Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen has now openly supported Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). His efforts, framed as "transformation initiatives," are poised to exacerbate international trade risks while undermining the country’s agricultural vitality.

Civil society groups such as Sakeliga, are raising alarms over these measures, citing economic and legal concerns. In a recent press release, the organisation laid into the Minister for his repudiation of the party's stated policy positions.

The cornerstone of Steenhuisen’s approach lies in the implementation of AgriBEE, a policy mandating BEE compliance in agriculture. While not new, the policy has gained traction under Steenhuisen’s leadership. His department’s Director-General recently renewed regulations that enforce racial quotas on agricultural trade, a move that has reignited controversy. These quotas affect a subset of South Africa’s agricultural exports and imports, including wine and produce destined for the European Union and the United Kingdom.

Critics argue that AgriBEE contradicts South Africa’s commitments under international trade agreements. For instance, Sakeliga’s correspondence to the minister in October 2024 highlighted potential violations of the country’s obligations to the EU, the UK, and the World Trade Organisation. The minister, in turn, attributed the regulations to bureaucratic inertia inherited from previous administrations, promising further review. However, no substantial action or feedback has followed.

AgriBEE’s implications extend beyond trade. Its provisions aim to enforce BEE compliance in all government dealings related to agriculture, from licensing to water rights and state asset allocations. The policy’s explicit goal is to embed “transformation” into the fabric of South Africa’s agricultural economy, a vision that some stakeholders argue could stifle innovation and competitiveness.

More controversially, Minister Steenhuisen has introduced several "transformation funds" to finance BEE initiatives. Between October 2024 and January 2025, he signed regulations allocating portions of statutory crop levies—collected from farmers, traders, and processors—to these funds. For example, at least 20% of levies on soybeans, table grapes, and dried vine fruit are earmarked for transformation projects. These funds are administered by existing industry bodies, effectively compelling them to comply with AgriBEE mandates to retain their levy allocations.

The parallels between these funds and the R100 billion transformation fund proposed by Trade and Industry Minister Parks Tau are striking. Both initiatives rely on extracting money from private enterprises to finance state-mandated transformation agendas. Critics fear such measures could erode business confidence and lead to inefficiencies, as funds are diverted from productive uses like research and marketing to politically driven redistribution schemes.

Sakeliga has taken steps to uncover the extent of these initiatives, filing requests under the Promotion of Access to Information Act. Preliminary investigations suggest that similar funds may have existed under previous administrations, raising concerns about the cumulative impact of these policies on the sector.

The stakes are high. Agriculture remains a critical pillar of South Africa’s economy, providing livelihoods and contributing significantly to exports. However, the imposition of rigid BEE requirements risks alienating international partners and undermining the sector’s resilience. While transformation in agriculture is a noble goal, its execution must balance inclusivity with pragmatism to avoid unintended consequences.

Steenhuisen’s pursuit of AgriBEE may satisfy ideological imperatives, but its economic and diplomatic repercussions could weigh heavily on South Africa’s agricultural future. For now, the minister's reluctance to revise his policies leaves the sector on uncertain terrain.

‍