Foot-and-Mouth Disease has arrived at precisely the wrong time for Namibia to indulge in political games, regional grandstanding or ideological arguments.
The confirmation of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Namibia’s previously FMD-free zone is not simply another agricultural story. It is a national economic warning that demands discipline, scientific decision-making and an immediate recognition that the country’s livestock industry is too important to be treated as a political football.
Ten of 11 samples collected from cattle in the Karasburg State Veterinary District have tested positive for FMD.
That fact alone should concentrate the minds of policymakers, farmers, traders, transporters and politicians.
The government’s subsequent suspension of the movement of cloven-hoofed animals and their products across the country is understandably disruptive. Cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and game are affected, as are products including meat, hides and dairy products.
There will be financial consequences.
Farmers may be unable to move animals. Transporters may lose business. Abattoirs and processors may face supply constraints. Export arrangements could be disrupted. Rural households dependent on livestock could be placed under additional financial pressure. Consumers may eventually feel the impact.
But these consequences must be weighed against an even more serious possibility: allowing FMD to spread and potentially compromise Namibia’s livestock markets and international trading position.
That is why this matter cannot be approached casually.
It is also why the comments surrounding the veterinary cordon fence, commonly known as the redline, must be placed in their proper context.
Job Amupanda has long opposed the redline and has argued for the integration of Namibia’s livestock economy. His broader argument , that Namibia should not permanently operate as though it has two separate livestock economies, is a legitimate matter for national debate.
But an active disease outbreak is not the moment to confuse a legitimate policy debate with veterinary disease-control requirements.
Whether Namibia eventually changes its approach to the redline is a question that should be settled through veterinary science, economic analysis, market requirements and evidence.
It cannot be settled by political rhetoric.
FMD does not recognise political constituencies, historical grievances or regional boundaries. The virus does not distinguish between commercial and communal farmers. Nor does it care whether an animal is travelling from north to south or south to north.
That is precisely why movement restrictions must be taken seriously.
If the Directorate of Veterinary Services determines that the movement of animals or animal products presents a disease risk, that instruction must be obeyed. Not because government officials should never be questioned, but because disease control depends on compliance.
The alternative is potentially catastrophic.
Namibia has spent decades building a livestock industry capable of accessing demanding international markets. Farmers have invested in breeding programmes, infrastructure, genetics, animal health and production systems. Meat processors and exporters have built commercial relationships that depend heavily on Namibia’s ability to demonstrate credible animal-health controls.
That reputation cannot be rebuilt overnight if it is damaged.
The government must therefore resist two opposite temptations.
The first is complacency.
The second is panic.
Neither serves Namibia.
What is required is a professional, transparent and properly resourced national response.
The Namibia Agricultural Union’s call for the government to consider declaring a state of emergency should therefore be evaluated seriously, but objectively. The question should not be whether the proposal comes from a farmers’ organisation or whether declaring an emergency would create political headlines.
The question should be whether the existing response has sufficient resources, personnel, testing capacity, surveillance, enforcement capability and financial support to contain the outbreak rapidly.
If it does not, government must act.
If additional resources are required, they must be mobilised.
If veterinary personnel require logistical support, it must be provided.
If farmers are being asked to absorb substantial economic losses because of movement restrictions imposed in the national interest, government must also consider how those losses can be mitigated.
Disease control cannot simply mean issuing prohibitions and leaving farmers to carry the financial burden alone.
There is also a responsibility on the livestock industry itself.
Biosecurity cannot be regarded as an optional administrative requirement. Farmers must report suspected cases. Livestock transporters must comply with movement restrictions. Buyers and traders must not attempt to circumvent controls. Members of the public must understand that moving meat or animals illegally is not a harmless act.
One reckless movement could have consequences far beyond the individual involved.
This is where the seriousness of the present situation must be understood by the entire country.
Namibia’s beef industry is not merely the concern of farmers.
It is part of the national economy.
It supports employment, rural incomes, transport businesses, veterinary services, abattoirs, processors, retailers and exporters. It contributes to Namibia’s international trade and, importantly, provides economic activity in parts of the country where there are relatively few alternative industries.
A threat to livestock is therefore a threat to far more than livestock.
Meatco’s decision not to speculate prematurely about the full impact of the outbreak is understandable. The situation is developing, and it would be irresponsible to manufacture numbers before the facts are known.
But the government must ensure that uncertainty does not become an information vacuum.
Namibians deserve regular updates.
Farmers need clear instructions.
Businesses need predictable information.
And international trading partners need confidence that Namibia is managing the outbreak competently.
The country must also learn from this crisis.
Once the immediate outbreak is contained, Namibia should undertake a serious, evidence-based examination of its entire livestock disease-control architecture, including the future of the redline.
That debate should consider modern veterinary science, vaccination strategies, surveillance technology, regional disease patterns, communal and commercial farming systems, export-market requirements and the economic cost of the current arrangements.
There should be no sacred cows, literally or politically.
If the existing system can be improved, Namibia should improve it.
If elements of it remain necessary, government should explain why.
But reform cannot mean abandoning disease-control principles simply because they have become politically inconvenient.
The immediate priority is containment.
Namibia must speak with one voice on this matter.
Political leaders can disagree about the redline. Farmers can disagree about government policy. Industry bodies can demand more resources. Civil society can challenge the status quo.
That is democracy.
But when it comes to preventing the spread of a potentially devastating livestock disease, there must be a common national interest.
The beef industry took generations to build.
Its markets, reputation and livelihoods must not be gambled away for political applause, ideological convenience or regional point-scoring.
This is a moment for seriousness.
Contain the disease. Enforce the rules. Support affected farmers. Communicate honestly. Mobilise the necessary resources.
Then, when the immediate danger has passed, have the difficult national conversation about the future of Namibia’s livestock economy.
But let us not confuse that conversation with the urgent task before us.
FMD is not politics. It is a biological threat with economic consequences.
And Namibia cannot afford to gamble with its cattle, its farmers, its markets, or its future.
