Foot-and-mouth crisis reveals dangerous gaps in veterinary services

South Africa has been struggling to contain and prevent the further spread of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), a virus that infects livestock and negatively affects farmers and consumers. The situation prompted the agriculture minister, John Steenhuisen, to release several media statements, including an announcement of a policy shift for cattle to be vaccinated against FMD. This was followed by the release of a vaccination strategy that involves determining the quantities of vaccine to import and produce locally, and identifying high-risk areas in the country.

Steenhuisen also voiced an intention to redirect unspent funds under the comprehensive agricultural support programme towards biosecurity and FMD control, and to prioritise 5% of the funding for FMD. Unfortunately, these media statements and policy shifts cannot be left unchallenged. The current situation reflects on the government and its failure to plan, execute and monitor their plans to deal with outbreaks/risks.

Should we be worried? If we substituted or replaced the FMD outbreak with a contagious zoonotic disease, millions of people would be infected, leading to a possible high mortality rate. Despite being warned more than a decade ago, the government — and the agriculture department, in particular — failed to put interventions in place to provide incentives to rural livestock farmers working in the so-called “infected” zone.

[paywall]

These farmers were expected to bring their cattle for weekly inspections and have their livestock vaccinated three times a year. The initial FMD cases recorded between 2019 and 2022 could not be contained because of ineffective veterinary services. The government has failed to give due recognition to the veterinary profession.

During the reorganisation of veterinary services pre-1994, those involved warned of the massive negative impact of listing animal disease control under Schedule 4 of the new Constitution, making it a “concurrent” function whereby both national and provincial departments were given the mandate of disease control. The advice at the time was that animal disease control must be a national function, whereas developmental programmes and clinical services could be a provincial function.

[/paywall]