Does the FMD Industry Coordination Council actually have a voice?

- ADVERTISEMENT -

According to Steenhuisen, the livestock industry’s inclusion in the Industry Coordination Council (ICC) was aimed at establishing a formal channel for addressing and incorporating FMD-related concerns into decision-making. Furthermore, it would ensure that farmers receive consistent guidance on vaccination readiness, biosecurity protocols, traceability systems, and livestock movement compliance.

Practically speaking, the ICC’s efforts should have eased uncertainty, but social media paints a different picture. Nearly a month later, Facebook, X, and Instagram reflect an industry overwhelmed, discouraged, and confused.

To clarify some confusion and address pressing questions, Farmer’s Weekly compiled a list of 24 questions and sent them to each member of the FMD ICC. In response, Dewald Olivier, CEO of Red Meat Industry Services, informed us that a coordinated response would be provided, since on-farm realities vary greatly between producers, and the direct impact of FMD on milk producers differs significantly from what cattle and pork farmers are experiencing.

Sara-Lea van Eeden, a marketing and communications consultant at S-Elle & Associates, responded to 18 of the 24 questions, as follows:

1. The FMD ICC was appointed nearly three weeks ago amid a rapidly escalating outbreak. What concrete actions has the ICC taken since its first meeting that farmers could point to as progress?

Since its establishment, the FMD ICC has focused on moving the response from fragmented engagement to coordinated implementation. Concrete progress includes aligning industry around a clear set of urgent priorities, formally escalating blockages in vaccine access and regulatory approvals to the highest level, and ensuring farmer realities are represented in national decision-making forums.

The ICC has also been asked to assist in compiling information and contributing to elements of the response framework. This means the council is not only providing input on plans developed by the MTT [Ministerial Task Team] and the Department [of Agriculture] but is actively participating in shaping workable solutions.

2. With new outbreaks being reported almost daily, do you believe the current pace of decision-making matches the speed at which the virus is spreading? If not, what is holding it back?

Under the current circumstances, the spread of the virus is far outpacing the speed of implementation required to bring the crisis under control. Closing that gap has become a daily operational focus.

The primary constraints are regulatory and administrative processes designed for contained outbreaks, not a national-scale crisis. Scientific guidance is largely clear; the challenge lies in translating it into fast, executable decisions across multiple authorities.

FMD is a biological and an economic crisis. While vaccination addresses the biological threat, regulatory and administrative reform must move at equal speed to protect market access and limit further economic damage.

3. Farmers are under the impression that structures are in place, but outcomes remain elusive. How do you respond to concerns that the response is still moving too slowly?

The concern is understandable. Structures alone do not stop a virus; action does. Some existing systems are not practical under current conditions.

The ICC’s role is to ensure that policies adapt to on-farm realities rather than expecting farmers to operate within frameworks that no longer fit the scale or urgency of the crisis.

4. One of the ICC’s stated goals is a fast-tracked rollout of workable interventions. Which decisions or recommendations have already been fast-tracked and which remain stuck in process?

Key priorities formally presented and actively driven include:

• Immediate finalisation and implementation of the Section 10 scheme [in terms of the Animal Diseases Act (No. 35 of 1984)] for pre-emptive vaccination
• Reform of the current Section 21 [of the Medicines and Related Substance Act (No. 101 of 1965)] approval process with the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority to accelerate vaccine access
• Adoption of a decisive crisis-style coordination model similar to that used during the COVID-19 pandemic
• Large-scale pre-emptive vaccination as a national priority
• Allowing farmers, under veterinary oversight, to vaccinate at scale
• Replacement of outdated contingency regulations written for a country free of FMD with a framework suited to the current risk environment
• Transparency and clarity on vaccine pricing and funding to enable planning

Some of these are progressing. Others remain constrained by regulatory processes requiring political and administrative alignment.

5. What has proven more challenging over the past three weeks: scientific uncertainty, regulatory constraints, or administrative bottlenecks?

Regulatory constraints and administrative bottlenecks have proven most challenging, not scientific uncertainty.

Limited access to detailed government plans and underlying rationale has also restricted the ICC’s ability to provide fully informed input. To address this, a triangular engagement platform between the Department [of Agriculture], the MTT, and the ICC has been proposed to shorten decision cycles and improve implementation urgency.

Scientific guidance is largely clear. Implementation speed is where momentum is most urgently needed.

6. From your perspective, what is the single biggest obstacle preventing faster implementation of disease-control measures right now?

Outdated contingency plan regulations that are not fit for the current scale and speed of risk.

7. Has the ICC reached consensus on vaccination readiness, prioritisation, and rollout sequencing? If so, what can farmers realistically expect in the coming weeks?

Yes, there is consensus within the council on vaccination readiness, prioritisation, and rollout sequencing. The ICC agrees in principle with the MTT’s risk-based approach. However, it is awaiting the formal government rollout plan in order to align identified priorities and ensure coordinated implementation.

Industry capacity is largely ready. Farmers, veterinarians, and supply chains stand prepared, but delays in permits, import approvals, and final decisions have created frustration.

Farmers can expect clearer guidance on prioritisation, vaccination protocols, and rollout timelines in the coming weeks, provided regulatory alignment advances.

8. What frustrations has the ICC encountered in aligning industry readiness with vaccine availability and regulatory approvals?

In many cases, industry readiness has outpaced regulatory approvals. Farmers, veterinarians, and supply chains are prepared, but delays in permits, import approvals, and decision finalisation have created misalignment and frustration.

9. The ICC was created to bridge the gap between policy and on-farm realities. Can you give a specific example where farmer input has directly influenced a policy or operational adjustment?

A clear example will be the acceptance that farmer-led vaccination under veterinary supervision is both practical and necessary. This position reflects direct feedback from producers who understand the logistical realities on the ground, and we are pushing for this.

The review of outdated contingency regulations also remains a key focus. A declaration of a national disaster could provide mechanisms to accelerate regulatory flexibility, should that route be pursued.

10. Are movement restrictions and permit systems currently helping to contain the virus or unintentionally exacerbating the economic pressure on compliant farmers?

Movement controls are essential to contain the spread. Currently, there are no general movement restrictions in place, except for animals moving from quarantined properties or disease management areas under Red Cross veterinary movement permits.

The absence of broader monitoring systems may have contributed to the rapid spread of FMD. At the same time, inefficient permitting systems can place severe economic strain on compliant farmers. This balance requires ongoing review.

11. What feedback from farmers has surprised or concerned you most over the past three weeks?

The scale of misinformation circulating, particularly around remedies and vaccines, is deeply concerning.

Equally concerning is the perception that implementation urgency does not always match the reality on farms.

12. In any crisis response, tension is inevitable. Where has the ICC experienced friction within industry, with government, or between scientific advice and practical feasibility?

The most significant tension has been between policy frameworks and practical feasibility.

13. Have there been instances when industry recommendations were overruled or delayed, and how is the ICC addressing these situations?

Yes, delays have occurred. The ICC continues to address these impasses through structured engagement, escalation, and evidence-based motivation, and remains committed to pushing for workable solutions.

14. What has been the most frustrating issue for you personally since joining the ICC?

The disconnect between urgency on the ground and the pace of formal processes, compounded by limited access to detailed plans needed to provide fully informed advice.

15. How is the ICC measuring success at this stage of the outbreak? What indicators would tell you that the strategy is working or failing?

Success will be measured by the speed of vaccine rollout and a measurable reduction in new outbreaks once vaccination is under way.

16. If the outbreak continues to escalate over the next month, what course correction would the ICC be prepared to recommend immediately?

Intensified large-scale vaccination enabled by industry capacity and supported by emergency regulatory flexibility.

17. Many farmers feel they are ‘watching their animals suffer while waiting for decisions’. What message do you have for producers who feel abandoned or powerless at this stage?

The losses and distress are real. Many members of the council are farmers themselves or work closely with producers every day.

What is happening on farms is not abstract; it is the driving force behind every difficult discussion and every push to accelerate change.

18. If the ICC had full authority to remove one obstacle tomorrow, what would it be and why?

Outdated contingency regulations. Removing them would unlock speed, scale, and practical implementation, the three things this crisis urgently requires.

Unanswered questions

Van Eeden overlooked the following questions, suggesting that communication remains vague and that the response deliberately avoided specifics on accomplishments, accountability, and timelines.

1. Farmers continue to report confusion over who may vaccinate, under what conditions, and when vaccines will actually arrive. What clarity has the ICC been able to provide on this front?

2. Are current biosecurity protocols realistic and enforceable on commercial and emerging farms alike, or do they need urgent revision?

3. How confident are you that biosecurity messaging is communicated consistently across provinces, especially to smaller and communal producers?

4. Traceability and audit-ready records are increasingly critical for legal livestock movement. What progress has been made to simplify compliance during the ongoing crisis?

6. What changes can farmers realistically expect in the next 14 to 30 days as a direct result of the ICC’s work?

7. Looking back over the past three weeks, is there anything the ICC should have done faster – or differently – given what you know now?