Namibia’s restriction policy on importation of horticultural products: Part 1

The decision to impose seasonal restrictions on vegetable imports has sparked debate, with some in the SACU region labelling it an act of hostility.

However, when considered in the context of national food security, investment and job protection, Namibia’s Market Share Promotion (MSP) policy is not only justifiable but highly important. It is crucial to note that Namibia did not impose a “ban” but rather implemented restrictions on the importation of specific commodities.

Horticulture MSP policy instrument

The scheme is a temporary growth-at-home policy initiative implemented by the Namibian Agronomic Board (NAB) to boost horticultural production within Namibia. It mandates that importers of fresh fruits and vegetables purchase Namibian horticultural products equivalent to at least a minimum percentage of their total procurement in monetary value each quarter, as determined by the NAB Board based on recommendations from the National Horticulture Advisory Committee (NHAC).

The scheme was initially introduced at 5% in 2005, and this intervention has successfully increased local fruit and vegetable production to the current level of 47%. Over the years, the MSP has shown a steady upward trend: it reached 37.5% in 2012, 39% in 2013, 41.5% in 2014, 44% from 2016 to 2018, and has been maintained at 47% since 2019. As a result, local production now accounts for 47% of Namibia’s horticultural demand. The remaining 53% is imported, primarily from South Africa.

Recognizing that Namibia is a bona fide member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), this measure is applied based on most favoured nation (MFN) principles and does not target produce from any specific country.

National food security is a fundamental right

Food security is a cornerstone of national stability and prosperity, and it is a fundamental right enshrined in the WTO agreement on agriculture. Article 20 of the agreement recognizes the need for member states to protect food security when implementing agricultural policies. Therefore, these temporary restrictions on vegetable imports are in line with this provision, as it is aimed to boost local agricultural production to ensure a stable and sufficient food supply for its citizens.

The WTO also permits countries to implement measures necessary to protect human life or health, and Namibia’s actions are well within this framework. The country is reducing its dependence on imported food, thereby addressing the risks of potential disruptions in food supply chains—a concern that has become increasingly relevant due to global challenges such as pandemics, climate change, and geopolitical issues.

Promoting Investment in Local Agriculture

While this policy measure is critical to ensuring food security, it’s also a necessary tool to stimulate and preserve investment in the agricultural sector. It aligns with the broader objective of achieving sustainable development, a priority for many nations in the region. Investment in local agriculture allows building necessary infrastructure and capacity for long- term economic growth.

Job creation and economic stability

A crucial aspect of this policy instrument is its potential to generate sustainable employment. Namibia’s agricultural sector employs approximately 23% to 30% of Namibia’s workforce, making it the largest employer in the country. Therefore, prioritising local production allows the government to safeguard existing jobs while also creating new ones, thereby contributing to the reduction of poverty and inequality. Stability of the agri sector also has a positive multiplier effect on the broader economy.

Regional cooperation and fair trade

Critics suggest that Namibia’s actions could strain regional cooperation within the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). However, it is crucial to recognize that Namibia is not acting unilaterally. The SACU agreement itself permits member states to implement measures that protect their national interests, including food security. Article 18(2) of the SACU Agreement states:

“Member States shall have the right to impose restrictions on imports or exports in accordance with national laws and regulations for the protection of – (a) health of humans, animals or plants; (b) the environment; (c) treasures of artistic, historic or archeological value; (d) public morals; (e) intellectual property rights; (f) national security; and (g) exhaustible natural resources”. Namibia’ MSP policy is, therefore, a legitimate exercise of its rights under this regional framework. This is no legal loophole but rather a forward-thinking provision of the agreement.

Additionally, in the SACU Strategic Plan 2022/2027, Member States have agreed on principles that public policy interventions, tools, and criteria should be utilised to support the development of regional value chains (RVCs) in the following priority sectors: agro-processing (including leather and leather products, meat and meat products, fruits and vegetables), textiles and clothing, pharmaceuticals and chemicals (such as cosmetics and essential oils). Other key sectors include automotive and mineral beneficiation.

Moreover, Namibia remains committed to fair trade and regional integration. In building a robust agricultural sector, the country ultimately contributes to a balanced and equitable trade environment in the region. As the country develops its capacity to produce, it could become a reliable supplier to neighbouring countries, enhancing regional food security and economic cooperation.

Conclusion

The seasonal close border decision is a strategic policy measure to enhance Namibia’s own national food security, protect investment and employment in the sector. The goal is consistent with both SACU and WTO agreement provisions. Rather than being an act of hostility, the policy is a necessary step toward building a resilient and self-sufficient economy that can positively contribute to regional stability and prosperity. Namibia’s stance should be seen not as a challenge to regional cooperation, but as an essential component of it.

In part 2 of my views on the topic, I’ll unpack the “import ban” versus the so-called “localisation policy” being implemented in the territory South of our orange river and how the two serve same purpose of restricting trade.

By: Roberth Simon