The kerfuffle around South Africa and US trade relations has turned for the worse, with poultry producers crying foul and accusing the South African government of kowtowing to the US at the expense of food security and a sustainable local poultry industry.
Recently, the Department of Agriculture made a controversial decision to temporarily allow the US to impose and lift bans on its poultry exports to SA, by granting the US the authority to determine the health standards for its poultry exports.
The decision, rooted in broader trade negotiations and geopolitical pressures, has profound implications for our economic development, the health of SA’s domestic industry, and its sovereignty over agricultural standards.
This happens in the background, whereby given the rampant highly pathogenic avian influenza epidemic in the US and Europe, 27 American states are currently banned by the South African authorities from exporting poultry to this country.
As South African Poultry chief executive Izaak Breitenbach points out, by SA granting the US the right to determine its own disease status and export policies, the situation is reversed. Instead, by allowing the US to “self-impose and self-lift” bird flu restriction, SA has created a conflict of interest for the Americans – whereby they could prioritise their interests and potentially expose SA “to the very disease that cost the local poultry industry R9.5-billion and wiped out 30% of its long-living chicken flock in 2023”.
Historically, especially under the African Growth Opportunities Act (Agoa), SA has measures in place allowing US imports while also having in place measures to protect local industries.
There are also in place disease surveillance and control protocols with which South African authorities continuously monitor global and domestic disease risks. In the event of outbreaks, import restrictions are swiftly imposed or adjusted.
The government also supports vaccination efforts against strains such as H5N1 to enhance domestic poultry resilience.
Despite these measures, the decision to allow the US to self-impose and lift export bans effectively circumvents some of SA’s regulatory control, raising concerns about biosecurity and market fairness from the local poultry industry.
South Africa’s situation is compounded by the robust trade agenda pursued by the US under President Donald Trump’s “America First”, which is pushing aggressively to finalise trade agreements with more than 180 countries, seeking to open markets for US agri-products.
This has pressured South Africa to concede to US demands related to poultry imports, leading to the temporary concession by the agriculture department allowing the US the authority to place and lift bans on SA as part of a broader framework deal intended to maintain good relations without escalating tariff reprisals or losing Agoa.
Unfortunately, this is at a huge cost to the South African poultry industry’s sustainability and the country’s overall economic development.
On the other hand, allowing another country to determine the health safety of imports can be viewed as relinquishing regulatory autonomy. This sets a precedent that could be exploited by other trade partners.
South Africa risks deepening its dependence on the US market while weakening a domestically strategic industry. The risk is that cheaper imports could flood the market, harming local producers unable to compete on price or scale.
While the agreement may unlock trade benefits in other sectors and preserve Agoa status – providing access to US markets for other goods – many industry stakeholders warn that sacrificing standards in farming sectors is a short-term trade-off with potentially severe long-term consequences for food sovereignty and economic stability.
Despite the challenges posed by its concession, South Africa has several paths to mitigate the negative impacts and recalibrate its approach.
First, South Africa should work to regain full control over health and safety standards for poultry imports by renegotiating terms that restore the authority of its Department of Agriculture and relevant regulatory agencies. This is important to protect biosecurity and public health.
It is also critical for the country to involve the domestic poultry industry, consumer groups, and scientific experts actively in ongoing trade negotiations. Such transparent processes will build trust and help shape agreements that balance trade benefits with local industry sustainability.
There is also the option of diversifying markets by expanding trade relations with Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
The country should also explore investment in biosecurity infrastructure, local value-addition, and innovation in farming practices will boost competitiveness, making it less vulnerable to cheaper imports.
Finally, SA should seek more comprehensive trade and investment partnerships with the US that integrate benefits across multiple sectors, ensuring concessions in one area are offset with gains in others.
• Ido Lekota is a veteran journalist
