Friday, 26 October 2012
Saturday, 20 October 2012
Delayed? U-Turn? Or Failure?
Something seems to have happened to the badger cull. It should have started by now, but this week it seemed to stall. There were suggestions it wasnt going to go ahead: a u-turn was in the pipeline, so to speak. Whatever has happened - and maybe it is just a delay - it can hardly be called a u-turn, even if the cull doesnt go ahead.
When Jim Paice introduced the policy last year, he made it pretty clear that he was putting the ball in farmers' court. If they didnt want to do it, they didnt have to: it was entirely up to them.
Some farmers may argue that the conditions associated with the cull made it pretty hard for them to want it in the first place. Whatever, if the cull doesnt go ahead, it wont be down to a U-turn, it will be down to a much broader failure in TB policy strategy.
There are many reasons why farmers were lumbered with the costs of a badger cull, but primarily it was down to Defra not having any money, combined with a longer standing objective of cost and responsibility sharing in animal health. Since FMD, governments of differing colours have recoiled at the idea of paying out large sums of money to cover an outbreak of animal disease. The move is to make farmers pay more of those costs.
The trouble is, for TB at least, the way it has been managed has been a bit odd. TB, according to the people in charge, is a national disease. It therefore requires a national strategy. Indeed, whilst its true that other countries have not eradicated TB without also addressing the disease in wildlife, it is also true that those countries TB strategies were highly coordinated at a national level, and extremely controlling. The idea that farmers should be allowed randomly to contribute to a national agenda was and still is seen as counterproductive.
Take New Zealand. Farmers and people living in the country had always done a bit of possum hunting before the possum was identified as a vector. In some cases, like on the West Coast, farmers did pool resources to create localised possum control programmes. This was good in that it got farmers involved in the TB scheme - they had "ownership" to use the jargon. But it was also a bit random: the schemes were always subject to the whims of individual farmers whose commitment might vary one year to the next.
That was no good for disease control reasoned officials in NZ. What was good was a national level programme in which everyone was involved, whether they liked it or not. The outcome was a levy which all farmers paid whether they had TB or not. This ensured that disease control operations could go ahead without relying on farmers in whatever locations were selected for culling. Without this collective spirit existing at a national level, then TB would not be at the levels it is today in NZ.
The story is slightly different in Australia as the eradication programme was introduced at different times in different states. But even here there was no question of opting in or out: tough measures were taken. In both cases, TB eradication was strongly linked to clear national level objectives, and to the health of the nation as a whole.
Is there a national vision for TB control? The way that wildlife controls have been handled up til now would suggest not. Based on what has happened in other countries, this doesnt appear to be the best strategy available.
If culling is to play a role in TB eradication, it would be better if it was controlled nationally, in which all farmers contribute to the costs. If not, it risks the policy failure that may (or may not) be about to happen. This could be achieved easily through a national levy, or more radically, letting the Government assume costs for wildlife control, and farmers the costs of TB testing where the potential to involve farmers in the governance of disease is greater, and where there are also potentially more efficiency savings to be made.
When Jim Paice introduced the policy last year, he made it pretty clear that he was putting the ball in farmers' court. If they didnt want to do it, they didnt have to: it was entirely up to them.
Some farmers may argue that the conditions associated with the cull made it pretty hard for them to want it in the first place. Whatever, if the cull doesnt go ahead, it wont be down to a U-turn, it will be down to a much broader failure in TB policy strategy.
There are many reasons why farmers were lumbered with the costs of a badger cull, but primarily it was down to Defra not having any money, combined with a longer standing objective of cost and responsibility sharing in animal health. Since FMD, governments of differing colours have recoiled at the idea of paying out large sums of money to cover an outbreak of animal disease. The move is to make farmers pay more of those costs.
The trouble is, for TB at least, the way it has been managed has been a bit odd. TB, according to the people in charge, is a national disease. It therefore requires a national strategy. Indeed, whilst its true that other countries have not eradicated TB without also addressing the disease in wildlife, it is also true that those countries TB strategies were highly coordinated at a national level, and extremely controlling. The idea that farmers should be allowed randomly to contribute to a national agenda was and still is seen as counterproductive.
Take New Zealand. Farmers and people living in the country had always done a bit of possum hunting before the possum was identified as a vector. In some cases, like on the West Coast, farmers did pool resources to create localised possum control programmes. This was good in that it got farmers involved in the TB scheme - they had "ownership" to use the jargon. But it was also a bit random: the schemes were always subject to the whims of individual farmers whose commitment might vary one year to the next.
That was no good for disease control reasoned officials in NZ. What was good was a national level programme in which everyone was involved, whether they liked it or not. The outcome was a levy which all farmers paid whether they had TB or not. This ensured that disease control operations could go ahead without relying on farmers in whatever locations were selected for culling. Without this collective spirit existing at a national level, then TB would not be at the levels it is today in NZ.
The story is slightly different in Australia as the eradication programme was introduced at different times in different states. But even here there was no question of opting in or out: tough measures were taken. In both cases, TB eradication was strongly linked to clear national level objectives, and to the health of the nation as a whole.
Is there a national vision for TB control? The way that wildlife controls have been handled up til now would suggest not. Based on what has happened in other countries, this doesnt appear to be the best strategy available.
If culling is to play a role in TB eradication, it would be better if it was controlled nationally, in which all farmers contribute to the costs. If not, it risks the policy failure that may (or may not) be about to happen. This could be achieved easily through a national levy, or more radically, letting the Government assume costs for wildlife control, and farmers the costs of TB testing where the potential to involve farmers in the governance of disease is greater, and where there are also potentially more efficiency savings to be made.
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Hansard Badger cull debate
The House of Commons, October 2012: An imagined badger cull debate.
Rt Hon David Heath MP: “Controlling animal disease is not easy. My Rt Hon Friend may suggest it is an exact science. I beg to differ. And it is for those reasons that I am recommending a badger cull.
As scientists have agreed, a badger cull could reduce incidence of bovine TB by around 28% under the same conditions used by previous scientific badger culling trials. We are not using those same conditions. You might say that invalidates our approach. You might say that makes me “anti-science”. I say not. I say it makes our approach no more or less scientific than the Rt Hon Lady's vaccination plan - a plan with no scientific results to say what effect it might have.
Let me outline the reasons behind our decision as follows.
First, to the matter of science. We are not following the culling protocol laid down by the ISG for good reasons. It is simply too expensive. No-one can afford it. Just like vaccination, we do not know if what we are proposing will work. It might. It might not. We could commission a series of new trials to scientifically prove whether it has made a difference or not. To be clear, that is not the purpose of these trials. That would take many years, and the time for action is now.
Instead, we’ve tried to be innovative: to push the boundaries of knowledge, to push the rules. We think what we’ve come up with in that respect should work. But if it does not, we will have one indicator of success or failure: farmers. As my predecessor pointed out, it will be up to farmers to decide whether they want to do this. It will be up to them to pay for it. And if they don’t think its working, then they wont bother. They say you learn by failing: well this is their chance.
Second, Mr Speaker, the aim of our decision is to develop ownership. A clear conclusion of the ISG’s research was that without ownership TB eradication is dead in the water. Experience from other countries show us that without farmer involvement, disease control programmes do not work. You may suggest offering a carrot in this way is unacceptable: but how else do you think we will be able to implement further regulations on cattle movements, risk based trading, and use of more powerful diagnostics that will identify even more infected cattle? As research has shown, without farmer’s believing they have a chance, none of these other measures will have much impact. We have no intention of regulating farmers out of business. It is only by working with them farmers that we will get anywhere with this disease. The means justify the ends
Without this, I would very much like to hear from my honourable friends how they would propose incentivizing positive biosecurity behavious amongst farmers. Are they proposing more regulation? How much will that cost? What will you do about non-compliance? How successful will you be?
No, Mr Speaker. The history of animal disease has always been is one of seeking this balance – a trade off. It is the very reason why farmers are compensated in animal disease outbreaks. It is nothing new. It is the history of animal disease. And it is the way to get things done.
Lastly Mr Speaker, I want to draw attention to the idea that better biosecurity offers a realistic solution to this crisis. As I have indicated, I will be bringing forward new cattle testing procedures and movement restrictions in the coming months. These will make a difference. But suggestions that removing reactors from farms a day or so earlier will make a difference are far from the mark. It is rather like putting on a seatbelt after you have crashed your car. If we are to debate biosecurity, lets stick to the key issues, not be distracted by the kinds of meaningless activities that are only done to make people think they are actually doing something worthwhile.
Mr Speaker, science says a badger cull may work. It might not. This badger cull will allow us to introduce further regulations to help curb bovine TB. It is for this reason alone that a badger cull is meaningful.
Mr Speaker: Order! Order! I call the Rt Hon member for Wakefield...
Rt Hon David Heath MP: “Controlling animal disease is not easy. My Rt Hon Friend may suggest it is an exact science. I beg to differ. And it is for those reasons that I am recommending a badger cull.
As scientists have agreed, a badger cull could reduce incidence of bovine TB by around 28% under the same conditions used by previous scientific badger culling trials. We are not using those same conditions. You might say that invalidates our approach. You might say that makes me “anti-science”. I say not. I say it makes our approach no more or less scientific than the Rt Hon Lady's vaccination plan - a plan with no scientific results to say what effect it might have.
Let me outline the reasons behind our decision as follows.
First, to the matter of science. We are not following the culling protocol laid down by the ISG for good reasons. It is simply too expensive. No-one can afford it. Just like vaccination, we do not know if what we are proposing will work. It might. It might not. We could commission a series of new trials to scientifically prove whether it has made a difference or not. To be clear, that is not the purpose of these trials. That would take many years, and the time for action is now.
Instead, we’ve tried to be innovative: to push the boundaries of knowledge, to push the rules. We think what we’ve come up with in that respect should work. But if it does not, we will have one indicator of success or failure: farmers. As my predecessor pointed out, it will be up to farmers to decide whether they want to do this. It will be up to them to pay for it. And if they don’t think its working, then they wont bother. They say you learn by failing: well this is their chance.
Second, Mr Speaker, the aim of our decision is to develop ownership. A clear conclusion of the ISG’s research was that without ownership TB eradication is dead in the water. Experience from other countries show us that without farmer involvement, disease control programmes do not work. You may suggest offering a carrot in this way is unacceptable: but how else do you think we will be able to implement further regulations on cattle movements, risk based trading, and use of more powerful diagnostics that will identify even more infected cattle? As research has shown, without farmer’s believing they have a chance, none of these other measures will have much impact. We have no intention of regulating farmers out of business. It is only by working with them farmers that we will get anywhere with this disease. The means justify the ends
Without this, I would very much like to hear from my honourable friends how they would propose incentivizing positive biosecurity behavious amongst farmers. Are they proposing more regulation? How much will that cost? What will you do about non-compliance? How successful will you be?
No, Mr Speaker. The history of animal disease has always been is one of seeking this balance – a trade off. It is the very reason why farmers are compensated in animal disease outbreaks. It is nothing new. It is the history of animal disease. And it is the way to get things done.
Lastly Mr Speaker, I want to draw attention to the idea that better biosecurity offers a realistic solution to this crisis. As I have indicated, I will be bringing forward new cattle testing procedures and movement restrictions in the coming months. These will make a difference. But suggestions that removing reactors from farms a day or so earlier will make a difference are far from the mark. It is rather like putting on a seatbelt after you have crashed your car. If we are to debate biosecurity, lets stick to the key issues, not be distracted by the kinds of meaningless activities that are only done to make people think they are actually doing something worthwhile.
Mr Speaker, science says a badger cull may work. It might not. This badger cull will allow us to introduce further regulations to help curb bovine TB. It is for this reason alone that a badger cull is meaningful.
Mr Speaker: Order! Order! I call the Rt Hon member for Wakefield...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)