Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Badger Trust (BTB 27a)
THE SUSTAINABLE CONTROL OF BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Badger Trust welcomed the opportunity
to present evidence to the Select Committee on the Government's
consultation on badger culling, on 7 February 2006. This additional
statement aims to clarify two of the issues raised.
B. THE IMPACT
ON CONSUMERS
2. The Badger Trust was asked what further
questions the Government's consultation should be posing. The
Badger Trust suggested that one question should ask what impact
a large scale badger cull would have on consumer's perceptions
of, and demand for, farm produce.
3. Mr Rogerson commented that he hoped the
Badger Trust was not advocating a "spontaneous boycott"
and we were not given the opportunity to reply. It therefore seems
wise to explain our rationale a little more fully.
4. Throughout the farming industry, attempts
are underway to strengthen consumer's understanding of the links
between food and a sustainable countryside. These include the
Countryside Agency's Eat the View campaign. Its chairman, Ewen
Cameron, notes that:
5. "Farmers are finding it difficult
to compete in an increasingly globalised market place and despite
very substantial public subsidy to agriculture, farm incomes are
currently at an unsustainable level . . . but at the same time
there are major concerns regarding animal health, food safety
and the nutritional quality of food, as well as environmental
degradation and the continued decline in wildlife.
6. ". . . There is now even greater
pressure for subsidy payments based on production to be redirected
towards improving environmental management. Both local and central
government are beginning to realise the significance of food production
to sustainable development and are starting to review policies
and support local food initiatives. Consumers are also starting
to show their concern about the negative effects of food production
and supermarkets to recognise the competitive advantages that
support for the countryside and environment might bring.
7. "What has happened in the farming
and food industry raises questions for all of us. As consumers,
as visitors to the countryside, as taxpayers, or as producers
and processors of food, we all have a role to play in encouraging
more sustainable land management."
8. Lobbying organisations, such as Local
Food Works, argue that: "A top priority for the government
must now be to create a policy framework which favours a more
local, sustainable trade in food."
9. In areas where bTB is prevalent, networks
exist to promote consumer links with local produce, with publicly-funded
campaigns such as Taste of the Westiii. Very large landowners
are leading the way. The National Trust's Farming Forward campaign:
". . . is about promoting sustainable farming and food production
for the benefit of producers, consumers, and the environment,
as well as improved standards in animal welfare. We aim to promote
farming methods and approaches that look after soil, water, air,
biodiversity and the natural landscape." iv
10. HRH The Prince of Wales established
the Duchy Originals brand to: ". . . demonstrate that it
was possible to produce food of the highest quality, working in
harmony with the environment and nature, using the best ingredients
and adding value through expert production"v. HRH The Prince
of Wales described this philosophy as a "virtuous circle".
11. The Badger Trust contends that proposals
to exterminate badgers are not sustainable and are therefore incompatible
with these national and regional trends towards achieving simultaneous
benefits for farmers and the environment through consumer support.
12. We note that the Government's consultation
document, in presenting its partial Regulatory Impact Assessment,
makes no attempt to factor in the economic impacts that badger
culling might have on consumers' enthusiasm for local produce
in particular. We suggest that, were a cull to go ahead despite
the clear scientific evidence that it would worsen bTB or be impossible
to implement on the scale required, then consumers would feel
betrayed by the farming community. That sense of betrayal could
readily be reflected in a change in support for local farming
produce.
13. Suppliers at farmers' markets are expected
to brief consumers on "production methods"vi and, we
suggest, the extermination of badgers would have to be cited as
a relevant production method (alongside the use of pesticides,
for example) that influenced consumer choice.
14. It is imperative that Government assesses
the potential impact that killing badgers might have on the marketplace.
For example, the volume of consumers with a direct interest in
the management of the countryside can be measured, loosely, by
the membership of organisations within Wildlife and Countryside
Link. Those organisations alone represent an estimated 8.4 million
peoplevii. Many will be those with disposable incomes that make
them predisposed to paying the premium for high quality, locally
sourced produce.
15. We note that the partial RIA reports
that in a survey conducted by the University of Reading, "73%
[of those surveyed] objected to badgers being intentionally killed"
even though "92% agreed that controlling bTB is important".
Thus, for economic reasons, there is a strong case for implementing
the positive solutions advocated by the Badger Trust and others,
rather than exterminating wildlife.
C. ILLEGAL ACTIVITY
16. The Badger Trust does not condone illegal
activity. On the contrary, the Badger Trust won the "Partner
of the Year Award" in 2005, from the Partnership Against
Wildlife Crime (PAW), for its work in training and supporting
the police in wildlife legislation enforcement.
17. Nor does the Badger Trust speak for
those to whom the vague label "animal rights activists"
is assigned. Nevertheless, we noted (indeed, it was hard to miss)
a particularly repetitive line of questioning on the issue of
"animal rights activism" from Mr Kawczynski.
18. Mr Kawczynski asked the NFU whether
"animal rights activists" pose a threat to farmers.
This was supported by the NFU, though we note the absence of any
evidence to back the assertion. The Badger Trust was not given
an opportunity by Mr Kawczynski to comment on this issue. We would
like to take this opportunity to inform the debate.
19. On 8 February 2001, the then Agriculture
Minister, Nick Brown, used the NFU's annual conference as a platform
from which to allege that "animal rights activists"
were obstructing the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). The
then President of the National Farmers Union, Ben Gill, claimed
that threats of violence towards farmers by "badger protection
societies" were comparable to the problems faced by employees
of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Neither claim was verified or supported
by evidence. Both were reported on Farming Todayviii.
20. The then National Federation of Badger
Groups had anticipated that the tactic of linking law abiding
conservation and welfare organisations to "extremists"
would eventually be exploited in a political way. We had therefore
taken the trouble to liaise with our partners in various police
forces, to assess the extent of illegal activity.
21. As a result, contrary to the claims
made by Mr Brown and Mr Gill, we were immediately able to authoritatively
report that: "Our survey of police forces covering the Krebs'
experiment areas has uncovered only four convictions to date for
illegal activities in relation to the cull. None of the convictions
involve violence or threats of violence.
22. "Up to October 2000, in the counties
of Devon and Cornwall, the police had received no reports of violence,
or threats of violence. In Gloucestershire, there has been one
report to the police of a researcher being threatened at night—no
arrests were made. We are currently checking whether subsequent
incidents have occurred and would urge editors to undertake the
same checks.
23. "Up to October 2000, two warnings
had been given for disorderly conduct (NOT disorderly conduct
with intent) under the Public Order Act 1986. Two warnings have
been given under the Trades Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)
Act 1992 for `besetting'. In one alleged incident of aggravated
trespass two arrests were made but no prosecution resulted.
24. "Up to October 2000, there had
been only two recorded incidents of criminal damage to a small
number of traps in the west Cornwall triplet.
25. "In October 2000, Devon and Cornwall
police told us that, since 17 June 2000, there had been ten calls
made to the operational team overseeing the policing of the trial.
Of those, two were from protestors informing them of peaceful
demonstrations and one was from a member of the public reporting
a possible trespass by persons unknown. There were no reports
of threats in general, no calls from farmers reporting threats,
and no reports of threats to MAFF staff." ix
26. Since that time, Animal Welfare Minister
Ben Bradshaw has advised that: "Management records indicate
that 6239 traps have been damaged during the Krebs Trial. A further
1926 have been recorded as stolen/lost, but a proportion of these
have subsequently been recovered." x
27. The Badger Trust has not had the opportunity
to undertake a repeat survey of the police. We note that Mr Bradshaw
did not cite evidence of threats or intimidation, despite being
invited to do so. The Badger Trust therefore encourages the Committee
to make a clear distinction, when it comes to allegations of threats
to farmers, between scare-mongering and fact.
28. In addition, we draw the Committee's
attention to an article in the The Cornishman on 18 December
2003. It was kindly sent to us by the West Cornwall Badger Group,
for reference. It quotes a grandmother from Zennor, Pip Macfarlane:
29. "People of all ages from all walks
of life have been out there looking for traps and doing their
bit to save our badgers. I've seen people with walking sticks
carrying bolt-cutters out across the moors—people feel so
strongly about this. The reaction of local folk has been fantastic.
There are still some live setts, which is very good news—I
just hope Defra go away and don't come back." xi
30. The Badger Trust does not condone the
illegal activity that is referred to. Nor can we comment on the
veracity of the claims. Nevertheless, we were struck by two comments:
"people of all ages from all walks of life" and "our
badgers". The implication is that opposition to culling—both
in practice and in principle—does not come solely from "extremists",
but also from many perfectly ordinary, mild-mannered people who
see the extermination as an assault on something to which they
attribute property rights. In economic parlance, badgers have
an "existence value".
31. Of course, farmers also attribute property
rights to their livestock. But there is a key difference. The
public subsidises the livestock industry to the tune of £1.3
billion per annum. The public has bought the right to have a say
in farming.
32. Many of the farmers demanding badger
culling will also be applying for Higher Level Scheme funding
from Environmental Stewardship: payments to "care for"
wildlife and the environment. A further question that could be
included in the Government's consultation, therefore, is: "How
much can farmers reasonably demand from the public?" The
Badger Trust believes that the public is generally supportive
of farmers and farming, but not at any price.
REFERENCESi Cameron,
E (2002) Eat the view: Promoting sustainable local products, CA112,
Countryside Agency, Cheltenham.
ii www.localfoodworks.org.
iii www.tasteofthewest.co.uk.
iv www.nationaltrust.org.uk.
v Wales, HRH The Prince of (2002), quoted online
at www.duchyoriginals.com/duchy—philosophy.htm.
vi www.farmersmarkets.net.
vii Wildlife and Countryside Link (2005), London.
viii Farming Today (8 February 2006), BBC, Birmingham.
ix NFBG (2001) Editors: don't be fooled, 8 February
2001.
x Bradshaw, B (2004) Column 482W, Hansard, 29
Jan 2004.
xi Channon, M (2003) Many in the community sabotaging
badger cull, The Cornishman, Truro.
| 
