- South Africa advised to respond carefully, recognising the aspirations of Botswana and Namibia
- SA agribusinesses could benefit by supplying essential farm tools and inputs
Botswana’s decision to limit imports of South African fruits and vegetables has raised significant concerns about potential strain on political and economic relations between the two countries. The Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa (Agbiz) has cautioned that these restrictions could destabilise the Southern African Customs Union (SACU).
Logan Braude, Manager of Agbiz Fruit at Agbiz, expressed his concerns on a South African podcast, emphasising the need for cooperation, transparency, and trust in trade negotiations. He highlighted a significant loophole in the SACU agreement: the lack of a clear dispute resolution mechanism, which turns the issue into a political challenge.
Wandile Sihlobo, Chief Economist of Agbiz, also identified additional loopholes that could allow Botswana and Namibia to justify their actions under the broad claim of “national security.” He cited an article by researchers at South Africa’s Department of Trade and Industry, which points out that the SACU agreement’s Article 18(2) permits member states to impose import or export restrictions to protect various interests, including human, animal, or plant health, the environment, and national security.
Sihlobo says the financial impact on South African farmers is already being felt. For years, they have relied on the regional market as a stable outlet for their produce, and the sudden disruption is causing significant concern. Sihlobo noted that the South African agricultural sector has greatly benefited from exports to the African continent, which accounted for 40 percent of the country’s record US$13.2 billion in agricultural exports last year. With 90 percent of this trade concentrated within the Southern African region, Botswana’s decision carries serious implications.
Sihlobo suggests that South Africa should respond carefully, recognising the aspirations of Botswana and Namibia while also protecting its substantial interests. He advocates for an approach that fosters regional cooperation and shared prosperity rather than creating conflict. Sihlobo advises against an aggressive response, recommending instead a focus on improving communication and aligning policies within the region. Hostility, he argues, will not serve anyone’s long-term interests.
Instead, Sihlobo proposes that Botswana and Namibia consider more strategic market closures during specific periods to support local production while still allowing South African producers to meet demand when needed. For long-term planning, he believes these countries should clearly communicate their agricultural priorities to South Africa, enabling better planning for exports and reducing reliance on neighbouring markets.
However, Sihlobo sees opportunities in this situation. As Botswana and Namibia expand their agricultural production, South African agribusinesses could benefit by supplying essential farm tools and inputs. He advocates for maintaining open cooperation, revitalising the regional spirit, and developing agricultural policies that foster shared prosperity across Southern Africa. Sihlobo emphasises that the goal should be to use South Africa’s technological strengths to promote growth and collaboration, aligning with the broader goals of Botswana’s President Mokgweetsi Masisi and regional authorities in Namibia, who are encouraged to prioritise regional cooperation and agricultural success.
In South Africa, figures also show that the agricultural sector has shed close to 50,000 jobs in Q2 2024, although economists that side insists the decline has nothing to do with the ban on the importation of fresh produce but drought.
