When Botswana introduced a vegetable import ban in January 2022, the government framed it as a bold policy shift to protect local farmers, boost national food security, and reduce dependency on imports. But beneath the protectionist rhetoric, a shadow market took root—one where cartel-like practices, discrimination, and market manipulation allowed commercial farmers to exploit loopholes while sidelining informal traders.
The ban, which restricted imports of over 30 types of vegetables—from potatoes and onions to tomatoes and carrots—created an uneven playing field. Investigations by the Competition and Consumer Authority (CCA) revealed how commercial producers manipulated pricing and supply chains to their advantage, excluding small-scale vendors, particularly hawkers, in ways that undermined the policy’s intent and likely violated competition law.
According to the CCA, the informal sector was systematically sidelined due to the absence of inclusive safeguards. At a recent policy dialogue hosted by the Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis (BIDPA), Ernest Bagopi, CCA’s Director of Investigations, Policy and Research, detailed how informal traders bore the brunt of the policy’s implementation failures.
“Commercial horticulture farmers deliberately ignored supply to the local informal market, choosing instead to focus on retailers and wholesalers,” Bagopi said.
The CCA found widespread discriminatory behaviour, with farmers denying hawkers access to higher-grade produce. While retailers placed bulk orders via WhatsApp, paid electronically, and received timely deliveries, hawkers were left to queue for days—sometimes up to six weeks—at farm gates. Many were turned away or sold the lowest-quality vegetables, often at prices similar to premium grades.
“Hawkers were not allowed to buy Grade One or Two vegetables, particularly potatoes. They were only offered Grade Three produce—often damaged or near spoilage,” Bagopi said. He noted that 98 percent of all complaints related to produce access during the ban were about potatoes, followed by onions.
Despite Botswana’s laws prohibiting cartel conduct—such as price-fixing, supply restrictions, or market division—the CCA uncovered behaviour that mirrored illegal collusion. One case involved the Ministry of Agriculture’s staggered cropping strategy, designed to avoid market oversupply. In practice, this approach granted individual farmers temporary monopoly control, enabling them to set inflated prices.
“This strategy gave commercial farmers monopoly control during their harvest windows, allowing them to charge exorbitant prices. It effectively enabled cartel-like behaviour,” Bagopi explained.
One of the most egregious incidents occurred in early 2024 in Ghanzi. Hawkers unknowingly bought potatoes damaged by a crude frost-prevention method—farmers burned glass to warm crops, resulting in potatoes cooking underground. Though they appeared fine externally, the produce was rotten inside by the time it reached the market. Hawkers lost thousands of pula, were refused refunds, and had no formal channels to report the losses.
Not all regions were implicated equally. In Pandamatenga, where grain farming dominates, hawkers reportedly had better access to quality produce. But Tuli Block and Ghanzi were flagged as hotspots for discrimination. Farmers often defended their actions by citing a lack of preparation and guidance following the sudden implementation of the ban. While inspections by CCA prompted temporary compliance, violations resumed after officials left.
“The farmers complied during inspections, but the moment we left, they reverted to their old ways,” Bagopi said.
Ultimately, the import ban benefited commercial farmers while harming informal traders and consumers. Prices of key vegetables like potatoes and onions rose sharply, fuelling food inflation.
“We received a lot of complaints from consumers about spiking prices when the ban began,” Bagopi noted.
The CCA has urged the government to ensure greater institutional coordination—especially with agencies tasked with protecting consumers and small businesses—when formulating policies that impact essential supply chains.
“This policy might have been well-intentioned, but without strategic coordination, it exposed vulnerable players to exploitation,” Bagopi said.
“We believe the initiative had merit. But what was needed was a robust implementation plan to close the gaps that left consumers and SMMEs vulnerable to discrimination and abuse.”
