TIM BAYNES, SCOTTISH LAND & ESTATES,

The review panel concluded that there was no clear case for state licensing of grouse shooting at this stage

ALL reviews commissioned by government can be regarded as political and the Werritty report, published on 19 December, is no exception. Faced with a barrage of conflicting views on grouse-moor management and suspicions about illegal raptor control, the Scottish Government asked Professor Alan Werritty to lead a review, which included in the remit to “advise on the option of licensing grouse-shooting businesses”.

After exhaustive evidence taking, site visits and deliberation, the review panel concluded that there was no clear case for state licensing of grouse shooting at this stage and that, ultimately, it was a political decision. They found a compromise to help government in the form of a suspension of licensing, dependent on showing an improvement within five years of breeding populations of golden eagles, hen harriers and peregrines on or within the vicinity of grouse moors.

This at least directly addresses the key issue and it pursues a direction of travel that the grouse sector has been engaged in with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) through initiatives such as Heads Up For Harriers, two golden eagle projects and the East Cairngorms Moorland Partnership. However, the ability for this to be delivered in such a short timescale is dependent on many factors outwith the control of moorland managers.

The grouse sector has expressed strong concern that licensing would discourage investment, is unnecessary given that recorded raptor persecution is at an all-time low, would be ineffective in rooting out those who kill raptors, would be complicated and would add another layer of administrative cost, which may be the last straw for many smaller, family-owned moors. No other sporting or land-use sector is subject to state licensing and in one move the Government would undermine the incentive for management, potentially losing the birds, jobs and remote communities that go with grouse management. Already, the long drawn out uncertainty of the Government review has frozen the market for grouse moors and reduced investment in the rural economy.

It will be some months before the Government decides how to react to the Werritty recommendations. In that time, it will further consult stakeholders and take into account a parallel research project being conducted by Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) and the James Hutton Institute.

While the mood in Scottish grouse circles is uncertain, with the fate of moorlands bound up in wider national politics, the report itself looked in detail at three issues: muirburn; use of medicated grit; and mountain hare management.

It proposes that more regulation should apply to muirburn, not only on grouse moors.

Crucially, this addresses the difficult problem of wildfires on grazing and crofting land as much as any poor burning on managed moors. Upgrading of the Scottish muirburn code is already in process at the Moorland Forum and the proposal is that the Rural Payments and Inspections Division (RPID) should monitor adherence, developing the power it already has to withdraw support payments into a wider monitoring system covering all land managers involved in muirburn.

Mountain hares are already being counted and monitored on many grouse moors and the report proposes to formalise this process with SNH and develop a tougher Code of Practice. Likewise, medicated grit should be subject to a Code of Practice, the Food Standards Agency monitoring any flubendazole reaching the food chain, while prescribing vets should receive wider training.

These measures would form part of a wider, Government-approved Grouse Management Code of Practice, overseen by SNH, another process that is already in progress at the Moorland Forum. These regulatory and best-practice proposals are challenging and add yet more administrative burden, but they are at least targeted at resolving specific issues and point the way to a future for grouse moors with the support of Government. Taken together as a package, they would in effect licence grouse-moor management in a sensible way. No more ‘licensing’ would be needed.

The report had some welcome elements, raising the possibility of a wider range of moorland management activities becoming eligible for RPID support. It has recognised the real dilemma, as shown at Langholm, of some species (buzzards and ravens being the most obvious) limiting the populations of red- and amber-listed birds, including red grouse, and recommends greater use of the existing SNH powers to licence management. It also recognises hen harrier brood management in England and proposes that, if successful, it should be considered in Scotland, too. While the grouse sector may also have to accept greater loss of grouse to raptors, these proposals could open the door to the sort of ‘adaptive management’ of predators and prey that could underpin a secure future for Scottish moorland wildlife.

A state licensing system for grouse shooting, as suggested by the Werritty panel, is seen as a vehicle that would be too open to activist pressure and changing the ground rules in the future. But the sector is keen to work with a neutral government that wants to fulfil what the second part of the review remit clarifies: “so that this form of management continues to contribute to our rural economy while being sustainable and compliant with the law”. There is still much to play for.

Tim Baynes is the moorland director, Scottish Land & Estates

The grouse sector has expressed concern that licensing would discourage investment