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)
by Wandile Sihlobo | Feb 16, 2025 | Africa Focus
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman popularized the term “zombie idea,” which is also the title of his new book, Arguing with Zombies. This term refers to “ideas that keep being killed by evidence but shambles relentlessly forward, essentially because they suit a political agenda”.
One such “zombie idea” in African agriculture is the view that Zimbabwe was a breadbasket of the continent. I keep hearing this from various corners (and here from the late President Robert Mugabe, and lately on X), although evidence shows Zimbabwe was never a breadbasket.
Fellow agricultural economist Sifiso Ntombela and I found in an Africa Check essay in 2017 aimed at assessing whether Zimbabwe was ever a bread basket for Africa that it was not.
However, we found that Zimbabwe was a self-sufficient food producer until its land reform programme was instituted.
In our view, a country should be able to meet its staple food consumption needs and simultaneously command a notable share in exports of the same food commodity to be considered a “bread basket”.
An examination of the production data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization for key staple foods—maize and wheat—shows that Zimbabwe’s production of these commodities never exceeded a 10% contribution to Africa’s output over the past 55 years.
In the two decades before Mugabe’s leadership (1960–80), Zimbabwe contributed an average of 6% of Africa’s maize production—almost on par with Nigeria’s contribution but lower than Kenya’s contribution of 7%.
During that period, the country’s maize production outpaced consumption by an average of 400,000 tonnes a year, making it a net exporter.
During the first half of Mugabe’s rule (1980-2000), the country’s maize production contributed a share of 5% to Africa’s output. While it was a net importer in most years, on average, the country remained a net exporter of maize, with a declining maize trade balance. This decline, and the country’s trade balance, worsened following the introduction of Zimbabwe’s fast-track land reform programme in 2001.
The country’s share of maize production on the continent then dwindled to an average of 2%. During this period, its maize consumption outpaced production by an average of 550,000 tonnes per annum — turning it into a net importer. The trend is similar for wheat and other major grain commodities as a contribution to Africa’s food system.
Fails to fit the idea of the food basket
The available data covers three distinct phases in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector and suggests that the country was self-sufficient before and in the two decades after Mugabe came to power.
Even then, Zimbabwe’s maize and wheat output was generally modest and volatile. It wasn’t sufficient to support strong exports to the rest of the continent and world, which failed to fit the idea of a food basket.
In the third phase, the country’s maize and wheat production significantly declined, weakening Zimbabwe’s standing in the continent’s food system.
Overall, we view Zimbabwe as a self-sufficient food producer before its fast-track land reform programme.
However, limited evidence supports the notion that Zimbabwe has ever been “the breadbasket of Africa.”
So, this is just a Zombie Idea.
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 | Jan 22, 2025 | Africa Focus
It is good to see African countries trying to learn from each other’s experiences. In December, Business Insider published an interesting piece titled “Nigeria Turns to Zimbabwe for agricultural tips.”
During the visit, Nigeria’s agricultural minister, Abubakar Shaib Kyari, stated that the country wanted to “study Zimbabwe’s agricultural revolution and noted that Nigeria is interested in learning more about Zimbabwe’s mechanization strategy.”
Zimbabwe is undoubtedly an interesting case study for agriculture, demonstrating farmers’ resilience in a fragile policy environment. Engaging with farmers and officials there can teach us many stories, especially from the early 2000s, when the country embarked on its (failed) land reform programme. But it’s unclear whether Zimbabwe offers valuable lessons on agricultural growth. I am not trying to be reductionist here—I am seriously puzzled.
What follows is my thought process on how I would have thought the Nigerian government should approach its agricultural learnings.
Considering the staple grain maize, Nigeria has achieved far better yields than what we see in Zimbabwe. So, perhaps Zimbabwe should learn from Nigeria.
It is also worth noting that Zimbabwe is a net importer of maize. Between May 2024 and the first week of January 2025, South Africa exported 907,318 tonnes of maize to Zimbabwe. This is about half Zimbabwe’s annual maize consumption of two million tonnes.
If we add South Africa, Brazil, and Zambia to the maize production picture, we see a different picture—higher crop yields. Therefore, an argument could be made that Nigeria should attempt to learn more from these higher-yielding agricultural countries to boost its agricultural sector — see the featured chart.
So, one can ask: What can Nigeria learn from this South African higher-yielding maize industry? Five broad lessons are relevant not only to the maize industry but also to Nigeria’swider agricultural sector.
- Embracing technological advancements in seeds, genetics, and agrochemicals can boost productivity. South Africa and Brazil have long embraced genetically modified seeds. Nigeria should consider following this path and permit the commercial cultivation of genetically modified seeds in staple grains.
- Better seeds are not enough; Nigeria must also consider extending title deeds or tradable leases to farmers and agribusinesses as vital for attracting investment for the sector’s long-term growth.
- Nigeria must also consider increasing investments in infrastructure, which is critical for improving the functioning of the agricultural value chains.
- Nigeria must ensure limited trade and commodity price interventions in commodity markets. In countries such as Zambia, where the government occasionally bans exports during droughts or places price caps, this has proven challenging for agribusiness and arguably weighs negatively on investments.
- Notably, Nigeria must also ensure the government supports commercial farming, which will be essential for the growth of the agro-processing part of the various countries’ food systems and a source of employment, which is a critical step for agricultural progress in Africa.
I will be the first to admit that South Africa is not a perfect country. We have our unique challenges, such as rising crime, failing municipalities, deteriorating roads, problems at the ports, and a slow inclusivity journey, among other things.
Still, judging from its broad national agricultural sector performance, South Africa offers many lessons for Nigeria and the broader African continent. Thanks to its agricultural progress, South Africa is now the only African country in the top 40 global agricultural exporters, ranked 32nd, with exports valued at US$12.8 billion in 2023.
South Africa is also the most food-secure country in the sub-Saharan region, notwithstanding the household food insecurity that needs to be addressed.
It is good to see more African countries paying attention to each other’s efforts, but the study visits should not be ideological. We should learn from what is working and what would be key to boosting food security.
From a broad judgment, I am not convinced that Zimbabwe would be a model of agricultural development and mechanization.
Indeed, Nigeria can visit Zimbabwe, but that experience must be merged with learnings from elsewhere. To be clear, I am not arguing for all countries to come and learn from South Africa; Brazil, Argentina, China, the US, and Australia are amongst the countries whose agricultural sectors offer more valuable lessons for the African governments that are serious about boosting food security.
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 | Jan 16, 2025 | Africa Focus
Whenever I see challenges within South Africa’s agriculture, Zimbabwe is the other country I think of as their challenges are often worse. Notably, South Africa typically has to shoulder Zimbabwe when there are challenges, specifically in staple grain production.
Consider the 2023-24 production year, when Zimbabwe had a challenging season due to the mid-summer drought that affected Southern Africa. Zimbabwe’s maize harvest fell nearly 60% to around 635 000 tonnes, the lowest since the 2015-16 production season when the country experienced a drought.
Although a significant factor, the drought is not the only reason for the fall in Zimbabwe’s maize harvest. The decline in fertilizer usage also contributed to poor yields. While fertilizer prices are down from the previous year, they remain well above the pre-COVID-19 levels, thus adding financial strain on farmers. Fertilizer makes up roughly a third of grain farmers’ input costs.
This significant decline in Zimbabwe’s maize production led to a sharp increase in imports, and South Africa played an important role in supplying maize to Zimbabwe (at market prices).
To understand how much maize Zimbabwe needs to import, consider its annual consumption of about two million tonnes. Therefore, with a harvest of 635 000 tonnes, the country needs at least a million tonnes in the 2024-25 marketing year, which ends in April 2025, to meet domestic needs (the 2024-25 marketing year corresponds with the 2023-24 production season).
Of course, this is a significant increase from Zimbabwe’s maize imports of 637 327 tonnes in the 2023-24 marketing year, all from South Africa.
Between May 2024 and the first week of January 2025, South Africa exported 907 318 tonnes of maize to Zimbabwe. This is about 57% of South Africa’s total maize exports to the world market during this period.
Yes, South Africa was already affected by the mid-summer drought of 2024. Still, South Africa’s maize harvest did not fall as sharply as we saw in Zimbabwe, partly because of improved seed cultivars and better fertilizer usage, among other things. Irrigation is not a major factor, as only 10% of South African maize is under irrigation, and the rest is rainfed. We also see similar proportions of maize under irrigation in Zimbabwe.
The immense demand for maize from Zimbabwe and other African countries partly accounts for the higher maize prices in South Africa.
But this is all history. I am now focusing on how much maize Zimbabwe will plant in the 2024-25 production season, which is underway (this corresponds with the 2025-26 marketing year that starts in May 2026).
For South Africa, this has been a tricky season, with some regions experiencing late-starting rains. Still, we have started receiving widespread rains, and we are optimistic that South Africa will recover in agricultural production in the 2024-25 season.
On January 14, 2025, The Herald, a newspaper, reported that Zimbabwean farmers had planted 1.7 million hectares of maize, about 97% of the area they intended to plant.
These are government figures, which can often be tough to trust. The Zimbabwean government has a long history of being economical about its agricultural data, often overstating things.
Be that as it may, this would be roughly in line with the area Zimbabwe planted in the 2023-24 season and slightly below the average area of 1,9 million hectares for maize. The government attributes the decline in the area planting this 2024-25 season to the late start and the excessive rains that have prevented farmers from planting within the optimal window.
It is early to speculate about Zimbabwe’s 2024-25 maize production. Still, it is worth noting that this is an area South Africa must continuously monitor. Any challenges with their harvest would ordinarily be South Africa’s responsibility.
Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo).
by Wandile Sihlobo | Jan 15, 2025 | Africa Focus
African agricultural ministers gathered in Kampala, Uganda, from Thursday, 9 January to Saturday, 11 January for the “Extraordinary Summit on the Post Malabo Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)”.
If you haven’t followed African agricultural affairs, you may wonder what this is all about. The programme was founded in 2003 to unlock Africa’s agriculture and address the continent’s poverty challenges.
The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme has ambitious goals, such as increasing Africa’s agricultural fortunes by 6% a year and urging the member countries of the African Union to allocate 10% of their annual budgets to agriculture. For agricultural ministers in any African country, such an allocation, even if aspirational, is enough to encourage them to promote their sector and use the figure to justify their demands to the national treasuries.
However, the reality is that there are far too many demands on resources in most countries, and agriculture spending remains below the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme targets. Even South Africa doesn’t score well in the targets, with a score of 4.1 out of 10.
One of the development programme recommendations is that South Africa should increase public expenditure in agriculture, enhance access to agriculture inputs and technologies (such as investments in irrigation for smallholder farmers), and to agricultural financial services by men and women engaged in agriculture.
The private sector remains key to growth
Still, focusing on the crucial aspect of growing Africa’s agriculture and addressing poverty has merit, as this sector accounts for a significant share of many African economies.
But I sometimes get despondent about these big African agricultural gatherings because it is not always clear if they deliver the desired results for the people — growth in agriculture. For example, Africa’s agricultural production still struggles with low productivity. The increase in output in recent years has primarily been due to an expansion in the planted area rather than a yield boost. To address hunger, we should focus on getting more output per hectare in our agricultural activities and embrace technology that assists in this drive.
The big conferences help stimulate discussion and elevate the sector’s profile. However, progress will require the private sector and dedicated governments to boost each African country’s agricultural output.
We have seen first-hand the benefit of a robust private sector in South Africa. If one looks at the data, South Africa’s agriculture remains an outlier in Africa. The sector has more than doubled in value and volume terms since 1994. The adoption of new production technologies such as better genetics, seed varieties, and mechanical advancements; better farming skills, growing local and global demand, and progressive trade policy driving exports have been catalysts of growth.
This was made possible by a range of trading agreements the South African government secured over the past couple of years, the most important being those with African, European and Asian regions. The African continent and Europe now account for about two-thirds of South Africa’s agricultural exports. Asia is also an important market for South Africa’s agricultural exports, demanding roughly 25% export share.
The private sector has been an integral part of the South African agriculture success story, while the government has had to ensure that policy remains favourable for investors and farmers. The priorities for the government were to ensure:
- That there are no interventionist trade policies (blocking exports) or price caps.
- That infrastructure (roads, rail, water and electricity) is in place.
- That there is strong protection of property, and proper land governance.
Openness to scientific advancements in seed breeding and agrochemicals and genetics is one of the positives that the South African government ensured.
This was all anchored in the sound financial system that supported commercial production and international trade.
Five key lessons from South Africa
So, suppose we are serious about Africa’s agricultural development and the broad political statements of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme and others. In that case, we should ask: What can other African regional countries take from this South African agricultural story of private sector-led growth?
- 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 ultimately attracting investment.
- Supporting commercial farming, which will be essential for the growth of the agro-processing part of the various countries’ food systems and a source of employment, is a critical step for agricultural progress in Africa.
South Africa is not a perfect country. We have our unique challenges, such as rising crime, failing municipalities, deteriorating roads, problems at the ports, and a slow inclusivity journey, among other things.
Still, judging from a broad national performance, South Africa offers many lessons for Africa. Through its agricultural progress, South Africa is now the only African country in the top 40 global agricultural exporters, ranked 32, with exports valued at US$13,2-billion in 2023. South Africa is also the most food-secure country in the sub-Saharan region, notwithstanding the household food insecurity that needs to be addressed.
Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo).
by Wandile Sihlobo | Dec 29, 2024 | Africa Focus
I probably should not be focusing too much on vegetables; a lot is happening in the world. Still, I want to underscore that we must form greater collaboration in the Southern Africa region’s agricultural community to expand production and address the poverty issues.
We cannot afford to struggle with trade friction as we recently saw Botswana and Namibia blocking vegetables and fruit imports from South Africa. Thankfully, Botswana has corrected this policy mistake and is gradually removing the restrictions.
And yes, no one disputes that both Namibia and Botswana should work to develop their domestic agricultural production where production conditions permit.
My issue has been the unfair complete ban or restrictions on vegetables and citrus exports from South Africa to both countries. Consumers in both countries have also struggled with higher prices due to supply constraints. The economist Ndaba Gaolathe, who currently serves as Botswana’s Vice President and Finance Minister, recently stated that:
“Anything that requires tariffs to sustain it, even in the short term, is bad economics. What is happening now is that food and vegetables have become more expensive in Botswana. Low-income groups — people who are already struggling — are spending a larger percentage of their income on food.”
What Gaolathe raises here is very important and partly at the core of the points I raised elsewhere, highlighting that with the removal of the restrictions, the people of Botswana will now have access to better-priced and high-quality vegetables from South Africa.
In November 2024, South Africa’s vegetables were deflated (-2,6%). Meanwhile, in Botswana, vegetable price inflation was still double digits. This speaks to the difficulty the households had to ensure and the potential benefits of affordable prices in the coming months.
I hope Namibia follows the same approach soon. The current restrictions present similar pressures in Namibia, as was the case in Botswana, and they are also not in the spirit of regional agricultural development.
Lifting the ban does not mean these countries have given up on their domestic production efforts. They will keep focusing on such efforts while easing near-term pressures on consumers. Gaolathe, speaking about his country’s challenges, noted that:
“more effective measures could include directly subsidizing vegetable farmers by establishing a dedicated fund for them.”
Gaolathe also saw the need for research and development as central to booting Botswana’s vegetable production. I fully support this view and would add that their production efforts will require collaboration and clear communication about their production intentions, especially with South Africa, a major regional agricultural producer. South Africa will share technology and know-how to boost production there (as in other commodities). The coordination could be at the organized agriculture level and government.
Our energy must be channelled towards growing Southern Africa’s agriculture and food security, and not in trade friction within a free trade area, the Southern African Customs Union (SACU).
Another issue that is appropriate to highlight is how important the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region is for South Africa’s agricultural exports. We enjoy tariff-free access to various region countries, supporting South Africa’s agricultural growth. And yes, South Africa’s agricultural growth has dwarfed that of neighbouring countries, partly contributing to some countries’ current trade friction and discontent.
Still, we need a robust agricultural sector in South Africa to stabilise food security in the entire Southern Africa region. This sector also plays a key role in supporting development in other countries. The benefits could be much more evident when there is a focused regional agricultural development view with a buy-in of all key countries’ agricultural ministers.
Equally, South Africa must approach every friction in the region with maturity and understanding that there is a lot of economic value at hand. For example, South Africa exported US$13,2 Billion of agricultural products in 2023. About 40% of this is to the African continent.
However, these exports to Africa are concentrated in Southern Africa. Roughly 80 cents in every dollar of South Africa’s agricultural exports to Africa is from the Southern Africa region. With an economic value like this, we cannot discuss blocking trade from our neighbours. We must seek an understanding of their challenges and work collaboratively to resolve them – a confrontational approach would be unhelpful.
This is why stability and peace in the Southern Africa region are key for South Africa’s agriculture. Beyond trade restrictions, the current unrest in Mozambique is an example of such challenges that the region should work to resolve speedily.
There are human rights and political matters that others have discussed, but the point I want to highlight is that these are risks to South Africa’s agricultural prosperity.
The stability in the region is essential for the people and businesses, including the farming sector of South Africa, which benefits immensely from exports.
Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo).
by Wandile Sihlobo | Dec 14, 2024 | Africa Focus
I am encouraged that the leadership in Botswana has decided to lift the ban on vegetable imports from South Africa. The new administration under President Duma Boko wants to ensure that the people of Botswana have access to high-quality agriculture and food products.
The people of Botswana will now have access to better-priced and high-quality vegetables from South Africa. In November 2024, South Africa’s vegetables were deflated (-2,6%). Meanwhile, in Botswana, vegetable price inflation was still double digits. This speaks to the difficulty the households had to ensure and the potential benefits of affordable prices in the coming months.
The process of lifting the ban on vegetable imports from South Africa will be in two phases. In Phase One, the import restrictions were lifted immediately on vegetables such as turmeric, patty pan, pumpkin, sweet potatoes, green peas, mushrooms, and eggplant, among other products.
Phase Two will be in April 2025, and the ban will be lifted on beetroot, butternut, onions, tomatoes, sweet paper, potatoes and watermelons, amongst other products.
I am acutely aware of Boswana’s ambition to boost agricultural production where land capabilities permit, which must be supported. There are better ways of improving domestic production without banning imports from South Africa. I think Botswana could benefit from some of South Africa’s technologies to improve its agriculture.
There are already some cases in which various countries in the region benefit from South Africa’s agricultural technologies. A case in point is the citrus industry, where research is primarily done in South Africa and shared with the Citrus Growers Association of Southern Africa members. Similarly, South Africa has imported some vaccines for the livestock industry from Botswana in the past few months.
This example shows that cooperation could lead to effective regional agricultural development.
Going forward, each country’s approach should be to communicate its ambitions and not resort to trade-distorting mechanisms that undermine consumer welfare. Equally, South Africa, as a significant agricultural producer in the region, should continuously seek to broaden export markets in other areas, such as Asia and the Middle East, to benefit the Southern Africa region.
The export growth in the coming years should focus on the Middle East while maintaining access to the existing markets. The Southern African countries are working to expand their agricultural production, so South Africa must focus on broadening access to new regions with potentially more robust demand. But this will not be an overnight effort, especially in the current climate of trade fragmentation.
A similar approach from Namibia is critical. Namibia still has various restrictions on South Africa’s vegetable imports. They must follow Botswana’s policy approach and lift the restrictions on vegetable imports from South Africa. This will also be ideal for the consumers in Namibia.
After that, the Ministers of Agriculture in the region should encourage knowledge sharing amongst agricultural stakeholders so the countries that intend to boost their production in the coming years can easily access the best technologies and know-how.
If any of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) countries believe their agricultural industries are under pressure from exports from South Africa; in such a case, there should be clear communication about such a matter so the exporters can provide space for domestic supplies. Southern Africa’s agricultural collaboration could be achieved without the trade confrontation.
Overall, the decision by the new leadership of Botswana to lift the ban on the imports of vegetables from South Africa and the speed at which this action will be taken is commendable. We need to work continuously on strengthening regional agricultural collaboration and resist any urge to complicate trade in the region in the future. Namibia must now follow the same approach, which will be vital to boosting domestic food security.
Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo).
