Am I Suffering From Perturbation?

Im suffering from perturbation! Its true, its not just badgers who get it. The reason Im perturbed is this twitter conversation with Kevin Pearce of the NFU. You can read it now, or just listen to my explanation of how this has disrupted the traditional theories of policy making, which like badger territories have been around for a long time, and give or take a bit, are still relevant.

A week or so ago I suggested that farmers would have been much better off paying for their TB tests rather than paying for a badger cull. It would have been more equitable too: why should farmers in Devon have to stump up thousands of pounds for something that has industry wide benefit? (Perhaps the answer is that there won't be industry wide benefit?). And given that th policy requires all farmers to have the same attitude towards risk, financal reward and wildife (a bit of a long shot) perhaps devolving responsibility of a badger cull to them is a bit risky? (Im not going into the other reasons why this might be the case).

There are two really good reasons for doing this: one financial, the other political. The financial reason is that the costs for the current proposals for the badger cull can only go up. They have been stripped down to the minimum to make them "work" in the cost-benefit analysis. There is doubt over whether the costs in the CBA are accurate to even break even. By contrast, the costs for TB testing can only come down. Down you say? How come? The costs for TB testingare effectively being kept artificially high by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons opposition to lay testing - ie using a technician to test. Everyone agrees that TB testing is no job for a vet, and it would be cheaper for technicians to do it. The trouble is that rural practices have come to rely on the income from testing and taking it away from them could cause some problems in the availablity of rural vets. The other problem is that the EU are not too keen on lay technicians, but they are also worried about the quality of testing and there is a powerful argument that by using technicians some of the conflicts of interest currently present in TB testing could be avoided.

So, by owning the testing regime, farmers could exert much greater pressure on the inertia that is preventing these reforms. Or, perhaps they like this status quo: the advantages they get from having their vet come out to do the TB test and a load of other jobs too so they can avoid a call out charge. In a marginal industry like dairy farming I can understand that. But it kind of rubs the wrong way against the modern competitive view of farming.

The other advantage is the political power this would give farmers at the negotiating table. Lets say you really want a badger cull because you believe that is the best way forward. The government has been stalling on it for ages. This has been frustrating you. So you go to the government and say, "look, we'll pay 60% of the costs of TB control but if we do that you'll have to pay 40% and that must include some sort of wildlife control". Effectively, that is what happened in New Zealand.

To be sure those costs arent distributed equally - its not as if the farmers pay for testing and the state for wildlife control. However, it is the case that by owning the means of control that farmers have been able to take advantage of market forces to keep TB testing costs down. And by stumping up money - via a levy so its equitable for all farmers - that they have achieved real negotiating power. And of course that is what a lot of political theory looks out - how policy is the outcome of a negotiating game where resources are used and exchanged.

So this is why  Im perturbed. On one level, the NFU didnt seem to want to play that game - it doesnt even seem to have been put on the table. As I said, for the NFU it seems to be more about the symbolic value of achieving outright a badger cull, whilst for the Government it seems to be about avoiding pulling the trigger.  Not putting it on the table to get what you want seems a bit confusing: if you offer someone millions of pounds, more than what a badger cull might cost, and you still dont get the government to play ball then I might be a bit worried about whether it really would work. What other reason would there be not to deal?

Maybe this is wrong. Surely in the era of cost and responsibilty sharing this must have been spoken about. Its not as if farmers in other countries arent aready paying for their tests (Ireland) or that no-one knows about the New Zealand solution is it?

So Im left feeling perturbed.

Would the NFU have been in a better position if they'd offered to pay for #bTB testing rather than a #badgercull? http://t.co/wSXx3lEWed Sep 07 15:19:25 via webDr Gareth Enticott
GarethEnticott

@GarethEnticott It is not the NFU's choice that farmers pay for badger control. Governemnt has said we have to pay for any wildlife controlWed Sep 07 15:58:27 via webKevin Pearce
kevin_pearce

@kevin_pearce what did they say when you offered to pay for TB testing instead?Wed Sep 07 16:21:48 via EchofonDr Gareth Enticott
GarethEnticott

@GarethEnticott we've never offered, because they have never said you pay for TB and we'll allow you full control to eradicate it.Wed Sep 07 16:25:05 via webKevin Pearce
kevin_pearce

@kevin_pearce so, its not about reducing costs, but who pulls the trigger?Wed Sep 07 16:43:28 via EchofonDr Gareth Enticott
GarethEnticott

@kevin_pearce isnt policy making about bargaining and negotiation? Id be worried about effectiveness if I offered £30m and still no cullWed Sep 07 16:45:50 via EchofonDr Gareth Enticott
GarethEnticott