South Africa’s neighbours are shutting the door
The South African government is looking to meet with counterparts from Botswana and Namibia to “find an amicable solution” to their bans on imports of South African vegetables, citrus and other produce, which government officials warn can hurt local farmers and strain trade relations.
The two neighbouring countries have long been South Africa’s third and fourth-largest export destinations for agricultural products by value.
A prolonged ban on vegetable imports from South Africa started in December 2021 and has been in place since, which is meant to end in 2025. This stopped produce like tomatoes, carrots, beetroot, potatoes, cabbage, lettuce, onions, and more from entering the country
This was felt in South Africa, with vegetable exports falling 8% in value terms in 2023 from the previous year.
Another 3-month citrus ban was introduced in June 2024 until the end of August.
Agricultural economist Wandile Sihlobo noted that Botswana and Namibia—both members of the Southern African Customs Union (Sacu) bloc encouraging free trade alongside South Africa—regularly close their borders to South African vegetables.
The two countries said that the ban is to incentivise domestic production and lower their dependence on South Africa, which supplied a majority of Botswana’s produce before the ban was implemented.
President of Botswana, Dr Mokgweetsi Masisi, wrote on Twitter last month that “our ban on imported vegetables was a powerful move to boost our local farmers and economy. This initiative empowers Botswana by promoting self-sufficiency and improving livelihoods.”
However, critics of the ban, such as Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen, argue that it is in conflict with Sacu’s ideals of open trade and collaboration, possibly unsettling established trading partnerships and the broader economic stability of the region.
Agricultural economist and researchers Nkunjana and Sifiso Ntombela wrote for the National Agricultural Marketing Council that “the ban on selected products, mainly vegetables by…Namibia and Botswana are justified on protecting the infant industries in these countries.”
“However, these bans go against the principles of a customs union and affect the regional value chain, in which farmers and agribusinesses in South Africa have invested heavily to ensure there is sufficient supply of food in the Sacu market,” said Nkunjana and Ntombela.
Shortly after the ban was imposed, South African Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) published a piece on the matter, saying that “the bans on South African vegetable exports destined for Namibia and Botswana will likely have a negative impact as local farmers will potentially plant fewer vegetables, a move that will hurt export revenue and lead to job losses across the vegetable supply chain in South Africa.”
The DTIC said that it could also “lead to higher prices of vegetables, market inefficiencies and supply shortages in both countries due to lack of competition resulting in significant consumer and producer welfare losses.”
“While countries have a right to protect their economic interests, the prohibition is not in the spirit of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which seeks to promote intra-Africa trade,” added the DTIC.
Accroding to Steenhuisen, he and DTIC Minister Parks Tau are now working together to facilitate discussions with Botswana and Namibia, with Tau spearheading the discussions.
“We believe we can find an amicable solution, I don’t think we need to end up with a situation where you block our products, and we’ll block yours – I don’t think it’s helpful to both countries,” Steenhuisen told the SABC.
“I hope we will really be able to sit around the table with Botswana and Namibia and work out a compromise,” he added.
Steenhuisen referenced Sacu, which the three countries are part of.
“The agreement is very clear: you cannot just simply arbitrarily close borders or shut down industries; now we obviously want to hear Botswana and Namibia’s position on the matter,” Steenhuisen added.
Sihlobo outlined that the Sacu agreement does have a loophole allowing such restrictions.
An article by researchers at the DTIC outlines that “Article 18 (2) [of the Sacu agreement] … notes that Member States have the right to impose restrictions on imports or exports for the protection of: health of humans, animals or plants, the environment, treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value, public morals, intellectual property rights, national security and exhaustible natural resources.”
“Viewed in this context, one can only guess that Botswana and Namibia would argue they are boosting their domestic production of vegetables for ‘national security’,” said Sihlobo.
The agricultural economist noted that in 2013, the African continent accounted for roughly 40% of South Africa’s record agricultural exports of $13.2 billion, a figure that has remained the same for the past decade.
“Importantly, for every dollar of agricultural products South Africa exports to Africa, 90 cents are within southern Africa – thus, an engagement with this region about the export ban must appreciate that South Africa greatly depends on the area,” said Sihlobo.
He suggested that the response must be sensitive but firm.
It “will need to be neither antagonistic nor arrogant but rather to understand Botswana and Namibia’s aspirations and to formulate pathways of coexistence and better communication of policy approaches within the region.”
Loading ...
