Latest news with #CompetitionCommission
Mail & Guardian
24-07-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Agri-tech may be South Africa's new frontier
Agri-tech entrepreneurs are the Uber of agriculture, offering small and emerging farmers access to markets. South Africa's agriculture sector plays a critical role in the country's food security and economy. It contributes about 2.5% to the country's GDP, and it provides employment to roughly 5% of the country's population, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The sector provides the country with a diverse range of food products, including grains, fruits, vegetables, and animal products such as dairy, eggs and meat. Furthermore, agriculture also plays a significant role in supporting other industries such as food processing, packaging and distribution. But, like much of the rest of South Africa's industries, agriculture and in particular the fresh produce industry, is characterised by a high level of concentration. In terms of income and production a small percentage of farms account for a large portion of total income. Just 6.5% of all farms in South Africa account for about 67% of total income in 2017-18. The Competition Commission has since released information showing a sustained decrease in the number of farming units in all provinces, with KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and Limpopo experiencing the largest declines. These trends are consistent with other high and worsening levels of concentration, which have been identified even in key food sources such as potato seeds. The pricing of fresh produce in South Africa has also been rising above inflation for a sustained period, having a disproportionate effect on low-income earners who must spend a greater portion of their income to purchase essential products. One of the main challenges facing small and emerging farmers in South Africa is limited access to markets, with many farmers unable to sell their products at sustainable prices to recurring clients. Nationally, fresh produce markets account for roughly 22% of all fresh produce trading in South Africa and have been identified as a key level of the fresh produce value chain but they are not always easy to get to, nor do they all offer the same value. Enter agri-tech start-ups such as AgriKool and Khula. These young black-owned start-ups are solving an overlooked problem for farmers, and it sounds something like this: You grow and nurture the food, and I will sell it. They are the Uber of agriculture, and they are offering small-scale farmers an avenue to market. These start-ups are operating in what is known as the shared economy. One of the major costs in agriculture is transport. The transportation of fresh produce is charged based on distance, refrigeration needs and weight. These factors are typically combined to provide a quote, with additional fees for special handling. Careful consideration of these factors is essential to maintain profitability while ensuring fresh, high-quality products are delivered to consumers. The sharing economy is based on the principle of sharing assets instead of owning them. It allows individuals, in this case farmers, to benefit from the assets of others, in this case, it is the refrigeration, transportation, storage and basic technological infrastructure of these new-age agents. Farmers do not have to worry about the client; these new-age agents source the client, who (depending on the agreement and price) shares the transportation fees with the farmer. These start-ups are the new wave of agricultural agents, creating and facilitating online marketplaces for retail and wholesale buyers to purchase directly from producers. The benefits are clear on both sides of the trade; price discovery on a nation-wide scale for the purchaser and reduced transportation costs for the farmer. The sharing economy is based on three core principles: access, sharing and collaboration. It is still early days, but the agricultural sharing economy offers a new way of thinking about ownership, consumption and scaling small-scale farmers. By sharing assets, users of these platforms can create a more sustainable and efficient system that comes with lower cost of transacting, benefiting the environment and the economy. The sharing economy is already affecting areas such as transport and hospitality, and it is likely to continue to grow in the coming years. Zanele Mabasois the head of policy development at .
Express Tribune
21-07-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
Sugar, power and patronage
In the digital age, there's no excuse for opacity as a transparent digital dashboard that tracks sugar from mills to wholesalers to retailers would make it harder for hoarders and profiteers to operate undetected. Photo: file Listen to article Pakistan's recurring sugar crises have become a telling reflection of how entrenched elite interests continue to manipulate the economy under the guise of policy. The latest surge in sugar prices, now hitting between Rs180 and Rs210 per kilogramme despite official claims of intervention, shows just how far removed state actions are from public welfare. What is unfolding isn't simply mismanagement. It's a system that protects the powerful and punishes the public. In July 2024, the federal government announced with much fanfare that it had reached an agreement with sugar mills to sell sugar to wholesalers at Rs165 per kg. This was framed as a breakthrough deal. But within days, the mills began violating the agreed price, resuming supply at Rs175, not Rs165. Even at inflated rates, sugar remains scarce in wholesale markets. The public, meanwhile, continues to pay well over Rs200 per kg in major cities like Karachi and Lahore. This was not just a policy failure. It was the illusion of reform – an orchestrated move to deflect public outrage without touching the roots of the problem. And at the root lies one uncomfortable fact: the sugar sector is not regulated by the government. It is effectively governed by itself. The concentration of political and economic power is stark. The Sharif family, which sits at the core of the current ruling coalition, owns major sugar mills. That the same actors who draft economic policies also control production and pricing of sugar reveals a conflict of interests so blatant that it no longer shocks. This overlap turns policy into patronage, and governance into a tool for private gain. Earlier this year, the government allowed sugar exports even as domestic stocks were under pressure. Predictably, local prices soared. Then came the tax-free import of 500,000 metric tons of sugar; a move that drew criticism from the International Monetary Fund, which questioned both its timing and its lack of transparency. No one has explained who received import licences, under what conditions, or how the decision was justified while government revenues continue to bleed. What the country witnessed was a two-way windfall: profits made on the export side and further gains through duty-free imports. Also there is an issue of price collapse when the shipments arrive in November; around the time sugar mills will be buying from growers, giving them leverage to manipulate buying prices. Throughout all this, regulators have remained silent. The Competition Commission has issued no inquiry into possible cartelisation. The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has not released any audits on sugar mill compliance or tax contribution. No action has been taken against mills for openly breaching their agreement with the government. When institutions with legal mandates refuse to act, the market ceases to be a marketplace. It becomes a racket. This isn't new. But it's become more brazen. The previous PTI-led government also faced sugar price hike in 2020. However, its response was markedly different. Then prime minister Imran Khan ordered a wide-ranging inquiry, involving the FIA, SECP, FBR, and other agencies. The investigation looked into hoarding, tax fraud, price manipulation, and the misuse of subsidies. Importantly, it didn't shy away from naming allies or investigating politically connected individuals within PTI itself like Jahangir Tareen. The inquiry report was published in full. While it triggered backlash, it also marked a rare moment where the state asserted its regulatory role over an entrenched industrial elite. The investigation was abandoned and charges dropped when the PTI government was removed. What we are seeing now is the opposite. Instead of confronting the sugar mafia, the current government has aligned itself with it. Instead of enforcing transparency, it has shielded its members from scrutiny. At every step, decisions have served the interests of the few at the expense of many. This has real human costs. Sugar is not just a luxury good. It is a daily essential for households and a critical input for small businesses. Rising sugar prices drive up food inflation, burden already stretched family budgets, and hurt bakeries, tea stalls, and street vendors across the country. When a government facilitates price spiral through weak enforcement and preferential trade decisions, it doesn't just fail the economy. It abandons its moral claim to serve the people. To fix this, Pakistan must first acknowledge that the sugar crisis is not a temporary market blip. It is a symptom of a deeper structural disease: the collusion between political elites and monopolistic interests. The solution begins with cutting these links. Public officeholders, and their immediate families, must be barred from owning or profiting from industries they are in a position to regulate. This principle is basic in any functioning democracy. Without it, policy becomes an instrument of personal enrichment, not public service. Next, regulatory institutions must be depoliticised and empowered. Agencies like the CCP, FBR, and SECP should have independent boards, professional leadership, and the authority to publish findings without seeking ministerial approval. If sugar mills are in violation of tax laws or pricing agreements, the public has a right to know. Trade policy must also be demystified. Export and import decisions, especially for essentials like sugar, should not be made behind closed doors. They must be based on evidence, presented in parliament, and subjected to public scrutiny. Import licences should be granted through open bidding, and their recipients disclosed proactively. In the digital age, there's no excuse for opacity. A transparent digital dashboard that tracks sugar from mills to wholesalers to retailers would make it harder for hoarders and profiteers to operate undetected. It would also empower consumers and watchdog groups with real-time data. Finally, subsidies and tax exemptions must be subjected to rigorous review. No tax waiver or import concession should be granted without a clear, documented public interest rationale. Otherwise, they will continue to be used as vehicles for elite enrichment. The sugar industry has become a symbol of how deeply elite capture runs in Pakistan. But it can also become a turning point. If the state can confront the sugar mafia – not with hollow deals but with real accountability – it can begin to rebuild public trust and economic fairness. If it cannot, the crisis will return. Prices may dip briefly, but the profiteering will continue. This is not just about sugar. It is about who the system is designed to serve and who it leaves behind. The writer is a graduate of the University of British Columbia
Daily Maverick
10-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Vodacom gets go-ahead to close Maziv deal and dominate the fibre game
Government ministers are praising the megamerger to fibre up South Africa's digital future – but at what cost? After years of regulatory wrangling Vodacom has finally secured the right to buy a 30% co-controlling stake in Maziv – the parent company of Vumatel and Dark Fibre Africa (DFA) – with an option to boost that stake to 40%. The deal, first tabled in November 2021 at about R13.2-billion, will see Vodacom throw its own fibre assets (valued at R4.2-billion) into the pot. On paper, it's a marriage of scale and ambition; in practice, it may be a test of South Africa's ability to balance digital expansion with healthy competition. The transaction has faced fierce regulatory resistance, with the Competition Commission initially recommending against it in August 2023. The Competition Tribunal went further, officially prohibiting the deal in October 2024, citing substantial competition and public interest concerns. The tribunal's detailed reasoning, released earlier this year, stated that the deal's 'anti-competitive effects will be permanent' and would 'impact millions of South African consumers' – concerns that were not outweighed by temporary public interest benefits. An about-turn At this point the deal seemed dead, until Vodacom, Maziv and Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition Parks Tau lodged an appeal with the Competition Appeal Court, with hearing dates reserved for 22 to 24 July 2025. In a dramatic turnaround on Tuesday, 8 July 2025, the Competition Commission announced an agreement with Vodacom and Maziv on revised conditions that address previous concerns. 'The Commission is confident that the revised conditions agreed with the merger parties will ensure that South Africa will benefit from the continued competitive prices and product choices in this critical sector,' said the suddenly more agreeable commissioner Doris Tshepe. For the government the stakes are enormous. Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies Solly Malatsi hailed the agreement as a leap forward for digital inclusion. 'The solution reached substantially addresses the concerns raised by the Commission. It will also contribute to digital transformation and deliver clear benefits to the South African public,' he told Daily Maverick, praising commitments to lower broadband prices and improve connectivity. Tau was also understandably upbeat. 'The substantial public interest commitments made by the merging parties will significantly improve access to affordable internet for underserved communities, thus enabling easier participation in economic activity, particularly for young people.' The minister further suggested the deal would help South Africa join the global digital economy in areas such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things – ambitions that have so far remained largely aspirational. Changing the fibre game For Vodacom this move is about more than fibre – it's about futureproofing. CEO Shameel Joosub described the decision as 'thrilling', aligning with Vodacom's mission to bridge the digital divide. 'Should the transaction be approved by the Competition Appeal Court, I'm confident that it will enable us to accelerate network expansion, help address the cost to communicate and contribute meaningfully to job creation,' Joosub said. Vodacom's traditionally weak position in the fixed-line broadband space made this deal a strategic imperative. By partnering with Maziv, it inherits a massive fibre footprint almost overnight. For real though, Maziv is no small fry. The wholly owned subsidiary of Community Investment Ventures Holdings (CIVH) is home to major assets like Vumatel and DFA, and has a stake in Herotel. CIVH itself is majority-owned (57%) by Remgro, alongside other black-owned investment vehicles like New GX Capital and Community Investment Holdings (CIH), which bring much-needed BEE weight to Maziv's corner during regulatory scrutiny. Vodacom's initial 30% stake (potentially rising to 40%) effectively gives it co-control over South Africa's largest fibre networks, adding significant influence in both residential and enterprise segments. The merger transforms Vodacom-Maziv into a dominant fibre juggernaut, fundamentally reshaping who owns South Africa's digital highways. After the deal, Vodacom-Maziv (through Vumatel and DFA) will hold: 34.5% of all homes passed (2.2 million); and 34.4% of all homes connected (885,000). For a sense of scale, Telkom's Openserve trails with 20.9% of homes passed (1.3 million) and 22.9% of homes connected (667,465). Herotel sits at about 9%, MetroFibre at about 8% and Frogfoot at 6%. The jewel in the crown For some who have watched this deal closely, this was always about one metric: in the business segment, DFA (under Maziv) already commands a strong position, with a 23% share in fibre-to-the-business and a commanding 35% in fibre-to-the-tower – critical infrastructure for mobile and enterprise connectivity. This consolidation effectively turns the market into a two-horse race: Vodacom-Maziv and Openserve. Smaller fibre network operators will have to scramble for scraps or find niche plays in underserved towns and business corridors. To win approval, Vodacom and Maziv pledged a host of public interest commitments to get the ministers in their corner: Capital expenditure to expand into underserved areas; Free gigabit fibre lines to public libraries and clinics; Free FWA services to more police stations; An increase in the employee share ownership scheme; and Broader enterprise development support. But what's in it for Maziv? Why would a true player in the fibre game trade away its hefty advantage? Simple: the deal provides critical capital injection to fund the next phase of fibre expansion, particularly into lower-income and underserved areas. It also helps address CIVH's substantial debt load, which had reached R19.5-billion by mid-2024. Sectoral transformation The industry lobby, Association of Communications and Technology (ACT), had expressed concerns about the initial prohibition. CEO Nomvuyiso Batyi said it was 'a missed opportunity for South Africa's digital transformation and economic growth', adding that the prohibition felt 'like a step backwards, hindering our collective ability to build a future-proof digital landscape'. The current agreement directly addresses many of ACT's concerns about the need for investment and transformation in the sector. The commission will now approach the 22-24 July Competition Appeal Court hearings on an unopposed basis, with this agreement representing a significant compromise that balances competitive concerns with the imperative for investment and expansion in South Africa's critical digital infrastructure. What this consolidation promises is immense economies of scale that establish significant barriers to entry for new players, and is likely to fuel further consolidation among smaller fibre network operators. The market is now solidified into a duopolistic structure at the core of South Africa's wholesale fibre market, alongside Openserve. DM
Daily Maverick
10-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
SA leads charge against Google AIO via pioneering, world-first antitrust action
The past decade and a half have not been kind to the news industry. The near-total capture of advertising revenue by Big Tech has devastated newsrooms around the world, forcing some papers to close and others to cut reporting teams to the bone. As always, there are tough, daring and determined reporters doing their best to expose the stories powerful people don't want us to know about. But they do so in an ever-more-difficult and financially precarious environment. However, a threat has now emerged that threatens the survival of the news as it has existed for hundreds of years. And while the general source of that threat may not be novel (spoiler: it's American Big Tech again), the specific tool is new and insidious: Google's AI Overviews (AIO). When you ask Google a question now, the familiar list of blue links is often shoved out of sight and replaced with an autogenerated summary – the AIO. Stealing In news-related searches, AIO are based on reporting scraped from news pages written by human journalists. To be crystal clear: Google is effectively stealing the reporting done by professional reporters without paying them for it, nor the news publishers they work for. Crucially, AIO also shoves the links to the source articles from publishers down 'below the fold' on the search results page, meaning that, in many cases, they simply won't be clicked through to at all. If users don't click through to the news websites that were scraped to create the AIO, that means Google hasn't just nicked the stories; it has also stolen the advertising revenue that helped pay for the reporters who wrote them. Lose-lose situation That leaves news publishers with a lose-lose situation: either allow their work to be taken for no fee and probably eventually go out of business, or opt out of AIO. But opting out of AIO also means opting out of Google's search indexing. And given Google's 90% share of the global search market, that is broadly equivalent to removing themselves from the internet entirely – and probably eventually going out of business. It's a desperate situation. But the fightback is under way – and South Africa is leading the charge, via a pioneering, world-first antitrust action. South Africa's Competition Commission has issued the most impressive response to this problem of any competition regulator in the world so far. In its provisional report setting out its response, the Competition Commission would order Google to allow news publishers to opt out of having their work stolen, but crucially also allow them to remain on Search, so they don't disappear from the web. Condescension The action by Competition Commission is strong, serious and world-leading – while Google's response smacks of neo-colonial condescension. It says the Competition Commission's plan would 'break' AIO, which has been 'helping people in South Africa more easily learn about complex topics'. We would suggest that if Google is so interested in helping South Africans understand 'complex topics', then perhaps it should stop stealing the work of South African journalists already doing exactly that. Instead, the tech giant has chosen to enter into a cynical embrace of Donald Trump in a naked attempt to gain presidential protection from exactly this kind of action by lawmakers outside the US. That's why it has to be defended. My organisation, Foxglove, is calling on governments, lawmakers, journalists and anybody who cares about the value of good information around the world to speak up for the Competition Commission and to defend it against the attacks it will soon face from some of the world's most powerful people. International fightback Establishing partnerships with other regulators around the world that are taking on this fight, including Australia, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada, is a crucial next step. International partnerships enable joint regulatory investigations into how AIO is hitting news organisations across the globe; prevents any one regulator from being scapegoated by Google; and, through collective action, gives regulators the bargaining power to force Google to accept meaningful changes to its operations. One final point: while Google AIO has the potential to put all non-government press out of business, it is unlikely to wipe them out at the same speed. The biggest publishers may try to cut deals to avoid the worst impacts in the medium term. But small, new, independent and specialist newspapers – often the ones who tell the most important and under-reported stories – won't have the power to make those kinds of deals, even if they wanted to. So they will die first. If we want a world where access to information is not dependent on the benevolence of our rulers, nor the agendas of the owners of the most powerful media companies – or Google's auto-generated slop – then we're going to have to fight for it.
TimesLIVE
09-07-2025
- Business
- TimesLIVE
Armchair critics are ignorant about processes of competition authorities
While some of the criticisms levied at the Competition Commission and the department of trade, industry and competition (DTIC) for how they deal with public interest considerations in terms of the Competition Act are justified, it is not reasonable or fair to suggest every lengthy tribunal merger process is the fault of the competition authorities. While in an ideal world merger processes would be fast-tracked in the interests of commercial certainty and efficiency, one has to bear in mind the competition authorities are there for a reason. They are there to protect the interests of customers and consumers. If the competition authorities don't carefully scrutinise problematic transactions, there is no reason for them to be there. Perhaps the solution in part is that mergers that don't present any issues should be approved as quickly as possible, and the Competition Commission and the DTIC should not try to use the public interest provisions of the Competition Act to achieve some form of economic realignment. One must also distinguish delays occasioned by the tribunal being understaffed from timing issues associated with a proper and careful assessment of transactions. The tribunal is understaffed, and there needs to be a concerted effort between the DTIC, the tribunal and the competition law community to seek to address the issue as soon as possible. Hopefully, if the situation can be remedied, this could fundamentally improve timing difficulties that arise from there not being sufficient tribunal members. However, the shortage of tribunal members does not detract from the responsibility and statutory obligation of the tribunal to carry out its mandate in relation to complex transactions. Ultimately it must be remembered there will always be a certain category of mergers that will require very careful scrutiny, and the competition authorities must be allowed to do their job in the interests of discharging their mandate to the public. Potentially the more insidious outcome from all the armchair criticism is that the competition authorities feel under pressure to wave transactions through that require more careful consideration. An appropriate balance needs to be struck between not compromising commercial efficiency and economic growth that comes from transaction-based commercial activity, while at the same time ensuring the competition authorities deliver on their statutory mandate and safeguard the interests of consumers and the public as a whole.
