The Eurasian Beaver Handbook

It is likely that any future programme of beaver management in Britain will be an evolving process as established populations expand and applications for further releases are considered and potentially approved. This is subject, of course, to the decisions of the English, Welsh and Scottish governments regarding the future of beavers taking place at the time of writing. Any decision that allows beaver populations to remain will also include clarification on which beaver-management techniques would be permitted and under what circumstances. Any future management strategy should adopt a practical approach that is flexible, and open to revision as appropriate. This is likely to prove much more successful in the long term than a rigid system of structured, licensed controls. The strategy should be adapted to the social, economic and legal requirements of a British context. It should provide a broad range of management options and tools. Additionally, it should be acceptable to both landowners and to wider society (Hartman 1999). Drawing on the established experiences of the best management systems already in place in Europe will be key to attaining this goal.

In the immediate future, the current Bavarian beaver-management model offers a potential template for dealing with the mitigation issues which are most likely to arise in the arable landscapes of Tayside. Particularly in a Scottish context, an alternative long-term management goal could follow an approach more similar to the Norwegian Wildlife Act and Nature Diversity Act – to maintain beaver populations throughout their natural range at densities sufficient to maintain biodiversity, and undertake translocation or culling as necessary (with the future potential of optimising both recreational and economic opportunities) to reduce beaver–human conflicts and costs.

Any considered process of long-term beaver management is best focused where practicable on the establishment of buffer zones of native riparian vegetation along the length of freshwater features. The provision of riparian buffer zones of this type is a target under the EU Water Framework Directive due to the wider benefits – social, economic and environmental – that result. As appropriate, this habitat could be restored through planting-up (with native tree and shrub species) or natural regeneration. From the beavers’ perspective, the greater the availability of riparian woodland with young regeneration of favoured forage species in the immediate vicinity of a freshwater body, the less the requirement for more distant forage. This option will not, however, be achievable where essential infrastructure (for example) is protected by raised flood banks, where heavily modified or managed water bodies are common, or where the associated land-use is too commercially important for the establishment of buffer zones. Geospatial analyses are being employed in Scotland to provide an overall context of potential beaver habitat and connectivity; their likely overlap with habitats and species of conservation significance, and the identification of riverine sections less likely to be dammed by beavers (SNH 2015; Stringer et al. 2015). Along with population modelling, these can be useful tools in estimating population growth and colonisation, for local management planning and in wider national strategic planning (e.g. identifying areas where mitigation should be prioritised: SNH 2015).

Beaver management in Bavaria

The Bavarian system of beaver management has been developed over the last 20 years in order to provide a broad suite of potential solutions to human–beaver conflict situations. Although lethal control is one of the options in environments where a given beaver activity is considered unacceptable, other solutions, such as electric fencing, tree protection, dam drainage, land purchase, compensation and previously translocation, have all been applied. Where possible, the management system involves a process of forward planning to identify, when practicable, where conflicts are likely to arise. The system is funded by the Bavarian state government and the BUND Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., a nature conservation NGO. It operates via the local county (Landkreis) nature conservation agencies, which are legally responsible for beavers, supported by a team of 400 trained beaver wardens and two employed (part-time) beaver-managers. These individuals are distributed throughout the state with access to live-capture traps, holding cages, electric fences, tree protection material and other appropriate equipment. The wardens are contactable through a register maintained by the state conservation authorities when beaver conflict situations or simple questions arise within a landscape. The wardens nearest to the issue respond swiftly to assess the character and extent of the problem. In the event that it can be readily resolved, they will take any necessary action required to do so under licence from the local county administration. If the problem is more complicated, they will contact one of the beaver-managers, who will visit the site. The whole process is based on a sound knowledge of beaver ecology and of what is reasonably achievable, and on sympathetic liaison with site-managers or private landowners in order to establish their requirements and any appropriate legal constraints. This system of management has now been adopted by other German states, and the state nature-conservation bodies in other countries such as Austria and Switzerland.

Government ‘positive payment’ schemes in a number of European countries support landowners when reintroduced species are found on their land. These schemes have proven quite successful, especially in enabling the establishment of a reintroduced species or the protection of small/threatened populations, and are generally popular with the public (Cope et al. 2003; Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). Opponents of such schemes question the long-term cost implications and the ethics of potentially discouraging landowners from adapting their activities to a more wildlife-friendly approach without financial motivation (Bulte and Rondeau 2005). While there is potential for the SNCOs in partnership with the water-management authorities to incorporate beaver habitats in the landscape and biodiversity targets of the Water Framework Directive, further opportunities could be explored to support beaver-created environments where they credibly contribute to the sustainable provision of flood attenuation. In established programmes of ‘Upstream Thinking’ landscape-scale-based projects which seek to slow flows and maintain greater reserves of water in the higher reaches of river catchments for flood prevention, or for water purification or retention purposes, beaver-generated landscapes would be a compatible and sustainable prospect (Gow and Elliot 2014).

The opinions of the public and of landowners are critical to the success of any beaver-management programme. Most beaver-reintroduction projects (Europe and North America) report initial majority public support, though generally face opposition from landowners. The acceptability of lethal control increases over time as beaver populations expand and the reality of living again with the impacts of this species becomes an actual experience (Jonker et al. 2006; Siemer et al. 2013). Lethal control is still considered to be unacceptable in some communities that have experienced significant beaver impacts (Needham and Morzillo 2011; Perryman 2013). The culling of problem beavers is likely to be culturally more acceptable in some parts of Britain than in others.

It is important that, where undesirable impacts result from beaver activity, these are dealt with promptly and competently. An informed and well-resourced advisory system for land-managers and landowners will be a vital consideration as beaver populations expand.

•Public education initiatives which assists landowners and wider society to understand the ecological importance of beavers for wildlife, habitats and water-management purposes.

•An information network to provide appropriate advice and resolve conflicts, with an ability to offer onsite assistance without the need for an overly complex and prolonged licensing system to manage animals appropriately and sustainably (i.e. for ‘simpler’ problems, the local beaver warden should have a general licence).

•Beaver management should be science-based, involving research and monitoring of the effects of beavers and development of flexible management strategies.

•A comprehensive, ‘cost-benefit’ based management plan for future beaver-reintroduction projects which identifies suitable locations for their re-establishment, identifies geographic areas which may potentially produce high volumes of beaver-human conflicts following re-establishment and importantly develops a credible management strategy for their long-term presence and incorporates stakeholder engagement.

•Long-term land-use planning and grant support to encourage the creation of buffer zones along freshwater networks and allow the natural regeneration of these areas, for multiple benefits including flood-alleviation, nutrient capture and ecosystem restoration.

One of the most important aspects of effective beaver management is the management of public perceptions, media relations and the adequate provision of factual information. Beavers have been absent from Britain for over 400 years. Although there is now no common or social knowledge of the species or its behaviour, beavers are a popular species (Macmillan et al. 2001; Gurnell et al. 2009). While the concept that their restoration is environmentally beneficial is generally accepted by wider society, the prospect that there may be a future requirement for management systems which involve a level of lethal control is a more complex message to convey.

The development of a process of re-learning how to live with and manage beavers is an essential component of their effective restoration. Projects which provide information regarding the ecology of the beaver have been associated with increased levels of tolerance for its activities (Parker and Rosell 2012). This process could be overseen, supported and coordinated by the respective British SNCOs to provide easy access to factually correct information about beavers.

On a more individual level, the dissemination of information regarding beavers can be promoted through public lectures, school outreach programmes, mass media and nature walks. An example of this system of activities has been effectively developed by the Scottish Beaver Trial. Publications such as leaflets or booklets have been produced for interested organisations, local authorities and wider communities at targeted events. These materials can also be designed to support talks or lessons. It should also be recognised that the way in which the activities of beavers (and those of other animals) are perceived is often closely bound up with wider human–human social issues. The same beaver activities can be very differently perceived by a society, and subgroups within it, depending on the social context involved. Management should recognise and take account of this reality.

The potential for beaver-generated landscapes to provide resilience against flood or drought, and to capture carbon, has attracted greater attention. Wetland-restoration and stream ecosystem projects have successfully utilised beavers in Europe in just this capacity (Russia – Gorshkov et al. 2002; Baltic states – Balodis 1998; Sweden – Sjöberg 1998), while in North America the dams created by beavers over the simple flood-relief structures in the Bridge Creek Project have provided a system of much greater resilience. A wide body of independent research suggests that there is a potentially important economic role for beaver activity as a sustainable deliverer of ecological services (Gurnell et al. 2009). Although their effect will vary according to the topography and circumstance of individual sites, these may include:

•The sustainable provision of significant habitat improvements for biodiversity through activities such as tree-felling or coppicing, wetland creation and the development of microhabitats.

•The potential of beaver dam systems to assist in the purification of water by trapping silts, phosphates, nitrates and other chemicals. Beaver dams act as highly effective silt traps which can decrease downstream sediment loads. A series of three dams on the Sumka River in Russia trapped 4,250 tonnes of sediment – mainly from agricultural erosion – in one year, reducing the sediment load by 53% (Gorshkov 2003). In Brittany, channel capacity to purify/detoxify agricultural discharge has been calculated as being increased by up to 10 times on beaver-dammed streams (Coles 2006). The vigorous plant growth associated with beaver habitats can absorb significant levels of nitrates leaching off agricultural land. Studies in Germany suggest that the activity of a single beaver can trap 28 kg of nitrogen annually (Bräuer 2002). At current prices, the removal of nitrate from the drinking-water supply costs £44/kg. These cumulative impacts in the upper catchments of a major river system can have a significant positive impact on water quality downstream. Additionally, new research from North America suggests that beaver impoundments can be important carbon stores at a landscape scale (Wohl 2013).

There is potential for beaver-generated wetlands to retain significant volumes of water in upper river catchments. This can provide a significant landscape storage capacity in times of drought and may help to diminish flood events by slowing and broadening high water flows.

The reintroduction of a charismatic species such as the beaver, which can be watched at dusk and dawn, could provide a strong selling point and generate opportunities for overnight accommodation and hospitality spends in some places (Campbell et al. 2007). Evidence from Belgium, where a proactive marketing strategy was developed by the NGO responsible for beaver reintroduction on the basis of ‘Beavers, Beer and Castles’, demonstrates that this animal has popular appeal. Annually, this project generates approximately €50,000 for the guides, organisers and landowners (O. Rubbers, personal communication). The scheme has proven particularly popular with the owners of guest houses, hotels and pubs, who proactively encourage their visitors to attend in order to receive the resultant food and drink revenue.

As a result of significant television, newsprint and general media coverage, an interest in viewing beavers has already developed on a small scale within Britain. Evidence from the Scottish Beaver Trial has recorded visitors from all over the UK and Ireland, and a range of European countries (Jones and Campbell-Palmer 2014). Over 32,000 members of the public took part in SBT-held education events (>8,000 attending local events), including outreach classes and teacher training events, with an estimated additional 6,582 participants on walks made due to the presence of beavers in the area (Moran and Lewis 2014). The authors estimate that the value of these visitors was £355,000–520,000, in addition to the ecological knowledge gained through school engagement with SBT valued at £55,690, and the value of volunteering of £84,000. A survey of tourism-related businesses for the Tayside area found on the whole there was generally a positive attitude towards beaver presence, with ~26% noting increased turnover (Hamilton and Moran 2015). The same survey determined that 12% of land-managers in the area were incurring quantifiable costs due to beaver presence. The socioeconomic costs and benefits of beavers in Scotland are complex, and likely to change with time and beaver colonisation. These are discussed in more detail in the ‘Beavers in Scotland’ report (SNH 2015).

Wildlife tourism is a rapidly growing sector of the UK economy. This is recognised by government, tourism and economic development agencies. Guided walks to see beaver habitat and field signs, or to try to see the animals themselves, have proved popular in Scotland through public events held by the Scottish Beaver Trial and through more informal tours undertaken on Tayside. Landowners with the appropriate facilities may be able to offer hide-viewing opportunities if beavers are resident. Any estimate of the economic value of the presence of beavers should also take into account local amenities that may benefit, such as businesses that provide accommodation and food, and the potential for training local people as guides. For example, the reintroduction of the sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) by the RSPB on the Isle of Mull has been estimated to generate £1.69 million per annum for the local economy (Dickie et al. 2006).

For those who will see no direct benefit from tourism, linked payments for water storage, water purification or ecological gains could potentially offer incentives. Financial support through agri-environment, water purification, flood alleviation, nature conservation and carbon-capture projects could be targeted towards landowners who accommodate beavers for the wider ecological benefits this species can bring. Although these solutions will need to be combined with pragmatic management of the animals, they could afford a mechanism to develop over time a niche for beavers in more intensively used landscapes. In the long term, the establishment of uncultivated buffer corridors greater than 20 m in width alongside watercourses would significantly diminish the prospect of beaver-generated conflicts. Notwithstanding the above arguments regarding the benefits of beavers, it is critical that those involved in beaver management are clear in their communications with stakeholders and the public; it should be made clear that this species is one that comes with costs, and these should be conveyed in an open and transparent manner when seeking to find sustainable management systems for humans and beavers living alongside one another. However, overall there is an ingrained issue of the unequal distribution of benefits/potential income vs. costs – some have to pay directly, while others directly benefit.

Our relationship with beavers has been historically and socially complex. In many parts of their current North American range, in landscapes which are more extensive and less influenced by human activity, the management of beaver populations is commonly based on a local or national process of some form of lethal control. In Western European and North American societies where public support for the lethal control of wildlife has diminished, the issue of beaver culling has become politically sensitive.

Beavers are commonly accorded the title of ‘wetland engineers’ with little real consideration of the profound significance of this term. There is now little doubt that many of the habitat-maintenance tasks undertaken by the human managers of riparian environments to promote biodiversity or reinstate ‘natural’ systems of resilience to flood or drought are mimicking the lost activities of beavers, such as willow-coppicing, the cutting/removal of semi-emergent plant species, the insertion of brash bundles in rivers to provide refugia for fish fry, canal-excavation in reed beds, or open-water creation. There is a growing political awareness that, rather than continuing to strive to develop these environments artificially, the reinstatement of sustainable natural processes via ‘nature-based solutions’ would be more effective (Pitt 2008).

While the character of any future relationship between humans and beavers in Britain will be dependent on a much wider social understanding of the value of these animals, it will inevitably entail a tolerance of their activities, combined with a pragmatic acceptance of a requirement for their management when their presence is inappropriate. There is clear evidence that, although opposition to beavers in Britain exists, there is a much wider body of support for the restoration of this species.

It is the authors’ hope that this handbook will help provide those faced with the opportunities and challenges posed by a beaver population growing over time with the information they will require to make informed management decisions. Ultimately, successful beaver management should be an evolving process, subject to review and informed by science. The pragmatic Bavarian system of beaver management, which encompasses a broad approach of educational provision, non-lethal mitigation options and the targeted culling of animals where no other options remain, offers a model for Britain. It is fundamentally based on a desire within wider society to redevelop a relationship with the beaver that incorporates understanding and tolerance.

Key concepts

•Future management of beavers should be practical and adaptive; this is more likely to be accepted and to be successful than any rigid, licence-based system.

•A broad range of management techniques will be required, which will vary from site to site.

•Buffer zones of natural regeneration along riparian corridors (10–20 m wide) are likely to eliminate or reduce a large majority of beaver conflicts.

•Lethal control is likely to be a future requirement, though this will vary according to site and acceptability. Managing a stable family in an area will best serve to reduce the presence of other beavers.

•Beavers are popular with the general public and have great educational and ecotourism value.

•A management plan for Britain, including educational initiatives, is identified as an essential component in conflict resolution.

•Beaver-restoration has an important role in British wetland-restoration, and the potential for flood-alleviation should be further investigated.