The Red Line Debate: Economic Risks of Removing Namibia’s Veterinary Cordon Fence

By Brian Black

Namibia’s Veterinary Cordon Fence, commonly known as the “Red Line,” has been the subject of intense debate in recent years. While critics argue that the Red Line perpetuates inequality and limits access to lucrative markets for communal farmers north of the fence, its removal could pose significant economic risks for the country.

To understand the implications, it is essential to consider the purpose of the Red Line. This veterinary cordon fence was established to protect Namibia’s livestock industry—one of the country’s economic backbones—from diseases like foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia. These diseases are endemic in regions where wildlife such as buffaloes roam freely. Namibia is one of only a handful of African countries that has managed to secure international recognition as an FMD-free zone south of the Red Line.

This status is critical for accessing premium export markets in Europe, Asia, and beyond. Namibia’s beef exports, valued at billions of Namibian dollars annually, are a cornerstone of the agricultural sector, sustaining thousands of jobs and contributing significantly to the national GDP. Removing the Red Line would expose the entire country to the risk of FMD outbreaks, which could lead to devastating trade embargoes and economic losses.

Namibia’s ability to export beef to high-value markets hinges on its FMD-free status. Without the Red Line, the entire country could lose this designation. Export bans would be inevitable in the event of an outbreak, as international markets have zero tolerance for FMD. The economic fallout would ripple through the supply chain, from commercial farmers to abattoirs and exporters.

Namibia’s commercial livestock industry south of the Red Line is highly integrated into global markets. An FMD outbreak would not only halt exports but also devalue livestock across the board. Farmers would face financial ruin, leading to widespread unemployment and reduced tax revenue for the government.

Containing an FMD outbreak is both expensive and time-consuming. Vaccination campaigns, culling infected animals, and monitoring disease spread would require massive public and private sector investments. These costs would far outweigh the perceived benefits of removing the Red Line.

Ironically, removing the Red Line could harm the very communal farmers it is meant to benefit. Without effective disease control measures, livestock in communal areas would be at greater risk of infection, reducing their market value and productivity. This would deepen poverty in already vulnerable communities.

It is worth noting that no country on the African continent has successfully eradicated FMD without a veterinary cordon fence or similar control measures. In regions where buffaloes coexist with livestock, the risk of disease transmission is a constant threat. Countries that have attempted to relax their veterinary controls have faced catastrophic consequences, including prolonged trade bans and economic setbacks.

The Red Line is not without its challenges, particularly for farmers north of the fence who are excluded from lucrative export markets. However, removing the Red Line is not the solution. Instead, Namibia should focus on innovative approaches to integrate communal farmers into the broader economy without compromising the country’s FMD-free status.

• Establishing disease-free zones north of the Red Line through rigorous vaccination and monitoring programs.

• Investing in abattoirs and processing facilities in the northern regions to create local value chains.

• Expanding domestic markets for livestock products to reduce reliance on exports.

The Red Line is more than just a fence; it is a safeguard for Namibia’s agricultural economy. Removing it without a comprehensive and well-funded disease control strategy would expose the country to severe economic risks. Instead of dismantling the Red Line, Namibia should seek balanced solutions that protect its livestock industry while addressing the legitimate concerns of communal farmers.

The stakes are too high to gamble with Namibia’s economic future.