TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 1999

PROFESSOR JOHN BOURNE, DR CHRISTL DONNELLY AND DR ROSIE WOODROFFE

  140.  English Nature advocated the six-month closed period, I believe.  What conversations did you have with English Nature before reaching your conclusions?
  (Professor Bourne) We did not have direct conversations.  We were aware of their recommendation.  Recommendations, I must say, extended from no closed period to a 12-month closed period, so no cull at all.

  141.  That probably would have invalidated the experiment.  I think we are fairly clear on that.  Could I ask one other issue of a conceptual nature about the experiment.  We know that herd breakdowns are not independent events.  They tend to happen on contiguous farms.  There may be double counting if we got ten breakdowns in a survey area and one in the badger removal area.  How can you make sure that the ten breakdowns are really independent? How do you define what an independent breakdown is?
  (Dr Donnelly) There are separate issues of actually having positive herd tests within the same breakdown because there is a certain definition of how long it has to be until you have a certain number of clear tests.  That is an official breakdown.  There is also the issue of these contiguous and repeat breakdowns.  That is, in fact, where we have the possibility of being able to prevent breakdowns using a reactive strategy.  If there was complete independence between all of the breakdowns, this would actually mean that we could not have a reactive strategy to have an effect.  But because we have observed that there is a repeat breakdown pattern, and also an increased risk in those contiguous farms, if we apply intervention to a particular farm we would hope to reduce that risk.  We will be able, in the analysis, to take into account both the incidents of breakdowns as well as the proportion of herds that are ever affected, so we would be able to look at those two things separately.  That would allow us to take into account both herds affected, as well as actual incidents.  But in doing the cost-effectiveness analysis it would be important to take into account not just the number of herds affected but the number of breakdown incidents because there would be costs associated with repeat breakdowns.

  142.  Looking at the experimental area in Devon, which I understand has now been largely completed, we would like to follow up some of the issues surrounding the implementation of the proactive culling treatment by MAFF, according to your experimental design.  Just to start off with some basic facts about the area.  What was the total badger population recorded by the preliminary survey of the Devon triplet?
  (Professor Bourne) Of course, there are no accurate methods available to estimate badger populations.  What one could do is what we did, namely map setts and outlying setts.  We then had to use that as a basis for a rough estimation of the number of badgers which were present; and with respect to proactive areas, determine the number of traps we needed to employ, and also how they would be employed to maximise trapping efficiency.

  143.  Are there other variations in methodologies as to how you arrive at a population figure for the badger areas? Is there a debate amongst scientists as to the best methods of arriving at this figure?
  (Professor Bourne) This method is fairly understood and agreed.
  (Dr Woodroffe) There are indeed a variety of methods which have been put forward.  So far none of them have been validated.  So we can give an estimate of the number of badgers there are in a particular area, based upon a variety of different techniques which have been put forward, but none of them have been yet validated across a range of badger density.  So there are techniques which we believe work for high density areas but they have not been tried in low density areas.  This is something we urgently need, which is why part of the call for research, which went out last year, involved asking for independent researchers to do work involved with the trial, where they would use the culling data to validate the techniques which had been put forward already.  Therefore, we very much see it as a way of using the removal, the cull that has occurred, to validate those techniques that we will then be able to use in the future.

  144.  So you had to look back at what you had found and confirm your estimates when you started the experiment?
  (Professor Bourne) There are two research proposals which are being funded by MAFF, to estimate badger numbers and their population density and social group size, on the basis of observation factors.  That work can be validated within future trial areas.  But looking further ahead it is critically important that we have this data.  If, for instance, we do show a relationship between badger density, social group structures and TB prevalence in those badgers, it is important that we have some way in the future of this being incorporated into future policy options.

  145.  Can you then project all that forward? What was the estimated total population of badgers in the area? What was the population of badgers in the proactive culling treatment area? What percentage of the population was accounted for by the culling in that treatment area?
  (Professor Bourne) To many of those questions, of course, we do not have the answers, but I can take you through what our thinking process was.  On the basis of the field surveying, MAFF staff and we as a Group independently estimated the number of badgers that were there and likely to be caught.  On that basis we had to agree the number of traps that would be utilised in the proactive area.  A figure in excess of 700 traps was agreed that we were satisfied with.  The figure of 500, which I suspect you are referring to, which was published on the web site, as the number of badgers estimated within the area was not an estimate provided by my Group.

  146.  So where did that come from?
  (Professor Bourne) It was an estimate provided by MAFF staff which we considered and rejected.
  (Dr Woodroffe) Could I pick up on this point.  As I said, there is no validated technique currently for estimating badger numbers in the field without catching them; so on the basis of that absence of a technique, the Group did not arrive at a formal estimate of the number of badgers present in the trial area.  This figure of 500 was put forward to us by MAFF staff as a basis upon which to proceed with trapping, as a number that you would then use to inform the number of traps used.  We believed that it was probably an over-estimate, although we would not be able to quantify to what extent it was an over-estimate.  However, we were satisfied that enough traps were put down.  At the time that was what we thought was important.

  147.  So at the end of the experimental period you would be able to give pretty cast-iron figures, as far as you can, looking back at the evidence you have, of the total population and the percentage that were actually culled?
  (Dr Woodroffe) Certainly by using internal analyses at the rate which badgers were captured, we can get an estimate of the badger population.  Dr Donnelly might want to comment on the techniques perhaps, but on the basis of preliminary analyses we are happy.  Also, Dr Chris Cheesman from CSL returned to the trial area and had a look at some of the setts.  We are currently happy that a good proportion were captured.

  148.  Fine.  We have a lot of questions to get through in time, therefore, I will move on: how did the weather/winter season influence the effectiveness of the trapping and culling operations? What were the natural effects on that?
  (Dr Woodroffe) Certainly trapping efficacy varies seasonally and according to the weather, you are absolutely right.  On average, winter is not a particularly good time of year to trap.  In fact, the weather in that two-week period was surprisingly good.  I was down there for some of it.  Trapping conditions were good and bait uptake was good and the trapping seemed to be going well.

  149.  What other factors? The human factors.  We are looking for validity here.  I understand that there were accusations of neighbour being pitted against neighbour and, of course, concern about the way in which some of those engaged in the experiment, the advertisements for the people involved in trapping and killing, did any of those factors result in undermining the validity of the experiment in that area?
  (Professor Bourne) With respect to neighbour against neighbour, the percentage of farmers that were co-operative with respect to us doing the work was very high.  There was no suggestion of high levels of non-compliance from farmers.  With respect to field staff, with the operation in the proactive areas done by MAFF staff, who had been doing the job for many years, they were not inexperienced.  They were experienced wildlife unit members.

  150.  Were you satisfied with MAFF's arrangements for monitoring the cull?
  (Professor Bourne) As you know, we spent a lot of time on organising the trial, and also with MAFF writing standard operating procedures.  It is critical that we have the fieldwork translated accurately in the field from what our requests and proposals are.  We were satisfied that this was done appropriately.

  151.  So you had external auditing arrangements?
  (Professor Bourne) At that stage we did not.  Again, this was a question of setting this up.  We were working to two different timetables.  We were working to a timetable within the Group.  We were also working within a Chief Scientist's Group timetable to get research contracts in place which, as you know, works on an April to April basis.  But, nonetheless, we did carry out our own audit, following the trapping procedures, on the basis of the area.

  152.  Which is your own audit?
  (Professor Bourne) The ecologists within the Group, or ecologists that the Group has access to.  On the basis of that we are reassured that the number of badgers that were caught coincided with the number that we expected to be caught.  We were also reassured by our own internal audit that the trapping efficiency was even higher than we could have expected.
  (Dr Woodroffe) May I add to that.  There were some badgers released by Animal Rights activists but that is quantified, so we know how many were caught and then released.

  153.  I notice that the Forest of Dean Badger Watch have alleged that MAFF under-estimated the number of fieldworkers required for the Devon cull.  What is your view of that claim?
  (Professor Bourne) We do not yet have full data back from the cull.  Certainly my estimate, from seeing the activities in the field - a number of the Group did make a point of seeing these activities in the field—was in fact, there were probably more staff at that particular time than we needed, so we rejected that criticism.

  154.  Have you had the opportunity to estimate the number of badgers remaining in the Devon site?
  (Dr Woodroffe) I come back to my grounds that there is not a technique for estimating how many.  There is not a technique to do that.  There are still badgers there.  Chris Cheeseman has been back and looked.  There is still some badger activity, which is what we would expect both from badgers that were probably left—a small proportion would have been left—and there were, of course, some small areas to which we did not have access, so there are still badgers in the area.  But based on those data it certainly appears that badger numbers are now extremely low there.

  155.  Do you think you culled sufficient number in that area to get a clear badger result?
  (Professor Bourne) I was interested at your initial comment that we had now completed the Cornish trial.  In actual fact we have only just started the Cornish trial.  There will be a follow-up cull in the proactive area in May, or in the months following May of this year.  There will then be a further culling in the proactive area at 12-month intervals.

  156.  Have you any indication of some of the interim results of that experiment?
  (Professor Bourne) It is too early to say.  We have not yet received all the data.  The Group has not received all the data from the work that we have done already.  Some of that data will not be available to us until the end of March.  At that time we will assess the data and report to Ministers on the assessment.

  157.  Has the Group met with the MAFF officials in that area to review the progress?
  (Professor Bourne) Oh, yes.  We constantly meet with MAFF officials.  We constantly meet with MAFF field staff and get feedback.  It was an important part of the process that we did get immediate feedback from field staff with respect of the efficiency of field procedures and how we might improve these in the future.

  158.  What alterations would you make as a result of your interim review of progress?
  (Professor Bourne) They certainly would not be very serious ones.  They related mainly to day-to-day operations.  About who observes this side of the hedge and who observes that side of the hedge: that sort of day-to-day detail.

  159.  But you would agree that in order for this study to have validity you must overcome public scepticism.  You accept that that Devon trial has resulted already in a considerable level of public scepticism, both amongst farmers and amongst wildlife experts.  How would you recommend that MAFF overcomes that scepticism?
  (Professor Bourne) It is an extremely difficult one.  It does relate to the PR job that can be done in informing the public, and particularly farmers and badger groups, of what the trial is attempting to achieve.  There is a misconception that the trial is cull, cull, cull.  It is nothing of the sort, as we have indicated in the report we have presented to you.  There are very clear objectives to address the problem which we recognise in cattle and the problem we recognise with TB in badgers.  So I do believe there is a much more vigorous PR job that must be done here, on better informing members of the public about what we are doing.  With respect to reassuring them with a release of data, that is a very difficult aspect to deal with.  This is because we would wish to be reassured that while we want to be as transparent as we can—I think you will agree we have been with what we have already published in the form of our report and what is on the web site—we do have to be careful, as a Group, that data is not released which could compromise the trial and interfere with the integrity of the trial in future, and which would lead individuals to make an early assessment, an early analysis, on the basis of totally inadequate data.