by Wandile Sihlobo | Aug 27, 2025 | Africa Focus
Minimal government intervention in agricultural markets is often considered an ideal policy path, as government intervention may disrupt the efficient allocation of scarce resources or functioning of the market (through the forces of supply and demand).
In times of abundant harvests, farmers and agribusinesses must be allowed to export and benefit from the global market. In times of droughts or floods, trade must still be allowed. Indeed, there may be short-term economic pain for consumers through higher prices in deficit years when imports are needed, but this induces farmers to plant more in the coming seasons.
At times, governments ban imports to protect local farmers when they have ample domestic supplies, which are deemed sufficient to meet consumer requirements. However, that also limits the consumer’s choice and artificially increases the domestic price by restricting more competitively priced imports.
I am highlighting these policy tradeoffs in light of recent news from Zimbabwe. A report by Reuters, a news organisation, suggests that the Zimbabwean government has reinstated a ban on maize imports. The government believes that in the interim, there are sufficient supplies for the local market and wants to ensure maximum price realisation for the domestic producers before allowing imports.
Nevertheless, it remains unclear if Zimbabwe has sufficient maize supplies for the year or will need imports later. Zimbabwe’s 2024-25 maize production is forecast at 1.3 million tonnes, according to recent data from the Pretoria-based unit of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This is just more than twice the output from the previous season, which was a drought period.
This recovery in Zimbabwe’s maize production is primarily driven by improved weather conditions and an increase in the area that farmers managed to plant for maize. If this production level materialises, then the ban may be temporary.
Zimbabwe’s potential maize harvest of 1.3 million tonnes will not be sufficient to meet the country’s domestic needs of 2.0 million tonnes per annum, leaving it to import the balance.
In the last marketing year, South Africa supplied nearly all of Zimbabwe’s maize imports. However, in the 2025-26 marketing year, there may be some changes, with Zambia regaining its net exporter status as it expects a bumper harvest of 3.66 million tonnes. This far surpasses Zambia’s maize consumption of 2.8 million tonnes per annum.
South Africa also forecasts a robust maize harvest of 15.80 million tonnes, which is 23% higher than the previous 2023-24 season’s crop. These forecasts are well above South Africa’s annual maize needs of approximately 12.00 million tonnes, implying that South Africa will have a surplus and remain a net exporter of maize.
For South African maize exporters, the message here is that Zimbabwe may not be the ideal market in the near term, as they have ample domestic supplies. However, later in the season, they may return to the market and import. The USDA forecasts suggest that the expected crop is insufficient to last throughout the year.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
by Wandile Sihlobo | Aug 5, 2025 | Africa Focus
I know some people have strongly argued that we must deepen our trade with the African continent to lessen the higher exposure to some risky regions. The African continent does present opportunities for the various sectors of our economy, but for agriculture, I am not as optimistic, at least in the near term.
You see, the continent is already an important market, accounting for roughly half of our agricultural exports of US$13.7 billion in 2024. But if one looks closely at the data, one realises that approximately 90 cents in every dollar of these exports are to the neighbouring Southern Africa region. These are mainly in the Southern Africa Customs Union (SACU) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Free Trade Area (FTA). We will likely remain heavily dominant in these regions for some time, but the growth is limited. We have to play a more maintenance approach rather than hoping for further expansion in the area.
The product scope of agricultural exports into SACU and SADC is quite diverse. It includes maize, processed food products, apples and pears, sugar, animal feed products, prepared or bottled water, fruit juices, and wine.
The question is, just how much more can South Africa export beyond SACU/SADC?
The most reasonable assumption is for South Africa to target West, East, and North Africa. But such an expansion has limits.
For a start, Africa north of the Saharan, more specifically the Maghreb region (i.e., Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia), is much closer to Europe, and its trade activity is more closely linked to the EU rather than sub-Saharan Africa.
In addition, South Africa competes with this region in several products where it aims to increase its exports, primarily the high-value horticulture products. Establishing a market presence in North Africa may prove challenging due to direct competition with well-established EU supply chains and competitive local produce.
South Africa’s realistic opportunity within the African continent is more likely in East and West Africa. Leveraging the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA)’s tariff-free movement of goods would potentially boost the country’s agricultural exports to these regions. But, at least in the near term, trade with these regions may not yield many benefits for South Africa.
There are at least three reasons why not: East and West African regions have a range of Non-Tariff Barriers, which could hinder boosting trade regardless of lower tariffs brought by the AfCFTA; secondly, high levels of corruption, which increase the costs of doing business, have proven to be a significant business concern; and thirdly, fragmented value chains owing to poor connectivity and infrastructure are also a major contributor to transport costs, which tend to increase significantly as goods are transported inland.
This narrow scope of expanding agricultural exports in the African continent typically leads to frustration amongst business leaders, who continue to see improvement in production domestically, but are limited in avenues for sales. The major economies in the east and west of the continent, Nigeria and Kenya, remain tiny markets for South Africa’s agricultural exports, each accounting for a mere 2% a year.
Still, Nigeria spends over US$6 billion on agricultural imports a year. The key beneficiaries of the Nigerian agriculture market are Brazil, the US, China, Russia, Canada, New Zealand, and Germany. This is through imports of wheat, dairy products, sugar, processed food, palm oil, and maize, among other products.
Meanwhile, Kenya is a relatively small market with just over US$2 billion worth of agriculture and food imports a year. The key suppliers are Indonesia, Malaysia, Argentina, Russia, Pakistan, Uganda, Tanzania, India, and Egypt. Kenya’s key agriculture and food imports are palm oil, wheat, rice, sugar, processed food, maize, dairy products, pasta, and sorghum, among others.
The composition of food and agricultural imports into these two countries is also indicative that South Africa’s scope to export high-value horticulture, meat, and wine products is limited. These countries import primarily staple food products, and as such, they are markets that would be worth pursuing for grain farmers. Still, non-tariff barriers remain a stumbling block, even for grains, as Kenya prohibits the importation and cultivation of genetically modified maize, which South Africa produces.
It is partly these reasons that I have consistently pointed out that, for the near term, we must focus on Asia, the Middle East, and the BRICS countries. The African continent remains valuable, but we must focus on maintaining these markets rather than hoping for further expansion in agricultural exports.
Note: This comment draws from my piece with Dr Tinashe Kapuya, which is accessible here.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
by Wandile Sihlobo | Jul 27, 2025 | Africa Focus
Maize demand in the Southern African region is expected to remain strong in the 2025-26 marketing year, which commenced in May (this marketing year corresponds with the 2024-25 production season).
One of the countries that imported the most maize in Southern Africa in the 2024-25 marketing year was Zimbabwe. The country accounted for 56% of South Africa’s maize exports of 2.3 million tonnes that year. In the 2025-26 marketing year, Zimbabwe’s maize demand is expected to be smaller but remain substantial.
The previous season presented unique challenges, primarily the mid-summer drought. This led to a 60% decline in Zimbabwe’s maize production, leaving the country with only 635,000 tonnes of harvest. This was far below the 2,0 million tonnes Zimbabwe required for its domestic annual consumption. Thus, imports played a crucial role in meeting domestic needs.
But the current season has brought some recovery. Zimbabwe’s 2024-25 maize production is forecast at 1.3 million tonnes, according to recent data from the Pretoria-based unit of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This is just more than twice the output from the previous season.
This recovery is primarily driven by improved weather conditions and an increase in the area that farmers managed to plant for maize. Still, Zimbabwe’s potential maize harvest of 1.3 million tonnes will not be sufficient to meet the country’s domestic needs of 2.0 million tonnes, leaving it to import the balance.
In the last marketing year, South Africa supplied nearly all of Zimbabwe’s maize imports. However, in the 2025-26 marketing year, there may be some changes, with Zambia becoming an exporter again.
Zambia, the second-largest maize producer in the Southern African region, has seen a recovery in its 2024-25 maize production, now estimated at 3.66 million tonnes, up from 1.5 million tonnes in the previous season, according to government data from Zambia.
Similar to Zimbabwe and South Africa, this increase in the harvest is due to favourable weather conditions and decent area plantings. The harvest is underway in the country. This means Zambia could return to being a net exporter of maize, as its domestic maize consumption is approximately 2.8 million tonnes, which is far surpassed by the expected harvest of 3.66 million tonnes.
Moreover, South African maize supplies are also robust, with the 2024-25 harvest estimated at 14.78 million tonnes, representing a 15% year-on-year increase. There is an increase in both white and yellow maize. Also worth noting is that South Africa’s relatively modest rise reflects the fact that output damage during the 2024 drought period was more limited. The improved seed cultivars, along with relatively higher fertiliser usage and other interventions, ensured that South Africa’s maize production decline last year was moderate.
Importantly, the 2024-25 harvest seems likely to be well above South Africa’s annual maize needs of approximately 12 million tonnes, which implies that South Africa will remain a net exporter of maize.
Zimbabwe will likely remain one of the key beneficiaries, as we have already witnessed imports since the start of the marketing year in May. Still, we anticipate that the large volumes of imports may materialise at the end of the year or early 2026. In the near term, Zimbabwe will likely rely on its maize harvest.
Indeed, the maize needs in the Southern Africa region for the 2025-26 marketing year are expected to be less severe than those witnessed in the 2024-25 marketing year, when Zambia’s maize harvest was down by half and Zimbabwe’s by 60%. There were also significant losses in other countries, such as Mozambique, Lesotho, and Malawi, among others.
This time around, the better weather conditions have supported production. Still, Zimbabwe may remain the major maize importer in Southern Africa.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
by Wandile Sihlobo | Jul 14, 2025 | Africa Focus
One of the stories I picked up in the FT this morning is comments by John-Arne Røttingen of the Wellcome charitable foundation, expressing worries about the change in aid to African countries.
Røttingen’s remarks mainly focused on the health impact, especially for countries that lack the fiscal space to close the gaps left by the reduction in USAID funds and the reduction in other Western countries’ assistance.
The one aspect that I am also particularly worried about is food insecurity in some African countries. The funding cuts to USAID also impact the World Food Programme (roughly half of the WFP budget is from USAID).
Yes, we may not see the immediate impact of all this currently in food insecurity levels, as the sub-Saharan Africa region has a reasonably good agricultural season.
However, when supplies are depleted later in the year or we encounter droughts, we will see the shock to households. Of course, the idea is not to rely solely on aid; countries must improve their conditions. But the decline should have been more gradual, and not this significant, sharp and abrupt decline we see.
This is a wake-up call for the African governments. On food security matters, amongst other interventions, the African continent needs to invest more in boosting its agricultural output, and the adoption of high-yielding seed cultivars is key.
This is key to improving food security conditions, along with necessary interventions such as improving land governance, infrastructure, and limiting government interventions in agricultural markets, among other measures, all of which are crucial for long-term agricultural growth in the sub-Saharan African region.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
by Wandile Sihlobo | May 31, 2025 | Africa Focus
Zimbabwe has consistently been one of the food insecurity hotspots in the Southern African region, particularly during periods of drought. This meant that organisations such as the World Food Programme, amongst others, should always have the country on their radar, as a country that requires assistance.
Many African countries import grain during their tough drought seasons. However, what is rarely mentioned is that some of these imports may have been processed through the World Food Programme (WFP).
However, the WFP is now weakened since the U.S. administration decided to downsize funding to USAID, one of the WFP’s supporters. This leaves Zimbabwe and other countries that typically received support at risk.
Amongst many things that could be done in the face of this challenge is improving domestic agricultural production. And yes, this won’t be an overnight intervention and will take time to yield gains. I won’t bother rehashing what must happen and how the African government could restart their agrarian economies.
However, what caught my attention was an article posted by the African Development Bank (AFDB) regarding the approval of a grant for Zimbabwe’s agriculture.
The AFDB states that its directors approved the following:
“a $10.12 million grant from its African Development Fund to boost sustainable agricultural production and strengthen rural resilience in drought-prone regions. The project is expected to directly benefit 7,000 livestock-keeping farmers and 42,000 smallholder/crop farmers in Zimbabwe”.
The ADFB further adds that:
“The project’s primary focus is on climate-smart agricultural productivity and value chain enhancement, which includes rehabilitating dip tanks, developing solar-powered boreholes, and supporting crop-livestock value chains to enhance food and nutrition security; building rural communities’ livelihoods and resilience to climate change- to support integrated land use planning, landscape restoration, and catchment management to improve water security.”
Zimbabwe needs such intervention. However, the focus will now also be on its practical use, and notably, on the long-term approach of kickstarting the country’s agricultural sector, which requires more than this minor grant, but a policy change, from land reform (land governance) to reform in seed administration legislations, amongst other things.
Beyond Zimbabwe, we must all appreciate that the challenge of hunger on the African continent is more pressing now than they have been in the past. The multinational organisations that provided a cushion in the past may not be around to help us in Africa. The challenge lies in boosting Africa’s agriculture and addressing the issues of poverty and underdevelopment.
The long-term effort will be a tough job, but at a very high level, it would entail, amongst other things, the following:
- Addressing the lingering land reform issues (in Zimbabwe) and in the broader African continent, the need for extending title deeds or tradable leases to farmers and agribusinesses is vital for attracting investments.
- Second, investments in infrastructure are critical for improving the value chains.
- Third, embrace technological advancements in seeds, genetics, and agrochemicals, which boost productivity.
- Lastly, supporting commercial farming, which will be essential for the growth of the agro-processing sector in various countries’ food systems and as a source of employment, is a critical step for agricultural progress in Africa.
For a deeper discussion, I encourage you to rewatch this talk, drawing on South African examples (see here).
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
by Wandile Sihlobo | May 24, 2025 | Africa Focus
In the summer of 2024, Zambia, a country reliant on minimal maize imports for nearly two decades, was in a tricky position. Like many countries in Southern Africa, it was hit by the mid-summer drought.
Zambia had planted its typical maize area of 1,4 million hectares. It seemed like the season was shaping up well for a moment, promising a decent maize crop, a staple food. Things changed for the worse in February. The country was hit by the mid-summer drought, which led to half of the harvest being lost and the government declaring a state of natural disaster.
The season started with relatively small opening stocks of just under half a million tonnes, and the expected harvest was about a million tonnes. This volume would not meet Zambia’s annual maize needs of 2,8 million tonnes. The country had to import a million tonnes of maize to meet its annual needs, which elevated domestic grain prices and general food inflation.
Zambia was not alone and was not the worst-affected country in the region by the mid-summer drought of 2024. Zimbabwe lost roughly 60% of its maize crop, and neighbouring countries experienced significant losses.
Because of its improved seed cultivars, South Africa saw a much better path. The drought led to a 22% decline in maize harvest to 12,85 million tonnes, which meant South Africa was amongst the few countries that had to supply maize to the region.
Another positive aspect is that South Africa had large opening stocks of over two million tonnes, which added to the 12,85 million tonnes. This placed the country in a better position to supply the region and cushion it from a food crisis.
But we are now far from this reality. Zambia’s 2024-25 maize crop has bounced back. The government forecasts the harvest to be 3,66 million tonnes, up from 1,5 million tonnes the previous season. This is because of favourable weather conditions and the decent area plantings.
The harvest is underway in the country, and the message we are hearing about the quality of the crop remains encouraging. This also means Zambia could return to being a net exporter of maize as its domestic maize consumption is about 2,8 million tonnes, far surpassed by the expected harvest of 3,66 million tonnes.
Importantly, one can expect the domestic maize prices to continue moderating as the harvest continues, thus easing the general food price inflation.
Zambia is also not the only fortunate country in the Southern Africa region. The entire region received better rains, even excessive rains in some areas. We continue to hear encouraging news of the better grain harvest in Zimbabwe. For example, Zimbabwean farmers likely planted 1.7 million hectares of maize this year, slightly lower than last year but decent.
We will know more about the yields in the coming weeks and months. What is clear at the moment is that Zimbabwe will, too, have a better maize harvest compared to the 2023-24 drought year.
The South African story is even more optimistic. For example, South Africa’s 2024-25 maize harvest is forecast at 14,66 million tonnes. There is an increase in white and yellow maize, with harvests now at 7,75 million tonnes and 6,91 million tonnes, respectively.
Overall, the maize harvest of 14,66 million tonnes is up 14% year-on-year, primarily benefiting from expected yield improvements on an annual basis. Importantly, these forecasts are well above South Africa’s yearly maize needs of about 11,8 million tonnes, which implies that South Africa will have a surplus and remain a net exporter of maize.
The 2024-25 season is a positive change for Southern Africa’s staple crop, maize. Importantly, it is encouraging to see Zambia bounce back. This country is vital in maize supplies to the region as the second largest producer after South Africa.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
by Wandile Sihlobo | Apr 21, 2025 | Africa Focus
The likely weakened state of the World Food Programme, resulting from the Trump Administration’s decision to downsize USAID, should serve as a wake-up call to African governments to improve their agricultural production seriously.
You see, few countries in Southern Africa typically have surplus production of staple grains. In most seasons, South Africa, Zambia, and Tanzania are the primary producers with a surplus for export. Some countries, such as Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Mozambique, typically import grains in most seasons.
While imports are partly handled by the private sector, in times of crisis – whether caused by droughts or floods – the World Food Programme typically intervenes to assist. Such rough times are not consistent throughout the year, but at sensitive times, such as the end of the year, when grain supplies from past seasons are somewhat depleted, countries look forward to the new season.
In a season, one would typically read about the need for food supplies between November and March, before the new crop harvest season begins. Countries with grain surpluses, such as South Africa and Zambia, would be the leading exporters to the region at such times. Amongst the importers (buyers) is the World Food Programme (WFP), which then distributes food parcels to various vulnerable communities.
We have learned from various media reports that the WFP is closing some of its offices in Southern Africa and will operate out of Nairobi, Kenya.
On the face of it, such a move would not be a worry, especially if they continue with their aid efforts regardless of where they operate from. Indeed, the WFP spokesperson was quoted in The Guardian, a newspaper, saying:
“Our commitment to serving vulnerable communities is as strong as ever, and WFP remains committed to ensuring our operations are as effective and efficient as possible in meeting the needs of those facing hunger.”
This reorientation of the WFP resulted from reduced funding due to the Trump Administration’s closure of various USAID operations, which had been one of the WFP’s supporters.
We do not know the full impact of this on the effectiveness of the WFP. However, it is worth highlighting that roughly half of its budget is funded by the U.S. This raises concern that the optimistic statement by the WFP’s spokesperson, which I highlighted above, may be more about managing the optics than an indication of its effectiveness in the future.
I must admit that the Trump Administration has stated that it intends to modify some of its support for food needs through the WFP. They are not completely walking away. However, whether the modification maintains or even improves the effectiveness of the WFP remains to be seen. It is sufficient to say that if the funding is cut, there are risks for various countries in Africa and the Middle East.
However, the whole food issue in Africa should not necessarily be an American problem, at least in the medium term. The African leaders must act on what they always preach about the importance of agriculture. We have heard speeches on numerous occasions about how this sector is essential and will support Africa’s economic growth and job creation. However, we rarely see meaningful policy changes that drive the industry forward.
I believe that if we can address the following five points, we can see a meaningful improvement in Africa’s agricultural and food security conditions over time. The starting points could be:
- Extending title deeds or tradable leases to farmers and agribusinesses is vital for attracting investment.
- Investments in infrastructure are critical for improving value chains.
- Embracing technological advancements in seeds, genetics, and agrochemicals can boost productivity.
- Limited trade and commodity price interventions are essential for ensuring policy certainty and attracting investment.
- Supporting commercial farming, which is essential for the growth of the agro-processing sector in various countries’ food systems and as a source of employment, is a critical step for agricultural progress in Africa.
These are complex policy matters that require a shift in mindset, as well as detailed analysis and focused programmes under each point. But over time, if implemented, they could free the African continent from its deep dependence on food aid.
Our poverty problem in Africa is more a political issue than a scientific one. Politicians must lead with action and policy change, focusing less on grand speeches and gatherings that have yielded little in the recent past.
The WFP’s likely weaknesses should serve as a lesson for us all to wake up and drive Africa’s agricultural development.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
by Wandile Sihlobo | Apr 13, 2025 | Africa Focus
While other countries have taken a confrontational tone in trade policy, SA must continue strengthening relations and widening export opportunities for all the export-reliant sectors of the economy. Agriculture is one sector that largely depends on exports and has benefited immensely from the trade opportunities the SA authorities have successfully negotiated in recent decades.
SA must make an accelerated effort to maintain relationships and strengthen friendships. One region that requires some attention is the Southern African Customs Union (Sacu), a free-trade customs union that includes Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Eswatini.
In 2021 Botswana banned imports of vegetables from SA, which continued until the partial removal of restrictions by President Duma Boko in December. This month the government of Botswana plans to remove the remaining import restrictions on beetroot, butternut, cabbage, carrot, garlic, ginger, green melons, herbs, lettuce, onions, potatoes, sweet pepper, tomatoes and watermelons from SA.
This is a welcome development for SA fresh produce suppliers and retailers. Notably, the easing of vegetable imports will mainly benefit consumers in Botswana.
As Botswana removes all the restrictions on vegetable imports from SA this month, the focus will shift to Namibia. In the case of Namibia, the restrictions on vegetable imports from SA started at about the same time as those in Botswana. Both countries’ rationale for banning vegetable imports was that they were building their domestic industries, and that this required cushioning from imports.
However, these bans on imports of agricultural products added uncertainty and have weighed on SA exporters. Moreover, they have fuelled sentiment in some quarters that Sacu needs to be reviewed, especially in the context of SA sharing some financial resources with the region. However, we caution against an unfriendly approach in the Sacu region.
While SA’s agriculture has experienced some challenges recently, the country continues to benefit from the free trade area. For example, Trade Map data shows that the Sacu region accounted for about 19% of SA’s agricultural exports of $13.7bn in 2024. This is the same value as SA’s agricultural exports to the EU. The only difference between the EU and Sacu is the products in the export basket. The EU imports more fruits and wines, while the Sacu basket mainly includes staple grains, vegetables and beverages.
SA imports less than $1bn in products from Sacu, averaging $816m over the past five years. This is about an 11% share of SA’s agricultural imports in the past five years. The imports are mainly live animals (cattle) and sugar. The major exporters to SA in Sacu are Eswatini and Namibia.
The disparity in trade is partly because of the lack of production volume from some of the Sacu countries that are not as naturally endowed as SA. That said, we believe restrictive policies are not the best way for Sacu countries to lift production. Instead, a more collaborative approach that seeks to leverage SA’s technology and scientific know-how could be more helpful.
Considering that this is an enormous export market for SA agriculture and an essential one for importing Sacu nations, the logical steps should be to preserve trade and reduce the frequent occurrence of export bans targeting SA. The policy ambitions of the Sacu members to increase their domestic production could focus on leveraging scientific advancements and investments from SA, which has mature agriculture and food, fibre and beverage value chains. Ideally, collaboration should be the path forward rather than confrontation.
As Botswana lifts its remaining restrictions on vegetable imports from SA, the focus and tone of engagement in both countries should move to collaboration. Botswana must outline the areas of agriculture in which it intends to grow, and thereafter leverage SA technology and skill as it embarks on that journey.
This could be communicated through the respective ministries of agriculture, requesting private sector involvement. Namibia must also move towards this collaborative approach and remove the restrictions on vegetable imports from SA.
Written for and first published in the Business Day.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
