By Collins Mtika
A new regional roaming agreement in Southern Africa promises steep cuts in cross-border mobile costs.
But Malawi’s experience suggests that regulatory coordination, while necessary, is not sufficient to deliver meaningful economic integration.
The price disparities remain stark. In Malawi, 1GB of mobile data costs about $0.38. In neighbouring Zambia, the same data costs roughly $8. In Zimbabwe, it exceeds $43, more than 100 times Malawi’s domestic rate.
For a region where cross-border trade is often informal and mobility is essential, these differences act as a de facto tax on participation in the digital economy.
On March 10, Botswana’s communications regulator announced that six Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries, Botswana, Malawi, Lesotho, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe, had agreed to reduce and harmonise international roaming tariffs under the One Network Area (ONA) framework.
The reductions are significant. Depending on the route, tariffs will fall by between 10 per cent and 98.6 per cent.
Receiving SMS messages is now free across participating networks, while some data roaming charges have dropped by more than 90 per cent.
The move marks one of the most substantial attempts at digital market integration in the region in recent years. It also reflects a convergence of pressures.
A bilateral agreement between Botswana and Namibia in 2024 demonstrated that harmonised roaming rates were feasible. Regional bodies have since pushed for a broader framework, drawing inspiration from the European Union’s “roam like at home” model.
The new six-country arrangement is the first meaningful step in that direction.
Malawi’s own reforms underpin the shift. Between 2020 and 2025, the country reduced mobile data prices by 99 per cent through regulatory intervention, increased competition and lower cross-border transit costs.
The ONA framework extends that logic beyond national borders. Still the broader economic context is less favourable.
Malawi’s economy expanded by just 1.9 per cent in 2025, below population growth for a fourth consecutive year. Public debt is approaching 90 per cent of GDP, and the country remains in external debt distress.
In such an environment, lower communication costs can ease constraints on trade but are unlikely to transform growth dynamics on their own.
The greater challenge lies in implementation. Seven major operators, including Orange, MTN, Vodacom, Airtel and Econet, are participating. In several cases, new bilateral agreements had to be negotiated, adding complexity to enforcement.
Two risks are evident.
First, the reductions are uneven. The headline figure of 98.6 per cent does not apply across all services or country pairs, and detailed tariff schedules have yet to be fully disclosed. This limits transparency and complicates assessment of the agreement’s real impact.
Second, operator incentives remain uncertain. Roaming has traditionally been a high-margin revenue stream.
Sustaining lower tariffs will require consistent regulatory oversight and credible enforcement mechanisms. Without them, reductions may erode over time.
For cross-border traders, the implications are immediate.
Interviews conducted in 2025 with traders operating between Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe point to businesses constrained not only by high communication costs but also by fragmented digital systems.
Many continue to rely on cash transactions, reflecting limited interoperability in mobile money services.
These constraints disproportionately affect women, who dominate informal cross-border trade and face higher risks at border crossings. In this context, access to affordable and reliable connectivity is not merely a matter of efficiency but also of safety.
The region’s experience is not unique. The East African Community introduced a similar roaming framework more than a decade ago, with mixed results. While communication costs declined, uneven implementation and regulatory divergence produced inconsistent outcomes across member states.
Southern Africa faces comparable structural constraints, including weak enforcement capacity, divergent tax regimes and uneven network infrastructure.
Zimbabwe’s persistently high data prices highlight the difficulty of aligning markets with widely different cost structures.
The next phase will be decisive. Three factors are likely to determine whether the agreement delivers sustained impact. The first is enforcement, particularly in countries with weaker regulatory capacity.
The second is progress on mobile money interoperability, without which lower communication costs will have limited economic effect.
The third is the potential inclusion of South Africa, the region’s largest telecoms market, whose absence leaves key trade corridors only partially integrated.
The agreement represents a meaningful step towards regional digital integration. But it also underscores a broader lesson: reducing prices is easier than aligning systems.
For now, the economics of the border in Southern Africa have shifted, but not fundamentally changed.
