Letter from SNH Chief Executive to Phil Stocker, Chief Executive of the National Sheep Association

Dear Phil

Thank you for your letter of 15^th August highlighting your concerns over Lynx UK Trust’s proposals. As you suggest, we have indeed been closely monitoring their plans.

Firstly I’d like to re-emphasise that any reintroduction must follow the guidelines in the Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations. For a top-level carnivore like the lynx, we set a very high bar in terms of the evidence we would expect to see. A proposal which only meets the needs of some sections of the community, whilst disadvantaging others, would fall short of the Code’s terms.

I’d like to answer your two main points of concern:

1. We have been talking to our counterparts in Natural England. The Lynx UK Trust may well submit proposals to Natural England and SNH in due course, and we and Natural England have advised them of the process they should go through. Animals do not respect political boundaries and any proposal will have to address concerns in both Scotland and England. Indeed with a wide-ranging species like lynx, we expect the proposer to have a management plan to address this issue, which would include engagement and support with neighbouring landowners. These projects are complex and would need considerable and careful planning to ensure national and international guidelines are met. The final decision will rest with the Scottish and Westminster Government Ministers.

2. In both our and Natural England’s discussions with Lynx UK Trust, we have emphasised that the responsibility for the consultation rests with them as applicant. The consultation must follow the guidelines in the Code and must accurately reflect the concerns raised by consultees. As the licensing authority, we require the applicant to demonstrate how their project would address ecological issues such as habitat availability, taking into account the views of the public, livestock and land managers, the wider UK perspective, and any potential socio-economic impacts. A significant amount of evidence is required to support an application. If it does not do so, then we would not consider it an adequate consultation. We have explained this to the Lynx UK Trust and told them that while we do not intend to duplicate their work with a full consultation of our own, we will discuss their report with key stakeholders, which would include NSA and NFUS and other National Species Reintroduction Forum members. We have stressed to them that any proposal must take fully into account the likely impacts on the livelihoods of farmers and communities in both the short and the long-term. The consultation report must accurately reflect the concerns you and other stakeholders have raised. If it does not do so, we would not consider it to have met the Code’s requirements.

I hope I’ve been able to answer your concerns, and particularly to reassure you that while we believe that the cost for the consultation should be borne by the proposer not the public, we will not simply accept it at face value and we will discuss it with key stakeholders.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jardine
Chief Executive