Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
The South African Veterinary Association (SAVA), the Ruminant Veterinary Association of South Africa (RuVasa), and the South African Wildlife Group has written to the minister of agriculture, John Steenhuisen, saying that it is extremely important that the so-called Section 10 scheme for preventive vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease is legally sound. The latest letter follows an earlier one in which the organisations initially responded to an outdated version of the draft scheme and threatened legal action.
The National Red Meat Producers Organisation (RPO) commented on the first letter, saying that most of the problem areas highlighted by SAVA and RuVasa had already been addressed in newer versions of the draft scheme. In their new letter to the minister, the organisations said they have taken note of this and realise that they have responded to an older version. However, they believe it remains important that the final version of the scheme is legally sound and operationally effective. They also emphasised the fact that the veterinary profession is regulated by SAVA and that no such powers or administration can be transferred to another party.
Commenting on the new letter during a LandbouRadio interview, Dr Frikkie Maré, chief executive officer (CEO) of the RPO, said they wholeheartedly agree with the contents of the new letter. However, the final version of the proposed Section 10 scheme is still awaited. The department has not yet circulated a final document for final input and comments. He said the promulgation of the scheme is a matter of urgency so that the vaccination process can commence and private institutions become involved. “Time is running out.”
Read more about the factors that influence weaner calf prices.
RMIS’s proposed role and functions
According to the initial objection by the SAVA/RuVasa/Wildlife Group, the scheme would among others afford too many powers to Red Meat Industry Services (RMIS). In this regard, the RPO prepared an information piece to its members in which it explained and clarified the proposed role of RMIS. It stated that was necessary to prevent any confusion and erroneous interpretation of the proposal.
The first issue at hand is that RMIS is in no way a decision-maker for or on behalf of the industry. In fact, says the RPO, RMIS is a service provider that may only act at the behest of the red meat industry and a designated board. Secondly, the role of RMIS, as proposed in the draft scheme, is in no way that of a ‘gatekeeper’. RMIS, which functions primarily with funding from the red meat statutory levy, is included in the document as part of a proposal to carry out certain actions and thereby facilitate the administration of the scheme in respect of applications, vaccine orders, and delivery.
The facts, in a nutshell
- No veterinarians are required to participate in the RMIS traceability platform in order to perform their work.
- The proposal contained in the draft scheme entails that veterinarians registered with SAVA log on to the RMIS system to place their vaccine orders there, ensuring a smooth process which will generate a GLN number after which the system can identify the areas in which vaccinations were administered.
- RMIS cannot approve the certificates related to the process. An appointed committee must perform this function. The RMIS platform is merely proposed as a channel through which a certificate application can be submitted, after which the committee must grant approval so that RMIS can issue it. The proposal is based on the fact that the RMIS platform already has a function that can facilitate such a process.
- In short, RMIS has no decision-making powers. RMIS is, however, available to perform the necessary facilitation between industry and government to roll out the process as soon as possible.
- RMIS is and remains a non-profit company focussed on providing services to the red meat and livestock cluster and its members. RMIS must execute the group’s mandates and projects, and does not have decision-making powers.
- RMIS’s ultimate objective is to implement the red meat cluster’s 2030 red meat industry strategy by achieving specific objectives, including strategies to manage animal disease risks and comply with international traceability requirements.
- In terms of RMIS’s role in the control of FMD, it is simply to provide support to the industry so that the latter can remain sustainable in the long term, comply with international standards to ensure market access, and produce its product based on scientifically sound principles. The systems that RMIS has developed to date do exactly that – lend support.
Keep your eye on the ball
A final, and probably the most important observation by the RPO, is that unnecessary legal action could lead to further delays in a vaccination campaign that will assist in getting the industry back on its feet. The livestock industry in South Africa, it says, cannot afford further delays in the vaccination process, especially because of information that has been incorrectly presented and/or interpreted. Not only it this a waste of valuable time, but it also creates unnecessary confusion at a time when coordinated action is of the utmost importance.
FMD is a state-controlled disease and ultimately the state has the final say on the services to be rolled out. The RPO reiterates that RMIS works for the industry which has an existing system that is proposed as a facilitation measure. RMIS cannot take control out of anyone’s hands.
It is now, more than ever, important that producers focus on the task at hand and not be derailed by side battles and semantics. It is easy, and dangerous, says the RPO, to submit to speculation if the facts are not on the table. It expressed the hope that the way forward will be one in which all parties will first ascertain the facts and refrain from unnecessary, expensive, and time-consuming legal action. –Plaas Media
