Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and next steps

Updated 2 September 2022

Summary

This document provides a summary of responses and next steps regarding the government’s public consultation on the approach to the reintroduction and management of beavers in England.

The purpose of the consultation was to seek views on the proposed approach further wild releases of beavers in England, current and future releases into enclosures and existing wild-living beavers. It also asked questions about management methods and options for the support that could be made available to those managing possible negative impacts of beavers.

The consultation ran for 12 weeks, from 25 August to 17 November 2021.

Part 1: Responses

Number of responses

In total, 3201 responses to the consultation were received. 3082 responses were received through our online survey on Citizen space, while 119 were received by email. 74 of the responses received by email were part of a Wildlife Trust campaign.

For responses to open-ended questions, key themes were identified and summarised across the responses. Not all email responses answered the consultation questions directly, therefore in these cases, key themes were considered under the most relevant section. As such, key themes have been expressed in terms of the approximate number of responses which highlighted the theme.

Details on demographics of respondents are summarised below.

About the respondents

Types of respondents

Respondents were asked to select whether they were responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation.

Of the 3082 responses received through Citizen Space, 2810 were from individuals and 270 were from organisations or businesses. Two responses did not clearly respond to this question.

Of the 119 responses received by email, 74 were campaign responses based on the Wildlife Trust’s campaign, 33 were from organisations or businesses and 12 were from individuals.

Organisations responding included environmental non-governmental organisations (eNGOs), both those with a broad conservation remit and those with specific focusses on certain species or habitats (in particular migratory fish and riparian habitats), farming and landowner membership organisations, fisheries organisations, local governments, utilities companies, risk management authorities, local environmental groups and businesses.

Respondents were asked to indicate their interest in the consultation. The majority of individual respondents indicated personal interest or concern for nature and the environment. Other interests identified by individual respondents included farming, fishing, relevant professional or academic interests (for example those working in the conservation, land or water management sectors) and business interests.

Approach to wild release

Consultation questions

Question 6. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to beaver reintroductions?

Respondents were asked to answer ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ and to give their reasons and supporting evidence. If answering ‘disagree’ respondents were asked to provide any suggested alterations or alternatives.

3095 respondents answered this question. Of these, 69% selected agree, while 31% selected disagree.

Around 700 respondents who selected agree commented to reaffirm their selection but did not provide specific reasons or evidence. Key reasons for agreeing with the approach included:

• the environmental, social and economic benefits beavers can provide (around 820 respondents), in particular references to benefits to flood mitigation and biodiversity
• that the approach was suitably cautious, well thought through or suitably balanced (around 320 respondents)
• beavers are native to England, and therefore should be reintroduced (around 100 respondents)

Other key themes raised by those who responded agree included:

• concerns that the proposed criteria were too difficult for projects to achieve and that the approach was too bureaucratic and onerous (around 210 respondents)
• concerns that the funding requirement was excessive (around 100 respondents), and that it was unrealistic to expect organisations to be able to confirm long-term funding up front
• the importance of engaging relevant stakeholders in the process (around 100 respondents)

Most of those selecting ‘disagree’ broadly fell into two groups: those who were supportive of further beaver reintroductions but disagreed with the approach, and those who were concerned about the approach and the impacts of beaver releases more generally.

Around 380 respondents, who disagreed with the proposed approach, were concerned that the criteria were too difficult to meet, which would prevent good projects from going ahead. Similarly to those responding agree, these respondents were particularly concerned about the proposed up-front funding requirements and felt this was unrealistic to expect projects to meet. Some respondents who disagreed highlighted the benefits that beavers can bring and felt that the proposed approach was too slow in realising these.

Around 200 respondents who disagreed felt that the government should fund aspects relating to beaver reintroduction, including funding for management actions, funding for release projects and funding for beaver officers.

Of those who disagreed, around 250 respondents were concerned about the negative impacts of further beaver reintroductions, including impact on farmland, flooding, the surrounding environment, other species, in particular migratory fish, and businesses. Some respondents were worried that the approach would result in increased costs for landowners and Risk Management Authorities ^{[footnote 1]}.

A common theme running through the responses from a number of key stakeholder organisations, as well as from some individuals, was a call for the government to provide a clear strategic direction for reintroduction of beavers in England. This was highlighted by organisations across a range of sectors, and by both those organisations which selected that they agreed with the approach and those which disagreed. Reasons given in support of the need for a strategic approach included a belief that this would better recognise the fact that beavers will spread from initial locations, the need for clarity over a longer time period than the project lifecycle and to ensure a coherent and joined up approach across the country.

Question 7. What criteria, in addition to those listed above, do you think projects should meet to be granted a licence for wild release?

Respondents were asked to state reasons and supporting evidence.

Around a third of respondents felt that no additional criteria were needed. Around 350 respondents felt that there were already too many criteria or that the process was already too onerous. Around 100 respondents explicitly stated that they did not support releases into the wild and therefore no further licences should be issued.

Where respondents suggested details of criteria, these covered a wide range of aspects. Many of the common themes raised emphasised or built upon the proposed criteria that had been highlighted in the consultation document, including:

• consideration of potential impacts of the release, including on other species such as migratory fish, the surrounding area and land use, flood risk, and unique or fragile habitats, in addition to protected sites
• engagement with stakeholders and the local public and level of local support
• risk assessment of the location of release to ensure it is suitable, including hydrological aspects

Many respondents suggested criteria which aligned with those broadly covered in the Code for Reintroductions, such as:

• ensuring the location had suitable habitat for beavers to become established
• requirements for monitoring and reporting the benefits and impacts of the release
• beaver welfare
• knowledge and expertise of the licence applicant

Many respondents to this question emphasised their belief that wild beavers should be given protection. Other criteria highlighted included education for surrounding communities, such as establishing links with local schools, and compensation for landowners.

Approach to existing wild living beavers

Question 8. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to existing wild-living beaver populations?

Respondents were asked to state their reasons and supporting evidence. Those responding ‘disagree’ were asked to provide any suggested alterations or alternatives and supporting evidence.

3100 respondents answered this question. 86% agreed, while 14% disagreed.

Of those who agreed, around 380 respondents cited the benefits that beavers can bring as their reasons for agreeing with the approach, while around 300 respondents felt that as the beavers are already established, they should be permitted to remain and spread.

Around 230 respondents who agreed emphasised that all beavers in the wild should be protected, including existing wild-living populations. Around 150 felt that wild animals should be left with no need for management, while a similar number of respondents noted that it was important that these populations were monitored and managed.

For those who disagreed, the most common response was concern about the potential negative impacts of these wild-living beavers and that beaver populations resulting from illegal release should not be protected. Other highlighted concerns included that permitting existing wild-living beavers to remain without having to meet the criteria for a new wild-release project would undermine the legal process for release and reward illegal behaviour.

Key themes from those who disagreed with the approach but supported existing beavers being permitted to remain included calls for government funding for management groups, a network of beaver officers and population assessments, and protection for all populations in the wild.

Approach to current and future beaver enclosures

Question 9. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to licensing for future beaver enclosures?

Respondents were asked to state their reasons and supporting evidence. Those responding ‘disagree’ were asked to provide any suggested alterations or alternatives and supporting evidence.

3089 respondents answered this question. 69% selected agree, while 31% selected disagree.

Of those who agreed with the approach, key themes highlighted included that:

• enclosures can have a useful role to play in research

• enclosures can contribute to increasing public awareness and to gain local support and public awareness
• while enclosures can be useful, the main focus should be on wild releases.

Those who disagreed with the approach broadly included those who were against further enclosure releases as they felt that the focus should be on further wild releases (around 170 respondents), those who felt the proposed approach to enclosures was too restrictive (around 180 respondents) and those who were against the reintroduction of beavers in England entirely, regardless of whether into the wild or into enclosures (around 70 respondents).

A common theme in responses opposed to this proposal was that respondents believed enclosures are unlikely to contribute to novel research on beavers as there is already lots of evidence of their benefits and impacts. This was referenced as a concern that if contribution to research became a criterion for a licence to release to an enclosure, then this could be a barrier to projects which might otherwise bring benefits. It was also referenced by those who did not think that research should be considered a valid purpose to issue an enclosure licence under a stricter process.

Around 80 respondents noted that there had been too many escapes from enclosures which had not been recaptured and were therefore concerned about the continuation of enclosure licensing. A number of respondents felt that it should be assumed that enclosures would result in escapes and the establishment of wild populations, and therefore should be subject to the same criteria as a wild release licence.

Others disagreed with the proposed approach as they felt that it was too restrictive or onerous and would put potential applicants off, meaning that the benefits they believed enclosures could bring, such as local biodiversity recovery or community education, would not be realised.

Question 10. What criteria do you think should be taken into consideration when determining whether or not to issue an enclosure licence?

A wide range of criteria that should be considered when licensing an enclosure were suggested. The most common themes included:

• that the proposed enclosure contained sufficient suitable habitat for beavers, was an appropriate size to be able to behave naturally and had sufficient access to food

• the environmental, economic and social benefits to the local area.

• consideration of beaver welfare
• consideration of the potential negative impacts of the enclosure, including on the surrounding area, other species, flood risk and to farmers or landowners
• the level of local support in the area
• the knowledge, expertise and background of those applying for an enclosure licence
• the likelihood of future release into the wild

Management hierarchy

Question .11. Does the management hierarchy cover management actions you would expect? Are there additional aspects you think should be included in the management hierarchy?

Respondents were asked to provide further details of additional aspects that should be included in the management hierarchy.

3083 respondents answered this question. 73% responded yes while 27% responded no.

Approximately 900 respondents did not provide further details while approximately 420 respondents commented in general agreement with the hierarchy. Approximately 260 stated that no additional aspects should be included.

Of those providing further details, there was an emphasis from many respondents that lethal control should not be included in the hierarchy at all (around 270 respondents). Some others felt that lethal control should sit in its own tier, below translocation, and should be a last resort. A smaller number of respondents (around 50) wanted lethal control to come sooner in the hierarchy and be more readily available.

Education and raising awareness were highlighted as a key element which was missing from the management hierarchy (around 150 respondents), which should come ahead of tolerance of negative impacts to enable stakeholders and the public to co-exist with beavers. Some respondents referenced the River Otter Beaver Trial as an example of where dedicated and targeted education had helped resolve conflicts and noted that the Management Strategy Framework developed during the trial should be used for nationwide management going forward.

There were calls for further clarity on terms used in the hierarchy and details on what protection will mean for managing of different structures (around 100 respondents), with calls for non-natal dams to be excluded from licensing requirements to facilitate rapid management. Stakeholder organisations requested further engagement on the detail of the management hierarchy ahead of it becoming binding.

Some respondents expressed concerns that protection will mean that management is impossible, and that licensing will add an increased burden and cost to land and water managers. Stakeholder organisations highlighted that management needs to be rapid and responsive, and for class licences to be available to ensure a timely response to certain management issues, for example management of certain dams in the winter which are unlikely to have welfare implications.

Incentives to reward landowners for the environmental benefits that can be realised by allowing space for beavers, for example by making space for water or more natural river processes, were considered an important tool in reducing conflict and therefore slowing or preventing progress through the hierarchy (around 110 respondents). Many felt that such incentives should be considered under the new environmental land management schemes that are being developed.

Government policy and support

Question 12. Excluding direct payment for management activities, what other support do you think should be available and to whom?

A wide range of support needs were highlighted. Despite direct payment for management activities being explicitly excluded in the question, the most common response was in favour of financial support (around 810 respondents), which included a wide range of aspects, such as:

• support for landowners and farmers to make space for beavers and water, including through incentives as part of future environmental land management schemes
• funding for management, as well as for management groups and a network of beaver officers to provide advice and undertake management actions
• funding for release projects, including funding for stakeholder engagement
• compensation for damage or loss of income from areas of land taken out of production

A common argument for using public funding for beaver reintroduction and management was that the costs of beaver impacts fall to a limited number of stakeholders, while the public accrue the benefits that beavers bring.

Some respondents highlighted that not all of those who might be financially impacted by beaver activities would be eligible if incentives were to be provided through environmental land management schemes and that in such cases alternative funding would be needed. This included particular reference to funding for Risk Management Authorities and fisheries organisations.

Other than financial support, other key areas highlighted included:

• advice and support for farmers and landowners
• education for stakeholders and the public on the benefits that beavers can bring and why this is important
• advice for local communities surrounding proposed release areas
• support to facilitate knowledge sharing between projects and management groups, to ensure relevant stakeholders and practitioners have access the most up-to-date information

Around 250 respondents felt that no additional support was required.

Question 13. Are there any specific areas where guidance is required?

Where specific areas for guidance were suggested, these were wide-ranging. Commonly highlighted areas where guidance is needed included:

• guidance to understand potential impacts of beavers and best practice guidance for avoiding, managing or mitigating impacts
• education on benefits that beavers can bring, and, less frequently highlighted, education on negative impacts

• guidance for landowners and farmers who may be impacted

• training, including for government, local authorities and beaver officers
• guidance on public interactions or behaviour when in proximity to beavers
• guidance on beaver behaviour and ecology
• guidance on how to interpret legal protection of beavers and how this impacts management, as well as broader legal aspects such as interactions with other legislation (for example drainage and agricultural legislation)
• guidance for projects on how to manage conflicts and resolve disputes between competing stakeholder interests

Approximately 540 respondents did not think that specific guidance was required and approximately 260 respondents were not sure which areas might require specific guidance. Around 460 respondents did not answer this question.

Question 14. How would you prefer to access advice and guidance (e.g. information on website, via email, focal point for enquiries etc.)?

Respondents suggested a wide range of formats for advice and guidance.

Approximately two thirds of respondents indicated that guidance and advice should be available via a website, and around 900 respondents indicated that advice or guidance should be available by email.

Many respondents (around 700) highlighted the importance of stakeholders being able to contact a knowledgeable person directly to obtain timely advice or guidance, for example via focal points or local beaver officers, as well as the option for in person discussions (around 300 respondents).

Other suggestions for accessing advice and guidance included:

• through a phone helpline
• local meetings
• through social media

• through relevant stakeholder groups or from government agencies

• through leaflets or brochures
• in-situ signs
• through local media or events

Additional questions

Question 15. Would you (or an organisation you are involved with) consider preparing an application for wild release, if the approach proposed in this consultation became national policy?

3095 respondents answered this question. 24% (742) responded yes, while 76% (2353) responded no. 14% of the positive responses (110 out of 742) were from organisations including eNGOs, local community groups and local authorities, or from landowners. The remainder of positive responses were from individuals.

Many individuals responding yes indicated that they would be supportive of releases in their local area or those undertaken by organisations of which they were a member but were not in a position to apply for a licence or undertake a release themselves. Therefore, it is likely that responses to this question overinflates the number of those considering preparing an application.

Those responding yes gave indications of location at varying spatial scales, ranging from specific sites to England-wide. A number of stakeholder organisations who responded no noted that they felt the approach was too onerous for them to consider preparing an application.

Part 2: Next steps

We are grateful to all those who took the time to respond to the consultation. We note the range of responses received.

Defra’s programme of work on beaver reintroduction started in 2014, including supporting a 5-year trial to investigate the effects of wild-living populations of beavers on the River Otter. In 2020 Natural England published the evaluation of the results of that trial, and it was announced that these beavers would remain. Building on this, we published this consultation on our proposed approach to beaver reintroduction and management in England.

Recognising the range of responses and feedback received on the questions in this consultation related to releases of beaver and reintroductions, we will continue to undertake further work with Natural England to develop our approach to reintroductions in England. We will publish further information on this, including on criteria for wild releases, in due course.

In August 2021 we outlined our intention to protect beavers by listing them in Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This change is to implement our legal obligations under the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). In July 2022 the government introduced legislation to do this, which will come into force on 1 October 2022.

To support this change in protection, Defra and Natural England have published guidance, on GOV.UK, on managing beavers and their impacts where this is necessary. Natural England, as the licensing authority, has also published information on how to apply for licences, including three new class licences, to undertake certain management activities. We will continue to monitor our approach to management and the implementation of the licensing regime, and remain open to adapting this where experience and evidence shows this to be necessary.

It remains unlawful to release a beaver into the wild or an enclosure without a licence. Natural England will not be considering applications for licences for any further releases of beavers into the wild until the national approach is finalised and there are a sufficient number of registered class licence users to facilitate an effective management approach.

1. Environment Agency, Lead Local Flood Authorities, District and Borough Councils, Coast Protection Authorities, Internal Drainage Boards, Water and Sewerage Companies, Highways Authorities. ↩