SOUTH Africa is preparing for a significant change in its trade relationship with the United States after Washington announced plans to terminate the country’s eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) from 1 January 2027. The decision removes a longstanding tariff advantage for selected South African exports, but it does not close the American market. The distinction is important: the immediate challenge is not the loss of access to US customers, but the additional cost of serving them and the ability of exporters to remain competitive.
By Brighton Musonza
The scale of the exposure also needs to be understood in context. South Africa exported approximately US$1.7 billion in goods to the United States under AGOA in 2025, compared with US$4 billion in 2024. Those preferential exports represented around 10% of South African exports to the US and approximately 1% of the country’s total global exports. The figures suggest that the withdrawal is unlikely, on its own, to destabilise the national economy. However, the aggregate numbers conceal substantial exposure among particular manufacturers, agricultural producers and communities whose commercial models have been built around preferential access to the American market.
The central economic question is therefore one of distribution rather than simply national exposure. South Africa may absorb the shock at a macroeconomic level while individual exporters, suppliers and workers face considerable pressure.
The difference between losing AGOA and losing the US market
AGOA, introduced in 2000, provides eligible sub-Saharan African countries with preferential access to the US market for thousands of products. For South African exporters, the arrangement has supported trade in selected agricultural products, automotive components, manufactured goods, chemicals and other value-added products.
The withdrawal of eligibility does not amount to a trade embargo or an automatic prohibition on South African goods entering the United States. Exporters will continue to trade, but products that previously qualified for AGOA preferences will become subject to the applicable ordinary US tariff regime and any additional duties in force.
The cost will vary considerably by product. Agricultural economist Wandile Sihlobo has indicated that the additional tariff burden for many affected products could be around 3.4 percentage points. That is not a universal rate: the actual exposure depends on tariff classification, existing exemptions and any other duties applying to the product.
This distinction matters because some of South Africa’s largest exports to the US are not dependent on AGOA. Precious metals and minerals, which account for a substantial proportion of bilateral trade, generally do not rely on the programme for their existing tariff treatment. Some automotive, steel and aluminium exports are already subject to separate US trade measures, meaning the removal of AGOA may add little to the tariff burden those products already face.
The automotive industry illustrates this complexity. South Africa’s vehicle exports to the United States had already been affected by additional American tariffs. Industry figures cited by Reuters indicate that the US, Mexico and Canada together accounted for about 8% of South Africa’s automotive exports in 2025, with the US representing the largest component of that group. The withdrawal of AGOA is therefore another challenge for an industry already dealing with a more difficult trading environment, rather than an entirely new shock.
The broader implication is that the economic consequences will be concentrated in the products for which AGOA provided a meaningful competitive advantage.
Agriculture faces a more immediate commercial test
Agriculture is among the sectors where the loss of preferential access could have consequences beyond the headline value of exports. South African producers have developed established relationships with American importers, retailers and distributors. Some production and logistics arrangements have been structured around the requirements and seasonal opportunities of the US market.
Citrus is a particularly important example. South African fruit helps supply American consumers during periods when domestic production is limited. However, as Gerrit van der Merwe, chairman of the Citrus Growers’ Association of Southern Africa, told Reuters, some orchards were planted specifically for the American market. Redirecting this produce is not necessarily straightforward because alternative destinations have different phytosanitary requirements, consumer preferences, seasonal conditions and commercial specifications.
The challenge extends beyond farms. Export agriculture depends on an interconnected system of packhouses, cold storage, packaging suppliers, freight operators, ports, inspection services and distribution networks. If exporters lose orders or are forced to accept lower prices to remain competitive, the effects can travel through the entire value chain.
AgriSA estimates that South African agricultural exports to the US amounted to approximately US$504 million in 2025. Although this represents a relatively modest share of the country’s agricultural trade, the association has warned that national averages can obscure significant exposure in individual products and production regions. The US accounted for 28.85% of South African litchi exports in the 2025/26 season, illustrating how a destination can be strategically important to a particular industry even when it is not dominant in national export statistics.
For agricultural businesses, the immediate response will involve reviewing contracts, renegotiating prices, examining alternative destinations and assessing whether the additional tariff can be absorbed by exporters, importers or consumers. Where margins are already narrow, even a relatively modest increase in duties can affect investment decisions, employment and the viability of smaller producers.
South Africa’s ability to retain its American customers will consequently depend on more than the quality of its produce. Reliability, price competitiveness, certification, shipping costs and the ability to meet market-specific standards will become increasingly important.
Employment risks are concentrated, not uniform
The employment implications require careful assessment. Some public commentary has suggested that hundreds of thousands of jobs could be at risk. Such estimates should not be treated as confirmed job losses or as a forecast of the national employment impact.
Reuters reported on 3 November that Business Unity South Africa expected the number of affected jobs to be in the range of a few thousand. The Financial Times reported that officials had warned of up to 10,000 jobs being at risk. Other, substantially larger estimates have included indirect employment across supply chains and therefore use different assumptions and definitions.
These figures are not directly comparable. The actual impact will depend on how much of the additional tariff exporters can absorb, whether American buyers continue purchasing South African products, and how quickly businesses can secure alternative markets.
Nevertheless, the concentration of potential losses matters in a country already facing exceptionally high unemployment. A relatively small national employment shock can be severe for towns and industrial communities where a particular factory, agricultural export chain or processing facility is a major employer.
The Eastern Cape automotive manufacturing cluster and agricultural production areas in the Western and Northern Cape illustrate the importance of local exposure. A reduction in export orders can affect not only the principal exporting company but also component manufacturers, logistics businesses, contractors and workers whose livelihoods depend on the same commercial network.
The policy response should therefore be targeted. A national support package that does not distinguish between sectors, products and regions risks directing resources towards businesses that are not materially affected while leaving vulnerable export clusters without practical assistance.
Diversification is necessary, but markets cannot be replaced overnight
The South African government has identified export diversification as a central part of its response, with opportunities being pursued across the African Continental Free Trade Area, the European Union, the United Kingdom, India, China, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and other markets.
This is economically sensible. A country with a broad export base and multiple commercial destinations is less vulnerable to unilateral trade decisions by any one government. However, diversification is a process of building commercial capacity, not simply identifying countries on a trade map.
New markets require regulatory approvals, product certification, established distributors, reliable transport routes, suitable payment arrangements and sustained demand. Agricultural exporters, for example, cannot necessarily redirect fruit originally prepared for the US market to another destination without meeting different phytosanitary and commercial requirements. Manufacturers face similar challenges where customers require specific technical standards, delivery schedules and after-sales support.
The European Union offers an established alternative trading relationship, supported by the EU-SADC Economic Partnership Agreement. The United Kingdom also remains an important market through its post-Brexit trade arrangements with Southern African partners. These relationships provide a foundation for diversification, but they do not guarantee that every product displaced from the US market can be absorbed at comparable prices and volumes.
The African Continental Free Trade Area offers a longer-term opportunity to expand intra-African trade. South African manufacturers have an established industrial base, financial infrastructure and logistics networks that could support greater regional exports. Yet the commercial benefits will depend on reducing non-tariff barriers, improving border efficiency, strengthening transport corridors and addressing the cost of doing business across the continent.
China is another obvious destination, given its scale and importance in global trade. However, it should not be regarded as an automatic substitute for the US market. Research published by Economic Research Southern Africa in June 2026 examined the potential for increased South African and Southern African Customs Union exports to China under a possible free trade agreement. Its modelling suggested that aggregate exports could rise by approximately 4%, a relatively modest response because many existing mineral and precious-metal exports already face low or zero tariffs.
That finding highlights an important structural limitation. Diversification towards China may expand opportunities, but simply redirecting existing commodity exports will not necessarily produce the industrial transformation South Africa needs. The greater prize lies in developing more competitive manufactured exports, processed agricultural products and higher-value services.
The US relationship is bigger than AGOA
South Africa also has to manage the diplomatic and investment implications of the decision. The commercial relationship between the two countries extends well beyond preferential trade access.
According to figures released by South Africa’s Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, bilateral trade reached US$28.8 billion in 2025. More than 600 American companies operate in South Africa, supporting approximately 134,600 jobs. South Africa also supplies 12 of the 50 minerals identified by the US as critical, as well as a significant share of the isotopes used in American cancer treatment.
These relationships create mutual commercial interests that neither government can easily disregard. American businesses have invested in South African operations, while South African companies have established investments and supply-chain relationships in the US. The loss of AGOA preferences could undermine parts of these arrangements, but it does not eliminate the underlying economic rationale for continued engagement.
The political dimension is more difficult. Washington has cited concerns about trade and investment barriers, corruption and issues affecting US national security and foreign policy interests. Pretoria, meanwhile, has argued that it made concessions during negotiations but that Washington subsequently introduced new issues beyond the scope of the discussions initiated in 2025.
Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Parks Tau said on 3 November that the decision did not define the broader relationship between the two countries and that South Africa remained committed to constructive engagement. Government has also indicated that it will work with affected industries while pursuing new export destinations.
The immediate diplomatic priority should be to preserve channels of engagement and seek a more predictable framework for bilateral trade. South Africa’s strategic interests are not served by allowing a dispute over preferential market access to become a permanent deterioration in investment and commercial relations.
Equally, a negotiated solution cannot be built on the assumption that market access will remain insulated from political and regulatory disagreements. Businesses require certainty, and that certainty depends on a more stable framework for resolving trade disputes.
The deeper challenge is industrial competitiveness
The loss of AGOA exposes a broader weakness in South Africa’s export strategy: the need to increase the competitiveness, complexity and diversity of its productive economy.
Preferential trade arrangements can help exporters overcome tariff disadvantages, but they cannot permanently compensate for high logistics costs, unreliable infrastructure, weak productivity, regulatory uncertainty or insufficient investment in industrial capacity.
South Africa has significant advantages. It possesses a diversified industrial base, sophisticated financial institutions, established agricultural exporters, mineral resources, engineering expertise and relatively developed transport and commercial infrastructure. These capabilities provide a platform for adaptation.
However, the country also faces structural constraints. Manufacturing has been under pressure from electricity disruptions, logistics bottlenecks, weak domestic demand and limited investment in productive capacity. Port performance and rail inefficiencies raise the cost of moving goods to international markets. In this environment, an additional tariff can become more damaging because exporters are already competing from a relatively high cost base.
The response should therefore go beyond diplomatic negotiations and temporary financial support. South Africa needs a more deliberate export-led industrial strategy that improves productivity, lowers the cost of production and encourages firms to move into higher-value activities.
That means investing in modern manufacturing, agricultural processing, technology, engineering and supplier development. It also means making it easier for companies to import machinery and intermediate inputs where these improve productivity and export competitiveness. Industrial policy should focus on building firms capable of competing internationally rather than protecting inefficient production indefinitely.
The government’s Industrial Development Strategy will be judged by its ability to translate policy objectives into commercially viable investment, stronger domestic supply chains and a broader base of competitive exporters.
How South Africa can absorb the shock
The first priority is to establish precisely which products and companies are exposed. Exporters need clear information on the tariff treatment of individual product lines, the interaction with other US duties and the arrangements applying to goods already contracted or in transit. Without this clarity, companies may postpone investment, delay shipments or lose customers unnecessarily.
Second, government and business should pursue targeted support for sectors where the loss of preferences creates a demonstrable threat to employment and productive capacity. This could include export finance, trade insurance, assistance with market certification and support for companies seeking new distribution partnerships. Any intervention should be time-bound and linked to measurable improvements in competitiveness.
Third, South Africa should accelerate trade diversification without abandoning the American market. Maintaining existing commercial relationships remains important, particularly where South African products complement US production or supply specialised industrial requirements. The objective should be to reduce excessive dependence, not to replace one concentration risk with another.
Fourth, the country needs to address the domestic costs that weaken export competitiveness. More efficient ports, reliable rail services, predictable regulation, improved energy availability and faster certification processes would help exporters absorb tariff pressures and compete in markets where preferential access is unavailable.
Finally, Pretoria must recognise that trade policy and foreign policy are increasingly interconnected. The ability to negotiate commercially beneficial arrangements depends partly on the country’s wider diplomatic relationships and its credibility as a predictable investment destination. A more stable relationship with Washington would benefit both exporters and investors, even if the two governments continue to disagree on broader political questions.
A manageable national shock, but a serious test for business
South Africa is unlikely to face a national economic crisis solely because of its removal from AGOA. The programme accounted for a relatively small proportion of the country’s total exports, and most South African goods entering the US market were already traded outside its preferential framework. The continued demand for minerals, precious metals and other products provides an important buffer.
But the conclusion that the impact will be negligible would be equally mistaken. The withdrawal could reduce margins, weaken investment incentives and threaten employment in export-dependent industries. For particular agricultural producers and manufacturers, the loss of preferential treatment could be commercially significant even if the national trade figures suggest limited exposure.
South Africa’s ability to cope will ultimately depend on whether it treats the decision as a temporary diplomatic setback or as a warning about the risks of relying on preferential access in an increasingly fragmented global trading system.
AGOA provided a competitive advantage, not a permanent guarantee of market access. The next phase of South Africa’s trade strategy must be built on productivity, industrial depth, diversified customers and commercially sustainable exports.
The country has the economic scale and institutional capacity to adjust. The more difficult question is whether government, business and labour can coordinate the reforms needed to protect vulnerable industries while making the wider economy more competitive. That will determine whether the loss of AGOA remains a contained trade shock or becomes another obstacle to South Africa’s long-term industrial and employment ambitions.
About the writer
Brighton Musonza is a Zimbabwean business and economic commentator, writer and media entrepreneur, and the founder of The Zimbabwe Mail. He holds an MBA and a BSc in Business Management, with additional professional training in business analytics, finance and digital transformation.
His commentary focuses on Zimbabwe’s economy, regional and international trade, financial markets, investment, industrial development and public policy. He examines economic developments through the lens of business strategy, macroeconomics, institutional governance and the practical realities facing businesses and investors.
Based in the United Kingdom, Musonza writes about Zimbabwe’s economic transformation, the country’s position in Southern Africa, and the opportunities and challenges shaping its engagement with international markets. His work aims to encourage informed debate, challenge conventional assumptions, and promote a deeper understanding of the economic forces shaping Zimbabwe’s development.
Editorial Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer, Brighton Musonza, and do not necessarily represent the official position of The Zimbabwe Mail, its editors, associates or contributors.
This article is intended for general information, economic commentary and public discussion. While reasonable care has been taken to present information accurately and draw on relevant sources, economic data, projections, estimates and policy developments may change. Interpretations and assessments of potential economic consequences represent the writer’s analysis and should not be treated as established outcomes.
The article does not constitute financial, investment, legal or commercial advice. Readers, businesses and investors should undertake their own independent research and seek appropriate professional advice before making decisions.
The Zimbabwe Mail welcomes informed debate and differing perspectives on the issues discussed.
