(Photo: Provided)
-
The state insists on control, but lacks the capacity to carry it out. The breakout points to that gap.
-
Farmers are the first line of defence, but are treated as spectators in a crisis they are supposed to manage.
-
FMD spreads quickly; bureaucracy does not – and South Africa pays the price.
-
This is no longer just an agricultural crisis, but a test of whether the state can act quickly, with trust and shared responsibility.
South Africa’s struggle to stop the spread of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) points to a deeper problem than just the outbreak itself: It points to the lack of cooperation between the state and farmers.
The state insists on control over the response to the disease, but does not have the capacity to carry it out effectively and the outbreak shows this gap more and more clearly, says Prof. Bismark Tyobeka, rector and vice-chancellor of the North-West University.
Farmers, who form the first line of defence, are meanwhile treated like spectators in a crisis that they have to manage themselves.
However, Tyobeka warns that state-led intervention does not succeed without those at the grassroots level.
“Farmers are not passive stakeholders in this crisis. They are the first line of detection, the custodians of livestock movements and the practical implementers of control measures. Excluding them from meaningful participation slows response times and weakens enforcement where it matters most.”
He warns that it is a misconception to think that the outbreak can be controlled without farmers’ knowledge and input.
“They have the expertise, experience and an understanding of their sector.”
Tyobeka poses several key questions: Why are farmers no longer fully integrated into the disease control response? Why are livestock diseases considered something that the state “owns” rather than co-manages? Can a system with limited veterinary capacity realistically control a rapidly spreading outbreak alone?
He refers to Argentina as an example where a hybrid model – with state control combined with strong farmer participation and coordinated vaccination campaigns – was successfully implemented after serious outbreaks in the early 2000s.
Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen’s signing of a memorandum of intent with his Brazilian counterpart, André Carlos Alves de Paula, is considered a step in the right direction. Brazil achieved BMS-free status last year and experts will soon visit South Africa to share their experience.
However, Tyobeka warns that the real value of this cooperation will be measured by how many livelihoods are protected, not by agreements that are signed.
“In provinces like the North West, livestock is not only an agricultural asset. It is a source of wealth, food and often a household’s primary economic security. An uncontrolled outbreak not only threatens exports, but also livelihoods in areas where unemployment already leaves few alternatives.”
A herd of cattle is vaccinated in Gauteng. (Photo: Provided)
The current system has been tested to its limit and found to be insufficient, says Tyobeka.
“Delays in vaccine distribution, movement restrictions and administrative bottlenecks show structural weaknesses in how disease control is organized. This is not just a failure to stop a virus, but a failure to align capacity with responsibility.”
South Africa already lost its BKS-free status in 2019 and has since experienced repeated outbreaks. According to Tyobeka, the urgent question is why the necessary countermeasures have not yet been introduced.
“Unless South Africa switches from control to cooperation, this outbreak could become bigger than an agricultural crisis. It could be a test of whether the country’s management model can respond when speed, trust and shared responsibility matter most.”