Research and analysis

Badger control policy: value for money analysis 2022

Updated 28 October 2022

1. Summary

This Value for Money (VfM) assessment covers new intensive culling areas 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, 7 additional areas were introduced, and between 2017 and 2021 a further 49 areas were added, increasing momentum on the wider implementation of the policy and bringing the total number of control areas to date to 59. For 2022, badger control intensive culling will be extended to 11 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, Devon, Somerset and Wiltshire. In 2022 extensions were granted to further parts of Devon, Cornwall, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Staffordshire.

1.3 Costs and benefits of extending the current approach to a further 11 intensive culling areas

Each new cull area is expected to deliver net benefits of between -£0.49 million and -£0.04 million per area, with a central estimate of approximately -£0.16 million. This includes costs accrued over 4 years of culling and benefits accrued over 11 years in line with results from the Randomised Badger Control Trial (RBCT).

The future costs to UK government are estimated at £0.33 million per area over 4 years.

Previous versions of the VfM analysis included costs incurred by farmers who are prepared to use their own money to fund culls. These have not been available for this and the previous version of the VfM analysis and are therefore excluded.

The total monetised benefits are estimated to be around £0.01 million and £0.29 million per area over eleven years, with a central estimate of £0.16 million. This is based on the results of the RBCT.

As this is the final year of new intensive cull areas, we have additionally summarised the net benefits since 2015. Table 1 presents the per area and total net benefits for new cull areas, including sensitivity around the central estimate. All figures have been re-baselined to 2022 prices.

Table 1 indicates that expected net benefits per area are around £0.8 million in the central scenario (range of -£0.6 million to £1.8 million). The net benefits for all areas combined are around £52 million in the central scenario (range of -£38 million to £122 million).

Table 1: Times series of net benefits per area and in total for new cull areas (2022 prices in pound sterling)

Per area net benefits

Year	Optimistic	Central	Pessimistic
2015	£1.6 million	£.05 million	-£1.7 million
2016	£2.4 million	£0.6 million	-£1.5 million
2017	£2.6 million	£1.2 million	-£0.5 million
2018	£3.7 million	£1.8 million	-£0.1 million
2019	£2.4 million	£1.2 million	-£0.5 million
2020	£1.1 million	£0.5 million	-£0.5 million
2021	£0.3 million	-£.01 million	-£0.5 million
2022	-£.04 million	-£0.2 million	-£0.5 million
Overall	£1.8 million	£0.8 million	-£0.6 million

All areas net benefits

Year	Optimistic	Central	Pessimistic
2015	£2 million	£0	-£2 million
2016	£17 million	£4 million	-£11 million
2017	£28 million	£14 million	-£5 million
2018	£37 million	£18 million	-£1 million
2019	£26 million	£13 million	-£5 million
2020	£11 million	£5 million	-£5 million
2021	£2 million	-£0.04	-£4 million
2022	-£0.4 million	-£2 million	-£5 million
Overall	£122 million	£52 million	-£38 million

Note that VfM assessments are not available for the 2 pilot culls in 2013

Number of new areas

Year	Number of new areas
2015	1
2016	7
2017	11
2018	10
2019	11
2020	10
2021	7
2022	11
Overall	68

1.4 Uncertainties

The requirement for policing has been a feature of the policy to date to ensure a safe cull. Extending to 11 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.

In addition, the number of breakdowns per km² over the past 3 years in the new culling areas (that is, those starting in 2022) and the growth rate in TB incidence (compared to the assumed baseline) are both respectively lower than what was assumed in 2021. 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 2022

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 11 further areas in 2022. Except where stated, all quantified costs and benefits per control area are presented in ‘present value’ terms, which are calculated using a discount rate of 3.5% in line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance.

Table 2: 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
2022	11

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 3]} compared to a ‘no intervention’ scenario. These benefits are valued by the savings in disease control costs to farmers and Defra (such as, taxpayers) through avoided cases of TB in cattle breakdowns ^{[footnote 4]}.

Table 3: Estimated impact of badger control on the number of confirmed new TB incidents (compared to the baseline)

Within badger control areas	Pessimistic	Central	Optimistic
During cull (years 1 to 4)	-12.4%	-23.2%	-32.7%
Post cull (years 5 to 11)	-10.9%	-25.9%	-38.4%

Outside badger control areas (up to 2km from the boundary)	Pessimistic	Central	Optimistic
During cull (years 1 to 4)	+56.0%	24.5%	-0.6%
Post cull (years 5 to 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 (4 years during the cull and a further 7 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 because 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 £16,852 split between farmers and the 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 the government, and extremely disruptive to farm businesses. This assessment uses the average cost of a breakdown, but recognises the uncertainty surrounding this estimate.

Table 4: Estimated average cost of a confirmed new TB breakdown in the High Risk Area of England (2022 prices in pound sterling)

	Government		Farmers
Testing	£2,391	Testing	£2,730
Slaughter costs	£7,327	Restrictions and isolation	£2,265
Restrictions and isolation	£0	Output losses	£697
Administration	£321	Other	£1,121
Total government	£10,039	Total farmer	£6,813
		Grand total	£16,852

If the total benefits to farmers and the 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 £0.01 million and £0.29 million. The central estimate is £0.16 million.

These estimates are based on badger control taking place over an area of 238km² (the average size of the new areas in 2022) in the High Risk Area (HRA) of England with a declining baseline of new TB incidents of 6.7% 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 the costs to farmers are taken from a Defra commissioned study, led by Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC). All values expressed are at 2022 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 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 Natural England are based on the total cost of their licensing team, divided by the expected number of licensed areas per year. Costs are estimated at £113,000 per area over 4 years in the central case.

Costs to APHA are based on actual costs. 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 £24,000 per area over 4 years in the central case. This includes non-wage cost uplifts of 22% (National Insurance contribution and other employment costs) in line with the HMT Green Book Guidance.

Finally, Defra incurs additional costs related to equipment, such as positioning equipment. This is expected to cost £7,000 per area over 4 years in the central case (costs are only incurred in year one when the equipment is purchased).

Table 5: Estimated cost to government per licensed area (thousands, 2022 prices in pound sterling). Figures may not sum due to rounding.

Organisation	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Present value
APHA	6	6	6	6	24
Natural England	30	29	28	27	113
Defra (equipment)	7	0	0	0	7
Total	43	35	33	32	143

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 11 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 £184,000 per area over 4 years. These costs are based on actual and expected costs of policing, and also assume that the Home Office and Defra achieve the shared goal of gradually improving efficiencies.

Table 6: Estimated cost to government per licensed area (thousands, 2022 prices in pound sterling)

Cost	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Present value
Policing costs	94	46	26	17	184

Overall, we estimate that the total cost to the government per area is £0.33 million over 4 years in the central case.

2.3 Total costs and benefits

The total costs are estimated at £0.33 million per area in the central case. This compares to a total quantified estimated benefit of £0.16 million per area in the central case (range between £0.01 million and £0.29 million).

The Net present value of badger control over a 11-year appraisal period is therefore estimated at -£0.16 million per new 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 11 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 5]} incidents from the most recent prevalence data, which has shown a decrease in OTFW incidents from 2017 to 2021. 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 4.8%). This analysis has assumed a baseline decrease in TB cases in the counterfactual of 6.7% based on the average change in prevalence between 2014 and 2021.

Table 7: 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	1,911	-6.05%
2021	1,571	-17.79%
Average of last 8 years		-6.70%

Taken from the latest national statistics on TB in cattle in Great Britain

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 8: Key assumptions and sources

Costs

Variable	Value	Source
Training and mentoring costs to APHA per area	not applicable	APHA advice based on experience to date, and the costs of activities in 2018 to 2019
Natural England licensing and monitoring costs per area	not applicable	Natural England accounts, divided by number of areas licensed in a given year
Equipment (for example, GPS trackers)	not applicable	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	238 km2	Based on the average size of the new badger control areas
Per annum change in TB breakdowns (baseline)	-6.7%	Average annualised change in breakdowns base 2014 to 2021, from the National Statistics
Breakdowns per km2 in cull areas	0.0262	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	10	Bovine TB surveillance in Great Britain, 2020 (based on HRA data)
Median duration (in days) of total TB incidents ending in 2020	196	Bovine TB surveillance in Great Britain, 2020 (based on HRA data)
Cost of breakdown to government	£16,852	Expressed in 2022 prices. Cost to the government based on characteristics of an average breakdown in the HRA and the cost of testing and admin concerned. Cost to farmers based on the SRUC study

Miscellaneous

Variable	Value	Source
Discount rate for present values	3.50%	The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. Last updated 2022

1. www.gov.uk/government/publications/measures-to-address-bovine-tuberculosis-in-badgers-impact-assessment ↩

2. This Value for Money assessment covers new intensive culling areas in the TB High Risk and Edge Areas. It does not include badger control that may be enabled in the Low Risk Area. ↩

3. 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. ↩

4. 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 ↩

5. www.gov.uk/guidance/bovine-tb-getting-your-cattle-tested-in-england#what-happens-when-tb-free-status-is-withdrawn ↩