Transboundary Animal Diseases are Tightening Their Grip on the Planet’s Food Chain
FAO pushes new pact to avert next livestock disease crisis
Rome: In a week when the global food system again finds itself cornered between shrinking budgets and escalating biosecurity risks, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has issued one of its bluntest warnings in recent memory: transboundary animal diseases are tightening their grip on the planet’s food chain, and the world is sleepwalking into a preventable disaster. Addressing Member Countries at FAO headquarters in Rome, Director-General QU Dongyu cautioned that behind the repetitive language of “global partnership” and “sustainability” lies a stark reality—funding cuts and political fatigue threaten to undo two decades of progress in preventing disease outbreaks that can devastate livestock production, wipe out livelihoods, and scramble international trade overnight.
The trigger for the alarm was FAO’s presentation of the Global Partnership Programme for Transboundary Animal Diseases (GPP-TAD), a new mechanism designed to keep emergency animal health systems alive before the next big outbreak exposes how fragile the system has become. From African swine fever’s march across continents since 2007 to the costly European flare-up of Foot-and-Mouth Disease this year, the agency argues that every major crisis has followed the same trajectory: scientists warn, funding dries up, surveillance loosens, and by the time political attention returns the virus has already crossed borders and bankrupted small farmers. QU’s message was unambiguous—disinvestment now is likely to prove more expensive than any pre-emptive strategy. “The cost of prevention is far lower than the cost of inaction,” he said, a reminder less philosophical than financial.
Transboundary animal diseases—or TADs in institutional shorthand—are highly contagious pathogens that ignore customs posts and visa regimes. They travel with livestock, wildlife, feed, transport, weather patterns and, indirectly, with human supply chains. Behind FAO’s urgency lies arithmetic that policymakers have rarely digested: the global livestock sector, valued between USD 1.6 trillion and USD 3.3 trillion, is bleeding between USD 48 and USD 330 billion every year to preventable animal disease. Aquaculture, now responsible for half the fish consumed globally, loses another USD 10 billion annually. In endemic regions alone, Foot-and-Mouth Disease drains an estimated USD 21 billion per year in production losses and vaccine bills. When these diseases erupt, they rip holes not only in household incomes but in national budgets, trade deals, and the nutritional foundations of low-income societies. They do not remain local for long.
The situation is not helped by a world in which livestock is both indispensable and vulnerable. Roughly 1.9 billion people depend directly or indirectly on animals for income, food, or employment. Modern agrifood systems have been built to maximise global throughput—animals and products moving farther and faster than ever—, but the health architecture designed to protect them has stalled in budget negotiations. The Emergency Centre for Transboundary Animal Diseases (ECTAD), FAO’s operational arm that has provided surveillance, rapid response teams, and on-ground expertise in over 50 countries, is now struggling to maintain minimal capacity. Qu’s warning carried a subtext familiar to long-time observers of global food security: the world applauds veterinary containment only until the memory of the last outbreak fades, and then accountants take over.
To avoid such boom-and-bust cycles, FAO is pushing a new formula. The GPP-TAD model rests on the premise that all countries—not just donors—must contribute if global protection is to survive political swings. High-income States would fund the base machinery that keeps surveillance alive and emergency response ready; middle-income nations would add moderate financing or technical capabilities; low-income countries, including Small Island Developing States, Least Developed Countries and Landlocked Developing Countries, would provide in-kind participation, supported by an explicit solidarity mechanism. The logic is transactional rather than charitable: a disease contained in one country spares others from commercial disruption and panic slaughter orders. Or, in QU’s phrasing, “No country can manage these diseases alone.” Behind the diplomacy lies a blunt message—if the surveillance net breaks in the weakest economies, the virus will pass through and punish the strongest ones too.
The disease-prevention appeal collided with a second ongoing FAO meeting in Rome—the 179th Session of the FAO Council—where QU set out a broader attempt to reengineer agrifood systems that are increasingly rattled by climate volatility, geopolitical tension and inflation. The Director-General told Member States that the era of treating crises as isolated shocks is over and that the Organisation must drag governments toward long-term resilience rather than emergency reaction. His four “transformational pathways” framed the agenda: shifting from disaster response to resilience, from input-heavy farming to knowledge-driven models using biotechnology and digital tools, from institutional silos to cross-sectoral partnerships, and from lofty global declarations to implementation at the community level.
The Council’s discussions highlighted the paradox of global agriculture: while climate mitigation, digital transformation and sustainability dominate ministerial speeches, national budgets still disproportionately favour subsidies and short-term incentives. FAO sought to demonstrate that it is not sitting idle. It cited new responsibilities entrusted by the Brazil Presidency for the upcoming 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), ranging from investment in land-restoration agriculture to new initiatives on forests and wildfire prevention. It pointed to its Green Cities work, which is piloting climate-adaptive strategies in African municipalities, and its expanding partnerships with financial institutions including the Global Climate Fund and the Asian Development Bank. It even ventured into the technological battleground, pitching artificial intelligence as a tool for both internal efficiency and public-facing agricultural decision support through platforms such as the FAO Risk Monitor.
The orchestration of meetings, strategies, partnerships and platforms presents a polished façade of an institution juggling rising expectations with shrinking resources. But behind the optimism is an uncomfortable question: can FAO protect the global food chain while the funding base erodes and multilateral cooperation weakens? GPP-TAD was presented as the answer not because it solves the political fragmentation but because it might allow animal health systems to survive despite it. Even the language of shared responsibility carries an undertone of warning—either countries pool resources voluntarily now, or they pay the price involuntarily later.
As the FAO Council prepares to close its session on 5 December, the Organisation faces the same contradiction that has long defined its mandate: the world depends on agriculture, but agriculture depends on political will. In Rome, QU offered both a roadmap and a cautionary note. Agrifood systems are not collapsing yet, but neither are they equipped for the future. And unless Member States treat transboundary disease prevention as seriously as they treat trade, water scarcity or defence, the next animal health crisis may not announce itself through quiet briefings at FAO headquarters but through empty supermarket shelves and shattered rural economies.
– global bihari bureau
