Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill: business and regulatory impact assessment

9. Scottish Firms Impact Test

Glue traps

Impact on manufacturers of glue traps

We have not been able to identify any UK manufacturers of glue traps, therefore, we do not believe that a ban on the purchase and use of glue traps in Scotland will have any effect on any Scottish or UK manufacturers.

Impact on distributors and retailers of glue traps

Any distributors and retailers within Scotland who sell these products will be affected by a ban on the purchase and use of glue traps. As will distributors and retailers from elsewhere in the UK who supply Scottish businesses or sell products to people in Scotland online or by mail order.

The costs of banning the purchase and use of glue traps is expected to be compensated by increased sales of other rodent control products. We are not aware of any distributors or retailers who only deal in glue traps. All of the businesses we have identified supply a range of products and glue traps only represent a small part of their overall business. As glue traps are a very low value product which retail for around £1.50 to £3.00, the profit made from such products is very small, and given the wide range of products stocked by shops who sell then they only represent a small proportion of sales.

Although the glue trap market would cease for retailers/suppliers we anticipate that this will likely be balanced by an increase in sales of alternative forms of rodent control, as it is likely that a retailer or supplier who stocks glue traps will also stock alternative forms of control.

Impact on professional rodent controllers (including Local Authorities)

Not all professional pest controllers use glue traps. For those who do use them, a ban on the use and purchase of glue traps will require businesses to use an alternative method of rodent control.

While it has not been possible to quantify the exact number of glue traps deployed by professional pest controllers who do use them, from the evidence provided to the Scottish Government Petitions Committee and the SAWC they are not the primary method of rodent control used by these businesses, who generally only deploy them on an exceptional, last resort basis.

For example, as stated above, our consultation included a survey of Local Authorities in Scotland found that the majority (93%) either do not use glue traps at all or they are used rarely.

Evidence suggests the following substitute methods are available;

• The UK's largest pest control business, Rentokil, which has a global presence, has a policy of not using glue traps in the UK, and only use them when their customer explicitly asks them to use glue traps. They instead deploy their own, more humane hi-tech solutions or the standard, but also more humane, 'break-back' traps to control rodents.
• A New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry discussion paper cited a test where snap traps were found to be more effective than glue traps.
• Live box traps are initially more expensive but are reusable and much more humane if properly used.
• Electric traps, while more expensive than live box traps are also reusable and ensure a rapid death and easy disposal of bodies.
• Deterrence and exclusion, by means of rodent-proofing buildings.
• Poison baits are probably the cheapest alternative but are unsuitable for use in the food industry. In such cases, rodent-proofing, snap-traps, curiosity traps and electrocution devices can also be used instead of poisons where the latter poses a contamination risk.

Many businesses will have ongoing contracts with professional pest control services or will hire a professional when facing a rodent infestation. Ongoing contracts with professional pest controllers focus mainly on preventing pest problems. The largest UK pest controller (Rentokil) suggested that about 75% of their business consists preventive pest control and only 25% in reactive pest control. As discussed previously, Rentokil hardly ever use glue traps.

In addition, as a result of campaigns by animal welfare groups including the Humane Society International, the RSPCA and Scottish SPCA, a number of retailers have already agreed to stop selling glue traps.

Impact on small businesses

A proportion of businesses that currently choose to undertake their own rodent control, may have chosen to use glue traps but will now have to use an alternative method. We expect the proportion of people who would have used glue traps to be low, since public attitudes towards glue traps are quite negative. As stated above, our consultation on the proposals showed that only 12% of respondents opposed a ban on the use of glue traps.

Additionally, in many instances glue traps may not be the most available and effective method, thus of that 12%, a proportion would not use glue traps even after taking them into consideration. The remainder of users who considered and then decided to use glue traps, therefore might incur increased costs if alternative pest control products are less effective or more expensive. But, as discussed above, we believe that there are good substitutes available.

The glue trap provisions in the Bill will not immediately come into force when the Bill receives royal assent, rather this will be done by regulations at a later date. The Scottish Government's proposition is that there will be a transition period before the ban comes into force. This transition period will enable distributors and retailers who are still selling glue traps to expend their existing stocks and, if so required, source alternative products. This period will also enable professional rodent controllers and small businesses to develop, trial and source alternative methods of rodent control.

Therefore, although it has not been possible to quantify at this stage the full costs to businesses, because there are already a number of alternative methods available, we estimate that the short term impacts will be minor and the medium to long-term impacts will be cost-neutral.

Wildlife traps, grouse moor and muirburn licences

The intention is not to interview individual businesses, as the proposed changes will minimally affect businesses that respect wild animal welfare and the associated legislation.

The purpose of this Bill is not to ban the use of traps to control wildlife, grouse moor management or muirburn. It does, however, seek to regulate these activities and in the case of muirburn, limit practices that carry the most risk of harm to the environment. This could in turn have some impact on how businesses that currently provide these services operate.

Wildlife traps

As discussed above, the provisions in the Bill only relate to the use of traps to capture live wild birds and traps approved by the STAO. Spring traps and live capture traps for wild birds are used widely in game management, the pest control industry, conservation management, farming and sometimes by individuals.

These traps are already regulated by several pieces of legislation, and users must already comply with conditions to allow their legal use.

Because the provisions in the Bill does not prohibit the use of these wildlife traps, we anticipate that there will be no impact on manufacturers, distributers and retailers of these traps.

All individuals and businesses using traps approved by the STAO must adhere to the conditions of use set out in that legislation, so they must already meet a minimum standard of use to allow the legal use of those traps. The same can be said for live capture bird traps, as their use is permitted only under a general licence under Section 16 of the 1981 Act. The provisions in the Bill will not change the manner in which those traps are used.

Individuals will be required to hold a licence and successfully complete training approved by NatureScot in relation to the traps that they are using. We expect the training to be based on the existing conditions of use for each trap type and therefore easily completed for anyone currently undertaking legal trapping.

The traps covered by the provisions in the Bill are more often used by professionals rather than individual or domestic use. Those who conduct wildlife management using traps often already undertake training and continued professional development that includes the use of traps. The Scottish Government expect this kind of training to be updated to cover the new requirements of the Bill following enactment.

At present, we do not have an estimate of how much this training will cost to individuals, as the details of the courses are still to be developed by NatureScot. In developing the framework to endorse training courses, the Scottish Government and NatureScot will work with stakeholders to ensure that training courses are available at a cost that is accessible. Training requirements are common in other professions, especially those relating to animal welfare, the costs of such courses vary, are often covered by employers, and sometimes available through further education courses with various funding options available.

There will be an impact on individuals and businesses who use these traps in an illegal manner, as they will risk the suspension or revocation of their licence, potentially prohibiting the use of traps indefinitely.

However, the length of any suspension or revocation of a licence will be determined by NatureScot on a case by case basis taking into account all of the facts and circumstances of each case. The illegal use of traps can cause considerable suffering to wild animals and can, in some circumstances, carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and or an unlimited fine.

Grouse Moors

The provisions in the Bill will extend to anyone holding the sporting rights to shoot red grouse, including businesses who manage the land to produce a surplus of red grouse and offer red grouse shooting. The GMMG estimated that the current number of grouse shooting estates in Scotland is around 120, which included a diversity in both the size and level of investment in individual grouse shooting businesses.

Because the provisions in the Bill does not prohibit the management of moorland for grouse shooting, we anticipate that there will be no impact on associated manufacturers, distributers and retailers.

As discussed above, the Bill does not seek to prohibit the management of moorland for grouse shooting, but instead introduces provisions into the 1981 Act so that landowner rights to take red grouse can only be exercised under licence from the relevant authority (Scottish Ministers or if delegated, NatureScot). If they do not hold a licence, then they will no longer be able to take red grouse on that land or to permit another person to do so.

Where a person wishes to take red grouse on land that they do not own or occupy they will only be able to do so if they have permission from the landowner or occupier (or other person permitted by the landowner or occupier) and a licence is held in respect of the land which allows for the taking of red grouse on that area of land.

An individual or business applying for such a licence will now be required to adhere to the Code of Practice, which will provide guidance on how land used for grouse shooting should be managed to reduce disturbance of and harm to any wild animal, wild bird and wild plant, including how the taking or killing of any wild birds should be carried out and how predators should be controlled. It will also set out best practice for the use of medicated grit and other activities related to grouse moor management.

We anticipate that some organisations undertaking such activities will already comply with the Code of Practice, and others will be able to comply with only some minor adjustments to their business practices.

There will be an impact on individuals and businesses who do not comply with the conditions of the licence, or where there is robust evidence that the licence holder or a person involved in managing the land to which the licence relates has committed a relevant wildlife crime related to grouse moor management such as raptor persecution, the unlicenced killing of a wild mammal, or the unlawful use of a trap. In such cases, NatureScot can suspend or revoke a licence, prohibiting the any taking of red grouse on that land.

However, the length of any suspension or revocation of a licence will be determined by NatureScot on a case by case basis taking into account all of the facts and circumstances of each case. The relevant wildlife crimes can cause considerable suffering to wild animals and can carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and or an unlimited fine.

There will be little or no impact on those businesses that comply with the existing law. The cost to businesses who lose their licence due to illegal conduct is difficult to estimate, as the 2020 Socio-economic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland part 1 report found that grouse shooting businesses operated at an average net cost.

Walked-up grouse shooting businesses, which require less intensive moorland management, generated comparatively low revenues and also have a comparatively low employment impact, but required a base level of activity, staffing and expenditure that was commonly facilitated through integration with other sporting activities (e.g., deer stalking) and through subsidisation from other estate land uses or external income.

Driven grouse shooting businesses, which require more intensive moorland management, while generating substantial annual revenues, required a sustained level of capital spending. However, income was highly cyclical, depending on the availability of shootable surpluses of grouse.

The findings confirmed that driven grouse shooting enterprises were rarely profitable as stand-alone land uses, as costs generally outweighed revenue, or at best resulted in a break-even position during good years. On-going net costs meant that driven grouse shooting was subsidised by other, on or off estate, income streams.

Muirburn

As discussed above, muirburn involves the controlled burning of old heather and grass to promote new growth. It is a tool used traditionally in Scotland by land managers, including gamekeepers, farmers, crofters and conservation managers to improve grazing, provide food and shelter for red grouse and other gamebirds and to reduce the fuel load.

The extent to which muirburn is carried out in Scotland is difficult to estimate as currently, muirburn can be undertaken without a licence during the muirburn season for any purpose if the person is the proprietor of the land or authorised in writing by, or on behalf of, the proprietor of the land. This is supported by a 2022 literature review of muirburn by NatureScot that found the evidence base surrounding the impacts of muirburn is somewhat limited and sometimes contested.

The provisions of the Bill create an all year round licence system with different purposes for which the licence can be granted depending on whether the licence is for within the muirburn season; outwith the muirburn season or on peatland. A licence can only be granted for within the muirburn season for the following purposes:

• managing habitats for moorland game or wildlife
• improving the grazing potential of moorland for livestock
• conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment
• preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires causing harm to people or damage to property
• research

Outwith the muirburn season, a licence can only be granted for the purposes listed in points 3,4 and 5 above. A licence for muirburn on peatland can only be granted for the purposes of:

• restoring the natural environment
• reducing the risk of wildfires causing damage to habitats
• preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires causing harm to people or property.

The Scottish Government does not have any data on the purposes or extent to which muirburn on peatland is currently carried out, however, the Muirburn Code already advises that it is best practice not to undertake muirburn on peatland, except as part of a habitat restoration plan. We therefore do not expect the provisions relating to muirburn on peatland to have any significant impact.

These purposes are thought to allow the majority of muirburn that is currently undertaken during the muirburn season to continue. We therefore anticipate that there will be no impact on associated manufacturers, distributers and retailers.

The Bill, however, implements a precautionary approach, and includes a regulation making power to amend the purposes for which a licence may be granted. This will allow Scottish Ministers the ability to respond to future developments in the science of muirburn and to respond to the practical needs of land managers in an appropriate manner. Before making such regulations, the Scottish Ministers must consult with NatureScot and such persons as they consider to be interested in or affected by the licensing of muirburn.

Currently, muirburn is guided by the muirburn code, which sets out best practice relating to muirburn. The Bill places a legal requirement for individuals and businesses undertaking muirburn under licence to adhere to the code.

Because the Code is currently best practice advice, we anticipate that there will be little or no impact on individuals or businesses who comply with the existing law and already meet those standards. Those who do not meet those standards currently be able to continue to operate with some minor adjustments to their business practices.