Govt’s M. bovis response criticised

Published date24 June 2021
Publication titleSouthland Express
On July 22, 2017, the disease — which can have serious effects on cattle, including mastitis, abortion, pneumonia and arthritis — was confirmed in New Zealand, triggering the country’s largest and most expensive biosecurity response.

The response came at a cost — not only the whopping price tag of the eradication plan but also the very real human and animal toll the disease took.

The study, which looked at the psychosocial impact of M. bovis on rural communities in the south, revealed the enduring emotional cost of a ‘‘badly planned and poorly executed process’’, which left farming families feeling isolated, bewildered and powerless.

A dominant theme of the research was the ‘‘intrusive, impractical and inhumane nature of the MPI (Ministry for Primary Industries) eradication programme in which local knowledge, expertise and pragmatism were ignored in favour of inefficient bureaucratic processes which made no sense to farmers’’, a statement said.

Others in the rural community, including veterinarians, felt their expertise was undervalued and their potential to positively contribute to the management of the outbreak was disregarded.

Extensive interviews were conducted with affected farmers in Otago and Southland.

The research was done by Dr Fiona Doolan-Noble, Dr Geoff Noller and Associate Professor Chrys Jaye, of the University of Otago’s department of general practice and rural health, and Southland veterinarian Mark Bryan.

On Monday night, the study team discussed its findings from the two-year project at a meeting in Winton.

One farmer interviewed said he quit the land because of the impact of the elimination programme and he could not recall the birth of a child because of the stress at the time.

The report noted another disease incursion was inevitable and solutions needed to be sought from within rural communities and then integrated into the relevant bureaucratic processes.

One of the MPI’s key principles, in terms of biosecurity, was fair restoration — ‘‘no better or worse’’.

The researchers believed fair restoration should apply not only to the financial impact on farmers but also to the effect on both the mental health of all involved and the social well-being of rural communities.

Their findings highlighted the current approach was not effective in those areas.

That schism was likely to widen in future incursions if attempts were not made to better match the centrally directed, inevitably bureaucratic processes with the needs of key local players...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT