The Farmers' Union of Wales today claimed the Welsh Government decision not to cull badgers in north Pembrokeshire goes against the science and marks a cowardly betrayal of north Pembrokeshire farmers and the Welsh farming industry as a whole.

Since May 2010, farmers in the north Pembrokeshire Intensive Action Area (IAA) have been subject to a raft of extra and costly cattle controls aimed at complementing the impact of a planned badger cull.

This work was accepted by the industry as part of an holistic approach to tackling TB and farmers had a reasonable expectation that meaningful action would be taken.

But today Environment Minister John Griffiths announced they would not be proceeding with a cull and would instead implement a badger vaccination programme.

Following the announcement, FUW TB spokesman Brian Walters said: "According to the experts who have conducted the most significant research to date into badger vaccine, it would require a massive trial covering thousands of square miles of land just to establish whether vaccination can have an impact on cattle herd breakdown [1]."

Mr Walters also quoted scientific advice given to former Agriculture Minister Elin Jones in March 2011 stating: "…the vaccination of badgers is unproven for large scale field use and particularly in demonstrating a change in the number of confirmed cattle herd breakdowns. It is therefore recommended that a strategy of vaccinating badgers for bovine TB is not suitable as the principle intervention to deal with the weight of infection that exists in badgers in endemic areas of Wales, and the transmission of that infection to cattle at this time. [2]"

Mr Walters added: "As far as vaccination is concerned, nothing has changed since this advice was issued twelve months ago.

"By contrast, culling has consistently been shown to reduce bTB incidences in cattle herds and since the 1970s thousands of herds have achieved TB?free status following badger culling.

"The most recent peer reviewed work published in February predicts significant reductions in outbreaks in north Pembrokeshire following a badger cull. [3]"

Mr Walters was also harshly critical of those cabinet members who had previously voted for a cull but were now opposing such action.

"When AMs previously voted in favour of a badger cull on successive occasions it demonstrated that Wales was willing to take positive steps to eradicate TB, even if those steps were controversial.

"Farmers felt that we were genuinely on the road to eradication and the industry has worked hard in north Pembrokeshire and elsewhere in anticipation of meaningful action.

"Those who have now gone back on their words have not just betrayed farmers in north Pembrokeshire but the industry as a whole. They should hang their heads in shame."

In light of the decision, the FUW has sought legal advice regarding financial redress for the extra costs incurred by cattle keepers in the IAA over a period of almost two years.

[1] Internal VLA Memo on badger vaccination, November 2010.

[2] Wales Bovine Tb Eradication Programme ? The Badger (Control Area) (Wales) Order 2011; scientific advice to Minister Elin Jones, March 2011.

[3] Modelled impacts of badger culling on cattle TB in a real area with geographic boundaries, Veterinary Record (2012) 170, 177.

Farmers have today been urged by the Farmers’ Union of Wales to check that their livestock transporter authorisations are still valid following a warning by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) that those with out-of-date licenses could face a hefty fine.

“We have been told that AHVLA has written to all transporters whose authorisations were due to expire in January 2012 to inform them of the renewal process,” said FUW’s agricultural education and training committee chairman Alun Edwards.

“So we would like to remind farmers to check that they comply with the regulations, bearing in mind that they could face a custodial sentence and/or a fine of up to £5,000 if they get caught with an out-of-date license.”

The original authorisations were valid for a period of five years and those issued at the outset of the introduction of the Regulation are due to expire from January 2012.

There are two types of transport authorisation, which include short journey transporter authorisation (Type 1) for those involved in the transport of animals on journeys of over 65km and up to eight hours duration and long journey transporter authorisations (Type 2), for those involved in the transport of animals on all journeys of over 65km including those that exceed eight hours duration.

Renewal instructions and application packs are available through the transporter authorisation section of the Defra website at: www.defra.gov.uk/food-farm/animals/welfare/transport/transporter-authorisation

Deputy agriculture minister Alun Davies' decision to invest in a Welsh EID electronic reporting system raises major concerns and should not have been taken without proper consultation with the Welsh sheep industry, the Farmers' Union of Wales said today.  

In a statement issued yesterday, the deputy minister said Wales would introduce a "bespoke" sheep EID system for Wales and that he was keen to work with the farming industry to ensure the system worked.

 He also stated that they would be reassessing whether the current slaughter derogation remained appropriate alongside a central sheep database.

 FUW's hill farming committee chairman Derek Morgan said: "The question of whether a database should be introduced was considered at a recent joint meeting of the FUW's livestock and hill farming committees and delegates came out overwhelmingly against a database because of the complete lack of information about pros and cons.  

"There is no legal requirement to introduce a database, so Europe cannot penalise Wales for EID's inherent failures based upon us not introducing a database. There is even a risk that introducing a database could compound the major problems which exist due to EID's failures.

 "There is also a major question about whether the current regulations will be continued given moves happening at an EU level, including a legal challenge.

 "This is a critically important issue and the industry should have been properly consulted regarding the matter and given information regarding what introducing a database would really mean for sheep keepers. Yet we have been provided with virtually no information."  

Mr Morgan added that suggestions that the slaughter derogation could be abandoned in Wales were also a major concern.  

"We welcome the deputy minister's commitment to working with the industry, in line with Gareth Williams' 'Working Smarter' report, but this simply has not happened regarding this decision and suggesting that red tape and costs could be increased massively by abolishing the slaughter derogation goes completely against the 'working smarter' ethos."  

Mr Morgan said it had even been suggested that introducing a sheep database would mean having to report sheep movements twice, once on paper and once through the internet.  

"If this happened, it would make a mockery of 'working smarter ', and could be better described as 'working stupider'." 

The FUW has already written to the Welsh Government highlighting major questions which must be answered before any decisions in relation to a database are made. These include:

• How well the existing Scottish database is working and whether rumours of major failures are correct? 
• How well the Scottish database system integrates with farm management software?   

• The cost implications for farmers and government of adopting a database?   

• How practical it would be for data to be shared between separate databases in England and Wales, and whether this would happen in real time or at intervals?   

• How a database would work in practice for farmers, and whether movements would have to be reported multiple times?   

• How pre-2010 animals not subject to individual recording and reporting would be dealt with in a database?   

• How missing animals would be dealt with in a database?   

• Whether the important benefits which exist because of the slaughter derogation would be lost if a database was introduced.

The Farmers' Union of Wales has demanded transparency and the release of all relevant documents by the Welsh Government after raising concerns about the legal and scientific basis for environment minister John Griffiths' decision to vaccinate rather than cull badgers in the Intensive Action Area (IAA).

The union believes that the minister may have ignored the previous findings of the Court of Appeal in making his decision, and that there is a lack of transparency because important information has been censored from Welsh Government documents placed in the public domain.

During recent meetings with ministers and officials, it was indicated the decision not to proceed with a cull was based on an anticipated reduction in confirmed incidences of 13.4%, which the minister did not believe was sufficiently “substantial” within the meaning of Section 21(2)(b) of the Animal Health Act 1981.

It is also understood that this figure was compared with the results of computer models of the impact of badger vaccination.

But in a letter to Mr Griffiths, FUW president Emyr Jones states: “…the 13.4% figure clearly relates to an area which is larger than the IAA, and includes possible adverse impacts which would only occur if the geographic boundaries around the IAA did not reduce the negative effects seen during the RBCT (Randomised Badger Culling Trial).

"Yet we understand that the Court of Appeal ruled in July 2010 that Section 21(2)(b) of the Animal Health Act 1981 should only apply to 'that area' to which The Tuberculosis (Wales) Order 2011 applies - namely the IAA...

“...it is therefore clear that any judgment you made relating to the legality of a cull under Section 21(2)(b) of the Animal Health Act 1981 should have been based upon an anticipated reduction in confirmed incidences of 25.7%, and not 13.4%."

With regard to the comparison of real culling trial results and computer models of vaccination, Mr Jones adds: “…there is currently no scientific, nor, in our opinion, legal basis for making such a direct comparison, since the scientific approaches used to produce such figures are wholly different; one is based upon a simple extrapolation of the outcomes of real badger culls, whereas the other uses a large number of complex and unproven hypotheses to model the actions of individual animals, producing estimates which cannot be compared with real data, because no vaccination field trials have been undertaken.

Mr Jones highlighted the fact that when the same computer model is used to examine culling, it predicts reductions of 30 to 40 per cent.

Mr Jones concludes: “As you know, farmers throughout Wales, and particularly within the IAA, have shown a significant commitment to the TB eradication programme, and had a reasonable expectation that a policy based upon the best predicted outcome would be implemented in the IAA.

"Yet it is clear from all the evidence we have seen to date that this has not happened, and the concerns raised above also highlight major questions regarding the legal considerations upon which your decision was based.

"We therefore believe you have a duty to the Welsh farming industry to explain in detail the scientific and legal reasoning which underpinned your decision, and that, in the interests of transparency, and the credibility of the Welsh Government as a whole, all relevant legal advice you received should be released into the public domain.”