While many farmers are still trying to understand how the recent announcement by Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen outlining a strengthened national foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) strategy will play out in practice, others are already questioning its realism and likely impact on the ground.

By Lebogang Mashala, editor at African Farming

Given government’s track record, such scepticism is understandable, particularly among smallholder and communal farmers. For many of them, past experience suggests a significant risk of uneven vaccine distribution, inconsistent enforcement and limited support from the Department of Agriculture. Once again, the fear is that those farming at the margins will carry the greatest burden.

During the briefing, Steenhuisen announced the Ministerial Advisory Task Team on Animal Disease Prevention and Control would take an aggressive, proactive approach to controlling foot-and-mouth disease and restoring the ability to monitor high-risk areas. Dr Emily Mogajane, the head of the task team, introduced the upcoming vaccination programme, explaining it will be implemented in four phases over the next decade.

The first phase, which will last two years, aims to stabilise infection rates through intensive vaccination, stricter controls on livestock movement, enhanced surveillance and improvements to the capacity of Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP) to produce effective local FMD vaccines. The task team has set a 12-month operational target to reduce outbreak incidents by at least 70% and achieve at least 80% vaccination coverage of target cattle populations in priority districts, including KwaZulu-Natal, Gauteng, and parts of North West.

Vaccinations in these districts will be repeated every three months, with priority given to all feedlots, at least 90% of commercial herds, and at least 80% of communal herds by the end of 2026.

The second phase, to be implemented between the second and fourth year, focuses on establishing buffer zones that will act as barriers between areas with different levels of FMD risk. Farmers will be responsible for maintaining these buffer zones and ensuring consistent biosecurity practices.

The third phase, which will occur from years four to seven, entails a gradual cessation of FMD vaccination in areas declared disease-free.

Finally, the fourth phase, occurring between years seven and ten, aims to restore South Africa’s FMD-free status in accordance with World Organisation for Animal Health requirements.

Also read: FMD | Strategy will target feedlots and high-risk areas first

Implementation Challenges Raise Concerns

On paper, the plan appears sound. In practice, however, it raises several unanswered questions.

One such question was raised in a recent conversation I had with a veterinarian, who queried why Limpopo was not listed alongside KwaZulu-Natal, Gauteng and parts of North West as a priority province. Limpopo hosts more than a quarter of the country’s buffalo population, widely recognised as the primary wildlife reservoir of FMD. According to him, at least one buffalo herd in the province has reportedly tested positive for over 25 years. Excluding Limpopo from the priority list raises legitimate concerns about risk management and long-term containment.

Another critical issue is how government intends to deal with communal farming areas. While vaccinating 80% of communal herds sounds reasonable in theory, the reality on the ground suggests this will be far more difficult to achieve.

Earlier this year, panic briefly set in when FMD cases were reported in communal areas of the North West and several auctions announced temporary closures. That concern has since faded and it appears to be business as usual. Livestock movement continues largely unchecked, and the minister’s assurances around strict enforcement remain untested.

Communal farmers, many of whom are under immense financial pressure, particularly at the start of the school and university year, are desperate to sell livestock to cover fees, uniforms and registration costs. While this does not excuse non-compliance, it does explain why some appear to be ignoring movement restrictions. With limited support, poor communication and weak enforcement from authorities, many farmers feel they are being left with impossible choices.

A farmer friend in the Rustenburg area recently shared his experience after a nearby FMD case was reported. They contacted the local state veterinarian for assistance, only to be told he could not visit due to a lack of transport. State vehicles were reportedly not operational, and using personal vehicles is discouraged because reimbursement claims can take months. Arrangements were eventually made to reach the communal farm and samples collected, but two weeks later they were still awaiting test results.

Also read: FMD | How can we keep animals nourished, hydrated and strong enough to recover?

Compensation Fears Hinder Reporting

Compounding the problem is the lack of clarity around what happens to infected animals. The state has yet to communicate clearly on compensation mechanisms, if any. Many communal farmers believe reporting suspected cases will result in their animals being culled without compensation. For a smallholder farmer on communal land, reporting an outbreak could mean losing everything – a risk many simply cannot afford to take.

What is missing is decisive, credible leadership that communicates honestly, consistently and transparently. Unless government begins addressing long-standing structural failures – including dysfunctional extension services, under-resourced state veterinary offices and chronic logistical constraints, this ambitious FMD plan is unlikely to succeed.

The strategy will only work if all role players are brought on board and genuinely supported. If that happens, South Africa may not need ten years to regain control of FMD. Without it, the plan risks becoming yet another well-intentioned policy that falters at farm gate level.

Also read: