by Wandile Sihlobo | May 1, 2025 | Agricultural Trade
Southern Africa is a major market for SA’s agricultural growth prospects. Of the $13.7bn of SA’s agricultural exports in 2024, about 44% was to the African continent. About 90c of every dollar from exports to the rest of the continent was earned from Southern Africa. This is partly why SA must always seek to resolve any challenges diplomatically and promote stability in this region.
Over the past few years, we have seen some instances of trade friction in Southern Africa involving SA and its neighbouring countries. A case in point is restrictions on vegetable imports into Botswana (now lifted) and Namibia (still in place). The latest issue is with Tanzania, which temporarily restricted SA’s agricultural imports. The ban was swiftly lifted at the weekend.
The common factor in all these import restrictions is that neighbouring countries say they want to boost domestic production. Another issue is some incorrectly suggesting that their slow penetration into the SA agriculture and food market is due to restrictions.
On the latter there often are inaccurate statements about the openness of SA’s agricultural market, which is relatively open, and all of these countries are part of the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) Free Trade Area. The slow penetration is either because there has not been a formal request for market access, as in the case of Tanzania’s bananas, or because some of their products are not competitive in SA.
It is understandable that our neighbouring countries seek greater market access to SA. While a net exporter, SA was a major regional agricultural importer of $7.6bn in products in 2024, up 8% year on year, according to data from Trade Map. The uptick resulted from a slightly higher value and volume of the major products SA imports, such as wheat, palm oil, rice, poultry and whiskies.
However, for the neighbouring countries to participate meaningfully in the SA market they will need to continuously study SA’s import list closely and target particular value chains, not the ones SA already excels in, in which it imports the least. This is mainly what the likes of Tanzania should primarily target in their attempt to increase regional agricultural trade.
Regarding various countries’ efforts to boost their domestic agricultural production, it remains true that SA could provide some necessary technology and know-how. Various SA agribusinesses and commodity associations, such as the Citrus Growers Association, have expanded their operations and membership across the Southern African region to boost regional agricultural production.
The goal should be for the area to collectively improve its agricultural output, strengthen various value chains and export to the world while firming intraregional trade. However, regional stability and co-operation are vital for such processes to take off. This means minimising the trade frictions we often encounter, such as the examples we highlight. The only justifiable trade restriction in the region should be when there are animal diseases, and trade suspensions are used temporarily to contain their spread. We typically see this with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle and African swine fever in pigs.
Aside from such cases, the region’s approach should encourage co-operation. This should not only be at a private sector level but also be a message embraced by policymakers across the region to strengthen regional agricultural value chains. In this environment of trade friction and heightened geoeconomic tensions, firming up relations at regional levels is crucial, and agriculture must be a starting point.
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 | Apr 28, 2025 | Agricultural Trade
Chinese officials’ statements should always be taken with considerable seriousness, especially when it comes to matters of trade.
Under this framing, we took note when Mr Wu Peng, current Chinese Ambassador to South Africa, posted on X’s social media platform that;
“…China and South Africa need to strengthen our bilateral trade and economic cooperation. The Chinese government welcomes more South African agricultural and industrial products to enter the huge Chinese market.”
China has profound importance in global agriculture. In 2023, China was a leading importer, accounting for 11% of global agricultural imports, with imports valued at US$218 billion. The leading suppliers of farm products to China are Brazil, the U.S., Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Canada, Vietnam, France, Russia, Argentina, Chile, Ukraine, the Netherlands, and Malaysia.
However, China has been on a journey to diversify its agricultural exports beyond these suppliers, which has accelerated following the U.S. initial tariffs in 2018 and is ongoing in 2025.
South and Latin American countries, as well as Australia, have been the primary beneficiaries of China’s diversification strategy so far.
But South Africa must also be part of this conversation. And what Ambassador Wu Peng raises — China’s interest in South African agricultural products — is a starting point for a deeper trade conversation.
The first step will have to be for South African authorities to approach China to present a range of products that can be exported, and then build from there.
South Africa remains a negligible player in the Chinese agricultural market, accounting for a mere 0.4% (US$979 million) of China’s agricultural imports of US$218 billion in 2023. These exports include a variety of fruits, wine, red meat, nuts, maize, soybeans, and wool.
However, there is room for more ambitious agricultural export efforts.
The South African agricultural sector—organized agriculture and researchers—consistently points out the need to lower import tariffs in China and remove phytosanitary constraints on various products.
There is now a pathway to have a productive conversation about this matter and move with speed.
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 28, 2025 | Agricultural Trade
We are seeing a recovery in South Africa’s beef exports. In 2024, South Africa’s cumulative beef exports increased by 30% from 2023, reaching 38,657 tonnes. About 57% of this was fresh beef, and 43% was frozen beef. The key markets include China, Egypt, UAE, Jordan, Angola, Mozambique, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Mauritius, amongst others.
However, for this export momentum to continue, we must intensify our efforts to control animal diseases. Three years before this recovery, South African beef exports declined due to reduced slaughtering volumes and temporary closures in some key export markets. The major challenge was the occurrence of animal disease outbreaks across the country, primarily foot-and-mouth disease.
Animal disease outbreaks are not unique to South Africa, but they are common worldwide, as we see in the U.S., parts of the UK, and Europe.
However, South Africa’s challenges have intensified in recent years due to specific biosecurity weaknesses. For example, in 2022, six of South Africa’s nine provinces reported outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. This was the first time in the country’s history that the disease had spread this widely.
The challenging place the country found itself in prompted the government and industry stakeholders to increase their focus on strengthening farm biosecurity controls and surveillance.
Other interventions that are still underway include efforts to improve South Africa’s veterinary and related support services, primarily the laboratories, which deal with vaccine production needs.
The cost of diseases in the livestock industry is felt through the loss of livestock, reduced exports to the global market during outbreaks, and a slowdown in the country’s agricultural fortunes.
You see, livestock and poultry account for roughly half of agriculture’s gross value added. Therefore, to ensure solid growth in the South African farming economy, we must devote sufficient resources and human capital to strengthening animal health.
Moreover, livestock also significantly contributes to the inclusion of black farmers in commercial agricultural production. Therefore, the prevalence of animal disease outbreaks in recent years has arguably slowed the process of inclusion and transformation in the sector.
Not out of the woods
This improvement in disease control has partly contributed to the recovery in exports in 2024.
However, the industry is not yet out of the woods. There have been recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in KwaZulu-Natal and parts of the Eastern Cape. These require a sharper focus to contain them, allowing the unaffected provinces to continue their export activities.
In the long term, we will need to systematically enhance our biosecurity controls to reduce the frequency of these diseases. The starting point could be revitalising Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP), a state-owned vaccine manufacturer, and the Agricultural Research Council.
For some time, the OBP has experienced challenges with vaccine manufacturing, and South Africa has had to rely on importing products from countries such as Botswana. Rooting out corruption and rebuilding capacity in these organisations is crucial to driving South Africa’s agricultural sector.
Of course, the continuous promotion of exports by many private South African companies, organisations, and industry representatives, such as Red Meat Industry Services and the National Animal Health Forum, amongst others, is vital.
Continuous efforts on beef exports
We must work more diligently to open new export markets for the beef industry, particularly in the BRICS grouping, the broader Middle East, and the EU, among other regions.
The robust focus on promoting exports, coupled with the marketing of South African beef globally and domestically, and the focus on strengthening animal health, are all vital for the progress of our farming economy.
And again, maintaining animal health—strengthening its biosecurity and reviving vaccine manufacturing—is key to South Africa’s ambition for red meat exports.
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 26, 2025 | Agricultural Trade
Hussein Bashe, a 47-year-old politician from the Nzega District of Tanzania, who serves as the country’s Minister of Agriculture, has initiated an agricultural trade spat with South Africa. He argues that South Africa (and Malawi) have restricted the imports of bananas from Tanzania for years.
As a result, on Wednesday, April 23, Tanzania temporarily prohibited agricultural imports from South Africa. The ban has now been lifted, effective April 25, following a request from South African authorities to Tanzania.
But how accurate were Bashe’s claims from the start that South Africa restricts bananas from Tanzania?
I have checked with South Africa’s authorities, and the message from Dipepeneneng Serage, the Deputy Director-General for Agricultural Production, Biosecurity, and Natural Resources Management in South Africa’s Department of Agriculture, is that Tanzania has never requested market access for its bananas in South Africa.
This is a vital step and a formal procedure for importing agricultural products. It is not just applied to Tanzania but to all countries.
This partly explains why South Africa has not imported a notable volume of bananas from Tanzania in over two decades. When examining South Africa’s banana imports, it is clear that to supplement domestic production, the country relies heavily on Mozambique, which accounts for 74% of the US$48 million worth of imported bananas. Trailing Mozambique is Eswatini, accounting for 19%. The Seychelles account for 4%, Zimbabwe accounts for 2%, and the remainder consists of small volumes from various countries in Southern Africa.
One must also question whether bananas from Tanzania can be seriously price-competitive relative to the above suppliers and domestic production of bananas.
Given the above, I believe Bashe has overreacted to all these banana issues. Temporarily blocking agricultural imports from South Africa was not a productive way of engagement and is not a substitute or shortcut for formal market access procedures.
One also has to wonder if such restrictions do not violate the Southern African Development Community Free Trade Area rules.
Any ban on products from a particular country would need some scientific justification and be temporary. The current rationale is not satisfactory.
How damaging would Tanzania’s ban be to South Africa’s agriculture?
Tanzania is a significant player in certain commodities, but it is not a major player in South Africa’s agricultural sector. Of the US$13.7 billion in South Africa’s agricultural exports, Tanzania accounted for approximately 1% (US$74.6 million).
Still, South Africa has an agricultural trade surplus against Tanzania. For example, in South Africa’s agricultural imports of US$7.6 billion in 2024, Tanzania accounted for 0.4% (or roughly US$28 million). This minimal participation by Tanzania is understandable, as South Africa imports products not produced in large volumes in the region. These include wheat, rice, palm oil, poultry, and whiskies from the world market, all of which are not primarily produced by the African region.
Tanzania’s 18th-largest agricultural market is South Africa, accounting for 1.4% of its US$2.4 billion in farm exports in 2023. Thus, it makes sense to promote its agricultural products and engage with South Africa’s Department of Agriculture on any scientific issues, rather than imposing restrictions on South African agricultural exports.
Tanzania’s main agricultural exports to South Africa are tobacco, tea, nuts, coffee, and ginger, not bananas. Thus, initiating trade friction over a hold-up on a product that is not a significant export to a country may not be ideal.
Beyond the Tanzania banana issue, South Africa’s current stance is to foster stronger regional agricultural trade and refrain from introducing restrictions.
South Africa also promotes collaboration in agriculture and the sharing of knowledge to enhance regional value chains. This is the same approach South Africa shared with Botswana when the country temporarily restricted the imports of South African vegetables and fruits.
Thus, I believe the whole issue may result from inadequate communication and engagement rather than a deliberate attempt to restrict trade. The appropriate course of action for Bashe’s officials is to engage with South African agricultural authorities.
After this step, Tanzania will have to market the bananas in South Africa and find buyers. Unlike some countries, the food trade in South Africa is primarily conducted by the private sector, rather than the government. Therefore, once their formal market access request is processed, Tanzania will need to focus on promoting its product to South Africa and identifying potential buyers.
For now, I am glad this whole issue of the ban is off the table.
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 22, 2025 | Agricultural Trade
It is increasingly clear that South Africa will need to strengthen its trade relations with the U.S. in light of the current tariff difficulties, while also attempting to deepen trade with China. After all, these are both South Africa’s leading trade partners.
China has recently stated that it will oppose any country negotiating trade deals with the U.S. at its expense.
Now, this may not apply to South Africa, as we are not looking to resolve our challenges with the U.S. at the expense of anyone.
However, I would argue that the essence of China’s comments highlights the broader point that South Africa should cultivate friendships with as many countries as possible and strengthen them with those countries. I suppose we can learn something from India, which appears to be friendly with many countries.
To underscore a point I have made here previously, it is rather that we have a naked national interest – prioritising South Africa – and not be distracted by much else.
But what would such an approach look like for the agricultural sector?
The first thing to underscore is that South Africa’s agricultural sector is export-oriented, with exports reaching a record US$ 13.7 billion in 2024, up 3% year-over-year. The export markets and products are varied, with the African continent absorbing nearly half, while the EU, the Middle East, Asia, and the UK are also sizable markets. Maintaining warm relations with all these regions is key for our agricultural sector.
I must say that the EU-South Africa agricultural trade has had a few frictions, mainly related to citrus. I get the sense that there is a growing sentiment among EU farmers that the region must manage its imports and protect domestic producers. I don’t believe EU policymakers would respond to farmers’ needs by imposing tariffs or stronger policies that discourage imports.
Therefore, in such important and yet sensitive markets, South Africa must continually strengthen relations and reaffirm the importance of the EU to our agricultural sector. Maintaining openness and friendship with the EU is crucial and essential for maintaining access to South Africa’s agricultural exports in this region.
Also worth noting is that the Middle East promises more potential for expansion, and there are no domestic competing farmer interests in this region. While a significant share of South Africa’s agricultural products are already exported to the Middle East, the presence of South African agriculture in this region is arguably still peripheral. A more robust promotion and securing of trade deals with this region is key, especially with countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.
Equally, South Africa must work to maintain its current access to agricultural products and other goods in the U.S. market. This will entail an attempt to find a path for better trade terms after the 90-day pause that we are currently in.
The African continent, which remains a key anchor for South Africa’s agricultural exports, also requires ongoing engagement to strengthen relations. This is ideal for avoiding the friction we observed with the vegetable export ban in Botswana (now resolved and reopened), Namibia (where restrictions have not been lifted), and the banana trade issues with Tanzania.
In essence, South Africa should adopt a long-term vision and recognise that its agricultural growth relies on stronger relationships with various countries. The government should lead these efforts in collaboration with businesses to continually open up export markets.
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 20, 2025 | Agricultural Trade
We will have our Ukrainian friends in Pretoria this week. A range of geopolitical matters will undoubtedly be the primary focus of the leadership of both countries during this working visit by the President of Ukraine.
However, there will be business engagements on the sidelines or days leading up to the visit. The Ukrainian President may visit South Africa, accompanied by senior government officials from the economic sector. Such conversations may be about forming connections to support Ukraine as it navigates the war and explores long-term business opportunities in the post-war world, whenever that day comes.
We already see some countries, such as the United States, exploring potential commercial interests in Ukraine for the future through a possible agreement on developing Ukraine’s mineral resources.
Of course, South Africa should be under no pressure to explore such ambitious commercial interests with Ukraine as the United States.
However, the question that may arise is whether there are potential long-term agricultural trade relations that our countries could establish in the future.
Now, both Ukraine and South Africa are net exporters of agricultural products. Ukraine’s agricultural exports are approximately US$21 billion per year, according to data from Trade Map. These exports are mainly comprised of sunflower oil, maize, wheat, canola, soybeans, poultry products, barley, and sugar, among other products. China, India, the Netherlands, Egypt, Turkey, Spain, Poland, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, and Saudi Arabia are among Ukraine’s key agricultural export markets.
South Africa does not feature prominently. It ranks as the 93rd largest agricultural market for Ukraine. This marginal import from Ukraine is understandable, as South Africa is generally a farming powerhouse, boasting an agricultural trade surplus of US$ 6.2 billion in 2024.
Importantly, when one examines South Africa’s agricultural import basket of US$ 7.6 billion in 2024, the dominant products are wheat, palm oil, rice, poultry, and whiskies. (South Africa’s agricultural exports were valued at US$13.7 billion in 2024). This composition of South Africa’s agricultural imports partly explains why the country would not feature prominently on Ukraine’s agricultural import list.
Still, there is room for a deeper conversation about how South Africa could import more wheat from Ukraine, provided the quality and price are acceptable to private businesses.
South Africa imports about half of its annual wheat consumption, about 1,8 million tonnes. Ukraine is not a prominent key wheat supplier in South Africa. For example, in the 2024-25 marketing year, South Africa imported about 904,344 tonnes of wheat at the end of the first week of April 2025. The seasonal import forecast is 1,80 million tonnes. So far, the largest wheat suppliers by share are Russia (with 41% share), Lithuania (22%), Poland (10%), Latvia (9%), Australia (7%), Canada (6%) and Romania (5%).
Of course, these are private dealings, as the South African government correctly refrains from intervening in food markets. It is for this reason, then, that at the sidelines of government meetings, Ukrainian officials, amongst other things, may have to engage with South African businesses so that, post-war, they too can feature prominently on South Africa’s wheat import lists.
Among the other agricultural products South Africa imports, Ukraine may have limited room to supply, as these are not among its key export products.
From a South African perspective, the Ukrainian agricultural imports list includes a few products that South Africa also exports. For example, Ukraine spends about US$5.5 billion annually on agricultural products. These are mainly spirits, citrus, coffee, tobacco, cheese, wine, banana, chocolate, and palm oil, amongst other products.
The countries that primarily supply these products to Ukraine include Poland, Italy, Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands, China, Spain, France, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Hungary.
While a major producer and exporter of citrus and wine, South Africa isn’t the primary supplier of these products to Ukraine. These are the key products that could be worth mentioning in the future.
Aside from these, limited business-to-business interactions in agriculture may be key, except to express support for Ukraine as it navigates a challenging time of protracted war.
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 19, 2025 | Agricultural Trade
Since last week, I have noticed posts on X, a social media platform, suggesting that South Africa has banned the import of agricultural products from Tanzania. These statements surprised me, so I contacted the authorities responsible for regulating the import of agricultural products into our country.
The message I received from them is that there is no such widespread ban on agricultural products from Tanzania to South Africa. The main issue, which is presented as a broad agricultural concern, appears to be the import of bananas from Tanzania into South Africa.
South Africa has not imported a notable volume of bananas from Tanzania in over two decades. To supplement domestic production, Mozambique is the major supplier of bananas to South Africa, accounting for 74% of the US$48 million in annual banana imports into the country. Trailing Mozambique is Eswatini, accounting for 19%. The Seychelles account for 4%, Zimbabwe accounts for 2%, and the remainder consists of small volumes from various countries in Southern Africa.
It is unclear whether Tanzania’s marginal non-participation in the South African bananas market is due to phytosanitary restrictions or insufficient marketing of the product in South Africa to establish a customer base. I suspect it may be the latter, as both countries can resolve phytosanitary issues with deliberate cooperation.
This banana dispute has prompted Tanzania to threaten to block South African products if South Africa doesn’t lift the restriction on their bananas. Now, consider the fact that I have just mentioned that Tanzanian bananas almost don’t feature in our import basket. Thus, I believe Mr Hussein Bashe, the Tanzanian Minister of Agriculture, overreacted.
Adopting the logic of banning South African products would create complications, as both countries are part of the Southern African Development Community Free Trade Area. Any ban on products from a particular country would need to have some scientific justification and be temporary. This is, again, the very issue that makes me doubt the notion that South Africa is unjustly limiting banana imports, which have been almost nonexistent (in any significant volume) in the South African market for over two decades.
Still, I must emphasise that Tanzania is not a significant player in South Africa’s agricultural sector. In the US$ 13.7 billion in South Africa’s agricultural exports, Tanzania accounted for approximately 1% (US$ 74.6 million).
Still, South Africa has an agricultural trade surplus against Tanzania. For example, in South Africa’s agricultural imports of US$7,6 billion in 2024, Tanzania accounted for 0,4% (or roughly US$28 million). This minimal participation by Tanzania is understandable, as South Africa imports products that are not produced in large volumes in the region. These include wheat, rice, palm oil, poultry, and whiskies from the world market, all of which are not primarily produced by the African region.
South Africa is Tanzania’s 18th largest agricultural market, accounting for 1.4% of its US$ 2.4 billion worth of farm exports in 2023. Thus, it makes sense to seek to promote its agricultural products and engage with South Africa’s Department of Agriculture on any scientific issues, rather than threatening to impose restrictions on South African agricultural exports.
Tanzania’s main agricultural exports to South Africa are tobacco, tea, nuts, coffee, and ginger, not bananas. Thus, initiating trade friction over a hold-up on a product that is not a significant export to a country may not be ideal.
Another factor contributing to Tanzania’s limited participation in the South African agricultural market is that South Africa is a net exporter of agricultural products, with exports reaching US$13.7 billion in 2024.
Beyond the Tanzania banana issue, South Africa’s current stance is to foster stronger regional agricultural trade and refrain from introducing restrictions.
South Africa also promotes collaboration in agriculture and the sharing of knowledge to enhance regional value chains. This is the same approach South Africa shared with Botswana when the country temporarily restricted the imports of South African vegetables and fruits.
Thus, I believe that the whole issue may result from inadequate communication and engagement rather than a deliberate attempt to restrict trade. Of course, serious phytosanitary barriers must be addressed before the products enter South Africa. Ultimately, banana wars in Southern Africa may be a fruitless endeavour.
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 19, 2025 | Agricultural Trade
In political economy, there is something called “flooding the zone”. Roughly explained, this is when there is a deluge of information that takes people’s attention away from what should be the priority. This is not helped by the fact that during crisis periods, there is the proliferation of “experts” with untested opinions.
We saw this snake-oil behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current environment has its fair share of instantaneous trade policy “expertise”. In South Africa’s agriculture, we are fortunately not under such an attack through the flood of information. Still, we must continuously be vigilant and reflect thoughtfully on risks affecting the sector.
In recent weeks, the focus has primarily been on trade matters and the U.S. tariffs, understandably so, because the U.S. is a valuable market for South Africa’s agriculture. The US reciprocal tariffs are imposed at a time when the citrus industry is at its export season; therefore, our focus on these issues should be paramount.
Equally, concerns about the sustainability of the Government of National Unity and the fiscal problems that dominate the domestic conversation are warranted as these place under sharp spotlight South Africa’s political futures and the plight of economic renewal.
Yet still, we must not allow other important domestic issues affecting the sector to be drowned out by political noise. One such area is the continuous effort to control animal diseases. South Africa has made enormous progress following challenging years of avian influenza, African swine fever, and foot and mouth disease.
However, we continue to learn about the foot and mouth disease outbreaks in parts of KwaZulu-Natal and some lingering cases in the Eastern Cape. This means animal health should remain a priority for South African agricultural authorities and organised agriculture.
Equally, while South Africa does not suffer from the rife avian influenza we are witnessing in the U.S. and parts of the UK, there should be increased work to prepare the sector for potential outbreaks. This would involve learning from the last outbreak and efficiencies in registering the vaccines that the poultry producers have been calling for.
Admittedly, we cannot know when and how the new outbreak will be. Still, ensuring that South Africa’s regulators are agile is key. The poultry industry and egg producers are key to the food security and vitality of some of South Africa’s small towns. Thus, we should observe the challenges of the U.S. with animal diseases and equally take note of the calls for agility in vaccine registration and move faster.
The poultry industry and livestock account for roughly half of South Africa’s farming economy. Thus, ensuring the efficient operation of this subsector is key to the success and growth of the South African farming economy. If South Africa succeeds in resolving and preparing for the animal disease challenges, the subsector will be on a better path in some of its operational conditions.
Last year, the resumption of various export markets also ensured that South Africa continues to build its exports of red meat and livestock products. To sustain this momentum, the continuous collaboration between the government and organised agriculture on animal health is vital. In addition to animal health matters, the South African authorities must focus on livestock theft, which remains a challenge in some communities and financially burdens farmers.
Overall, while we must focus on significant themes shaping the country and the global environment, the officials at various government departments and industry groups must not lose sight of the importance of the day-to-day operational matters that are key to the success of agriculture. In this case, animal health is one such aspect that requires consistent focus.
Written for and first appeared on Business Day.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
