Enabling Badger Vaccine Deployment

(1)

Enabling Badger Vaccine Deployment

A report to Defra by The Wildlife Trusts

August 2014

The Wildlife Trusts

The Kiln, Waterside, Mather Road, Newark, NG24 1WT Registered Charity No. 207238

(2)

1. Derbyshire vet and farmer / landowner word for word report 2. Cheshire vet and farmer / landowner word for word report 3. Dorset vet and farmer / landowner word for word report 4. Derbyshire voluntary sector organisations word for word report 5. Dorset voluntary sector organisations word for word report 6. Cheshire voluntary sector organisations word for word report 7. Lay vaccinator questionnaire response output

8. Surveying for badgers training course feedback summary

(3)

1

Executive summary

Background

1. Badger vaccination is potentially the most underutilised of the measures available in the bovine TB control ‘toolbox’ - despite an effective injectable vaccine being available since March 2010. 2. Stakeholders were consulted to determine barriers to undertaking badger vaccination and

develop proposals to overcome them. These consider how the capacity of the environmental volunteering sector in England can be strengthened to increase the scale of vaccination activities. 3. Voluntary group activity is patchy with the bulk of current and emerging activity in the

geographically determined ‘High Risk’ area, where groups are motivated to demonstrate an alternative to culling.

Acceptance in the farming community

4. Wide scale deployment projects are entirely dependent on landowner co-operation. Evidence shows that consent will not be given and landowners will not be willing to pay towards badger vaccination unless they are confident in the vaccine and the workforce doing the job.

5. Farmer confidence in badger vaccination is currently undermined by a lack of sufficient evidence that vaccinating badgers will contribute to the eradication of TB in cattle.

6. This proof of efficacy is central to the development of a long-term business model for badger vaccination. Without this, Defra grant funding towards badger vaccination is an insufficient incentive for many farmers, despite the huge financial and personal costs imposed by bTB. 7. Farmer confidence in the voluntary sector needs to be increased. The sector needs to be seen

to be working competently and professionally, and engaging well with the farming community. There is also a lack of trust within the farming community of the voluntary sector, which is likely to be exacerbated by anti-farmer messages or strong political messages in the media from the more vocal campaign groups.

8. Ensuring continuity of volunteers, as well as the vetting, training and auditing of personnel working on farms, will help to build trust and confidence.

Co-ordination

9. Co-ordination of voluntary sector effort by a national badger vaccination co-ordinator (or team) will be essential to enable effective use of limited resources, to develop a collaborative approach, and to determine the most cost-effective use of Government and other investors' funds.

A competent workforce

10. The resource required to vaccinate over large areas should not be underestimated. Many volunteers have expertise in badger ecology but are unfamiliar with the gruelling physical nature of a vaccination programme, working in the farmed environment and offering their time over an extended period.

11. A central source of the latest information and research should be provided so that groups can gain a realistic understanding of the benefits and capacity required to deliver a badger vaccination programme, which will in turn assist credibility by ensuring that realistic targets are set.

12. A badger vaccination toolkit and online forum for sharing best practice could also be developed to enable efficient start-up and delivery of new vaccination programmes.

(4)

2 14. The capacity to provide training for lay vaccinators and a mechanism to audit activity, collate

data and provide ongoing technical support should be maintained for 2015 onwards.

15. Consideration should be given to diversifying the AHVLA training so that interested people can get involved at various levels by assisting different elements of a vaccination programme. 16. Some groups have identified the location of the current lay vaccinator training as a barrier. The

AHVLA should assess the merits of satellite training grounds or a ‘train the trainer’ approach. 17. The costs of setting up a deployment project are prohibitive for some groups. Savings should be

made through economies of scale, an equipment loan service and better co-ordination. Defra funding should be offered for training (both providers and participants) and ongoing support. 18. In the long term, volunteers could be paired up with commercial contractors but this model is

dependent on farmers being able to quantify the benefit of investing in vaccination.

Messaging

19. There is criticism from stakeholders of the quality and motivation of messaging around

vaccination from Defra, its Ministers and agencies, veterinary and farming bodies. This needs to be improved significantly to build confidence in badger vaccination as a risk reduction measure. 20. Wildlife protection groups and the farming community have at times ‘cherry picked’ the facts or

overstated the benefits or negatives of vaccination. This does nothing to build confidence and trust between interested parties.

21. There is a need for more, accurate information and better dissemination between interested parties to the people on the ground. An impartial and agreed set of facts would help achieve this. Defra must take the lead in raising the profile of, and endorsing, badger vaccination.

Knowledge

22. There is wide variation in the level of knowledge amongst interested parties, and a need to increase the level of knowledge amongst everyone dealing with herd breakdowns.

23. Consideration should be given to the best way of doing this by Defra, AHVLA, The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, British Veterinary Association and British Cattle Veterinary Association. Clearer messaging will go a long way to encourage these groups to learn more.

Collaboration

24. There is currently very little empathy or communication between stakeholders. Views are polarised and entrenched.

25. All stakeholders should commit to building relationships between the farming community and the voluntary sector on a local level.

26. Key national, regional and countywide land-holding bodies should also consider how they can support a wide-scale vaccination campaign by allowing access to their land or by raising funds to support deployment costs.

27. A broad coalition of organisations has formed in East Sussex to drive forward a co-ordinated programme of BadgerBCG deployment, and this model should be encouraged in other counties.

In summary

28. Evidence, strategy and leadership are the three key elements essential for maximising the engagement and support of stakeholders for wider roll out of badger vaccination initiatives.

(5)

3

Introduction

29. The Government wishes to work with voluntary and community sector organisations, and others, to co-ordinate bovine tuberculosis (bTB) badger vaccination activities and to encourage vaccination through training and start-up grants. The Wildlife Trusts (TWT) was uniquely placed to conduct a short-term project to assist Defra to develop a strategic and co-ordinated

approach to enable efficient and targeted deployment of BadgerBCG.

30. The Wildlife Trusts work closely with farmers and landowners across the wider landscape as part of their commitment and action to create a Living Landscape. Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust is now in its fourth year of vaccination and thirteen Wildlife Trusts are deploying, or are considering deploying, BadgerBCG on nature reserves and private farms. Shropshire and Cheshire Wildlife Trusts have experience of engaging stakeholders to facilitate vaccine deployment using different approaches.

31. This project was awarded funding with the aims of:

 Developing a strategic and co-ordinated approach for deployment of BadgerBCG in England, including engagement with key stakeholders e.g. Animal Health Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA), British Veterinary Association (BVA), National Farmers Union (NFU) and The Wildlife Trusts.

 Developing proposals for overcoming barriers to BadgerBCG vaccination deployment including the most cost-effective application of Defra’s badger vaccination fund and other potential sources of funding. These proposals should consider the means by which the capacity of the environmental volunteering sector in England may be strengthened for the purpose of increasing the scale of badger vaccination activities;

 Benefiting the environmental volunteering sector in England as widely as possible (i.e. rather than just the organisation awarded the funding), in terms of the outputs being widely accessible and well used.

(6)

4

Methods

Interviews

32. One-on-one interviews were held with representatives from Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA), the National Farmers Union (NFU), The Badger Trust, Save Me, Humane Society International (HSI), Badger and Cattle Vaccination Initiative (BACVI), The Wildlife Trusts, XL vets, British Veterinary Association (BVA), Brock Vaccination, The National Trust, Country Land and Business Association (CLA), Dorset Badger Vaccination Project, Sussex Badger Vaccination Project, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and British Naturalists Society. These interviews aimed to establish the level of support for the project, agree areas of common ground and determine the potential role of the organisation in supporting a wider roll out of vaccination.

33. These initial interviews highlighted some training needs which determined the decision to pilot two courses for volunteers during the project (see Training pilots p.19).

Workshops

34. Two workshops were designed by Dialogue Matters (independent experts in stakeholder participation with a focus on the natural environment) as a way of consulting with vets and landowners / farmers and voluntary sector organisations. These stakeholders were considered key to the development of a scaled-up model of badger vaccination deployment.

35. The workshops aimed to:

 Provide information about badger vaccination as a method of controlling tuberculosis (TB) in badgers

 Gather the opinion of stakeholders on the potential opportunities and practicalities of badger vaccination

 Gain insight into how some of the barriers to wide scale badger vaccination could be addressed.

36. Participants were split into two separate stakeholder groups: one for the veterinary and farming / landowning community and one for voluntary sector organisations. This allowed participants to talk freely and focus their discussions specifically on badger vaccination. To gather a ‘snap shot’ of opinion on the ground, each stakeholder group was consulted in three different counties so a total of six workshops were held, two each in Matlock, Derbyshire; Audlem, Cheshire and Dorchester, Dorset. Invitations were drawn up and circulated through stakeholder networks. 37. The workshops were facilitated by a team from The Wildlife Trusts, NFU, and a Warwick

University PhD student who all received a one-day training course in independent facilitation from Dialogue Matters. Dialogue Matters also provided the professional facilitator in Dorset, whilst Sheffield University was responsible in Derbyshire and Cheshire.

38. During the workshops the essence of everything that was said was written on flip charts, post-it notes or forms. Following the event all the outputs were typed up ‘word for word’. Once

(7)

5 typed, the points within a conversation were sorted and clustered so that similar points were together. This ‘emergent sorting’ of one workshop was verified by Dialogue Matters. The themed comments were then used to determine the main barriers and potential solutions, which were then subjected to internal and external verification.

Questionnaires

39. A questionnaire was drawn up for lay vaccinators (who have direct experience of vaccinating badgers in a range of situations) and circulated electronically to all those on the lay vaccinator register (provided by AHVLA) who had agreed to share contact details. Responses were compiled into one output document which was used to determine themes and solutions. One response was received after the deadline, so could not be included in this analysis, but it was passed on to Defra.

(8)

6

Results: consultation of vets and farmers / landowners

Summary

40. Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is subjecting the farming community to huge financial and personal cost.

41. Some farmers would be willing to pay a small amount for badger vaccination. However, many wouldn’t be willing to pay anything until the benefits of vaccinating have been properly evaluated. 42. Defra’s Badger Vaccine Fund doesn’t offer enough of an incentive currently to persuade farmers

to vaccinate.

43. There was a lack of confidence amongst farmers and landowners in the effectiveness and reliability of volunteer vaccinators and a real lack of trust for fear of protestors, breach of confidentiality and disruption to farming business.

44. Continuity of volunteers would help build farmers’ trust, as would the vetting, training, auditing and accreditation of volunteers. All of this, as well as the necessary administration, fieldwork and monitoring associated with badger vaccination projects, could be managed by a paid

co-ordinator.

45. There was a focus during discussions on using badger vaccination alongside other measures. 46. There were calls for more information on:

 Current badger vaccination deployment projects

 Possible approaches where TB-infected badgers can be removed

 Epidemiology in badger populations and

 What effect badger vaccination will have on cattle TB.

47. There was a common belief in all the workshops that evidence of vaccine efficacy (the ability to produce a desired or intended result) would increase uptake of badger vaccination by farmers. 48. There was a general feeling that vaccination is not useful in areas of high infection but could have

some value in areas of low infection. It would be most effective when deployed over large areas in conjunction with other measures such as testing and removing infected badgers. Indeed, the removal of infected and vaccination of uninfected badgers was the preferred overall solution with most promise.

49. When asked what new things need to happen to increase the uptake of badger vaccination, the need for a strategic approach was most frequently mentioned, followed by evidence of vaccine efficacy and better communication and education around this issue.

(9)

7

Workshop findings

50. In total, 17 vets together with 32 other people from the landowning / farming community attended the three workshops in Derbyshire, Cheshire and Dorset. The word-for-word reports for each consultation (Annexes 1, 2 and 3) have been used to provide the following analysis.

Cost of bTB

51. The cost of bTB to farmers was described by workshop participants as mainly financial:

 Labour

 Time and cost of testing

 Limited compensation

 Disruption to the business (loss of breeding stock, limited stock sales, attending shows, loss of production, and reduced profitability).

52. Half the responses to a cost questionnaire referenced general financial cost, ranging from £4,000 to £250,000 per year. However, 37% of respondents mentioned significant non-financial personal costs from stress, emotional upset, mental health and physical injury through TB testing.

Willingness to pay for badger vaccination

53. When asked what they would be willing to pay for badger vaccination, 17% of respondents would be willing to pay a small amount. For example, “£50 per badger per year” or “£250 per 100 acres” and one response quoted “£10,000 per farm”. However, 31% of respondents would not be willing to pay anything and 34% needed more proof of the efficacy of badger vaccination before they would be willing to pay.

Current and potential funding sources

54. The majority (74%) of responses considered Defra’s Badger Vaccine Fund offer of 50% grant for the first year of vaccination to be either no or insufficient incentive. 31% thought the

Government should provide more funding and that the grant should cover the entire vaccination programme.

55. The Government was identified by 17% as a source of additional funding and 29% suggested wildlife charities or voluntary organisations. Other sources of funding mentioned included the European Union, Natural England, environmental pressure groups, drug companies, industry levies, public donation, and the entertainment industry.

Delivery of badger vaccination

56. When asked who could carry out the vaccination, a wide range of people including agricultural students, veterinary professionals and farmers were proposed but training and people’s capacity to offer time seemed to be essential requirements.

57. Although there was recognition that using volunteers to vaccinate would enable well-meaning people to help and reduce the cost of deployment, there was concern that volunteers may not be reliable, effective or committed for the long term. There was also a general lack of trust of unknown people working on the land, confidentiality concerns around data held on badger sett

(10)

8 locations and worries about disruption to the farming business. One participant thought “the type of person who wants to do this is the least favourite type of person a farmer wants on land.” (Annex 2).

58. Continuity of volunteers would help build trust in farmers, as would the vetting, training and auditing of volunteers plus accreditation by an independent body. A paid co-ordinator was proposed (Annex 2) who could take on the responsibility for volunteer co-ordination, confidentiality, insurance and any other matters arising (Annex 3).

The role of vets and farmers

59. When asked what vets and farmers could do to help implement a badger vaccination

programme, vets were identified as a potential source of education for farmers, but only those with the right skills and information. They could also offer advice to farmers about where to vaccinate based on the local situation, possibly as part of the farm health plan. Vets have the potential to offer technical support, quality control, help with facilitation and logistical support such as vaccine storage. There was recognition that farmers offer local knowledge and a call for responsibility for disease control in wildlife to be devolved to the farm level.

Co-ordination of badger vaccination activity

60. When asked who could best co-ordinate badger vaccination, several references were made to the AHVLA (Annex 1); one person mentioned an independent organisation funded by

Government (Annex 2); and one person suggested the veterinary companies that win TB testing contracts (Annex 3). Other comments suggested voluntary deployment would be patchy and Government should “foot the bill” (Annex 1).

Knowledge and evidence

61. The complex nature of this disease is reflected in the wide variation in the level of knowledge amongst interested parties. It would be fair to say that people retain many ‘half-truths’, incorrect information, or only a small proportion of the data (Annex 1, 2 and 3).

62. There was a real appetite for more information about:

 The practicalities of badger vaccination

 BadgerBCG efficacy

 Long term effect on badger populations

 Surveillance of bTB in badger populations

 Future measures such as an oral bait vaccine or the TVR (test and vaccinate or remove) approach.

63. There was also a call for data to be released and analysed from previous and current deployment projects, such as the Welsh Intensive Action Area (IAA) and the English Badger Vaccine Deployment Project (BVDP), so that the evidence gap around the effect of badger vaccination on cattle TB can be considered.

(11)

9

Additional resource requirements

64. When asked what resources could help, requests for funding were most numerous. Strategic co-ordination, a suitable workforce, evidence around the effect of badger vaccination on cattle TB, support from vets (plus potential involvement of vet students) and correct information, freely available to all, were also mentioned.

Maximising the effectiveness of vaccination

65. Farmers and vets considered a targeted, co-ordinated approach to be the most effective, where vaccination is joined up and targeted to areas of low bTB incidence. Vaccination was also considered to be most effective when used in combination with other measures (in particular culling infected badgers).

66. There was a general impression that vaccination is of little use where bTB infection is high and that it wouldn’t work very well without a skilled workforce. Some people thought vaccination would be most likely to be effective when deployed in smaller, or healthy (TB free) badger populations. One comment also mentioned a need to start charging for vaccination rather than “relying on donors to keep funding” (Annex 3).

67. To optimise vaccination in practice, co-ordination was considered important: having the right (skilled, trusted) people in the right place (targeted over large areas or where there is a low level of infection) and being organised (liaising with groups of farmers) so economies of scale could be achieved. Using vaccination in combination with other measures seemed preferable too. One comment identified a need for “the will to investigate what a joined up vaccination programme would cost and whether that [would] be cost effective on a county approach.” (Annex 2). 68. Many participants felt they didn’t have enough information to say what was working well, or felt

that nothing was.

69. There was a general feeling that evidence of vaccine efficacy was required, and that this would result in greater uptake by farmers. Many comments referred to research and development – an oral or improved vaccine, sett side test for TB (for a TVR approach) and marking of badgers. 70. It was suggested that an independent body should be set up to deliver the TB eradication

strategy (Annex 2) and several comments referred to the need for a collaborative approach involving all stakeholders.

Increasing the uptake of vaccination

71. When asked what new things need to happen to increase the uptake of badger vaccination, a strategic approach was most frequently mentioned. One person identified the need for

commitment from Government in terms of funding and a clearly communicated strategy (Annex 2). Evidence of vaccine efficacy and better communication and education around this issue were also frequently mentioned. It was recommended by one person that information comes from a cross party group of independent, respected academics (Annex 2).

(12)

10

Preferred solutions

72. The preferred solution for farmers/landowners and vets was the removal of infected badgers and vaccination of uninfected animals.

73. Other solutions with most promise include:

 A co-ordinated badger vaccination strategy (with a particular suggestion to analyse the cost to farmers and the economy of not vaccinating – as opposed to the benefit of vaccinating through reduced TB costs – and act accordingly) (Annex 2)

 More research into Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing

 Evidence of vaccine efficacy

 Progress on oral vaccine

 Independent scientific investigation of TB prevalence in badger populations to target vaccination where it is likely to be most effective

 Proper funding from Government.

74. Many comments also suggested a need for better communication, bringing together polarized groups and education to help convince people to vaccinate.

(13)

11

Results: consultation of the voluntary sector

Summary

75. There is enthusiasm and a desire to help within the voluntary sector, which creates the perception of a ‘free’ source of labour. However there is some concern over the capacity of volunteers to vaccinate enough badgers (Annex 4) and the quality of people volunteering for the long term (Annex 6). There is also a concern that the farming community perceives volunteers as “amateurs” (Annex 4 and 6).

76. In general there was a call from voluntary groups for more up front knowledge of what’s involved, for more training in the practical aspects of vaccine deployment and ongoing support for lay vaccinators. The costs of setting up a vaccination programme (equipment, training, licensing) are a real barrier to greater uptake.

77. There was recognition of a “them and us” situation and a call for more communication and better dialogue to understand each other’s viewpoints, build trust and develop confidence. The role of the NFU, vets and Government in advocating badger vaccination was repeatedly mentioned.

78. There was consensus that voluntary organisations should be involved in badger vaccination but not all participants thought these organisations should lead the co-ordination of vaccination projects. In contrast to vets and farmers, the voluntary sector did not believe vaccination would work well where culling was happening or where it was subsequently going to happen.

79. The best solution was perceived as everyone working collaboratively to a co-ordinated vaccination strategy with adequate funding and support from Government (and no culling of badgers).

80. It is also worth noting the prospect of a badger cull has boosted local badger group membership and as a result the number of active members has increased. However, this motivation for volunteering does not engender trust within the farming community as such volunteers are perceived as potentially disruptive.

(14)

12

Workshop findings

81. In total, 43 people from a range of voluntary organisations attended the three workshops in Derbyshire, Cheshire and Dorset. The word for word reports for each consultation (Annexes 4, 5 and 6) have been used to provide the following analysis.

Pros and cons of using volunteers

82. The enthusiasm, commitment, expertise and desire of volunteers to do something to help were all considered to be benefits of using volunteers to deliver badger vaccination, as were the reduction in costs for farmers. There was concern amongst two of the three workshop groups about being perceived by the farming community as amateurs (Annex 6) or lacking credibility (Annex 4). Volunteers will be juggling vaccination work with other commitments and, when thinking about the scale of the task, one group questioned whether volunteers could vaccinate enough badgers (Annex 4). Another mentioned the amount of work involved and the need for people to be there for the long haul (Annex 6). Cost of training, licensing and equipment seemed to be a barrier, as did not having information in advance of what would be involved. 83. A central co-ordinator was proposed as a solution to some of the problems; a specific example

quoted was the Deer Initiative, which has a central body to recruit, train and co-ordinate people to control deer (Annex 4). More funding for training, equipment and expenses as well as more information about the process were also proposed.

Working well with farmers

84. When asked what could help volunteers work well with farmers, the majority of workshop attendees were calling for increased dialogue and understanding of each other’s viewpoints so that trust could be developed. Training in how to engage with farmers and resolution of conflict were identified as a way of building confidence in volunteers, and positive endorsement from trusted organisations such as NFU and Government was considered important in influencing farmer uptake.

The role of vets and farmers

85. The voluntary sector representatives thought that vets and farmers / farming organisations could help a vaccination programme by raising awareness and promoting vaccination, as well as

engaging with voluntary groups. It was suggested that farmers could work together and provide practical support in the form of equipment, labour or facilities; and that vets could offer technical support (store vaccine, offer advice, take sharps) or assist vaccinations.

Co-ordination of badger vaccination activity

86. When asked who could best co-ordinate badger vaccination, several people considered a Government agency best but many thought it was a role for an independent body without any bias and free from political influence. There was recognition that voluntary organisations should be involved but not all participants thought that these organisations should lead. One comment suggested a private company might be better than volunteers as the scale of operations

(15)

13

Knowledge and evidence

87. Volunteers felt they knew a lot about badger vaccination but there was a clear desire to know more - for example about vaccine efficacy, badger ecology, licensing requirements and a source of unbiased facts.

88. Mentions of additional resource that could help included:

 Greater funding (in the form of reduced set up costs and vaccine supply). This could come from sponsorship, diverted cull budgets, Defra or any interested party.

 Co-ordination (from a paid co-ordinator)

 Better information (and a way to correct misinformation)

 More training (before the lay vaccinator course as well as more places on and more geographical locations of lay vaccinator training)

 Ongoing support and promotion of vaccination from Defra and vets

 Incentives for farmers to vaccinate

Maximising the effectiveness of vaccination

89. A more co-ordinated vaccination programme, targeted over large areas and in conjunction with cattle measures, was viewed as most effective. Advocacy from Government, NFU and vets was considered important, alongside the need for stakeholders to work together, and a sufficiently large and well organised workforce.

90. In contrast to vets and farmers, the voluntary sector did not believe vaccination would work well where culling was happening or was subsequently going to happen (due to the perturbation effect, risk of vaccinated animals being culled and anti-cull activism that could result in vandalism of traps). One person thought it was least likely to work where left entirely to volunteers (Annex 4).

91. Working effectively was considered to be dependent on good training and support; good

communication (to share best practice and to build relations with the farming community); being organised and co-ordinated (for example, to achieve economies of scale). One comment referred to the need for information on how much land could be covered and the timescales and manpower required to do so (Annex 4).

92. The collaborative approach taken in some areas was considered to be working well. Public support and the commitment and participation of volunteers were mentioned at every workshop. Some groups mentioned deployments in Wales, Somerset and other counties as working well (Annex 5 and 6).

93. More (and correct) communication, both within and between organisations, was deemed necessary to help things work better, along with sharing knowledge and best practice – a national conference for lay vaccinators was proposed by one person (Annex 4). Positive engagement with farmers, landowners and vets would also help, and vaccination demonstrations were suggested as a way of building trust. Government support and county or national co-ordination were also mentioned, with one comment making reference to a body just to promote vaccination (Annex 6).

(16)

14

Increasing the uptake of vaccination

94. When asked what new things need to happen to increase the uptake of badger vaccination, there were many suggestions for sharing knowledge and information between groups that are vaccinating. Greater dialogue, engagement (such as meetings organised by vets for clients or engaging large landowners) and communication with all stakeholders were considered vital to understand and educate each other, promote vaccination and build trust. More partnership working was also mentioned, as was developing a skilled workforce.

Preferred solutions

95. The preferred solutions for the voluntary sector were greater funding and a co-ordinated vaccination strategy.

96. Other solutions with promise include:

 A central resource to enable and support local groups (Annex 4)

 An understanding that co-ordination of disparate groups must be achieved (Annex 5)

 A badger vaccination information pack

 Stopping culling

 More communication / collaboration between interested parties

 Advocacy from farming / veterinary organisations and Government

(17)

15

Results: consultation of lay vaccinators

Summary

97. The AHVLA lay vaccinator course is highly regarded but trainees that have gone on to set up their own projects have identified a need for more training, initial information, skills mentoring, and ongoing support and advice. Some said there were no barriers to accessing the course, while others felt cost and location may provide a barrier. In addition, the limit on the number of available training places could prove a bottleneck to the wider deployment of badger vaccination. 98. When considering the wider deployment of BadgerBCG, most thought cost and lack of support

from landowners were the main barriers. The majority would be happy to join forces with others to cover large areas of ground but identified the need for a central co-ordinator to enable this to happen.

99. Less than a quarter had applied for match funding support from Defra’s Badger Vaccine Fund. There seems to be a lack of knowledge of this fund and the opening for applications in the middle of the vaccination season has made it difficult for people to plan ahead.

100. Those that are charging are doing so using various recharge methods, for example £25 per badger or £1,800-£3,660 / km2_{/ year.}

101. Lay vaccinators thought effectiveness relied on a targeted approach with better co-ordination supported by Government policy and promotion of vaccination. Greater uptake would be achieved with better support from Government, NFU and vets; reduced cost; and improved strategy and co-ordination.

Questionnaire findings

102. A total of 15 people provided responses to the lay vaccinator questionnaire (Annex 7). Responses were provided anonymously and came from volunteers, employees of voluntary sector organisations and commercial operations.

Feedback on AHVLA lay vaccinator training course

103. 87% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied that the AHVLA lay vaccinator training course covered all the information and skills required to start their own programme of deployment. However, 47% identified a need for additional training on pre-baiting, sett surveying, expert trapping techniques and paperwork. One person suggested the need for a project manager to handle the logistics of implementing a vaccination project, which generally requires many surveyors and trap handlers but fewer lay vaccinators (Annex 7).

104. 33% of lay vaccinators felt there was nothing that would prevent access to the course. Conversely, 33% thought that the cost of the course or lack of funding would prevent people from taking part and three people said the location of the training centre could be a barrier to uptake.

(18)

16 105. It was also suggested that the limit on the number of people that can be trained in a year,

and the lack of information on how to begin a vaccination project, would prevent people from taking part in the training course. One person suggested a ‘train the trainer’ approach to overcome the limit on training places.

Vaccination deployment

106. The 15 respondents had been working on their own land and public land, but mainly

privately owned land or nature reserves. When asked if there are any barriers to deployment of BadgerBCG, 80% said that there were; with 53% identifying costs or funding as a barrier and 27% identifying a lack of support from landowners.

107. Other suggested barriers to vaccination included:

 Lack of support from veterinarians and Government

 Lack of co-ordination of vaccination over large areas

 Lack of information / knowledge regarding the benefits of vaccination

 The licencing process.

108. One person thought getting landowners to value the service was a barrier; “because of the negative publicity landowners receive about badger vaccination they aren’t willing to pay for it, or if they do pay they don’t want to pay the true cost.” (Annex 7).

109. Proposed solutions for these barriers include a strategy for deployment, co-ordination and organisation of activity as well as greater support and belief from the farming industry,

veterinarians and Government (this could be achieved by dissemination of information about the benefits of vaccination by local vets as well as regional and national publications).

Working effectively with volunteers

110. There was a general feeling that lay vaccinators would be happy to work with volunteers (in fact some of the responses were from volunteers). However, one person wouldn’t as it would compromise their business. Of those that were happy to work with volunteers, 36% mentioned the need for vetting or good training.

111. 87% of lay vaccinators thought additional resources were required for volunteers to work effectively. Nearly half said that good quality training was needed - in particular, training in badger ecology, pre baiting, surveying, trapping, biosecurity and landowner engagement. 112. Other suggestions of resources required for volunteers to work effectively included:

 Funding for travel expenses

 A central resource of information (volunteer role descriptions, risk assessments, safe working practices etc.)

 Time for programme managers to co-ordinate groups

 Access to vehicles

 Storage facilities for equipment

(19)

17 113. One person identified the need for investment in nurturing volunteers to prevent them from

dropping out and thus risking the deployment scheme. Another respondent mentioned targeting of vaccination effort to areas set collaboratively by local TB Eradication Group / vaccination sub group.

Collaborative working

114. 93% of respondents would be prepared to work in partnership with others to cover a large area of land. However, one respondent would only be prepared to work with their own employees. 60% of respondents viewed good co-ordination or the presence of a central ‘co-ordinator’ as essential for effective collaboration, and 33% suggested shared resources/vehicles would enable this to work effectively.

Funding badger vaccination

115. 73% of respondents had not applied for any grant funds to support their vaccination

programme. Instead they funded the vaccination from sources including the District Council, the Badger Trust and public campaigns. 27% of respondents secured grant funding from several charities, the Welsh government, AHVLA (via the NGO 50% reduction in training costs) and Chester Zoo.

116. Four lay vaccinators (27%) had applied for support from Defra’s Badger Vaccine Fund. Suggestions for improvements included more help in applying for funding and the need for grant announcements to be made in a timelier manner so that accurate quotes of costs can be

provided to landowners.

Charging for badger vaccination

117. 73% of lay vaccinators that responded did not charge for vaccination of badgers (several of these responses were only vaccinating on their own nature reserves). Of those that are charging for vaccination, the price varied from £25 per badger to £3,660/km2_/year.

118. When asked how voluntary sector vaccination schemes could impact the market for commercial vaccinators, the response was mixed – some thought they could not operate in the same market, whereas others thought there would be room for both. One respondent thought commercial operators should work on large commercial farms, with volunteers focusing on non-commercial land such as council land. Another response was that “whilst non-government

organisations could reduce costs, committing to a five year programme you would have to ensure you could cover costs if all volunteers dropped out – this is a risk.” Another respondent thought “‘if the vaccination scheme is going to expand then commercial vaccinators are the only way forward, voluntary institutions could not cope” (Annex 7).

Sources of information

119. 87% of respondents sourced information about badger vaccination from the AHVLA; 27% from Defra, and 27% from Wildlife Trusts. Other sources of information included FERA, Welsh Government, Twitter, scientific papers, word of mouth, Natural England, and NFU’s TB free England website.

(20)

18 120. When asked if there is any other information they require, 27% of respondents said they

would like more information on the results of vaccination trials. Other information required included:

 Regular updates about the oral badger vaccine and cattle vaccine

 Details of the procedures/forms involved in vaccination

 Access to scientific papers.

121. A digital format of information was preferred by 27% of respondents (i.e. website, .pdf, email), whilst 7% preferred a leaflet format. 20% of lay vaccinators said that they required no other information about vaccination.

What’s working well?

122. 33% of lay vaccinators considered the practical delivery of vaccination to be working well. 123. Other areas considered to be working well include:

 Using volunteers for labour

 Passing on the experience and advice of others

 Auditing process

 Welsh Intensive Action Area

 Badger Vaccine Deployment Project

 Vaccination where there is support from the farming industry and veterinarians.

124. One respondent thought the Wildlife Trust schemes showing proactive best practice were working well “whilst other groups may be running schemes that are not entirely well thought through and perhaps risk the credibility of other vaccination efforts.” (Annex 7).

Maximising the effectiveness of badger vaccination

125. When asked what more needs to be done to help badger vaccination work more effectively, 33% of respondents thought more funding was necessary for farmer grants and

non-Government organisation delivery; 33% of respondents said better ordination/regional co-ordinators; 33% thought a targeted approach of large contiguous areas; and 33% said

Government promotion of vaccination or policy. One respondent thought “to kick-start badger vaccinations I think you definitely need the government fully behind a national rollout”. Another thought “information evenings/meetings for the farming community regarding the benefits of badger vaccination, especially farms in edge areas of high TB incidence” would help. One respondent asked “could Brian May’s BACVI funding be used to establish local TBEG vaccination sub groups who have pots of money to spend on professional vaccination?”

Improving uptake

126. When asked what would improve uptake of badger vaccination, 53% of respondents mentioned support from the government, NFU and veterinarians; 47% said more funding or reduced costs; and 27% thought an improved strategy/co-ordination would increase badger vaccination uptake. Other suggestions included more publicity/advertising of the vaccination programme and grants available, and communication of vaccination/dispelling myths within the farming community.

(21)

19

Results: training pilots

‘Badger survey’ training pilot

127. Although many of the voluntary groups involved in vaccination projects have great knowledge of badger ecology or badger protection issues, they have not often (or ever) been involved in extensive surveys of land for badger activity. Fieldwork and survey skills were highlighted during the stakeholder interviews and the consultation workshops as an area requiring more training.

128. A one-day training course in badger surveying for the purpose of vaccination was developed and delivered by Brock vaccination (a specialist commercial team undertaking badger vaccination across the UK) at Cheshire Wildlife Trust’s headquarters, which is also a working farm. It was attended by 10 participants from badger groups and Wildlife Trust volunteers.

129. The course consisted of three main areas:

 An introduction to badger ecology and field signs

 Map reading and recording information on maps

 Carrying out a survey and evaluating performance.

130. Course delegates were asked to complete an evaluation form at the end of the day to ascertain the value of the training for future vaccination deployments (Annex 8). All participants found the mix of classroom and field work just right. Most participants commented that the opportunity to put recently-learned skills into practice was most useful. They least enjoyed the weather, uneven terrain and having to climb over fences. There was a call for more time to practice and evaluate surveying, more information on mapping software, and seeing a trap being dug into position. All felt more confident to help out with a vaccination programme and six people said they would be willing to pay for the course, with amounts ranging from £25 to £100.

‘Engaging landowners’ training pilot

131. Voluntary sector organisations involved with badger vaccination collectively have a breadth of skills and expertise. However, a limited understanding of modern farming systems and practice was identified during the stakeholder interviews, and further highlighted by the consultation workshops.

132. A one-day training course was developed by Cheshire Wildlife Trust (with input from NFU and a TBEAG member) and delivered at the Trust’s headquarters, which is also a working farm. It was attended by twelve participants from Badger Groups, Wildlife Trusts, and independent vaccination enterprises.

133. The course consisted of three main areas:

 How to approach farmers and engage them with the vaccination process, including an empathy with the physical and emotional rigour involved with routine TB herd testing

 Establishing a code of conduct, rules of engagement and hints and tips about how to act and behave when working on farms

(22)

20

 Understanding livestock farming - the animals, crops and processes.

134. Course delegates were asked to complete an evaluation at the end of the day to ascertain the value of the training for future vaccination deployments (Annex 9). Their feedback

highlighted the information about farm work and terminology as particularly useful, as well as the videos shown about TB testing and slaughter and how to engage with farmers. One person found the section on how to approach farmers least useful and another person thought the section on crops and machinery least useful. Some participants would have liked the course to be a little longer with more detail about dealing with conflict with farmers, farming processes and reducing badger and cattle interactions.

135. The majority of participants reported feeling more confident and prepared to approach and work with farmers following the training. Seven participants would be prepared to pay from £10 to £100 for the course. The Net Promoter Score for the training course was +100, with six out of nine respondents being active promoters.

136. In addition, the following evaluation was provided by the NFU:

137. In order to improve the training course and satisfy the participants’ call for inclusion of more information on farming practices, volunteers should have more information on what to expect when accessing farmland and how to engage with landowners.

138. In the “understanding livestock farming” section, volunteers should have an awareness of the farming calendar, in order to gain an understanding of a farmer’s workload. The production cycles of different farming systems could be described in more detail (by each calendar month) and more images of the farm buildings involved in each part of the process would be useful (i.e. feed stores, cubicle housing, milking parlours, collecting yards, slurry and muck stores). The farming production cycles of beef suckler, beef finisher, dairy, and sheep should be included since farmers often have mixed holdings. Volunteers should also have an awareness of the normal appearance of livestock at different times of the year (for example, dairy cattle tend to be thinner than beef cattle, and it is not uncommon for sheep to be lame).

139. In the “establishing a code of conduct, rules of engagement and hints and tips about how to act and behave when working on farms” section, volunteers should be further educated in how to engage with landowners in order to gain their trust and develop professional relationships. This includes respect of farmland (e.g. closing gates, not damaging fencing, not walking through corn or mowing grass fields) and health and safety (e.g. awareness of machinery, tractors and livestock). It would also be useful to give practical advice on how to communicate with

landowners. For example, volunteers should ask landowners sensible questions that are relevant to the vaccination process (e.g. location of badger setts or where cars should be parked), give farmers feedback about badger activity/setts, not comment on farm yard/livestock health or cleanliness and compliment farmers’ land.

140. Regarding the biosecurity section of the training, volunteers should not be encouraged to discuss or give any advice on biosecurity measures to landowners. The volunteers should understand that biosecurity measures are tailored to each individual farm, and biosecurity measures that work on one farm will not necessarily be effective on another. It should be

(23)

21 emphasised that biosecurity measures are not just focused on reducing contact between cattle and badgers. These measures are also implemented in order to prevent cattle-to-cattle disease transmission, and disease introduction from other sources. Biosecurity measures involve:

 Livestock e.g. reduce disease risk from livestock movements (not just bTB risk), ensure holdings are secure, manage different groups of cattle in isolation, vaccinate cattle against other diseases, surveillance (testing) of cattle diseases and reduce or prevent cattle-to-cattle contact with contiguous herds.

 Equipment e.g. clean equipment shared with other farms.

 People e.g. clean boots of all farm visitors (vaccinators, vets, etc.).

 Wildlife e.g. prevent where possible direct and indirect contact with badgers, prevent cattle access to badger setts/latrines, prevent badger access to farm buildings.

(24)

22

An example of best practice – East Sussex

141. East Sussex has experienced repeated bTB herd breakdowns and, as a result, it is classed as a ‘High Risk Area’ by Defra’s Strategy for achieving Officially Bovine Tuberculosis Free status for England (April 2014). However, appetite for the culling of badgers amongst the farming

community is suspected to be very low. With this in mind, and the fact that East Sussex is separated geographically from other High Risk areas, there is interest in developing a different approach here.

142. A group of volunteers have come together to form the Sussex Badger Vaccination Project, with the aims of vaccinating badgers in East Sussex to maximum benefit and ideally providing proof of principle that it can be an effective measure in a High Risk Area. They have been supported by the ‘Enabling Badger Vaccine Deployment’ project to lay the foundations for a successful deployment programme.

143. Prior to any operations on the ground, the Sussex Badger Vaccination Project engaged key stakeholders and invested time in researching deployment requirements, fundraising and recruiting volunteers.

144. An initial meeting was held for the Sussex Badger Vaccination Project to introduce their aims to a broad stakeholder group and explore the opportunity to develop a radical approach to reducing bTB in East Sussex by using badger vaccination alongside existing cattle measures. Stakeholders included AHVLA, NFU, a dairy farmer, CLA, BVA, Sussex Wildlife Trust and a local farm animal veterinary practice. The role of each organisation in contributing to success of the project was highlighted and all parties agreed to support the project by forming the East Sussex Badger Vaccination Co-ordination Group.

145. Terms of reference for the group are being drawn up by Sussex Badger Vaccination Project with the following aims:

 To vaccinate as many badgers as possible in the East Sussex High Risk area over the next five to six years;

 To do so in the hope of seeing a reduction in the levels of bovine TB in badgers and of seeing a reduction in the prevalence of the disease in cattle;

 To contribute data to the national badger vaccination database.

146. Each party committed to contributing to the scoping of the deployment programme and to influencing landowners and farmers in the target area to support and join the programme. Where appropriate and possible, stakeholder organisations will also look to provide funding, or support funding applications to enable the programme and to help reduce costs for participating farmers. The Sussex Badger Vaccination Project will be responsible for project management and carrying out the fieldwork in collaboration with relevant parties.

147. This model of a broad coalition of organisations coming together to drive forward a programme of deployment should be encouraged in other counties.

(25)

23

Discussion: developing proposals for overcoming barriers to

BadgerBCG deployment

Evidence of effect of badger vaccination on cattle TB

148. Farmer confidence in badger vaccination is currently undermined by a lack of sufficient evidence that vaccinating badgers will contribute to the eradication of TB in cattle. More than a third of responses to the cost questionnaire referenced the need for proof of efficacy of vaccine before respondents would be willing to pay anything for badger vaccination (Annex 1, 2 and 3). This call for evidence was a common thread in the stakeholder interviews and consultation workshops.

149. Proof of efficacy is central to the development of a long-term business model for badger vaccination, to allow farmers to value vaccination as a tool / service, and voluntary groups to truly represent their costs. The current situation is not sustainable, since the reluctance of farmers to pay for badger vaccination is resulting in local vaccination groups cutting costs as much as possible. This approach doesn’t account for the costs of maintaining a long-term volunteer workforce - recruiting, managing and providing ongoing support for volunteers; fuel costs; replacing or maintaining capital items such as equipment and vehicles; insurance; affiliation costs; and member communication.

150. There is a need to make use of the data from existing vaccine deployment projects to determine what benefits, if any, badger vaccination has upon the incidence of TB in cattle. Such information would enable landowners and farmers to clarify the impact that vaccination could have on their business, conduct a cost / benefit analysis for their own circumstances, and go a long way to overcome issues of confidence in the vaccine. It would also provide clarification for vets and AHVLA staff working at the farm level and enable the provision of evidence-based advice. It is the one factor that could make a huge difference to the uptake of badger vaccination.

151. However, although there is a significant, and growing, body of evidence from existing vaccination deployments – such as the Intensive Action Area in Wales, the Badger Vaccine Deployment Project in Gloucestershire and the National Trust’s Killerton project in Devon – these projects were not designed to demonstrate the impact of badger vaccination on cattle TB and are being conducted on a relatively small scale compared to the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. As a result, there may not yet be enough data to conduct the robust scientific analysis required to detect an effect in cattle. Nevertheless, the potential for useful analysis should be explored and it will be important to put in place measures to capture and analyse relevant data from future vaccination deployments.

(26)

24

Co-ordination

152. Defra’s Strategy for achieving ‘Officially Bovine Tuberculosis Free’ status for England (April 2014) describes how support for badger vaccination will be focused on the Edge Area (the buffer zone between the geographically determined high risk and low risk areas of England).

153. However, many groups are actively developing and delivering projects in their locality, which may be anywhere in England. They are doing so, in some cases, without consideration of the bigger picture. They are working wherever they can, often without considering how they might work collaboratively with other groups for greater benefit. A network or company structure may be more effective than numerous individual groups.

154. Co-ordination of vaccination effort will be essential to enable effective use of limited

resources, to develop a collaborative approach, and to determine the most cost-effective use of Government and other investors' funds to support vaccination initiatives.

155. A national badger vaccination co-ordinator (or co-ordinating team), to be employed within the AHVLA team who have gained expertise and credibility in this by running the Badger Vaccine Deployment Programme, will enable local voluntary group activity to be focused in areas where there is greatest need and so ensure the most effective use of a limited resource.

156. The co-ordinator(s) could proactively recruit, support and oversee the development of new initiatives in areas deemed to be of high priority; and reactively offer support and guidance to existing groups or new groups starting up in other areas. The coordinator post would be responsible for ensuring the sustainability of effort by considering the succession of volunteer labour, how best to manage and support existing groups and how to encourage a more business-like approach.

157. The post would also work to build skills hubs in each county, so ultimately each new initiative could be referred to skilled personnel locally. After an initial capacity-building phase, the need for a national coordinator would diminish as local hubs became established. Ideally, in each county, groups should be working to raise funds to support a paid, professional county co-ordinator responsible for all aspects of the fieldwork programme. Funds could be raised by a levy on each hectare vaccinated or in-kind match from organisations.

158. On a more practical note, the national co-ordinator(s) could consider economies of scale such as developing a shared equipment source; providing transportation to site; centralised disinfection facilities or purchasing and storage of BadgerBCG.

159. There has been much debate about whether a voluntary sector organisation could lead the wide scale deployment of BadgerBCG. There is currently no capacity to do this.

160. With that in mind, the national co-ordinator(s) should be responsible to an independent steering group with representation from all stakeholders that want a holistic approach to tackling TB. The co-ordinator(s) should be well connected to both national representatives and local networks to enable the most effective approach, which may differ in each county. They should be supported at the county level by vaccination champions (preferably with farming

(27)

25 backgrounds) who could take on some of the logistics, skills development, establishing best practice and developing a collaborative approach.

Developing a large, competent workforce

161. Whilst the wealth of experience, time and knowledge within the voluntary sector should be applauded, the resource required to vaccinate over large areas should not be underestimated. Many volunteers have expertise in badger ecology but are unfamiliar with the gruelling physical nature of a vaccination programme, working in the farmed environment and offering the time required over an extended period (e.g. many will have volunteered in the past for the odd day here and there).

162. Emphasis should be placed upon providing information so that groups have an idea in advance of what is involved. To that end, a badger vaccination toolkit should be developed to include:

 All the information required to start a deployment project including costs, timescales and the training and equipment required

 Examples of best practice deployments with contact details for all stakeholders

 The benefits of vaccination and an overview of the process

 Frequently asked questions factsheet

 A code of practice and guidance on how to work professionally on other people’s land

 A template service level agreement for the vaccination provider and landowner to ensure professionalism is maintained

 Sample access agreements and liability / data protection contracts

 Data management systems

 Information on funding opportunities

 Where to get support and information from.

163. A badger vaccination website could be used to provide the toolkit as a downloadable resource. In addition, an online forum for sharing best practice could also be developed and administered on this website by the national co-ordinator(s). This website could also provide a single, central source of all the latest information and research, so that it is the most up to date and accurate information available (see Information exchange p.29). This will enable everyone to gain a realistic understanding of the benefits and capacity of a vaccination programme, which will in turn assist the credibility of vaccination programmes by setting realistic targets.

164. The competence of volunteers needs to be developed through a training programme. It is generally agreed that the AHVLA team that delivered the BVDP holds the expertise required to deploy BadgerBCG over large areas and the lay vaccinator course is held in high regard. This capacity should be maintained for the future so there is a training facility for lay vaccinators, a mechanism to audit activity, collate data and provide ongoing technical support.

165. In the past, the BVDP was able to provide places for 50 lay vaccinators annually and this is a potential bottleneck. However, many of the previous course delegates have not gone on to vaccinate badgers. Consideration should be given to diversifying the training so that interested people can get involved at various levels. This would provide training for the majority and allow

(28)

26 places on the lay vaccinator course to be reserved for those ready to start deploying. A

registration interview could be used to prioritise places.

166. With this in mind, and the fact that nearly half of lay vaccinators interviewed identified a need for additional training, recognised bodies (those that have undergone a quality assurance assessment by AHVLA to ensure they are able to deliver to the required standard) could deliver the following one day training courses (in addition to the lay vaccinator course):

a. Surveying for badgers. Arguably the most important part of the process. Such training will improve efficiency and manage the expectations of farmers around badger numbers as well as confidence in volunteers. The course should include a thorough introduction to badger field signs, map reading and recording signs on maps, a guided survey then a chance to practice and evaluate identification skills.

b. Badger trap placement and pre-baiting. This course should be aimed at volunteers who will be supporting a lay vaccinator by placing and baiting traps in their local area. It would improve capture rates and provide continuity of the person baiting, so building trust with the landowner. It would also enable one lay vaccinator to have multiple trap rounds in progress. The course should cover the basics of getting badgers on the bait, then reliably into the back of the trap. It could also cover how to deal with non-target species and how to cope with difficult badgers.

c. Engaging landowners; working on farms and with farmers. Such training could be developed at a county level by interested parties. This would go a long way to building trust between the farming community and voluntary sector and confidence in those volunteers going onto farms. The course could include a beginner’s guide to farming; where and how to start approaching farmers; what bTB means to the farming business; how to work professionally on farms; and confidentiality considerations.

d. Practical farm walks. Farmers could be offered incentives to open their landholding as a demonstration farm to host visits for the voluntary sector to learn in a practical sense about farming with TB.

e. Continuing professional development (CPD). A fund could be made available for AHVLA staff (or experienced commercial vaccinators who have undergone a quality assurance assessment by AHVLA) to provide a mentoring service for lay vaccinators through their first season of setting up a deployment programme. This could include fieldwork and

administration / planning. This would greatly enhance the efficiency of projects and, in doing so, build confidence within the farming community. Consideration should also be given to AHVLA staff providing a troubleshooting service.

167. Some groups have identified the location of the current lay vaccinator training to be a barrier (Annex 4, 5, 6 and 7) and so a cost / benefit analysis should be undertaken by AHVLA to assess the merits of satellite training grounds or a ‘train the trainer’ approach. These new training grounds could be set up by AHVLA (with landowners paying a contribution for the

(29)

27 service) and used to train lay vaccinators from that locality for the first year, who would then continue the deployment of vaccine in that area.

168. In addition to information and training requirements, many groups have identified a need for financial support (see Consultation of voluntary sector p.10) for training, equipment, licensing and ongoing support. As the costs associated with setting up a deployment project are prohibitive for some groups, savings should be made through economies of scale (reduced equipment costs due to bulk buying), an equipment loan service and better co-ordination (see Coordination p.24). Grants could be offered to support training (both providers and participants) and ongoing support (see above). Support and guidance on how to secure additional funding could be given in the vaccination toolkit (see above).

169. Farmers, farm workers, students and vets could also supplement the voluntary workforce. This will be reliant on groups having access to best practice examples (potentially through the vaccination toolkit) and being linked into a county network (through the national co-ordinator supported by county champions).

170. In the long term, volunteers could be paired up with commercial contractors but this model is dependent on farmers being able to quantify the benefit from investing in vaccination (see

Evidence of effect of badger vaccination on cattle TB p.23).

Gaining access to land

171. Wide scale deployment projects are entirely dependent on landowner permission and co-operation. Evidence shows this consent will not be given unless landowners are confident in the vaccine and the workforce doing the job, and they are not currently willing to pay (see

Consultation of vets and farmers / landowners p.5).

172. Currently there is very little confidence within the farming community in badger vaccination as a disease management tool. To overcome this, a research project should analyse any existing data on vaccine deployment to quantify the effects, if any, in cattle. Without proof of efficacy it will be difficult to get farmers to buy into, and value, vaccination; something that will be essential for greater roll out and maintaining effort in the long term (see Evidence of effect of badger vaccination on cattle TB p.23)).

173. Negative publicity around vaccination could also be preventing farmers from being willing to pay for it (Annex 7) (see Information exchange p.29).

174. The consultation outputs from this project provide further support for the findings of social research carried out as part of the BVDP in 2012. Farmers in this study were cautious about badger vaccination and a vast majority believed it was not their responsibility to pay for it. Further analysis was suggested to assess which factors are significant in shaping farmers’ opinions, so the relationship between trust and confidence in badger vaccination can be explored (Endicott et. al 2012)1_.

1

Endicott, G., Maye, D., Ilbery, B., Fisher, R. & Kirwan, J. (2012) Farmers’ confidence in vaccinating badgers against bovine tuberculosis.

Enabling Badger Vaccine Deployment