Economic prosperity directly links to the trade abilities of countries, which, in the case of developing economies such as the SADC member countries, are critical in reducing poverty and creating sustainable economic conditions (Behar & Edwards 2011; Takele & Buvik 2019). The extension of trade opportunities for developing economies is critical in obtaining a competitive market position and stimulating the development of tradeable industries to further economic growth (Visagie & Turok 2021). An increase in regional trade and economic development can only be successful when all stakeholders involved benefit (Visagie & Turok 2021), and the focus is on developing economic activities through trade expansion (Ngepah & Udeagha 2019). The improvement of trade across the SADC is enabled by trade agreements, such as the Protocol on Trade (SADC 1996), which advocates for the reduction of trade barriers across the SADC member states to advance the regional economy. These trade agreements have showcased their relevance and importance in increasing intra-regional trade (Ngepah & Udeagha 2019) and economic growth (Oloyede, Osabuohien & Ejemeyovwi 2021). Therefore, the development, implementation and maintenance of a regional supply chain network across the SADC are critical to regional integration, economic development and regional trade objectives (Konstantinus & Zuidgeest 2019).

Supply chains facilitate the movement and handling of goods and services in raw or final form to the end consumer (Richardson, Quinet & Kitajima 2021). Supply chain activities such as manufacturing, operations, warehousing, packaging and distribution, amongst others, establish trade, as the supply chain is all about competitive prices, delivering at the right time and ensuring quality goods and services are provided to the final consumer. Takele and Buvik (2019) observed that time is a critical factor for the trade industry. Supply chains are extremely sensitive to disruptions, whether man-made (like terror attacks) or natural (like the COVID-19 pandemic). Pandemic lockdown restrictions, including border closures and strict regulations and isolation enforced on anyone entering a country, forced supply chains across the SADC to reduce operational capacity. This resulted in organisations facing operational and human resource challenges in retaining optimal production outputs (Richardson et al. 2021; Sakanga, Mwanaumo & Twhala 2020).

A prominent example of a demand shock because of the effects of the pandemic is food supply chains, which have had to rapidly adjust as a result consumers ‘panic buying’ (Hobbs 2020:2). Modern supply chains constitute ‘bidirectional interdependencies between organisations’ (Garnett, Doherty & Heron 2020:315), forming a network of nodes where the flow of inputs and outputs, when optimised, is almost frictionless. Supply chain complexity is an inherent vulnerability; the failure of one node or link could disrupt the entire supply chain network. This supply chain complexity is underlined by measures implemented to reduce trade and production costs, including just-in-time inventory management, lean manufacturing approaches and the relocation of production operations abroad.

Lockdown restrictions have had a direct impact on supply chains across the SADC, with various border posts responsible for facilitating trade temporarily closed and organisations decreasing the number of staff to comply with social distancing requirements. The pandemic exposed the limitations in regional supply chains, showing that it lacked agility, flexibility, adaptability and efficiency in times of disruption. Supply chains must be stable to facilitate trade at optimal levels in spite of potential disruptions (Mataba & Ismail 2021). Regional supply chain stability depends on the extent to which regional economies introduce policies that favour foreign and local investments, enhance infrastructure development and maintain regional corridors through which supply chains operate. A standard operating supply chain procedure could make a supply chain more resilient, especially during disruptions (Neboh & Mbhele 2021).

The SADC has made substantial headway in advancing regional cooperation and integration since its formation in 1980. The trading bloc has a population of approximately 350 million people in the 16 member states and has evolved from a coordinating conference to an active regional development community. As such, it forms a key building block of the African Union (AU), especially since the promulgation of the Africa Free Trade Agreement in 2021 (World Bank 2020). On the policy level, the SADCs development agenda is not only formally guided by the UNs Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) but also influenced by numerous international guides, such as the AUs Agenda 2063 and the Belt and Road Initiative from the Chinese Government (Chen & Li 2021).

Regional policies usually apply and relate to socio-economic development, advanced by different government structures and entities. The objective is to support the convergence of employment and income through investment, leading to the formulation and implementation of regional policy (Dewar, Todes & Watson 1986; Friedmann 1966; Garretsena et al. 2013). Instruments available to relevant governments to realise these goals include spatial targeting and sectoral focus, by means of direct investments or incentives for conforming developments (Drewes 2010). Although numerous post-modern policy approaches have since been developed, initiatives are usually focused on specific locations (or corridors), as well as specific economic sectors or subsectors (e.g. manufacturing and agro-processing). This conforms to the established principle, especially relevant in developing economies, where all the regions’ economic sectors (big-push theory) cannot be incentivised at the same time (Rosenstein-Rodan 1963).

The SADC follows the normative spatial planning guidelines (Laubscher et al. 2016; Puren & Drewes 2021) of the United Nations’ SDGs but then narrows it down to localised integrated development strategies (SADC 2020). The normative development principles of the SADC Treaty are expanded through the newly promulgated Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP). The latter promotes additional development principles, including regional development and integration. Although not explicitly branded as regional policy, the RISDP’s (2020–2030) aims to classify it to include this, that is, to achieve:

Of specific focus in this article is the Industrial Development and Market Integration component, which directs its efforts to realising an industrialised regional economy. Thus, industrial developments that focus on the priority sectors of agro-processing, mineral beneficiation and pharmaceuticals will be prioritised, alongside enhancing regional technological capability and capacity through science, technology and innovation (SADC 2020). Related to this, the policy framework focuses on the transformation of the agricultural sector to promote sustainable management of the environment and natural resources whilst ensuring productivity and improved market access for agro-products. The RISDPs focus on the free movement of goods, services and skills attenuates the spatial targeting principle of linking appropriate development nodes via strengthened development corridors. The SADC reinterpreted the aforementioned principles of regional policy to provide a more integrated, globally acceptable approach towards spatial targeting (corridor development).

Regional supply chains must engage at an inter-organisational and governmental level to enhance the management and movement of goods within regional economies (Gölgeci & Kuivalaninen 2020; SADC 2020). There is an increased demand for supply chains to become more resilient as global events such as natural disasters, pandemics, political instability and cyberattacks cause major disruptions. These disruptions force supply chains to improve and strengthen their practices to perform effectively and efficiently throughout such disruptions (Bui et al. 2020). The resilience of supply chains is characterised by their ability to adapt during a disruption. This enables supply chains to restrain or contain the disruption without impacting performance levels. A resilient supply chain is fostered through identifying potential disruptions and developing plans to manage said disruptions in the interest of all stakeholders (Gölgeci & Kuivalaninen 2020). It is important for the SADC to critically reflect on the gaps in the regional supply chains (Gao, Feng & Zhang 2021). This would require the development of an integrated, flexible and diverse supply chain network that is supported by interoperable and interconnected regional trade policies from the respective SADC member countries (Gao et al. 2021; SADC 2020).

In line with the research objectives, the dependent variable in the econometric analysis is the quantified impact of the pandemic on trade. To determine this variable, the following steps were followed:

The outcome is the quantified impact of the pandemic on trade. This method aligns with the delineation of a pre-shock growth path (i.e. equilibrium) and determining the resistance of a system to an external shock – an approach central to resilience analysis (Briguglio et al. 2006; Hill, Wial & Wolman 2008; Pretorius et al. 2021). The trade indicator used to determine relevant trends is merchandise trade (US$, current prices in millions) because of its specific relevance to regional trade facilitation and supply chains. Data sets available on the UNCTADstat (2022) database were utilised for this analysis. The pre-shock growth path is represented by the 5-year average growth in merchandise trade from 2014 to 2019, whilst the impact of the pandemic is measured by the deviation from this average in 2020; the year in which the trade effects of the pandemic commenced.

Whilst the quantified trade impact of the pandemic is utilised as the dependent variable in the econometric analysis, factors inherent to supply chains and their efficient functioning constitute the independent variables. Accordingly, the Logistics Performance Index (LPI) and the various sub-indicators that form part of this index constitute the proxy of supply chain efficiency – and thus they form independent variables in the econometric analysis. This is supported by Ojala and Çelebi (2015:27), who stated that the LPI ‘provides overall metrics of a country’s supply chain efficiency [and] a broad indication of related problem areas’. In addition, in utilising the LPI, Arvis et al. (2012:3) state that ‘logistics performance is strongly associated with the reliability of supply chains and the predictability of service delivery available to producers and exporters’. In determining the relationship between the supply chains (and their various components) and the trade impact of the pandemic, this analysis seeks to highlight potential vulnerability in the regional supply chains of the SADC and derive lessons from the pandemic in developing their resilience for future disturbances.

The LPI, its various sub-indicators, and the independent variables of the analysis are indicated in Table 1.

Data sets from the World Bank (2022) database were utilised, with specific reference to the aggregate LPI of 166 countries. This includes 14 of the 16 current SADC member countries, with the Seychelles and eSwatini excluded because of data limitations. The data sets provide a large sample of developed and developing countries to adequately determine the relationship between the dependent and independent variables.

The methodology inherent to the econometric analysis is discussed in the following.

This research article complied with all ethical considerations, in line with the policies, conditions and practices of the IIE Ethics Committee, which reviewed and approved the ethics application. R. 00009 (REC).

The findings of the econometric analysis indicate that the pandemic had a significant impact on trade, both in the sample countries and the SADC. In addition, the analysis indicates that supply chains and their efficiency may directly influence the extent of the pandemic trade impact. This highlights the potential of coordinated intervention in supply chains to increase their efficiency in mitigating the effects of future disturbances on trade. To delineate the nature of potential interventions, the vulnerability of the SADC supply chains should be determined, with specific reference to the different components of supply chains as incorporated in the econometric analysis.

Table 4 compares the sample countries and the SADC in this regard, quantifying the current difference (as of 2018) in supply chain efficiency (the LPI and its various sub-indicators) in the two contexts. This may inform specific supply chain vulnerabilities in the SADC and guide potential intervention. As a result of data availability considerations, the data of prior years are utilised for some countries. The provided quantities are interpreted out of a total rating of 5; the closer the rating is to 5, the better the supply chain efficiency and that of the individual components (Arvis et al. 2014:51).

As indicated in Table 4, supply chain efficiency in the SADC (2.61) is lower than in the sample countries (2.85). In addition, the SADC rates are below the sample countries in all the different components inherent to supply chain efficiency. The largest difference is in the quality of trade and transport infrastructure, which is 2.71 in sample countries and 2.38 in the SADC. This is followed by logistics competence, with a 0.29 difference between the sample countries’ rating of 2.80 and the 2.51 of the SADC. Tracking and tracing are 2.88 in sample countries and 2.63 in the SADC: a difference of 0.25. Both international shipments and lead time differ by 0.22 between the two contexts, whilst customs clearance is 0.18 lower in the SADC compared with the sample countries.

In the context of current differences in supply chain efficiency, Table 5 indicates the growth, that is, improvement, of various supply chain components of the sample countries and the SADC between 2010 and 2018. As a result of data availability considerations, the period of analysis differs for some countries.

Table 5 indicates that the SADC LPI grew with 4.38% compared with 1.39% in the sample countries. This is because of the SADC countries experiencing higher growth in the infrastructure (11.58%), and customs and clearance components (11.42%), whilst lower growth was experienced in the sample countries (5.42% and 5.03%). International shipments grew by 1.49% in the sample countries and 0.58% in the SADC (the lowest growth rate of all the supply chain components). The tracking and tracing (4.93%), as well as logistical competence (4.61%), improved to a greater degree in the SADC than the sample countries (3.99% and 1.77%). Growth trends indicate an overall improvement of supply chain efficiency in the SADC during the delineated period.

In spite of recent improvements, the findings of Table 4 may indicate the enduring vulnerability of the SADC supply chains to disturbances, in comparison to other countries and regions in the global context. An important instrument to guide interventions in support of the development of resilient supply chains in the SADC is regional development policy.

As discussed in section ‘Literature’, trade facilitation is central to regional development policy in the SADC, with the objective of overseeing increased industrial productivity and economic growth through regional integration. In addition to trade liberalisation through a reduction in tariff barriers, spatial integration through the development of a regional transport network is an important aspect of regional integration and fostering increased trade between member countries. Trade facilitating infrastructure can be categorised into physical and non-physical infrastructure (Pretorius & Drewes 2020). The former constitutes the physical link that facilitates the movement of traded goods, including road and railway networks. As per the findings of the analysis, the related quality of transport and trade infrastructure is an important aspect of efficient supply chains – one in which the SADC lags behind the sample countries and is the lowest indicator in the region. There are significant challenges relating to the physical infrastructure of the SADCs transport network (Khumalo & Chibira 2015; Mainza 2019; Tsakok 2021), including limited capacity (resulting in bottlenecks) and missing links (resulting in sections being gravel), which affect regional trade.

Current policy, including the Regional Infrastructure Development Master Plan (SADC 2012b), seeks to ‘enhance multimodal transport linkages and improve interconnectivity’. However:

Usually, these corridors need to be upgraded and developed by the host country and form part of the relevant national budgeting process and regional institutions such as the SADC Secretariat have limited funding available to remedy deficiencies. The absence of a regional development fund to finance trade and transport infrastructure development is a key limitation in this regard and constitutes a potential intervention to enhance the resilience of regional supply chains.

The development of non-physical infrastructure is an additional component of spatial integration in the SADC and is centred on the regulation of movement between member countries along the physical linkages. It comprises two components, namely interoperability and market access (Lakshmanan 2001). Interoperability reflects on the ease of travel for goods between member countries and includes relevant rates and tariffs for infrastructure usage, vehicle regulations, insurance and licencing requirements. On the other hand, market access refers to competition between operators and places downward pressure on the cost of transporting goods. Market access is characterised by so-called access regimes and cabotage, referring to the issuing of travel permits and fleet ownership regulations, as well as limitations to the transport of local goods by foreign fleet owners.

Strengthening interoperability and market access in the SADC is central to improving logistics competence by increasing competition between private sector operators. This enhances the competitiveness and quality of logistics services (Piña & Quindimil 2016; Nair 2020), whilst reducing the cost of trade in the region. In the SADC, some progress has been made in this regard, including moving towards the harmonisation of licensing requirements through the SADC driver’s license (1999) and creating standardised license manuals (2004), as well as efforts to liberalise national transport markets and reduce third-country rules through multi- and bi-lateral agreements (Ncube, Roberts & Vilakazi 2015). However, significant differences between member countries remain in infrastructure standards and usage rates, vehicle and insurance requirements and limitations in market access because of cabotage restrictions. Regional development policy should emphasise increased interoperability and market access to improve logistics competence in the SADC (currently rated 2.51), which is 0.29 lower than the sample countries.

Based on the findings of the analysis, another indicator that needs to be improved to support resilient SADC supply chains is the efficiency of completing the necessary customs and border processes related to a traded good. Recent progress has been driven by the Simplified Trade Regime (STR) Framework and the SADC Electronic Certificate of Origin (E-CoO), which seeks to ease ‘customs procedures and processes’ (SADC 2020:29) by reducing non-tariff trade barriers. The development of One-Stop Border Posts (OSBPs) is also highlighted as instruments to alleviate the challenges associated with the region’s border posts, with several pilot projects delineated. Whilst improving with 11.42% between 2010 and 2018, the region remains behind sample countries in this indicator, with a difference of 0.18. Prominent challenges that delay border and customs clearances are a lack of human resources and capacity, uncoordinated systems amongst member countries, unreliable operating and information technology systems, duplication of inspection activities because of a lack of coordination amongst border agencies, as well as physical infrastructure aspects that limit processing capacity at border posts (Ngarachu et al. 2018). Regional interventions should target the alleviation of these challenges, in line with the Infrastructure and Development in Support of Regional Integration pillar of regional development policy.

The ability to determine the past and current location of a traded good, that is, tracking and tracing, is an important component of supply chains, one in which the SADC is particularly vulnerable in comparison to the sample countries. Effective tracking and tracing mechanisms are important for logistics providers to monitor goods movement (safety measure) (Soliani 2018), reduce communication costs, improve fleet management efficiency and information availability to consumers and determine accurate arrival times (Çemberci, Civelek & Canbolat 2015). This indicator is enhanced by quality information communication technology (ICT) infrastructure, as well as transparent customs and border processes (Soliani 2018). Tracking and tracing in the SADC have been supported by improvements in the ICT and telecommunications sector, including the development of ‘cross-border transmission links’, ‘geospatial orbit satellite communications network’, improved ‘regional broadband interconnectivity’ and the ‘SADC Roaming project’ (SADC 2020:31). As per the ICT Sector Plan (SADC 2012c:74), these developments enhance ‘the opportunity to provide real time monitoring of networks of trucks, passenger and rail vehicles to help maximise efficiencies and improve security’.

An additional potential intervention to improve this indicator in the SADC is the establishment of an Electronic Cargo Tracking System (ECTS), where traded goods are monitored across the region using Geographical Positioning Systems (GPSs) and electronic seals (Ntuli 2017). This is similar to the Advance Cargo Information System (ACIS) in the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), which is an ‘integrated transport logistics tool for tracking transport equipment and cargo’ (Kingombe 2014). These systems improve competitiveness through increased efficiency in customs clearance procedures and ease of doing business (Chimilila, Sabuni & Benjamin 2014). The need for improved tracking and tracing is highlighted in the SADC Guidelines for Cooperation in Excise Taxes in the SADC Region, which states the need for capacity development of revenue administrators in tracking and tracing methods and technologies to reduce illicit cross-border trade (SADC 2016).

As indicated by the aforementioned interventions, improvements in trade and transport infrastructure, logistics competence, customs and border processes and tracking and tracing, all contribute to the ease of processing international shipments (SADC 2012c) and reduce lead time. The latter is determined by the extent to which the rest of the components support the development and enhancement of the supply chain (Chung, Talluri & Kovács 2018). Supply chain resilience in countries and regions is supported by collaboration between policy-making agents, that is, institutions and private sector stakeholders (Gölgeci & Kuivalaninen 2020; SADC 2020). The SADC institutions oversee the development and implementation of regional development policy and related interventions. Whilst experiencing challenges relating to a lack of capacity in this regard (Pretorius et al. 2021), regional institutions should be empowered to facilitate coordination between member countries to ensure unified decisions are made and implemented across the region to effectively facilitate the cross-border movement of traded goods. This is especially important during disruptive events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which has significantly impacted supply chains (Demertzis et al. 2020). The SADC institutions must utilise, expand and advance regional supply chains across the LPI variables to foster their resilience and ability to contribute to the growth and development of the regional economy (Bausinger et al. 2015). The existing regional policy (SADC 2020) has a broad spatial, economic and social focus, but lacks explicit policy relating to the problem areas identified in this research. Although an integrated and implicit policy approach is necessary and already tabled, the findings of this research identify focus areas and policy initiatives that should form the cornerstone of trade and development policy in the SADC.