DAERA Fivemiletown cattle cull review: Key findings

The review found that while the Department was justified in carrying out the court-ordered destruction of the herd, and the method of culling was considered humane, insufficient weight was given to the wider public impact of the operation.  

It concluded that DAERA had not properly anticipated the reaction to the large-scale cull which took place in open fields in mid-summer, with several animal carcases left exposed and members of the public witnessing events as they unfolded.  

The report, prepared by independent reviewer Martin Blake and submitted to the Agriculture Minister, Andrew Muir MLA, on November 5, identified shortcomings in the planning, governance, record-keeping and communication surrounding the operation on June 29 and 30.   

Mr. Blake found that the operation met the requirements of a legitimate aim and suitability, and substantially, met the test of necessity.  

However, it failed to adequately meet the final requirement of fair balance, due to insufficient administrative consideration had been given to shielding the local community from distressing scenes and narratives.  

The report stressed that this finding did not invalidate the decision to carry out the cull. Which was required to enforce a court-ordered deprivation order against a keeper convicted of multiple animal welfare offences.  

It also found that culling the cattle in their familiar surroundings using firearms was an appropriate method from an animal welfare perspective, avoiding the additional fear and distress associated with gathering and transporting animals unfamiliar with handling. 

But the reviewer said the Department had not sufficiently planned for the impact of carrying out such an operation in full view of the surrounding community. 

The report acknowledged that seeing animal carcases lying in open fields was inherently disturbing and that the public reaction reflected genuine concern for animal welfare. 

It found that the absence of early and clear information from DAERA allowed an information gap to develop, with public anxiety increasing as the operation attracted attention. 

The Department's communications approach was described as reactive, with a traditional privacy-first position leaving little official information available as the story developed.  

The reviewer said inaccurate reporting and emotive language went uncontested, further heightening public concern.  

It recommended that communications planning should become part of the preparation for future enforcement operations, including the development of information in advanced to explain the backgrounds and rationale for decisions. 

The review also identified a significant discrepancy between what senior officials and the Minister were told about the disposal of animal carcases and what was set out in the operational plan. 

A briefing indicated that DAERA would arrange for the carcases to be removed, whereas the operational arrangements placed responsibility on the landowner. 

The exposed carcases became one of the main sources of distress for members of the public, with the Department subsequently taking responsibility for their removal on the second day of the operation. 

Alongside the public impact, the report raised concerns about a change in the operation's plans on June 29. 

At around 1pm, a decision was taken to suspend the cull to allow a private buyer an opportunity to gather and purchase the remaining cattle. 

However, three additional animals were subsequently culled on one of the sites. The review states it was "unable to determine the precise circumstances", suggesting either miscommunication or an undocumented tactical decision. 

The report found that the change of plan introduced additional operational and reputational risks which had not been formally reassessed. 

Attempts by third parties to gather the remaining animals later that evening failed, with cattle becoming agitated, breaching boundary fencing and escaping onto a public road. 

An uncontained bull was subsequently culled in nearby forestry at around 9pm. 

The report also identified weaknesses in the recording of ear-tag numbers and secondary confirmation shots, making it more difficult to establish a complete record of the operation. 

On planning, the reviewer found that DAERA had not sufficiently considered whether the herd could have been removed in stages, rather than through a single large-scale operation. 

The report also highlighted the absence of a formal written policy specifically covering the implementation of post-conviction deprivation orders. Instead, staff had relied heavily on historical custom and practice. 

Ten recommendations have been made, including the introduction of a formal assessment of public impact before high-visibility enforcement operations, clearer management accountability, improved site-clearance procedures and better recording of operational decisions. 

The reviewer also recommended that future operations should include proactive communications plans and arrangements for the prompt removal of carcases, particularly where culling takes place near public roads or in locations visible to the community. 

The report concluded that the Fivemiletown operation was justified on legal, animal welfare and operational grounds, but that greater consideration should have been given to anticipating and mitigating the distress and misunderstanding experienced by local people.