Tanzania will impose trade barriers on agricultural imports from South Africa and Malawi if the two countries don’t lift restrictions on shipments on her.
Agriculture Minister Hussein Bashe on his X page has given Pretoria and Lilongwe until Wednesday, 23th April 2025 to remove non-tariff barriers on Tanzanian produce or it will restrict all farming imports from the countries. In addition, tiny Malawi risks port access and fertilizer imports ban!
South Africa is curbing banana imports from Tanzania, while Malawi blocks flour, rice, ginger, banana and corn. Farm goods from the two nations wouldn’t be allowed to transit through Tanzania or its ports, Bashe said. Additionally, the country would block shipments of fertilizer to Malawi, he said. This article examines the issues at hand, and asserts Tanzania’s stance is overreach, and a circumvention of the real issues. Here is my take.
South Africa’s restrictions on Tanzanian banana imports appear to stem from a combination of market dynamics, unresolved phytosanitary concerns, and diplomatic communication gaps, rather than an explicit ban. Here’s a breakdown of the key factors stoking this conflict of interest:
- Lack of Market Demand and Competitive Positioning.
Minimal Tanzanian Impact:
South Africa’s banana imports are dominated by Mozambique (74%) and Eswatini (19%), with Tanzania contributing negligible volumes over the past two decades. Tanzanian bananas have not established a foothold in South Africa’s market, possibly due to insufficient marketing or competition from established suppliers.
Trade Imbalance:
South Africa is a net agricultural exporter (US$13.7 billion in 2024), and its imports focus on products not widely produced in the region (e.g., wheat, rice, palm oil). Tanzania’s agricultural exports to South Africa, primarily tobacco, tea, and coffee, account for only 0.4% of South Africa’s total agricultural imports. South African agricultural exports to Tanzania by 2023 data was around $ 3. 95 million while non agricultural exports were about $ 600 mill. Clearly, there is almost nothing Tanzania can do to influence agricultural policies in South Africa because the business between the two countries is just too small.
- Phytosanitary and Regulatory Hurdles.
Unresolved Standards:
While Tanzania claims South Africa is imposing non-tariff barriers, South African authorities emphasize that any restrictions would require scientific justification, such as phytosanitary (plant health) concerns. Tanzania’s failure to meet these standards—or to resolve them through bilateral cooperation—may explain the lack of market access.
Historical Precedent:
Tanzania faced similar challenges with avocado exports to South Africa, which took over a decade to resolve. This suggests that regulatory alignment and certification processes are slow and require sustained diplomatic and non diplomatic engagements.
- Diplomatic and Communication Gaps.
No Formal Ban:
South Africa denies instituting a broad agricultural ban on Tanzania. The dispute centers on bananas, a product with minimal trade history between the two countries. South Africa’s Department of Agriculture has not publicly acknowledged deliberate restrictions, framing the issue as a lack of Tanzanian market penetration.
Unanswered Outreach:
Tanzanian Agriculture Minister Hussein Bashe claims repeated attempts to engage South African counterparts went unanswered, exacerbating tensions. This communication breakdown may have fueled perceptions of unfair treatment. What Bashe fails to grasp “market penetration” has nothing to do with the flurry of diplomatic breakthroughs but thawing “market bottlenecks”.
- Regional Trade Dynamics.
Competition vs. Collaboration:
South Africa prioritizes regional trade partnerships under frameworks like the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). However, its focus on strengthening existing supply chains (e.g., with Mozambique) may potentially marginalize newer entrants like Tanzania.
Reciprocity Concerns:
Tanzania’s threat to retaliate reflects frustration over perceived trade inequity. South Africa’s agricultural exports to Tanzania (apples, oranges) are more significant than Tanzania exports to South Africa, creating an asymmetric trade relationship. However, poor quality of Tanzania agricultural produce is part and parcel of the problem for the perspirations it accosts in conquering the South African sophisticated market.
Harsh realities of the South African market.
South Africa’s stance likely reflects a mix of market realities, regulatory rigor, and diplomatic inertia rather than intentional exclusion. For Tanzania, resolving the baffling issues would require addressing phytosanitary standards, enhancing marketing efforts, and leveraging regional trade frameworks like AfCFTA. The broader dispute underscores challenges in balancing national interests with regional cooperation goals.
Why Tanzania is grappling with tiny Malawi?
Malawi’s decision to impose restrictions on Tanzanian agricultural imports stems from a combination of phytosanitary concerns, economic protectionism, and domestic agricultural challenges. Here’s a detailed analysis of the key reasons:
- Phytosanitary Concerns Over Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease.
Malawi banned the import of un-milled maize from Tanzania (and Kenya) due to fears of the maize lethal necrosis (MLN) disease, a highly contagious plant virus with no known cure. This disease can cause up to 100% crop loss, posing a severe threat to Malawi’s food security, especially after Cyclone Freddy destroyed thousands of hectares of maize crops in March 2025.
Malawi’s Ministry of Agriculture mandated that maize imports must be milled (as flour or grit) to mitigate disease spread.
Agriculture experts, such as Henry Kamkwamba, warned that lax import policies could replicate past disasters like the Banana Bunchy Top Virus (BBTV), which decimated Malawi’s banana industry.
Here’s a detailed overview of Banana Bunchy Top Virus (BBTV) and its impact on Malawi’s banana industry.
- A. Impact on Malawi’s Banana Industry.
BBTV, a devastating plant pathogen transmitted by banana aphids (Pentalonia nigronervosa), has severely affected Malawi’s banana production since its first detection in 1997. By 2016, the virus had decimated livelihoods, leaving nearly 200,000 smallholder farmers destitute, especially in regions like Mulanje district.
Infected plants exhibit stunted growth, “bunchy” leaves, and reduced yields, with losses reaching 70–90% in the first season and total crop failure thereafter. Farmers were forced to switch to less profitable crops like cassava and cowpeas, exacerbating food insecurity.
- B. Spread and Epidemiology.
Geographic Reach:
National surveys (2020–2021) confirmed BBTV’s presence in all 11 banana-growing districts of Malawi, including Chitipa—previously considered a “clean” source of planting materials. The highest disease incidence was recorded in Nkhata Bay (93.33%).
Transmission:
The virus spreads via infected planting material and aphid vectors. Its detection in Chitipa posed a critical threat to Malawi’s seed systems and food security .
- Management and Recovery Efforts.
Disease Control:
Farmers were advised to uproot and burn infected plants, enforce fallow periods, and replant with BBTV-free varieties under programs like the FAO’s Special Agricultural Product initiative .
Training and Collaboration:
Extension officers trained farmers in surveillance and disease management, emphasizing early detection and isolation of infected plants.
International Support:
China’s School Banana Orchard Establishment project promoted local production by planting bananas in schools, while the FAO and Malawi government worked to revive the industry.
- Challenges in Recovery.
Cheap Imports:
Malawi’s recovery is hampered by low-quality, imported bananas from Tanzania and Mozambique, which undercut local prices despite inferior quality.
Vulnerability of New Varieties:
Even BBTV-free cultivators remain susceptible, requiring rigorous management (e.g., planting 100 meters from infected areas).
- Broader Context of BBTV.
Global Threat:
BBTV affects 16 African countries, including Tanzania, DRC, and Zambia, and is classified among the world’s 100 most dangerous invasive species.
Symptoms and Spread:
Infected plants show Morse code streaking on leaves, stunted growth, and no fruit production. The virus spreads rapidly through aphids and contaminated planting material.
Lack of Resistant Varieties:
No fully resistant banana cultivars exist, making eradication and strict quarantine measures critical.
Key Observations.
Malawi’s struggle with BBTV highlights the intersection of agricultural vulnerability, economic dependency on staple crops, and the challenges of managing transboundary pests. While recovery efforts show promise, long-term success depends on curbing imports, improving farmer education, and international collaboration to develop resistant varieties.
- Protection of Domestic Industries.
Malawi framed its broader import restrictions (on flour, rice, ginger, bananas, and maize) as a strategy to boost local production and reduce dependency on imports. The Ministry of Trade and Industry aimed to shield Malawian farmers from external competition, particularly as the country faces inflation and food shortages.
Economists acknowledged Malawi’s right to protect its markets under regional trade agreements like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), though critics faulted the move for lack of diplomatic coordination.
- Post-Cyclone Food Security Crisis.
Cyclone Freddy’s devastation in 2025 exacerbated Malawi’s food insecurity, destroying crops and leaving 4.4 million people at risk of hunger. The government sought to stabilize domestic markets by limiting imports and prioritizing local production, even as it relied on maize imports during shortages.
Tanzania has provided humanitarian aid to Malawi following a devastating cyclone, including food supplies, blankets, tents, and medical equipment. The aid was transported by the Tanzanian People’s Defence Force (TPDF). In addition, Tanzania has pledged to continue supporting Malawi with long-term development projects. Regrettably, Tanzania’s recent moves threatens this commendable pledge.
- Diplomatic and Communication Failures.
Tanzanian Agriculture Minister Hussein Bashe claimed Malawi ignored diplomatic outreach, including unanswered attempts to engage Malawi’s Agriculture Minister, Sam Kawale. This lack of dialogue intensified tensions, with Malawi’s Trade Minister Vitumbiko Mumba stating the ban was a “trade issue” to be resolved through formal channels.
- Regional Trade Dynamics and Retaliation Risks.
Malawi’s restrictions were also influenced by asymmetric trade relations. Tanzania is a critical transit route for Malawian goods via the Port of Dar es Salaam, and Malawi depends on Tanzanian fertilizer exports. However, Malawi’s actions risked provoking Tanzania’s retaliatory measures, such as blocking transit routes and suspending fertilizer shipments.
Notable observations.
Malawi’s restrictions on Tanzanian agricultural imports are driven by immediate phytosanitary risks (for maize) and long-term economic protectionism (for other goods). However, the lack of transparent communication and adherence to regional trade protocols has escalated tensions, threatening broader economic fallout for both nations. Resolving the dispute will require balancing domestic priorities with collaborative diplomacy under frameworks like SADC and AfCFTA.
Tanzania has announced reciprocal sanctions against Malawi and South Africa in response to their restrictions on Tanzanian agricultural imports. The measures, detailed by Agriculture Minister Hussein Bashe, include the following key actions, with a deadline of April 23, 2025 for Malawi and South Africa to reverse their bans :
- Comprehensive Import Ban on Agricultural Goods.
Tanzania will prohibit all agricultural imports from Malawi and South Africa, including:
South African products:
Apples, oranges, and other fresh produce.
Malawian products:
Unspecified agricultural goods, though Malawi primarily exports tobacco, tea, and sugar to Tanzania. This retaliatory ban directly targets sectors critical to both countries’ economies. Traders have been advised to halt orders for affected goods immediately .
- Suspension of Transit Rights.
Tanzania will block transit of agricultural cargo from Malawi and South Africa through its territory, including:
Port of Dar es Salaam:
A vital gateway for landlocked Malawi, which relies on Tanzanian routes for 90% of its imports and exports.
Regional logistics networks:
Disrupting supply chains for goods destined to neighboring countries like Zambia or Mozambique. This measure aims to increase economic pressure on Malawi, which depends heavily on Tanzanian infrastructure.
- Fertilizer Export Suspension to Malawi.
Tanzania will halt fertilizer shipments to Malawi, a critical input for Malawian farmers. This move risks exacerbating food insecurity in Malawi, which is already grappling with post-Cyclone Freddy crop losses. Malawi imports 60% of its fertilizer from Tanzania, making this sanction particularly impactful.
- Additional Trade Disruptions.
Cross-border trade suspension:
Tanzanian transporters and exporters are directed to cease shipments to Malawi and South Africa until further notice.
Diplomatic ultimatum:
Minister Bashe emphasized that Tanzania’s actions are a last resort after five years of failed negotiations with South Africa over banana market access and Malawi’s refusal to engage diplomatically.
Context and Implications.
Reciprocity principle:
Tanzania framed these measures as necessary to protect its farmers and traders, citing South Africa’s decade-long blockage of Tanzanian avocados (resolved only after similar retaliatory actions) as precedent.
AfCFTA tensions:
The sanctions clash with the African Continental Free Trade Area’s goals of reducing trade barriers, raising concerns about regional integration.
Economic fallout:
Malawi faces potential inflation and food shortages, while South Africa risks losing a key market for its citrus and apples.
Tanzania’s sanctions underscore its shift from diplomatic engagement to assertive trade reciprocity, signaling a pivotal moment in East-Southern African trade relations.
Details of Tanzania’s Warning to Malawi and South Africa Over Agricultural Import Bans.
Tanzania’s Minister for Agriculture, Hussein Bashe, issued a firm warning to Malawi and South Africa on April 17, 2025, threatening retaliatory trade measures if the two countries do not lift restrictions on Tanzanian agricultural exports by April 23, 2025. Below is a breakdown of the key details:
- Tanzania’s Retaliatory Measures.
Import Ban:
Tanzania will block all agricultural imports from Malawi and South Africa, including apples, oranges, and other produce.
Transit Restrictions:
Agricultural cargo from Malawi and South Africa will be barred from transiting through Tanzanian territory, including the Port of Dar es Salaam, disrupting regional logistics.
Fertilizer Export Suspension:
Tanzania will halt fertilizer shipments to Malawi, a critical input for Malawian agriculture.
- Trigger for the Dispute.
Malawi’s Restrictions:
Malawi blocked imports of Tanzanian flour, rice, ginger, bananas, and maize, severely impacting Tanzanian traders reliant on the Malawian market.
South Africa’s Market Access Barriers:
Despite five years of negotiations, South Africa has denied market access to Tanzanian bananas, mirroring a previous decade-long struggle over avocado exports.
- Diplomatic Efforts and Rationale.
Failed Negotiations:
Bashe stated that repeated diplomatic attempts to resolve the issues were ignored, including unanswered communications to Malawi’s Agriculture Minister.
Protecting National Interests:
The measures aim to safeguard Tanzanian farmers, traders, and the principle of reciprocity in regional trade. Bashe emphasized, These steps are to protect the dignity of our nation and the livelihoods of our people.
- Economic and Regional Implications.
Impact on Traders:
Cross-border traders, particularly in regions like Mbeya, face immediate losses, with youth-led businesses lacking safety nets.
Regional Trade Tensions:
The dispute contradicts the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) principles, which advocate for reduced trade barriers. Experts warn that escalating tensions could undermine regional integration.
Malawi’s Vulnerability: Malawi risks inflation, food insecurity, and disrupted fertilizer supplies, which could cripple its agricultural output.
- Stakeholder Reactions.
Support for Tanzania:
Farmers and some lawmakers, like MP Hamis Kigwangalla, back the government’s stance, arguing Tanzania must defend its interests.
Calls for Caution:
Economists like Dr. Lawi Yohana (Open University of Tanzania) urge exploring alternative markets (e.g., Kenya, South Sudan) instead of confrontation, warning that port restrictions could push neighbors toward Mozambican or Angolan routes.
South Africa’s Silence:
South Africa has not publicly responded, while Malawi’s Trade Minister deferred responsibility, stating, “It is a trade issue, engage the Trade Minister”.
Deadline and Next Steps.
The ultimatum expires on April 23, 2025. If Malawi and South Africa do not reverse their bans, Tanzania will enforce the measures, potentially escalating into a broader trade war. Stakeholders across East and Southern Africa are urging dialogue to avoid destabilizing the region’s economy.
Concluding remarks.
A Donald Trump wannabes in the government may have chosen to flex their lean brawn but this matter demands flexing of the grey matter, and smoothing diplomatic curvatures. Malawi and South Africa have genuine concerns which cannot be swept under the carpet by Tanzania’s imposition of economic embargo.
SADC is there to fix these trade thistles. Sadly, all members of SADC seldom use it as they should! SADC shouldn’t be an opportunity for our telegenic politicians and bureaucrats to showcase their latest design suits but to engage in interactive dialogue, and solve real problems like these.
The Tanzanian posturing, albeit not a cabinet resolution, defeats why SADC is there in first place. Just lodge your trade grouses there, and I have no doubt they will be solved.
Quietly and without much ado, the “ice picks” will melt away! So be wise by stop making “Mountain Kilimanjaro ” out of an anthill!
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
