South Africa is fighting Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) by creating special disease-free zones, improving vaccine supplies, and building better rural infrastructure like abattoirs. Leaders recently met to face tough challenges caused by slow government response and broken systems that hurt farmers and trade. By learning from other countries and working together with scientists, the government, and the private sector, South Africa hopes to protect its livestock, restore markets, and build a stronger, smarter defense against future outbreaks. This new teamwork aims to keep animals healthy and secure jobs for many people who depend on farming.
What is South Africa doing to control and prevent Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD)?
South Africa is combating FMD by adopting regionalisation to contain outbreaks, improving vaccine preparedness through public-private partnerships, investing in rural infrastructure like abattoirs, and enhancing research collaboration. These steps aim to restore export markets, strengthen biosecurity, and ensure sustainable livestock health management.
A Gathering Amid Crisis: Recognizing the Stakes
At dawn on a brisk winter morning, leaders across South Africa’s livestock and veterinary sectors convened for the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) Indaba—a scene reminiscent of historic assemblies where looming crises demanded urgent action. Beyond the formalities and professional introductions, a palpable sense of anxiety lingered in the air. The threat facing South Africa’s livestock industry is not solely a viral outbreak, but an institutional challenge: the sluggishness of bureaucracy and a fractured system of authority have left a key sector vulnerable.
John Steenhuisen, stepping up as both a pragmatist and a visionary, did not shy away from frank critique. His opening speech exposed uncomfortable truths—FMD’s resurgence was not just a matter of biology, but a symptom of systemic neglect. Delayed vaccines, muddled communication, and shifting protocols underscored a deeper malaise. The nation’s response to FMD, like public health crises elsewhere, found itself mired in outdated systems facing modern complexities.
Behind these operational struggles lies a legacy of complacency. For years, South Africa’s protocols and infrastructure failed to adapt to changing threats. Now, as FMD resurfaces, the true cost emerges—not just in lost livestock or closed markets, but in shaken confidence and livelihoods put at risk.
The Ripple Effects: Economic and Global Consequences
FMD’s impact extends far beyond the farm gate. As word of outbreaks spread, South Africa’s vital export markets slammed shut. Unlike regions such as the European Union, which have implemented regionalisation policies to isolate affected areas and safeguard the rest, South Africa’s inability to designate and defend disease-free zones led to an all-encompassing shutdown. This decision left thousands of jobs in limbo, as entire communities dependent on livestock exports suffered the fallout.
Steenhuisen’s remarks highlighted the erosion of trust—both within South Africa’s agricultural community and among global partners. Years spent building a reputation for quality and reliability in livestock products unraveled almost overnight. The damage, he argued, extended beyond short-term financial losses. South Africa’s credibility as a trade partner now hangs in the balance, as other nations re-evaluate their willingness to engage with a country perceived as administratively unprepared for disease threats.
This episode offers a sobering lesson: delays and poor coordination in crisis response invariably magnify costs. Swift, transparent action is not just a moral imperative but an economic necessity in a globalized, competitive world.
Embracing Regionalisation: Learning from Global Leaders
Adopting regionalisation stands out as a crucial reform. After World War II, countries like those in the European Union, Australia, and South America developed this approach to contain animal disease outbreaks—enabling unaffected regions to maintain trade and economic activity. The logic is simple: why should a localized outbreak jeopardize an entire nation’s economy?
South Africa’s lag in implementing regionalisation does not stem from a lack of expertise. Local veterinary scientists possess the knowledge and skills required. The bottleneck has come from bureaucratic complexity, unclear legal frameworks, and a shortage of resources. Steenhuisen’s introduction of Dr. Emily Mogajane and Dr. Nomsa Mnisi, both highly experienced in disease control and trade negotiations, signals an intention to break this impasse. Their task: establish recognized disease-free zones, streamline regulatory processes, and repair fractured lines of authority between provincial and national departments.
This renewed focus also includes improving response times for international trade certifications—a critical move, given that some export partners reportedly waited years for official responses. If successful, these changes could restore confidence and unlock new economic opportunities for the sector.
Strengthening Vaccine Preparedness: Building Resilience
The FMD outbreak also revealed a vulnerability that has plagued South Africa for years: insufficient access to critical vaccines. When the virus struck, the country’s only FMD vaccine reserves ran dry. The national manufacturer, Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP), lacked both the facilities and the capacity to meet sudden demands. This forced South Africa into the awkward position of sourcing emergency supplies from neighboring Botswana, costing precious time.
To address this, Steenhuisen outlined a plan rooted in collaboration. Stabilizing OBP, investing in new facilities, and forming public-private partnerships can transform vaccine procurement from a reactive to a proactive enterprise. He proposed that the livestock industry jointly fund vaccine stockpiles—not to manage the process directly, but to ensure that adequate supplies stand ready before the next crisis hits.
Other countries offer successful models. In Brazil, for instance, government and producers share costs for disease monitoring and vaccination, ensuring that both parties remain invested in the system’s effectiveness. By moving toward a similar model, South Africa can insulate itself from future shortages and regain control over its disease response.
Infrastructure and Movement: The Role of Rural Development
Controlling animal diseases depends not only on policy and science but also on the physical realities of the countryside. Rural regions often lack accessible abattoirs and feedlots, compelling farmers to transport animals—sometimes illegally—over long distances. Such movements compromise surveillance and make containment nearly impossible.
Steenhuisen’s pledge to invest in new abattoirs and feedlots in provinces like Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, and Mpumalanga marks a strategic shift. These facilities will provide legal, regulated markets closer to where animals are raised, discourage illicit trade, and strengthen disease monitoring at the local level. Experiences from other countries, such as Nigeria, have shown that targeted infrastructure investments can transform both public health and local economies.
Integrated planning around infrastructure, veterinary services, and enforcement stands as a cornerstone of a modernized biosecurity system. Without it, even the best scientific and policy interventions risk falling short.
The Engine of Progress: Science, Research, and Collaboration
Long-term victory over FMD and other animal diseases lies in robust research. Steenhuisen noted the revitalization of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC), which after years of stagnation, now enjoys budget surpluses and renewed energy. However, government alone cannot carry the burden of research and innovation.
Global success stories point to partnerships between universities, industry, and government as the main drivers of breakthrough technologies in animal health. The Netherlands, for example, has pioneered research hubs that bridge knowledge gaps and accelerate innovation. By channeling statutory levies into collaborative projects with organizations like the ARC and the University of Pretoria’s Biosecurity Hub, South Africa can build a research ecosystem equipped to tackle both current and future challenges.
This approach will not only enhance disease response but also support climate adaptation and other pressing issues facing the livestock sector. By fostering a culture of shared investment and open innovation, the country can position itself at the forefront of agricultural science in the region.
A New Compact: Shared Responsibility for a Secure Future
The primary takeaway from the Indaba was not blame, but the necessity for a collective sense of responsibility. Effective disease control demands strong provincial action, coordinated national leadership, and an empowered veterinary workforce. Crucially, it also requires that the private sector sees biosecurity not as a regulatory hurdle, but as the foundation for economic resilience and growth.
This spirit of collaboration mirrors the ethos of 19th-century agricultural reformers, who understood that public and private interests often align. By working together, government and industry can create durable systems capable of withstanding not only outbreaks, but the broader shocks of a changing world.
Personal stories shared by veterinarians—of anxious waits for official guidance or last-minute vaccine deliveries—drive home the real human stakes. Every decision in the coming months will shape not just markets and herds, but the future of rural communities and the nation’s place in the global economy.
South Africa’s FMD experience, then, offers more than a cautionary tale. It presents an opportunity: to overhaul outdated structures, invest in research and preparedness, and forge a new, resilient partnership between all who rely on the health of the nation’s livestock. In the crucible of crisis, South Africa can build the trust, agility, and innovation needed to secure its agricultural future for generations to come.
What steps is South Africa taking to control and prevent Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD)?
South Africa is implementing several strategies to combat FMD, including establishing special disease-free zones through regionalisation, improving vaccine supplies by strengthening public-private partnerships, investing in rural infrastructure such as abattoirs and feedlots, and enhancing research collaboration among government, academia, and the private sector. These combined efforts aim to protect livestock health, restore export markets, and build a more resilient biosecurity system.
Why has South Africa struggled with Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreaks in recent years?
The resurgence of FMD in South Africa has been exacerbated by systemic issues such as slow government response, bureaucratic delays, broken communication channels, and outdated infrastructure. Vaccine shortages and fragmented authority between provincial and national departments further hindered timely and effective disease control. This institutional neglect has not only resulted in livestock losses but also damaged trade relationships and farmers’ livelihoods.
What is regionalisation, and how can it help South Africa manage FMD more effectively?
Regionalisation is a disease control approach that designates specific geographic areas as disease-free or infected, allowing unaffected regions to continue trading and economic activities even during outbreaks. Countries like those in the European Union and Australia have successfully used regionalisation to contain FMD and minimize economic disruption. South Africa aims to adopt regionalisation by officially recognizing disease-free zones, streamlining regulatory processes, and improving coordination between national and provincial authorities to prevent nationwide shutdowns.
How is South Africa addressing vaccine shortages for Foot-and-Mouth Disease?
The country is working to stabilize and expand capacity at its national vaccine manufacturer, Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP), including investing in new facilities. South Africa is fostering public-private partnerships where the livestock industry contributes to creating and maintaining vaccine stockpiles. This proactive approach is designed to ensure sufficient vaccine availability before future outbreaks, reducing reliance on emergency imports from neighboring countries.
What role does rural infrastructure play in controlling Foot-and-Mouth Disease?
Adequate rural infrastructure, such as accessible abattoirs and feedlots, is crucial for disease control because it reduces the need for long-distance, sometimes illegal, animal movements that can spread infections. By investing in these facilities in key provinces like Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, and Mpumalanga, South Africa aims to provide regulated, local markets for livestock. This enhances surveillance, supports legal trade, and strengthens containment efforts.
How is scientific research and collaboration contributing to South Africa’s fight against FMD?
Scientific research is central to long-term disease control. Revitalizing institutions like the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) and partnering with universities such as the University of Pretoria’s Biosecurity Hub enable South Africa to develop innovative tools and strategies for FMD management. Collaborative research efforts foster innovation, improve vaccine technologies, support climate adaptation, and build an integrated knowledge base that benefits the livestock sector’s resilience and sustainability.
