Category: Sunday Standard

Botswana’s universal Old Age Pension (OAP) which has long been regarded as a vital safety net for the elderly is now under severe pressure as poverty, unemployment and limited social protection force pensioners to support entire households.

This is according to a newly released study by Family Care giving Programme for Older Persons in Southern Africa titled ‘Older Persons and Community Care in Botswana.’

The study notes that despite an increase of the universal old age pension for all Botswana citizens aged 65 and above from P830 to P1,400 per month in 2025 following ascendancy to power by the Umbrella for Democratic Change, challenges and hardships still persist.

It states that older person households rely heavily on the OAP and ‘given the fact that more than one in two older person households has no income from employment.’

Highlighting the growing financial burden placed on pensioners, the study says’In such instances, the OAP is often stretched across more family members.’

Botswana’s elderly population, defined as those aged 60 and above, stood at 189,522 in 2022, representing eight percent of the national population. The study noted that lowering the pension eligibility age to 60 would bring in nearly 58,899 additional beneficiaries, a 30 percent increase further intensifying pressure on the system.

The findings paint a stark picture of hardship. Just over 20 percent of older persons still rely on public taps or rivers for water, while 18 percent have no access to toilet facilities. ‘Given the poor access to basic services, many older persons will need assistance in managing everyday activities such as collecting water, cooking, or walking outside to go to the toilet. This increases the care need,’ the report says.

Energy poverty is another major challenge, with 64 percent of older persons relying on wood for cooking and 42 percent for heating.

‘The over reliance on wood for cooking, heating, and lighting makes it more challenging for older persons to carry out everyday activities such as eating and walking and leaves them exposed to greater risks,’ the study warns.

Health and disability further compound the situation. The report found that visual impairment affects one in three older persons, while one in four suffer leg impairments. Nearly five percent cannot perform basic daily activities without assistance.

Despite the availability of health facilities, access remains difficult.

‘Services at the health facility are challenging due to the shortage of staff which result in long waiting times,’ the study says, adding that many elderly people cannot endure long queues without assistance.

Social protection beyond the OAP remains limited. Only 26 percent of elderly households benefit from school feeding schemes, 15 percent from destitute programmes, and 14 percent from the Ipelegeng initiative.

The study argues that Botswana’s ageing population is increasingly vulnerable and warns that without expanded support the pension system will continue to carry a burden far beyond its intended purpose.

President Duma Boko has an immeasurable faith in his own power of persuasion.

He has a total belief in his ability to use language to get people to see things from his perspective.

He has many times before managed to climb and reclaim the narrative from what looked like insurmountable heights.

He also has an appetite for risk. And this is the reason behind his often grandiose ambitions and big pronouncements.

His biggest strength has always been his unpredictability.

He likes setting tight and seemingly unattainable deadlines.

But events of this past week must be difficult for him to justify even by his excessively risky habits.

First it was the comments attributed to minister Ignatius Mswaane during the ongoing charm offensive to sell the Constitutional Court.

Moswaane said something to the effect that capital punishment if it continues, presumably under the UDC, will scare potential investors.

This is the last thing that Botswana Government wanted.

Then it was a failure by parliament to form a quorum.

Moswaane has since apologized for his irrational comments, which is a good thing.

But the issue of a parliament that fails to sit because a majority of members are not there will for a long time to come stalk the president and his team – not because it affects them directly, but because it exposes weaknesses of his team; from top to bottom.

It might seem innocuous. It is not. It goes to the heart of UDC ability to run the country.

It is important because it might signal a break in communication within the top UDC team.

Are they even talking to each other? Are they meeting to strategise? Do they ever hold evaluation and postmortem meetings?

If answer to any of the questions above is in the negative, then the ship is headed for choppy waters.

During the budget speech by the Minister of Finance Ndaba Gaolathe, at least six cabinet ministers were not present.

A budget speech is a considered a sacred moment for any government.

It is scheduled over twelve months.

And members are given prior notice, first to allow themselves to diarise it, but also to prepare themselves so as to respond.

That notice is even more acute for members of parliament who are cabinet ministers because it is the budget that ultimately makes their ministries, the government and indeed the country to tick.

But there we were – with six ministers absent.

It says something about the quality of our ministers.

We have people who we have given power but who have refused to assume responsibility.

There can be no excuse that six cabinet ministers are not present.

Attending to parliamentary business is not your most entertaining part of being a politician.

It can be dull and boring. But it is still immensely important for the country and nation.

But it certainly is one of the most important for it is here where laws are made – and the most elementary job of a member of parliament is to make laws.

Attending parliament requires and demands discipline.

It also requires dedication and commitment to public duty.

It is for that reason that the public expressed revulsion when it turned out that the Speaker of parliament had to call off a sitting of the House on account of the fact that the MPs present were too few to form a quorum.

This is a sign of failure on the part of Whips.

It is also difficult to see how the Leader of the Houses can be absolved from the circus.

With almost thirty cabinet ministers, Botswana Parliament is cabinet heavy.

This puts a lot of responsibility on the Leader of the House to manage coordination between government business and parliament.

For a while that coordination has been found wanting. And last week that failure became unbearable to the public.

Now the president has to do that which only the president can do.

He has to call his front bench and backbench to order. And tell them that the nation is closely following their conduct.

The presence of live television inside parliament makes it harder for MPs to hide the truth.

Live television has empowered the voter.

The accusations and counter accusations that followed the collapsed of quorum are what have turned out to be the true measure of where we are as a nation. There is a visceral contempt between the UDC and the opposition BCP. That contempt for one another has recently gotten worse as each stepped up attacks on each other.

At each other’s throat, each is vying for the pulse of the nation.

For a while, in fact since elections of 2024 the UDC has always been on a backfoot, struggling to find a rhythm against an ever agitated BCP.

Recently things have been perceptibly changing somewhat.

UDC has been fighting back. Clearly they want to win the narrative back.

And incidents like failing to meet the quorum reverses all progress made.

And it lends momentum and impetus back to the opposition.

In the meantime the clock is turning.

Over time such small mishaps like failing to form a quorum incrementally lead to the public reaching a conclusion that the UDC cannot be trusted.

And that is where the danger begins.

It happened to the previous administration of the BDP.

They had become too arrogant to see it coming.

Hopefully the UDC has not reached that stage of arrogance yet.

Botswana’s opposition has called for a fundamental overhaul of the country’s budget architecture, arguing that tax justice rather than incremental spending tweaks should anchor the next fiscal cycle.

Delivering a keynote address at a pre-budget consultative meeting hosted by the Youth for Tax Justice Network, Opposition Leader Dumelang Saleshando said the budget must be recast through the lens of intergenerational equity and youth inclusion .

Saleshando framed tax justice as the foundation of the social contract, posing four core questions: who pays, how much they pay relative to their means, what they receive in return, and where the money goes . When that contract is perceived as unfair or opaque, he warned, compliance erodes and disengagement deepens, particularly among young people.

The intervention comes as Botswana faces youth unemployment of 38.4 per cent, a national jobless rate of 28 per cent and a Gini coefficient of 53.3, underscoring high income inequality . Despite upper middle-income status, 17.2 per cent of citizens remain in multidimensional poverty, rising to 32.9 per cent in rural areas .

He criticised the country’s heavy reliance on indirect taxes, which fall disproportionately on young and low-income households, while tax incentives and procurement practices often escape rigorous scrutiny .

Saleshando urged domestication of the SADC Model Law on Public Finance Management to strengthen parliamentary oversight and institutionalise public participation throughout the budget cycle . With public procurement accounting for an estimated 20 to 25 per cent of GDP, he said tighter governance could unlock jobs and curb waste .

‘A youth-responsive budget,’ he said, ‘is where the decision about our demographic dividend is made.’

The Industrial Court has ruled that employers must disclose the salaries of senior managers to junior staff during salary negotiations, in a decision expected to influence collective bargaining practice across the country.

In a judgement delivered last week and raising the bar for fair bargaining in Botswana,

the court ordered the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund (MVA Fund) to disclose its management salary structure, ruling that its refusal to release the information amounted to bargaining in bad faith.

In a judgment delivered recently, Maun Industrial Court Judge Sampa Kaisara directed the MVA Fund to provide the Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU) with salary details covering management Bands 1 to 4 within 14 days of a renewed request subject to confidentiality safeguards.

‘The Respondent’s failure to disclose information on pay structure covering Bands 1 to 4 constitutes bargaining in bad faith,’ ruled Kaisara.

The dispute arose during a review of the MVA Fund’s organisational structure and job evaluation exercise where BOPEU argued that it could not meaningfully participate in negotiations without access to the full salary structure including senior management pay.

BOPEU maintained that the information was essential to ensure fairness, transparency and reasonableness across the organisation.

‘The disclosure of the information will allow the union to make considerations on the impact of its submissions, determine reasonability and guard against causing any conflict or distortion of the remuneration structure,’ the union argued.

However, the MVA Fund had refused to release the information arguing that management employees fall outside the union’s bargaining unit and that their salary details were confidential.

The Fund insisted that there was ‘no specific clause in the Collective Labour Agreement that compelled the Respondent to disclose the management salary structure.’

But the court rejected this argument as it found that management salary information was directly relevant to the ongoing salary review and collective bargaining process.

‘The nature of information sought is linked to the present exercise on review of Respondent’s job evaluation and remuneration structure,’ Kaisara said.

‘The information will be crucial to gauge Respondent’s financial ability to afford the union’s wage proposals,’ the judge added.

The court emphasised that disclosure of relevant information is a fundamental part of negotiating in good faith.

‘Disclosure of information is a critical component of bargaining in good faith. Employers are under a duty to disclose relevant information to enable effective collective bargaining,’ the judgment stated.

The court further found that withholding the information would harm the union’s ability to negotiate effectively.

‘In the absence of the information, the union will be constrained to carry out a more effective and meaningful bargaining,’ Kaisara said.

The judge also dismissed concerns that disclosure would violate management privacy, noting that the information related to salary bands and pay structures rather than personal employee data.

‘It is rather information on the identified management structure mostly on salary bands and recommended pay. Hence, no substantial harm is likely to be occasioned by its disclosure,’ the court ruled.

However, the court ordered that safeguards be put in place to protect confidentiality, including limiting access to specific union officials and requiring discretion.

Despite the ruling, the legal battle is far from over.

The MVA Fund has since filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal in Gaborone, arguing that the Industrial Court erred in law and fact.

In its appeal papers, the Fund argued that management employees ‘do not form part of the bargaining unit’ and that their consent was not obtained before ordering disclosure of their salary information.

People who create products that we need and are willing to pay for must be allowed, as much as possible, to keep the fruits of their labour. These people must not be punished through taxation. We have to acknowledge that society becomes prosperous if we let the entrepreneurs or makers keep the proceeds of their labour. That also incentivises them to improve their products and offerings, and to innovate even more.

And a typical example is the United States of America. Because tax as a proportion of national income is manageable compared with Europe, America has a lot of innovation and creativity that you do not find in other jurisdictions.

This then brings us to taxation and its role in economic growth. We saw in the recently presented budget that there is a move to increase taxes. The nation is poised for a rise in corporate tax, personal income tax, and, obviously, capital gains tax. However, we cannot raise our taxes and still enjoy growth and prosperity. So the truth of the matter is that we cannot have both. It just doesn’t happen that way.

This then compels us to look critically at whether we see taxation as a way out of our economic downturn. And clearly it is not. The way out is to lower our taxes and also reduce public expenditure, especially the bloated public service.

Taxation, on the other hand, should be used to fund essential infrastructure that cannot be provided by the private sector. In other words, it must fund goods, which we all enjoy without necessarily having to pay for them individually.

That being the case, taxation must not be used to promote so-called fairness or equality. That should not be its purpose. The moment taxation is used to finance fairness or equality, it becomes a political weapon against successful, rich, or hard-working people. And politicians then use it to beat up high-income earners and even call them pejorative names.

The thing about taxation is that people should be allowed to keep as much money as possible in their pockets. Instead of giving it to the government in the form of taxation, individuals can be counted on to spend their money, not only wisely but efficiently too than the government.

And the more money the government takes from people, the less they have to save and invest. Without savings to invest, the economy suffers from a loss of productivity. We know, of course, that the government claims it needs taxes to invest. But much of what the government calls investment is really wasteful spending.

This is why the government needs to take as little money as possible from the people. This is why the government needs to ensure that tax rates are lowered and that people have enough money to invest.

High tax rates also lead to capital flight and brain drain. As more high-income earners feel that a greater share of their income is taken away, they look for low-tax destinations. This also has a serious impact on investment and capital formation. A flight of skills is also not in the interests of Botswana or any other country that keeps raising its taxes.

This is why high-income earners engage in aggressive tax planning, involving lawyers, trust counsellors, and accountants, leading to an industry that would be unnecessary were it not for the high tax environment.

Taxation should also not be punitive because businesses create the goods and services we need. That’s the first thing they do for us. So all this talk about businesses having to give back is unhelpful. Taxation should also not be used to kill innovation by seeming to punish the makers.

To use Botswana as a low-tax destination compared to our regional neighbours as a justification for raising taxes is to miss the point. Our competition in the region is not the high-tax locations. We have to compare ourselves to the best. And it is Mauritius.

It’s too early yet for the UDC to start to panic.

It is much, much early for them to even start thinking of giving up.

Yes, there are difficulties; very serious difficulties.

But the government is not imploding. Far from it!

The difficult phase they are going through is natural for any government, especially a government that is manned by inexperienced hands.

And the UDC government does not have too many experienced hands in it.

They only came to power just over year ago.

They were replacing a party that had been in power for close to sixty years.

Once in office, the UDC has found itself compelled to play games of political psychology – to buy time, but also to appease the powerful interests that still control the economy of this country.

That for me was strategic maturity. Safety first!

Rattling the powerful interests immediately upon taking office was a risk not worth taking.

As a result, the UDC government has been forced to rely on a big number of known names from the previous administration to continue doing work for the new government.

There has been demonstrable reticence to remove even the most toxic of these key names.

Keeping them was also a risk – perhaps a risk worth taking.

Maintaining such people in their jobs had reasons.

First it had to do with maintaining stability. Threatening entrenched interests inside government could easily cause a blowback.

This was a wise decision. A new and still very weak government can only succeed if it is deemed to be harmless especially by powerful and wealthy interests.

Second it had to do with the fear of shaking the status quo too fast and too hard.

Any shakeup had to be slow and incremental.

If the above assertions are true, then it follows that the UDC has accepted that Botswana is a conservative society. It also means an admission by UDC that the previous administration had left deep roots and tentacles across the public service.

For the UDC to succeed, the party had to accept going through a phase of self-denial.

This was not voluntary but strategic.

This means effectively means being what they are not – as a way of being accepted broadly by the entrenched interests that control both power and wealth. In other words, traditional BDP backers.

There is another reason why UDC felt a compelling need to keep key figures from the previous administration.

Many of the UDC Members of Parliament had never worked anywhere.

And these were the same people from which cabinet had to be appointed.

One has to scrounge around to find a cabinet minister who has held any real life portfolio prior to them becoming a minister.

It is Pius Mokgware and may be a handful of others.

The trouble though is that there is no probation in politics.

The clock starts counting the moment you enter office.

Such people needed guidance in the form of seasoned public service, even as that public service had long ceased to be apolitical.

But it is now time for UDC to assume its real colours.

It will not be easy.

With the economy fraying, the truth of the matter is that there is not much largesse for the UDC to spread around.

When the going got tough, Ian Khama doled out the Economic Stimulus Package.

When Covid-19 struck, Mokgweetsi Masisi released millions in social welfare.

The UDC does have such luxury.

The UDC faithful are also getting prickly.

They are saying enough is enough.

They are very unhappy that their party has gone to extraordinary lengths to appease and accommodate powerful interests from the previous administrations – at a cost of course.

They are insisting that now it’s the time for UDC to go back to its own territory.

For that to happen the UDC will have to be bolder.

It will also have to take risks. It will also have to do away with self-doubt. And most crucially, the UDC will have to believe in itself and its own people.

The party cannot forever be skirting around its own ideas and ideals for fear of annoying its political adversaries.

The UDC came to power on the strengths of its electoral pledges.

At the very least t was elected based on how unpopular the other contenders were.

UDC leadership reckoned that the country was still dominated by powerful interests aligned to the Botswana Democratic Party.

They figured that threatening those interests could easily backfire. That meant that the UDC had to constrain itself.

That meant it had to disguise its true identity.

Those days are gone.

It is now time to change the status quo.

The UDC will have to pivot towards its inner soul and inner self.

In short it is time for a Reset.

Botswana’s new government which was swept into power on promises of reform and respect for constitutional rights is presiding over an environment where civil society continues to face intimidation, restrictions and bureaucratic hurdles, a new report has revealed.

The report, Enabling Environment Snapshot Botswana December 2025, published by EU SEE, paints a troubling picture of persistent constraints on civic freedoms despite political change following the October 2024 general elections.

‘Botswana’s civil society operates in a dynamic, yet challenging environment,’ the report which was funded by the European Union (EU) states. It warns that ‘events in 2025, such as interference and intimidation from the intelligence services, have constrained civic space.’ The report highlights how administrative powers continue to be used to block civic activism, citing a decision by authorities in August 2025 to deny Student Power Botswana permission to march in Gaborone over student allowances. ‘The Botswana Police Service denied approval, citing a clash with a national event requiring heavy police deployment, and advised students to reschedule,’ the report notes. It says this incident ‘demonstrates how administrative decisions under the Public Order Act continue to limit freedom of assembly, even for peaceful demonstrations.’ The law itself remains a major obstacle. According to the report, ‘the Public Order Act also continues to restrict civic space. Its requirement for police permits for peaceful assemblies and the possibility of having permits denied hinders CSOs’ ability to mobilise, hold events, and advocate.’

Beyond legal restrictions, civil society organisations are also grappling with intimidation and dwindling financial support. The report points to ‘interference and intimidation from the intelligence services’ and warns that resource constraints have worsened because Botswana’s middle-income status has led donors to redirect funding elsewhere. ‘Civil society actors face hurdles such as resource constraints exacerbated by the country’s middle-income status, as donors have redirected their funds to other countries which are low income and perceived to be in greater need of support,’ it states.

Even basic administrative processes remain problematic. The report says civil society organisations ‘continued to encounter difficulties with registration,’ despite the introduction of a digital system meant to simplify procedures. ‘Frequent system malfunctions often require submitting documents physically,’ it says, adding that organisations outside Gaborone are particularly disadvantaged because registration processes ‘remain highly centralised.’

While the government has launched a constitutional review and proposed the establishment of a Constitutional Court through Constitution Amendment Bill No. 14 of 2025, civil society groups remain sceptical. The report notes that civil society considers such a court ‘in principle essential,’ but warns that introducing it without broader reforms would limit its impact. ‘Introducing a Constitutional Court in isolation means it will operate within the confines of a constitution that has already been found to contain significant gaps in the Bill of Rights,’ it states.

The government has allowed civil society participation in technical working groups, showing that engagement is possible. However, the report says such engagement is inconsistent. ‘Civil society. reported a lack of meaningful consultations, engagement, and transparency,’ it says, adding that organisations condemned ‘limited civic education and engagements.’

Despite opportunities for collaboration, the report concludes that ‘early indications under the new government. show that restrictions on civic expression continue.’ The findings suggest that for Botswana’s civil society, political change has yet to translate into meaningful freedom.

Botswana Power Corporation (BPC)’s application to hike tarrifs by 46 percent has met stiff resistance from business groups and other consumers. They argue that a proposed 46% average electricity tariff increase would punish consumers for failures the utility itself has yet to fix.

The application, submitted by BPC for the 2026/27 financial year, would lift the weighted average tariff from P1.56 to P2.28 per kilowatt hour and eliminate government subsidies altogether. Stakeholders say the plan risks turning electricity pricing into a blunt instrument for cost recovery rather than a lever for reform.

One of the most detailed critiques comes from Mokenti Raborokgwe of the Botswana Exporters and Manufacturing Association (BEMA), who argues that the tariff application fundamentally misdiagnoses the problem. Drawing on BPC’s 2023 annual report, the most recent published, Raborokgwe contends that nearly half of the P9.039bn revenue requirement underpinning the application reflects avoidable inefficiencies rather than unavoidable structural costs.

‘Nearly P4.343bn of the revenue requirement is driven by inefficiency rather than reform,’ he says, warning that households and businesses are being asked to underwrite operational failures.

The sources of inefficiency are well documented. Presenting at the ‘Tariff Application Public Hearing’ hosted by the regulator Botswana Energy Regulatory Authority (BERA) recently, Raborokgwe says system losses remain well above international best practice, payroll costs are high relative to customer numbers, and capital expenditure has repeatedly fallen short of plan, undermining reliability. Renewable penetration remains low, he says, leaving the system exposed to volatile imports.

‘Most damaging is the chronic underperformance of Morupule B Power Station, the country’s flagship coal facility. Operating at roughly 63% availability in 2023, it has forced BPC to import expensive power and rely on emergency generation, inflating costs that are then passed directly to consumers.’

Benchmarking against regional peers reinforces the point. On losses, generation availability, renewables share and staff productivity, Botswana’s utility lags comparable operators.

Raborokgwe argues that approving tariffs on a simple cost-recovery basis would entrench these shortcomings. ‘Approving tariffs on a cost-recovery basis would force households and businesses to subsidise inefficiency rather than reform,’ he says, insisting that regulation should focus on cost-reflective tariffs, prices aligned to efficient costs, rather than a blanket pass-through of all expenses.

He argues if avoidable inefficiencies were addressed, the revenue requirement would fall sharply, implying that only a single-digit tariff increase would be needed to restore balance. Even allowing for gradual improvement, Raborokgwe recommends a conditional, phased adjustment capped at about 24%, explicitly linked to measurable performance milestones in loss reduction, generation availability, payroll rationalisation and renewable deployment. Concerns about transparency add to the unease. BPC’s 2024 annual report has yet to be published, limiting scrutiny of recent performance and claimed improvements. Raborokgwe warns that ‘it is impossible for stakeholders to responsibly contribute to this debate without access to BPC’s 2024 Annual Report’, urging the regulator to withhold any final approval until current, auditable data are available. Without such disclosure, he argues, tariff decisions risk being made in an atmosphere of opacity.

Business groups echo these concerns, but focus more squarely on the economy-wide consequences. In a submission to the regulator, Business Botswana warned that the proposed increase is ‘unreasonable, unaffordable, [and] economically devastating for businesses and job creation’, adding that it is ‘based on flawed methodologies’.

Electricity is a key input across mining, manufacturing, tourism and services; a sudden increase of this magnitude would, the group argues, cascade through costs, prices and employment.

The timing is particularly sensitive. An average 24% tariff increase took effect in July 2025, and many firms are still adjusting. Imposing another sharp rise months later risks accelerating what economists describe as a ‘utility death spiral’: higher tariffs push customers to cut consumption or invest in self-generation, shrinking the sales base and forcing further increases. Business Botswana’s survey evidence is stark. Nearly 78% of respondents opposed the proposal, describing it as excessive and unjustified. Micro and informal enterprises-often thinly capitalised-would be hit hardest, while larger manufacturers anticipate multi-million-pula annual cost increases.

‘Electricity is already a major operating cost,’ the submission notes, warning of cost-push inflation and job losses. The regulator, BERA, sits uncomfortably between competing imperatives. It must ensure the commercial sustainability of the utility while protecting consumers and promoting economic efficiency. Business Botswana argues that a 46% jump fails test of necessity and proportionality, particularly amid weak growth and high unemployment.

It calls instead for predictable, multi-year pricing with single-digit annual increases, complemented by demonstrable efficiency gains and targeted relief for vulnerable sectors such as health, manufacturing and agriculture.

BPC insists that decisive action is unavoidable. Decades of tariff suppression, it says, have left the utility financially fragile and unable to invest adequately. Solar projects coming online will help diversify supply and reduce import costs, but legacy issues; debt, maintenance backlogs and unreliable generation, remain. Without a step change in revenues, BPC argues, these problems will persist.

However, consumers question why the costs of delayed projects, weak governance and underperforming assets should be socialised through tariffs rather than addressed through shareholder support, restructuring or tighter oversight. They urge more sophisticated pricing-time-of-use tariffs, differentiated rates for energy-intensive industries, and targeted subsidies to soften the economic blow while reforms take hold.

On paper, Botswana enjoys privileged access to the American market under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a cornerstone of Washington’s trade policy toward sub-Saharan Africa. In practice, officials here say, the pathway is narrower than it appears.

Chief Negotiator at Botswana’s ministry of Trade and Entrepreneurship, Phazha Butale, argues that while the zero-tariff policy under AGOA may be low, the regulatory terrain is anything but. ‘There are hidden rules and processes that producers, businesspeople, exporters – and by extension Africa – must comply with,’ he said, noting that complying with them imposes a significant financial burden.

As an example, for Botswana’s horticulture producers, that terrain includes complex pesticide residue limits and detailed labelling requirements that echo European consumer expectations. For large agribusinesses in Europe, such systems are routine.

Under AGOA’s rules of origin, a specified share of a product’s inputs must be sourced domestically. Butale said ‘the rules of origin’ require that a certain proportion of inputs, in some cases up to 60 percent, be sourced locally. ‘There are other requirements for standards,’ says Butale, adding that ‘You have to meet the standards of the US regulations’ whether the export is pharmaceuticals, fresh produce or manufactured goods.

For years, the European Union (E.U) has imposed stringent standards on imports, requiring traceability systems, veterinary controls and disease-free zones that are costly to maintain. Botswana, one of Africa’s most established beef exporters, has invested heavily to comply. It built an elaborate cattle identification system and upgraded facilities at the Botswana Meat Commission (BMC). Yet exports have been periodically suspended when outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease were detected in parts of the country, even when those outbreaks were geographically distant from export zones.

In 2011 and again in 2015, the EU temporarily banned beef imports from Botswana after such outbreaks, citing biosecurity concerns. The suspensions hit rural farmers hardest, reducing slaughter volumes and export revenues. While European regulators described the measures as necessary to protect animal health within the bloc, officials in Gaborone argued that the blanket restrictions did not always reflect the realities on the ground.

Butale indicated that the Botswana Investment and Trade Centre (BITC) is ‘actively working with people in the North-West to try and improve their productive capacity to be able to meet these quality criteria of the US market.’ Yet the burden of proof often falls disproportionately on exporters from countries such as Botswana. Butale said Botswana is working with the Botswana Bureau of Standards in order to ‘reach a point where we standardise so that the standards applicable in Botswana are also the same standards applicable in the US, Europe and in China so that there is a level playing field.’

The European Union’s rules are not unique. In the United States, the Food Safety Modernisation Act expanded requirements for foreign suppliers, obliging exporters to demonstrate compliance with preventive controls and hazard analysis standards. For Botswana, navigating these frameworks can mean hiring consultants, upgrading cold chains and absorbing delays at ports, costs that can erode already thin margins.

Trade economists describe these measures as ‘non-tariff barriers.’ Unlike tariffs, which are transparent taxes on imports, regulatory standards are often justified on health, safety or environmental grounds. In many cases, they reflect legitimate public concerns. European consumers expect strict oversight of food safety; American lawmakers are under pressure to prevent contamination and disease.

Critics argue that while Western standards may be scientifically defensible, they can function as de facto trade barriers when applied rigidly. A temporary suspension can shutter abattoirs and ripple through rural economies in countries such as Botswana.

With the clock ticking on the preferential trade pact that has anchored much of its access to the American market, Botswana is mounting a late-stage drive to expand beef exports to the United States under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA, which is set to expire in December 2026.

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed legislation extending the trade program for eligible African nations through December 31, 2026, restoring benefits retroactively to September 30, 2025, when the agreement briefly lapsed. For Botswana, whose textile industry has largely withered after once serving as its principal AGOA export, the extension represents both opportunity and reckoning.

Adding beef to the American export market would mark a strategic pivot for a country long reliant on diamonds and preferential access that it now concedes it failed to fully exploit.

Phazha Butale, chief negotiator in the ministry of Trade and Entrepreneurship, said the country sees itself as ‘the premium most beef destination in the whole world.’ He pointed to neighbouring Namibia as a recent example of what is possible. ‘As recent as last year (2025) Namibia got clearance to export beef [to the U.S]. So we will be looking at how they were able to meet the requirements so that we can replicate,’ he says.

His comments reflect a broader sense of urgency within government ranks. ‘We haven’t made optimal use of the US market, especially outside of diamonds. We really should have done more by now but there are hindrances to why that is the case,’ he says. The recent AGOA extension, he adds, is an opportunity but a fleeting one. ‘The window is short to utilise the AGOA extension,’ he says, questioning ‘how much can we do between now and the end of year that we haven’t managed to accomplish in the last 10 or 15 years?’

Enacted in 2000, the African Growth and Opportunity Act grants eligible sub-Saharan African countries duty-free access to the American market for thousands of products. While apparel and textiles have dominated AGOA success stories in countries like Kenya and Ethiopia, Botswana is now positioning beef as its next strategic export.

The country’s beef sector, built on decades of disease control protocols and traceability systems, has traditionally served European markets. But shifting global demand and uncertainty about what comes after AGOA have prompted policymakers in Gaborone to reconsider their export map.

Butale said he would prefer a more durable framework. ‘We would have a replacement of AGOA through reciprocal trade agreement between SACU, Botswana being part of SACU, and the United States. That way we will have certainty and we will negotiate the kind of standards that we will be able to meet to send exports to the United States.’

He added, ‘The challenge with AGOA is its unilateral.’

Trade specialists caution that tariff-free access is only the first hurdle. Exporters must meet rigorous U.S. Department of Agriculture standards, navigate complex sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, and build supply chains capable of delivering consistent volumes to a highly competitive market.

Butale indicated that the standards are stringent but they are working on meeting them.

With less than a year remaining before AGOA’s scheduled expiration, the country faces a compressed timeline to translate ambition into export-ready shipments. Whether Botswana can transform its self-described premium beef into a foothold in American supermarkets may determine if the final chapter of AGOA becomes a missed opportunity or a turning point.