South Africa continues to battle foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks, despite extensive efforts by government and the private sector to contain the disease through movement restrictions and vaccination.
By Robert Matsila, Agricultural Economist
The first outbreak of 2026 was reported in February and since then, confirmed cases have risen linearly. By the end of June 2026, there were 2 403 confirmed outbreaks, an increase of 187%. During the same period, nearly half of the national cattle herd had been vaccinated, with government leading the effort – as animal health is a public good. However, the current crisis is not new: South Africa has been dealing with FMD outbreaks since 2019.
When vaccination is complete and books are reconciled, total costs to vaccinate 80% of the cattle herd will be staggering. Combine this with the opportunity cost of lost export revenues due to market closures and the total costs will run into billions.
In many ways, the current outbreak confirms that agriculture has entered an era of extreme turbulence, volatility and heightened risk. The country is still recovering from outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, or bird flu, which caused a 30% contraction in the poultry industry. The recent 2025/26 summer season was characterised by exceptionally wet conditions, while El Niño is forecast for the next summer season, bringing its own dynamics and additional risks. Amid these fluctuations and heightened risks, the government’s fiscal framework remains reactive and largely business as usual.
Also read: A minister set up to struggle or fail: Aucamp’s biggest obstacle isn’t disease
Looking back: when disease surveillance worked
The current FMD outbreaks should be looked at in relation to history, for the two are linked at fiscal level. Historically and up to the late 1990s, cattle were dipped regularly once a week. It was mandatory for cattle owners to take their cattle for dipping one day in a week. This mandatory dipping regimen was so strict that cattle owners who skipped a dipping day or brought anything but a full kraal were slapped with penalties. Cattle owners with less than a full kraal would borrow cattle from friends to make up the numbers to avoid penalties. Consequently, compliance was high and disease outbreaks were under control. Through this system, diseases were detected early through their symptoms and appropriate response measures were activated to ensure diseases remain localised and controlled.
The shift to fiscal austerity
Then in 1996, government introduced a new macroeconomic policy called GEAR (growth, employment and redistribution), replacing RDP (Reconstruction and Development Programme). At its core, GEAR targeted a growth rate of 6% to be achieved through fiscal discipline (reducing budget deficits or simply fiscal austerity), creating jobs, export expansion and increasing private investment.
Zooming in on fiscal discipline and its impact on agriculture, GEAR gave former Finance Minister Trevor Manuel the mandate to pursue fiscal surplus. Except during brief periods of counter-cyclical fiscal policies in response to exogenous shocks, Minister Manuel pursued fiscal surplus like a man possessed. His persistence paid off in 2007 when the country recorded its first fiscal surplus in its long history. However, the achievement was, in part, due to global commodity price boom, which swelled tax receipts. For a decade until 2007, GEAR delivered: the economy expanded, private sector increased as the country prepared to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup and unemployment trended down. But the success of GEAR hid the seeds of destruction.
All successive finance ministers to the present one have made fiscal austerity their default positions. This means that the country has been on austerity path for close to three decades.
Also read: Farmers get clearer FMD rules as new measures open trade during quarantine
How austerity changed animal health
How did austerity affect agriculture and in this case animal health?
The first change in animal health was frequency of cattle dipping, which went from weekly to every second week – government needed to service its external debt while also maintaining fiscal discipline. Before long, dipping was discontinued altogether and along with it the celebrated system of disease monitoring and control. This was happening in an environment with an undersupply of veterinarians. Further, agricultural colleges were closed, negatively impacting on the delivery of extension services, especially to rural farmers. Commodity organisations came in to plug the gaps left by government but with the initial focus on levy-paying commercial farmers. It is no wonder that the commercial agriculture is the mainstay of farming in the country.
This is how animal disease monitoring and control was left to farmers themselves. In other words, animal health was declassified as private good to be sponsored by farmers themselves. Unfortunately, rural farmers are resource poor to actively carry the costs of animal health. Back then, rural folks treated their livestock as assets for unforeseen emergencies, not income and wealth generating assets. This negatively affected their inability to carry the cost of a public good, in this case animal health.
A case for policy reform
Extreme cases such as the current outbreaks not only prompt government to intervene, as it did, but should also impel government to go back to the drawing board with a view of policy review and reforms. Time will tell if this will be the case.
Also read: Nip vaccine scammers in the bud before it’s too late
Animal health is a public good
In conclusion, the destruction of the effective animal disease monitoring and control of the 1990s can be traced to fiscal austerity. Farmers were left to fend for themselves and only the fittest survived. Unfortunately, that is how the seeds of destruction were planted. As government introspects – hopefully it will – with a view to improving animal health, the effective features of the animal health systems of the past, including regular dipping of rural cattle, cannot be discounted.
Animal health is a public good with government as its sole guarantor.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author, Robert Matsila, writing in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily reflect the views or editorial position of African Farming, its publisher, editors, employees, affiliates or associated partners.
Also read:
When municipalities fail, farmers pay the price
From Maile’s desk: Political musical chairs continue, but farmers’ needs remain the same
From our editor: Policy continuity matters more than political personalities
Free State FMD cases climb to 739 as more than 1.4 million cattle are vaccinated
Your actions can stop FMD – communal farmers urged to follow livestock movement rules
FMD spread in Mpumalanga linked to unverified auction cattle
