Chamwe Kaira
Biosecurity has moved from a veterinary concern to a national economic priority as the risk of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) rises in Southern Africa, according to analysis by Simonis Storm.
Recent outbreaks in South Africa’s Northern Cape, Botswana’s Disease Control Zone 6b and containment efforts in Zambia have increased the risk of cross-border livestock infections. Namibia’s border areas lie within a few hundred kilometres of infected zones. This places the country’s export-driven livestock sector at risk during a period of slow agricultural recovery.
The livestock industry remains a key contributor to export earnings, rural employment and meat processing. Premium markets in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Norway, South Africa and China account for a large share of Namibia’s beef exports.
Industry data show that Namibia exported about 22.7 million kilograms of beef in 2024.
The EU and UK together accounted for between 55% and 65% of volumes. Beef export earnings were estimated at €290 million, or roughly N$5.7 billion a year. Between N$3 billion and N$3.6 billion of this amount comes from high-value premium markets.
Simonis said maintaining Namibia’s FMD-free status without vaccination is a strategic economic asset. The firm warned that an outbreak would affect more than just agriculture.
Scenario modelling shows that a six-month export suspension could cost between N$2.5 billion and N$3 billion in lost revenue. Under that scenario, GDP growth could fall by about 0.5 percentage points. Food inflation could rise by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points due to pressure on protein supply.
A 12-month suspension would deepen the impact. Losses could reach N$5 billion to N$6 billion. Annual GDP growth could decline by up to 1 percentage point. Rural incomes and value chain jobs would face strain.
The report notes that regaining FMD-free certification after an outbreak can take time. Countries must complete surveillance checks, secure regulatory approval and renegotiate trade access. During this period, exporters may receive lower prices in alternative markets and risk losing established buyers.
Simonis said biosecurity should be treated as economic infrastructure. Investment in disease surveillance, border control and veterinary services costs less than the long-term impact of export bans and trade disruption.
