EAC Finalizes Industrialisation Policy and Strategy

East African Community (EAC) Secretariat is in the final stages of completing a regional industrialization policy which is to among others promote regional industries.

EAC is in the process of formulating its Industrialization policy and strategy, which is expected to provide a detailed regional framework for cooperation in the field of Industrial and small and medium enterprises (SME) development," said the EAC Head of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs Richard Owora.

He revealed that the regional industries whose economic benefits extend beyond national boundaries that have been identified include: pharmaceutical, automotive, agricultural machinery and tools, basic metal, petrochemicals, Information Communication Technology (ICT) and computer and SME development among others. 

"That is why the secretariat with support from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) held a five-day experts meeting to review the draft EAC industrialization policy and strategy in Uganda. He said the discussions revolved around formulating policy inputs and recommendations from the stakeholders for the finalization of the policy and strategy, identification of priority regional industries to be promoted on comparative advantages, identification of policy interventions projects and programmes to be undertaken at national and regional levels and to update the draft final documents.

"The goal of cooperation in industrial development is to enable partner states to collectively and individually attain accelerated, harmonious, and balanced development, as envisioned in the EAC Treaty," he said adding that the draft policy and strategy has identified several industries, which will be promoted through collective community efforts, so as to realize economies of scale and attain international competitiveness.

Uganda's Director of Trade, Industry and Co-operative in the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Co-operative, Mr Samuel Ssenkungu noted that industrialization and technological diffusion have both potential to make a sustainable contribution to economic growth and job creation in the region.

EAC to review Rules of Origin

Business Daily

The East African Community is set to review border passage rules for goods, paving the way for more Kenyan exports to access the regional market. The bloc’s custom and trade division has invited consultants to align the rules of origin with changes in manufacturing to facilitate intra-regional trade in the region.

“We expect the reviewed rules of origin to capture as many changes including transport costs that have grown in importance for firms,” Peter Kiguta, EAC’s director-general in charge of trade and custom said in a telephone interview.

Mr Kiguta also said the review would prepare the region for an eventual merger with Comesa and SADC. The rules will also be phased out once a single EAC revenue collector is set up.

Trade Mark East Africa has floated the tender asking consultants to simplify the rules of origin so that they can be implemented easily.

The present rules of origin only allow goods produced wholly from local inputs to cross national borders without attracting custom taxes.

Goods produced from imported raw materials also enjoy duty-free treatment where the exporter can prove that at least 35 per cent of the ex-factory value was added within the region.

The proof is usually that the local transformation process has moved the product to a tariff category different from that of imported parts or inputs.

The application of this rule has been controversial, with traders claiming it is selectively applied by customs officials to bar Kenyan products from entering Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi.

The partners phased out duties on Kenyan goods that meet these rules from January after the end of the transition period. Some of the vehicles from the Nairobi-based General Motors East Africa and CMC Motors are among products affected by the rules of origin.

While assemblers stake their claim to the regional market on the number of jobs and operations involved, border officials have maintained that the process entails very little transformation on the completely knocked down vehicle parts.

The beauty products sold by Inter-consumer Products Ltd; Nido, Milk and Nescafe produced by Nestle Kenya; television sets manufactured by Aucma Digital Technology Africa; and lubricants manufactured by Kenol/Kobil have also encountered similar restrictions at border posts.

“Our market share has grown significantly in the region since the EAC’s verification mission cleared our products last year with Uganda becoming our largest market,” Charles Njogu, KenolKobil’s spokesman, said on Tuesday.

Kenya Revenue Authority officials said the rules of origin are now outdated because of rapid changes that have taken place since they were conceived more than six years ago.

The officials said they are encountering cases where genuine goods are being locked out simply because the rules are blind to their unique circumstances. The use of technology and other cost-efficient production techniques has rendered the 35 per cent value addition threshold irrelevant, KRA said, adding that a change in tariff heading alone would be more objective.

“Use of total cost to determine local value addition is not objective,” an official who could not be named under KRA protocols said yesterday. “An operation that contributed 35 per cent to total cost six years ago may have fallen to 20 per cent due to cost cutting. The RoO does not factor in investments that contribute to efficiency

Lately, Kenyan edible oil firms such as Kapa Oil and Bidco Oil have been fighting to defend their markets from custom officials who maintain the refining of imported crude palm oils does not meet the value addition threshold.

The firms import crude palm mainly from Asia to manufacture products such as cooking fats and soaps which they export to EAC and Comesa countries.

“In this case, refining process is the huge but hidden investment that must be recognised for the rules of origin to make sense to exporters,” said the KRA official.

EPA Negotiations

The European Commission (EC) finally announced today that countries that have concluded an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) but not taken the necessary steps to ratify and implement it would no longer benefit from the EPA market access to Europe as from 1st January 2014.

The EC Market Access Regulation (MAR) 1528 of 1st January 2008 provides duty free quota free market access for African Caribbean and Pacific countries that have concluded an EPA. The Regulation requires countries to sign, ratify and implement the Agreement within a “reasonable period of time”. At it currently stands, the MAR is a temporary, unilateral instrument of the EU to ensure that, pending the implementation of the agreement by ACP countries, there would be no trade disruption.

A quick glance at it reveals the following facts: Only 18 island countries from the 36 ACP countries that had initialled or signed an arrangement have concluded the agreement. The other remaining countries are yet to complete the contract, with the risk of seeing their marriage cancelled.

The announcement of this proposal is no surprise: Trade Commissioner De Grucht and other representatives of the European Commission have constantly been warning that this situation was not sustainable and would therefore have to end at some point in time.

The proposal will come into effect on 1st January 2014, after approval by the Council. It is worth mentioning here that MAR 1528 in 2008, was adopted prior to the Lisbon Treaty, and therefore the Parliament will not have to give its assent to it. The timing is also not surprising: 1st January 2014 is also the time when the new Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) Regulation should come into effect. It is also the date when the countries that have signed and ratified an EPA will have to start implementing their respective trade liberalisation commitments (remember some countries had a 5 year moratorium before starting liberalisation).

The message is therefore clear: if countries want to continue to benefit from EPA market access, either they have to sign and start implementing their existing EPA or conclude a new regional EPA. For others, either they will fall under one of the schemes of the new GSP (i.e. Everything but Arms, Standard GSP or GSP Plus) or they will have no preferences (as might be the case for Botswana and Namibia).

What does this imply?

This coming year will be a political litmus test for the relationship between the EU and its African and Pacific partners. If from a legal and a “coherence” perspective the Proposal of the EU is well understood, there are also good reasons why, four years down the road, since the MAR in 2008, nothing has happened. First, some compromise on many issues, including on the accompanying development measures, are yet to be agreed. Moreover, most countries are also engaged in building their regional integration agenda: many are either consolidating their existing customs union or setting it up. And Europe is well placed to know that regional integration takes time. So while a deadline by 1st January 2014 might seem a reasonable time for the EU, it is in fact very short for the proper sequencing of regional agenda with trade negotiations with third countries. Finally, some might have simply lost interest in the process.

So, like in 2007, expect some tensions in the coming months: some countries might be pressured to sign, ratify and implement the EPA that might not fulfil their ambitions and interests in terms of content, timing and geographical configuration by fear of market disruption, in particular if they risk loosing preferential access to the EU. Others might simply walk out. If no common position can be found at the regional level, the EPAs could seriously disrupt any regional integration effort.

But 2014 is not 2007. The world has changed and this time the response might be different. The financial crisis invited itself to the dance, Africa has gained a lot more confidence in its economic prospects and the increasing importance of “emerging” partners has brought in a new geopolitical dynamism, de facto reducing the leverage of the EU.

Finally, it takes two to tango. African and Pacific countries now have to reveal their strategies, interests and preferences regarding their relationship with the EU. It is a question of political will in many cases and for those interested in an EPA, it will require some effort to reach a compromise. At the same time, while one might understand the European logic to put an end to an instrument that has remained “temporary” for too long and is not compatible with rules of the WTO, there are still some “contentious issues” that remain unresolved. The EU has also to reveal its cards on how far it would be willing to accommodate some genuine concerns that are blocking the negotiations. Setting a deadline is therefore not sufficient, the EU should come up with concrete proposals on how to move the negotiations forward.

Just putting a deadline could open the way for a new impetus to the current negotiations towards the conclusion of regional EPAs. But it could well turn out to be a guillotine if no flexibility is provided to advance the negotiations.

By San Bilal and Isabelle Ramdoo. 

For a another report on this see here.