‘Malawi and South Africa have genuine trade concerns which should not be swept under the carpet’—advises Tanzanian development administration specialist

* Malawi’s decision to impose restrictions on Tanzanian agricultural imports stems from protection of domestic industries challenges

* Southern African Development Community (SADC) is there to fix these trade thistles — sadly, all members of SADC seldom use it as they should

* The Tanzanian posturing to impose trade barriers on South Africa and Malawi, albeit not a cabinet resolution, defeats why SADC is there in the first place

By Duncan Mlanjira

Tanzanian development administration specialist, Rutashubanyuma Nestory, defends decisions by Malawi and South Africa restricting importation of agricultural produce, saying the two countries have genuine internal trade concerns which should not be swept under the carpet by the Tanzanian government.

Nestory —  who is reported to have over 30 years of practical experience, and has been writing media economic developmental analyses in print and digital newspapers — said this in his article published yesterday by Tanzania Digest ahead of the deadline that country’s agriculture minister Hussein Bashe posted on his X page giving Lilongwe and Pretoria to remove the non-tariff barriers on Tanzanian produce or it will restrict all farming imports from the countries.

Reported widely on multiple Africa news outlets, Minister Bashe’s statement on his X page threatened that Tanzania will also impose trade barriers on agricultural imports from South Africa and Malawi if the two countries don’t lift restrictions on shipments on her.

In addition, “tiny Malawi risks port access and fertilizer imports ban”, observes Nestory in his analysis on Tanzania Digest, taking note that Malawi is blocking maize, rice, ginger, banana and corn while South Africa is curbing banana imports from Tanzania.

Nestory’s article examines the issues at hand, and concludes that “Tanzania’s stance is an overreach and a circumvention of the real issues at hand”.

He says from his analysis of the issues: “Malawi’s decision to impose restrictions on Tanzanian agricultural imports stems from a combination of phytosanitary concerns, economic protectionism, and domestic agricultural challenges.

While 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”.

“A Donald Trump wannabes in [Tanzanian] 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. Southern African Development Community (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!” maintains Nestory in his conclusion.

On phytosanitary concerns, Nestory observes that Malawi banned the import of un-milled maizefrom 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 2022.

“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.

BBTV’s 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.

Nestory takes note of key observations, saying: “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

Nestory observes that “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 & 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 2022 exacerbated Malawi’s food insecurity, destroying crops and leaving 4.4 million people at risk of hunger. The government sought to stabilise domestic markets by limiting imports and prioritising local production, even as it relied on maize imports during shortages.

“Tanzania has 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.

“In addition, Tanzania has pledged to continue supporting Malawi with long-term development projects. Regrettably, Tanzania’s recent moves threatens this commendable pledge.”

On communication failures, in which Tanzanian Agriculture Minister Bashe claims Malawi ignored diplomatic outreach — including unanswered attempts to engage Malawi’s Agriculture Minister, Sam Kawale — Nestory observes that “this lack of dialogue intensified tensions, with Malawi’s Trade Minister Vitumbiko Mumba stating that the ban was a ‘trade issue’ to be resolved through formal channels”.

“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.

“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.”

He takes note that the ultimatum expired yesterday (April 23), saying: “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 destabilising the region’s economy.”

Meanwhile, Malawi government assures the public that it is committed to resolve the trade standoff through dialogue and diplomacy while downplaying fears that the situation could disrupt bilateral relations or existing trade arrangements.

This was reported in The Daily Times yesterday quoting Information Minister Moses Kunkuyu that the government has always engaged with her neighbours on a number of bilateral relations, while not indicating whether Malawi would comply with Tanzania’s demands — emphasising on using proper channels for negotiations.

“Malawi has a [diplomatic] mission in Tanzania, and Tanzania has a mission here in Malawi,” he told The Daily Times. “Our representatives are in constant communication and we believe that, through continued dialogue, we can achieve a win-win outcome for both countries.”

In his analysis, Nestory notes that Tanzania threatens to block transit of agricultural cargo from Malawi through Port of Dar es Salaam — “a vital gateway for landlocked Malawi, which relies on Tanzanian routes for 90% of its imports and exports”.

This, he says, will in turn disrupt supply chains for goods destined to neighbouring  Zambia or Mozambique — thus the “measure aims to increase economic pressure on Malawi, which depends heavily on Tanzanian infrastructure”.

However, he quotes economist, Dr. Lawi Yohana of the Open University of Tanzania, urging that country’s on the possibility of exploring alternative markets, such as Kenya and South Sudan, instead of confrontation — warning that “port restrictions could push [Malawi] toward Mozambican or Angolan routes”.

Nestory also raise red flags that halting fertilizer shipments to Malawi — “a critical input for Malawian farmers, 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.”