final report - ARCHIVE: Defra

Economic, social and behavioural considerations
6.3.2 This research is broadly robust in terms of acceptable designs, methods, sampling and analysis and the
findings can be considered broadly reliable – at least for the regions in which the research was conducted.
Cost–benefit studies have become increasingly sophisticated in coverage of realistic scenarios in terms
of patterns of outbreak, coverage of all relevant costs and benefits, and the approaches and models of
different research teams are being integrated to give a much more robust understanding.
6.4 What are the gaps in this area and how seriously do these impede policy
decisions?
6.4.1 The main gaps are in the range of husbandry measures being subjected to studies of efficacy, costs
and benefits; and the lack of evidence on farmers’ behaviour and its determinants. These gaps make
it difficult to develop policy initiatives designed to influence farmers’ behaviour and husbandry
practices.
6.4.2 In particular, we have no research-based evidence for farmers’ attitudes and behaviour in respect of
badgers, husbandry recommendations for minimizing contact, and the allocation of costs (between the
industry and government) of control measures.
6.4.3 Recent research – including studies commissioned by Defra – on other areas of farmer behaviour
(adoption of recommended technologies, insurance against consequential losses, responses to policy
change) suggests that understanding farmers’ attitudes, the rationale for their behavioural decisions,
and the influence of various organizations and individuals on their behaviour can inform both policy
and communication strategies. We also know that farmers are motivated not only by the financial
bottom line and that there are distinct behavioural categories of farmer who respond to different sets of
motivations.
6.4.4 Current project SE3039 is making a start in this area, in the specific area of cattle movements. For the
most part, we are left with repeated assumptions, such as those in the Krebs Report referred to above.
Similar unsubstantiated suggestions are made in the final report of SE3029: ‘Few farmers appear either
aware of the problem [of farmyard contact] or willing to deal with it by investing in husbandry and
biosecurity best-practice. This may partly be due to the perceived low quality of advice available’.
6.4.5 A similar comment occurs in the report of the Independent Husbandry Panel (Phillips et al., 2001):
farmers are ‘unaware of the potential infection hazards within their buildings or that badgers may be
visiting them frequently, creating a high risk situation’. They also report, though, that they received
‘evidence that farmers can, and do, adjust their management practices to accommodate the restrictions
and difficulties caused by M. bovis. They should be assisted to be flexible, in whatever ways are
feasible’.
6.4.6 No research has been conducted on farmers’ knowledge of bTB transmission and how this is related to
their attitudes and responses. Research in this area should include studies that explore farmers’ knowledge
and compare it with scientific knowledge (and areas of uncertainty) thereby improving the evidence
base for future policy implementation on control measures and husbandry recommendations.
48