Badger control policy: value for money analysis 2021
Updated 28 October 2022
© Crown copyright 2022
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-badger-control-policy-value-for-money-analysis/badger-control-policy-value-for-money-analysis-2021
1. Summary
This Value for Money assessment covers intensive culling in the TB High Risk and Edge Areas. It does not include badger control that may be enabled in the Low Risk Area. Costs towards policing in this paper however include the LRA.
1.1 Background
The 2011 Impact Assessment [footnote 1] on licensed badger control to address tuberculosis (TB) in cattle found that the costs were likely to marginally outweigh the financial benefits but with considerable uncertainty. This was particularly because the policing costs were judged to be high.
Currently no alternative option offers better value for money in the short to medium term.
Piloting industry-led controlled shooting of badgers in Gloucestershire and Somerset in 2013 as a method of controlling TB in cattle was considered worthwhile to test assumptions around effectiveness, humaneness and safety and to improve our understanding of the potential long-term cost-effectiveness of the approach. These pilots confirmed the assumptions and since 2013 licensed badger control has continued in Gloucestershire and Somerset and was extended to Dorset in 2015. In 2016 seven additional areas were introduced, and between 2017 and 2020 a further 42 areas were added, increasing momentum on the wider implementation of the policy. For 2021, badger control intensive culling will be extended to seven additional areas in the High Risk and Edge Areas.
1.2 Supplementary culling summary
Licensed supplementary culling can take place in an area after successful completion of an intensive cull and is intended to maintain the predicted disease control benefits for a longer period of time. Supplementary culling aims to maintain the badger population at that achieved during the intensive cull, and therefore also keep the disease risk from wildlife in the area at a low level.
Supplementary culling began in Somerset and Gloucestershire in 2017, in Dorset in 2019 and in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire in 2020. In 2021 SBC was extended to Cheshire and further parts of Devon, Somerset and Wiltshire.
1.3 Costs and benefits of extending the current approach to a further 7 intensive culling areas
Each new cull area is expected to deliver net benefits of between -£0.51 million and £0.26 million per area, with a central estimate of approximately -£0.01 million. This includes costs accrued over four years of culling and benefits accrued over eleven years in line with results from the Randomised Badger Control Trial (RBCT).
The future costs to government are estimated at £0.37 million per area over four years. In previous years estimates of costs to industry were included in the VfM analysis but this data is not available for the analysis in 2021 so industry costs have not been monetised as part of this VfM statement. For reference, in 2021 industry costs were around 1/3 of the cost to Government, per area.
The total monetised benefits are estimated to be around £0.04 million and £0.63 million per area over eleven years, with a central estimate of £0.36 million. This is based on the results of the RBCT.
1.4 Uncertainties
The requirement for policing has been a feature of the policy to date to ensure a safe cull. Extending to 7 new areas [footnote 2] will require a similar level of policing, at least in their initial year. However, police forces have consolidated their command and control structure for operations this year to reduce costs.
The costs per area to government in this analysis are lower than those observed in the 52 badger control areas to date. This is because the fixed costs are spread over a higher number of culling areas.
In addition, the number of breakdowns per km2 over the past three years in the new culling areas (that is, those starting in 2021) and the growth rate in TB incidence (compared to the assumed baseline) are both respectively lower than what was assumed in 2020 [footnote 3]. The benefits per area are therefore assumed to be lower, as the control strategy is less beneficial if the baseline in TB incidence is lower.
The range in the quantified benefits takes account of scientific uncertainty around the impact of an effective cull as found in the RBCT. Any changes to the way badger control is delivered, the size of the control area, density of cattle or the baseline levels of TB will add further uncertainty which could mean greater or lower quantified benefits than those estimated here.
2. Analysis of the costs and benefits of extending badger control in 2021
Defra’s 2011 Impact Assessment set out the expected costs and benefits of licensed badger control to reduce TB in cattle. In 2013, licensed badger control was introduced in areas of Gloucestershire and Somerset, extended to Dorset in 2015 and then extended to a further 49 areas between 2016 and 2020. Based on this experience, this annex sets out an assessment of the costs and benefits of extending intensive culling to 7 further areas in 2021. Except where stated, all quantified costs and benefits per control area are presented in “present value” terms, which is calculated using a discount rate of 3.5% in line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance.
Table 1 illustrates the roll out over time
| Year | Number of areas badger control introduced (excluding the low-risk area) |
|---|---|
| 2013 | 2 |
| 2014 | 0 |
| 2015 | 1 |
| 2016 | 7 |
| 2017 | 11 |
| 2018 | 10 |
| 2019 | 11 |
| 2020 | 10 |
| 2021 | 7 |
2.1 The benefits of badger control
The benefits of badger control are the net reduction in the level of TB in cattle herds within and around control areas as a result of the policy. They are estimated based on the impact of intensive culling observed in the RBCT over 11 years from the start of badger control [footnote 4] compared to a ‘no intervention’ scenario. These benefits are valued by the savings in disease control costs to farmers and Defra (i.e. taxpayers) through avoided cases of TB in cattle (breakdowns [footnote 5]).
Table 2: Estimated impact of badger control on the number of confirmed new TB incidents (compared to the baseline)
| Pessimistic | Central | Optimistic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Within badger control areas | |||
| - during cull (years 1-4) | -12.4% | -23.2% | -32.7% |
| - post cull (years 5-11) | -10.9% | -25.9% | -38.4% |
| Outside badger control areas (up to 2km from the boundary) | |||
| - during cull (years 1-4) | +56.0% | +24.5% | -0.6% |
| - post cull (years 5-11) | +26.4% | -6.8% | -31.2% |
The benefits of supplementary culling
The RBCT study quantified the benefits of intensive culling over a 11-year period (four years during the cull and a further seven years after the cull). The role of supplementary culling will be to preserve the benefits of intensive culling by maintaining the badger population at a similar or lower level than that achieved at the end of an effective intensive cull.
Quantifying the average cost of a breakdown
A TB breakdown results in significant cost for both government and farmers as a result of disease control actions. The main control actions involve restricting movements of cattle from the herd, whole herd testing of cattle, slaughter of any cattle that react to the test and repeated testing and slaughter until the herd is cleared. The estimated average cost of a breakdown used in this assessment is £16,385 split between farmers and government. In practice there is a wide range in the scale, duration and cost of breakdowns. Many are minor but a small proportion are major, costly to farmers and government, and extremely disruptive to farm businesses. This assessment uses the average cost of a breakdown, but recognises the uncertainty surrounding this estimate.
Table 3: Estimated average cost of a confirmed new TB breakdown in the High Risk Area of England (£, 2021 prices)
| Government | Farmers | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Testing | £2,325 | Testing | £2,654 |
| Slaughter Costs | £7,124 | Restrictions and Isolation | £2,202 |
| Restrictions and Isolation | £0 | Output Losses | £678 |
| Administration | £312 | Other | £1,090 |
| Total Government | £9,761 | Total Farmer | £6,624 |
| GRAND TOTAL | £16,385 |
If the total benefits to farmers and government of badger control in a new area are in line with the reduction in the level of TB observed over 11 years in the RBCT, we estimate that they would be between £0.04 million and £0.63 million. The central estimate is £0.36 million.
These estimates are based on badger control taking place over an area of 284km2 (the average size of the new areas in 2021) in the High Risk Area (HRA) of England with a declining baseline of new TB incidents of 4.8% per year. Each incident prevented due to badger control is valued according to the average cost of a breakdown in the HRA. Physical values on the duration and size of breakdowns are taken from the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s (APHA) annual surveillance report. Costs to Defra are taken from appropriate financial sources in APHA whilst costs to farmers are taken from a Defra commissioned study, led by Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC). All values expressed are in 2021 prices. See Table 8 for a list of the main assumptions and sources used in this document.
Qualitative evidence suggests that bovine TB can cause significant stress and ill health among the farming population. However, the impact of such stress is difficult to quantify or value. Studies looking at the social impacts of bovine TB have found self-reported stress among farmers. For example, from a sample of 50 farmers interviewed in the South-West, 30 said their farm’s TB breakdown had affected their own daily life, 20 said that of their family or household and 10 of their employees. Evidence suggests that a long period of time under movement restrictions is a significant contributor to stress across all farming groups. A standard questionnaire designed to identify psychiatric ill health found that farmers that have been under TB movement restrictions for a long period of time showed significantly higher levels of stress than farmers who had not experienced a TB herd breakdown.
2.2 The costs of badger control
To government
The main costs of badger control to Natural England (NE) are for processing license applications and monitoring of compliance; the main costs to APHA relate to training and mentoring and advice; and local police forces incur costs in relation to maintaining public order and safety. All of these costs are met by taxpayers.
Costs to NE are based on the total cost of their licensing team, divided by the expected number of licensed areas per year. Costs are estimated at £133,000 per area over four years in the central case.
Costs to APHA are based on actual costs in 2020. The expectation is that total costs will increase proportionately to the number of new areas. Therefore, the cost per area will remain constant as new areas are added. The total costs to APHA are estimated at £49,000 per area over four years in the central case. This includes non-wage cost uplifts of 22% (NI contribution and other employment costs) in line with HMT Green Book Guidance.
Finally, Defra incurs additional costs related to equipment such as positioning equipment. This is expected to cost £6,700 per area over four years in the central case (costs are only incurred in year one when the equipment is purchased).
Table 4: Estimated cost to government per licensed area (£thousands)
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Present Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APHA | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 47 |
| NE | 33 | 32 | 31 | 30 | 127 |
| Defra (equipment) | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| TOTAL | 53 | 44 | 43 | 41 | 181 |
The need for policing has been a feature of the policy to date due to the need to maintain public safety. It is likely that extending to 7 new areas will require a similar level of policing at least in their initial year. For the central case, we estimate that policing will cost £188,000 per area over four years. These costs are based on actual and expected costs of policing in 2016 to 2018, and also assume that the Home Office and Defra achieve the shared goal of gradually improving efficiencies.
Table 5: Estimated cost to government per licensed area (£thousands)
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Present Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Policing costs | 97 | 47 | 27 | 17 | 188 |
Overall, we estimate that the total cost to government per area is £0.37 million over four years in the central case.
2.3 Total costs and benefits
The total costs are estimated at £0.37 million per area in the central case. This compares to a total quantified estimated benefit of £0.36 million per area in the central case (range between £0.04 million and £0.63 million).
The Net Present Value of Badger Control over a 11-year appraisal period is therefore estimated at -£0.01 million per area in the central case.
3. Sensitivity analysis
3.1 Policing
The need for policing has been a feature of the policy to date due to the need to maintain public safety. It is likely that extending to 7 new areas will require a similar level of policing, at least in their initial year. However, police forces consolidated their command and control structure for operations this year to reduce costs.
3.2 Cost of a breakdown
The estimated cost of a breakdown in the High Risk Area is central to quantifying the benefits of badger control. Defra continues to update our estimate based on the latest published data on breakdowns in the HRA. This includes inputs such as average length of movement restrictions, average number of reactors, average number of contiguous and trace tests triggered, administrative costs per breakdown to government and more.
3.3 Baseline incidence of TB
Future levels of TB prevalence in the absence of any badger control are uncertain. We have based our assumed level of TB prevalence growth on the average number of Officially TB Free Withdrawn (OTFW [footnote 6]) incidents from the most recent prevalence data, which has shown a decrease in OTFW incidents from 2018 to 2020. For this reason, the assumed growth in the TB baseline is lower in this analysis than in the previous years (where it was assumed prevalence would decrease by 2.91%). This analysis has assumed a baseline decrease in TB cases in the counterfactual of 4.82% based on the average change in prevalence between 2012 and 2020.
Table 6: OTFW incidents in England
| Year | OTFW incidents | Annual change |
|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2,628 | 5.84% |
| 2012 | 2,867 | 9.09% |
| 2013 | 2,806 | -2.13% |
| 2014 | 2,789 | -0.61% |
| 2015 | 2,901 | 4.02% |
| 2016 | 2,559 | -11.79% |
| 2017 | 2,621 | 2.42% |
| 2018 | 2,328 | -11.18% |
| 2019 | 2,034 | -12.63% |
| 2020 | 1,899 | -6.64% |
| Average of last 8 years | -4.82% |
3.4 Perturbation
The RBCT suggested that badger control could lead to a relative increase in TB incidence (OTFW) in cattle herds in the areas outside the licensed area due to the disruption of badger social groups – the so-called ‘perturbation effect’. The impact of perturbation is uncertain, with the central case using evidence of its effect from the RBCT. However, having hard boundaries to control areas, low cattle herd densities and biosecurity measures on farms around the licensed area could mitigate any negative effect.
4. Assumptions and data sources
Table 7: Key assumptions and sources
Costs
| Variable | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Training and mentoring costs to APHA per area | n/a | APHA advice based on experience to date, and the costs of activities in 2018/19 |
| Natural England licensing and monitoring costs per area | n/a | Natural England accounts, divided by number of areas licensed in a given year |
| Equipment (eg GPS trackers) | n/a | Based on volumes and unit costs observed in licensed areas to date |
| Policing | n/a | Based on the average cost of policing per area in 2019 |
Benefits
| Variable | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Area size | 284 km2 | Based on the average size of the new badger control areas |
| Per annum change in TB breakdowns (baseline) | -4.82% | Average annualised change in breakdowns base 2012-2018, from the National Statistics |
| Breakdowns per km2 in cull areas | 0.0458 | Based on the average number of OTFW incidents in the proposed new cull areas for the 3 years prior to culling starting |
| Average cattle slaughter per breakdown | 7 | Bovine TB surveillance in Great Britain, 2017 (based on HRA data) |
| Average days under restriction per breakdown | 192 | |
| Cost of breakdown to government | £16,385 | Expressed in 2021 prices. Cost to government based on characteristics of an average breakdown in the HRA and the cost of testing/admin concerned. Cost to farmers based on the SRUC study |
Miscellaneous
| Variable | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Discount rate for present values | 3.5% | The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. Last updated March 2018 |
-
www.gov.uk/government/publications/measures-to-address-bovine-tuberculosis-in-badgers-impact-assessment
- This Value for Money assessment covers intensive culling in the TB High Risk and Edge Areas. It does not include badger control that may be enabled in the Low Risk Area.
-
The benefits per area presented here are lower than those presented in the 2020 VfM analysis mainly as a result of updated evidence on the cost of a breakdown to farmers. As the costs per area are based on the actual areas being licensed for culling in a given year, it is not possible to directly compare historic years of analysis. ↩
- Evidence of the effect of the current culls on the incidence of TB in cattle is only beginning to emerge. In 2017 Brunton et al published data from the first two years of culling in the first two areas, which found culling was associated with a reduction in OTF herd incidence in the two cull areas but with an increase in incidence outside one of the areas, while encouraging these results are still too preliminary to inform this assessment.
- This assessment considers only confirmed cases of TB and excludes unconfirmed incidents because analysis of data from the RBCT did not identify any significant effect of badger culling on unconfirmed incidents.
- www.gov.uk/guidance/bovine-tb-getting-your-cattle-tested-in-england#what-happens-when-tb-free-status-is-withdrawn