Three and a half months after the appearance of the first case of foot‑and‑mouth disease, and after the virus swept through more than 115 livestock units leading to the death of over 71,000 animals, that is, 11% of the adult sheep and goat population, 3.5% of cattle and 8% of pigs, the government has decided that the time has come to change tactics, even deploying the Army to enforce strict compliance with the measures.
In addition to the more active involvement and mass presence of the Army and Police for the enforcement of biosecurity measures, another of the ten measures decided yesterday at the Presidential Palace is the further strengthening of checks at crossing points concerning the movement of animal products.
From the outcome, it is evident that:
-
First, the government is admitting defeat. The tightening of measures indicates the ineffectiveness of previous handling.
-
Second, the timing of the tightening of measures and fines is not random. The decisions were taken one week after the parliamentary elections, while the scientific team of epidemiologists had been ready since mid‑April for more drastic measures and restrictions that would act as a barrier against the human‑driven causes spreading the virus. One of the basic principles of crisis management is rapid decision‑making. If the goal was to limit the spread and its consequences, the measures should have been taken a month and a half earlier, before the virus spread further.
On the contrary, the government allowed livestock farmers and animal traders to operate freely, permitting gatherings and protests from the first day of the outbreak, thus contributing to the spread of the disease. Controls were also insufficient, effectively allowing the illegal transport of animals both within the free areas and across the Green Line.
Managing a crisis requires not only fast and well‑documented decisions, coordination between ministries and security forces, and the immediate redesign of measures when they prove ineffective. It also requires strong political leadership and credible institutional interlocutors. Certainly not a minister who keeps one foot in and one foot out of the ministry for months, nor a President who waits for the right timing to manage the situation.
