REBONE MOERANE | Foot and mouth disease control policy anti-poor

The spread of foot and mouth disease (FMD) cases has led to the government banning, from  August 17, the movement of cattle in SA, with the exception of cattle moving directly under Red Cross permit to an approved abattoir, and slaughter for own use or own consumption, or for cultural or ritual purposes.

While the intention is noble, one wonders if the policymakers, including parliament, took serious cognisance of the negative impact of their decision or how anti-poor it is. There is no doubt that red meat prices will soon rise, and the rural poor will lose expected income from selling their cattle. The first point to consider is where are the FMD outbreaks and cases located, or where were they detected? So far, they are in the commercial farming sector and not in the rural small-scale farming area of the so-called FMD free zone of SA.

It is therefore obvious that small-scale poor rural farmers will be excluded from the value chain for weeks if not months, as less than 0.01% can afford to effectively raise and background their weaners to the extent that they could take the cattle directly to an approved abattoir for slaughter.

We are also approaching the end of winter and by when most small-scale farmers would have bought fodder or winter lick and would be looking forward to selling some cattle to supplement their income. If the government all of a sudden prohibits movement without any sort of support for small-scale rural farmers, how do we expect them to survive in the next few weeks or months?

There is anecdotal commentary suggesting that small-scale farmers only contribute 10% to overall meat production, while they own up to 45% of the livestock population. My counterargument is that because of poor traceability, the government is unable to properly quantify the contribution of the small-scale sector.

Furthermore, speculators often drive into communal farming areas to buy cattle, either taking them directly to auctions or first improving their body condition (backgrounding) before actually sending the cattle to auctions, or to an approved abattoir. Such activities are unfortunately not recorded, and thus end up reflecting as if the cattle emanates from the commercial sector instead of a small-scale rural farmer.

The exemption provided by the government to allow slaughter for own use or own consumption, or for cultural or ritual purposes, might seem as if it has been considerate to rural poor communities. However, if one reads the gazetted control measures, it is clear that the cow would have to be slaughtered where the animal was kept, and only the meat can be transported. Again, this is an anti-poor policy decision, as it does not take into consideration that from August to December there are various traditional or customary practices and celebrations, which include lobola/weddings, unveiling of tombstones, and in some cultures they would have to slaughter a cow at the event. Are we then saying such events are less important, as the government is not willing to invest in control protocols to allow movement of such animals? If such measures go beyond December, what will happen to those who rely on selling their cattle to pay for school fees?

Even if the government does not have a centralised traceability system, some rural farmers have their own system, which can clearly account for each cow from birth. Why can such farmers not be helped to send their cattle, still under Red Cross permit, to those who have links with approved abattoirs?

The disease has a major socioeconomic impact but we need clear, unapologetic support for those negatively affected.

The final decision on gazetting such measures is not only the responsibility of the minister of agriculture, but also requires the cabinet’s economic and social clusters to thoroughly interrogate the implications and mitigating measures.

Dr Moerane is HOD: production animal studies, faculty of veterinary science, University of Pretoria