The Strategy to Control the FMD Epidemic

South Africa is facing a serious foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) crisis. While some experts talk about FMD vaccines, farmers keep talking about survival. The bridge between those two conversations is something most citizens have never heard of: a Section 10 disease strategy.

South Africa’s Section 10 FMD strategy is more than regulatory detail, it is the legal backbone of vaccine importation, distribution, and accountability. As producers push for a decentralised but accountable system with both state and private streams of procurement, the question is no longer whether reform is needed, but how quickly it can be delivered.

I previously argued that South Africa needs structural reform in tackling FMD rather than the current dysfunctional response to the crisis. An earlier article addressed the misconception that expanding vaccine pathways would mean deregulation or chaos. The opposite is true. The nation requires clear rules and structured accountability, but it must be practical and rapid.

What is a Section 10 FMD Strategy?

It sounds technical, even obscure. The reality is simple: A Section 10 strategy is the official national rulebook for how the country manages a specific animal disease. In the case of FMD, it is the framework that determines how vaccines move, how reporting works, how traceability is structured, and who carries responsibility.

It is issued under Section 10 of the Animal Diseases Act and once published it becomes binding regulation. Not guidance. Not suggestion. Law.

For FMD, that rulebook governs who may import vaccines, who may distribute them, who may administer them, what must be reported, what traceability standards apply, and how compliance is enforced. It defines the system from the moment a vaccine is manufactured abroad to the moment it is injected into an animal in rural South Africa. It also defines accountability. If something fails, the strategy should make clear who was responsible.

Why Does This Matter?

It matters because execution must be fast and accountable, it cannot be one or the other.

Disease does not wait for administrative bottlenecks. Rural economies do not pause while paperwork circulates. Under the current pressure dairy producers, beef farmers, and feedlots are navigating uncertainty while vaccination rollouts are dismally slow.

South Africa’s disease management systems are typically aligned with the standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), because export credibility depends on it. WOAH does not require governments to monopolise vaccine supply. It requires them to approve vaccines and vaccine suppliers, set minimum traceability standards of procurement and distribution accountability, and ensure transparent reporting. In other words, the State must regulate and oversee and may, in conjunction with that, have a role in distribution and vaccination. It does not have to do everything itself.

That distinction is central to the debate around a new Section 10 FMD strategy and is the critical bottleneck to industry procuring their own vaccine.

A Section 10 strategy determines whether vaccine pathways are narrow and centralised or broad and scalable. It determines whether the system depends on one channel or builds redundancy into its architecture. It determines whether private capacity can assist in an emergency or remains legally sidelined.

It also determines whether transparency is rewarded or punished. When blanket market restrictions remain in place indefinitely, reporting can become risky. If disclosure leads only to prolonged closure, silence becomes rational. A redesigned Section 10 strategy should encourage structured transparency by linking vaccination, reporting, and controlled market access in a way that improves visibility rather than suppresses it.

What Do Producers Want in the Section 10?

Farmers are not calling for a free-for-all. They are calling for regulated decentralisation. They want a system that multiplies capacity while maintaining accountability. At the heart of their proposal is a simple design principle: two streams of importation, two streams of distribution, and two streams of application, with both State and private actors operating in each stream under clear rules.

In practical terms, this means the State continues to import vaccines, but approved private actors may also import. The State continues to distribute, but licensed private distributors may also distribute. State veterinarians continue vaccinating, but registered veterinary practices may also administer vaccines under defined standards.

Oversight remains with government. Compliance remains enforceable. But capacity expands dramatically.

Farmers understand traceability. They understand that export markets and national disease credibility require it. What they are asking for is practicality. They propose a minimum compulsory reporting requirement for every dose administered: the location, the livestock owner’s contact details, the number of doses given, the date, and the batch number. That creates a clear national record.

Beyond that baseline, producers should be free to adopt higher traceability standards if they wish to access premium or export markets. There should be a mandatory floor for disease control and optional ceilings for marketing benefits. This is permissible within WOAH standards and in line with a similar path to FMD-free status with and without vaccination, as followed by Brazil.

None of this removes the State from its governance role. Government must retain primary responsibility for disease control policy, vaccine approval, compliance enforcement, and national reporting. But retaining responsibility should not bottleneck operational function. The private veterinary sector, commodity organisations, and industry bodies represent capacity that can accelerate rollout, support financing, and prevent system overload.

So, What Next?

At its core, the debate about South Africa’s Section 10 FMD strategy is about whether the country designs a disease control framework that matches the scale and urgency of the challenge.

Every delay carries consequences. It costs jobs. It weakens rural economies. It erodes export confidence. It increases financial stress in already vulnerable districts. FMD control is not only an animal health issue. It is an economic stability issue.

A modern Section 10 FMD strategy should be clear, enforceable, transparent, and fast. It should align with international standards. It should define accountability precisely. It should allow both State and private streams of importation, distribution, and application. It should mandate minimum traceability while allowing enhanced systems for those who need them. Above all, it should be executable at speed.

South Africa does not lack veterinary expertise. It does not lack regulatory authority. It does not lack private capacity. What it lacks is a framework that brings those pieces together efficiently and credibly.

Disease moves fast. Policy must move faster.

Owen Anderson is a farmer and agricultural development practitioner with experience across commercial and communal production systems. He writes on agricultural development and applied policy, focusing on practical implications for agricultural producers.