How South Africa's fruit industry plans to deal with US trade tariffs
A 30% tariff on key exports, including citrus, wine, sugar cane, and beef, will take effect on 1 August.
This will all but end the duty-free access South Africa enjoyed under the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA).
While citrus exports may avoid major disruption this season, sectors like table grapes and stonefruit are facing a more immediate challenge.
With their peak export seasons fast approaching, producers need to act swiftly to mitigate potential losses.
South African fruit growers are hoping that late US talks might ease the trade tensions. In the meantime, exporters are being urged to diversify.
'We have to do everything we can to retain our position in the UK and Europe,' said Alwyn Dippenaar, Chairman of the South African Table Grape Industry.
According to Fruitnet , markets in Asia and the Middle East are now also high on the radar.
Despite recent difficulties in China for South African grape growers, renewed trade cooperation could offer a lifeline.
China's move to expand free trade to 53 African countries, including South Africa, may provide much-needed relief and improved competitiveness for local fruit exporters.
India, another key market, is also in focus. As such, a senior Indian delegation is expected to visit South Africa soon to fast-track a potential trade agreement.
High import tariffs in India have so far hindered some product categories. In response, the local industry is rolling out awareness campaigns for South African apples, pears, citrus, and avocados in the sub-continent.
A new campaign led by South African citrus growers meanwhile aims to reposition grapefruit as a vibrant summer fruit in Europe.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1.
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
27 minutes ago
- IOL News
Market keeps eye on MPC rate decision this week
All eyes on the Reserve Bank's rate decision this week. Image: Bloomberg It was an interesting week with the JSE All Share index hitting 100 000 points on Wednesday morning and the gold price breaking through $3 400 an ounce again. Internationally, US President Donald Trump announced trade deals with Japan and with the Philippines, and there are reports that the EU and US are nearing a deal. In local news the Government of National Unity held together once more as the DA agreed to support the Appropriation Bill after President Cyril Ramaphosa dismissed Higher Education and Training Minister Nobuhle Nkabane. On Thursday, Trade, Industry, and Competition Minister Parks Tau said that a 'condition precedent document' has been signed as a precursor to finalisation of the trade negotiations with the US, but little details were available. It was reported that the Framework Deal aims to resolve long-standing market access issues that both sides are interested in and to promote bilateral investments in a mutually beneficial manner. It is unlikely that South Africa and the US will reach an agreement by the 1 of August, when 30% tariffs kicks-in. The key local indicator was the June Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation figure released on Wednesday. The inflation rate rose from 2.8% to 3%. The main driver was higher food prices, while lower year-on-year fuel prices helped to counter the increase. The inflation rate remains safely below the midpoint of the Reserve Bank's target band, and markets are still expecting one more 25 basis point cut to the repo rate this year. But will it happen at Thursday's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting? Based on the June inflation number and the outlook for inflation there is a strong case for a cut. Almost all models suggest that inflation will increase slowly during the rest of this year, but remain below the midpoint of the target band for the next year or two. The MPC has often argued that international uncertainty poses an upside risk and is an argument for keeping the repo, and our interest rate differential with the US, unchanged. The concern is that if we cut the repo rate while the Americans keep their policy rate unchanged, the rand-dollar exchange rate will weaken, increasing the cost of imported goods. This week the Federal Reserve meets the day before our MPC and their decision will play a role. They are waiting to see the inflationary impact of their tariffs and will probably keep their policy rate unchanged. Yet, from the South African point of view the dollar is relatively weaker, and the interest rate differential is less of a concern. Keeping the repo unchanged runs the risk of applying contractionary monetary policy in an economy that is barely growing. Another view is that repo rate decisions are no longer about the midpoint of the target band, but rather about the proposed new target of 3%. With a lower target in mind, it may not make sense to cut the repo rate just yet. I think the Reserve Bank has already made a strong case for the benefits of a lower target. Their models show that because inflation is already low, the cost of moving to a lower target is minimal. They don't believe interest rates will need to stay high for long, nor that much economic growth will be sacrificed in the process. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading However, their whole story rests on several assumptions, and recent research by Codera Analytics shows that there are many factors to consider. One question is how quickly inflation expectations can be anchored to the lower target. It's no use having a lower target if unions continue to base wage demands on historically higher inflation rates. Another question is whether fiscal policy can support the lower target. If public finances deteriorate, long-term interest rates on government debt will rise, and stimulatory fiscal policy could increase inflation. A lower target requires fiscal discipline. Lastly, the government as a price setter must also buy into the lower target. More than 30% of the CPI basket consists of administered prices, which in recent years have increased at rates far above the headline inflation rate. To achieve a lower average inflation rate while, for example, electricity tariffs, rates and taxes are rising steeply, those parts of the economy where prices are flexible will take interest rate strain at a high cost for the private sector. I don't think the MPC's decision will be driven by the idea of a new lower target. They need political buy-in and the inflation targets set for the next Budget cycle are at the 4.5% mid-point. But I also think that the decision about the target cannot be delayed much longer. Uncertainty does nothing to help manage expectations. Waldo Krugell is a Professor of Economics, North-West University, Potchefstroom. Image: Supplied Waldo Krugell is a Professor of Economics, North-West University, Potchefstroom. *** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL BUSINESS REPORT
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Who will steer the R55bn marriage of MultiChoice and Canal+?
There's a new power couple in African media. After nearly five years of courting, Canal+ has finally put a ring on MultiChoice to form a pan-African content colossus with global ambitions. French media titan Canal+ has secured the final go-ahead to acquire MultiChoice in a landmark R55-billion deal. After years of quiet manoeuvring and regulatory hurdles, the merger is now a question of who controls what. The Competition Tribunal's conditional approval, granted late last week, closes the chapter on a five-year 'creeping takeover' and opens a new era in African broadcasting. Now it's a balancing act weighing foreign capital with national sovereignty on a digital scale with local content. Enter the media monarchy In return for its princely sum, Canal+, owned by the French conglomerate Vivendi, gets access to MultiChoice's 14.5 million Anglophone and Lusophone subscribers, the DStv powerhouse, sports juggernaut SuperSport, and a foothold in streaming via Showmax. MultiChoice, facing rising costs and subscriber declines, finds itself rescued by a suitor with deep pockets and pan-African ambition. Combined, the merged entity will serve more than 24 million subscribers across 50 countries — instantly becoming the largest pay-TV and streaming provider on the continent. However, if Canal+ was hoping for free access, South African regulators had other plans. The deal's approval came wrapped in layers of red tape — not as a deterrent, but as a deliberate design feature. Transformation goals Central to the regulatory conditions is the creation of LicenceCo, an independent company that will hold MultiChoice South Africa's broadcast licence. It will be majority-owned and controlled by historically disadvantaged South Africans and employees. Crucially, Canal+ has no control and no board seats. This structural firewall protects South Africa's legal requirements around media ownership, ensures transformation goals are met and serves as a template for foreign investment in other sensitive sectors. Phuthuma Nathi, the B-BBEE shareholder darling, increases its economic interest in LicenceCo to 27%, with a new employee trust added. The licence, and the local airwaves it governs, stay South African. The R30bn lobola The Competition Tribunal didn't just demand structural separation; it also extracted a commitment package valued at more than R30-billion. This includes: A three-year moratorium on retrenchments linked to the merger; Significant investment in local content production, sports broadcasting, SMME procurement and Corporate Social Investment programmes; Ongoing free-to-air broadcast access for key sporting events, safeguarding the public's ability to view major matches without a subscription; and Local skills development through Canal+'s 'University Programme', to train historically disadvantaged individuals in broadcasting and production. In a media environment where Netflix and Amazon Prime are increasingly dominant, this local-first approach is designed to future-proof South African media. Showmax, SuperSport and scale Behind the regulatory muscle lies a clear commercial imperative. MultiChoice has struggled in recent years, shedding 2.8 million linear subscribers and burning cash to prop up Showmax 2.0, its streaming reboot built on Comcast tech and bolstered by NBC Universal's 30% equity stake. Canal+ brings financial stability and scale. It also inherits Irdeto, MultiChoice's profitable cybersecurity unit, and Showmax's potential to become Africa's answer to global streamers. Vivendi, Canal+'s parent company, views this merger as critical to its own transformation and part of a plan to split into three listed entities, with Canal+ as its global growth engine. Listing Canal+ on the JSE within nine months of deal completion is a further nod to local inclusion, visibility, and capital market confidence. The shiny ring can't cover controversial holes While South Africa celebrates a structurally sound deal with tangible local benefits, not all observers are convinced. Critics warn that Canal+'s track record and the Bolloré Group's 30.4% stake in it come with baggage. Vivendi's past includes one of the largest corporate losses in history and regulatory infractions that still cast a shadow. Vincent Bolloré, the billionaire behind the curtain, faces corruption charges in France and has been accused of turning Canal+'s French media outlets into right-wing political mouthpieces. With Canal+ now embedded in South Africa's broadcasting ecosystem, some fear creeping influence over editorial independence, particularly if there are future attempts to deepen ownership or control beyond the current firewall. Marriage isn't buying a horse Mergers are easy to announce but hard to manage. However, the competition bodies have played their hand cleverly — extracting commitments, safeguarding jobs and setting a precedent for how global capital must behave when it enters South Africa's strategic sectors. The long-term test lies ahead. Can Showmax truly compete with Netflix? Can SuperSport keep its sports crown as global streamers outbid for rights? Will LicenceCo be a transformative force or a regulatory box-ticker? Will Canal+ respect the firewall, or try to chip away at it over time? The merged entity is now king of the hill in African broadcasting, but it's a kingdom that won't run on size alone. Trust, execution and transformation will be the currencies of success. DM
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The Finance Ghost: The battle for MAS is over – now begins the war?
With Hyprop terminating its bid for MAS Real Estate, Prime Kapital has won the first skirmish. But the war is in its early stages… MAS Real Estate is the company that nobody expected to become the juiciest M&A story on the JSE this year. All the ingredients are here – big hitters on either side of the table and a board in the middle that is coming under increasing pressure by the day. And depending on the outcome of the extraordinary general meeting that has been scheduled for Wednesday, 27 August, at the request of a group of South African institutional investors, we could see an equally big hitter like Des de Beer landing up on the board as well. But why all this interest and opportunistic dealmaking activity? Why are such impressive sharks circling this particular boat? Blood in the water Although MAS isn't exactly a household name, it does have a market cap of R15.6-billion. Despite this significant size, MAS has been struggling to prepare for upcoming bond maturities, flagging weak support in the bond market for companies with MAS' risk profile. This led to the suspension of the MAS dividend in 2023 and subsequent panic selling by dividend-focused investors. Then, as various other strategies to strengthen the balance sheet came to fruition, investors with more of a net asset value (NAV) or total return focus (vs purely caring about the dividend yield) bought shares, leading to a recovery in the share price to levels seen before the panic selling. But here's the really important bit: the current share price still represents a substantial discount to NAV, which means that there's money to be made by getting control of the assets and managing the balance sheet in such a way that value can be unlocked over time. A lot of money. And in reality, the progress made by MAS towards being ready for bond refinancing or redemption activity is probably the major catalyst for the recent flurry of interest, as the best time to acquire control of a business is when it is still a recovery story rather than a bright and shiny object that everyone loves (and hence wants to be paid a fortune to part with). Either way, the substantial gap between the 52-week high of R24.65 and 52-week low of R15.76 tells quite a story, with plenty of opportunities for traders along the way. But aside from the short-term gains (and losses) on offer, the real story here is the battle between Prime Kapital and Hyprop, with both parties keen to get their hands on the MAS value unlock opportunity. Disclosure, dividends and liquidity – these are the tools of war In the world of corporate finance, parties bring different negotiating tactics to the table. At Prime Kapital for example, one of their key strengths in this fight is that they hold the keys to unlocking the capital that is currently tied up in the joint venture between MAS and Prime Kapital. With so much focus on the balance sheet at MAS and a desire to get back to paying dividends, that capital is a highly valuable bargaining chip. This joint venture has been a major bone of contention for institutional investors, with allegations that the board of MAS didn't disclose important elements of the joint venture agreement to the market. Simply put, investors have been caught by surprise that Prime Kapital holds quite so much influence over the broader MAS balance sheet and cashflow profile. This has led to the demand by investors for changes to the board, which would include the removal of a couple of directors and the appointment of several new independent directors. The 'white knight' for these investors is Hyprop, a JSE-listed Reit (real estate investment trust) that is well known to the local institutional investor community. Such is the support that Hyprop enjoys that it had no difficulties in raising more than R800-million in an accelerated bookbuild process, based on little more than a vague suggestion that it would have a go at acquiring MAS if it raised the money. But of course, R800-million is nowhere near enough to acquire control in a fund with a market cap of R15.6-billion, which brings us to the next negotiating point: liquidity of the shares. For Prime Kapital to acquire control of MAS, it needs to convince shareholders to accept a part-cash, part-shares deal. Although it is currently suggesting that it would put more cash on the table than Hyprop (which is a positive), the downside to its indicative offer is that the equity portion would take the form of an inward-listed preference share that is unlikely to have much liquidity at all. The actual terms of the preference shares do have some appealing features, but they will almost certainly require investors to take a long-term view of holding them until some kind of redemption event. In contrast, Hyprop shares are liquid and investors who swap their MAS exposure for shares in Hyprop would have no trouble in reducing that stake if required. The Hyprop offer is thus perceived as having a stronger equity portion, while the Prime Kapital indicative terms are stronger on the cash side. Understanding these levers is important, as it shows how we got to a place where Hyprop put in a bid that was terminated almost as quickly as it arrived. A highly unusual offer structure Offers to shareholders are usually open for a long time, as there's a process in which the board of the target company is given a chance to hire an independent expert and give the market a proper view on the transaction. Such offers are also usually open for acceptance even once important conditions have been met, allowing shareholders to accept an offer that they know is going ahead. And in most cases, those conditions are outside of the control of the offeror, i.e. they relate to regulatory approvals. The Hyprop offer followed none of these market norms. Before Hyprop decided to terminate the bid, the structure of the offer was that it would have been open for acceptance for only a few days from when it was announced. This doesn't give the board time to properly opine on the terms, nor does it give enough time for any of the important underlying conditions to be fulfilled. In other words, investors would have to accept the offer (via an irrevocable undertaking) and then wait and see how long it would take for conditions to be met. But there's more: one of the conditions was a demand by Hyprop to be given the same access to information as Prime Kapital, which of course ties in beautifully with the institutional investors and their valid concerns around disclosure shortcomings. Now, had there been no attempt to address those shortcomings, this would be fair. But the nuance here is that the MAS board had already released a detailed legal summary of the terms, so this demand by Hyprop implied that there were still significant disclosure issues. If true, that casts the MAS board in a very poor light. And if false, then it creates inappropriate optionality in the offer that prejudices shareholders who must give an irrevocable undertaking in the hope that Hyprop eventually chooses to go ahead with closing the offer, something that could take several months. As the demand by Hyprop wasn't going to be met by Prime Kapital (as this would've required detailed disclosure of documents by a party that is in no mood to cooperate with Hyprop's bid terms), Hyprop decided to walk away from this offer. Much as it may lay the blame at the door of poor disclosure, I still can't see how they could justify such an aggressive offer structure. Why was it necessary for the acceptance period to be just one week, particularly when the price implied by the offer was at a substantial discount to the current traded price of MAS? What's next? With Hyprop terminating its bid, Prime Kapital has won the first skirmish. But the war is in its early stages, as we are still talking about a substantial property fund that is trading at a juicy discount. Will Hyprop stay in this fight? Will another party enter the fray? There's no way of knowing. All we know is that Prime Kapital certainly isn't going anywhere, as it is a significant minority shareholder in MAS and holds great influence over its economics. We also know that the institutions won't just roll over, as they are pushing for changes to the board and answers about disclosure. It feels unlikely that this will just fizzle out. All eyes will now be on the extraordinary general meeting in August, followed by the responses of the (potentially new) board to the institutional investor questions. If nothing else, perhaps the lesson to learn here is that if you are going to attempt an offer with highly unusual terms, you are setting yourself up for an unpleasant outcome. Had Hyprop simply dialled back some of the terms to more reasonable levels, it wouldn't have given Prime Kapital so much ammunition to discredit its bid. DM
