South Africa’s foot-and-mouth crisis a failure of cooperation – Prof Tyobeka

South Africa’s battle against foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is no longer just a story about a virus. It is a story about governance – and the widening gap between who holds authority and who has the capacity to act.

By Maile Matsimela, digital editor at African Farming

As the outbreak spreads, one of the country’s leading academic voices is calling for an urgent rethink of how the state responds to crises that demand speed, trust, and shared responsibility.

Prof. Bismark Tyobeka, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the North-West University (NWU), has been direct in his assessment: the state is insisting on control it does not have the capacity to exercise and farmers, who are best placed to help contain the outbreak, are left on the sidelines.

Farmers Are Not Spectators – They Are the First Line of Defence

At the heart of Prof. Tyobeka’s concern is a fundamental misunderstanding of who owns this crisis.

“Farmers are not passive stakeholders in this crisis. They are the first line of detection, the custodians of livestock movement, and the practical implementers of containment measures,” he says. “Excluding them from meaningful participation risks slowing response times and weakening enforcement where it matters most.”

This is not a minor procedural complaint. In a disease like FMD, which spreads rapidly across livestock and across borders, Tyobeka says the difference between early detection and delayed response can mean the difference between containment and catastrophe. He argues that farmers, who live and work on the land, possess something no government department can replicate: intimate, on-the-ground knowledge of their animals, their movements and the warning signs that precede an outbreak.

“It is misguided to think the outbreak can be contained without the knowledge and input of those most directly affected. They have the expertise, the experience and an intimate understanding of their sector,” Tyobeka warns. “We cannot risk the livelihoods of the farmers on whom this country depends.”

Also read: FMD | Another 2 million doses of vaccine arrive while ‘cows don’t carry passports’

The State’s Grip is Tightening – But its Reach is Shrinking

The questions Prof. Tyobeka raises are pointed, and they deserve direct answers from those in authority.

“Why are farmers not more fully integrated into disease response?

“Why is livestock disease treated as something the state owns rather than co-manages?

“Can a system with limited veterinary reach realistically control a fast-moving outbreak on its own?”

The answers, as the current crisis illustrates, are uncomfortable. Delays in vaccine distribution, administrative bottlenecks and strained movement restrictions are not symptoms of a bad outbreak – they are symptoms of a system that was never adequately designed to respond to one. The state, he says, has asserted control over livestock disease management while simultaneously lacking the veterinary infrastructure, logistical capacity and community-level coordination to exercise that control effectively.

The result is a dangerous vacuum: authority without capability.

Bureaucracy Does Not Spread as Fast as FMD – And South Africa is Paying the Price

FMD is not a patient virus. It moves quickly, jumps borders and exploits every gap in containment. Bureaucracy, by contrast, moves slowly through approval chains, procurement processes, interdepartmental sign-offs and policy reviews. South Africa is currently experiencing what happens when a fast-moving biological threat meets a slow-moving administrative response.

The country lost its FMD-free status in 2019 and has faced repeated outbreaks since. The more uncomfortable question, Prof. Tyobeka suggests, is not how to respond now – but why the necessary countermeasures were never firmly put in place.

“What is unfolding is not simply a failure to contain a virus, but a failure to align capacity with responsibility,” he says. “The current system has been stress-tested to its limit and found wanting. The model is not fit for South Africa’s purposes.”

Argentina’s Blueprint: From State Control to Shared Stewardship

South Africa is not navigating uncharted territory. Other countries have faced devastating FMD outbreaks and emerged with stronger, more resilient systems – but only after making difficult structural changes.

Prof. Tyobeka points to Argentina as a model whose example could, and should, have been followed far sooner. After severe FMD outbreaks in the early 2000s, Argentina moved away from a purely state-driven model and adopted a hybrid approach – combining government oversight with active farmer participation, coordinated and timely vaccination campaigns, and decentralised regional disease management. The results were transformative.

“More recently, Brazil achieved FMD-free status in 2025. Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen’s signing of a Memorandum of Intent with his Brazilian counterpart, André Carlos Alves de Paula, signals an awareness that South Africa has much to learn. Animal health experts are expected to visit Brazil in the coming weeks to draw on its experience.”

It is a step in the right direction. But as Prof. Tyobeka makes clear, steps are not enough when a crisis is already running. “The value of these lessons will ultimately be measured not in agreements signed, but in livelihoods protected.”

Also read: FMD in Botswana: ‘Shoot, burn and bury’ policy as outbreaks confirmed in 24 locations

Livestock Is Not Just Agriculture – It Is Survival

For rural communities, particularly in provinces like North West, the stakes of this outbreak extend well beyond commodity markets and export revenues. Livestock is not simply a line item in an agricultural balance sheet.

“In provinces such as North West, livestock is not merely an agricultural asset. It is a store of wealth, a source of food and, in many cases, a household’s primary form of economic security,” Prof. Tyobeka says. “An uncontrolled outbreak does not only threaten exports; it threatens livelihoods in regions where unemployment already limits alternatives.”

For these communities, Prof says a failed disease response does not mean a bad quarter. “It means lost herds, lost income, and in many cases, lost futures. This is why the urgency of cooperation cannot be overstated – and why the cost of bureaucratic delay is measured not in statistics, but in human terms.”

Also read: FMD will only be eradicated through mass vaccination in 6-8 week time period

From Control to Cooperation: South Africa’s Governance Test

Prof. Tyobeka’s message to government is ultimately not one of blame, but of challenge.

“Unless South Africa finds a way to move from control to cooperation, the outbreak risks becoming something larger than an agricultural crisis. It may yet become a test of whether the country’s governance model can respond when speed, trust and shared responsibility matter most.”

He argues that the path forward requires the state to do something that does not come easily to centralised systems: Let go. Not of oversight or accountability, but of the illusion that it can manage this crisis alone. Farmers, he states, must be brought into decision-making processes – not as consultants to be briefed after the fact, but as genuine partners in containment, detection and response.

“South America’s successes were not built on government directives alone. They were built on the recognition that those closest to the land are also closest to the solution. South Africa still has time to learn that lesson. But as FMD continues to spread – and bureaucracy continues to lag behind – that window is narrowing with every passing day.”