Dear Editor,

I have read DAERA’s latest consultation on wildlife intervention in the battle against bovine TB (bTB) with a mixture of interest, frustration and disbelief.

I chaired the TB Strategic Partnership Group established by government in 2014. After two years of consultation with farmers, veterinarians, scientists and conservation interests, supported by independent economic, behavioural and scientific analysis, we produced our eradication strategy in 2016.

Our conclusion was clear: NI would not eradicate bTB by concentrating on cattle while failing adequately to address infection within wildlife.

Almost ten years later, DAERA is consulting on that question again. Ironically, our 2016 strategy is included as Annex V of the evidence supporting this latest consultation.

Meanwhile, the disease has worsened. The 2024 Review by the chief veterinary officer (CVO) recorded herd incidence at 10.41% and animal incidence at 1.158%, with Departmental expenditure of £55.7m in 2023-2024, 39% higher than in 2020/2021.

Perhaps, therefore, the question is no longer, “What should we do about bTB?”. Perhaps it is “Why did we not do what we already knew needed to be done?”

The present consultation considers non-selective culling, test and vaccinate or remove (TVR), and vaccination. DAERA insists no preferred option has been selected. If so, each option must surely be judged using the same evidential yardstick.

There are legitimate questions about whether that is happening.

DAERA cites its Banbridge TVR research, where estimated M. bovis prevalence in badgers fell from 14% to 2% over five years – described in the supporting analysis as an annual decline of 39.1%.

But reducing infection prevalence among badgers is not the same as demonstrating a corresponding reduction in TB breakdowns among cattle. Indeed, DAERA’s own analysis acknowledges that the number of cattle herd breakdowns actually avoided specifically through wildlife intervention, is unknown.

There is an equally important question about the test underpinning TVR. The CVO’s Review cites a median sensitivity of 69% for the DPP trap-side test. Under TVR, positive badgers are removed while those testing negative are vaccinated and released.

The obvious question is: what happens to infected badgers the test fails to identify?

Nor should we overlook the CVO’s own warning that if a decision is made not to cull and non-lethal interventions prove less effective – “as the evidence would point to” – progress towards eliminating bTB would be slower and complete elimination may be difficult.

Destruction

I am not advocating indiscriminate wildlife destruction, and neither did our 2016 group. We recommended a targeted, integrated and evidence-led approach in which wildlife intervention formed one part of a comprehensive eradication strategy.

But after almost 10 years, farmers are entitled to ask where implementation has been.

They have endured repeated testing, movement restrictions, slaughter of valuable cattle and enormous financial and emotional consequences. Taxpayers have spent hundreds of millions maintaining a programme while disease incidence has moved in the wrong direction.

Our 2016 report said eradication would require courage and compromise.

That remains true.

If TVR is demonstrably the best intervention, DAERA should prove it. If targeted culling produces better disease outcomes, government must have the courage to acknowledge that too.

NI does not suffer from a shortage of reports on bovine TB. It suffers from a shortage of implementation. After decades of disease, expenditure and frustration, farmers and taxpayers are entitled to something more than another process. They are entitled to results.

Seán Hogan, former chair, TB Strategic Partnership Group