Goose management policy review 2022

Section 2: Background information and considerations

The following sections of the report set out the background information and the considerations around which the recommendations have been made.

4. Overview of current goose management policy in Scotland

4.1 There are 3 objectives around which goose policy has been based (Table 3), with little change since 2000.

• Meet the UK's nature conservation obligations for geese, within the context of wider biodiversity objectives
• Minimise economic losses experienced by farmers and crofters as a result of the presence of geese
• Maximise the value for money of public expenditure

Table 3. Current goose policy objectives

4.1.1 Meet the UK's nature conservation obligations for geese, within the context of wider biodiversity objectives

This policy objective has been essential to ensuring that all goose management policies and actions are framed within the context of current legislative provisions. These include European Directives, most of which remain enshrined within UK and Scots Law. The UK is also a signatory to a number of international agreements which are relevant to geese. These include the Ramsar agreement and the African-Eurasian Waterbird 10 Agreement (AEWA). These are long term commitments to promote biodiversity objectives for the benefit of wetlands and waterbirds.

In terms of meeting the nature conservation obligations, Scotland continues to follow the requirements of national and international legislation. Nationally, geese are managed according to the status of the species, through designation of protected sites, open seasons, licensing, goose schemes and the Islay Sustainable Goose Management Strategy. Internationally, partnerships with other ranges states have been strengthened through the AEWA European Goose Management Platform. With regard to wider biodiversity objectives, no assessment of these have been made. Work is required to look at how goose policy can contribute to the targets set out in the recent draft Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. Current population numbers and status of goose species present in Scotland are detailed in Annex 5.

In summary, this objective has largely been met and continues to be a relevant part of the goose policy framework but the wording of the objective could be refined to ensure that it is clear and progress is measurable. Going forward, this objective should also cover biodiversity, and Net Zero targets, where they relate to goose management, to recognise key Scottish Government priorities.

4.1.2 Minimise economic losses experienced by farmers and crofters as a result of the presence of geese.

This policy objective aimed to reduce the costs of goose damage borne by farmers and reduce the levels of conflict caused by geese in Scotland. It recognises that economic impacts are the main reason for conflict caused by geese.

Intervention in scheme areas (Annex 6) has reduced conflict to some extent, as a result of management and compensation, but growing goose populations within some scheme areas, increasing complaints from out-with goose scheme areas and a perceived lack of equity in payments mean that there remains dissatisfaction amongst some of the farming and crofting communities. The consultation responses from stakeholders strongly suggest that this policy objective is not currently being met.

The 2017 review outlined a number of key issues related to this specific policy which have contributed towards some ongoing and increasing conflicts. The consultation exercise for the current review suggests that all of these issues remain in some situations detailed in the bullet points below.

• Calculating economic losses as a result of goose grazing is a difficult and imprecise science. Where compensation is paid, it is calculated using a standard formula to estimate additional cost and profit foregone, using local production costs, prices and yields. However, the approach does not take account of all variables^[7]. Furthermore, payment rates are constrained by the available budget, and intervention rates (the proportion of the costs paid) vary with some schemes paying 60% and others paying 100% of the calculated cost^[8] of supporting geese.
• Damage to different crops, by different goose species, at different times of the year and in different land management systems means, along with year to year variations that there is no "one size fits all" approach that can calculate the impact of every goose on every field. However, where protected species occur, consultation feedback from some areas is that the calculation of losses should be equitable.
• Some solutions include management actions such as scaring and shooting. These options are not always fully effective in reducing impacts of geese to a level that reduces economic losses, due to lack of resources, cost of scaring outweighing benefits or effectiveness of techniques where geese are present for long periods of time. Some of the work to manage goose populations, especially greylag geese, has been restricted due to Covid and the knock on impacts have seen increased populations of geese.
• There is not currently a clear definition of what should trigger government intervention, at what point intervention is required, what type of intervention is required and to what extent economic losses should be minimised, which is important for equity and transparency and in demonstrating value for money.
• Population growth driven by a number of factors including agricultural production and climate change has resulted in increasing conflicts across new areas. The policy should be revised and consideration should be given as to how actions stemming from this policy are delivered in a consistent manner across the country, whether damage levels trigger intervention and, if so, to defining what might be an acceptable level of damage, below which no intervention is required.
• Where shooting has reduced the number of geese, conflict remains.

4.1.3 Maximise the value for money of public expenditure

This objective has been the subject of ongoing discussion across a number of years as it lacks clarity on the criteria for evaluating value for money. The consultation exercise demonstrated that stakeholders felt strongly that value for money was not being achieved.

It is proposed that this objective is refreshed to develop clear measurable criteria. It should follow Just Transition principles through the process that must be undertaken in partnership with those impacted by the transition to net zero. Just transition is how we reach net zero and climate resilient economy, in a way that delivers fairness and tackles inequality and injustice.

4.1.4 Guiding principles

Since 2011, the following principles have also guided the delivery of goose management:

Table 4. Current guiding principles

These principles have broadly been retained in the recommendations covering the next 5-10 years.

5. Delivery mechanisms and costs

5.1 Goose management schemes

The core delivery mechanism for protected species has continued to be goose management schemes (Map 1) co-ordinated by Local Goose Management Groups as set out in Table 6 and costs are set out in Tables 7, 8 and 9. These show that, since 2017/18 payments to farmers to support populations of protected geese have totalled £5.6 million and a further £1 million has been spent on running costs, which include counting of geese, surveys of grass damage and management (scaring and shooting in some locations) of geese. Whilst this is a significant level of public funding within the context of NatureScot's budget, it should be noted that the costs do not, in some cases, cover the estimated costs to farmers of goose damage. Further information on goose management schemes is available here.

The current goose management schemes end in April 2023 and there are no alternatives in place for future schemes. It is anticipated that schemes will roll forward in some form until there is clarity on the future goose management. It is clear from the consultation process that many farmers support standalone goose schemes as a delivery mechanism but there is also support for considering wider agri-environment support mechanisms as a means of supporting farmers and crofters to support goose populations.

Scheme/pilot location (start date)	Species of goose covered by the scheme/pilot	Summary details
Islay (2000)	Greenland barnacle goose, Greenland white-fronted goose	Winter scheme for migratory geese. Payments made to farmers for managing geese. Costs relate to damage caused but do not cover the full estimated cost of damage. Delivery mechanism for Islay Sustainable Goose Management Strategy.
Solway (2000)	Svalbard barnacle goose	Winter scheme for migratory geese. Payments made to farmers for managing geese. Costs relate to damage caused but do not cover the full estimated cost of damage.
Kintyre (2000)	Greenland white-fronted goose	Winter scheme for migratory geese. Payments made to farmers for managing geese. Costs relate to damage caused.
South Walls -Orkney (2000)	Greenland barnacle goose	Winter scheme for migratory geese. Payments made to farmers for managing geese. Costs relate to damage caused.
Loch of Strathbeg (2000)	Pink-footed goose	Winter scheme for migratory geese. Payments made to farmers for managing geese. Costs relate to damage caused. This scheme closed in 2021 as it did not meet the policy objective of focussing on species of the highest conservation interest.
Uist, Coll & Tiree (2019)	Barnacle Goose	Winter scheme for migratory geese. Payments made to farmers for managing geese. Costs relate to damage caused but do not cover the full estimated cost of damage.
Slamannan (2006)	Taiga Bean Goose	Winter scheme for migratory geese. Payments made to farmers for managing geese. Costs relate to providing undisturbed feeding. Closed in 2018 because hosting the geese did not incur additional cost – neither for management nor from agricultural damage.

Table 6. Goose management schemes 2017 - present

Financial year	Islay	Kintyre	Slamannan	Solway	South Walls	Strathbeg	Uist, Coll & Tiree	Total
2017/18	£877,259	£53,366	£5,295	£185,251	£15,432	£9,998	-	£1,146,601
2018/19	£862,361	£51,205	-	£186,002	£15,267	£9,998	£7,500	£1,132,333
2019/20	£802,997	£52,167	-	£204,839	£15,485	£9,998	£60,814	£1,146,300
2020/21	£790,114	£55,864	-	£206,216	£15,047	-	£60,814	£1,128,055
2021/22	£773,056	£53,788	-	£199,224	£15,578	-	£56,357	£1,098,003
Grand Total	£4,105,787	£266,390	£5,295	£981,532	£76,809	£29,994	£185,485	£5,651,292

Table 7. Management Agreement payments to farmers

Financial year	Islay	Kintyre	Slamannan	Solway	South Walls	Strathbeg	Uist, Coll & Tiree	Grand Total
2017/18	£143,954	£10,988	£2,512	£24,778	£6,665	£3,170	-	£192,067
2018/19	£136,360	£11,290	£600	£28,469	£6,503	£3,226	£6,360	£192,808
2019/20	£134,003	£12,020	£600	£29,829	£11,758	£3,462	£6,784	£198,456
2020/21	£138,192	£12,395	£600	£31,286	£12,448	£789	£6,992	£202,703
2021/22	£138,442	£12,712	£600	£31,344	£8,193	£0	£8,609	£199,901
Grand Total	£690,951	£59,405	£4,912	£145,707	£45,567	£10,647	£28,745	£985,934

RSPB Table 8. Scheme running costs (including staff and contract costs for co-ordination, counts and marksmen, plus the cost of scaring equipment). Note counts on Tiree & Coll are provided by at no cost to NatureScot. Whilst the Slamannan goose scheme closed after 2017/18, NatureScot continues to support counts

Financial year	Islay	Kintyre	Slamannan	Solway	South Walls	Strathbeg	Uist, Coll & Tiree	Grand Total
2017/18	£1,021,213	£64,354	£7,807	£210,029	£22,097	£13,168	-	£1,338,668
2018/19	£998,721	£62,495	£600	£214,471	£21,770	£13,224	£13,860	£1,325,141
2019/20	£937,000	£64,187	£600	£234,668	£27,243	£13,460	£67,598	£1,344,756
2020/21	£928,306	£68,259	£600	£237,502	£27,495	£789	£67,806	£1,330,758
2021/22	£911,498	£66,500	£600	£230,568	£23,771	-	£64,966	£1,297,904
Grand Total	£4,796,738	£325,795	£10,207	£1,127,239	£122,376	£40,641	£214,230	£6,637,226

Table 9. Total costs for goose management schemes since 2017

5.2 Islay Sustainable Goose Management Strategy

The Islay Local Goose Management Scheme is the delivery mechanism for the Islay Sustainable Goose Management Strategy. The strategy aims to reduce agricultural damage by reducing barnacle goose numbers over a 10 year period, from 2014. The reduction is done by shooting geese, with bag limits calculated using a population model. The population over the past 5 years has decreased from an average of 40,989 in 2017/18 to an average of 34,949 in 2021/22 (Figure 1). Work^[9] to look at impacts of geese on Islay through grass measurements demonstrates that fewer geese cause less damage. Post 2024, the intention is to manage the Greenland barnacle goose population across its range with potential take calculated through a population model and agreement on management reached through the European Goose Management Platform^[10] processes.

Figure 1. Greenland barnacle goose numbers - Islay

The average number of barnacle geese dropped significantly in winter 22/23 due to the impacts of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) on Greenland barnacle geese between November 2022 and spring 2023. Further information on HPAI is set out in section 4.6.

The Strategy also covers Greenland white-fronted geese on Islay and aims to support and increase the population on the island. This is done through provision of undisturbed feeding areas. Over the past five years the population has increased from below 5000 to over 6000 and fluctuated around that number (Figure 2). There was a slight drop on the 2022-23 total, based on population counts over the winter to date, but the reason for this drop is not known. There are no confirmed cases of HPAI in Greenland white-fronted geese in Scotland at the time of writing.

Figure 2. Greenland white-fronted goose numbers - Islay

5.3 Adaptive management pilots

5.3.1 Background

NatureScot established four adaptive management pilot projects in 2012, detailed in Table 10 and on Map 1, to test whether impacts on agricultural activity could be reduced by reducing local populations of resident greylag geese, a quarry species, whilst retaining their conservation interest. The pilots were time-limited for 5 years until 2017. Following the pilots, Local Goose Management Groups (LGMGs) anticipated that they would have the capacity to deliver ongoing maintenance culls at their own expense to contain the smaller, remaining populations.

At all sites, LGMGs set out to reduce goose damage to agricultural crops by halving goose numbers and density (the number of birds/ha of improved land).

The scale of the reduction cull required on Orkney was much greater. The Orkney population of resident greylag geese numbers approximately 24,000 resident greylag geese, whilst the Western Isles populations number approximately 3,000 – 9,000 individuals.

During the pilots, the adaptive culls undertaken using traditional methods on the Western Isles successfully delivered the reduction culls that the LGMGs set out to achieve.

By contrast, although the Orkney LGMG delivered the largest total take, it was beyond the capacity of the LGMG to reduce the Orkney resident greylag population using traditional control methods, and working only in summer and early autumn to protect the Icelandic greylag geese that winter on Orkney.

Uists (2012)	Greylag	Adaptive management pilot for management of resident greylag geese. Co-ordinates management actions but no payments made for damage caused by geese.
Lewis and Harris (2014)	Greylag	Adaptive management pilot for management of resident greylag geese. Co-ordinates management actions but no payments made for damage caused by geese.
Tiree and Coll (2012)	Greylag	Adaptive management pilot for management of resident greylag geese. Co-ordinates management actions but no payments made for damage caused by geese.
Orkney (2012)	Greylag	Adaptive management pilot for management of resident greylag geese. Co-ordinates management actions but no payments made for damage caused by geese.

Table 10. Adaptive management pilots

5.3.2 What has happened since the close of the adaptive management pilots in 2017?

LGMGs continued to control resident greylag populations but with limited funding support from NatureScot and Scottish Government and with limited success. Only the Orkney LGMG was able to secure additional funding (from the NFUS and the local authority).

Resident greylag populations increased and they are now greater than they were in 2017 at all four pilot sites. Restrictions during the Covid 19 pandemic reduced control efforts in 2020 and 2021.

The Orkney LGMG has successfully trialled a corralling method to control resident greylag geese. The Group has also developed a plan detailing how it could achieve a reduction cull using a combination of shooting, corralling and egg oiling.

5.3.3 Financial and other support given to LGMGs to support adaptive management of resident greylag geese

NatureScot and Scottish Government have committed a total of £570,000 expenditure to support adaptive greylag goose control on Orkney, Uist, Tiree & Coll and Lewis and Harris since 2012. Since 2017, modest levels of funding helped LGMGs to deliver maintenance culls whilst they investigated options for preparing to continue this work at their own expense (Table 11).

Financial year	Uist	Orkney	Tiree	Lewis	Total
2018/19	£14,500	£5,177	£1,692	£6,000	£27,369
2019/20	£8,500	£14,245	£0	£6,489	£29,234
2020/21	£7,212	£12,319	£2,400	£6,582	£28,513
2021/22	£6,000	£38,181	£6,000	£6,000	£56,181
2022/23	£7,500	£27,000	£6,000	£7,500	£48,000
Grand Total	£43,712	£96,922	£16,092	£32,571	£189,297

Table 11. Adaptive management areas costs since 2017

In addition to funding, NatureScot has enabled local management of greylag geese through the provision of licenced take. In 2016, resident greylag geese were added to General Licences to permit control to prevent agricultural damage during July and August. From 1 January 2020, the General Licence was amended to permit the take of greylag geese year-round to prevent agricultural damage. This change reduced the administration involved in applying for a licence to control greylag geese. The sale of greylag goose meat is currently permitted under General Licence in areas previously part of the pilots.

5.3.4 Discussion – the future.

The four groups at the former adaptive management pilot sites now seek long term government funding to control populations of native greylag. Farmers Scotland-wide may also seek funding to control these geese as their number and density increase.

Goose policy is currently focused on species of highest conservation concern. To support farmers in managing species of lower protections would be a significant policy change.

In the crofting counties, greylag geese present just one of many challenges to maintaining and developing crofting activity. Challenges specific to crofting that have been cited include; an aging crofting population, the lack of control that crofters have over sporting rights, and the limited number of crofters with the ability to shoot. The Scottish Government National Development Plan for Crofting recognises the impact that geese can have on croft businesses, such as the significant agricultural damage on productive farmland associated with high densities of geese. It commits to Scottish Government, in partnership with NatureScot, continuing to support goose management schemes and help mitigate the impact of geese on crofts and farms and sets out a number of tools through which this will be done.

There was general support for licensing of the sale of resident greylag goose meat on a long term basis.

6. Highly pathogenic avian influenza

The current Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) outbreak which began in 2021 is the largest in the UK to date, affecting poultry, other captive birds and wild birds, notably seabirds and wildfowl, including geese. Scotland is home to important wintering populations of wildfowl, including geese, some populations of which are being severely affected by HPAI.

The continued detection of infection in wild birds through 2022/23 demonstrates that the virus is still circulating in wild bird populations and the probability of HPAI H5 still being present in wild birds in GB in early February 2023 is very high, with direct and indirect contact with wild birds being the most likely risk pathway for introduction of the virus into poultry holdings.

6.1 Impact on Svalbard barnacle geese

The current outbreak in geese was first detected in the Svalbard barnacle goose population in the Solway in late October 2021. The virus spread rapidly through the population, and by the end of the winter, estimates suggest that 13,200 birds, around one third of the flyway population were killed by the virus. These estimates are based on population counts of live birds and productivity data. The first positive test for HPAI H5N1 in a Svalbard barnacle goose in the Solway was returned on 13 November 2021. A total of 31 birds were tested between November 2021 and January 2022 with 29 of those were found to be positive.

Whole population counts in November confirmed that ca 13,200 adult birds were lost. Further counts and assessment of juvenile recruitment this year has surprisingly pointed to exceptional breeding success. As of mid-December 2022 only 2 Svalbard barnacle geese had tested positive for H5N1 and no significant reports of mortality.

6.2 Impact on Greenland barnacle geese

The first cases of HPAI H5N1 in the Greenland barnacle goose population were detected in Donegal, Ireland in late January 2022. By early February 2022, the first Scottish cases were detected on Islay. No cases were confirmed in other parts of the Scottish range, although it has recently been reported that there were a small number of suspected cases on Tiree in spring 2022. By the spring migration in 2022 it is estimated that 1700 birds were killed in Ireland and 1000 on Islay. A total of 5 barnacle geese were tested on Islay and 4 of these tested positive.

Reports from Iceland over the summer suggest that the virus was still circulating and that c.200 birds from the Icelandic breeding population had died. A co-ordinated count took place across the key Scottish wintering sites in the first week of November and estimates of productivity suggest it is very low, at 3.54%, Although the data suggested that the Scottish population at this point was as high as 60,000 birds.

Regular scheme counts on Islay, in winter 2022-23, indicate that the population has declined from just under 35,000 birds in late November to 24,500 birds in February, with the peak impacts of HPAI being recorded from mid-December through to early January. Smaller numbers of carcasses in the tens or low hundreds have been reported on Oronsay, Tiree, Coll and Uist. Although the population can fluctuate in any given year, the Islay decline has taken place during a period of high mortality due to HPAI and suggests, along with reported deaths through an Epicollect recording system, that a minimum of 5000 birds have been lost on Islay. A flyway level census of Greenland barnacle geese took place in mid-February and it is hoped that this will provide a more accurate estimate of impacts on the population.

6.3 Other goose species

A total of 32 greylag geese were tested, predominantly from Aberdeenshire, and 28 of these tests were positive for H5N1. No significant concentrations of dead birds were reported. There were 78 records of pink-footed geese tested and 68 of these were positive for H5N1. These cases were widespread across the country, but there was a small concentration of ~200 dead birds reported in the Findhorn area in April 2022. With further pink-footed goose mortalities of 30 birds over 6 weeks and within which 1 bird tested positive. In winter 2022/23 there were reported concentrations of impacts on pink-footed geese and greylag geese in the Moray Firth, Aberdeenshire and around Aberlady Bay areas

7. Air Safety

Increasing numbers of geese, particularly greylags, around Scottish Airports. Risks are identified and addressed through individual airport safety plans and wildlife management plans. NatureScot issue licences to manage geese around airports where required.

Consultation with a number of airport safety managers has resulted in agreement that regular discussion of the issues caused by geese in and around airports may identify areas of mutual interest to airports, land managers and conservation organisations. Going forward it is suggested that goose policy includes a policy objective around supporting and mitigating goose related risks to aircraft.

8. Issues identified through consultation

The public consultation process resulted in a wide range of responses. Local goose management groups and stakeholders participating in the National Goose Forum were then asked to identify the key issues that they wish to see addressed in future goose management policy. These issues are set out in Table 12. As far as possible, the priority issues have been addressed in the recommendations and changes to policy objectives going forward.

N.B. popularity indicates issues that cut across a number of groups and are not necessarily an indicator of importance or priority.

>

LGMGs want:	Number of groups that included this issue in their top 3 priorities (from 7 responses)
For quarry species
Long term commitment to funding the control of quarry species, especially greylag	6
Provision of as wide a range of tools for greylag population control as possible	3
A species action plan for greylag geese	2
For Annex 1 species
Support targeted at species of conservation concern such as Greenland white-fronted geese and Greenland barnacle geese	2
Long term commitment to adaptive management of barnacle geese on Islay	1
The size of the goose scheme budget to meet farmers' needs	2
More equitable distribution of support across the barnacle goose range (including funding for management and control and bag limits and licences)	3
Support for goose management to be integrated with agricultural support mechanisms, and they should be simpler and continue to be non-competitive	2
Governance
Greater autonomy for LGMGs	1

Table 12. Key issues identified through consultation with NGF and local groups

9. Modern wildlife management

In the current NatureScot Corporate Plan^[11], one of the key aims is to 'modernise wildlife management and licensing functions'. Wildlife needs to be managed in such a way that supports biodiversity, climate and net zero outcomes as well as supporting economic opportunities. A modernised approach to living with wildlife means recognising the changing role that land managers and practitioners across Scotland play in delivering wildlife management in light of climate change and biodiversity loss. The Shared Approach to Wildlife Management sets out principles and a framework within which stakeholders can deliver effective wildlife management, within which goose management will sit and it is recommended that goose management continues to apply that Shared Approach going forward.

10. Future delivery

Whilst goose management policy has been in place since 2000, there has, at times been a lack of clarity and transparency over what the policies actually mean, what they will deliver and how progress on delivery is measured. As we refresh current policies we need to consider how goose management is delivered over the next 5-10 years; a period when approaches to wildlife management are changing and we move the focus from single species management to management which will deal holistically with contributing towards climate, net zero and biodiversity targets. As such, it is difficult to set clear actions right now as policies are still developing and new rural support schemes have not been completed.

The final recommendation in this review is that a delivery plan is developed that will set out how goose management is taken forward in the short term and how a just transition is made towards new ways of supporting geese in the context of wildlife management and emerging agricultural policies. The plan, drawn up with input from key stakeholders, should cover a 5 year period, set out measurable targets and be completed by the end of 2024.

11. Acknowledgements

The report has been prepared by a project team of staff from NatureScot and Scottish Government Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate and overseen by a steering group of staff from those organisations and Scottish Government. We would like to thank all contributors from the National Goose Forum, all of the Local Goose Management Groups, Highlands and Islands Airports Limited and individual stakeholders for their input into this review.