South Africa’s struggle to contain the spread of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is exposing a deeper problem than the outbreak itself. The country’s response remains firmly state-led, yet the state’s capacity to execute that response is increasingly in doubt.
Much of this gap between control and capability appears to stem from the government’s reluctance to involve farmers in its decision-making processes. The state needs to reconsider its insistence on control and acknowledge that it does not have the capacity to execute corrective measures effectively.
This is according to Prof. Mzubanzi Bismark Tyobeka, North-West University principal and vice-chancellor who argues that South Africa’s state-led response to the outbreak cannot succeed without those on the ground.
“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. Excluding them from meaningful participation risks slowing response times and weakening enforcement where it matters most. We cannot risk the livelihoods of the farmers on whom the country depends. It is misguided to think that 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.”
The issue raises several important questions.
“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?” Prof. Tyobeka asks.
He points to Argentina as a country whose example could have been followed from the outset. In the early 2000s, after severe FMD outbreaks, Argentina shifted towards a hybrid model that combined state oversight with strong farmer participation, coordinated vaccination campaigns, and regional disease management.
Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen’s signing of a Memorandum of Intent with his Brazilian counterpart, André Carlos Alves de Paula, is a step in the right direction. Brazil achieved FMD-free status in 2025, and animal health experts will visit the country in the coming weeks to draw on its extensive experience.
But the value of these lessons will ultimately be measured not in agreements signed, but in livelihoods protected.
“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. An uncontrolled outbreak does not only threaten exports; it threatens livelihoods in regions where unemployment already limits alternatives,” Prof. Tyobeka says.
The current system has been stress-tested to its limit and found wanting. The model is not fit for South Africa’s purposes.
“Delays in vaccine distribution, movement restrictions and administrative bottlenecks are exposing structural weaknesses in how disease control is organised. What is unfolding is not simply a failure to contain a virus, but a failure to align capacity with responsibility. 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,” Prof. Tyobeka warns.
If the state intends to follow in the footsteps of South American countries that have successfully curtailed FMD, then lessons need to be learned and implemented with urgency. South Africa lost its FMD-free status in 2019 and has faced repeated outbreaks since. The more pressing question is why the necessary countermeasures were not already in place. FMD spreads quickly, bureaucracy does not.
