Australia exported a record 1.55-million tonnes of beef in 2025. South Africa exported about 28,700 tonnes. In other words, Australia exported roughly 54 times as much beef as South Africa.Even more troubling is the direction in which the two industries moved. Australian beef exports increased 15% in 2025. South African exports fell by about 26%.Australia is admittedly one of the world’s great agricultural exporters and this is far from a like-for-like comparison. Its beef industry has been built around international trade for generations, with advantages of scale, established markets, sophisticated traceability and biosecurity, and a reputation as a dependable supplier.Australia has also remained free of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) for more than 150 years. South African FMD cannot explain the entire 54-to-one difference. But it is becoming one of the biggest obstacles preventing South Africa from narrowing it.The country did not previously enjoy nationwide FMD-free recognition. It had a World Organisation for Animal Health-recognised FMD-free zone, where vaccination was not practised. That status was suspended after an outbreak in January 2019. Repeated outbreaks have followed, culminating in the present crisis.Australia is by no means alone in enjoying a major animal-health advantage. The US and Canada, as well as important European beef-producing countries, have internationally recognised FMD-free status. That status matters enormously in international meat trade.South Africa had nevertheless begun making encouraging progress. Beef exports reached a record of almost 39,000 tonnes in 2024 as producers developed markets in the Middle East and elsewhere. Then FMD intensified.Exports fell to about 28,700 tonnes in 2025. China, which had become South Africa’s third-largest external beef market in 2024, imposed a ban following the outbreak. Beef exports to China subsequently fell by 69% to just 1,687 tonnes.Australia is by no means alone in enjoying a major animal-health advantage. The US and Canada, as well as important European beef-producing countries, have internationally recognised FMD-free status. That status matters enormously in international meat trade.For an export industry as small as ours, repeatedly losing momentum just as new markets are being developed is particularly damaging. The financial consequences extend well beyond those lost shipments.The Bureau for Food & Agricultural Policy (BFAP) estimates that under the high-disease-burden scenario South Africa is experiencing, FMD could cause more than R11.3bn in lost beef production value in 2025-30.BFAP also estimates that more than R800m in beef export revenue was lost during the major FMD waves between 2019 and 2025, with cumulative export losses potentially reaching R2.6bn by the end of 2026.Those numbers should make us look at FMD differently. It is not merely an animal-health problem. Veterinary services, disease surveillance, livestock identification, traceability and effective movement controls are all part of our economic infrastructure.An importing country does not buy South African beef merely because the quality is good and the price competitive. It must trust our veterinary certification, know the health status and origin of the animals, and have confidence that their movements can be traced.The government, to its credit, now recognises the scale of the problem. Its strategy envisages a phased approach over roughly a decade, beginning with mass vaccination and stronger disease control and ultimately seeking internationally recognised FMD-free status. Millions of animals have already been vaccinated and unprecedented quantities of vaccine procured.But here lies the important point for South Africa’s export ambitions: the long-term fight against FMD and the immediate expansion of beef exports should not be regarded as competing priorities.We do not have to wait 10 years before substantially expanding beef exports. International animal-health rules permit trade to continue under agreed conditions where disease risks can be satisfactorily managed. Properly controlled zones, recognised compartments, traceability systems and bilateral veterinary certification can allow safe products to reach international markets even while the wider national disease problem is being addressed.We do not have to wait 10 years before substantially expanding beef exports. International animal-health rules permit trade to continue under agreed conditions where disease risks can be satisfactorily managed.FMD-free status should therefore not be regarded as an all-or-nothing gateway to export growth. This requires more than declarations. It demands credible regionalisation, compulsory identification, reliable movement records, effective surveillance, rapid laboratory confirmation and veterinary certification that importing countries can trust.South Africa is already demonstrating what can be achieved through negotiated market access. Jordan has continued accepting South African meat, while other markets have operated under revised certification and agreed conditions. These should not be treated merely as isolated diplomatic successes. They should form part of a national export strategy. The objective should be to keep safe, traceable product moving from controlled areas while progressively expanding those areas and strengthening the systems behind them. FMD-free zones, recognised compartments and bilateral veterinary agreements cannot substitute for ultimately controlling the national disease problem. But they can prevent every outbreak from closing the same export door. They can protect producers who comply with the rules, preserve hard-won markets and create a powerful economic incentive for better disease control.Regionalisation must therefore become operational rather than merely a policy concept. Traceability must become a commercial asset rather than simply a regulatory burden. Risk-based trade should increasingly replace a system in which a disease event in one area can paralyse an entire national industry.There is also a broader lesson about food security. A strong domestic meat industry is essential, but food security should not be confused with complete self-sufficiency. International trade provides resilience in both directions.When South African producers can compete internationally, exports provide larger markets and better opportunities. When disease, drought or other disruption constrains domestic supply, imports provide an alternative source of product. Imports and exports are not natural enemies. They are complementary parts of a functioning meat economy.Nobody should expect South Africa suddenly to replicate Australia. Australia produced a record 2.87-million tonnes of beef in 2025 and has spent generations developing the markets and infrastructure that allow it to sell more than half its production abroad.But a 54-to-one export gap should make us uncomfortable, especially when, in the same year that Australian exports increased another 15%, ours went backwards by 26%.South Africa does not lack cattle, farming expertise, processors or potential international customers. What it lacks is a sufficiently reliable animal-health and traceability system to convert those advantages into sustained export growth.The immediate task is therefore clear: establish credible regionalisation, universal traceability and risk-based veterinary certification so that safe beef can continue reaching international markets. The long-term task is to control and ultimately eliminate FMD as a barrier to trade.Those are not alternatives. If South Africa gets the first right while pursuing the second, it does not need to spend the next decade watching export opportunities pass it by.These are my personal views, based partly on my previous experience in the South African meat trade, and my current residence in Australia. I no longer represent any industry organisation.• Wolpert is a retired CEO of the Association of Meat Importers & Exporters of South Africa.