The use of technical barriers by Western countries has become the biggest obstacle for developing countries trying to expand their trade.
As a result of agreements negotiated at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), traditional trade protection measures such as tariffs and quotas are falling away. But they are being replaced by domestic regulations that permit countries to bar products from entering their markets if the products do not meet certain standards.
These obstacles include measures ostensibly aimed at protecting citizens from everyday food hazards, known in WTO language as sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS).
"High tariffs remain a significant barrier," says South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel, "but non-tariff barriers, such as arbitrarily imposed phytosanitary rules further limit goods exported to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a grouping of 30 wealthy nations."
The use of technical barriers has grown during the past two decades. In an effort to regularise such standards, the 148-member WTO's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures came into force in 1995.
The agreement was designed to provide uniform rules for all laws, regulations and requirements regarding how a product is produced, processed, stored or transported, to ensure that its import does not pose a risk to human, animal or plant health.
The SPS agreement requires, for instance, that goods be imported from disease-free areas, inspected prior to export and not exceed maximum levels of pesticide or insecticide use.
The agreement is also meant to prevent countries from using SPS measures simply to block trade, stating explicitly that the measures cannot be employed in "a manner, which would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade".
But although importing countries are encouraged to use existing international standards, they are nevertheless allowed to adopt stricter regulations if they can provide scientific justification for their actions. Hezron Nyangito of the Kenya Institute of Public Policy Research and Analysis notes that while the agreement aims at safeguarding the health of citizens, it also provides a loophole that allows countries to introduce measures that result in higher levels of protection than the international norm.
There are many examples of SPS measures being used to restrict African goods from overseas markets. For several years in the late 1990s, for example, European countries banned fish from Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda due to concerns about these countries' sanitary standards and control systems.
The World Bank says Uganda lost US$36.9 million in potential earnings during the ban.
In Tanzania, where fish and fish products accounted for 10 percent of annual exports, fishermen dependent on EU sales lost 80 percent of their income.
"Some of the requirements are legitimate with respect to food safety," notes Nyangito, the Kenyan researcher, "but many African countries find it difficult to meet the standards because of technical and resource capacity constraints."
SOURCE: The Business Herald, 23 February 2006.