FMD management: A ticking time bomb

Mmegi Editor | Monday October 12, 2026 15:03

“The trouble with government regulation of the market is that it prohibits capitalistic acts between consenting adults.”

~ Robert Nozick

While government must contain the disease, it must also confront the growing economic hardship caused by its response. For many rural households, cattle remain a source of livelihood and the only means for tending for thousands of families, and for these kind of people the longer the restrictions continue, the more difficult for them to bounce out of poverty.

The temporary relaxation of some restrictions in Zone 11 for Independence celebrations has raised a question government cannot leave unanswered. If controlled slaughter was permitted under specified conditions during the holiday, why can’t those conditions not support a carefully managed arrangement beyond the celebrations?

This does not mean that permission to slaughter for household consumption automatically makes commercial sales or live cattle movement safe. These activities carry different risks, and the exclusion of areas with active outbreaks matters. Government must explain those distinctions clearly rather than expect farmers to accept an expiry date without understanding its veterinary basis. The Botswana Congress Party’s criticism has brought the inconsistency into public debate. However, decisions about disease control must rest on veterinary evidence, not the political convenience of either the government or the opposition. Equally, invoking biosecurity cannot be a substitute for explaining decisions, reviewing restrictions and accounting for their consequences. The latest outbreaks in Kgatleng show that the danger remains real. Therefore, premature relaxation could spread the disease, prolong restrictions and threaten markets on which the cattle industry depends. Farmers also have a responsibility to respect restrictions, report suspected cases and avoid illegal movements.

It is becoming evident that compliance becomes harder to sustain when people cannot see a credible route out of the hardship. In this regard, government should publish clear criteria for easing restrictions, explain what surveillance has established and provide regular updates on what still needs to be done.

Where evidence supports different treatment of different areas, restrictions should reflect those differences. Where controls must remain, farmers deserve an explanation of the risks and the conditions required for their removal. Government must assess practical support for those most affected and explain the procedures governing cattle destruction, including any applicable compensation arrangements. Losing an animal is a serious financial blow, and affected farmers deserve clarity and fair treatment. There must also be accountability for the resources committed to the response. Parliament and the public should receive a clear account of expenditure, progress and the outstanding work. Command structures must demonstrate that they strengthen veterinary operations and deliver results. Botswana cannot afford uncontrolled disease transmission. Furthermore, it cannot afford a response that leaves farming households without income indefinitely. The Independence concession should prompt a transparent review of what can safely be permitted, where and under which conditions.