The consequential costs of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) breakdowns in England and Wales.

Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is a globally distributed zoonotic disease with significant economic impacts. Control measures in Great Britain include testing for and culling diseased animals. Farmers receive compensation for the value of culled animals, but not for the consequential costs of having to comply with testing and associated control measures. Such uncompensated costs can be significant. We present results of a survey of 1,600 dairy and beef farm holdings conducted in England and Wales to update and improve estimates of these consequential costs.Estimated costs are positively skewed and show considerable variance, which is in agreement with previous, smaller scale surveys of bTB: most farms experiencing bTB incur modest costs but some suffer significant costs. Testing, movement restrictions and output losses account for over three quarters of total uncompensated costs. Total costs rise with herd size and duration of controls. The composition of consequential costs changes as total costs increase, with an increasing proportion of the costs being associated with output losses and movement restrictions, and a decreasing proportion of costs associated with testing costs. Consequential costs tend to be higher for dairy than beef herds but this is likely due to larger herd sizes for dairy.Overall we find the total farm costs of bTB surpass those compensated for by Government in Great Britain. This study contributes to the public-private cost-sharing debate as farmers bear some of the economic burden of a disease breakdown. The methodology and results presented are crucial for informed Government and farmer decision-making. The identification of potential risk factors in this study was challenging but is of relevance outside GB.

The effect of animal health compensation on 'positive' behaviours towards exotic disease reporting and implementing biosecurity: A review, a synthesis and a research agenda.

With an increasing burden on public sector budgets, increased responsibility and cost sharing mechanisms for animal diseases are being considered. To achieve this, fiscal and non-fiscal intervention policies need to be designed such that they consistently promote positive disease risk management practices by animal keepers. This paper presents a review of the available evidence towards whether and how the level and type of funding mechanism affects change within biosecurity behaviours and the frequency of disease reporting. A Nuffield Health Ladder of Interventions approach is proposed as a way to frame the debate surrounding both current compensation mechanisms and how it is expected to change behaviour. Results of the review reveal a division between economic modelling approaches, which implicitly assume a causal link between payments and positive behaviours, and socio-geographic approaches which tend to ignore the influence of compensation mechanisms on influencing behaviours. Generally, economic studies suggest less than full compensation rates will encourage positive behaviours, but the non-economic literature indicate significant variation in response to compensation reflecting heterogeneity of livestock keepers in terms of their values, goals, risk attitudes, size of operation, animal species and production chain characteristics. This may be of encouragement to Western Governments seeking to shift cost burdens as it may induce greater targeting of non-fiscal mechanisms, or suggest more novel ways to augment current compensation mechanisms to both increase responsibility sharing and reduce this cost burden. This review suggests that a range of regulatory, fiscal and nudging policies are required to achieve socially optimal results with respect to positive behaviour change. However, the lack of directly available evidence which proves these causal links may hinder progress towards this optimal mixture of choice and non-choice based interventions.

UK peatland restoration: some economic arithmetic.

Over 80% of UK peatlands are degraded to some extent and their widespread restoration could contribute to meeting various climate change, water quality and biodiversity policy challenges. Economic analysis of costs and benefits is, however, hampered by scientific uncertainty and a lack of data on biophysical conditions as well as the impacts and costs of restoration. This paper presents a simple 'ready-reckoner' of possible net economic benefits under different combinations of simplifying 'what if?' assumptions for key restoration parameters. The results strongly suggest that even a narrow focus on carbon benefits alone is sufficient to justify restoration in many cases, and the inclusion of possible additional non-carbon benefits reinforces this. However, results are sensitive to assumptions and better data for, in particular, restoration costs associated with modest emission savings from lightly degraded sites would be helpful. Some other areas for further research are also identified.