14 News


THE HERALD FRIDAY JANUARY 20 2017


Follow us on Twitter @ceredigherald


Unions hit out on THE FARMERS’ UNION OF


WALES has rejected proposals to split Wales into five bovine TB regions in its response to a Welsh Government consultation, highlighting the need to tackle the disease in badger populations. The Welsh Government proposes


splitting Wales into two high, two intermediate and one low TB level regions, with different rules applying in each region. The proposals would mean a heightening of Wales’ cattle TB rules, which are already amongst the strictest in the world. But following a consultation with


its 12 county branches, the majority of FUW members rejected the proposals, highlighting the need for meaningful controls which address transmission of the disease from badgers to cattle.


CALL TO REDUCE BADGER NUMBERS


FUW TB Spokesman Brian


Walters said: “The consultation paper acknowledges that the level of disease found in badgers in Wales is 6.6%, around 1420% higher than the level found in cattle - which is 0.4%. “Members made it clear that the


proposal to split Wales up into five regions and further add to what are already the strictest TB controls in Europe would only make sense if badger numbers were reduced in the areas where they are passing the disease on to cattle.” In 2012, the Bovine Tuberculosis


subgroup of the EU Task Force for Monitoring Animal Disease Eradication criticised Welsh Government politicians for replacing a previously planned badger cull with a badger vaccination programme, stating: “There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that badger vaccination will reduce the incidence of TB in cattle. However, there is considerable evidence to support the removal of badgers in order to improve the TB status of both badgers and cattle.” The latest official report on the


Jon Coles jon.coles@herald.email


badger vaccination programme, which lasted four years and cost £3.7 million, concludes that: “Consistent trends in indicators of bTB incidence have not yet been seen…”


WILDLIFE VECTOR ‘THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM’


By contrast, the government’s


official scientific advice had concluded that a badger cull in the area would have led to a significant reduction in the number of herds with TB and cattle slaughtered and actually saved money, despite costs being similar to those of the vaccination programme. Amongst the proposals consulted


upon by the Welsh Government was the adoption of a New Zealand type ‘informed purchasing’ approach to cattle trading, but during a recent Welsh Assembly Climate Change Committee hearing, Dr Paul Livingstone, who previously led New Zealand’s successful eradication programme, said nothing was being done in Wales about the disease in badgers, describing the issue as ‘the elephant in the room’. “A New Zealand type approach is


one the Welsh farming industry would fully support, because it is a genuine partnership between government and farmers in which politicians recognise the need to cull wildlife to control TB. “Without


that commitment


by Welsh politicians, we will never achieve the success seen in New Zealand, Australia and other countries which have implemented successful eradication programmes by tackling the disease in both cattle and wildlife,” added Mr Walters.


FARMERS FRUSTRATED BY GOVERNMENT


NFU Cymru has made it clear to the Welsh Government that farmers


across Wales are ‘as frustrated as they have ever been’ with the impact bovine TB is having on Wales. As part of its formal response


to the Welsh Government’s ‘A refreshed TB eradication programme’ consultation document, NFU Cymru said it could not accept further cattle controls without action also being taken to actively address the disease in wildlife. NFU Cymru welcomes the


recognition from the Welsh Government in the consultation document on the need to take appropriate interventions to break the transmission routes of disease between cattle and wildlife. However, the Union maintains that a refreshed strategy must feature a focus on moving forward with proposals to actively break this link and removing the reservoir of infection in the wildlife population in endemic areas of Wales. In its response to the consultation,


NFU Cymru has voiced a number of concerns over the six-monthly testing period proposed for high TB areas, including increased costs, health and safety concerns, and the increased likelihood that tests will fall at inconvenient times, such as harvest or when cattle are heavily pregnant or calving.


RESERVOIR OF DISEASE STILL UNADDRESSED


While NFU Cymru is generally


supportive of targeting controls and actions that are specific to the disease prevalence in the local area, the Union’s members are clear that any zoning of Wales into TB areas should not take place until the current County Parish Holding (CPH) rationalisation programme is complete, so as not to add further complication and confusion to livestock movement rules. During the consultation exercise,


a range of issues around the proposals have been raised which NFU Cymru believes require further consideration. It is the Union’s belief that these issues require further discussion with representatives of the industry, including vets and livestock auctioneers. NFU Cymru President Stephen


James said: “Since coming into post, the Cabinet Secretary has taken the time to speak with the Union and farmers to fully understand the bovine TB situation. We welcome the opportunity that the consultation provides for the industry to have its say on this important matter. “NFU Cymru’s comprehensive


Government has failed to follow eradication policy: Stephen James, NFU Cymru


consultation response is based on feedback following county meetings, national commodity board meetings


Badgers: ‘The elephant in the room’


and individual feedback received from members. All the feedback we have received shares one common theme – an overwhelming frustration that bovine TB continues to wreak havoc for farming businesses and families across Wales, while the reservoir of disease in wildlife remains unaddressed. Until now, Welsh Government has failed to implement a comprehensive eradication strategy to tackle a disease that continues to claim the lives of cattle in their prime – recent figures show nearly 10,000 cattle were slaughtered over a 12 month period as a result of TB. “Cattle keepers take their disease


control responsibilities extremely seriously and farm under stringent and restrictive cattle controls. As each year goes by, these cattle controls have increased. Any suggestion of further cattle controls without taking appropriate measures to also tackle the reservoir of disease in wildlife is incomprehensible from a farmer’s perspective.”


CABINET SECRETARY DUCKS QUESTIONS


In light of the – at best – equivocal


responses of Wales’ farming unions to the consultation, we asked the Welsh Government to respond to the issues the unions have raised. In particular, we asked the Cabinet Secretary to comment about how


Mid and West AM Simon


Thomas, Plaid Cymru’s Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Climate Change and Rural Affairs, said: “The Party of Wales urges the Cabinet Secretary to base her plan


much weight she is placing on the opinions of those actually engaged in agriculture as opposed to those who are not and to please state whether or not there is any scenario in which a cull would be authorised (even on a limited basis). We then asked that if the response


to the last point was in the negative, for the Cabinet Secretary to explain why and how she reached that view before considering the consultation. Instead of the Cabinet Secretary


responding, we received a statement from the Welsh Government which did not answer the specific questions raised. A Welsh Government


spokesperson said: “We welcome all evidence-based responses to our consultation on a refreshed TB eradication programme. “We will now consider all


responses closely to ensure our future approach to eradicating this disease is proportionate, effective and that it works in the best interest of all parties.“


FARMERS’ VIEWS MUST BE LISTENED TO


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48