South Africa’s government and its largest business lobby agree on one thing about the planned loss of AGOA benefits: the hit to the economy as a whole should be small. They disagree on how much weight to give the jobs that will still be lost, and the two sides use different numbers to make the case. The US notice itself is covered in our earlier report, US moves to end South Africa’s AGOA access from 1 January 2027. This article looks at how Pretoria and business have answered it, and who is saying what.
The government’s position, in its own statement
The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition issued its response on 2 November 2026 through the South African Government website. It said government “notes the decision by the United States Government giving South Africa 60 days advance notice of its intention to withdraw South Africa’s benefits” under AGOA, effective 1 January 2027. It recognised the concern the decision may cause for workers, exporters, businesses and communities in AGOA-supported value chains, said the impact would differ across sectors, and promised support “on a company to company basis”.
The statement also argued that South Africa had already done a great deal. According to the department, the country has tabled concessions beyond those made in 2015, and it is “unfortunate that the US is now raising new issues” that were not part of the negotiations that began in 2025. The US Trade Representative’s own statement lists the US concerns about South Africa as barriers to US trade and investment, corruption, and threats to US national security and foreign policy interests.
Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Parks Tau was quoted in the same statement: “This decision does not define the broader relationship between South Africa and the United States, however a solution depends on the willingness of both Parties to find solutions.” He added that government would support affected sectors and protect national interests.
The numbers government cites
All of the following figures are the department’s, as stated in its release:
- About 89% of South African exports to the US entered on ordinary World Trade Organisation most-favoured-nation terms in 2025, and about 10% entered under AGOA, down from 28% in 2024.
- AGOA exports were worth about US$1.7bn in 2025, down from US$4bn in 2024, and made up about 1% of South Africa’s total global exports.
- Bilateral trade reached US$28.8bn in 2025, and more than 600 American companies operate in South Africa, supporting about 134,600 jobs.
- South Africa supplies 12 of the 50 minerals the US regards as critical, and 70% of US isotopes used in applications such as cancer treatment.
The department also warned that losing AGOA “will undermine” South African investments in the US and hurt existing value chains. It named autos and boat building as examples of goods made for AGOA export with US inputs. On diversification, it said the country is pursuing markets across the African Continental Free Trade Area, India, SADC, the European Union, the United Kingdom, ASEAN, MERCOSUR and China, and that new openings have been secured for citrus, avocados, grapes and apples.
What Business Unity South Africa says
Business Unity South Africa (BUSA) published its own statement on 3 November, issued by chief executive Khulekani Mathe. It makes a harder-edged case than the government’s. BUSA says public debate has “strayed significantly” from the likely impact on the ground, and puts these estimates on the record:
- Preferential access was worth around US$55m in tariff savings last year.
- Section 232 national-security tariffs on cars, metals and other products add around US$450m a year in duties, which BUSA describes as about eight times what AGOA saved.
- Losing AGOA will add around 3.6 percentage points to tariffs on the goods it covered.
- In the year to August, farm and food exports to the US fell by 22%, while sales to other markets rose by 9% to US$15.7bn.
- The number of jobs affected is “likely to be in the range of a few thousand”, which BUSA contrasts with the hundreds of thousands suggested in some commentary.
BUSA also says the broader economy should see “very limited impact” and that it does not expect it to dent economic growth, though business sentiment may take a knock. It adds that the hardest hit will be firms most exposed to US trade, particularly in the Eastern Cape and Western Cape, which it says account for about 40% of US-linked jobs on a fifth of the trade. It wants government to pursue a trade agreement with the US beyond AGOA.
BUSA’s other worry is political. It said it is concerned that relations between the two governments could deteriorate and that contact between them could break down. The same statement was reported by Moneyweb in a Bloomberg report, which also quoted Raymond Parsons of North West University’s Business School saying that although only about 10% of exports to the US are covered by AGOA, the exit still puts thousands of jobs at risk in the affected sectors.
Where the estimates differ
The two sets of figures do not line up, and readers should not treat them as one. Government measures AGOA by export value (US$1.7bn in 2025, about 1% of global exports). BUSA measures it by the tariff savings (US$55m). Neither number is an estimate of lost sales.
The size of the tariff step is also given two ways. BUSA says 3.6 percentage points. Wandile Sihlobo, the President’s envoy on agriculture and land, estimated around 3.4%, saying that products now facing 12.5% would face 15.9%, as quoted by Daily Maverick. The Citrus Growers’ Association told the same outlet that the applicable US rate is generally 1.5 to 2.5 US cents per kilogram, plus the additional 12.5% Section 301 tariff on all citrus varieties apart from oranges, leaving exporters of mandarins, lemons and grapefruit at what it called a “severe disadvantage” to Peru and Chile. Economist Eckart Naumann told Daily Maverick that edible ice products, such as sorbets, would be hit harder, because a 17% standard tariff previously waived under AGOA would be added on top of the 12.5%.
Jobs are the sharpest dispute. BUSA says a few thousand. Cosatu, quoted by Daily Maverick, said it was deeply concerned about thousands of agricultural and manufacturing jobs, and the Democratic Alliance’s Ryan Smith spoke of hundreds of thousands employed in AGOA-dependent industries. We have not found published workings behind either the BUSA range or the larger claims.
The Bureau for Economic Research, quoted by BusinessTech, said diversification is sensible but “neither an immediate solution nor a reason to abandon established trading relationships”, and that gains in aggregate exports do not necessarily compensate for lost jobs and income in affected sectors. Earlier reporting in our own Western Cape export coverage shows how concentrated the exposure already is.
What is still unknown
The notice is one of intent, and its practical effect depends on what happens in the next two months. The sources describe the 60 days differently: the government statement calls it advance notice, BusinessTech reports Tau as saying South Africa has 60 days to address the concerns raised, and Daily Maverick says Tau earlier described a 60-day period to appeal. None of the material we read says what the US would accept as a satisfactory answer, or whether the 1 January date can move. BUSA’s own reading is that the outcome was largely expected, given relations between the governments.
It is also not yet clear what the promised company-by-company support will consist of, or how it will be funded. The government said only that it will engage social partners to improve resilience and protect jobs. For exporters, the practical task is to check which of their products currently enter duty-free under AGOA and to price 2027 contracts with the standard duty in mind. More on how trade policy is shaping business is in Regulatory & Policy.
