28 Jul 2013

Botswana and Namibia are the only two countries in Southern Africa currently being recognised by the European Market (EU) as having Foot and Mouth (FMD) free zones, the Parliamentary Select Committee on the collapse of the BMC has learnt.

This was revealed by a South African FMD specialist, Professor Gavin Thomson during the committee’s sitting on Friday. He said 15 per cent of the region’s cattle were today located in FMD-Free zones. Professor Thomson said this was as a result of more than 50 years endeavour and commitment the two countries had towards the quality of the beef industry in the region.

He said good FMD control was achieved in the years between 1981 and 2000 but after that it declined forcing the EU to impose restrictions. Professor Thomson said since 2000, FMD outbreaks in livestock had become more frequent and more difficult to eliminate throughout the region adding that FMD was no longer adequately controlled throughout the region.

The professor further explained that there were many reasons for the decline effectiveness of the FMD control that include increasing wildlife/livestock contact as evidenced by wildlife-based enterprise which now contributes more to the region’s GDP than livestock.

He said access to regional market is often more difficult than international markets because of poor regional integration despite existence of SADC establishments.

He further explained that competitiveness would only improve with investment, particularly private sector investment adding that private sector investment will only happen if access to profitable markets is possible.

Professor Thomson said FMD is currently a constraint in this respect because safety of beef for trade does not need to be dependent on FMD status of the locality of production. “So FMD freedom is not a prerequisite for competitiveness in the international beef market. However, some like to propagate the opposite view, possibly for protectionist purposes”, he added.

He explained that current trade practices are based on geographic approaches such as free FMD zones.

He said the present approach is not only failing but has many negative socio-economic and environmental consequences because there are many alternative ways to produce ‘safe’ beef.

He said these alternatives are based on management of sanitary hazards along value chains using methods such as the deboning of beef even though the system is more expensive. ENDS