236 P. Livingstone and N. Hancox
In New Zealand, a significant share of govern-
ment funding has been instrumental in the
effective implementation of a programme
requiring large-scale wildlife control and
management affecting multiple interests and
extending widely beyond cattle farming lands
(Livingstone et al., 2015b).
15.3.5 PlanningIn order to identify the most cost-effective strat-
egy for controlling TB in both cattle and wildlife
maintenance hosts, it is critical that a range of
options is considered, modelled and costed. The
ability to compare options will depend upon the
availability and accuracy of a variety of infor-
mation including: (i) research findings on the
geographic and temporal distribution of infec-
tion in wildlife; (ii) an understanding of the rela-
tionships between population densities and TB
prevalence levels in wildlife hosts, and the effects
of this for cattle TB incidence rates; (iii) the feasi-
bility and public acceptance of methods to con-
trol, contain or regionally eradicate infection
from wildlife, or methods to prevent transmis-
sion between infected wildlife and cattle; (iv)
modelling the interactions between wildlife and
cattle, and the options for, and effects of, control-
ling infection in wildlife populations; (v) detailed
costings for each control or management option;
and (vi) economic assessment of the benefits to
be gained under each option. Provided informa-
tion of reasonable quality is available to model
and cost these options, this will help to identify
those that are not acceptable, and to clarify fur-
ther research or data requirements for develop-
ing potentially acceptable strategic choices.
It is important at the initial planning stage
to identify up to four possible options that span
the control spectrum, together with associated
policies, likely costs and possible implications. A
summary of information on each option should
be presented to stakeholders, farming and wild-
life organizations, government agencies, politi-
cians and the wider public for them to consider.
At a point in time, however, a decision needs to
be made on a strategic way forward, even with-
out the unanimous agreement of affected par-
ties. An extreme option may be to forego cattle
farming in defined areas until TB can be eradi-
cated locally from the wildlife maintenance host.
An opposite extreme would be to eradicate the
wildlife species regionally and with it the wildlife
infection. After TB has also been eradicated from
the cattle population, the wildlife species could
be reintroduced from a known TB-free popula-
tion. Where the wildlife host is an invasive exotic
pest, such as the possum in New Zealand, lethal
population control is more likely to be a favour-
able option with major conservation benefits.
Where the host is a valued species, such as the
badger in the UK, planning and option develop-
ment will be more complex, but nevertheless, a
range of options need to be fully analysed and
costed. As identified earlier, presenting this
information provides all stakeholders with an
ability to see the modelled impacts of the costed
options, likely issues that may arise and an
insight as to how it will be financed. These can
be considered together with proposals to miti-
gate any relatively short-term impacts for wild-
life or cattle farmers.15.3.6 Benefit–cost analysisCompared with a cattle-only programme, model-
ling for benefit–cost analysis involving wildlife
management will be more intricate and
assumption- based, with likely longer time frames
and higher costs. It will require comparing costs
and benefits of various modelled options, includ-
ing a ‘no-control’ option. Wildlife management
in itself may have benefits or disbenefits that are
quite separate from solely disease-related out-
comes, but which also may be difficult to mea-
sure. Possum population control in New Zealand
reduces commercial fur hunting opportunities
but improves forest ecosystems and indigenous
biodiversity (Warburton and Livingstone, 2015).
The latter benefits were valued by public survey
of individual willingness to pay for the recovery
of selected native plant and animal species
expected to occur as a result of reduced possum
densities (Tait et al., 2017). Because of the likely
longer time frame to achieve TB objectives when
infection needs to be controlled in wildlife as well
as cattle, benefit–cost analyses are likely to pro-
vide strongly negative NPV results.