Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
14 December 2020 | Story Leonie Bolleurs
Dr FA Mare
Dr Frikkie Maré believes lucrative trade opportunities do exist for the South African red-meat industry that is thinking about exporting to international markets.

Dr Frikkie Maré, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of the Free State (UFS), says lucrative trade opportunities do exist for the South African red-meat industry that is thinking about exporting to international markets.

He, however, believes that there are some important aspects that red-meat producers should consider in order to fully benefit from these opportunities. There are also a number of requirements that producers must identify and then consistently meet in order not to incur considerable financial losses.

Dr Maré, who has in-depth knowledge of the red-meat value chain, delivered a presentation at the 2020 LRF Stockman School, speaking about international markets and international market requirements.

An exporter’s knowledge and understanding of the red-meat trade in terms of fresh and frozen products is important. Dr Maré says that although South Africa is a net importer of bovine meat, there is still opportunity to increase our export thereof, as our high-quality meat is in demand; we can make up the difference by importing meat of lower quality. “With the oversupply of bovine meat, it will also make sense to increase the export of bovine meat,” he says.

Making it profitable

Red-meat producers need to know why they want to export. Dr Maré says that export markets can offer price premiums compared to the less attractive prices received in a domestic market. “However, it is key for red-meat exporters in South Africa to differentiate between working to export to targeted premium-priced markets versus getting rid of excess production.”

“The national animal health status, due to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks, does however limit our access to premium-priced markets,” he adds.

It is also important for products to be competitive in terms of either price or quality, and Dr Maré believes that South Africa can be very competitive if one looks at our average red-meat prices compared to the premium-priced export markets, of which some borders are closed to red-meat exports from South Africa. “In countries where the borders are open to export from South Africa, there is an opportunity to sell our red meat at a premium if the quality is better than consumers in those countries are used to. Still, quality and availability must be consistent and reliable if we want to export to these countries,” says Dr Maré.

When considering export, the type of product required by an export market needs to be given thought. These markets are particular about whether the meat is from grain- or grass-fed animals, the fat content of the meat, whether it is safe to eat, whether it was produced conventionally, naturally, or organically, and whether the meat should arrive frozen or chilled.

The market and your product

Dr Maré states that South African exporters of red meat can learn a lot from the Australian red-meat industry in terms of using packaging to differentiate their products from others. “If South Africa starts doing the same with the packaging of its red-meat exports, these products will start to be perceived as special by consumers in export markets, who may then be prepared to pay more for them as a result,” he says.

For both beef and mutton, international consumers indicated the importance of packaging information featuring a picture of what type of animal the meat came from, including the price per kilogram, price per pack, whether or not the meat is naturally produced, whether or not it has a quality grading/product guarantee, and the colour of the meat.

“Constant market research ensures that Australia’s red-meat exports are exactly what consumers in these countries want and can afford. This research also keeps Australia’s red-meat industry informed of whether or not it is profitable for the industry to keep exporting to a particular country,” he says.

In terms of market research, data on aspects such as the population, household number by disposable income, meat consumption per capita, and the amount spend on groceries, is also valuable.

For example, it was found that in Japan, consumers buy according to their family’s preferences, what they find easy to prepare, what they believe are healthy for their children, and what they can use in a number of different meals.

Relationship with your buyer

“It is vital for exporters in the South African red-meat industry to gain the trust of trade partners in the export market, and to understand – and meet – the needs of consumers in that particular market,” says Dr Maré.

Additionally, Dr Maré is convinced that good relationships between the South African producers, government, and the governments of our red-meat export markets are crucial to sustain exports. “To assure these governments of the safety of our red-meat products, the South African government and red-meat sector must work together and improve on-farm and national biosecurity. Implementing an effective and efficient traceability system in our country’s national and international red-meat value chain is also needed,” he says.

Dr Maré says that whatever actions is taken by an exporter in the red-meat industry, it needs to be sustainable. “Should you fail, you will hurt the industry.”

News Archive

Media: Sunday Times
2006-05-20

Sunday Times, 4 June 2006

True leadership may mean admitting disunity
 

In this edited extract from the inaugural King Moshoeshoe Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State, Professor Njabulo S Ndebele explores the leadership challenges facing South Africa

RECENT events have created a sense that we are undergoing a serious crisis of leadership in our new democracy. An increasing number of highly intelligent, sensitive and committed South Africans, across class, racial and cultural spectrums, confess to feeling uncertain and vulnerable as never before since 1994.

When indomitable optimists confess to having a sense of things unhinging, the misery of anxiety spreads. We have the sense that events are spiralling out of control and that no one among the leadership of the country seems to have a definitive handle on things.

There can be nothing more debilitating than a generalised and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic. It breeds conspiracies and fear.

There is an impression that a very complex society has developed, in the last few years, a rather simple, centralised governance mechanism in the hope that delivery can be better and more quickly driven. The complexity of governance then gets located within a single structure of authority rather than in the devolved structures envisaged in the Constitution, which should interact with one another continuously, and in response to their specific settings, to achieve defined goals. Collapse in a single structure of authority, because there is no robust backup, can be catastrophic.

The autonomy of devolved structures presents itself as an impediment only when visionary cohesion collapses. Where such cohesion is strong, the impediment is only illusory, particularly when it encourages healthy competition, for example, among the provinces, or where a province develops a character that is not necessarily autonomous politically but rather distinctive and a special source of regional pride. Such competition brings vibrancy to the country. It does not necessarily challenge the centre.

Devolved autonomy is vital in the interests of sustainable governance. The failure of various structures to actualise their constitutionally defined roles should not be attributed to the failure of the prescribed governance mechanism. It is too early to say that what we have has not worked. The only viable corrective will be in our ability to be robust in identifying the problems and dealing with them concertedly.

We have never had social cohesion in South Africa — certainly not since the Natives’ Land Act of 1913. What we definitely have had over the decades is a mobilising vision. Could it be that the mobilising vision, mistaken for social cohesion, is cracking under the weight of the reality and extent of social reconstruction, and that the legitimate framework for debating these problems is collapsing? If that is so, are we witnessing a cumulative failure of leadership?

I am making a descriptive rather than an evaluative inquiry. I do not believe that there is any single entity to be blamed. It is simply that we may be a country in search of another line of approach. What will it be?

I would like to suggest two avenues of approach — an inclusive model and a counter-intuitive model of leadership.

In an inclusive approach, leadership is exercised not only by those who have been put in some position of power to steer an organisation or institution. Leadership is what all of us do when we express, sincerely, our deepest feelings and thoughts; when we do our work, whatever it is, with passion and integrity.

Counter-intuitive leadership lies in the ability of leaders to read a problematic situation, assess probable outcomes and then recognise that those outcomes will only compound the problem. Genuine leadership, in this sense, requires going against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes. That’s what happened when we avoided a civil war and ended up with an “unexpected” democracy.

Right now, we may very well hear desperate calls for unity, when the counter-intuitive imperative would be to acknowledge disunity. A declaration of unity where it manifestly does not appear to exist will fail to reassure.

Many within the “broad alliance” might have the view that the mobilising vision of old may have transformed into a strategy of executive steering with a disposition towards an expectation of compliance. No matter how compelling the reasons for that tendency, it may be seen as part of a cumulative process in which popular notions of democratic governance are apparently undermined and devalued; and where public uncertainty in the midst of seeming crisis induces fear which could freeze public thinking at a time when more voices ought to be heard.

Could it be that part of the problem is that we are unable to deal with the notion of opposition? We are horrified that any of us could be seen to have become “the opposition”. The word has been demonised. In reality, it is time we began to anticipate the arrival of a moment when there is no longer a single, overwhelmingly dominant political force as is currently the case. Such is the course of history. The measure of the maturity of the current political environment will be in how it can create conditions that anticipate that moment rather than seek to prevent it. We see here once more the essential creativity of the counter-intuitive imperative.

This is the formidable challenge of a popular post-apartheid political movement. Can it conceptually anticipate a future when it is no longer overwhelmingly in control, in the form in which it is currently, and resist, counter-intuitively, the temptation to prevent such an eventuality? Successfully resisting such an option would enable its current vision and its ultimate legacy to our country to manifest in different articulations, which then contend for social influence. In this way, the vision never really dies; it simply evolves into higher, more complex forms of itself. Consider the metaphor of flying ants replicating the ant community by establishing new ones.

We may certainly experience the meaning of comradeship differently, where we will now have “comrades on the other side”.

Any political movement that imagines itself as a perpetual entity should look at the compelling evidence of history. Few movements have survived those defining moments when they should have been more elastic, and that because they were not, did not live to see the next day.

I believe we may have reached a moment not fundamentally different from the sobering, yet uplifting and vision-making, nation-building realities that led to Kempton Park in the early ’90s. The difference between then and now is that the black majority is not facing white compatriots across the negotiating table. Rather, it is facing itself: perhaps really for the first time since 1994. Could we apply to ourselves the same degree of inventiveness and rigorous negotiation we displayed leading up to the adoption or our Constitution?

This is not a time for repeating old platitudes. It is the time, once more, for vision.

In the total scheme of things, the outcome could be as disastrous as it could be formative and uplifting, setting in place the conditions for a true renaissance that could be sustained for generations to come.

Ndebele is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and author of the novel The Cry of Winnie Mandela

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept