Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


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.





 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 15 March 2006