“As at September 2015, a cumulative total of P1, 867,586,562 has been collected from the alcohol levy. A 2012 evaluation of the impact of our alcohol reduction campaign interventions indicated that there was a reduction in alcohol consumption from 8 litres per capita to 7 litres”, President of the Republic of Botswana, LT. GEN. SERETSE KHAMA IAN KHAMA.
In making the presentation on alcohol levy, Dr Khama was full of smiles, appeared like someone in a joyous celebration mode, like someone who had won the battle. Despite Khama’s claims that alcohol consumption in the country had declined, the reports showed something on the contrary. It was just a mere wishful thinking and a fallacy that did not even correlate with the WHOPPING scary figures presented by Dr Khama.
A World Health Organization (WHO) report, however, indicated that the rate of drinking in Botswana was already declining before the alcohol levy was introduced in 2008. The report said that Botswana’s alcohol consumption went down in a five-year period from 2000-2005. Published in 2011, the report showed that consumption was falling in other African countries like Burundi, Gabon, Lesotho, Madagascar and Swaziland. In Botswana, the report showed that the all-time high consumption of alcohol was recorded in 2002 when the country experienced a sharp rise in drinking spirits to six litres per person. However, the high rate of consumption of spirits decreased to four litres per person by 2005.
Most interestingly was the observation by the WHO report that the spirits in Botswana are consumed by only 1% of the alcohol drinking population. The report said beer drinkers constituted 57% of alcohol consumers in Botswana. The consumption of other alcoholic beverages (traditional brews) remained stable in Botswana at two litres per person throughout the five-year estimate by the WHO. About 42% of alcohol consumers in Botswana drank homemade brews. Thus, showing that traditional brews are also a hit in Botswana.
Dr Khama’s presentation on the alcohol levy left me in stitches and somewhat puzzled. Primarily because there was a shift in the policy agenda of the levy itself.
In his inauguration speech on April fool day 2008, President Ian Khama set the record straight and made his intensions clear that fighting alcohol abuse in the country was going to be one of his key priority areas. Ian Khama who is a huge anti-alcohol proponent unilaterally made the decision to introduce the alcohol levy, immediately after assuming the presidency. He wanted to reduce alcohol consumption, to reduce crime, road accidents and the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The introduction of the levy was intended to complement other government efforts to reduce alcohol consumption, including education programs at schools and promoting alcohol-free youth activities through sports and entertainment.
The above measures were consistent with recognition by government and other stakeholders that alcohol and other forms of substance abuse contributed to a wide range of anti-social, risky and criminal behaviours in society including child abuse, violence against women and homicides, as well as death on our roads,” the presidency said. Khama had even gone to the extent of threatening that if the levy doesn’t reduce alcohol abuse within three months, an additional 30 percent would be imposed. However, Khama misunderstood the script, was just overly excited as exemplified by the BIDPA review report on the policy.
Khama proposed laws to raise minimum drinking age, limit in trading hours and introduced tax levy on alcohol. According to WHO report, 2014, due to lack of entertainment facilities (ones which exclude alcohol consumption) in Botswana, alcohol abuse particularly amongst the youth has always been rampant and during then there was a greater shift to the consumption of Madaena, Matekwane (Marijuana), crack cocaine and other serious hard-core drugs.
It must be noted that despite the implementation of the levy on all alcoholic beverages on November 1, 2008, Kgalagadi Breweries Ltd. and Botswana Breweries Ltd., both units of London-based SAB Miller Plc had opposed the planned increase, which was first announced in July 2008. In Sept. 29, 2008, Botswana’s High Court blocked the imposition of the tax pending the appointment of a panel of judges to hear the brewers’ opposition to the plan. Khama’s tough stand against alcohol abuse was also met with much scepticism with some legislators referring to it as government’s war on fun. In a strange twist of events the Presidency later made a pronouncement stating that “government had received a formal notice of withdrawal of application from the applicant’s attorney meaning that implementation of the levy shall now proceed. It was” VERY STRANGE indeed.
It is also worth noting that over the last decades, batches of homemade hooch have caused misery amongst the urban & rural poor in Botswana causing high rates of violent crimes, rape, knifing and many more social ills at shebeens. The illegal booze is the most conspicuous and the dangers of Botswana’s makeshift beverages should not be underestimated.
Alcohol consumption and its consequence effects have been on the rise in Africa. As a result of that the governments have been struggling to find suitable legislation amidst profit-hungry global corporations and illegal produced liquor. Complicating the issue further is the prevalence of illegally produced local alcohol. These drinks are usually extremely potent, often dangerous and occasionally lethal.
The public health impact of illicit alcohol and informally produced alcohol should be reduced, and this should be backed by evidence base policy and intervention options regarding unrecorded alcohol consumption. The most simplistic option to reduce unrecorded consumption would be to lower recorded alcohol prices to remove the economic incentive of buying unrecorded alcohol. Other policy options will be to narrowing cross-border shopping and this can be addressed by reducing or by narrowing the tax differences, or stricter control.
Even though there are suggestions and theories on how to reduce unrecorded alcohol consumption, there is currently no clear evidence base on the effectiveness or cost effectiveness of available policy options.
The above piece was written by yours truly on the 16th of November 2015. Fast forward to 2021, KBL filed an urgent application before court against indefinite ban on sale of alcohol stating that the ban is having a devastating effect in the alcohol industry and its value chain and that the ban leads to consumption of unregulated and unsafe products. KBL argued that the ban is not based on clear objectives evidence demonstrating a causal connection between the wholesale ban on alcohol and the reduction of positive Covid-19 cases.
The fundamental key question to ask is, Is the alcohol industry in Botswana considered as a relevant stakeholder or not? Does the Industry serve as member of the ministerial committee on alcohol at the Ministry of Health and Wellness or not? If it is not, why is that the case? Does the industry see itself not as relevant stakeholder and actor that can actively be engaged to participate meaningfully in the policy response on the harmful use of alcohol in the country? Is the industry just focusing on profit making and or not? Do they participate as a relevant stakeholder in reviewing the Liquor Act? Does the Ministry of Health and Wellness view the industry as a relevant stakeholder or as an enemy? Does the Ministry of Health and Wellness consult the industry before taking certain drastic decisions or not as recently witnessed with the indefinite ban on alcohol ban in the country?
It is important to note that legislation aimed at addressing the problem of excessive consumption of alcohol in the country has been proposed and enacted since independence in 1966. The National Alcohol Policy for Botswana was formulated in March 2010 and was approved in 2011 by Parliament. The policy was required to address issues of alcohol both at individual and community/societal levels. The policy was formulated with consultations with various stakeholders.
Many stakeholders are involved in implementing the various aspects of alcohol policy in Botswana. Most stakeholders are funded through the Alcohol Levy to drive interventions. The stakeholders are both government and non-government organizations. The policy has the following main priorities and areas for action, Intersectoral collaboration. Increasing community action and support, strengthening public education and awareness, reducing the health impacts of alcohol abuse, ensuring public safety and amenity, responsible marketing, and addressing Illegally and informally produced alcohol.
However, in 2008, controversy erupted over the proposal by the President Khama to impose 70% levy on alcohol products, later reduced to 30%. The industry responded by threatening to go to court and focused their response on what they claim to be serious economic losses due to reduced consumption of their products. It was advised that the controversy in Botswana regarding the alcohol policy called the attention to the role of the industry in influencing the debate on alcohol and the need to keep in mind overall public health interest in efforts to develop and implement a national alcohol policy.
The question the arise, “WHY” are we here? Why the litigation by the Industry on the alcohol ban if at all it is considered as a stakeholder as prescribed in various legal instruments, Liquor Act and the National Alcohol Policy in Botswana?
Thabo Lucas Seleke is a researcher and scholar, Global Health Policy Analysis ( LSHTM)
