Chamber and committees

The programme of ‘Sharing Good Practice’ events organised by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) for 2015 is still to be finalised. However, SNH plan to hold an event in March 2015 focused on the monitoring and enforcement of conditions associated with renewable energy schemes. This will be aimed at regulators and developers of onshore renewable energy schemes, including hydro electric schemes. While not specific to freshwater pearl mussels, it is intended that improving awareness about the importance of both monitoring and enforcing planning and other conditions that are in place to protect the environment will lead to a reduced risk of damage to the water environment and freshwater pearl mussels.

The National Wildlife Crime Unit carried out an operation to look at the trade in freshwater pearls. This operation confirmed that pearl fishers do not appear to be selling illegally taken pearls to jewellery outlets within the UK.

Historically, freshwater pearl markets existed in Paris and South America. Alerts to the UK Border Force to report back individuals carrying pearls out of the UK on these routes failed to confirm that these markets still exist. Auctioneers have advised Police Scotland that Scottish freshwater pearls are currently undervalued (with salt water pearls commanding the world markets) and that items of historic Scottish pearl jewellery, thought to be worth thousands of pounds, are only commanding values in the hundreds of pounds. It is therefore considered that pearl fishers are keeping illegally taken pearls for themselves and that no markets currently exist.

In light of the above, no actionable intelligence has yet been raised to activate enforcement action with regard to illegal pearl markets and sales. However, work continues to identify possible pearl fishers where reports are received by Police Scotland.

The Crown Office has received no reports involving offences under S9(5)(a) and S9(5)(b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, concerning freshwater pearl mussels, since 28 May 2013.

The proposed good practice guide on Ranunculus management for river managers has not been produced. Following the literature review of herbicides that could be used to control Ranunculus, Scottish Natural Heritage felt that the preparation of a good practice guide was not a high priority at present. The demand for a good practice guide will be revisited once the outcome of on-going work to identify a possible chemical control for Ranunculus is complete.

The literature review on the use of herbicide to control aquatic plants, including ranunculus in rivers, was commissioned by the Spey Fishery Board. The Spey Fishery Board has published the review on their website:

http://www.speyfisheryboard.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/12/412815-Control-of-Ranunculus-on-the-Rivers-Spey-Dee-and-Don_FINALv2.pdf.

The review concluded that no chemical solution currently exists that is specifically recommended for the control of submerged aquatic plants such as ranunculus.

The review did identify a product that appears to offer some potential to treat ranunculus in rivers. The Dee, Don and Spey District Salmon Fishery Boards collaborated and conducted a trial during summer 2014 in the River Don to test the effectiveness of the product. The results of the trial are unknown at present. Once the results become available, they will help determine if there is value in undertaking further experimental and field trials.

The good practice guidance on Constructed tracks in the Scottish uplands was published in June 2013 and is available here:

http://www.snh.gov.uk/publications-data-and-research/publications/search-the-catalogue/publication-detail/?id=513

The sanctions that could be imposed on those who damage freshwater pearl mussels because they have not followed the guidance will vary depending on the circumstances. However, sanctions associated with damaging freshwater pearl mussels and/or causing pollution may be the most serious and could include prosecution under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 or the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. Other sanctions may include enforcement action by a planning authority for breach of conditions in a planning permission. Enforcement action could also be taken, should the damage be particularly severe, under the Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

It is unknown how many of the 72 suspected criminal incidents were reported as wildlife crime over the past 14 years. This statistic was sourced from the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) when the unit recorded incident data. Since 2012, the unit has recorded intelligence logs only to reflect their core business; the police continue to record incident data and crimes.

Prior to the start of Scottish Natural Heritage’s 2013-14 freshwater pearl mussel survey, guidelines were established for the surveyors to report incidents of pearl mussel kills to Police Scotland and the NWCU. In addition, processes are in place with Scottish Natural Heritage and the ‘Pearls in Peril’ project to report all pearl mussel kills to Police Scotland and the NWCU.

Processes are also in place through the Scottish Crime Recording Standard for Police Scotland to accurately capture and record reported incidents.

Since the response to question S4W-14154 on 2 May 2013, there have been no further reintroductions of freshwater pearl mussels in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage remains unclear why some previous reintroductions have been unsuccessful and intend to investigate this issue in 2015. Since 2011, when the last reintroduction took place, efforts have been focused on protecting and restoring existing freshwater pearl mussel populations, particularly through partnership projects such as ‘Pearls in Peril’.

The Scottish Government is not aware of the Environmental Impact Register.

The national survey that has been underway since 2013 is due to report by the end of March 2015, with the outcomes published later in the year.

During the survey a number of potential incidents were reported to Police Scotland, which have been, or are being, investigated. An intelligence-led operation regarding pearl fishers also took place in the River Spey in July 2014, supported by local water bailiffs and Scottish Natural Heritage. No incidents were identified, but it was the first joint operation undertaken for freshwater pearl mussels and has laid the foundations for further such operations.

One of the outcomes of the national survey relating to the River Spey, was published ahead of schedule on 12 December 2014:

http://snh.presscentre.com/News-Releases/Action-to-create-better-conditions-for-freshwater-pearl-mussels-153.aspx). This survey found wildlife crime is one amongst several pressures that are contributing to the local decline in pearl mussel numbers.

The Crown Office has received no reports concerning relevant offences in respect of freshwater pearl mussels since 28 May 2013.

All applications are assessed using criteria agreed with Scottish Natural Heritage. In determining the River Spey abstraction application, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, using the agreed criteria, undertook a hydrological assessment of the potential impact on flows in the River Spey. This assessment concluded that the proposal would not cause a breach of ‘good’ river flow standards within the River Spey and would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the water environment or its species.