SA farm exports to US rise 19% in Q1, a green sprout amid frosty diplomacy

An important point that emerges from this data is that if the fictional 'white genocide' and land seizures of Trump's imagination were actually unfolding, then South African commercial farmers – who are mostly white – would not be in a position to grow their exports to markets such as the US.
South Africa's agricultural exports to the US increased 19% in the first quarter (Q1) of this year compared with the same period in 2024, according to data from Trade Map, which was crunched by the Agricultural Business Chamber (Agbiz) and released on Monday.
It is an interesting trend that highlights several important points against the backdrop of a frosty diplomatic landscape amid US President Donald Trump's false claims about a 'white genocide' and the ruthless persecution of white farmers, which was on full display during his recent White House meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
For starters, as South Africa faces the prospect of exclusion from the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) – which provides preferential treatment to the US market for eligible countries – it is clear that there is American demand for agricultural products grown or made here.
Specifically, these products are mainly citrus, grapes, wine, and fruit juices – South African products that could surely grow in the massive US market.
Some might see America as a fairly small market in the broader scheme of things, with the 19% year-on-year rise in Q1 only amounting to $202-million – 6% of all South African agricultural exports in that period, which grew 10% to $3.36-billion.
But 6% is material: this slow-growth, high-unemployment economy needs to pluck any fruit it can – and this stuff is low-hanging. Americans love citrus and fruit juice, a point underscored by the fact that global prices for these products are heavily influenced by the New York-based OJ futures market.
Another important point that emerges from this data is that if the fictional 'white genocide' and land seizures of Trump's imagination were actually unfolding, then South African commercial farmers – who are mostly white – would not be in a position to grow their exports to markets such as the US.
What this means:
South Africa's commercial agricultural sector is a budding rose among the thorns of this moribund economy. It needs continued access to markets such as the US to grow and create badly needed jobs and investment opportunities while bringing in export revenue to help support the rand. South African farmers can find other markets, but the US, as the world's largest economy, remains the big prize.
This does not mean that South Africa's agricultural sector isn't facing a range of serious political, economic and environmental challenges.
The Expropriation Act is a red flag for South Africa's commercial farmers and investors more widely.
That there are still glaring disparities in ownership – with only about 25% of farmland now in the hands of black South Africans, according to Agbiz estimates – is largely a reflection of state failure and dithering, corruption and incompetence under the ANC.
Still, even in the face of other challenges such as climate change, South Africa's agricultural sector is prospering, a narrative at odds with Trump's view that a Zimbabwe-style mass land grab is under way.
Americans clearly want to drink South African wine and fruit juice, and farmers here can meet that demand. Instead, Trump's racist resentment threatens to reap a bitter harvest from what should be fields of hope. BM

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Mail & Guardian

44 minutes ago

• Mail & Guardian

International Atomic Energy Agency resolution was weaponised against Iran

Iranian missiles hit Jerusalem earlier this week. (X) The perversion of multilateral institutions using seemingly benign resolutions as quasi-declarations continues. Consequently, the multilateral system is slowly collapsing. The election of Donald Trump as United States president has further complicated the situation. Trump has pulled the US out of a number of multilateral agreements, including the Paris Accord on climate change. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is accused of selective justice when it comes to the prosecution of those charged with crimes against humanity — of only targeting African leaders and ignoring Western leaders who are accused of similar crimes. The ICC ignored calls to charge former British prime minister Tony Blair and former US president George Bush for crimes against humanity when they falsely asserted that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution that Iran was in breach of its proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years was a precursor to Israel's attack on Iran. The resolution was adopted by the IAEA's board of governors on 10 June; three days later Israel attacked Iran. The resolution was passed by 19 votes in favour, three against and 11 abstentions. The timing of the report and the speed with which Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, acted on it has raised questions. When did he know about the resolution? How did he manage to prepare Israel's attacks on Iran in such a short space of time? Was he given prior knowledge about the content of the resolution? Netanyahu, who has always scorned talks with Iran, took advantage of the resolution and the changes in the Middle East since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023. Israel has always claimed that Iran poses an existential threat to it. This follows a statement made by Iran's former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in 2012 at the United Nations. Ahmadinejad said Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be 'eliminated'. He was criticised for uttering an inflammatory statement and ignoring a UN's warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session. Netanyahu has been beating the war drum against Iran ever since, arguing that 'Iran has to be stopped on its tracks before it is too late'. There are 191 countries that are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), making it one of the most widely adhered-to arms control agreements. But four nuclear weapons states — India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — are not signatories to the treaty. The treaty's objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to achieve nuclear disarmament. The IAEA, an agency of the UN, is responsible for monitoring nuclear activities and obligations of countries party to the treaty. South Africa has a nuclear power station generating 5% of the country's electricity. The country ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in February 2019 and was the first country to have disarmed its nuclear weapons. Fearing that these could end up in the wrong hands, South Africa ended its nuclear weapons programme, which began during the 1970s, in 1989. The decision was executed just months before negotiations on ending apartheid between the National Party (NP) and the ANC started. It was an important decision which facilitated a smooth political transition in South Africa. Otherwise, global powers could have delayed or derailed the political transition. According to Ali Mazrui, a Kenyan intellectual, the NP was under pressure from various quarters to prevent what he referred to as the 'Black Bomb' from being transferred to an unknown black political leadership. (Graphic: John McCann/M&G) Back to the Middle East. Who is presenting an existential threat to other nations in the Middle East? Who possesses nuclear weapons in the region? There is a wide belief that Israel has nuclear weapons. The estimates are that it has nuclear stockpiles of between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads. According to political analyst Msano Zive, it is Israel that poses an existential threat in the region. The manner in which Israel has continued with the genocide in Gaza, its willingness to starve and suffocate civilians in Gaza and its disproportionate response to the attacks on 7 October 2023 has never been experienced in modern times. Israel is intent on committing the same atrocities in Iran. The destruction of property in Gaza and the number of deaths, including those still lying under the rubble, resemble a country that was struck by an atomic bomb, Zive argues. Israel has not ratified the non-proliferation treaty, meaning that the IAEA's monitors have no access to its nuclear programme. The world should be concerned. Israel has continually violated national sovereignty and security of its neighbours. Other than continuing to commit genocide in Gaza, it is relentlessly bombing Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and now Iran. Netanyahu's political survival and avoiding jail time is dependent largely on the continuation of the war in the region. Israel's failure to destroy Hamas in Gaza has led to Netanyahu to search for new targets. Iran has been the low-hanging fruit for a long time, given the national sentiments on Iran in Israel. The IAEA has to ensure a nuclear weapon-free and responsible world. Importantly, it also has to ensure that those who possess nuclear weapons and run nuclear related programmes act responsibly and adhere to the basic rules and regulations of the treaty. Importantly, the role of the IAEA of encouraging a nuclear weapons-free world has to be promoted. It is important therefore how the IAEA deals with Iran; it has to be seen to be fair. Iran ratified the non-proliferation treaty voluntarily. Why is it then harassed by a country known to possess nuclear weapons that refuses to ratify the treaty and scrutiny by the IAEA? The continuation of these double standards is likely to encourage other countries in the world who intend to produce nuclear weapons from being open about their plans. Thembisa Fakude is a senior research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues and a director at the Mail & Guardian.

The Citizen

an hour ago

• The Citizen

PODCAST: Toyota Tundra in Mzansi can shake up the bakkie game

American bakkie's hybrid powertrain produces 325kW of power and 790Nm of torque. South Africans love driving bakkies, the bigger the better. This love-affair can soon grow more intense with the imminent arrival the Toyota Tundra in right-hand drive. The Toyota Tundra is an American truck-styled bakkie built for the North American market manufactured at two assembly plants in Indiana and Texas. While it is built exclusively in left-hand drive (LHD), Australian-firm Autogroup International (AGI) imports them and then convert them into right-hand drive. Durban-based Rospa International has now entered into a partnership agreement with AGI which could soon lead to the Toyota Tundra making its way to Mzansi via Down Under. Toyota Tundra makes a Pitstop On this week's episode of The Citizen Motoring's Pitstop podcast, we discuss the bakkie's potential in South Africa. The Toyota Tundra is offered as a hybrid in the US. A 3.5-litre twin-turbo V6 petrol engine hooked up to an electric motor and battery pack combines to deliver a monstrous 325kW of power and 790Nm of torque. These numbers, along with its outlandishly big dimensions, are exactly the reasons local bakkie fans would crave to hav a Toyota Tundra standing in their driveways. Rospa International has a solid reputation for importing classic and sports cars, mainly from Japan. These include Nissan GT-Rs, Honda NSXs, Toyota AE86s and Mazda RX-7s. Its partnership with AGI will also see its portfolio expand to a range of American cars. These include the likes of the Dodge Challenger, Hummer EV and Camaro. ALSO READ: Importer to offer right-hand-drive Toyota Tundra in Mzansi Experienced converters 'AGI firmly believes in right-hand-drive markets and the opportunities they present,' says Rob Hill, CEO of AGI. 'Since the early 1990s, we have carefully re-engineered over 5 000 LHD vehicles for export all over the world. We can now add South Africa to that list through Rospa International, a company that shares our vision and passion.' Rospa International will offer finance on the imported cars, as well as three-year/100 000km warranties with after-sales back-up.

Eyewitness News

4 hours ago

• Eyewitness News

Supreme Court allows US victim suits against Palestinian authorities

WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES - The US Supreme Court cleared the way on Friday for American victims of attacks in Israel and the occupied West Bank to sue Palestinian authorities for damages in US courts. The court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision in a long-running case involving the jurisdiction of US federal courts to hear lawsuits against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Americans killed or injured in attacks in Israel or the West Bank or their relatives have filed a number of suits seeking damages. In one 2015 case, a jury awarded $655 million in damages and interest to US victims of attacks which took place in the early 2000s. Appeals courts had dismissed the suits on jurisdiction grounds. Congress passed a law in 2019 -- the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) -- that would make the PLO and PA subject to US jurisdiction if they were found to have made payments to the relatives of persons who killed or injured Americans. Two lower courts ruled that the 2019 law was a violation of the due process rights of the Palestinian authorities under the US Constitution but the Supreme Court ruled on Friday to uphold it. "The PSJVTA reasonably ties the assertion of federal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct that involves the United States and implicates sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The PA announced in February that it would end its system of payments to the families of those killed by Israel or held in Israeli prisons, responding to a long-standing request from Washington. In 2018, during his first term as US president, Donald Trump signed into law rules suspending financial assistance to the PA as long as it continued to pay benefits to Palestinians linked to "terrorist" entities, according to the criteria of the Israeli authorities.