Natural England's statements on bTB and badgers – unspun by Rosie Wood

Following many questions about the various statements government officials have made in recent months about bTB and badgers, Rosie Wood, Chair of Badger Trust and former government official herself, will explain some of the language and terms used.

In my unique style, this guest article explains statements from Natural England, the public body sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) that is responsible for running the badger cull.

Natural England’s Chief Scientist’s statements are in italics; my comments are below each as an explainer.

An introduction 

First things first, DEFRA criteria for the success of the badger cull policy are

• no one gets shot or injured (public safety)

• sufficient land is made available to cull operatives, in line with DEFRA policy

• sufficient effort is made by cull operatives to cull the set target number of badgers

• sufficient time is spent shooting badgers, in line with DEFRA policy

Reducing disease in cattle is not one of the criteria for success. Consequently, when the Chief Vet or anyone else speaking on behalf of DEFRA or the Government declares that this year's badger cull has been a 'success', they are not describing anything related to cattle disease.  

The following statement by Natural England's Chief Scientist, Dr Tim Hill, is very carefully worded and sticks rigidly to what he can say, what he must say, and what can be demonstrated as fact.  

It will, however, be wilfully misinterpreted as 'The cull was a success!' not least by Government spokesmen and some farming leaders. But nowhere here does it claim to be a 'success' in terms of cattle disease. It just means that no one got shot, and lots of shooting in lots of places happened as planned. 

That’s not a glowing vindication of Government policy, is it? Nor any justification for the millions wasted in taxpayers’ money?

Chief Scientist’s Comments: (gov.uk)

Safety of the operations

Operations in all licensed areas were carried out to agreed standards of public safety. All contractors continued to receive updates prior to the commencement of operations in 2023 on the requirements of the published best practice guides, lessons learned and safety. In relation to the use of firearms, no incidents affecting public safety were reported in any of the areas.

My Commentary: 

Public safety is obviously paramount, and we would never argue any differently. 

However, public safety could be entirely guaranteed if the control of bTB in cattle was tackled by addressing cattle infection with cattle hygiene, better testing, and cattle vaccination instead. 

No need for firearms, no need for the cost of policing to ensure public safety in the vicinity of high-powered rifles being used at night close to public rights of way.

Just sayin'...

Chief Scientist’s Comments: (gov.uk)

Humaneness of controlled shooting

In SBC areas, Natural England assesses compliance with the standards set out in the best practice guides for the controlled shooting of free-ranging badgers and cage trapping and dispatch of badgers through risk-based monitoring. Monitoring is conducted by exception only and reserved for any new contractors or where information has been received on licensed activities. 

My Commentary:

'Monitoring is conducted by exception only', i.e. Natural England needs only to monitor the bare minimum under DEFRA policy. So, any measure of 'humaneness' cannot be relied upon as though there were Natural England staff present and observing the killing operations, as there were back in 2013/14. 

Chief Scientist’s Comments: (gov.uk)

Eight visits were conducted during the 2023 operational period. No compliance issues were identified during these visits. There was 1 self-reported contractor shooting event where a badger was shot at but not retrieved, this took place in Area 35- Cornwall. Natural England investigated this shooting event to ascertain the circumstances and concluded the badger was wounded and lost. This represents 0.01% of the total number of badgers removed.

My Commentary:

Excellent use of Civil Service speak!

The 0.01% figure represents the one self-reported contractor shooting where the contractor could not recover the wounded badger. 

If they monitored the culls as they did at the start, every wounded badger would be followed and recovered, and the public would know how many took five or more minutes to die from their wounds. As the Government disbanded the Independent Expert Panel, which used to examine humaneness, we will never actually know, will we?

Chief Scientist’s Comments: (gov.uk)

Sett surveys

Sett surveys were required by all SBC areas prior to licensing or re-authorisation in 2023. In addition, as in previous years, Natural England undertook sett checks in areas that did not meet their minimum number in the preceding year to confirm the continued presence of badgers in these areas.

My Commentary:

Interesting. In our correspondence with Natural England, the organisation disclosed that the job of counting setts and badgers was now delegated to the cull operatives – they’re the people who get paid to kill badgers. 

Are any of these areas checked by Natural England now absent of badgers according to Natural England’s follow-up checks? If so, what are the implications for the cull operatives’ original count, the viability of the target number set by NE, and the integrity of the local population of badgers remaining? If badgers have become locally extinct, how would Natural England make that known?

Chief Scientist’s comments (gov.uk)

Natural England Chief Scientist’s advice on the outcome of supplementary badger control 2023

The badger population reductions achieved in the 29 SBC areas in 2023, have been evaluated on the basis of the numbers and locations of badgers culled, the numbers culled against effort over time, and our assessments of the level and spatial distribution of culling effort deployed.

Based on the available information, 18 out of the 29 areas deployed a sufficient level and spatial distribution of culling effort and removed the minimum number of badger’s set, and conclude that they have completed effective supplementary culls.

My commentary:

Remember that Natural England is commenting here strictly in terms of the effectiveness of Government policy as defined by DEFRA – access to sufficient land, sufficient time spent shooting, etc. Natural England is not making any comment on whether DEFRA’s policy has had any impact on the levels of bTB in cattle.

Chief Scientist’s Comments: (gov.uk)

In a further 6 areas, whilst these companies did not achieve the minimum number that was set, the spatial distribution of badger control activity and the level of culling effort that was deployed, suggests that the reduced badger population required by the policy has been maintained.  As such, it has been concluded that effective supplementary culls have also taken place in these 6 areas. 

My Commentary:

"...the reduced badger population required by the policy has been maintained." DEFRA’s policy requires that 70+% of badgers are shot in Year 1 and that in subsequent years continued shooting keeps the population at that reduced level, i.e. "They probably shot for long enough to kill enough badgers – but we don't know for sure."

Chief Scientist’s Comments: (gov.uk)

In 1 area, Area 10 - Herefordshire, whilst this company did not remove the minimum number of badgers set, and their level of effort fell marginally short of expectations, the spatial distribution of this effort was sufficient across the area to give confidence that the reduced badger population has been maintained. I therefore concluded that an effective supplementary cull took place.

My Commentary:

i.e. "They probably shot for long enough over enough land to kill enough badgers – but we don't know for sure."

Chief Scientist’s Comments: (gov.uk)

In 2 further areas (Area 30- Somerset and Area 39- Dorset), although the minimum number of badgers set were removed, the level of culling effort deployed across the area was marginally below that expected. However, as it was marginal and the spatial distribution of this effort was sufficient across the area to give confidence that the reduced badger population has been maintained. I therefore concluded that effective supplementary culls took place.

My Commentary

i.e. "They probably shot for long enough over enough land to kill enough badgers – but we don't know for sure."

Chief Scientist’s Comments: (gov.uk)

In 2 areas, (Area 3- Dorset and Area 4- Cornwall), whilst the spatial distribution of effort across these 2 areas was sufficient, they did not meet the minimum number of badgers set and the level of effort deployed fell short of expectations. Consequently, I concluded that these areas did not complete effective supplementary culls and further investigation will be required before any consideration of re-authorisation in 2024 in respect of Area 4-Cornwall. (the licence has now expired for Area 3-Dorset).

My Commentary

Well done! That's right. Not only could they not find enough badgers to kill in these areas, but they couldn't shoot over enough land or for long enough to do so. 

As a result, National England wants more information before it re-authorises Area 4-Cornwall. Let's see what happens…

Chief Scientist’s Comments: (gov.uk) 

The minimum and maximum numbers for 2024 will be set in line with Defra’s commitments under the Bern Convention. We will continue to ensure that local extinction does not occur in order to protect the UK’s badger population. 

My Commentary:

How? Counting of setts and badgers has been delegated to cull contractors. Where and when will the data be shared? With the National Biodiversity Network (NBN)? With Badger Trust? Bern?

Chief Scientist’s Comments: (gov.uk)

We will also continue to undertake surveillance and monitoring of other protected species in order to ensure that we avoid any adverse consequences on them.

My Commentary:

How? Which species? When and where will the data be shared?

If you need Rosie to explain other government statements in this area, please email chair@badgertrust.org.uk. She may use the information in her next article.