria in Article 16(1).
The UK counter argued that “none of the appropriate central authorities may grant a licence
unless it is satisfied that it falls within one of the grounds set out in Article 16(1)(a) to (e) of
the Directive and that the two conditions in Article 16(1) are met.” The UK also argued that
the appropriate nature conservation agency or other authority must carry out an independent
assessment prior to making a decision whether to grant a derogation licence.
The European Court of Justice held in favour of the UK on the basis that the Commission
had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the UK had not fulfilled its obligation under
the Directive by failing to implement a system that guarantees the appropriate authority
complies with the conditions in Article 16(1)(c).
This case is significant because it demonstrates that the appropriate authority which is
responsible for granting a licence for a derogation from the relevant provisions of the
Habitats Directive must comply with the considerations in Article 16(1) prior to granting a
licence. This includes considering whether there is no satisfactory alternative to the
derogation and whether the derogation is justified based on one of the criteria in Article 16(1)
(e.g. in the interests of public health).
C-75/01 Commission v Luxembourg [2003] E.C.R. I-01585
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg on the basis that the Luxembourg Government had failed to implement the
measures contained within the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC).
The Commission argued that the Luxembourg Government had failed to implement a
number of articles of the Habitats Directive including; Articles 1, 4, 5, 6,7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
22 and 23. The Luxembourg Government argued that a draft law had been approved which
transposed the directive into national law and that “various national laws and regulations
could help to attain certain of the Directive's objectives”.
101
However the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held in favour of the Commission on all points
that there had been incomplete, incorrect or failed transposition of the relevant Habitats
Directive Articles. Shortcomings in implementation included, but were not limited to, facts
such as;
[A] the national law failed to implement Article 12(2) by prohibiting the offering for, and
exchange of, species listed in Annex IV(a);
[B] the national law failed to implement Article 16(1) by failing to ensure that any derogation
under Article 16(1) based on the public interest or for scientific purposes, was conditional
upon there being no other satisfactory solution;
[C] the national law had failed to fully implement Article 12(1)(b) of the Directive by only
prohibiting the disturbance of fauna during the periods of breeding, rearing and hibernation
but not prohibiting disturbance during the migration period;
[D] the national law failed to implement Article 12(4) of the Directive requiring a monitoring
system; no such system was established.
The ECJ also reaffirmed its previous decisions in cases C-159/99 and C-394/00 that “mere
administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are
not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment
of obligations arising under the EC Treaty”.
This case is significant as it confirms that appropriate laws must be created which fully
transpose the Habitats Directive. It is not sufficient to rely on ministerial practice as a method
of implementation of the Habitats Directive.
Case C-6/04 Commission v United Kingdom [2005] ECR I-09017
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against the United Kingdom
on the basis that the UK had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Habitats Directive
(Directive 92/43/EEC) by failing to transpose the Habitats Directive into national law.
The UK Government argued that it had used general provisions within the relevant
legislation to implement the Habitats Directive. The Commission submitted “that the general
clauses pleaded by the United Kingdom are not sufficiently precise to ensure transposition
into national law of the specific obligations imposed by the directive.”
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that the legislation relied upon by the UK
Government was too general to give effect to the Habitats Directive with a degree of
precision and clarity which results in legal certainty. Therefore the ECJ held in favour of the
Commission.
Examples (all successfully argued) of the incomplete transposition of the Habitats Directive
argued by the commission include;
[A] that "Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive had not been formally reproduced in the
legislation applicable in Gibraltar";
[C] the UK Government failed to transpose the surveillance obligations within Articles 11 and
14(2) into national law. The ECJ held that UK law did not contain a “statutory duty requiring
the national authorities to undertake surveillance of the conservation status of natural
habitats and species”. Such an omission ment that there was uncertainty in the law and
furthermore failed to guarantee that surveillance of the conservation status of protected
species would be “undertaken systematically and on a permanent basis”. The ECJ held that
“the surveillance obligation is fundamental to the effectiveness of the Habitats Directive and
it must be transposed in a detailed, clear and precise manner." Furthermore the fact that a
practice conforms to the requirements of the Habitats Directive is not sufficient reason for
failing to transpose the Directive into domestic law;
102
[C] the UK Government had failed to transpose Article 12(4) of the Habitats Directive into
national law as its implementing measures contain no requirement for the establishment of a
monitoring system for the incidental capture and killing of animal species.
Importantly the ECJ held that "in the context of the Habitats Directive, which lays down
complex and technical rules in the field of environmental law, the Member States are under a
particular duty to ensure that their legislation intended to transpose that directive is clear and
precise, including with regard to the fundamental surveillance and monitoring obligations,
such as those imposed on national authorities by Articles 11, 12(4) and 14(2) of the
directive."
Interestingly the ECJ also noted that "in implementing Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, it
may be necessary to adopt both measures intended to avoid external man-caused
impairment and disturbance and measures to prevent natural developments that may cause
the conservation status of species and habitats in SACs to deteriorate."
This case is relevant to the SNH project as it demonstrates that the surveillance obligation
under Articles 11 and 14(2) of the Habitats Directive has to be conducted in a systematically
and permanent basis. Furthermore provisions to meet these objectives must be transposed
into national law in a detailed, clear and precise manner.
C-221/04 Commission v Spain [2006] E.C.R. I-4515
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against the Kingdom of
Spain on the basis that the Spanish Government had failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) by authorising the setting of
stopped snares for fox hunting in several private hunting areas in which otters can be found.
The Commission argued that the granting of a permit to use stopped snares amounts to a
breach of Article 12(1)(a) of the Habitats Directive as it results in the deliberate capture or
killing of otters. Article 12(1) and Annex VI(a) of the Habitats Directive precludes the use of
traps which amount to a non-selective hunting method according to their principle or their
conditions of use. Annex IV(a) protected species include the Lutra lutra (the otter).
The European Cour of Justice (ECJ) held that under the Directive the methods and means of
capture and killing listed in Annex VI(a) are prohibited only as regards the cases referred to
in Article 15 of the Directive. Article 15 prohibits the use of non-selective means to capture or
kill species listed in Annex V(a) and where a derogation is granted under Article 16 to
capture or kill species listed in Annex IV(a). The ECJ held that the permit was issued for fox
hunting and because the fox is not a species listed in Annex IV(a) or Annex V(a) the
prohibition in Annex VI(a) on non-selective hunting methods is not applicable. The ECJ
therefore held in favour of the Spanish Government on this issue.
The ECJ also established a legal test that; in order to meet the requirement of “deliberate
capture or killing” in Article 12(1)(a), “it must be proven that the author of the act intended the
capture or killing of a specimen belonging to a protected animal species or, at the very least,
accepted the possibility of such capture or killing.” With this test in mind the ECJ found that
the Spanish Government had granted the permits for the purpose of fox hunting, not the
intention to capture otters. This fact combined with the fact that the Commission had failed to
supply sufficient evidence to prove the presence of otters in the relevant area led the ECJ to
conclude that it could not be established that by issuing the permits the Spanish Government
intended to capture otters or knew that they risked endangering otters. The ECJ thus held in
favour of the Spanish Government.
This case is significant as it establishes the principle that for a breach of Article 12(1)(a) of
the Habitats Directive to occur, the Commission must prove that the perpetrator of the action
103
had the intention to capture or kill a protected animal species or at least be aware of the
possibility of such capture or killing. Furthermore it proves that non-selective hunting
methods may be used for the purpose of hunting species outside of Annex VI(a) and Annex
V(a) of the Habitats Directive.
C-518/04 Commission v Greece [2006] E.C.R. I-42
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against the Hellenic
Republic on the basis that the Greek Government had failed to fulfil its obligation under the
Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) by failing to put in place legal measures to protect
the Vipera Schweizeri on the island of Milos.
The Commission argued that the presence and operation of mines in the breeding area and
resting places of the Vipera schweizeri resulted in disturbance of that species during the
period of breeding and the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites in breach of Article
12(1)(b) and (d) of the Habitats Directive.
The European Court of Justice held that the Greek Government had failed comply with the
Habitat Directive Article 12(1)(b) and (d) by not taking the necessary measures to establish
an effective system of strict protection for the viper Vipera schweizeri on the island of Milos.
C-183/05 Commission v Ireland [2007] E.C.R. I-137
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against Ireland on the basis
that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Habitats Directive (Directive
92/43/EEC) by failing to implement Article 12(1) into national law.
The Commission alleged that the measures adopted by Ireland to implement the relevant
sections of the Habitats Directive are “disparate and patchy and cannot be regarded as an
appropriate system of strict protection within the meaning of the Habitats Directive." The
European Court of Justice (ECJ) found in favour of the Commission holding that, asides from
the monitoring system which was in place for the natterjack toad, there was no suitable
monitoring programme for species listed in Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive.
In addition the Commission argued that the Irish authorities do not possess the required
information necessary concerning certain Annex IV(a) species including information on their
breeding grounds, resting places and the threats they are subject to in order to implement a
system of strict protection. Ireland counter argued claiming the monitoring programmes used
provided sufficient data to protect Annex IV(a) species. However the ECJ held in favour of
the Commission that the Irish authorities had failed to take measures to effectively
implement the system of strict protection necessary according to Article 12(1) of the Habitats
Directive.
In addition the ECJ found that the Irish authorities had approved development projects,
which contained the risk of disturbing the breeding sites and resting places of protected
species including bat species, without the necessary valid derogation under Article 16.
In holding in favour of the commission the ECJ also affirmed its decision in case C-103/00
that “Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive requires the Member States not only to adopt a
comprehensive legislative framework but also to implement concrete and specific protection
measures." And affirmed its decision in Case C-518/04 that a system of strict protection
“presupposes the adoption of coherent and coordinated measures of a preventive nature”.
This case is significant because it establishes the principle that a suitable monitoring system
must be put in place for each of the species listed in Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive.
Further it establishes that a monitoring programme cannot be established where insufficent
104
information is available regarding threats to a species and the breeding grounds and resting
places of the species.
C-342/05 Commission v Finland [2007] E.C.R. I-04713
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against the Republic of
Finland on the basis that the Finnish Government failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles
12(1) and 16(1) of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) by authorising wolf hunting in
breach of the grounds of derogation under Article 16.
Wolf hunting in Finland was authorised by the relevant game management district on a case
by case basis. The maximum number of Grey Wolves which could be hunted within the
hunting season was set by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Wolf hunting can be
justified under Article 16(1)(b) to prevent serious damage as a derogation from the special
protections in Article 12.
The Commission argued that “the practice in Finland consisting in authorising hunting as a
preventive measure is contrary to Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive”. The Finnish
Government argued that Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive did not prohibit derogations
being taken from the system of strict protection as a preventative measure in order to
prevent serious damage.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that it was not necessary for serious damage to
be sustained prior to derogating measures being adopted. However the Finnish Government
admitted that, due to the fact the wolf is a pack animal, hunting permits were being issued on
a preventative basis without targeting specific animals which are likely to cause damage.
Therefore permits were being issued for the hunting of Grey Wolves which may not be likely
to cause damage and thus the issuing of permits was not justified under Article 16(1)(b).
The ECJ therefore held in favour of the Commission and found the Finnish Government to
have failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 16(1)(b) of the Habitats Directive
by authorising wolf hunting on a preventative basis without it being established that the
hunting is such as to prevent serious damage within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b).
In holding this, the ECJ reaffirmed its decision in case C-441/02 Commission v Germany
[2006] E.C.R. I-3449 that "A failure to fulfil obligations may arise due to the existence of an
administrative practice which infringes Community law, even if the applicable national
legislation itself complies with that law".
This case is significant because it establishes the principle that all derogations from Article
12(1) must be justified under Article 16. Furthermore where a permit for hunting of an Annex
IV(a) species is issued under a derogation under Article 16(1)(b) the permit must be for the
specific specimen of the species which is likely to cause damage.
C-507/04 Commission v Austria [2007] E.C.R. I-05939
The Commission of the European Communities raised an action against the Republic of
Austria on the basis that Austria had failed to fulfil its obligations under several articles of the
Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC). In its application before the court the Commission
raised a total of 39 complaints against the Republic of Austria that the laws of various
provinces within Austria failed to implement provisions within the Birds Directive. The
Commission was successful in the following grounds;
[A] Austria breached the following Articles of the Birds Directive; 1(1), 1(2), 5, 7(1), 7(4), 9(1),
9(2) in relation to the failure to include protection for a number of species of wild birds under
those Articles within national legislation.
105
[B] Austria breached Article 6(1) of the Birds Directive by excluding in national legislation the
black-billed magpie, the carrion crow and the hooded crow from the protection provided
under Article 6(1).
[C] Austria breached Article 7(1) of the Birds Directive by permitting, under national
legislation, the hunting of the carrion crow, the jay and the black-billed magpie from 1 July to
15 March. These species may not be hunted under Article 7(1) and (3).
[D] Austria breached Article 7(4) of the Birds Directive by permitting hunting seasons for the
common coot, wood pigeon and collared dove within the Province of Carinthia which were
incompatible with those established by Birds Directive.
[E] Austria breached Article 7(4) of the Birds Directive by permitting hunting seasons for a
number of species in terms incompatible with the Directive. For example the hunting season
for the woodcock was over five months long and was therefore incompatible as it placed
excessive pressure on the population. Furthermore Article 7(4) was breached in relation to
the capercaillie and black grouse as the hunting season fell within the mating season which
was, based on facts presented, incompatible with Article 7(4).
[F] Austria breached Article 8 of the Birds Directive by not providing provisions within it’s
national legislation which specified sufficiently the means of hunting prohibited under Article
8 of the Birds Directive. This was contrary to the obligation that Article 8 places on Member
States in the interests of legal certainty to draw up “with binding legal force, the list of
unlawful practices”.
[G] Austria breached Article 9(1) and (2) as it’s national law did not comply with the
conditions for derogation set out by these provisions. For example Austria breached the
Birds Directive by failing to specify within it’s national law the "means, arrangements or
methods authorised for capture or killing" of the European starling. This was in breach of the
requirements for outlining detailed rules for derogation which are contained within Article
9(2)(b) of the Birds Directive. The ECJ held that the relevant national laws and regulations
must “set out exhaustively the grounds allowing derogation, where appropriate, from the
protective provisions laid down by the Directive.” Therefore Austria had breached Article 9.
[H] Austria breached Article 11 of the Birds Directive by failing to ensure that national
legislation was compatible with Article 11 in ensuring that any introduction of non-naturally
occurring species of bird does not prejudice the local flora and fauna.
Case C-383/09 Commission v France [2009] OJ C312/26
The European Commission raised an action against the French Republic on the basis that
the French Government had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(d) of the
Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) by failing to establish a programme of measures to
ensure strict protection of the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus).
The Commission contended that the European hamster, a species protected under Annex
IV(a) and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, was threatened with complete extinction in
the near future. Furthermore the Commission maintained that there has been a significant
reduction in the European hamster population as a result of urbanisation and changes in
agricultural practice. In addition the Commission argued that the French Republic had not
taken adequate measures to prevent the deterioration of breeding sites or resting places of
the European hamster. By contrast the French Republic submitted that the measures
adopted were adequate and proportionate to the objective of strict protection under the
Habitats Directive.
106
The Commission led evidence establishing that the measures adopted by the French
Republic, which included; establishing three ‘priority action areas’ PPA's upon which an
objective of growing 22% of crops favourable to the European hamster was set, had not
been achieved. This combined with the increase in the development of maize crops in
Alsace (which within France is the only region where the European hamster can be found)
and the disappearance of agricultural land in favour of urbanisation were all factors in the
reduction of the European hamster population.
The European Court of Justice considered the evidence submitted regarding deterioration of
the European hamster habitat, breeding and resting places and found in favour of the
Commission that the French Republic had adopted measures which were not adequate to
"enable effective avoidance of deterioration or destruction of the breeding sites or resting
places of the European hamster." Therefore the ECJ held in favour of the Commission that
the French Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(d).
Moreover in finding in favour of the Commission the ECJ also affirmed its decision in case C183/05. The ECJ held that Article 12(1)(d) places a positive obligation on Member States to
adopt both a comprehensive legislative framework and to implement a concrete and specific
protection measures. In addition the ECJ also affirmed its decision in case C-518/04 that;
"the system of strict protection presupposes the adoption of coherent and coordinate
measures of a preventive nature.” The ECJ also affirmed its decision in case C-103/00 that;
“a system of strict protection must... enable the effective avoidance of deterioration or
destruction of breeding sites or resting places of the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) to
the Habitats Directive”
This case is significant as it establishes the principle that a system of strict protection of
coherent and coordinated measures must be established for Annex IV(a) protected species.
Furthermore such a system must also be preventative in nature.
C-308/08 Commission v Spain [2010] E.C.R. I-4261
The European Commission raised an action against the Kingdom of Spain on the basis that
the Spanish Government had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Habitats Directive
(Directive 92/43/EEC) Articles 6 and 12 in relation to a project for upgrading a country road.
The Donana Natural Park was proposed as a Site of Community Importance (SCI) in 1997.
In 1999, prior to the Commission placing it on the list of SCI, a road was upgraded which cut
through a section of the proposed SCI.
The Commission argued that the Spanish Government had failed to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 6 and 12 of the Habitats Directive by not preventing a negative impact on the
environment and the native Iberian lynx population which resulted from the upgrading of the
road. The Commission further alleged that the road upgrade left the habitat of the Iberian
lynx fragmented and also exposed the Iberian lynx to “the risk of fatal accidents, since the
protective measures could not be regarded as appropriate".
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) stated that various preventative measures had been
adopted including; the creation of wildlife crossings and bridges to allow movement of the
Iberian lynx across the road; the introduction of measures to deter speeding; the provision of
road signs and the erection of animal fencing. The ECJ held that there was insufficent
evidence to suggest that the upgrading of the road itself, baring in mind the preventative
measures adopted, resulted in placing “the Iberian lynx on the site concerned in danger of
extinction... which, accordingly, risks seriously compromising the ecological characteristics of
that site.” Therefore the ECJ held in favour of the Spanish Government on this issue.
However, importantly, the Commission also futher argued that the Spanish authorities had
not established a system for monitoring the incidental killing on the road of Iberian lynx and
107
had failed to take conservation measures to prevent a negative impact on the species
resulting from these accidental deaths, thus breaching Article 12(4) of the Habitats Directive.
The Spanish Government argued that it had adopted measures necessary and continued to
monitor those measures. Based on the facts submitted the ECJ held in favour of the Spanish
Government.
This case is relevant to this report as it highlights the fact that where a species has been
reintroduced, local developments such as road upgrades may need to be altered in order to
accommodate for the special protection afforded to the reintroduced species. This can be
achieved by adopting suitable preventative measures. Furthermore the case highlights the
obligation under Article 12(4) to establish a system of monitoring the reintroduced species.
C-508/09 Commission v Italy [2011] (03 March 2011)208
This case concerned the incorrect transposition of Article 9 of the Birds Directive
79/409/EEC into Italian national law. The Court held that the region of Sardinia failed in its
obligations under EU law by adopting and applying legislation for authorising derogations
which do not comply with the conditions set out in Article 9 of the Directive. The ECJ held
that;
“Since the region of Sardinia has adopted and applies legislation, relating to the
authorisation of derogations from the rules for the protection of wild birds, which does not
comply with the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 9 of that directive;”
208
Not currently available in English.
108
Appendix 6. References for survey of EU and Non-EU European reintroductions
1
Mateju, J., Ricanova,S., Ambros, M., Kala, B., Hapl, E. & Mateju, K. 2010.
Reintroductions of the European Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in Central
Europe (Rodentia: Sciuridae). Lynx, n. s. (Praha), 41,175.
2
IUCN. 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2011.2. Available at
www.iucnredlist.org. Last accessed 23 March 2008.
3
Férnandez-Móran, J., Saavedra, D. & Manteca-Vilanova, X. 2002. Reintroduction of the
Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) in northeastern Spain: Trapping, handling, and medical
management. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 33 (3), 222.
4
NABU. 2005. Abstracts of the Biology and Conservation of the European Wildcat
Symposium, Germany
5
Kidjo, N., Feracci, G., Bideau, E., Gonzalez, G., Mattéi, C., Marchand, B. & Aulagnier,
S. 2007. Extirpation and reintroduction of the Corsican red deer Cervus elaphus
corsicanus in Corsica. Oryx, 41 (4), 488.
6
Bertolero, A., Oro, D. & Besnard, A. 2007. Assessing the efficacy of reintroduction
programmes by modelling adult survival: the example of Hermann's tortoise. Animal
Conservation, 10 (3), 360.
7
European Commission. 2011. LIFE preventing species extinction: Safeguarding
endangered flora and fauna through ex-situ conservation.
8
Wynhoff, I., Oostermeijer, J., Van Swaay, C., Van Der Made, J. & Prins, H. 2000. Reintroduction in practice: Maculinea teleius and M. nausithous (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)
Entomologische Berichten Amsterdam, 60 (6), 107.
9
Witkowski, Z., Adamski, P., Kosior, A. & Plonka, P. 1997. Extinction and reintroduction
of Parnassius apollo in the Pieniny National Park (Polish Carpathians). Biologia
Bratislava, 52 (2),199.
10
Espinosa, F., González, A. R., Maestre, M. J., Fa, D., Guerra-García, J. M. & GarcíaGómez, J.C. 2008. Responses of the endangered limpet Patella ferruginea to
reintroduction under different environmental conditions: survival, growth rates and lifehistory. Italian Journal of Zoology, 75 (4), 371
11
The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) website at
http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation/waza-conservation-projects/overview/blackstork-reintroduction. Last accessed 23 March 2008.
12
Hetherington D., Miller D., Macleod C. & Gorman M. 2008. A potential habitat network
for Eurasian lynx in Scotland. Mammal Review, 38, 285.
13
The Red Kite Project website at http://www.goldeneagle.ie/portal.php?z=13. Last
accessed 23 March 2012.
14
O’Toole, L., Fielding A. H. & Haworth P. F. 2002. Re-introduction of the golden eagle
into the Republic of Ireland. Biological Conservation, 103, 303.
15
Whitfield, D.P., Duffy, K., McLeod, D.R.A., Evans, R.J., MacLennan, A.M., Reid, R.,
Sexton, D., Wilson, JD. & Douse, A. 2009. Juvenile dispersal of White-tailed Eagles in
109
western Scotland. Journal of Raptor Research, 43, 110.
16
Hernández, M., & Margalida, A. 2009. Assessing the risk of lead exposure for the
conservation of the endangered Pyrenean bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus)
population. Environmental research, 109 (7), 837.
17
Loria, G. R., Ferrantelli, E., Giardina, G., Vecchi, L. Li., Sparacino, L., Oliveri, F.,
McAuliffe, L. & Nichola R. A. J. 2008. Isolation and Characterization of Unusual
Mycoplasma spp. from Captive Eurasian Griffon (Gyps fulvus) in Sicily. Journal of
Wildlife Diseases, 44, 159.
18
Action plan for the Cinereous Vulture (Aegypius monachus) in Europe. 1996. Report for
the European Commision compiled by Birdlife International
19
Alcaide, M., Negro J. J., Serrano D., Antolín J. L., Casado, S. & Pomarol, M. 2010.
Captive breeding and reintroduction of the Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni: a genetic
analysis using microsatellites. Conservation Genetics, 11 (1), 331.
20
Sielicki, J & Mizera, T (eds.). 2008. Peregrine Falcon Populations - status and
perspectives in the 21st century. Warsaw and University of Life Sciences Press, Poland.
21
Krone, O., Essbauer, S., Wibbelt, G., Isa, G., Rudolph, M. & Gough, R.E. 2004.
Avipoxvirus infection in peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) from a reintroduction
programme in Germany. Veterinary Record, 154 (1), 110.
22
Grouse News. 2004. Newsletter of the WPA/BirdLife/Species Survival Commission
Grouse Specialist Group; November 2004, Issue 28
23
RSPB The Great Crane Project website at
http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campaigns/greatcraneproject/project.aspx. Last
accessed on 23 March 2012.
24
Carter, I. & Newbery, P. 2004. Reintroduction as a tool for population recovery of
farmland birds. Ibis, 146, 221.
25
Carlos Pacheco, C. & McGregor, P.K. 2004. Conservation of the purple gallinule
(Porphyrio porphyrio L.) in Portugal: causes of decline, recovery and expansion.
Biological Conservation, 119 (1), 115.
26
Dalbeck L. & Heg, D. 2006. Reproductive success of a reintroduced population of Eagle
Owls Bubo bubo in relation to habitat characteristics in the Eifel, Germany. Ardea, 94
(1), 3.
27
Johnstone, I., Mucklow, C., Cross, T., Lock, L., & Carter I. 2011. The return of the Redbilled Chough to Cornwall: the first ten years and prospects for the future. British Birds,
104, 416.
110
www.snh.gov.uk
© Scottish Natural Heritage 2012
ISBN: 978-1-85397-884-5
Policy and Advice Directorate, Great Glen House,
Leachkin Road, Inverness IV3 8NW
T: 01463 725000
You can download a copy of this publication from the SNH website.