Hi - I'm Dr Gareth Enticott, a research fellow at Cardiff University. My research focuses on the geography and sociology of animal health. I'm interested in how farmers, vets, policy makers and conservationists deal with and make sense of animal health on a day to day basis and what this means for the future of animal health and rural places in the UK. I am particularly interested in bovine tuberculosis.


Friday, 13 January 2017

RGS 2017 CFP Brexit and the Future of Agriculture, Food and Rural Society

Joint RGRG-FGWG Session for RGS 2017

Brexit  and the Future of Agriculture, Food and Rural Society


Convenors:
Dr Gareth Enticott (Cardiff University) enticottg@cardiff.ac.uk
Dr Damian Maye (University of Gloucestershire) dmaye@glos.ac.uk

Session Details

Brexit poses the most significant challenge to the future of rural areas of Great Britain. In the short term, Brexit has highlighted the reliance of the food system on cheap migrant labour and the complex ways we are connected to Europe (market, regulation and policy links in relation to farming, food supply and trade, for example). Longer term, decisions and choices will be made on systems of rural development, agricultural subsidies and ecosystem services.

In this session we invite papers that engage with the rural impact of Brexit: what are its immediate social and economic impacts? What are the key rural policy and governance impacts? What do we know and not know about the impact of Brexit to agriculture, food and rural society? What kinds of rural geographies and futures does Brexit offer? What are the implications of Brexit in terms of research agendas and knowledge generation? And what is the value of rural geography and its expertise in a post-Brexit world?

In particular, we invite papers on the following topics:

  •          The role of geographical expertise in Brexit
  •          Conflicts and tensions following Brexit
  •          Brexit and the potential impacts to farming and the food system
  •          Post-referendum impacts to rural areas
  •          Possible post-Brexit rural futures for agriculture and rural development
  •       Experiences from other countries experiencing profound shifts in rural and agricultural governance (e.g. New Zealand)
  •          Impacts of Brexit to rural areas outside the UK
  •          Brexit, future research agendas and the future of rural geography


Format

Conference sessions will take the format of 20minute presentations
The session will also include a panel discussion


Please send abstracts of no more than 250 words to either Gareth Entcott (enticottg@cardiff.ac.uk) or Damian Maye (maye@glos.ac.uk) by 3rd Feb 2017.

Sunday, 2 October 2016

The Welsh Badger Problem

A debate about bovine tuberculosis where the motion is universally agreed has to be unusual, but that's what happened at the Welsh Assembly last week.

That’s not to say there wasn't any disagreement in the Chamber, but as I’d already pointed out, the motion was worded in such a way that disagreement was difficult: everyone agrees that the Welsh Government should do something about bovine TB. The question is what?

So what was the point of the debate? Led by Plaid Cymru, UKIP and the Conservatives, perhaps the deabte was more a signal of intention that this was going to be an issue that they’d be pressing the Labour-led administration on over the next 4 years. Politically, it makes sense: its something the opposition can cause trouble with, particularly as there’s probably more AMs on the side of a badger cull than those against.

Beyond the party politics of bovine TB, was there anything to be learned from the debate?

Often, debates on bovine TB try (unsuccessfully) to engage with the scientific evidence. This time, there was little of that. Most AMs tended to tell personal stories about the social and economic impacts of bovine TB upon themselves and their constituents. Interestingly, there’s actually very little rigorous evidence of the social and economic impacts of bovine TB. There’s only one published study of farmers’ mental health that compares farmers with and without bovine TB (those without TB had better mental health). Given its importance, it's a surprise there’s not more research. A shame too, that when Defra initiated a new project to look at this, they withdrew the funding at the last minute and redirected it to other research instead. If its important to Welsh AMs, maybe they should seek more evidence?

Does this say anything about AMs reluctance to get involved in scientific debate? Joyce Watson (Lab) did raise the ghost of the Krebs trials, whilst others referred to the expertise of the British Veterinary Assocation for guidance. Expertise on animal disease isnt limited to any discipline, like veterinary science, but referring to the BVA was an exercise in boundary making around those who can and should speak for cattle and wildlife.  To quote Llyr Gruffudd (PC): “What are the experts saying? What do they tell us? Well, ask the BVA, the association representing British Vets – they are in favour of badger culling as part of a comprehensive eradication strategy, and that is exactly what is needed in my view too”.

Brexit is the one ‘new’ ingredient that has potential to throw a spanner into TB policy. Some AMs pointed out the potential implications for trade if bovine TB wasn't sorted out, correctly pointing out that maintaining market access was a key factor in driving forward eradication programmes in New Zealand. That had always been the case in New Zealand, since the beginning of its eradication programme in the 1950s. It’s never been an issue here. Sometimes policy only changes as a result of dramatic shocks allowing it to be reframed in a new way (in this case as a problem of market access). But is there an appetitive in Wales for the kind of dramatic social and economic change that finally got New Zealand’s TB eradication programme back on track in the 1980s and 90s? Neither is the history of cooperative working and the desire for Government to stand backchat was central to New Zealand’s success present in Wales. Which leads to a final point…

Despite the desire – in some quarters – to get on with a badger cull, none of the AMs in favour described how it would take place. Or more precisely, who would be responsible for it. In New Zealand, wildlife controls are paid for by farmers (with some support from the Government) who also directly fund the agency responsible for managing bovine TB. In England too, the culls are being paid for by farmers. What of Wales? Who will pay for a badger cull? Who will be responsible for delivering eradication? Is Wales going to go down in history as the first Government to successfully eradicate bovine TB without the involvement of the agricultural industry? That would be some achievement, given the entrenched reliance on the State in Wales to solve problems, captured best in farmers’ belief that “as it has been the government that got us into this mess, it should be them who get us out of it”.


Answers to these questions may become more apparent after October 18th when the Minister for Agriculture makes a statement on bovine TB policy in Wales.

The full transcript of the debate is available here.

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

A (new) Welsh Badger Cull?

On Wednesday, Assembly Members will be debating the Welsh Government’s bovine tuberculosis policy.

The debate proposes that the National Assembly for Wales “takes decisive action to tackle bovine TB by committing to use the most effective measures to control and eradicate bovine TB and ensuring that testing and movement restrictions are proportionate to the disease status of an area”.

The motion is suitably vague, perhaps, for everyone to agree to this. Who doesn’t want to take "decisive action" and use "the most effective measures" for anything?

But ‘decisive action’ is simply subtext for a badger cull, which is harder to get agreement on. Comments Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru spokesman for Rural Affairs) and Llyr Gruffydd (Plaid Cymru) make this clear, calling for “a wider range of measures, including stronger action to tackle TB in wildlife”.

The debate comes at an interesting time: the Welsh Government is reviewing its TB policy following the end of the vaccination trial in the Intensive Treatment Area. Whilst the numbers of TB outbreaks have been falling, the number of cattle slaughtered has been rising. In England, the number of badger cull zones have been increased, some of which are close to the Welsh border.

Perhaps most interesting are the political dynamics of the Assembly. The Labour government have long resisted any call for a badger cull with former minster Alun Davies suggesting that public opposition was so great that politicians would not get elected because of it. As the debate is on the last day of the Labour conference, how many Labour AMs will turn up to defend their policy?

But the current Labour administration is propped up by the Assembly’s sole Lib Dem – Kirsty Williams – who, as a farmer, has made her views known about a badger cull. In pre-election hustings in April, she commented that the Welsh Government’s measures “have gone as far as they can, but I fear we will never get clear of this disease without involving wildlife”. Nationally, the Lib Dems’ view varies. The question is, what role could Ms Williams play in shifting the ground towards a badger cull policy.

Other parties aren’t exactly united over it, though. Whilst Plaid Cymru portrays itself as the party of rural Wales, what about its urban/valleys AMs, like its leader Leanne Wood? Back in 2015, Ms Wood said that the party had “moved away” from a badger cull policy. In the run up to the 2016 Assembly election, this had changed to seeing “what the evidence tells us", whilst adding: "I'm not someone whose going to go all out for a cull of badgers".

The outcome of the debate and vote is more likely to show that it is not for nothing that bovine TB is known as the political disease.


Thursday, 19 June 2014

Day 4: M.bovis 2014

The final day of the conference, and yet another sunny day in Cardiff. There may have been some sore heads though after the conference dinner the night before. Mae hen wlad fy Nhadau may still have been ringing in some of their ears.

Conference dinner selfie, but no sign of Delilah


If they were nursing hangovers, they would have missed a great final day featuring papers and plenaries relating to TB in wildlife. There was plenty about TB in badgers, lots about wild boar from the Spanish contingent, as well as discussions about Elk and White Tailed Deer in Michigan and Canada.

The conference was then summed up with a kind of progress report on the countries around the world with TB - leaders: Australia; laggards - Great Britain.

The wildlife papers were interesting for a couple of reasons. I was struck by the low levels of TB in the wildlife but as was pointed out to me, their control is often driven by fear of having much higher levels of TB if they don't stamp it out. The New Zealanders like to use the phrase 'taking your foot of the gas', or throat. That is, you don't stop until its completely over: not nearly, but completely.

Another  explanation relates more to the ways in which nature is understood, and how it fits with other concepts such as wilderness, nature and landscape.

Todd Shury's presentation concerning TB in Elk in Canada captured this well. TB Elk live in Riding Mountain National Park. Elk numbers were reduced as a way of managing TB - Shury showed that there was a relationship between population density and TB. But the reduction of Elk was also permitted by the way Elk were perceived to fit into a wilderness landscape. Before carrying out Elk control, they carried out a lot of stakeholder consultation. As in many of these cases, there is conflict between farmers (concerned about TB), hunters (who want to preserve wildlife for the hunting value) and no doubt others who see Elk and the landscape for its intrinsic value. It became clear during these consultations that Elk reduction related to perceptions of the way those Elk fitted into a 'natural wilderness' landscape. The Elk belonged there; they created meaning for that place. But that place had to be natural, and there was a sense of their being 'too many' Elk in the park. This is the natural balance / natural equilibrium discourse that so often comes up in environmental management controversies (something which also comes up in relation to badgers). Perhaps also, the need to do something about TB in Elk reflected the need for wilderness - i.e. national parks - to be spaces of 'pure' nature - that wilderness has a certain natural (and moral) order, disease not being part of it, a sign of human interference. Again, this relates to the equilibrium discourse where people describe 'right' levels for nature. Where natural populations become diseased, so those populations have become less natural, and nature needs a helping hand from humans to get back to being natural.

The talks about TB in Michigan fitted well with the Canadian story. Melinda Cosgrove described how bans on feeding deer were ignored (as a way of managing the population) because people cared for the animals in the winter. They couldn't stand by and watch them suffer during hard winters so provided additional feed when they shouldn't have. The public's caring for those individual animals was a contrast to the Michigan Government' desire to care for the deer population as a whole - by allowing numbers to reduce 'naturally' by denying feed etc.

By contrast, Dan O'Brien's talk showed that when people profess a desire to reduce populations they don't tend to follow through with actions. Michigan liberalised their hunting permits to allow farmers and landowners to shoot deer when they wanted. It turned out that despite this opportunity, few could be bothered. Whether this was down to not believing they'd make much difference, not believing that that there was a problem with the population or individuals wasn't clear - it would be fascinating to explore those issues further.

So that was M.bovis for another 4 years. The next conference will be in 2018. It'll be a toss up between South Africa, Mexico and Dublin. Wherever it is, Im looking forward to it.




Day 3: M.bovis 2014

So on to day 3, another sunny day in Cardiff.

This was the day when I was doing my plenary talk. I think it went well. I had lots of positive comments which ranged from 'neat' and 'cool' to 'well done'. Spot the nationalities in those comments. Some people find presenting really quite easy and can stand in a room of 300 people and talk away without notes. Other people, like myself, get a bit stressed by this prospect: not outwardly, but it requires a great deal of focus and concentration beforehand. This means that it can be difficult to concentrate on any talks beforehand. Which was a shame, because directly before my talk Douwe Bakker was talking about the quality of tuberculin, how it was very poor, the difficulties of standardisation, the variations in its quality and what that means for test results. He was talking about it as a scientist, but for a social scientist interested in what disease actually is, and its multiple forms, it was amazing. But like I said, I was trying to focus...

I suppose you get a feeling of knowing when a talk is going well or not. I had 45 minutes to work that out! You can get that sense of flow and things fitting together nicely. I felt a lot of responsibility not just to present something interesting, but to present something on behalf of my colleagues: to bang the drum for social science. That adds to the pressure, and it was great to hear their feedback afterwards as well. All of that meant that it I was quite exhausted afterwards: using cycling language, I'd blown up. Recovery took a while...

What picked me out of my post-plenary glaze was the New Zealanders talking about their new NAIT electronic ID system. I know a little bit about this, so it was good to hear Stu Hutchings and Kevin Crews talk about it in more depth. The tracing capabilities are fantastic and they're are now able to show the movements of cattle across NZ. This is particularly important given the rapid expansion of the Dairy industry in NZ at the moment. I know some people are surprised that NZ dont already have that kind of system. What I found most interesting was how it would lead to changes in their risk based trading system. Farmers have become used to describing themselves in terms of their C-status. Thats going to change. Itll be interesting to see how they react.

The conference dinner was in the evening which was great. We were entertained by a Welsh male voice choir who sang in A cappella style. Some good Welsh favourites like Calon Lan and Myfanwy were in there. But strangely they sang no Tom Jones, not even Delilah. In A Cappella the singers dance along to the music to act out the song. Surely a version of Tom Jones' Sexbomb would have been ideal?!

Wednesday, 18 June 2014

Day 2: M.bovis 2014

So on to day 2 in sunny Cardiff for M.bovis 2014, and two plenaries stood out: Ian Boyd's and Peter Roeder's. Both were interesting for different reasons - here's what I found interesting.

1. Ian Boyd's talk covered some issues which he has already spoken about in different places already: the politicisation of science being one. He said some controversial things about the Badger Protection Act which sent my twitter feed into haywire when I tweeted it. You can check that out for yourself. But I think its important to put what he said into context. Personally, I don't like hypothetical questions: I dont think good research comes of it (although some economists and psychologists would probably disagree). Ian Boyd was asked one such question: Q: 'what would you do if you had a time machine and could go back to 1973?' A: '[long pause] hmm, Id probably advise not passing the badger protection act...'. Are these sorts of questions meaningful? Its certainly useful to look back at history to understand why and how things have happened. But worrying about 'woulda, shoulda, coulda' is the preserve of football pundits, not scientists. No-one knows what would have happened: isnt it better to spend your energy on thinking about what to do next? These sorts of questions also provide a sort of accountability test: its a bit of a loaded question. Questions are tests - I think Ian Boyd may have even wondered aloud that he was being tested. Answers can be 'right' or 'wrong', and the answers we give account for who we are and who we belong to: its like we're being asked whose side are you on here? Are you with 'us', or against 'us'? Maybe in his long pause to think about what to say, that's what was going through his mind?

2. Peter Roeder's talk on the eradication of Rinderpest was fascinating. It was interesting because of the emphasis he placed on the role of socio-economic research in eradicating disease. 'Without it', he said, 'we wouldnt have got where we did'. 'If only we had that data earlier' he reflected. 'The social was more important that the technical' he said. But on the technical he was also interesting. One of his themes was about the imperfection of diagnostics. 'Don't worry about it' he suggested, 'you don't always need new technology - in some cases (thinking of working in Africa) it can be more harm than good'. So long as you know the limitations of your tools, you can work with them and adapt to them. Adaptive management is the key. The idea of imperfection in systems is an interest to social scientists too. Is there really a perfect system? Does the idea of a perfect system perform a symbolic role to hide how things really work - providing legitimacy and status to some whilst denying it to others? Perhaps systems actually work because they have imperfections within them, and those imperfections actually hold social systems together? That's a conclusion from many studies of science and technology, and its interesting to think how it might be relevant to the control of animal disease.


Tuesday, 17 June 2014

Reflections on day 1 of m.bovis 2014

I'm at m.bovis 2014 this week - anninternational scientific conference on bovine tuberculosis. The last conference was 5 years ago in Wellington which I was fortunate to go to. This time it's in Cardiff. Here's my thoughts on what's happened so far: 

- wow, there are a lot of people here!

- the most interesting speakers for me were Brian Radunz and Paul Livingstone. I know Paul very well, and I've heard his talk before. Both though we're preaching from the same hymn sheet: that governance was the key. The message is very seductive if you are a country struggling with eradication. But let's not carried away. Those solutions were possible became possible for particular reasons, and reflect the socio-economic contexts of those countries. The question is to what extent is any of those experiences relevant for other countries?

- during Paul livingstone's talK there were some people (from AHVLA) commenting on what he was saying. Reflecting on NZs possum control, they said "it's great how he's just cutting through all the PC stuff...it's what we need to do". Actually, the point is that it would be 'un-PC' not to cull possums. Disease control tends to run with national cultural attitudes rather than against them: that's how it comes to 'work'.

More on day 2 tomorrow...


Thursday, 22 November 2012

Biosecurity: the first mention

The following is the first ever mention of biosecurity (or bio-security) in a UK newspaper. It appeared in the Scotsman on July 1st 1996 and was written by Fred Pearce.  


The aliens have landed

  Fred Pearce

THEY call them genetic stowaways and biological aliens. You probably have some in your garden. Scotland certainly has some of the most fabulous collections in the world in its great west coast temperate and sub-tropical gardens, at Inverewe, Lochalsh and elsewhere - alien species from New Zealand, China, the Himalayas and the Americas, lovingly collected by generations of botanists.

Amid all the talk of a crisis for the planet's biodiversity, some countries, Scotland included, "probably have far more species now than ever before," Jeffrey McNeely of the World Conservation Union told a conference on alien species today. But are they friend or foe, these biological interlopers? Should we embrace their bright colours and strange ways, or fear them? After extolling the virtues of the worldwide trade in ornamental plants in increasing local biological diversity, McNeely went on to warn the meeting, at Trondheim in Norway, that "the spread of alien species" is also "a threat to global biodiversity." In biology today, insularity and fear of the unknown is taking hold. "Most alien species turn out to be pests," said another speaker.

The downside to introduced biological diversity lies in the risk that aliens can pose to local species, espe-cially the rare species and "endemics" that are found nowhere else on earth. A simple British example is the red squirrel. The introduction of the grey squirrel increased British biodiversity, but it is now driving the red squirrel north and is one day likely to run it off the islands altogether. Scotland cannot hold out forever.

There are hundreds of similar examples of aliens driving out the indigenous. Of plants, animals, insects and microbes breaking out from one continent, or even a small island, and conquering new territories, causing genetic rape and pillage as they go. Whether carried deliberately by humans - as with ornaments or new crops, for instance - or hitchhiking aboard ships and planes; as parasites on other species or swimming up newly dug canals, the aliens are on the march, often with catastrophic results.

In the past two years the pink mealybug, a beast never before seen in the western hemisphere, has been destroying vegetation and crops in the Caribbean, starting in Grenada.

Some say it arrived in a diplomatic bag from a Far East nation, where it has happily existed for millennia without mishap. But in the Caribbean, where the pink mealybug has no predators, it has run wild, eating teak trees and hibiscus and stripping cocoa plantations.

British biologists this year sent for a Asian wasp to try to control the invader.

Peter Moyle of the University of California at Davis calls this "the Frankenstein effect" - the unpredictable and potentially devastating impact of apparently benign or invisible invaders. And aliens don't come much more devastating than Mnemiopsis leidyi, a jellyfish they now call "the blob that ate the Black Sea." It reached the sea in 1981 as a stowaway in a ship's ballast water from America, where it had never caused anyone any harm. In the Black Sea, it encountered no predators but plenty of food.

It munched its way through the eggs and larvae of numerous Black Sea fish, causing a 90 per cent drop in the sea's fish catches within six years. Sometimes the invasion is a deliberate act of man. The jury is still out on one of the greatest alien species experiments: the deliberate introduction in the Fifties of the Nile perch into east Africa's Lake Victoria, the world's second largest lake. It has not served biodiversity too well. Before the Nile perch was introduced, the lake had more than 300 fish species known as haplchromines, which are found nowhere else on earth. Today "some 200 are feared to have become extinct", Richard Ogulu-Ohwayo of Uganda's National Agricultural Research Organisation told the meeting.

The haplchromines once ate the lake's algae. Now the lake is filling with rotting algae, which is consuming its oxygen. Ecologists are up in arms, but the 30 million people who rely on the lake for their fish are happy. For now at least, catches are high and the Nile perch is the best catch of them all.

One of the biggest accidental introductions of alien fish followed the opening of the Suez canal linking the Red Sea and Mediterranean in 1869.

Nearly 300 species have moved from the Indian Ocean into the Mediterranean, according to Charles Bou-douresque of the University of the Mediterranean in Marseilles.

And more come every year, though curiously few species have gone in the opposite direction. "Off the Israeli coast," he says, "migrant fish now constitute a third of trawl catches."

One species that probably did not arrive via the Suez canal is a sea grass called Caulerpa taxifolia.

Nobody is admitting how it got from its Indian Ocean home to the Riviera, where its dense green mats just below low-water mark began to displace native sea grasses from the mid-Eighties. But it first appeared just outside the giant aquarium once run by Jacques Cousteau in Monaco.

Out of the way islands often suffer the worst from species invasions. Hawaii takes in more than 20 new insect species alone every year -roughly a million times the natural inva-sion rate for these remote Pacific islands. "Half of these alien invertebrates are known pests," says Alan Holt of the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, and they are threatening the plethora of endemic Hawaiian species. Invaders so far held at bay by strict quarantine laws include poisonous snakes and biting insects such as midges and mosquitoes - but for how much longer? Island outposts of the British empire suffered especially, as sailors brought new animals along for food.

Goats ate the forests of St Helena, while cats ate the birds. And ships' rats have done the same from the Caribbean to the South Pacific. It may have been hunters that saw off Mauritius's most famous lost species, the flightless dodo bird. But in this "ecological disaster zone", says Wendy Strahm from the World Conservation Union, there are more alien plant species growing today than native species.

Even the biggest islands suffer.

After tens of millions of years of biological isolation, the landscape of Australia has been "transformed over the last 200 years" by new species, says Roger Pech, an Australian government biologist.

Rabbits, foxes and the house mouse from Europe have led the way. In New Zealand, according to Michael Clout of the University of Auckland, the most important issue in conservation "is the management of invasive species" such as the rat. A highlight of the country's legislative programme in 1993 was the passage of the Biosecurity Act to help keep out alien species.

It may be too late, as the globalisation of world trade and the exponential growth of air travel brings more and more species across the world every day. But more countries seem to be trying to raise the biological drawbridge. Alien species are no longer welcome.

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.

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...