By Maile Matsimela
The third article in our series from the 2025 National Biosecurity Summit held recently at the University of Pretoria explores the critical yet often overlooked dimension of biosecurity: the socio-economic factors that drive human behaviour and decision-making. While technical solutions and regulatory frameworks are essential components of any biosecurity system, the panel discussion emphasised that understanding and addressing human motivations is equally important for developing effective and sustainable biosecurity measures.
One of the most powerful insights from the panel discussion came from Dr Boitshoko Ntshabele, CEO of the Citrus Growers’ Association of Southern Africa, who emphasised a need to understand that many biosecurity breaches are driven by economic necessity. “When a farmer moves an animal illegally across a provincial border, it’s often not out of ignorance but because they need money for school fees or food.”
This economic reality creates a fundamental challenge for biosecurity systems. The panel identified several key economic drivers of behaviour that impact biosecurity. Smallholder farmers often face pressing financial requirements that override longer-term biosecurity considerations. Farmers may take shortcuts to meet market demands or delivery schedules. Biosecurity measures often entail costs some producers cannot afford, and there is frequently a lack of price incentives for products produced under strict biosecurity protocols.
While economic factors are critical, the panel also highlighted knowledge gaps that contribute to biosecurity challenges. Rural and smallholder farmers often have limited access to up-to-date biosecurity information. Technical information is frequently not available in local languages. Theoretical knowledge doesn’t always translate into practical implementation, and information is more likely to be acted upon when it comes from trusted sources.
Economic Pressures, Knowledge Gaps and Social Inequities
Several speakers highlighted how cultural and social factors influence biosecurity practices. Long-established animal husbandry or crop management practices may conflict with biosecurity recommendations. Compliance with biosecurity measures is influenced by what others in the community are doing. Animals often play important roles in cultural ceremonies, necessitating movement even during disease outbreaks. Trust-based trading relationships may override formal biosecurity protocols.
A recurring theme in the discussion was how biosecurity challenges affect different groups unequally. Dewald Olivier, CEO of Red Meat Industry Services (RIMS), noted: “Biosecurity systems often work well for commercial farmers but fail to adequately serve smallholders.” This disparity manifests in several ways. Smaller operations often struggle more with complex regulatory requirements. Diagnostic services and veterinary support are less accessible in rural areas. Biosecurity compliance costs represent a higher percentage of operating expenses for small operations. Inability to meet biosecurity standards can exclude smallholders from formal markets.
The panel also highlighted how location affects biosecurity. Communities near international borders face unique challenges and often bear a disproportionate burden of biosecurity measures. Limited access to extension services and diagnostic facilities affects remote regions. Areas where informal settlements meet agricultural land present specific biosecurity challenges. Communities adjacent to wildlife areas face distinct disease transmission risks.
Prof. Vinny Naidoo, Dean of Veterinary Science at the University of Pretoria, provided valuable insights into the socio-economic drivers of disease spread, “When we look at FMD, we need to address the core economic and social reasons for the spread of the disease. Animal movement is often driven by economic necessity – people need money for school fees, food, and clothing.”
He questioned conventional approaches to disease control: “We need to ask whether our current control measures, like the existing FMD vaccine, are the best options for South Africa’s unique socio-economic context. Technical solutions must be adapted to our social realities.”
David Niemann, COO of Sernick Group, highlighted the economic stakes involved in biosecurity. “The agricultural sector has enormous potential to drive job creation and economic growth in South Africa. Every biosecurity breach doesn’t just affect farmers – it impacts on thousands of jobs throughout the value chain,” said Niemann.
He emphasised practical economic considerations in that industry just wants to continue doing business and contributing to growth. “We need solutions that allow trade to continue even when facing challenges like FMD.”
Rethinking Biosecurity Through a Socio-Economic Lens
The panel discussion went beyond identifying problems to propose solutions that address the socio-economic dimensions of biosecurity. Dr Maneshree Jugmohan-Naidu, chairperson of the National Biosecurity Hub Steering Committee, said: “We need to align economic incentives with biosecurity goals.” Recommendations included developing market mechanisms that reward products produced under strong biosecurity protocols, ensuring fair and prompt compensation for animals culled during disease outbreaks, developing affordable insurance against biosecurity-related losses, and linking agricultural support programs to biosecurity compliance.
Several speakers highlighted the success of community-based biosecurity initiatives. Peer education programmes where successful adopters of biosecurity practices mentor others have shown promise. Local governance structures that develop and enforce contextually appropriate biosecurity measures build ownership. Training community members to identify and report potential biosecurity threats extends surveillance capacity. Involving communities in developing biosecurity measures ensures they are both effective and acceptable.
Richard Krige, Chairperson of Grain SA, noted: “When communities feel ownership of biosecurity measures, compliance improves dramatically.”
The panel further emphasised the need for targeted capacity building. Hands-on demonstrations of biosecurity practices rather than theoretical instruction are more effective. Information and training resources should be available in all major South African languages. Accessible advisory services help implement biosecurity measures. Mentorship programmes pairing experienced and new farmers share biosecurity knowledge efficiently.
Case Studies in Community-Driven Biosecurity Success
The discussion went on to highlight several successful initiatives that address the socio-economic dimensions of biosecurity. Olivier described how the red meat industry has been working with smallholder farmers to implement identification and traceability systems:
“By combining the technical system with community engagement and clear economic benefits, we’ve seen adoption rates increase significantly. When farmers see that identification can increase their animals’ value and give them access to new markets, the economics start to make sense.”
Key elements of success included subsidised ear tags for smallholder farmers, training of community-based animal health workers, clear market linkages for compliant producers, and community verification systems.
Ntshabele shared the Citrus Growers’ Association of Southern Africa’s experience in developing more inclusive biosecurity systems: “We recognised our biosecurity system was primarily designed for large commercial growers. By adapting our approaches to include smaller growers, we’ve strengthened the entire industry’s biosecurity.”
Their approach included simplified compliance protocols for smallholders, cluster-based pest management approaches where farmers work together, mobile diagnostic services that visit small farming communities, and mentorship pairings between established and emerging citrus farmers.
Jugmohan-Naidu highlighted successful cross-border initiatives: “By acknowledging the realities of cross-border movement and trade, we’ve developed more effective approaches than simply trying to enforce impossible restrictions.”
These initiatives included harmonised animal health protocols between neighbouring countries, joint surveillance at border areas, coordinated vaccination campaigns in border communities, and recognition of the importance of informal cross-border trade.
The panel concluded that effective biosecurity systems must integrate social science insights alongside technical and regulatory approaches. Several research priorities were identified, including better understanding of decision-making factors influencing biosecurity behaviour, economic analysis of incentives and disincentives for biosecurity compliance, evaluation of community-based biosecurity approaches, and assessment of communication strategies for diverse audiences.
The discussion highlighted several policy implications. There is a need for differentiated biosecurity approaches for different scales of operation. Participatory policy development involving all stakeholders is essential. Piloting and adapting approaches rather than one-size-fits-all solutions offer better outcomes. Integrating biosecurity with broader rural development initiatives creates synergies and improves adoption.
The panel discussion made clear that while technical solutions and regulatory frameworks are necessary components of biosecurity systems, they are insufficient without addressing the socio-economic factors that drive human behaviour. By understanding and addressing economic necessities, knowledge gaps and cultural factors, South Africa can develop more effective and equitable biosecurity approaches.
As Dr Litha Magingxa, CEO of Agricultural Research Council, noted: “Ultimately, biosecurity isn’t just about pathogens and vectors – it’s about people making decisions in complex social and economic environments.”
