"A big thank you for all your press/editorial work. I was delighted to see my paper featured in Nature's 'Research Highlights'"

Zoe Davies Journal of Applied Ecology author, 2011

Natural Resources Wales is launched

Today marks the official launch of a new body to manage the natural environment in Wales. Natural Resources Wales brings together three previously separate organisations – Forestry Commission Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency Wales – to ensure natural resources are sustainably managed, enhanced and used, both now and in the future.

All three of these former organisations tackled some of the most difficult and diverse challenges that Wales faces today. In combining these objectives, Natural Resources Wales therefore has a broad remit, and is required to deal with energy and fuel supply, provision of jobs and income, the threats of climate change and flooding and improving people’s health and wellbeing. A tall order, but one overall body for Wales is proposed to render this achievable through more effective and efficient use of resources.

With this in mind, Natural Resources Wales have set several aims for their first year in operation:

• protect people and their homes as far as possible from environmental incidents like flooding and pollution;
• maintain and improve the quality of the environment, including the promotion of nature conservation, access and recreation;
• provide opportunities for people to learn, use and benefit from Wales’ natural resources;
• support Wales’ economy by using natural resources to support jobs & enterprise;
• help businesses understand and work with environmental, social and economic impacts when they bring forward proposals;
• help make the environment and natural resources more resilient to climate change and other pressures.

These broad aims cover what would be expected from a natural environment management body. Assessing and monitoring progress towards these will be vital, and could provide lessons for environmental management in other areas.

In England, a Triennial Review of two natural resource bodies, Natural England and the Environment Agency, is currently underway. By assessing the functions of both bodies, the review aims to ensure England has ‘sufficiently strong and resilient delivery bodies to meet [its] environmental ambitions’. The results of the assessments are set to determine how the bodies are managed in the future. Potential reforms from the review were set out in a discussion paper by Defra last year, and range from the status quo to a merger of the two bodies. With the potential for England to have an environmental management body similar to Natural Resources Wales, it is worth paying close attention to see what works, what doesn’t, and whether the merge gives more efficient and collaborative management of the natural environment.

Posted in Wales | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Defra programmes and policies: an update

Over the past year, there have been a range of new initiatives from Defra to protect and enhance the natural environment, ranging from biodiversity offsetting to reviewing their public bodies. The all-party parliamentary group on Conservation and Wildlife met on Wednesday to discuss these with Richard Benyon MP, Minister for the Natural Environment and Fisheries. The Minister was able to clarify Defra’s position on a number of issues and put them into a wider context, stressing the continued need for cross-government collaboration for the natural environment.

Wide-ranging topics were brought up by speakers at the meeting. Many were very timely, given the recent Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Conference of the Parties in Bangkok, and the ongoing CAP reform. CITES and wildlife crime were brought up throughout the meeting and members thanked the Minister for the UK Government’s contribution to the recent success of greater protection for a number of shark species against the finning trade. This was a huge victory, but the Minister highlighted that there were many smaller successes as well. A positive ecological effect will result from stricter regulation on the use of every species of rosewood and mahogany trees from Madagascar for timber.

The protection of UK species through Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) has been a topical issue recently, with government announcing the initial creation of 31 new protected areas from a proposed 127. The Minister was keen to stress that he, unlike others, is not fussed about the numbers, but the ecological coherence that the network provides overall. The main issues behind the selection of the sites were scientific evidence and ability to enforce regulations. A public consultation on these zones and the specific protection they need is open until the end of March.

The importance of biodiversity and conservation was also highlighted when a representative of RSPB asked the Minister to outline Defra’s role in maintaining the natural environment in the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs). There are 14 UKOTs across the world, with many possessing huge amounts of biodiversity. Alongside the Department for International Development (DFID) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Defra have developed a new fund for biodiversity and climate-related work in Overseas Territories. The Overseas Territories Environment and Climate Fund brings together two previous funding streams for closer cross-government working. The Minister touched upon the successes that NGOs and other bodies such as the BES have helped them work towards, and the continued work that needs to be done in this area.

On a more local level, the roles of Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), and how they can work better together, were discussed. Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) were developed from the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper, where it was announced that ‘effective action to benefit nature, people and the economy locally happens when the right people come together in partnership’. Currently, there are 48 LNPs across England, with the ambition of helping local areas to manage the natural environment effectively and provide input to local decision-making. Local Enterprise Partnerships are locally-owned partnerships between local authorities and businesses that try to drive economic growth and the creation of local jobs. The Minister agreed with the representative of the Wildlife and Countryside Link that these two programmes should be working together, and perhaps there is not enough close working at the moment.

Other national issue brought up was the triennial review of Natural England and the Environmental Agency. A representative from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) highlighted the need to critically review the costs and savings of any outcome of the review. Both CPRE and the BES contributed to the review’s consultation response through the Wildlife and Countryside Link, and focused on the potential costs of the exercise, and the potential detrimental effects of a merger. The preliminary conclusions of this review should be available in the next few months.

The issues of planning and protection of the natural environment were raised through both biodiversity offsetting and HS2. Biodiversity offsetting was announced in the Natural Environment White Paper as a potential method of delivering planning policy for compensating for biodiversity losses. A pilot scheme in six areas began in 2012, and will run for two years. The Minister highlighted how these will be used as bases of evidence for informing policy decisions. The chair of the APPG on Conservation and Wildlife, Angela Smith MP, spoke about the potential damage that HS2 could have in her constituency, as the proposed route cuts through three areas of ancient woodland. When asked what Defra’s role is regarding the trickier aspects of the route, such as this, the Minister answered that there would undoubtedly be damage with such a large infrastructure project, but work would be carried out to limit and mitigate this. He highlighted that such large projects require a voice across the whole of government for the natural environment.

Importantly, the Minister outlined the priorities and major responsibilities of DEFRA, which are to:
• Support and develop British farming and encourage sustainable food production
• Enhance the environment and biodiversity to improve quality of life
• Support a strong and sustainable green economy, including thriving rural communities, resilient to climate change
• Prepare for and manage the risk from animal and plant disease
• Prepare for and manage the risk from flood and other environmental emergencies.

These encompassed all issues discussed at the meeting fitted into these, highlighting that interested groups and government share a broad like-minded approach in protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

It was clear throughout that the Minister was keen to make best use of scientific evidence for decision-making. When questioned about the levels of protection required by polar bears, he stated that the bears most at risk need to be identified, and research into how hunting affects their populations needs to be carried out to make an informed decision. In addition, the reasoning behind the low numbers of Marine Conservation Zones was reiterated – the evidence provided did not justify their creation.

Posted in Biodiversity, Biodiversity offsetting, Defra, Planning, white paper | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Greening the Common Agricultural Policy: MEPs vote on environmental measures

As part of the wider EU budget review for the period 2014-2020, the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been under scrutiny over the past two years. In its current state, the CAP accounts for 40% of the EU budget, and provides funding through two routes – Pillar One and Pillar Two. Reform of the CAP has been proposed for a number of years, with a view to moving away from its origins as a subsidy to a source of funding that is able to support sustainable farmland management. These changes have been developing for a long time, and proposals for the next period of CAP after 2013 were drawn up by the European Commission in October 2011. There have been a plethora of discussions and amendments across committees since, and final proposals were put before the full European Parliament for further debate and vote last Wednesday.

The debate and votes on the reforms encompassed all areas of the policy, from the allocation of payments to strengthening the bargaining position of farmers. The introduction of systems to ensure greater environmental protection and management, known as greening measures, were a key part of this. Currently, it is mainly Pillar Two that provides funding for environmental protection, but original proposals from the European Commission outlined the strengthening of Pillar One by introducing new green measures that farmers and land managers must meet.

The European Commission proposed in 2011 that 30% of direct payments could be dependent on farmers meeting criteria around crop diversity, grassland retention and ecological management. Original guidelines state that:

1) Cultivation on land over 3 hectares must be comprised of at least three different crops, with all covering 5-70%;
2) Permanent grassland or pasture should be maintained;
3) At least 7% of land must be managed as ‘Ecological Focus Areas’ (EFAs)

During the negotiations and debate, however, the specifics behind the message of greening the CAP were altered. To receive green funding, farmers still have to meet the three main criteria of crop diversity, maintenance of grassland, and management of land as EFAs, but the environmental guidelines have changed:

Crop diversity: Arable land of 10-30 hectares must be planted with at least two different crops covering 20-80% of the land. Land more than 30 hectares must be comprised of at least three crops covering 5-75% of land;
EFAs: During 2015, at least 3% of land over 10 hectares must be reserved for EFAs. From 2016, this will be expanded to 5%.

Although these are small changes on paper, these alterations have the potential to give considerably different outcomes to the original guidelines. The area of land dedicated to EFAs has been more than halved, a move which will have implications for the EU’s farmland wildlife. Farmland biodiversity has already seen declines over many years. As outlined in a previous blog, one group that has suffered as part of this are farmland birds. EFAs comprise areas such as hedgerows, ditches, ponds, or land left fallow. These can provide benefits to the greater ecological environment, especially in relation to environmental change. As recommended in the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper, for enhanced resilience and coherence of the country’s ecological network, sites need to be ‘more, bigger, better and joined’.

Although greening of the CAP does not look likely to be as ecologically rigorous as initially hoped, the creation of mandatory measures in Pillar One is still a step in the right direction. The area of EFAs remains open to review after 2016, and there will still be additional funding available through Pillar Two to farmers or land owners who want to further increase their sustainable management practices.

The debate and votes last week in the European Parliament were the first stage for the final negotiations for the CAP. European Council discussions are currently underway, and all three European bodies are due to come together to decide a final position on 11 April.

Posted in Agriculture, Birds, Common Agricultural Policy, EU, lawton review | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Assessing the impacts of ash dieback

Spring is almost upon us, and early signs of budburst mean that trees will soon be in leaf. Warmer temperatures and leafing trees will both have implications for ash dieback, the disease found last year in ash trees in the UK. The fungus that causes the disease is dormant throughout the winter, and sporulates in the spring. Leaves present vital signs of the disease, and they will help indicate the incidence of disease across the country. Effective measures to deal with both these issues are therefore necessary. A report released by Confor last month outlines the potential impacts of dieback, and follows on from work by Richard Worrell assessing the potential impacts of the disease in Scotland. The report also shows the extent of ash woodland in private ownership, highlighting the need for any actions from government to take this into account.

After oak and birch, ash is the third most common broadleaved tree species in the UK. Confor’s report estimates that woodland ash trees cover over 140 000 hectares of land in UK. In addition to this, 12 million ash trees are present outside of woods and forests, covering urban and recreational areas. The majority of forest volume in the UK is not publicly owned – out of a total forest area of 3 million hectares in the UK, only 28% is managed by the Forestry Commission. For ash, this figure is much lower, with only 3% of ash woodlands not owned by the private sector.

Ash dieback has been present in the natural environment of the UK since October 2012. Although the majority of cases are still confined to nursery sapling stock, cases have been found ‘in the wild’ in eastern England and south-east Scotland (see this Forestry Commission map for details of all reported cases). The disease is caused by the fungus Chalara fraxinea, which causes leaf loss and crown dieback in infected trees, potentially leading to the death of trees. Common ash (Fraxinus excelsior), as found in the UK, is highly affected. Saplings are particularly vulnerable, succumbing rapidly to the disease.

The direct effects of ash dieback on tree populations are clear. Infection in young trees is likely to lead to death within 10 years. High rates of infection and tree death are seen in continental Europe, where the disease is established. One of the worst affected areas is Denmark, where 90% of ash trees are infected. The loss of these trees from the landscape will alter woodland and urban environments alike. As highlighted by Professor Alan Downie, Dr Erik Kjaer and Dr Joan Webber at an online Q&A event hosted by OpenAshDieBack earlier this week, the loss of ash trees will likely lead to negative impacts in the environment. Professor Downie pointed out that ash is the sole foodplant for at least 27 species of invertebrate, and Dr Kjaer highlighted that ash has many associated species, including orchids. The loss of ash would therefore change ecosystems and biodiversity levels. In addition to these species-specific effects, Professor Downie also highlighted the general effects of losing tree cover – impact of the loss of canopy cover on ground flora and fauna, the release of nutrients from the soil, and changes in carbon sequestration.

In addition to these ecological effects, the loss of ash trees in the UK could have an impact on wider economic processes, as highlighted in the Confor report. The loss of ash as a timber tree, and the changes that would have to be made in the management of woodlands that currently have ash present would be economically detrimental. For private owners, the costs of surveying, felling, and replacing ash trees are likely to be high, and the effects of this could be long-lasting. An increase in the amount of timber in the market could also drive prices down, affecting landowners even further.

The government outlined its current actions for ash dieback in December in Defra’s Interim Chalara Control Plan. In this, four key objectives were highlighted:
• Reducing the rate of spread of the disease
• Developing resistance to the disease in the native ash tree population
• Encouraging landowner, citizen and industry engagement in surveillance, monitoring and action in tackling the problem
• Building economic and environmental resilience in woodlands and in associated industries

Given the high rates of private ownership for ash woodland areas, action on the third objective is vital. Dissemination of information about the disease, its spread and how land owners can react best are all necessary for an effective response across the total woodland area in the UK. For landowners to engage in monitoring ash dieback, resources must also be available for them to do so. The number of inquiries sent to the Forestry Commission’s Tree Health Diagnostic and Advisory Service has increased by 1000% over the past six months. As diseased trees come into leaf over spring, and more trees become infected when the Chalara fungus sporulates again in summer, this high workload could even increase.

The report compiled for Confor also covers the potential impacts of red band needle blight, Dothistroma, on pine populations in the UK. This highlights that it is not just ash dieback that could cause ecological and economic problems. The number of tree diseases present in the UK has risen exponentially over the past 20 years, and now, almost all tree species are under threat from at least one disease or pest. Red band needle blight and ash dieback threaten up to 18% of woodland in the UK. Combined with other diseases and pests, their effects can be greatly exacerbated. 30 million elms died of Dutch Elm disease in 1985, and the report compiled by Confor highlights that the extent of private ownership of ash woodlands needs to be taken in to account to prevent damage on this scale occurring again.

What do you think? We’d love to hear your views on this subject, whether you’re a landowner with ash, or you have an interest in policy in this area.

Posted in Biodiversity, Defra, Ecology, Economics, Forestry Commission, Forests, UK | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Environmental Stewardship and farmland birds: the evidence base

Declines in biodiversity have been observed across many habitats in the UK over recent decades. This is especially true in farmland habitats. Changes in practices have led to huge increases in productivity in farms, but this has come at the cost of biodiversity. Agri-environment schemes developed by Natural England hope to reverse this trend through changes in environmental management practices by farmers and land owners, and have recently been using research methods to understand the most effective means of achieving this.

Some of the most notable declines in farmland biodiversity have been observed in bird populations. Bird diversity and abundance on farmland have been well recorded over recent years. As birds are easy to record, and are generally at the top of the food chain, they are used as an indicator for the health of farmland habitats. The UK Farmland Bird Indicator is made up of 19 species that are dependent on farmland for survival, including grey partridge and linnet. Since 1970, the abundance of these species has, on average, declined by 48% across farmland habitats. Of course, as this is an average, there have been both winners and losers. However, 12 of the 19 species have shown a decrease in numbers, leading to an average decline in biodiversity across habitats.

These declines are worrying as biodiversity is required for resilient ecosystems that are able to buffer changes in climate or environment. Birds themselves play a key role in farmland habitats, providing vital services to farmers and landowners. Pollination, seed dispersal and predation of invertebrates are all carried out by birds. In some cases, insect pest control is highly valuable.

There is no single reason for the declines observed for farmland bird species. Instead, multiple factors have combined and interacted to give greater effects, and species have responded to these differently. The main drivers behind these declines are outlined broadly by changes in farmland and environmental management, weather, and predation. Since 1970, field sizes have increased, field drainage has improved and there have been changes in the crops grown in the UK. These have all contributed to the decline of farmland birds.

Defra’s Environmental Stewardship scheme was launched in 2005 and aims to secure widespread benefits for the countryside. It focuses on environmental management, and in contrast to previous schemes, it is open to all farmers and land managers. This agri-environment scheme could help halt and reverse the declines in farmland bird abundance and diversity through targeted payment systems. One example of this is winter bird food.

Between mid-winter and spring, farmland birds suffer from a lack of available food. This period is termed the ‘hungry gap’, and places additional pressure on populations already suffering the consequences of changed land management practices. Providing supplementary food for bird populations over this period could help tackle this gap, and ensure birds are better able to adapt to other changes in their environment. For the past five years, research work into this has been carried out at Hillesden Farm in Buckinghamshire. Preliminary results from the study highlight the benefit that winter food can have for birds, with the separate provision of food significantly increasing the number of birds surviving over the winter. These positive results have fed into the development of five new Environmental Stewardship options that became available to farmers at the start of this year. So far, almost 60 farms have signed up to deliver winter bird food.

The final results from Hillesden Farm will be available in summer 2013. From these, best practice guidelines and Environmental Stewardship options can be further developed. There is a great need for a solid evidence base to inform policy decisions, and the use of ecological studies from Hillesden Farm is exemplary. This will enable government to be confident in cost-effective decision making, and enable effective practices to be carried out.

Posted in Agriculture, Biodiversity, Birds, Defra, Ecosystem Services, England, Land use | 1 Comment

Business and the environment: Ecosystems Market Task Force release final report

The value of the environment for business is often underestimated. Although the business world uses natural services and products for operations, it does not always understand its true reliance on nature and the need to value it correctly. Overcoming this could lead to both economic and environmental benefits for business, and allow operations to continue sustainably into the future. For the past 18 months, a business-led task force has been reviewing the opportunities for new developments in UK businesses which protect and improve natural capital, and published its final report this week.

The Ecosystems Market Task Force was set up by Government after the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper, with the commitment of providing an overall assessment of the opportunities for UK businesses from expanding practices which value and protect nature’s services. The White Paper’s ambition is to create “a green economy, in which economic growth and the health of our natural resources sustain each other, and markets, business and Government better reflect the value of nature.” Through the use of a wide evidence base, and the input of experts, the task force have been able to make over 20 recommendations of opportunities that represent substantial benefits for both nature and business.

The recommendations are grouped into four broad themes (Carbon and Markets for Nature, the Food Cycle, the Water Cycle and Natural Capital: cross cutting themes) and the task force has prioritised recommendations based on the scale of the issue, its relevance and potential impact. Their top five for maximising opportunities and minimising risk in relation to natural capital are:

1) Biodiversity Offsetting: securing net gain for nature from planning and development
2) Closing the loop: anaerobic digestion and bioenergy on farms
3) Local woodfuel supply chains: active sustainable management supporting local economies
4) Nature-based certification and labelling: connecting consumers with nature
5) Water cycle catchment management: integrating nature into water, waste water and flood management.

The five recommendations cover broad areas, representing both new business ventures and better management of resources already used in operations.

In its top recommendation, the task force highlights the current conflict between new development and biodiversity. Although they advocate the offsetting of biodiversity from sites, this is only to be carried out in situations where impacts are ‘unavoidable’ and these impacts should also be ‘more than compensated’ for. Easy in principle, this can be difficult in practice. The task force clearly recognises this though, and has highlighted that initial implementation of offsetting through a mandatory pilot scheme for planning authorities will provide vital evidence on its future potential across the country.

Detailed recommendations for the management of the water cycle catchment are made, with the role that catchments play in improving water quality highlighted. Strategies to improve this involve the payment for ecosystem services approach, where incentives are provided to stakeholders to manage or maintain areas. For water, this would involve farmers, water companies, and businesses working to deliver water quality and biodiversity, which would ultimately give greater environmental and economic benefits.

The need for changes to be evidence-based and backed by strong policy frameworks is stressed throughout the report. High-risk strategies are not ideal for business and the challenges set out for each recommendation by the task force need to be addressed to generate full support for any changes. The recommendations provided in the report will be assessed by the Government over the coming months, and a formal response is expected in the summer. The Task Force has also highlighted its desire to reconvene in a year’s time with Government and business leaders to assess progress since the report.

Posted in Economics, Economy, Ecosystem Services, Planning, UK, Water, white paper | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Knowledge Exchange Course in London – Half Price for BES Members

Members of the BES can benefit from a 50 percent discount on a new knowledge exchange course, taking place at our headquarters, Charles Darwin House, London, on 20th May 2013. Run by two well respected researchers in the field of environmental science and sustainability, Drs Mark Reed and Anna Evely, the course will build on the guidelines for Knowledge Exchange developed through the Living with Environmental Change programme.

The full course outline can be found at the website of the Maya Project. Participants can expect to cover, amongst other things: how to write a ‘Pathways to Impact’ statement; how to use social media to enhance the impact of your research; and how to work effecively with the end-users of your research.

Registration is open now. The cost of the one day course is £240 for non-members of the BES and £120 for members.

Posted in BES, LWEC, Science Communication, Science Policy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Natural England – Science Advisory Committee Members Wanted

Natural England would like to appoint senior academics with national expertise in an area of science key to the delivery of Natural England’s purpose. Applications are welcome from experts across the natural sciences and conservation, including interests such as Ecosystem Approach, socio economics, landscape and planning.

As a member of the committee you will normally be expected to serve on the committee for at least three years, attending five to six meetings per annum. In addition, members will have the opportunity to attend and contribute to relevant Natural England hosted events.

The closing date for applications is Monday 11 March.

For more information please click here.

Posted in Government, Science Policy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The science of science and innovation policy

Nearly £5 billion of public funding is spent on science and innovation in the UK each year. Despite cuts in other sectors, this level of funding was frozen in the 2010 Spending Review, guaranteeing “flat cash” until 2014. Another one-year Spending Review is due next year, but in the current economic climate, significant changes in spending are unlikely. For science to receive the funding it requires and deserves, its value and impact needs to be evidenced and clearly presented to decision-makers. As highlighted by James Wilsdon, Professor of Science and Democracy at Science and Technology Policy Research Unit (SPRU), at the Policy Lunchbox network, however, more work is needed to strengthen the evidence base for UK science and innovation policy.

James began his talk by comparing the situation in the UK to that of the United States. Across the Atlantic, there have been sustained investments in evaluating science and innovation policies over recent years. This was partly in response to an influential 2005 speech made by John Marburger, then science adviser to George W. Bush, where he said that the “science of science policy needs to grow up.” A ‘Science of Science and Innovation Policy’ programme was initiated in 2006, and has since funded upwards of ninety projects to develop and improve science policy decision-making in the US.

There is no equivalently well-developed programme in the UK. Many organisations, such as the Royal Society, Nesta, the Research Councils, and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, as well as university centres work on aspects of science and innovation policy, but much of this work is domain-specific (on genomics, energy etc.) and there is relatively little independent, system-wide analysis. Also there isn’t enough effort to compare the strengths and weaknesses of the UK system to other national systems, in both developed and emerging economies.

James highlighted that the relatively small amount of academic research carried out in the UK’s science and innovation system can result in policymakers relying very heavily on the few resources that are available. For example, in the lead up to the 2010 Spending Review, Professor Jonathan Haskel’s work on the contribution of science to economic growth was used extensively to defend the core science budget. This was a valuable addition to the arsenal of those fighting for science, but as we look ahead to the next General Election and beyond, we ideally need to broaden and deepen our evidence base.

Funding of science and innovation is relatively secure for the short-term, but more work is required to ensure this continues into the future. Currently, science funding is generally a non-partisan issue, with all political parties taking a similar line. Discussion at the Lunchbox led to the conclusion that in order to both reach a wider audience and for funding budgets to be increased, this consensus might need to change, such that science becomes an issue of more visible public and political debate.

Further research into the science and innovation systems of both the UK and other countries is needed to provide robust evidence for policy and decision-makers with regards to funding allocation and science policy. At a time when government budgets are under huge pressure, greater emphasis on the ‘science of science policy’ within the UK would be timely and valuable.

Policy Lunchbox is a joint initiative between the British Ecological Society and the Biochemical Society. The next Lunchbox will be in April. For more information and past speakers, see the website.

Posted in BIS, Policy Lunchbox, Science Funding, Science Policy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Badger cull: licences reissued by Natural England

In 2011, it was announced that a badger cull would be implemented to attempt to curb the spread of bovine tuberculosis. Licences were issued last summer, with culls initially scheduled to take place last autumn. Due to the combination of a bad year for farmers, poor policy and the presence of higher numbers of badgers than previously calculated, they were postponed until spring 2013. Yesterday, badger cull licences for the original proposed areas in Gloucestershire and Somerset were reissued, with culls to start as soon as June.

The publication of the licences was announced yesterday by the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, at the National Farmers Union annual conference. The conditions of the culls were outlined by authorisation letters from Natural England, the licence issuers. Under the licences, badger populations must be reduced by at least 70% over six-week control operations carried out between June and January for four years in both areas. Across west Gloucestershire and west Somerset, between 4937 and 5094 badgers will be killed each year. The preparation of a third cull area in Dorset in the event of one of the original areas becoming unusable was also announced.

This policy remains as controversial as when it was first announced over 18 months ago. Research into the effectiveness of badger culling in reducing the spread of bovine TB has been carried out in the UK in a long-term, well-designed trial. Over the course of 10 years from 1997, an Independent Scientific Group on bovine TB Group oversaw the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) across 10 areas in England. The results, published in 2007, highlighted the ineffectiveness of ‘reactive’ culling (culling around farmland which had recently had outbreaks of TB), with an increase in the prevalence of TB in cattle where this occurred. ‘Proactive’ culling (culling across all accessible land), on the other hand, reduced the incidence of TB in cattle. This beneficial effect, however, was offset by perturbation – the increased movement of badgers to other areas after their social groups are disrupted.

This evidence was further considered by a group of independent scientific experts in April 2011, organised by the Chief Scientific Advisor at Defra. They confirmed the results of the RCBT, and that it provides the best scientific evidence available from which to predict the effects of a future culling policy. It was concluded that the detrimental effects of perturbation are not likely to be permanent, diminishing over 12-18 months. However, it was noted that this would only lead to levels of bovine TB similar to those seen in areas that were not culled at all.

The scientific experts also highlighted that the results of a future culling policy will differ, either positively or negatively, from the RCBT if different methods are utilised. The RCBT was government-led, and used cage- trapping as the sole method of culling. The licences issued yesterday deviate from these methods – the cull will be industry-led and free-shooting of badgers will be carried out. There could therefore be wide variability in the outcome of these pilot culls.

It is notable that Wales will not be proceeding with pilot culls to prevent the spread of bovine TB. Instead, a vaccination programme has been initiated, and will be complemented by a range of other measures, including epidemiological analysis of the disease in Wales. Yesterday, Owen Paterson stated that “these pilot culls are just one part of our approach to control and eradicate this dreadful disease…we are using everything at our disposal to get to grips with TB.” This might be the case behind the scenes, but the badger culls are certainly being heralded as the flagship policy for England. In steps laid out in 2009, the previous government was set to deliver a usable badger vaccine by 2015. This is now no longer the case, both due to research difficulties and the cancellation of five of the six badger vaccine trials by the coalition government.

It needs to be remembered that these pilot culls are just that; a pilot. The novel methods being used, and the nature of ecology, mean that the results of the trials cannot be fully gauged at the moment. Results similar to, or better than, the RCBT are possible, but can’t be guaranteed. Rigorous assessment and monitoring will therefore be required to understand their effectiveness before they can be implemented further. As it is possible that the trials may lead to no changes in the spread and prevalence of bovine TB in cattle, other methods to tackle bovine TB should not be abandoned. Although this would be costly in the short-term, the long-term payoffs could be much greater.

Posted in Badgers and bTB, Defra, England, Wales | Leave a comment

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close