FMD crisis exposes Namibia’s beef export vulnerability

The return of Namibian beef shipments from the United Kingdom to Namibia has exposed deeper vulnerabilities in the country’s meat industry, with the loss of access to premium export markets threatening processors, farmers, jobs and future investment.

Beyond the immediate costs of redirecting consignments, the disruption highlights Namibia’s heavy reliance on a limited number of international buyers, leaving the sector exposed when animal disease restrictions interrupt trade.

Almandro Jansen, an economist at Simonis Storm, said the situation demonstrated the economic consequences of concentrating exports in markets with strict foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) requirements. “In 2025, 94% of Namibia’s beef exports went to European markets that require FMD-free status,” Jansen said.

He explained that the United Kingdom required Namibian beef to enter the country before 25 September. This meant consignments still at sea after that date lost access to the market and had to be returned or redirected.

“A disease outbreak on farms in the Karasburg district reached shipping containers in Europe within days. That is concentration risk in practice,” he said.

Lost export markets, shrinking returns

“The financial implications extend beyond the cost of returning shipments. Exporters face additional freight, cold storage, demurrage, port and inspection charges, while redirected products must compete in markets offering considerably lower prices,” Jansen said.

According to Jansen, alternative markets currently pay between N$113 and N$138 per kilogram, compared with approximately N$219 for fresh boneless beef in Europe. This represents a price reduction of roughly 40% to 50%.

For meat processors, losing access to premium markets puts pressure on profitability, particularly as export abattoirs continue to carry substantial fixed operating costs despite reduced slaughter volumes.

Processors are also facing higher holding, compliance and financing costs, he said, while the availability of additional beef on the domestic market could further depress prices.

“The consequences are already becoming visible in the processing industry. Savanna Beef has brought operations to a standstill and placed approximately 240 workers on leave, while Meatco has placed about 400 production workers on special leave. Beefcor has also warned of possible retrenchments,” Jansen said.

He warned that the disruption could create lasting commercial disadvantages as international buyers turn to competing suppliers.

Potential beneficiaries include beef exporters from Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil, as well as Australia and New Zealand, which can continue supplying premium markets.

“The real prize is supermarket supply programmes and shelf space. Once a retailer lists another supplier, Namibia has to win that space back,” he said.

Farmers and processors face mounting pressure

Jansen cautioned that restoring veterinary status would not automatically restore Namibia’s commercial position. Individual importing countries must make separate decisions about resuming purchases, while rebuilding relationships with international buyers could take even longer.

“International experience suggests that restoring FMD-free status can take approximately six months where infected animals are culled and about 21 months where vaccination is used,” he said.

According to Jansen, Namibia has opted for vaccination, with more than 61 000 cattle vaccinated so far. He said individual importing countries could take a further 12 to 24 months to resume purchases, depending on their requirements.

He identified effective zoning as an important way to limit the economic damage, pointing to Botswana’s experience in 2022, when the European Union reopened unaffected zones within approximately two months.

“At farm level, reduced slaughter opportunities could leave producers with fewer buyers, lower prices and mounting financial pressure. Farmers may be forced to keep animals for longer, increasing feeding costs at a time when feed is already expensive towards the end of the dry season,” he said.

This could also reverse herd rebuilding following the drought, particularly among emerging and communal farmers, who have fewer financial reserves to withstand prolonged market disruptions.

“Industry estimates place potential losses at approximately N$151 million a week, with as many as 52 000 jobs at risk,” Jansen said.

He also warned that additional beef redirected into the domestic market could put downward pressure on local prices. While consumers may benefit from cheaper beef, farmers and processors would face further pressure on their margins.

Jansen estimates that increased domestic supply could reduce headline inflation by approximately 0.2 percentage points in each quarter of 2027.

The disruption also raises questions about the industry’s ability to attract investment, he said. Uncertainty over export access could delay plans to expand abattoirs, develop feedlots and rebuild livestock herds, while lenders may become more cautious about financing agricultural businesses.

Diversification and local value addition

For Jansen, the crisis reinforces the need for Namibia to reconsider how it structures and protects its beef export industry.

He said meaningful diversification would involve developing additional export destinations, strengthening regional markets, expanding processed and heat-treated meat products, and improving zoning arrangements to prevent isolated outbreaks from disrupting the entire industry.

“Markets such as China, Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia could offer opportunities, although veterinary protocols, certification, competition and purchasing prices remain important considerations,” he said.

“Local value addition could also provide some protection. Heat-treated and processed products, including canned and cooked meat, can remain eligible for trade when fresh meat exports are restricted, provided they meet importing countries’ prescribed treatment requirements,” he added.

Jansen argued that the government should also consider establishing a permanent FMD contingency and compensation fund, improving export credit insurance, supporting logistics costs and investing in traceability, fencing and disease containment infrastructure.

Biosecurity as economic infrastructure

He stressed that animal health controls should not be viewed simply as an expense. “Biosecurity should be treated as economic infrastructure rather than an expense,” he said.

Earlier this year, Parliament heard that approximately N$1.5 billion was needed for prevention and preparedness, while only N$57.5 million had been approved.

Jansen said this funding gap should be considered against the potential economic losses facing the industry.

“If Namibia struggles to restore its position in the UK and other premium markets, the consequences could extend well beyond the current outbreak,” he warned.

His modelling suggests that output losses could reach approximately N$5 billion over two years in a severe scenario, excluding longer-term structural consequences.

For Namibia, the challenge is therefore not only to regain access to international markets, but also to ensure that the next animal health crisis does not leave the country’s beef industry equally exposed.