The announcement of a badger TB vaccination trial on the National Trust’s Killerton Estate has been welcomed by both farmers and local environmental groups. The four year programme which will commence this May aims to show that vaccination is a viable alternative to culling programmes, particularly in places where Defra’s culling criteria cannot currently be met.

Bovine tuberculosis is a major burden for both farmers and taxpayers in the UK. Last year the cost of the disease to the taxpayer was almost £63 million, mainly paid out in compensation to farmers who had cattle destroyed as a result of the disease. However farmers say that this sum does not cover the cost of replacing lost animals, and more needs to be done to prevent the spread of the disease.

Badger culling, the current recommended strategy for control of bovine TB, has been shown to be effective within culling sites but can have detrimental knock on effects for surrounding areas, which often see an increased incidence of the disease. As a consequence of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) which showed these effects Defra introduced stringent criteria to set the conditions under which badger culling can take place, which require farmers to demonstrate that they can minimize any potential edge effects, and cull within a minimum area size of 150km2. There are very few instances when these criteria can be met. When these criteria cannot be fulfilled it seems that vaccination may be the only viable option but so far there is little evidence to show how effective it might be.

The new programme funded by the National Trust aims to demonstrate to the government and farmers that vaccination is a viable alternative to culling. It also aims to stimulate research into an oral vaccine, such as the type which has been used with great success to treat rabies, which would be a cheap and easy to administer option for carrying vaccination out on a larger scale. Mark Harold from the national trust said that he hopes that this project can “pave the way for more widespread use of vaccination as an effective alternative to culling”, and also noted that “the National Trust is in a unique position as a major landowner in rural areas” allowing them to pioneer the scheme.

The vaccination programme will involve 18 tenant farmers on 20 km2 farmland in the Killerton estate, a prime example of a site that cannot meet current DEFRA criteria for badger culls. It is expected to cost around £80,000 per year and run until 2015. Badgers will be trapped, vaccinated and marked by licensed experts.

British ecological controversy has suddenly found itself in the media glare, as wildlife charities publicly dispute the role of magpies in limiting songbird populations.

The Songbird Survival Trust has urged people to trap and kill magpies over the next three months in order to conserve populations of song thrushes, blackbirds and house sparrows. They blame the birds for contributing to recent population declines by raiding nests and eating eggs and young. Nick Forde, a trustee of the SST, said “I don’t like the idea of harming animals but if they are destroying our biodiversity, then we have to take action. Unless the population of some predators is controlled, there is little, if any, hope that the small bird populations can recover.”

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 specifically provides for the culling of magpies, as long as it is done humanely and for a specific purpose, such as bird conservation.

However, groups including the RSPB have spoken out against the cull. A spokesman said: “We do not think that trapping and killing of magpies is justified in most situations. In certain circumstances on reserves to protect ground-nesting birds such as lapwings it may be necessary to reduce magpie numbers. But we do not think there is any case for people to do it in their own gardens and it will make absolutely no difference to arrest the decline of songbirds throughout the country.”

Chris Packham, the naturalist and TV presenter, responded even more forcefully in the Guardian, accusing the Trust of “kneejerk ornithological racism” and “outdated views built on a foundation of medieval superstition”.

Whilst acknowledging the role magpies play as predators, opponents of the cull point instead to the intensification of farming practices, pollution and habitat loss as the main reasons for declining songbird populations. They argue that the limited research that has been done does not single out magpies as the cause, and that anecdotal observational evidence may be overly influencing opinions.

To read more, visit the Times.

Environment secretary, Hilary Benn has announced new proposals to bring back payments for farmers who set aside areas of uncultivated land to promote biodiversity and environmental benefits.

The system of subsiding farmers for setting-aside areas of land from agricultural production was introduced in the 1980’s in order to curtail over-production, which had generated food surpluses and caused a dramatic reduction in some commodity prices.

The scheme was effectively abolished by the European Commission in 2008 after harvests were devastated by extensive flooding and global food prices began to soar. Environmental groups and conservationists did not welcome the decision as the uncultivated land provided a vital source of food and refuge for wildlife in agricultural landscapes, especially birds.

In a speech to the National Farmers’ Union conference in Birmingham later today, Benn is expected to propose two possible options; a mandatory scheme requiring a minimum area land to be set aside with incentives to expand, and an entirely voluntary scheme. A decision is expected in the summer.

“I welcome the idea of a voluntary scheme, led by the industry, if we can be sure that it will deliver,” he is expected to say.

Read more about this issue on the Guardian news website
Updates on the NFU conference can be found here

The results of the 2007 Countryside Survey have been released this morning, with the report published electronically on the Survey website. The report will be launched formally later today with a series of presentations and discussions, begun with a keynote speech by the Secretary of State for the environment, Hilary Benn.

In commenting on the results of the survey to the Times, Dr Peter Carey, the report’s lead author and a member of both the BES Council and Public and Policy Committee, said that; “The overriding message from the 2007 results is that previous intensive management of the countryside has relaxed over the past 30 years and particularly during the nine years since the last survey.”

A shift by farmers to less intensive management of their land, through set-aside schemes and the conversion of arable fields to grassland, has led to an increase in the abundance of brambles, nettles and hawthorn. This is good news for some bird and mammal species but less beneficial to low-lying plants which are crowded out by these weeds.

From 1998- 2007, the number of species of arable plant found on agricultural land increased by 30%, indicating farmers’ increased tolerance for weeds on their land. Conservationists are concerned that the recent decision by the EU to scrap the set-aside scheme could remove the incentive for farmers to encourage the growth of such species.

The BES Science Policy Team will attend the launch of the Survey results and will post further information about this on the Blog in due course.

Cod is historically one of the most popular commercial fish species in the UK, not to mention popular across the European continent. Because of this, major commercial fisheries have been forced to close, and existing fisheries may also soon face closure.

Exacerbated by the mismatch in timing of their young’s main food source, the copepod, caused by predicted warming events, Cod face an uncertain future.

If cod populations disappear completely, it is likely that ‘trophic cascade‘ events could occur, i.e. the food chain within the broader community could be severely disrupted, as happened when the Canadian cod stocks collapsed.

A recent review paper published in Biology Letters suggests that fisheries management should be at the species-fishery scale, rather than a broad species-specific approach to management. The motivations for the author’s suggestion lie in the considerable variability in genetic make-up and spawning aggregations between different cod populations, and the potential for small meta-populations to crash without being detected, since these are amalgamated with the whole population. Therefore data collection should be accurate and well-timed for effective management.

Targeted conservation measures are recommended to policy-makers where appropriate, however the socio-economic consequences of any decisions made must be given serious consideration.

Blog Readers are invited to comment on this article!

Source: Hutchinson, W.F. (2008). The dangers of ignoring stock complexity in fishery management: the case of the North Sea cod. Biology Letters. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0443

Related Material:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1299&format=PDF&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Defra have launched an enquiry to investigate what is the best method of sustainably managing England’s wildlife.

Up until recently, the government has had a piecemeal approach to nature conservation, with only certain species and habitats being afforded protection. This philosophy is to be superceded by Defra’s recent holistic approach to Nature conservation. Defra has therefore decided to launch a more comprehensive strategy to conserve wildlife in England, and will shortly be consulting on this strategy.

The new approach aims to be more strategic, and will look at how wildlife impacts on people vice versa. One of the key components of the strategy is taking a decision-tree approach, to provide a mechanism for policy review and development. The hope is this approach will create a structured framework so that a consistent approach to wildlife conservation is used across the board, whilst allowing scope for flexibility within the framework.

The consultation document can be found here:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/wildlife-manage-strategy/consultation.pdf

The closing date for responses is 22nd September 2008.