Agency Capture

This has been simmering away in my subconscious for a while now. I think it's one I hoped I wouldn't have to write. There had been - for some time - the whiff of progression and enlightenment in the political air that envelops our relationship with wildlife in Scotland. But the recent failure of my nation's government-controlled nature agency, NatureScot to grant a licence for the reintroduction of beavers to Glen Affric following a two-year consultation with considerable public support described by the agency as "exemplary", throws the spotlight back onto a fundamental problem that's bothered me now to boiling point. Politics must be disentangled from wildlife policy.

Why? Because these decisions should be a matter for the general public to decide, instead of having their views hijacked and held hostage by a clandestine elite entangled in their own web of appeasement. Nature is for everyone and it doesn't exist for powerful cliques to abuse through tunnel-visioned, brain-washed lobbying that's stuck in the past. A Victorian-era influenced past when Nature had to be controlled and dominated. It was pathetic then and it's even more pathetic now. Nature should transcend the political spectrum and all of the histrionics and short-termism that goes with it.

Shortly before the farce of the Glen Affric beavers, our First Minister John Swinney weighed into the Eurasian lynx reintroduction discourse at the National Farmers Union Scotland Conference, declaring the species would not be reintroduced, despite - once again - an upswell of public support. His reasons were unclear, other than the fact he was at an NFU event that makes one wonder if he was just telling them what they wanted to hear. Of course that's part of it, along with dialling down the temperature of a debate that was temporarily side-tracked by the reckless abandonment of captive lynx in the Highlands. But here's the problem: telling them what they want to hear is now indistinguishable from the government's actual policy. The NFU's sheer weight of influence alongside other vocal 'stakeholders' now dictates that.

The political establishment is now so worried about losing votes, having difficult conversations and pissing anyone off that they keep a group on-side no matter what. On the wrong side of history? Doesn't matter - we just need the votes. I use that expression because it is I believe ultimately a moral issue of righting a wrong and viewing wildlife through an intrinsic lens. Those who spend their days in the cut and thrust of frontline politics and conservation will no doubt say that it can't be distilled down into something as binary as that - the landscape ecologically, socially and politically is far too complex and nuanced. And they have a point. But above all of this is a sixth sense within us all to do the right thing. We know deep down when something should be done - when it feels right.

The way NatureScot - and therefore the Scottish Government - has handled these two inspiring symbols of nature recovery comes as no surprise to me, however. They are the latest in a long litany of mishandled PR disasters that apparently show them to be - at times - completely out of touch with the public mood. But I find this hard to believe. Can NatureScot and their puppet masters really be so insulated to reality? I doubt it. Which means they're fully aware of the situation and choosing to put their hands over their ears, or look the other way - which is even worse.

But how do you begin to take the politics out of wildlife management? Well, you can start by letting the scientific voices lead. Who do you want making decisions about your rivers, forests, wetlands, mountainsides and seas - an ecologist or a politician? Let the science speak for itself and be our ecological compass. Then bring in more public participation for transparency. Participation that will nurture and strengthen the bond we have with Nature, and from which we can derive so much pleasure, satisfaction and solace. Replace top-down bureaucratically hamstrung management with nimble community-led projects that coalesce around a clarity of purpose, and a sense of long-term custodianship that the ephemeral cycles of government can't instil.

The lobbying with cherry-picked facts and inflexible agendas needs to stop. Scientific rigour and textbook consultation should never be overridden by influence or whoever shouts loudest. Clout behind closed doors shouldn't have the final say over transparency and proper process. It's a familiar story replayed around the world, stemming from a need to control any wildlife that's perceived as a problem. And when the official path to reintroduction progress is so tortuous and littered with hoops to jump through, it can inevitably lead to unofficial efforts that rarely end well. Do we want to live in a world where it's far easier to kill a beaver than bring them back to where they belong? In 2025 against a backdrop of profound biodiversity loss and climate breakdown, we can and must do better.