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. (Madelene Cronje)
Namibia, Botswana and Mozambique are among the few countries that have recently introduced restrictions on South African agricultural exports. In the case of Namibia and Botswana, these are our customs union partners in the Southern African Customs Union (SACU).
An important benefit of a customs union is the free movement of goods in the common customs area. All these 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 liberalize 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. 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. It is important to maintain a coordinated regional approach to boost production capabilities across SACU countries and build regional value chains. This will 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.
Admittedly, because of its size, agroeconomic advantages and technical advancement, amongst other things, South Africa dominates the region’s agriculture and food production. Therefore, when other countries in the region seek to increase production, a coordinated strategy with South Africa and reliance on South African agribusinesses to provide inputs are paths worth considering.
From a South African perspective, we should pick up dialogue with our partners but make it clear that we are exploring options to de-risk the future. This is important given our significant trade exposure to the region. For example, about 42% of South Africa’s US$15.1 billion in agricultural exports in 2025 went to the African continent. Importantly, as part of the above share, about 17% of South Africa’s agricultural exports went to the SACU region of Africa. This is almost comparable to South Africa’s 21% share of agricultural exports to the EU region. Indeed, the products exported mainly to the region differ somewhat from those South Africa exports in large shares to the EU, Asia or the Middle East. Exports to the African continent are mainly grains, vegetable oils and some fruits. Meanwhile, the exports to the EU are primarily fruits, nuts and wine. The Middle East and Asia include grains, fruits, wine, wool and beef.
I want to conclude with the following observations. First, 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. South Africa should therefore seek urgent consultations with Namibia, Botswana and Mozambique to remove the measures in question and to reaffirm the foundational principle of free movement of goods. This sort of uncertainty is not good for business and workers; it risks normalising protectionism within the region and undermining confidence in SACU and AfCFTA commitments. South Africa must take these risks seriously.
Second, if the common customs area no longer provides predictability, policy certainty and a rules-based environment for South Africa’s exporters, then its utility must be reassessed on a cost-benefit basis. A customs union requires a high degree of trust, policy coordination and discipline. Where these are weakened, the economic rationale of the arrangement erodes.
Third, South Africa should therefore urgently review the benefits and the structural design of SACU. This review should examine whether the current model continues to serve South Africa’s long-term interests in a rapidly shifting global trade environment. In particular, consideration should be given to whether a more flexible configuration, potentially downgrading from a customs union to a free trade area, would better enable member states to pursue differentiated trade agendas while maintaining regional market access. This is especially true given the decision to liberalise all trade in the AfCFTA by 2030, making SACU of little value to South Africa.
Such an approach would preserve intra-regional trade while restoring policy autonomy and reducing the risk of exposure to unilateral restrictions within the common customs area. South Africa needs to pursue other markets to manage the risk to its agricultural trade. South Africa’s export diversification strategy, including the need to conclude bilateral and trade agreements swiftly, requires institutional flexibility that the current SACU framework constrains..
Wandile Sihlobo is the chief economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa. He is also a senior research fellow at the department of agricultural economics at Stellenbosch University.