Trade tensions rise as neighbours restrict SA farm goods

Namibia, Botswana, and Mozambique are among the few countries that have recently introduced restrictions on South African agricultural exports, said Agbiz chief agricultural economist Wandile Sihlobo.

Namibia and Botswana are South Africa’s partners in the Southern African Customs Union (Sacu). Sihlobo said an important benefit of a customs union is the free movement of goods in the common customs area.

All the countries, including Mozambique, have committed to removing all trade barriers by 2030 as part of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

“Undoubtedly, trade restrictions undermine the spirit of trade integration. It also makes a mockery of commitments to liberalise trade on the African continent. Yet South Africa has been extremely restrained despite clear injury to its economic interests.

“It is worth highlighting some cases. Namibia, Botswana, and Mozambique have unjustifiably restricted imports of South African vegetables. There is no basis for import restrictions in the common customs area to advantage domestic sectors,” he said.

Maintaining regional relations is key

According to Sihlobo, these actions risk unravelling Sacu, which has already fettered South Africa’s ambition to negotiate bilateral trade deals globally to boost its export sectors and create jobs.

“We need to take a serious look at Sacu’s utility for shared economic interests in the region, as well as, crucially, for our economic interests in a changing global environment.

“With food security a priority for many governments globally, the ambition to boost domestic agricultural production is understandable. Still, the approach to domestic policy, particularly in the regional perspective, should not create barriers that disadvantage producers in other countries, especially in a customs union,” he said.

Sihlobo emphasised that it was important to maintain a coordinated regional approach to boost production capabilities across Sacu countries and build regional value chains.

He said this would not be done through restrictive measures, but rather supply-side instruments that could be coordinated. Trade restrictions in Sacu risk straining relations and devaluing the customs union.

“Within the Sacu region, there is supposed to be free movement of agricultural goods, with a few exceptions, including national security and when there are crop and animal diseases. In the recent restrictions on vegetables, fruit, and some poultry products in December, there was no such fear of animal diseases.

“The restrictions were based mainly on national aspirations and on what countries intended to do to support their producers, with limited consideration of regional implications. While it may be tempting for the affected countries to seek a strong policy response to these inconsistencies, dialogue at a higher level to ease these frictions remains an ideal path.

“The region’s agriculture and food sector is interlinked; thus, the path ahead is to understand each country’s priorities and pursue them while minimising interruptions to trade flows,” he said.

Export barriers threaten trade ties

Sihlobo added that from a South African perspective, the country should pick up dialogue with its partners but make it clear that it’s exploring options to de-risk the future.

“This is important given our significant trade exposure to the region. For example, about 17% of South Africa’s US$15.1 billion in agricultural exports in 2025 went the Sacu region. This is almost comparable to South Africa’s 21% share of agricultural exports to the EU region.

“In essence, the immediate priority must be the speedy resolution of the current trade-restrictive measures through structured and high-level dialogue. The introduction of import restrictions on agricultural products within a customs union is inconsistent with both the legal architecture and the spirit of regional integration,” he said.