SA's agricultural exports surge by 10% in Q1
In a year where trade has dominated the headlines since the US started imposing higher tariffs against its trading partners, agricultural export activity is worth paying close attention to.
Encouragingly, the start of the year has remained positive for the sector.
In the first quarter of 2025, SA's agricultural exports totalled $3.36bn (R59.5bn), up 10% from the same period a year ago, according to data from Trade Map.
This is a function of both higher volumes of various product exports and better commodity prices.
The products that dominated the exports list in the first quarter were mainly grapes, maize, apples, pears, apricots, cherries, peaches, wine, wool, fruit juices, nuts, dates, avocados, pineapples, and beef, among other products.
While the ports remain a challenge and require further improvement and investment, the agricultural export season in the first quarter experienced less friction than in the recent past.
From a regional perspective, the African continent maintained the lion's share of SA's agricultural exports in the first quarter of 2025, accounting for 45% of the total value.
The products leading the exports list in the African continent were maize, maize meal, sugar, apples and pears, fruit juices, wine, soybean oil, sunflower oil, oilcake, and wheat, among other products.
The EU was SA's second-largest agricultural market, accounting for a 23% share.
Grapes, apricots, cherries, peaches, nectarines, wine, apples, pears, wool, dates, figs, pineapples, avocados, mangos, guavas, fruit juices, and nuts were among the primary agricultural products SA exported to the EU in the first quarter of 2025.
As a collective, Asia and the Middle East were the third largest agricultural markets, accounting for 16% of the total agricultural exports in the first quarter of 2025.
The exports to this region primarily included apples, pears, grapes, apricots, cherries, peaches, nectarines, citrus, strawberries, nuts, beef, lamb and wool, among other products.
The Americas region accounted for 6% of SA's agricultural exports in the first quarter of the year.
The main exported products include grapes, apricots, cherries, wine, fruit juices, nuts, apples, pears, and citrus.
Given ongoing concerns about SA's participation in the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) trade arrangement and the current higher tariffs imposed by the US, it is worth highlighting that SA's agricultural exports to the US were still 4% in the first quarter of 2025 (which is part of the 6% of exports to the Americas region mentioned above).
The rest of the world, including the UK, accounted for 10% of SA agricultural exports in the first quarter of 2025.
SA does not engage in one-way trade. The country imports various agricultural products.
In the first quarter of 2025, SA's agricultural imports totalled $1.94bn (R34bn), a 19% increase year-over-year, according to data from Trade Map.
The increase resulted from higher value and volume of major products SA imports, such as wheat, palm oil, rice, poultry, and whiskies.
As we have argued before, SA lacks favourable climatic conditions for growing rice and palm oil and thus relies on imports of these products.
Regarding wheat, SA imports nearly half of the annual consumption.
Meanwhile, imports account for about 20% of the annual domestic poultry consumption.
Given the current ban on Brazil's poultry imports, we may see an increase in volume from other regions, or a recovery in domestic production, as the local producers indicate.
Subsequently, when we account for the exports and imports, SA's agriculture sector recorded a trade surplus of $1.42bn (R25bn) in the first quarter of 2025, down 1% from the previous year.
In the current environment of heightened geoeconomic tensions, SA's export-orientated agricultural sector must work to maintain its current export markets and expand into new ones.
The focus for both policymakers and agribusinesses and organised agriculture should be on the following aspects:
First, SA should maintain its focus on improving logistical efficiency.
This entails investments in port and rail infrastructure, as well as improving roads in farming towns.
Second, SA must work diligently to maintain its existing markets in the EU, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas.
Lastly, SA should expand market access to some key Brics countries, such as China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
Wandile Sihlobo is the chief economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of SA.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald
2 hours ago
- The Herald
FAIS ombud upholds complaint against Luvuyo Burial and Consulting
The office of the ombud for financial services providers has issued a determination in favour of Pumelele Mantingani after financial services provider Luvuyo Burial and Consulting failed to honour a funeral policy claim. Luvuyo Burial's failure to honour the claim has also resulted in its licence as a financial services provider being suspended by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA). Mantingani, who took out a funeral policy with the company in September 2020, lodged a complaint with the ombud's office on October 28 last year after Luvuyo Burial and Consulting failed to honour a valid claim after the death of her uncle, Mbuyeni Katshi, on July 17 2024. Mantingani submitted her claim on July 27 2024. Luvuyo Burial and Consulting, based in Khayelitsha, Cape Town, acknowledged the claim and committed to payment, but only partially honoured the obligation, paying R5,000 of the R10,000 due. Despite further assurances, the balance remains unpaid. Numerous attempts were made by the ombud to resolve the matter amicably. Though Luvuto Burial undertook on more than one occasion to settle the outstanding balance, it failed to do so. During the investigation, it also came to light that Luvuyo Burial was operating without an underwriter, raising serious concerns regarding its compliance with regulatory requirements. In assessing the evidence, the office found that the policy was valid and that the deceased was listed as an insured life. However, Luvuyo failed to act in accordance with the policyholder protection rules, which require that: 'An insurer must, within two business days after all required documents in respect of a claim under a microinsurance policy or a funeral policy have been received, assess and make a decision whether the claim submitted is valid, and authorise payment of the claim, repudiate the claim or dispute the claim and notify the claimant of the dispute.' The ombud said the company's failure to process the claim appropriately reflected noncompliance with treating customers fairly outcome 6, which states that 'customers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers when they want to change a product, switch providers, submit a claim or make a complaint'. As a result, the ombud upheld the complaint and ordered that Luvuyo Burial and Consulting pay the complainant the outstanding balance of R5,000 with interest at a rate of 11.25% per annum from the date of the determination until the date of final payment. 'Given the respondent's failure to comply with regulatory requirements, a copy of this determination was referred to the FSCA for its attention and possible enforcement action. 'As a result, the respondent's licence as a financial services provider was suspended by the FSCA on April 14,' the ombud said. TimesLIVE
The Herald
2 hours ago
- The Herald
Store account add-ons, ‘lack of due care' car claims among top disputes for consumers
The life division of the NFO finalised 5,977 cases in 2024. The total amount recovered was R202.8m. Denise Gabriels, lead ombud: life division, said funeral benefits remained the product most complained about, accounting for 45% of complaints. The most common causes for complaints were claims being declined; at 56%; followed by poor service or administration, at 34%. Of the five life insurance companies that received the most complaints: 628 formal cases were opened against Old Mutual Life Assurance Company, representing 18% of all complaints opened; Liberty Group Limited had 399 formal cases opened, representing 11%; Hollard Life Insurance Company had 259 cases, representing 7%; Metropolitan Life had 216 cases; and Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd had 188 cases opened. Credit The credit division of the NFO successfully closed 2,040 cases, achieving positive outcomes for complainants in 49% of cases. This resulted in financial redress totalling R2.35m. The highest number of cases were opened with: the Retail Credit Solutions (RCS) Group, which had the highest number of cases opened, totalling 243, representing 17% of all cases opened; Opco 365 had 133 cases opened, representing 9% of all cases opened; Edcon Limited had 126 cases opened, 9% of all cases opened; and DMC Debt Management had 121 cases opened, 9% of all cases opened. Findings in favour of complainants totalled 44%. Howard Gabriels, lead ombud: credit division, said two matters that stood out with a number of retailers for their systemic impact during the reporting period were: value-added services (VAS); and minimum payment calculations. 'A serious concern emerged regarding the application of payments on credit accounts where VAS charges (such as airtime or insurance add-ons) were not considered in determining the minimum monthly payments,' he said.
Mail & Guardian
3 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Loan company exploited social grant beneficiaries, high court rules
The high court in Johannesburg has ruled against JDG Trading. Illustration: Lisa Nelson The high court in Johannesburg has declared that it is unreasonable to offer social grant beneficiaries insurance for disability and retrenchment if they are already disabled or unemployed. An insurance product offered by credit provider JDG Trading included cover for disability and retrenchment. But disabled and unemployed clients, mostly social grant beneficiaries, would never be able to make a claim for disability or retrenchment. The court ruled recently that this exploited social grant beneficiaries who took out loans from JDG Trading and infringed on their constitutional right to social assistance. JDG Trading offers loans to social grant beneficiaries for household goods and furniture. Customers are required to insure the loans, and can purchase insurance from JDG Trading directly or another provider. Because JDG Trading's insurance bundle included cover for disability and retrenchment, and many of its clients are already disabled or unemployed, the National Credit Regulator took JDG to the National Credit Tribunal, arguing that the insurance policy was unreasonable and against the National Credit Act. The National Credit Tribunal ruled in favour of JDG and the regulator — whose mandate is to promote and support the development of a fair, transparent, competitive, sustainable, responsible, efficient and effective consumer credit market — then took the matter to the high court. The regulator argued in court that by offering cover for retrenchment and disability to unemployed or disabled people, JDG made customers assume a risk that was unreasonable. JDG was using these customers, who could not fully benefit from the policy, to subsidise others who could, the regulator argued. Rights group Black Sash, represented by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, joined as a friend of the court. It argued that the insurance policy particularly affected social grant beneficiaries and therefore infringed on the constitutional right of access to social security and social assistance. Black Sash submitted expert evidence from an actuary to demonstrate the impact on customers. But JDG Trading argued that its policy was not unreasonable because consumers were not obliged to sign up for its insurance and were free to obtain the insurance elsewhere. JDG Trading argued that the regulator and Black Sash had taken a 'paternalistic approach' and failed to provide any evidence of consumers who misunderstood the policy's provisions at the time they signed up or had been deceived. It said its product was affordable and convenient, thereby enabling greater access to credit. Johannesburg high court judges Shaida Mohamed and Khashane Manamela agreed with Black Sash and the regulator that the policy was unreasonable. The consumers in this case belonged to a marginalised group who are dependent on social grants for their existence, the judges said. Because the insurance policy was offered to the consumer at the point of sale it was unlikely they had time to consider it properly. JDG Trading had conceded that this class of consumers could never have made use of the policy and therefore it was clear they were cross-subsidising younger consumers who could benefit from the policy. Pensioners would not knowingly sign up for a disadvantageous policy, the judges said. There was no option to exclude the disability or retrenchment cover from the bundle. By placing an unfair burden on a vulnerable segment of society, the insurance product was at odds with the goals of the National Credit Act, which aimed to make credit more accessible and combat inequitable and discriminatory practices to this end, the court said. The appeal was therefore upheld with each party to pay their own costs. This story was first published by .
