Africa’s Limited Participation in Trade Remedy Actions

As reported by the below piece by ICTSD, Africa has limited participation in trade defense actions.

Africa’s limited participation in trade remedy actions (anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguards) is due to: the absence of national legal and institutional frameworks, the lack of expertise, the high cost of trade remedies, the availability of alternative instruments, the disorganization of the African business community, as well as political factors. 

National legal and institutional frameworks are the basic requirements for trade remedy actions but majority of African countries do not have such frameworks. Only five African countries have comprehensive national legislation on these trade remedies and only two countries – South Africa and Egypt – have fully fledged institutions. 

Putting in place national trade remedy legal frameworks and institutions can prove costly and time consuming as trade remedy investigations require a high level of expertise (well-trained specialized lawyers and economists), which many African countries can ill-afford. For instance, the WTO training programmes for poor countries have seen many beneficiaries of the programme leave government jobs to join the private sector or international institutions. This also remains a hurdle for African countries. 

Also the availability of substitute instruments such as tariff increment within WTO-bound limits, import prohibitions, and voluntary export restraint (VERs) arrangements is another reason for the low usage of trade remedies in Africa. For instance between 75 and 80 percent of African countries’ tariff lines are unbound, which means they could raise tariffs up to any rate without necessarily violating WTO law (WTO 2009). Also, though imports prohibition has been banned within the WTO, some African countries continue to resort to it with varied frequencies. 

Voluntary export restraints (VERs), which are banned within the framework of the WTO, are parts of some African countries’ trade defence strategy. In 2006, for instance, South African government struck a deal with China to restrict the latter’s textile exports to South Africa in order to relieve its beleaguered textile industry. 

Externally, African countries’ challenges also stem from the necessity to meet WTO standards and legal requirements. Many African countries do not have the economic and legal expertise, and the resources, to fully meet these requirements in carrying out investigations. Moreover, trade remedies are among the most challenged measures before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body and many African countries would have to hire international lawyers to defend their cases. In some cases, African countries producers and even trade officials have low knowledge about how to file a case, even where the laws exist. For instance, in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) countries, an anti-dumping regulation has existed since 2003 but only one case has been brought so far whilst many instances clearly show dumping red-flags could be raised. To avoid similar situations, Mauritius has incorporated a capacity building programme of the private sector in its trade remedy framework worth emulating in other African countries. 

Many African countries are also aid-dependent and this may influence their decision to resort to trade remedy actions against their trading partners, particularly if these partners are their main aid donors, source of investment, or former colonial powers. 

African countries also face the challenge of porous borders fraught with corrupt customs officers. Customs rules are circumvented or violated on a daily basis. 

Additionally, most African countries are part of regional economic communities. In this regard, adopting individual trade remedy schemes could be harmful to these customs unions or common markets. Indeed, the two key features of a customs union or common market are free movement of goods between the members and common external tariffs (CET) toward third countries. As a consequence, any border trade measure, such as anti-dumping or countervailing duties, has to be adopted and implemented by all the members at the same time.

For the full article please click here.

Implementation of Free Trade Agreements

To implement a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) within a national jurisdiction, one must take a number of domestic actions which include the giving of legal effect to the FTA in accordance with the constitution either through an act of parliament, amending existing legislation and/or through the proclamation of the head of state. The implementing legislation would typically contain sections on customs and the agreed tariff reduction according to the schedules of commitments, trade remedies, rules of origin, national treatment etc, as agreed under the FTA. The law would authorize the President/ parliament to proclaim the tariff modifications, amend existing legilsation and provide the rules of origin for preferential tariff treatment as provided for under the Agreement, including the setting up of new institutions/departments. The Implementation Act would also specify the general rules of origin to be used in determining if a good qualifies for preferential tariff treatment under the Agreement in addition to proposed regulatory amendments and a new regulations in the customs act.

In addition, there would be the setting in place of an implementation unit/department or focal point to manage implementation of the agreement in the relevant ministry of foreign trade. The implementation unit must not be constrained by insufficient financial and personnel resources. For a regional trade agreement, the establishing a regional implementation unit to provide direct support and to coordinate technical assistance to Member States is of utmost importance for instance in the EPAs with the EU. The regional implementation unit can work with Member States in organizing seminars, workshops and other outreach activities to address the information deficit at almost every level in the public and private sectors. The private sector in particular needs to be sensitized in simple language on the provisions of the agreement and how to take advantage of the benefits of the agreement.  Aid for trade could be an important facilitation consideration in this regard.

Thirdly, there would be joint mechanisms for engagement pertaining to the FTA such as joint trade committees, councils, summits, working groups to provide oversight to the FTA and for exchanges of information, laws and regulations including engagement among the private sector to enable them to take advantage of the benefits of the agreement. These can also include parliamentary committees, customs and trade facilitation etc.