New form of market protectionism

By Filda Maiga

AS a least developed country, Uganda has been a beneficiary of special treatment in world trade.

This has been possible because of initiatives like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Generalised System of trade Preferences (GSP) and Everything But Arms initiative (EBA).

The most recent initiative has been the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA). This was aimed at increasing our participation in world trade by gaining from duty free and quota free access of our products into the developed country markets. 

Unfortunately, in spite of such preferential treatment, no meaningful benefits seem to have been achieved. It is now close to two decades since developing countries like Uganda joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

However, the challenges hitherto faced by such countries when participating in international trade do not seem to have abetted at all. As tariffs continue to decline, we seem to be faced with a new form of market protectionism, the sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

These measures are governed by the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) of the WTO which commenced on January 1, 1995. Sanitary deals with the health of humans and animals while phytosanitary deals with plants.

The conclusion of this agreement was particularly seen as a gateway of our products into world trade. 

This agreement permits WTO member countries to put in place measures to protect the life and health of their citizens, animals and plants. The measures include requiring products to come from disease-free areas, setting allowable maximum levels of pesticide residues, or limiting the use of certain additives in food. 

However, these measures can be used as a disguised restriction to trade, so they are required to be founded on clear scientific evidence. The agreement emphasises standardisation of measures but each country may set its own standards provided they comply with conditions like transparency, notification and scientific justification. 

The problem is that they are not always transparent, which presents significant barriers to trade. Exacting them is also a complex insurmountable task. Over the years, there has been a surge in the strengthening of such measures, making it difficult for developing countries to compete especially after their failure to meet SPS measures of the developed countries.

While such measures are desirable as a way of protecting plant, animal and human health, as developing countries, we lack the human, technical and financial resources to meet the requirements of food safety.

Because food safety is every one’s right, SPS measures become inescapable. The WTO pushes for harmonisation of the measures and calls upon member countries to base their SPS measures on international standards, regulations or guidelines whenever these exist. Where an international measure is applied, it is automatically accepted as justifiable.

This means that developing countries must increase participation in the work of international standard setting bodies like the Commission of Codex Alimentarius (on food safety) based in Rome, Italy, the World Organization for Animal Health, based in Paris, France and the International Plant Protection Convention headquartered in Rome.

This will ensure adequate consideration of our interests and will reduce the costs involved in ensuring compliance, as a result of unified standards. 

Solutions therefore could lie in increasing our participation in standard setting. Additionally, we must challenge measures taken by developed countries if they are deemed protectionist. 

Most of all, importers must be allowed to meet legitimate human, plant and animal health goals in a way that does not unnecessarily block market access. Ugandan traders must also consider compliance with SPS standards as an opportunity to upgrade to quality products, not necessarily as a barrier.

The Writer is a Lawyer