Experience of upland sheep farmers in
the UK following the Chernobyl accident
Anne Nisbet• NPO 25th Fukushima Dialogue
15 October 2023

Overview of Chernobyl timeline in UK1986

1990

2000

1st evaluation ofalternative strategies

22012
All sheep
restrictions removed

Chernobyl accident
Sheep restrictions imposed

Early phase2010

Intermediate phase

2nd evaluation ofalternative strategies

Late phase

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Content• Upland sheep farming• Impact of Chernobyl contamination• Response of authorities (‘early phase’)• Response of the farmers (‘early phase’)• Building a co-expertise• Evolution (output) of the co-expertise• Lessons learned• Conclusions• Further reading/viewing
3

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Upland sheep farming• The community has a distinctive traditional cultural identity.
• Economically fragile as the land is marginal for
cultivation due to poor soils and difficult terrain• Farmers have few alternatives to make a living• Lambs are brought off the uplands to improved
lowland pasture for 3-week fattening period• Sale of spring lambs provides hill farmers with
their only significant yearly income.
• Financial success depends on identifying theoptimum time for marketing lambs (complex, requiring expert judgement)
4

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Impact of Chernobyl contamination
1986

Affected areas

26 April

Accident at Chernobyl

2-4 May

Plume passes over UKCoincides with heavy rainfall in upland areas
Peat soils – low mineral content
o Radiocaesium readily available for plant uptake

Sheep farming predominant activity
High levels of radiocaesium in 20% UK sheep59,792 farms / 4.3 million sheep

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Response of the authorities (1):
Early phase
JuneRestrictions on sheep movements for 3 week period
Legal powers under ‘Food & Environment Protection Act 1985’

o Defines geographic area of the restrictionso Prohibits the slaughter of sheep within the areao Prohibits movement of sheep out of the area, unless issued with aconsent

July

Indefinite restrictions on sheep movements

AugustIntroduction of 'Mark and Release’ monitoring controls

6oImpact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Response of the authorities (2):
Early phase‘Mark and Release’ Controls• Sheep had to be live monitored before they could move outof the area
• If assessed to be below 1000 Bq/kg, sheep were free tomove and there were no restrictions on entering foodchain• If assessed to be above 1000 Bq/kg, sheep were prohibitedfrom going to slaughter for a minimum of 3 months, andwere identified by a colour paint markEvery animal in a restricted area had to be monitored!
7Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Response of the farmers (1):Early phase• “We were told we could not sell our lamb. This caused
problems of cash flow” Glyn Roberts• “We were told, and presumed, that the whole issue would
be over and done with in a matter of weeks or months”
Aeron Prysor Jones• “It was a huge battle to get the government to realise theseverity of the problem” Elfred Williams (NFU)• “We couldn’t believe it at first. The radiation had come from
3,000 miles away and you couldn't see it. It brought backmemories of the Windscale nuclear accident in 1957”.

Glyn Roberts, farmer North Wales• “It has been a real struggle. Our daily lives are much harder; I can’t just take my sheep toauction, instead I have to phone the FSA 3 days in advance for them to come to takereadings” David Ellwood
8

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Response of the farmers (2):
Early phase• Farmers felt betrayed by bureaucrats and scientists
because their own specialist local knowledge andexpertise were ignored• Farmers’ autonomy and sense of identity wasundermined by how the restrictions were implemented• Farmers felt that distinct traditions, skills and social
interactions were under threat• Farmers lost trust in government scientists who
expressed certainty, unqualified reassurance andfailed to admit mistakes

Will Rowling farmer in Cumbria• Farmers perceived communication as an ‘add-on’ to the decisions that were made9

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Building co-expertise (1):
1. Initial engagement (1986-1996)• Farmers progressively engaged with expertso Local government: monitoring of sheep, discussion of results, research projects …
o Independent scientists: plain speaking, trustworthy, acknowledged uncertainties …
o Farming unions, auctioneers …

2. Dialogue on alternatives to restrictions (1997-2000)• Independent scientists, farmers and a wide range of other stakeholderso Jointly evaluate alternative options: clean feeding, administration of Prussian Blueboli, land improvement, market place monitoring …
o Considering environment and economic impact, consumer confidence…
10

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Building co-expertise (2)3. Revisiting risks to consumers (2010)• Authorities, independent consultants, farming communityo Move to risk based approach (estimate dose to consumers of lamb)o Extensive monitoring, probabilistic modelling, and information on consumer habitso Report with results of dose assessment• Stakeholder workshop (wide participation ~ 10 different groups)
o Presentations, plenary discussions, breakout groups

4. Public consultation (2011)• Launched by the Food Standards Agency for a period of 12 weeks
o 15 responses from government and non government organisations, farmers ….
o Key message: “removal of restrictions should be risk based, proportionate, and must notcompromise consumer safety”

11

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Evolution (outputs) of the co-expertise process• Initial engagement (1986-1996)
o Much improved relationships with almost all stakeholderso A deep mistrust of central government remained (centralised, hierarchical, remote)• Dialogue on alternatives to restrictions (1997-2000)
o Wide range of stakeholders were engaged
o Consensus to retain restrictions• Revisiting risks to consumers (2010)o A more holistic approach to risk was welcomedo Risk was shown to be very low, if all restrictions were removed
o Recommendation to remove restrictions – careful and consistent communication• Public consultation (2011)o All UK sheep restrictions were successfully removed on 1 June 201212

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Lessons learned for developing co-expertise
1. Authorities needed to recognise that farming community had something tocontribute, and worthy of acting as co-experts
2. Authorities needed to engage sooner with the farming community and morewidely with other stakeholders
3. Authorities needed to be empathetic to the suffering of farmers
4. Authorities needed to engage frequently. Too many years elapsed between
initiatives.
5. Authorities and scientists needed to admit uncertainty and be humble/open toother sources of local information and knowledge
6. Authorities and scientists believed that lay people could not understand andmanage the situation, leading to them being given false reassurances
13

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Conclusions
1. Monitoring sheep immediately off the hills was too conservative
2. A fixed limit of 1000 Bq/kg in sheep meat does not consider dose to consumers
a. Consumers do not eat from a single sheep.
b. For more than 20 years, majority of sheep had < 1000 Bq/kg
c. Dose to consumers were estimated in range 0.05 – 0.21 mSv/yd. Therefore, restrictions did not provide a meaningful approach to reduction in doses

3. Farmers, meat industry and consumers were apprehensive about removing
controls
4. Communication plan was established jointly between stakeholders
5. All restrictions were removed on 1 June 2012, after 26 years!
6. No adverse consequences, due to the co-expertise that had been established14

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Further reading/viewingReading• Food Standards Agency (2012) The removal of post-Chernobyl sheep controls.
https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/fsa120306.pdf• Nisbet AF and Woodman RFM (2000) Options for the Management of Chernobyl-restricted Areas inEngland and Wales. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 51: 239-254• Wynne B (1989) Sheep farming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information.
Environment, 31, 2: 11-38• Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public
Understanding of Science, 1, 281-304

Viewing• Farmers Weekly video: Interview with Welsh farmers https://www.fwi.co.uk/farm-life/video-still-facing-thefallout• Landlines project: Interview with Cumbrian farmer https://landlinesproject.wordpress.com/nuclearlegacies-nuclear-energy-and-farming-landscapes-in-cumbria/
15Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers

Media reports

16

Impact of Chernobyl restrictions on UK upland sheep farmers