ARTICLES

 

A Systematic Review of Constraints Associated with the Beef Value Chain in the Southern African Development Community (SADC)

 

 

Makombe G.^I; Mbole-Kariuki M.^II; Mautjana H.^III

^IResearch Associate: Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria, 26 Melville Road, Illovo, Johannesburg. makombeg@yahoo.com, ORCID ID 0000-0002-6638-6159
^IITechnology, Innovation and Skills Development Expert, AU-IBAR, Inter African Bureau For Animal Resources, mary.mbole-kariuki@au-ibar.org
^IIIResearch Associate, University of Limpopo, hmautjana@gmail.com, ORCID ID 0000-0001-7235-4770

Correspondence

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

More than 30 years after the formation of the AU, intra-African trade remains relatively low in magnitude. Africa aims to increase inter-and intra-African trade through the African Continental Free Trade Area (AFCFTA). To realise this, Africa must boost production, especially agricultural production, which has remained stubbornly low. This study aimed to identify some of the factors contributing to this issue in the red meat and live animals value chain, which is a priority value chain for the SADC. In the SADC, beef is the dominant product, so it was selected as the focus of this study. A systematic review was used to identify factors that constrain beef production. Boolean search strings were used to identify relevant literature from databases. Inclusion-exclusion criteria were based on abstract content. Since some of the literature was dated, focus group discussions, value chain analysis workshops, and a validation workshop were used to confirm the constraints. Market-related constraints, namely: lack of market information, market segmentation, cost of compliance; Production-related constraints, namely: disease prevalence, lack of technology adoption, hygiene issues; Structural constraints, namely: infrastructure gaps, governance issues, and lack of integration; and Social constraints, namely: gender imbalance, were identified. Addressing these constraints will enable the SADC to increase both inter- and intra-SADC beef trade.

Keywords: Africa, AFCFTA, Beef, Systematic Review, Constraints, Value Chain, Validation.

---

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

The pursuit of both African regional and continental political and economic integration agendas has led to the formation of numerous institutions. Following the Abuja Treaty of 1994, African efforts for integration culminated in the formation of the African Union (AU) in 2002 (Magoke & Öke, 2023; de Melo & Solleder, 2025). It has been more than 30 years since the African Union (AU) was formed, but intra-African trade remains stubbornly low (de Melo & Solleder, 2025). Intra-SADC agricultural exports of vegetable and animal products were valued at USD 2,871 million in 2019. This represented 6.2% of total intra-SADC exports. Intra-SADC agricultural imports were valued at USD 2,498 million, accounting for 7.1% of total intra-SADC imports (SADC, 2021). Since agriculture is the mainstay of this region, these figures need to improve.

Sixteen or so regional economic communities (RECs) have been formed, of which the AU recognises eight. Although the chronology and objectives of the formation of RECs differ, according to Magoke and Öke (2023, p. 6), RECs are considered as essential vehicles or 'building blocks' towards achieving continental integration." Pursuant to the economic integration objectives, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) was established in 2018, among other objectives, to create a single market for goods and services, which is expected to boost trade between African countries (Magoke & Öke, 2023). To boost this trade, Africa needs to increase its production.

There are specialised organisations that focus on supporting the enhancement of production to assist in achieving the AfCFTA objectives. For instance, the African Union-Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR), a specialised technical office of the African Union Commission's Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Blue Economy, and Sustainable Environment, leads the development of animal resources in Africa. It works at the continental and regional levels in collaboration with RECs and African Union (AU) Member States (MSs). Its mandate is to coordinate and support the sustainable development and utilisation of animal resources to enhance nutrition and food security in the AU MSs.

It is this mandate that led AU-IBAR to collaborate with the European Union as development partners in initiating the Sustainable Development of Livestock for Livelihoods in Africa (Live2Africa) Project, which focuses on implementing the continental components of the Livestock Development Strategy for Africa (LiDeSA 2015-2035) (AU-IBAR, 2015). The project is grounded in the Malabo Declaration targets, the Sustainable Development Goals, and the African Union Agenda 2063. It builds systemic capacity in livestock and, therefore, the study of constraints limiting production is of paramount importance.

Worldwide food production must meet global food demand. A 50-70% increase in food productivity is needed to feed the projected 9 billion people by 2050 (UN, 2019). Livestock provides 13% of total calories and about 26% of protein for humans. Estimates also indicate that, because of economic growth, urbanisation, and changes in consumption patterns in developing countries, demand for livestock products is likely to more than double in the next 20 years (Louw et al., 2018). Given the anticipated growth in demand for livestock products, SADC would like to increase intra-SADC trade in livestock and livestock products. The SADC would also like to increase its share of inter-regional trade by actively participating in the AfCFTA. To achieve this objective, the SADC intends to strategically position itself as a net exporter of livestock and livestock products.

To understand the aspirations of different African regions, AU-IBAR facilitated a continental prioritisation workshop in 2018. The workshop focused on identifying all the regional value chains, and an in-depth SWOT analysis was undertaken. This process highlighted some of the weaknesses and potential opportunities for delivering the desired transformation. Given its aspirations, the SADC has selected the red meat and live animal value chains as its priority. With the appropriate actions, the strategic position of being a net exporter of livestock and livestock products can be achieved, as there is room for expansion. For instance, Cook (2024) indicates that of the 50 top world beef-producing countries, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe are the only SADC countries included.

The most extensively studied of the red meat value chains in the SADC region is the beef value chain. This is evidence of the prominent position that beef holds in the diets of the SADC region. The beef value chain is also important because it offers attractive market opportunities locally (within countries), regionally (in the SADC) and internationally (World Bank, 2011). For instance, in 2019, intra-SADC beef exports totaled USD 207 million, and intra-SADC beef imports were USD 153 million (SADC, 2021). To improve the SADC trade balance in beef, it is essential to review the constraints faced along the beef value chain in the SADC region, as identified in the existing literature, and combine these with a SWOT analysis to formulate a way forward for developing the beef value chain.

 

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Theoretical Framework

Porter's value chain theory undergoes the study. Porter classified value chain activities into primary activities and support activities. Primary activities create the product while support activities play a supporting role (Rahman et al., 2021). We apply Porter's framework to identify constraints along the SADC beef value chain.

2.2. Systematic Review

The systematic review process was followed in this study. Academic and grey literature were systematically identified from electronic databases and the websites of relevant organisations. The electronic databases searched included Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, AGRICOLA, ScienceDirect, SciELO, and SpringerLink, among others. A general Boolean search string, 'Constraints' AND 'livestock' AND 'production' AND 'value chain' AND 'Southern Africa', was initially used and then narrowed down to SADC by following up references identified in the initial articles. Some grey literature was found in the form of work papers and project reports from different organisations. Open-access full-text articles were identified and retrieved through search engines like Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox. ResearchGate services, which offer direct full-text requests from authors, were also utilised.

The electronic databases to which Stellenbosch University and the University of Pretoria subscribed were used to retrieve relevant articles that were not available on free access. The advantage of these sources is that a single search accesses multiple databases. Inclusion-exclusion criteria were based on whether abstracts made direct or indirect reference to constraints along the beef value chain. Literature from the last 25 years has been evaluated on this basis. Intensive searches were then conducted to identify relevant literature published within the last 10 years. Where dated empirical evidence was superseded by evidence from the last 10 years, the most recent article was cited. A substantial amount of dated literature was superseded in this manner and was, therefore, not cited. Dated literature that was not superseded was used, but the findings were qualitatively triangulated and validated.

2.3. Triangulation and Validation

Qualitative methods were used to triangulate and validate the findings from the literature review. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with key informants from four SADC countries: Namibia, Mozambique, Eswatini, and Madagascar. Countries were purposively selected based on the researcher's ease of access. In each country, AU-IBAR has a focal person who coordinates its activities. The focal people in the selected countries were asked to purposively select 9 to 12 participants knowledgeable about the beef value chain in their country to participate in FGDs. Group size was guided by the recommendations of Neuman (2006), Collins et al. (2007), and Creswell (2009). Four FGDs, one in each of the selected countries, were held online using the Zoom platform.

Workshops to perform value chain analyses were held in four SADC countries: Tanzania, Malawi, Namibia, and Eswatini. Twelve to fifteen participants were purposively selected based on their involvement in administration or production along the beef value chain. During the workshops, the beef value chains in each country were analysed and mapped. Factors affecting different nodes of the beef value chain were discussed and compared with those identified in the literature. Thus, constraints affecting the beef value chain were concurrently triangulated and validated.

Finally, a validation workshop, which representatives from the 16 SADC MSs attended, was held in Arusha, Tanzania, from 20^th to 22^nd June 2022. At the workshop, among other agenda items, the constraints identified through the systematic review, FDGs, and the value chain analysis workshops were validated. Where dated references were used, it was essential to verify that the constraints remained relevant as identified.

 

3. RESULTS

3.1. Review of Beef Value Chain Constraints in the SAD Region

The identified constraints were grouped into four categories: production-related constraints, structural constraints, market-related constraints, and social gaps.

3.1.1. Production-Related Constraints

3.1.1.1. Disease and Disease Management

Animal disease control and general management are poor in most SADC countries (Wilson, 2018; Madzingira & Simasiku, 2020). Only 29 percent of cattle in Tanzania receive regular vaccinations. The control of internal helminth parasites and the protection of animals from ticks and tick-borne diseases is hardly practiced. Partly because of poor disease control, animals die. The death rates in calves may be as high as 70% of those infected by East Coast Fever (ECF), a disease that can be reduced to less than 30% by dipping only. The reproductive rates in cattle are 50% or less, with heifers typically calving for the first time at 4 years of age and then producing a calf every 2 years. The growth rates are low. This greatly reduces overall output. Off takes could reach 12% but they are more likely to be around 10%. The meat resulting from the poor health of animals is of very poor quality. The bleak picture of animal health painted by Wilson (2018) is not limited to Tanzania. Many SADC countries experience this cycle. Bennett et al. (2019) point out that the lack of resources for basic disease and parasite management is a constraint for the beef value chain in Zimbabwe. Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) affects exports from Zimbabwe to countries free from FMD. In Zimbabwe, tick-borne diseases are attributed to insufficient dipping. Babesiosis, Anaplasmosis, Heartwater, and Theileriosis cause 55-65% of cattle mortalities. Lubungu et al. (2015) mention that in Zambia, outbreaks of diseases such as FMD, Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP), corrido, and anthrax negatively affect the inter-provincial trade of live animals, thus limiting market options, especially for smallholders who end up selling at low prices in local markets. Basic, cheaply constructed infrastructure, such as cattle crushes, can deliver the necessary treatments to animals and also improve access to dipping (Vernooij et al., 2016). Disease control and the provision of necessary infrastructure are areas where PPPs could perform well. Governments could provide infrastructure, while the provision of veterinary medicines could be privatised. In Madagascar, Andriamparany et al. (2023) note that training in livestock disease management can enhance the performance of the livestock value chain.

3.1.1.2. Lack of Technology Adoption

The lack of technology adoption is a prominent constraint on the beef value chain. Smallholders do not adopt simple technologies that have a high impact on productivity. In Tanzania, calf growth, currently estimated at 300 g/day, could be easily increased to 400 g/day with supplementation, resulting in a 33 percent increase in productivity. The calving interval could also be decreased by the same margin through strategic supplementation. Vaccination/dipping for the effective control of East Coast Fever and anthelmintic treatment can result in a productivity improvement of more than 200%, whereas a combination of disease control and strategic supplementation could increase annual off-take by 20 percent (Wilson, 2018). The SADC region can enhance the performance of the beef value chain by adopting simple technologies. The World Bank (2011) notes that investment in such technologies pays for itself many times over.

3.1.1.3. Lack of Hygiene

The supply of quality hygienic beef is a challenge in most rural areas in Africa. In some countries, such as Tanzania, it's a challenge throughout the entire beef value chain. The livestock resource base in Tanzania is huge. For instance, the cattle herd is estimated to be about 28.5 million. However, irrespective of its potential to contribute to Tanzania's economic development, the sector is underutilised (Kamugisha et al., 2019). Like in many sub-Saharan countries, the Tanzanian traditional beef production sector is underdeveloped and faces challenges in observing the hygienic conditions required to supply quality beef. In fact, in Tanzania, this is such a constraint that quality hygienic beef is supplied to "niche" markets where consumers are prepared to pay a premium for the improvement in hygiene and beef quality.

The practices in the traditional beef sector pose a health risk to consumers. The occurrence of the Campylobacter species has been recorded in the traditional value chain in Tanzania. The Campylobacter species is transmitted to humans when contaminated meat is consumed (Mahundi et al., 2011; Ntanga et al., 2014; Kashoma et al., 2016). In a study in Tanzania, it was estimated that in one municipality, contaminated beef in the traditional sector accounted for more than 15% of roasted and just under 35% of stewed beef consumed (Mahundi et al., 2011). These studies concluded that improving the quality of beef is a key aspect in reducing the health risk to consumers of beef. This conclusion might apply to many SADC countries where hygienic conditions for beef need to be improved.

3.1.2. Structural Constraints

3.1.2.1. Infrastructure Gaps

In some SADC countries, there is poor and/or inadequate infrastructure (Vernooij et al., 2016), including marketing infrastructure and road networks (UNIDO, 2012; Lubungu et al., 2015). In the cases of poor infrastructure, the marketing of live animals could benefit from the construction of physical open-air markets. These could be strategically constructed near dipping tanks to utilise the available infrastructure (World Bank, 2011). This is also an area where PPPs could be established, with the government providing facilities for water supply, fencing, and sanitation, while the management is left to private companies. A crucial condition is that such open-air markets should be able to provide adequate information (World Bank, 2011) to mitigate the problems associated with information asymmetry. In Madagascar, Andriamparany et al. (2023) concluded that investments in transportation and marketing infrastructure could support the development of the local livestock sector and improve the local supply of animal-source food in the SAVA region.

3.1.2.2. Governance and the Cost of Compliance

According to Fabre et al. (2021), governance comprises formal and informal rules that are applied at various stages of the value chain. Analysing governance mechanisms along the value chain and their social relations can reveal the major negative and/or positive drivers of the value chain. Generally, governance is associated with the costs of compliance for stakeholders along the value chain. Chamboko and Erasmus (2014) report on the costs of compliance that are incurred along the beef value chain in Zimbabwe. There is a rural district levy, which varies between $5 and $40 per animal sold. Some rural district councils require buyers of cattle to purchase a license for $250 per quarter to be allowed to buy animals in the district. Cattle buyers are also required to register with the Agricultural Marketing Authority at a fee of $150 per annum. Moving cattle requires a permit, which costs $10, and a police anti-stock theft clearance, which is supposed to be free but for which the police charge an unofficial facilitation fee of $5. Producers who want to sell animals must provide transportation for veterinary and police officers to and from the farm. Farmers set aside two days to obtain the necessary permits and police clearance. For farmers, these set-aside days come at a very high opportunity cost. Under the harmonised model By-Law, the total cost of regulatory compliance in the Zimbabwean beef value chain is $110 and $112 per animal sold in the small- and large-scale beef value chains, respectively. Under this scenario, producers will incur losses of $7 per head sold ($0.04/kg dressed weight) and $17 ($0.09/kg dressed weight) in the small- and large-scale value chains, respectively. Levies can be used to benefit the beef value chain. Scoones et al. (2010) provide an example of such an approach from Namibia, which can be replicated in the SADC.

3.1.2.3. Lack of Integration (Horizontal and Vertical)

Across the globe, smallholder farmers lack access to essential resources, including finance, extension services, market information, and quality control (Mapiye et al., 2020; Mapiye, 2022). They also lack the organisation that can support them in addressing these constraints and profitably integrating into their product value chains. To alleviate this constraint, the development of farmer organisations and associations within the SADC can be achieved through horizontal integration. Empirical evidence suggests that producer organisations can be utilised to enhance value chains (Widadiea et al., 2021). Examples of successful horizontal integration can be found in Zimbabwe, where the Zimbabwe Farmers Union is a powerful actor in most agri-value chains, and the government utilises cooperatives to organise smallholder agricultural producers, including cattle producers (Bennett et al., 2019). Vertical integration can also occur along the red meat and live animals value chain (Bennett et al., 2019). Zimbabwean abattoirs are reportedly very active in vertical integration and can serve as case studies for improving the performance of the beef value chain in the SADC.

3.1.3. Market-Related Constraints

3.1.3.1. Information Gaps and Price Discovery Challenges

Access to market information along the beef value chain is minimal, especially for smallholders (Mapiye et al., 2020). Lack of information is not only a problem for smallholders. It affects most value chains in Africa, where even the number of stakeholders along the value chain is unknown. Regarding the Tanzanian red meat value chain, Wilson (2018, p. 1) wrote, "The chain is fragmented, unorganised, uncontrolled (despite being over-regulated) and uncoordinated. It is dominated by large numbers of smallholder stock owners, an unknown but undoubtedly immense number of middlemen who operate across every link and a similarly unknown number of small processors and butchers who put products on the market for the consumer, but who mainly lack the technical and financial ability to run it efficiently and profitably." The constraints faced by smallholder traders in Zimbabwe, as reported by Dube et al. (2017), include competition from the large-scale formal sector, high purchase prices and transportation costs, limited trader skills and access to information, and poor market information. A lack of information on standards, grades, and prices increases transaction costs for most market intermediaries and smallholder livestock producers. This limits their market participation (Key et al., 2000; Costales et al., 2006).

In many African countries, livestock market information systems are not in place. Where they do exist, they generally perform poorly, do not provide sufficient and timely information, and lack transparency. Information transparency fosters confidence development between actors and plays a crucial role in reducing information asymmetry, thereby improving price discovery mechanisms, especially for under-resourced value chain stakeholders (Fabre et al., 2021). A lack of information means that value chain actors, especially smallholder producers and small-scale operators, operate under conditions of asymmetric price information, thereby weakening their negotiating position when dealing with larger stakeholders who can collect more information. Gabre-Madhin (2009), Lubungu et al. (2015), Bennett et al. (2019), Ogundeji and Maré (2019) and Mapiye et al. (2020) report on asymmetric information, which leads to inefficient price discovery systems. Inefficient price discovery not only affects marketing decisions but also impacts production (World Bank, 2011; Government of South Africa, 2019). Andriamparany et al. (2023) report that in Madagascar, a lack of market information, as well as issues with timeliness and transparency in market information, reduces livestock market performance.

3.1.3.2. Lack of Niche Markets, Markets and Market Segmentation

In the SADC, there is scope for the development of all types of markets, including niche markets. Robust animal traceability systems can promote access to (niche) export markets. When traceability systems fail, it can lead to the temporary or permanent blocking of export markets, as seen in Botswana in 2011 (van Engelen et al., 2013). A lack of animal traceability severely limits the development of inclusive value chains for red meat and live animals in the SADC, as well as their access to niche markets. Pasture beef production, which can increase export market access, can be done in an environmentally sustainable way. Some farmers in South Africa are employing regenerative agriculture management practices to produce beef cattle (Coetzee, 2025; Farmer Angus, 2025). Consumers are willing to pay a premium for pasture-raised beef (Stampa et al., 2020). Commercial farmers can achieve the desired pasture attributes through adjustments in management. However, for smallholder farmers whose production systems are already low-input systems (Marandure et al., 2020), certification for organic and/or pasture production might not require many management adjustments.

Marandure et al. (2016) also investigated the willingness of traders and consumers to support the development of a natural pasture-fed beef brand (NPB) by smallholder cattle producers in South Africa, yielding positive results. However, in order to develop this potential, government support is necessary. The Farm Assured Namibian Meat (FAN Meat) scheme, which markets free-range, hormone-free beef with guaranteed animal welfare and veterinary standards, is a good example of an initiative that can be leveraged to capitalise on this potential (Scoones et al., 2010). Organically raised and branded beef (Labuschagne et al., 2010; Marandure et al., 2016) can also be used to penetrate both local and international markets (van Engelen et al., 2013). Kunene-Ngubane et al. (2018) concluded that South Africa has the potential to produce pasture-raised organic meat, including from communal farmers. The best opportunity for South Africa to capture a portion of the global market is not through competing with countries that export large volumes, but rather by competing with countries like the Netherlands, which export low volumes of higher-quality beef (Beefmaster Group, 2021), and by targeting niche markets.

Some market segmentation is practised within the SADC countries. For instance, Lubungu et al. (2015) and Sikamwaya and Guiyu (2020) describe the Zambian beef market as segmented between choice beef, which is primarily produced by commercial farmers through feedlots, and standard beef, which is mainly produced by smallholder livestock farmers using a low-intensity production system. In 2015, the standard beef market accounted for 80% of total beef demand. Lubungu et al. (2015) mention that there is higher price volatility in the standard beef market. The segmentation, therefore, is more of a hindrance to the development of smallholder livestock producers in Zambia. The Government of South Africa (2019) notes that low market intelligence along the beef value chain can also hinder development. This is an area where PPPs could be developed to address the issue of low market intelligence alongside the beef value chain in the SADC, especially for smallholders.

3.1.3.3. The Beef Carcass Classification System

In some SADC countries, one of the contentious aspects along the beef value chain is the carcass classification system. In Zimbabwe (Bennett et al., 2019) and South Africa (Mapiye, 2017), government development strategies are leading to the introduction of indigenous breeds that are leaner but smaller than exotic breeds. The carcass grading systems in Zimbabwe and South Africa favour exotic, large breeds that produce meat for high-value export markets, which are slaughtered at a younger age than those from smallholders (Strydom et al., 2015; Chingala et al., 2017). The carcass classification systems undervalue animals from smallholder farmers, who, ironically, are being encouraged by governments to participate more in the beef value chain.

The genetic resources of indigenous animal breeds, especially cattle, are crucial to the value chain of red meat and live animals, as they provide livelihoods for rural societies (Ramsay et al., 1998) and enable them to meet socio-cultural, economic, and nutritional requirements (Zulu, 2009). The inclusion of smallholders in the development of the red meat value chain largely depends on revising the beef carcass classification systems to more inclusive ones. Some serious questions need to be asked about the classification of beef carcasses. For instance, when meat is deboned, does it matter to the end market user which size carcass frame it came from, or does quality then depend on other parameters that are independent of carcass size? The existing literature suggests that the carcass classification system needs to be revisited and reformed to reflect current regional government efforts and consumption preferences (Chingala et al., 2017). Vermeulen et al. (2020) note that many consumers, particularly those from marginalised groups, struggle to understand the current beef classification system. Therefore, a user-friendly, inclusive beef classification system is long overdue.

3.1.4. Social Gaps

3.1.4.1. Lack of Gender Balance

Gender is an issue that needs to be addressed in most African countries. More inclusive gender participation could improve the performance of the red meat and live animals value chain. Even in matrilineal societies, such as the Tonga of the Southern Province of Zambia, where women can own cattle independently of their husbands, women are rarely able to sell animals without obtaining permission from their husbands or brothers. Lubungu et al. (2015) showed that in these communities, approximately 80% of male household heads are the primary decision-makers regarding whether an animal should be kept or sold. This is, in part, because women are believed to be holding the animals for their children's future use. In Zambia, Mafimisebi et al. (2015) found that along the beef value chain in the Southern Province, 97.5 per cent of those who practised cattle rearing were males, all the abattoirs were run by males, 75 percent of processors and retailers were also males, and that 55 percent of beef consumers were male. These statistics demonstrate the need for more gender-inclusive strategies along the beef value chain in the SADC region (Devaux et al., 2018).

 

4. OTHER CONSTRAINTS

The constraints identified in the literature were validated as being current and still negatively impacting the beef value chain specifically and the red meat value chain in general. Additionally, six other constraints were identified through the FGDs and value chain analysis workshops. These constraints are discussed below.

4.1. Production-Related Constraints

4.1.1. Livestock Theft

Theft of livestock was identified as negatively affecting the beef value chain, especially the breeding programmes. It was mentioned that animal traceability programmes can be used to address this constraint.

4.1.2. Lack of Effective National Beef Breeding Systems

Participants mentioned the lack of effective national beef breeding systems in many SADC countries. Participants from Eswatini mentioned that livestock in the Swazi Nation Land (SNL) has been improved through the national breeding programme, and currently, 80% of exported meat is from SNL.

4.1.3. Lack of Government-Led Drought Management Strategy

It was suggested that a drought management strategy led by the government be developed, as during a drought, farmers lose both feeder and breeding stock and struggle to recover. It was suggested that, since drought affects many SADC countries to varying extents, the possibility of developing regional feed reserves should be explored. Local materials, such as sugar cane tops in Lesotho (Eswatini) and molasses in Mozambique, could be used as feed.

4.1.4. Lack of Water Storage and Conservation

Lack of water storage and conservation were mentioned as aspects that constrain the value chain for red meat and live animals in general, and specifically the beef value chain. This aspect could be included in the drought management strategy. This was mentioned as an area where PPPs could be developed.

4.1.5. Poor State of the Smallholder Livestock Sector

Participants mentioned that, although many governments claim to be committed to livestock commercialisation among smallholder livestock farmers, the poor state of the smallholder sector in many SADC countries constrains the development of this sector. Participants mentioned that in Mozambique, the smallholder sector accounts for 85% of the cattle and 96% of the small ruminants, and public support should be commensurate with these statistics.

4.2. Lack of a Common Vision

Finally, participants noted that stakeholders in the beef value chain of SADC countries lacked a shared vision for the development of the red meat value chain in general and the beef value chain in particular. The concern was that, both within countries and in the SADC region, the beef value chain stakeholders are operating in silos. In some countries, for instance, Namibia's Meat Board is attempting to develop a common vision for the red meat value chain to which everyone is expected to subscribe, thereby alleviating this constraint. Participants mentioned that it is essential for the SADC to develop a regional beef value chain vision that guides its development within the SADC. Depending on which specific aspect of the value chain is of interest, this constraint can be classified under one of the four constraint categories: namely, production-related, structural, market-related, or social-related constraints.

 

5. CONCLUSION

Through the systematic literature review, ten constraints were identified along the SADC beef value chain. These were classified into production-related, structural, market-related, and social constraints. For production-related constraints, small investments in affordable supplementation can alleviate some of the constraints. For structural constraints, basic infrastructure, such as dipping, can be cost-effectively addressed. Among the market-related constraints, the beef classification system presents a significant challenge. However, adjustments that lead to the inclusion of smaller-framed animals need to be considered. This is strongly supported by the fact that smallholders, who largely produce small-framed animals, often struggle to understand the objectives of the current beef classification system. The suggested changes align with the economic transformation programs of most African countries, which aim to develop more inclusive economies. In line with the inclusive approach, some countries have alleviated market-related constraints by leveraging the almost organic smallholder production systems and unlocking export markets in countries such as Norway and Sweden. Concerted government support in the SADC can help countries capitalise on these markets. Within the economic transformation programmes of many countries, gender balance is one aspect that is emphasised. Gender inclusive beef value chains need to be developed in the SADC.

The additional constraints identified by the qualitative methods were mostly production related. Animal theft, inadequate drought management, insufficient water conservation, and the poor state of animals in the smallholder sector all reduce the impact of animal breeding programmes. Lack of transparency in breeding programmes is also an aspect that needs to be addressed to improve the performance of the beef value chain, in particular, and the red meat and live animals value chain in general. The region could also benefit from a coordinated approach to improving the performance of the beef value chain through a shared development vision.

Some limitations of the study are worth noting. First, the constraints were not prioritised. Priorities could not be developed based on the systematic review, and, given the possibility that the priority rankings of constraints could differ among SADC countries, prioritisation was not attempted during the qualitative approaches. It is recommended that, before addressing the constraints, each country should rank them in order of priority. Prioritisation should be based on the extent of the effect of each constraint within the SADC countries. Therefore, it is recommended that studies be conducted to establish the frequency of occurrence and the associated economic impact of each constraint in each SADC country.

 

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge AU-IBAR for funding the research for this article.

 

7. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

 

REFERENCES

ANDRIAMPARANY, J.N., HERITIANA, J.T., HÃNKE, H., KUNZ, S. & SCHLECHT, E., 2023. Market supply of livestock and animal products in north-eastern Madagascar -the role of the vanilla boom. Sci. Afr., 19: e01526.         [ Links ]

AU-IBAR., 2015. The Livestock Development Strategy for Africa (LiDeSA) 2015 - 2035. Available from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/au196356ENG.pdf.         [ Links ]

BEEFMASTER GROUP., 2021. South African Beef Carving Out a (Yummy) Global Niche. Red Meat / Rooivleis, 12(4).         [ Links ]

BENNETT, B., CHAKOMA, C., FIGUÉ, M., VIGNE, M. & KATIC, P., 2019. Beef value chain analysis in Zimbabwe. Report for the European Union, DG-DEVCO. Value Chain Analysis for Development Project (VCA4D CTR 2016/375-804).         [ Links ]

CHAMBOKO, T. & ERASMUS, J., 2014. Analysis of cost of compliance with regulations in the livestock sector. Zimbabwe: Livestock & Meat Advisory Council.         [ Links ]

CHINGALA, G., RAFFRENATO, E., DZAMA, K., HOFFMAN, L.C. & MAPIYE, C., 2017. Towards a regional beef carcass classification system for Southern Africa. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci., 47(4): 408-423.         [ Links ]

COETZEE, B., 2025. Soil to soul. Lowerland Prieska. Available from https://lowerland.co.za/.         [ Links ]

COLLINS, K.M.T., ONWUEGBUZIE, A.J. & JIA, Q.G., 2007. A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. J. Mix. Methods Res., 1(3): 267-294.         [ Links ]

COSTALES, A., DELGADO, C.L., CATELO, M.A., LAPAR, M., TIONGCO, M., EHUI, S. & BAUTISTA, A.Z., 2006. Scale and access issues affecting smallholder hog producers in an expanding peri-urban market: Southern Luzon, Philippines. IFPRI Research Report No. 151. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.         [ Links ]

CRESWELL, J.W., 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach. Los Angeles, CA: Sage        [ Links ]

COOK, R., 2024. Ranking of countries that produce the most beef (FAO). Available from https://www.nationalbeefwire.com/ranking-of-countries-that-produce-the-most-beef-fao.         [ Links ]

DE MELO, J. & SOLLEDER, J., 2025. How can the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfcFTA) help develop regional value chains across Africa? An exploration. Rev. World Econ, 161: 121-149.         [ Links ]

DUBE, S., CHAKOMA, I. & BAHTA, S., 2017. Analysis of the goat value chain in Beitbridge district of Zimbabwe. ILRI project report. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).         [ Links ]

DEVAUX, A., TORERO, M., DONOVAN, J. & HORTON, D., 2018. Agricultural innovation and inclusive value-chain development: a review. J. Agribus. Emerg. Econ., 8(1): 99-123.         [ Links ]

FABRE, P., DABAT, M. & ORLANDONI, O., 2021. Methodological brief for agri-based value chain analysis. VCA4D. Agrinatura EEIG, Rue Scheffer 42, Paris, France. Available from https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/value-chain-analysis-for-development-vca4d-/wiki/1-vca4d-methodology.         [ Links ]

FARMER ANGUS., 2025. Available from https://www.farmerangus.co.za/.         [ Links ]

GABRE-MADHIN, E.Z., 2009. A market for all farmers: Market institutions and smallholder participation. CEGA Working Paper Series No. AfD-0903. Berkeley, CA: University of California Center of Evaluation for Global Action.         [ Links ]

GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA., 2019. A profile of the South African beef market value chain. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Pretoria: Government printers. Available from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://webapps1.daff.gov.za/AmisAdmin/upload/Beef%20Market%20Value%20Chain%20Profile%202021.pdf.         [ Links ]

KAMUGISHA, P.P., MDOE, N.S.Y. & MTENGA, L.A., 2019. Commercializing beef sub-sector in Arusha and Dar-es-Salaam Cities, Tanzania: Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for quality beef. J. Ethol. Anim. Sci., 2(1): 1-15.         [ Links ]

KASHOMA, I.P., KASSEM, JOHN, J., KESS, B.M., GERBREYES, W., KAZWALA, R.R. & RAJASHEKARA, G., 2016. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter isolated from dressed beef carcass and raw milk in Tanzania. Microb. Drug Resist., 22(1): 40 -52.         [ Links ]

KEY, N., SADOULET, E. & DE JANVRY, A., 2000. Transactions costs and agricultural household supply response. Am. J. Agr. Econ., 82(2): 245-259.         [ Links ]

KUNENE-NGUBANE, P., CHIMONYO, M. & KOLANISI, U., 2018. Possibility of organic beef production on south african communal farms. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext., 46(1): 1-13.         [ Links ]

LABUSCHAGNE, A., LOUW, A. & NDANGA, I., 2010. A consumer-orientated study of the south african beef value chain. Paper presented at the Joint 3rd African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE) and 48th Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference, Cape Town, South Africa.         [ Links ]

LOUW, D., LOUW, A. & FLANDORP, C., 2018. A study on the potential product development for the commercialization and value add to beef products. OABS Development (Pty) Ltd. Technical Report. Available from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334573632_A_Study_on_the_potential_product_development_for_the_commercialization_and_value_add_to_beef_products.         [ Links ]

LUBUNGU, M., SITKO, N.J. & HICHAAMBWA, M., 2015. Analysis of beef value chain in Zambia: Challenges and opportunities of linking smallholders to markets. Ndaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI). Available from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midcwp/229599.html.         [ Links ]

MADZINGIRA, O. & SIMASIKU, S., 2020. A survey of the usage and storage practices of veterinary medicines among communal cattle farmers in the Kabbe South Constituency, Zambezi region. Welwitschia Int. J. Agric. Sci., 2: 61-69.         [ Links ]

MAFIMISEBI, T.E., KATEWA, B.C., YEROKUN, O.A. & SYAMPAKU, E.M., 2015. Cost incurred and margins secured across the value chain for beef in the Southern Province of Zambia. Paper prepared for presentation at the 2015 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association and Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, 26-28 July, San Francisco, CA.         [ Links ]

MAGOKE, P.M. & ÖKE, M.K., 2023. Coordination between the African Union and Regional Economic Communities Towards Achieving Regional Integration in Africa. Istanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Di§ Ticaret Dergisi, Cilt 1, Sayi 1, sf: 1-14.         [ Links ]

MAHUNDI, E., KURWIJILA, L.R., KARIMURIBO, E.D., MAKITA, K., NGOWI, H.E. & GRACE, D., 2011. Food safety risk assessment in beef in Arusha municipality, Tanzania. Paper presented at the First International Congress on Pathogens at the Human-Animal Interface (ICOPHAI), 15-17 September, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.         [ Links ]

MAPIYE, O., 2017. Towards a management database to improve the sustainability of cattle production and its contribution to food security: A case of emerging beef farmers in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Masters dissertation, Stellenbosch University.         [ Links ]

MAPIYE, O., 2022. Development of a management database system for sustainable livestock production in the smallholder sector, South Africa. Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch University.         [ Links ]

MAPIYE, O.O., MAKOMBE, G., MAPIYE, C. & DZAMA, K., 2020. Management information sources and communication strategies for commercially-oriented smallholder beef cattle producers in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Outlook Agr., 49(1): 50-56.         [ Links ]

MARANDURE, T., MAPIYE, C., MAKOMBE, G., NENGOVHELA, B., STRYDOM, P., MUCHENJE, V. & DZAMA, K., 2016. Beef traders' and consumers' perceptions on the development of a natural pasture beef brand by smallholder cattle producers. S. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci., 33(3): 207-214.         [ Links ]

MARANDURE, T., DZAMA, K., BENNETT, J., MAKOMBE, G. & MAPIYE, C., 2020. Application of system dynamics modelling in evaluating sustainability of low-input ruminant farming systems in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Ecol. Model., 438: 111.         [ Links ]

NAUMAN, W.L., 2006. Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 2^nd Edn, Pearson Education.         [ Links ]

NTANGA, P.D., MDEGELA, R.H. & NONGA, H.E., 2014. Assessment of beef microbial contamination at abattoir and retail meat shops in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania. Tanzan. Vet. J., 29(2): 53-61.         [ Links ]

OGUNDEJI, A. & MARÉ, F., 2019. Analysis of price transmission in the beef value chain using a calculated retail carcass price. Agrekon., 59(2): 144-155.         [ Links ]

RAHMAN, N.S.F.A., AL-BALUSHI, S.A.M., HAMID, A.A., AL-KALBANI, K.S. & ALEMU, A.F., 2021. Logistics Sector Development Integration with Oman Logistics Vision 2040: Analyzing Using Porter's Value Chain Theory. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J., 20(6): 1-19.         [ Links ]

RAMSAY, K., HARRIS, L. & KOTZE, A., 1998. Landrace breeds: South Africa's indigenous and locally developed farm animals. Irene, South Africa: Farm Animal Conservation Trust.         [ Links ]

SADC., 2021. SADC Merchandise Trade Statistics Bulletin. Available from https://www.sadc.int/sites/default/files/2022-03/Trade_Statistics_bulletin_final_V1.pdf        [ Links ]

SCOONES, I., BISHI, A., MAPITSE, N., MOERANE, R., PENRITH, M.L., SIBANDA, R., THOMSON, G. & WOLMER, W., 2010. Access: Challenges for the beef industry in Southern Africa. Pastoralism Res. Policy Prac., 1(2). doi: 10.3362/2041-7136.2010.010        [ Links ]

SIKAMWAYA, R.M. & GUIYU, Z., 2020. An analysis of the beef production industry and marketing in Zambia. South Asian J. Soc. Stud. Econ., 8(3): 46-62.         [ Links ]

STAMPA, E., SCHIPMANN-SCHWARZE, C. & HAMM, U., 2020. Consumer perceptions, preferences, and behaviour regarding pasture-raised livestock products: A review. Food Qual. Prefer., 82: 1-15.         [ Links ]

STRYDOM, P.E., FRYLINCK, L., VAN HEERDEN, S.M., HOPE-JONES, M., HUGO, A., WEBB, E., MOHOLISA, E., LIEBENBERG, B.E. & SEHOOLE, O.C., 2015. Sources of variation in quality of South African beef: Case studies in relation to the Red Meat Classification System. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci., 45(2): 89-301.         [ Links ]

UNITED NATIONS (UN)., 2019. World Population Prospects 2019. Available from https://population.un.org/wpp/.         [ Links ]

UNIDO., 2012 Tanzania's red meat value chain: A diagnostic. Africa Agribusiness and Agroindustry Development Initiative (3ADI) Reports. Vienna, Austria: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).         [ Links ]

VAN ENGELEN, A., MALOPE, P., KEYSER, J. & NEVEN, D., 2013. Botswana agrifood value chain project beef value chain study. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the Ministry of Agriculture. Available from http://www.fao.org/3/i3158e/i3158e.pdf.         [ Links ]

VERMEULEN, H., PRETORIUS, B. & SCHÖNFELDT, H., 2020. Investigating consumer perceptions towards red meat classification. Stockfarm., 10(6).         [ Links ]

VERNOOIJ, A., DOS ANJOS, M. & VAN MIERLO, J., 2016. Livestock development in the Zambezi Valley, Mozambique: Poultry, dairy and beef production. Report CDI-16-027. Wageningen: Wageningen UR (University and Research) Centre for Development Innovation.         [ Links ]

WIDADIEA, F., BIJMANA, J. & TRIENEKENSA, J., 2021. Value chain upgrading through producer organisations: Linking smallholder vegetable farmers with modern retail markets in Indonesia, Int. J. FoodSyst. Dyn., 12(1): 68-82.         [ Links ]

WILSON, R.T., 2018. The red meat value chain in Tanzania. Anim. Husb. Dairy Vet. Sci., 2(1): 1-5.         [ Links ]

WORLD BANK., 2011. The livestock and horticulture value chains in Swaziland: Challenges and opportunities. World Bank. Available from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/4d202404-8aae-57e7-a546-cc93a0b99fa7        [ Links ]

ZULU, N.D., 2009. Genetic characterisation of Zambian native cattle breeds. Master's dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.         [ Links ]

 

 

Correspondence:
G. Makombe
Correspondence Email: makombeg@yahoo.com