For decades, the supply of wooden poles into Southern Africa’s infrastructure markets has been guided by a
combination of technical standards, practical experience, and cost considerations. In recent years, however, a
more concerning dynamic has emerged. Poles intended for general use are increasingly being installed into
communications and transmission networks, often without a full appreciation of the technical and regulatory
implications. What appears to be a minor substitution at procurement level becomes, over time, a structural
vulnerability embedded into the network itself.

At the centre of this issue is a misunderstanding of standards. The distinction between SANS 754 and SANS
457-3 is frequently treated as interchangeable, when in reality the two specifications serve fundamentally
different purposes. SANS 754 governs eucalyptus poles, cross-arms, and spacers specifically designed for
power distribution and communications systems. SANS 457-3, by contrast, applies to hardwood poles used in
fencing, agricultural applications, and general structural contexts. The visual similarity between products masks a significant divergence in performance requirements, material selection, and long-term behaviour.

According to SANS 754:2025, poles used in communications and distribution infrastructure must meet explicit
requirements related to strength, preservative treatment, dimensional tolerances, and defect limitations. These are not optional guidelines. They define the minimum conditions under which a pole can be considered fit for purpose in a load bearing, long-life system. The standard specifies eucalyptus species as the required material, recognises species-specific behaviour, and enforces performance through measurable criteria such as bending strength and preservative penetration.

The difference becomes clearer when the two standards are placed side by side.

Requirement Area	SANS 754 (Utility Poles)	SANS 457-3 (General Hardwood Poles)
Intended use	Communications and power distribution systems	Fencing, agriculture, general structural use
Timber specification	Eucalyptus species only	Multiple hardwood species permitted
Strength requirement	Explicit blending strength +- 63 MPa	Lower strength requirement aligned to general use
treatment requirement	Higher retention and full sapwood penetration	Lower retention thresholds
Inspection regime	Full compliance including penetration testing	Sampling-based inspection
Structural tolerances	Strict limits on defects, taper, sweep, grain	Broader tolerances

Table 1: Functional and Technical Differences Between SANS 754 and SANS 457-3

The implications of this difference are not immediately visible in the field. A pole supplied under SANS 457-3
may appear adequate at installation stage. It stands, carries cable, and integrates into the system without issue. The failure, when it comes, is gradual. In most cases, failure initiates at the groundline, where moisture, oxygen, and biological activity converge. Without sufficient preservative retention and penetration into the sapwood, decay organisms attack from the outside in, gradually compromising the internal structure. By the time external signs become visible, structural integrity has often already been reduced. Load-bearing capacity is lower than required. Moisture content and seasoning inconsistencies introduce internal stress. Preservative penetration may be insufficient to prevent long-term decay. Over time, the pole transitions from structural support to structural risk.

This matters particularly in the context of fibre networks. While modern single-mode fibre is often rated for
operational lifespans of 25 to 50 years, the supporting infrastructure must match or exceed that timeline. The
SAUPA industry discussions highlight this directly, noting that poor-quality poles and non-compliant materials
increase the likelihood of fibre damage, reduce effective network life, and introduce avoidable maintenance and replacement costs. The pole is not a secondary component. It is a primary determinant of system longevity.

Fibre networks are typically designed around a 25 to 50-year operational life. In practice, this places an implicit requirement on every supporting component to meet or exceed that same horizon. Where a pole is installed under a lower specification, the system inherits a shorter functional life than the cable it is intended to carry. The result is not just premature failure, but a structural mismatch embedded into the network from the outset.

There is also a regulatory dimension that cannot be ignored. Under VC 9092, no person may supply a product subject to a compulsory specification unless it complies with that specification. In the case of communications and transmission infrastructure, this means that where SANS 754 applies, supplying poles manufactured under SANS 457-3 is not simply a technical misstep. It is non-compliant. The rationale is straightforward. If treated timber does not meet the required durability and performance criteria, it is not fit for purpose, regardless of its appearance or cost. This also carries implications beyond compliance. In the event of failure, the ability to demonstrate that the correct specification was procured and verified becomes central to managing liability, insurance exposure, and contractual risk.

Despite this, the issue persists, largely due to an education gap within parts of the procurement and contracting environment. The SAUPA agenda explicitly identifies the need to educate fibre utility companies on the legal and technical requirement to procure SANS 754 poles. The challenge is not a lack of standards, but a lack of clarity in how those standards are interpreted and applied in practice.

Source of confusion	Practical interpretation	Resulting risk
“A treated pole is a treated pole”	Assumption of interchangeability between standards	Incorrect product selection
Cost-driven procurement	Preference for lower upfront pricing	Increased lifecycle cost and failure risk
Limited technical verification	Absence of strength and penetration checks	Structural underperformance
Regulatory misunderstanding	Lack of awareness of VC 9092 obligations	Legal and compliance exposure

Table 2: Common Sources of Misapplication in Pole Procurement

What SANS 754 does, in contrast, is eliminate ambiguity. It defines how poles must be seasoned, including
strict timelines for kiln drying and limits on moisture content prior to treatment. It requires preservative
treatment in accordance with established standards, with defined retention levels and full penetration into the
sapwood. It specifies acceptable defect limits, including constraints on knots, checks, spiral grain, and taper,
each of which directly influences structural behaviour. The standard also imposes process-level controls,
including treatment cycle monitoring, conditioning of poles prior to treatment, and defined timelines between
felling, seasoning, and treatment. These controls are designed to ensure consistency across batches, reducing the likelihood that variability in processing translates into variability in field performance.

It also enforces strength. Poles must be capable of withstanding defined bending forces without failure, based on a mean fibre stress requirement. This moves the product out of the category of general timber and into that of engineered infrastructure.

For procurement environments, the distinction between specifications is not theoretical. It must be translated
into enforceable requirements within tender documents, including defined treatment classes, minimum
preservative retentions, penetration criteria, and mandatory submission of certified test results. Without these
elements, compliance becomes difficult to verify and easy to bypass. For procurement teams and project
managers, the practical question is how to ensure compliance in a market where products may appear identical at a glance. The answer lies in verification, traceability, and supplier accountability.

Verification point	What it confirms
Standard marking and tagging	Compliance with SANS 754 requirements
Species identification	Use of approved eucalyptus species
Treatment certification	Correct preservative type, retention, and penetration
Strength testing records	Structural performance capability
Dimensional classification	Consistency within specified tolerances
Supplier traceability	Accountability across the supply chain

Table 3: Indicators of SANS 754 Compliance in Utility Poles

In addition, independent verification plays a critical role. Certification bodies operating under recognised
accreditation frameworks (such as ISO/IEC 17065) provide assurance that retention and penetration
requirements have been met. Batch-level traceability, supported by marking and documentation, ensures that
poles can be tracked throughout their lifecycle, from manufacture to installation.

If these elements are not present, or cannot be verified, the risk is already embedded in the procurement
decision. In such cases, the absence of evidence is not neutral. It is an indicator that the system may already be operating below its intended design standard.

This is where supplier capability becomes critical. At Khulani Timber Industries, the supply of poles into
communications and transmission applications is aligned strictly with SANS 754 requirements. This includes
controlled sourcing of eucalyptus species, monitored seasoning processes, treatment in accordance with SANS- prescribed methods, and verification of preservative penetration and retention. Critically, compliance is not assessed on a sampling basis alone. SANS 754 requires verification of preservative penetration on every pole, with non-conforming poles re-treated until the required penetration is achieved. This moves compliance from a statistical assumption to a controlled, per-unit outcome. Poles are marked, traceable, and supported by process data that withstands inspection.

This approach is not unique in principle, but it is increasingly necessary in practice. As the industry moves
towards tighter enforcement, greater scrutiny from inspectors, and increased awareness among network
operators, the tolerance for non-compliance is reducing. The presence of substandard poles in the market is no longer an isolated issue. It is a recognised industry risk being actively addressed.

The broader implication is that infrastructure decisions are shifting from short-term cost considerations to long-term performance and compliance. From a commercial perspective, this shift reflects a move towards total cost of ownership rather than upfront cost. While lower-specification poles may offer an initial saving, they introduce higher long-term costs through increased maintenance, earlier replacement, and unplanned outages. Over the lifecycle of a network, these costs typically exceed any initial procurement advantage. The difference between a compliant and non-compliant pole is not simply technical. It is financial, operational, and regulatory over the life of the network.

The decision about which pole is installed is made once. The consequences of that decision remain for decades.

In that context, the role of a supplier is not only to deliver product, but to remove uncertainty. Where standards
are complex, evolving, and often misunderstood, the value lies in ensuring that the correct specification is
applied from the outset.

Because once the pole is in the ground, the system will carry that decision for the entirety of its life.

Sources:
SANS 754:2025 Standard
SAUPA Communication Meeting Material, March 2026
khulani.co.za Khulani Timber Industries website (https://khulani.co.za)

Written:
khulani.co.za Casper Erasmus, 2026

AI Disclaimer: Parts of this article were developed with AI-assisted synthesis of technical standards and
industry documentation.