The announcement in May 2008 of a trial reintroduction at Knapdale marks a reversal of the previous decision by the Scottish Executive in 2005. Reasons given at that stage included:

1. The site included an EU designated Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and there was thought to be a possible threat to some of the Atlantic oak trees present.    It was considered that reintroduction could thus be in breach of Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive which can be read to require that there should be no reasonable scientific doubts about adverse effects on the integrity of a SAC site following reintroduction.

2. It was considered that beaver once released would have protection under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act in accordance with Article 12 of the EU Habitats Directive which does not ordinarily permit lethal control and thus limits potential for beaver management.  

The validity of these reasons was subsequently challenged and, in the meantime, decisions by the EC have meant that a greater degree of management control, including option to cull, can be exercised over the species.

1. Britain is one of only seven European countries where beaver previously existed but have not been reintroduced - the others being Portugal, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. They have now been reintroduced to 23 countries across the continent and such programmes would not have proceeded were benefits not found to have outweighed problems, with ease of management being a notable issue.

2. Insofar as any reintroduction decision relates to protected SAC habitat (Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive) this is a site-specific issue. Even where protected sites may occur within part of the intended range, the substantial potential for habitat enrichment which beaver reintroduction would bring is seen as a valid justification for reintroduction. Experience in Europe indicates that this proven potential should greatly outweigh any hypothetical concerns about adverse localised impact.

3. Regarding the impact of Article 12 of the EU Habitats Directive, where the beaver is a listed species in Annex 4, there is be good potential for exemption through one or more of four routes:

3.1 Article 16 of the same Directive suggests the option for individual member states to have a derogation "provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations ... at a favourable conservation status...". If reintroduction will not gain sufficient support in the absence of a clear legal mandate allowing (lethal) control, and thus does not go ahead, it follows that allowing such control would facilitate reintroduction and be beneficial to populations that would not otherwise be established.

3.2 Any request for such derogation can be made in the context of demonstrating that there is a comprehensive programme of options for minimising beaver damage and managing their populations through live catching and release - with culling only as a last resort.

3.3 Amendments have already been made to this legislation to allow recently joined EU member states with substantial beaver populations to reduce the level of protection stipulated, offering useful precedence for further exemptions, again where these could be seen as a crucial factor enabling reintroduction.

3.4 With large populations in many EU states, beaver are no longer endangered - and there is a case for having them removed from Annex 4, thus abrogating the impact of Article 12.