CTA
Small fontsize
Medium fontsize
Big fontsize
English |
Switch to English
Français
Switch to French
Filter by Agriculture topics
Commodities
Regions
Publication Type
Filter by date

New South African livestock import regulation highlights challenges in establishing regionwide SPS import regimes

20 August 2014

On 1 May 2014 the South African authorities imposed stringent veterinary requirements for the importation of live animals from Namibia. The new regulatory requirement had initially been scheduled for introduction from 31 December 2013. However, after bilateral consultations, implementation was provisionally deferred. After these consultations, the Namibian authorities believed an agreement had been reached to maintain existing requirements for imports form Namibia; however, the new requirements for all livestock imports into South Africa were introduced from 1 May.

Among a range of other measures, the requirements demand that “exporters of livestock and livestock products… provide individual identification for sheep, as well as proof of vaccination against anthrax at least 14 days, but not longer than 12 months, ahead of export”. They further require “proof of treatment against all internal and external parasites and proof of animals being from areas free of foot-and-mouth disease”. Major concerns arise as to the cost of the required measures, which it is considered could undermine the commercial viability of cattle farming in some sub-sectors.

Namibia’s livestock sector – on which some 70% of its 2.2 million inhabitants depend – exports on average 160,000 weaner cattle, 240,000 goats and 100,000 sheep to South Africa each year. Following the introduction of the new requirements on 1 May, hardly any live animals have been exported (only 2,400 live goats had been exported to KwaZulu-Natal Province by early June 2014). This is in line with the expected immediate trade impact of the measures, foretold by both government and private sector bodies in the run-up to the imposition of the new requirements.

On 10 June the South African authorities announced a relaxation of requirements for “slaughtering cattle and slaughtering sheep”, to be applied to “animals which will be slaughtered immediately as well as for those who are sent to feed lots”. There is expected to be an agreement on import requirements reached by mid July, allowing a resumption of trade to take place.

This SPS dispute with South Africa has prompted the Namibian government to call for more investment in local abattoirs, feed lots and feed cereals production to reduce dependence on live exports. However, for small stock, finding markets for meat products as alternatives to live exports could prove particularly challenging given the specific nature of market components served in South Africa. 

Editorial comment

A number of wider issues arise from the current Namibia–South Africa livestock dispute.

The first relates to the short lead time between the announcement of pending changes (11 December 2013) and their implementation (1 May 2014). Given the scope of the changes proposed, trade disruption was inevitable. Local auctions in communal areas to gather weaners for subsequent sale in South Africa were cancelled, having an immediate effect on communal farmers’ cash incomes. While post-drought restocking is mitigating some immediate effects, more limited market opportunities are expected to result in declining cattle prices. Clearly if regional trade is not to be disrupted, other than in emergency situations, far longer lead times are required for the phased introduction of new SPS measures.

The second issue relates to the scope of new measures. In some instances this goes beyond national requirements (i.e. recognition by the World Organisation for Animal Health – OIE – as being free of Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia, when no part of South Africa as yet enjoys this status).

The third issue relates to setting up harmonised animal disease import requirements across the whole of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The Namibian government expressed serious concern over such moves, in a context where “animal health conditions were not necessarily the same in the respective countries”. The Namibian government maintains that its internationally recognised foot-and-mouth disease-free production zone, its excellent animal identification and traceability systems, and highly effective animal disease prevention and control measures place it in a completely different situation as regards its ‘statements of position’ (SOPS – which relate to accounting and reporting), compared to that of other regional livestock producers.

This suggests that major challenges are likely to be faced in establishing common regionwide SPS requirements as the basis for intra-regional trade in livestock. There is a danger that the bar is either set too high, thereby blocking trade, or too low, thereby undermining a nation’s international animal disease status. Institutional capacity constraints, however, appear to limit the scope for more nuanced, risk assessment-based SPS requirements.

A final issue relates to the perceived protectionist effect of the measures. Although Namibia normally exports around 160,000 weaners to South Africa annually, in 2013 the impact of the drought led to the export of 260,765 head of cattle, compared to only 68,196 cattle in 2012. This prompted strong protest from South African livestock producers and gave rise to suspicions in Namibia that the timing of the new measures was as much a result of pressures from South African livestock producers as any underlying animal health concerns. This highlights the dangers of SPS concerns being hijacked by commercial interests.

Comment

Terms and conditions