SA reacts to agriculture ban
Opinion
A measured response is needed to Botswana and Namibia's continued ban on South African agricultural products, an agricultural economist opined.
On 19 July, Botswana’s president Mokgweetsi Masisi wrote on X: “Our ban on imported vegetables was a powerful move to boost our local farmers and economy. This initiative empowers Batswana by promoting self-sufficiency and improving livelihoods”. The quote accompanied a short video celebrating Botswana’s improvement in vegetable production since the country banned the imports of vegetables from South Africa.
Botswana and Namibia regularly close their borders to South African vegetables. However, the prolonged ban started in December 2021 and has been in place since then. The rationale for it, from both Botswana and Namibia’s side, is that it would incentivise domestic production of vegetables in these countries and lower their dependence on South Africa. Their target products include tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, cabbage, lettuce, garlic, onions, ginger and fresh herbs.
In December 2023, Botswana announced the ban would be extended for another two years. At the time, many in South Africa, including myself, were unhappy about this decision. The source of frustration arises from the appreciation that these countries are members of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), a bloc encouraging free trade and economic integration.
Still, the SACU agreement has a loophole allowing such restrictions. An article by researchers at South Africa’s Department of Trade and Industry citing the SACU Agreement states that “Article 18 (2) ... notes that member states have the right to impose restrictions on imports or exports for the protection of: Health of humans, animals or plants, the environment, treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value, public morals, intellectual property rights, national security and exhaustible natural resources”.
Viewed in this context, one can only guess that Botswana and Namibia would argue they are boosting their domestic production of vegetables for ‘national security’.
Sensitive but firm
This action has had a financial impact on the South African farmers who have, for many years, produced for the domestic market and the region at large. The question that remains then is, how should we respond to these events? Clearly, from the celebratory video shared by Masisi on X, the political leadership has determined to continue with this ban.
South Africa’s response will need to be sensitive but firm. Admittedly, South Africa has significantly benefitted from the African continent in its agricultural export progress.
In 2013, the African continent accounted for roughly 40% of South Africa’s record agricultural exports of US$13.2 billion. This figure has been the same for the past decade. Importantly, for every dollar of agricultural products South Africa exports to Africa, 90 cents are within southern Africa. Thus, an engagement with this region about the export ban must appreciate that South Africa greatly depends on the area.
A measured response
The response will need to be neither antagonistic nor arrogant, but rather to understand Botswana and Namibia’s aspirations and to formulate pathways of coexistence and better communication of policy approaches within the region.
Having hostile neighbours will not benefit any of these countries’ citizens. The people primarily want affordable, accessible and safe food. Therefore, Botswana and Namibia could close the market in specific windows to boost domestic production, and communicate clearly about this with South Africa. The South African producers would then fill specific windows when there are gaps in these markets.
For long-term planning, it would also help if these countries communicate with South Africa the agricultural products they deem of ‘national security’ and want to boost the domestic production of. This would help South Africa better plan its agricultural export drive to other regions and progressively reduce its dependence on its neighbours.
Importantly, these bans on imports should not be perpetual, but should cease when the producers in Botswana and Namibia have restarted their industries and can compete in open markets with South Africa.
The growth or desire to expand agricultural production in these countries has a positive spillover for South African agribusinesses, which can supply them with farm implements and inputs. Botswana and Namibia should remain open and not hostile in this respect.
These southern African countries should revive the regional spirit and formulate agricultural policies and programmes from that perspective. Hostility between neighbours and offensive communication is not a path to southern Africa’s agricultural prosperity.
Yes, South Africa has dominance, but the goal should not be to overtake South Africa, but to leverage its technologies and increase regional agricultural production. Such an approach is what the Botswana and Namibian authorities should follow — regional cooperation and shared prosperity in agriculture.
**Wandile Sihlobo is an agricultural economist and author.
- Daily Maverick
Botswana and Namibia regularly close their borders to South African vegetables. However, the prolonged ban started in December 2021 and has been in place since then. The rationale for it, from both Botswana and Namibia’s side, is that it would incentivise domestic production of vegetables in these countries and lower their dependence on South Africa. Their target products include tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, cabbage, lettuce, garlic, onions, ginger and fresh herbs.
In December 2023, Botswana announced the ban would be extended for another two years. At the time, many in South Africa, including myself, were unhappy about this decision. The source of frustration arises from the appreciation that these countries are members of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), a bloc encouraging free trade and economic integration.
Still, the SACU agreement has a loophole allowing such restrictions. An article by researchers at South Africa’s Department of Trade and Industry citing the SACU Agreement states that “Article 18 (2) ... notes that member states have the right to impose restrictions on imports or exports for the protection of: Health of humans, animals or plants, the environment, treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value, public morals, intellectual property rights, national security and exhaustible natural resources”.
Viewed in this context, one can only guess that Botswana and Namibia would argue they are boosting their domestic production of vegetables for ‘national security’.
Sensitive but firm
This action has had a financial impact on the South African farmers who have, for many years, produced for the domestic market and the region at large. The question that remains then is, how should we respond to these events? Clearly, from the celebratory video shared by Masisi on X, the political leadership has determined to continue with this ban.
South Africa’s response will need to be sensitive but firm. Admittedly, South Africa has significantly benefitted from the African continent in its agricultural export progress.
In 2013, the African continent accounted for roughly 40% of South Africa’s record agricultural exports of US$13.2 billion. This figure has been the same for the past decade. Importantly, for every dollar of agricultural products South Africa exports to Africa, 90 cents are within southern Africa. Thus, an engagement with this region about the export ban must appreciate that South Africa greatly depends on the area.
A measured response
The response will need to be neither antagonistic nor arrogant, but rather to understand Botswana and Namibia’s aspirations and to formulate pathways of coexistence and better communication of policy approaches within the region.
Having hostile neighbours will not benefit any of these countries’ citizens. The people primarily want affordable, accessible and safe food. Therefore, Botswana and Namibia could close the market in specific windows to boost domestic production, and communicate clearly about this with South Africa. The South African producers would then fill specific windows when there are gaps in these markets.
For long-term planning, it would also help if these countries communicate with South Africa the agricultural products they deem of ‘national security’ and want to boost the domestic production of. This would help South Africa better plan its agricultural export drive to other regions and progressively reduce its dependence on its neighbours.
Importantly, these bans on imports should not be perpetual, but should cease when the producers in Botswana and Namibia have restarted their industries and can compete in open markets with South Africa.
The growth or desire to expand agricultural production in these countries has a positive spillover for South African agribusinesses, which can supply them with farm implements and inputs. Botswana and Namibia should remain open and not hostile in this respect.
These southern African countries should revive the regional spirit and formulate agricultural policies and programmes from that perspective. Hostility between neighbours and offensive communication is not a path to southern Africa’s agricultural prosperity.
Yes, South Africa has dominance, but the goal should not be to overtake South Africa, but to leverage its technologies and increase regional agricultural production. Such an approach is what the Botswana and Namibian authorities should follow — regional cooperation and shared prosperity in agriculture.
**Wandile Sihlobo is an agricultural economist and author.
- Daily Maverick
Kommentar
Allgemeine Zeitung
Zu diesem Artikel wurden keine Kommentare hinterlassen