Blog Post

Free trade in Africa: An important goal but not easy to achieve

The signing of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement and the Kigali Declaration may signal a new push towards economic integration on the African continent. However, it remains to be seen how many more countries sign up, how successfully 'phase two' is implemented later this year, and whether the agreement can be built upon to more comprehensively promote trade in services and a reduction of non-tariff barriers.

By: and Date: April 13, 2018 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

On March 21st 2018, representatives of 44 African countries met in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, to sign the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA). At the same gathering, 30 countries signed the protocol on free movement of people, while 47 countries signed the Kigali declaration – the latter of which sets the political goal of establishing a free trade area[1].

All these agreements may help with intra-African economic integration. Politically this is an important declaration in favour of free trade, at a time when the US president Donald Trump threatens to undermine the existing global trade order[2]. This also marks a success for the African Union (AU), which would like to follow experience of the European Union (EU) – though it has achieved mixed results so far.

Limited role of intra-African trade

African economies trade relatively little between themselves. As seen in Figures 1 and 2, less than 20% of total exports and imports of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) goes to and comes from these two regions, though this share has grown slowly over the last decade. The share of SSA is even smaller (below 10%) and largely stagnant.

There are several reasons behind regional under-trading: the low development level of African economies and their excessive dependence on commodity production and exports, protectionist trade policies, weak transport infrastructure, poor trade logistics, and high security risks. Below we will briefly comment on each of them.

Commodity monoculture

In 2016, only 17 out of 53 African countries recorded an income-per-capita level in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) above 5,000 international dollars in constant 2011 prices. Only 10 of them managed to reach beyond 10,000 international dollars in the same terms, including oil-producing Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Algeria and non-oil commodity producers Botswana, South Africa and Namibia (see Figure 3).

Figure 4 shows the far-reaching dependence of African economies on commodity exports, mainly fuels (oil, natural gas and coal), metal ores and other minerals. Agriculture commodities play, on average, a less important role, although there are exceptions such as exports of cocoa beans by the Ivory Coast. Furthermore, several countries depend on the export of just one or two commodities (AEO, 2017) making them vulnerable to fluctuations in global demand, and natural disasters (especially in case of agriculture commodities).

Figure 4 also demonstrates the vulnerability of African economies to commodity price fluctuations on the world markets. For example, the collapse of commodity prices in 2014 caused a substantial reduction of African exports and, consequently, imports (due to balance-of-payment constraints). As a result, economic growth in the region, rapid in the decade of 2000s and early 2010s, has slowed down remarkably.

Structure of African imports is similar to that of other developing countries. Metal products, machinery, equipment, transportation means, chemical products and other industrial goods are the basic imported items. The majority of imported goods come from the EU, China, India and the US.

Clearly, a low development level and narrow specialisation in producing one or few commodities sold to the global markets does not leave much room for intra-African trade (because of limited complementarity of African economies). Nevertheless, this room is further narrowed by trade policies, weak infrastructure and a poor business climate.

Tariff- and non-tariff barriers

A large majority of African countries belongs to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Only Algeria, Libya, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea and São Tomé and Príncipe remain outside this organisation but most of them have negotiated their accession. Nevertheless, trade policies are, in most cases, protectionist. Both the declared most-favoured-nation (MFN) rates and the effectively applied rates are much higher than those in the EU and US (red bars in Figures 5 and 6). They are also higher than the five developing economies belonging to the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN-5), i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam (green bars in Figures 5 and 6).

In more than half of African countries, the weighted mean MFN rate exceeds 10%; in all others except Mauritius (the only truly free-trade African nation), it exceeds 5% (Figure 5). In the case of the effectively applied tariffs (Figure 6), the picture looks equally gloomy: most African countries applied higher, sometimes much higher, tariffs than their ASEAN-5 competitors – let alone the EU and US. Only four members of the Southern African Custom Union (SACU), i.e. Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland, join Mauritius in the group of low-tariff countries.

Apart from tariffs, there are numerous non-tariff barriers (NTB) that add to the protective measures. In many instances, these barriers can effectively stop cross-border trade in goods and, especially, in services. They are not easily detectable and measurable, and we do not have estimates of their tariff equivalent.

Going beyond explicit NTBs – such as technical barriers to trade (TBT), sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures and certification – one must also mention limitations to the free movement of people. African citizens need visas to visit more than 75% of other African countries. Countries of Northern and Central Africa have the most restrictive visa policies against their neighbours (AEO, 2017).

Restriction of the free movement of people limits trade opportunities, especially (but not only) in services. Obviously, in a region where modern communication platforms and digital trade remain underdeveloped, the role of direct contacts between traders is important. Visas also harm cross-border shuttle trade and intra-African tourism. In this context, signing a protocol on free movement of people in Kigali is good news. The bad news is that several important countries – such as South Africa (plus their SACU partners), Nigeria, Tanzania, Ivory Coast and all North African countries – have not signed this protocol.

Overall, both tariff and non-tariff barriers strongly discriminate against intra-continental trade as compared to trade with external partners. Developed countries, especially the EU and US, offer lower import tariffs than African neighbours. In addition, almost all African countries benefit from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), i.e. unilateral trade privileges in the form of zero or very low tariffs offered by the developed economies as a form of development assistance.

Complicated network of regional agreements

In past decades, African countries concluded several, often territorially overlapping, trade agreements (Table 1), which aimed at promoting sub-regional economic integration. Most of them declared ambitious goals (building a customs union) and three of them (SACU, the West African Economic and Monetary Union [WAEMU] and the Central African Economic and Monetary Community [CEMAC]) were to complement the already existing (from colonial times) monetary unions. However, none of them included trade in services and most of them did not address matters such as non-tariff barriers, or investment regimes.

If one examines and compares Figures 5 and 6, i.e. the declared MFN and effectively applied tariffs, she easily finds that the tariff-reduction power of these agreements has been limited. For example, among the countries with the highest applied tariffs are members of CEMAC. Unsurprisingly, in 2016 the intra-CEMAC exports accounted for only 3.1% of the total exports of its members; for intra-CEMAC imports, the figure stood only a little higher, at 4.2% (Siba and Sow, 2018). Members of WAEMU, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and, partly, members of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) are not far behind CEMAC in this respect.

The sad story is that the existing sub-regional trade agreements in Africa do not work or work only partly, for various political reasons. The SACU seems to be a positive exception.

On the other hand, data on intra-African trade (Figures 1, 2 and 4) confirms that it is slowly increasing. This concerns the share in the overall trade rather than the absolute volume. The absolute volume of the overall trade declined in 2014-2016 due to fall in commodity prices, while the intra-African volume has been largely stagnant. The advantage of intra-African trade concerns its composition: manufacturing products play a bigger role here than they do in the exports to external partners (AEO, 2017, African, 2018).

Poor infrastructure and logistics

In addition to formal and informal trade barriers, poor infrastructure and logistics constitute another factor that discourages intra-continental trade. Even a superficial look at the economic map of Africa provides suggestions of the underdeveloped transcontinental road and, even more so, railway networks. Modern transport organisation and trade logistics are rare. Bureaucratic and corrupted border and customs procedures and numerous security risks (coming from violent conflicts and organised crime) make transportation and transit of goods between and within countries even more complicated. As a result, costs of moving goods within African countries are up to five times higher than in the US (Donaldson, Jinhage and Verhoogen, 2017).

Table 2 compares the SSA and MENA regions with four other regions in terms of the Logistics Performance Index (LPI), which is a synthetic measure of the effectiveness of trade logistics. Clearly, SSA is the worst-performing region in this comparison, especially in the categories of ‘Infrastructure’, ‘Customs’, ‘Tracking and tracing’ and ‘Logistics competence’. MENA does a bit better, outperforming not only SSA but also the regions of South Asia, and Latin America and Caribbean.

Too early to claim success

Although the signing of AfCFTA and the Kigali Declaration may signal a new push towards trade and economic integration on the African continent, it is too early to speculate on its actual impact in this sphere. First, the two largest continental economies – Nigeria and South Africa – and a few others – such as Tanzania, Botswana, Namibia, and Zambia – have not signed the AfCFTA treaty (see Kazeem, 2018). Overall, the ‘outs’ represent some 40% of African GDP. Whether or not they will join the AfCFTA at a later date remains unclear.

Second, as with most of the previous sub-regional agreements, AfCFTA concentrates on trade in goods and gradual reduction or elimination of import tariffs. The promotion of trade in services and a reduction in the number of NTBs have both been included, but in less comprehensive and ambitious ways. Regarding the NTBs, the main issues covered by the AfCFTA are cooperation of customs authorities, trade and transit facilitation, and mutual recognition of standards. Only ‘Phase Two’ of the AfCFTA, to be launched later this year, will tackle the questions of intra-African investments, intellectual property rights and competition policy (African, 2018).

Third, the new agreement assumes a long implementation period. Much will depend on political interest, and the determination of all parties to follow their commitments and avoid political traps that have so often inhibited implementation of past agreements. Members of the existing sub-regional agreements will face an uneasy challenge in the form of their harmonisation with AfCFTA.

Finally, the successful implementation of AfCFTA will depend on many supplementary policies and programmes – such as conflict resolution, fighting corruption and organised crime, developing transcontinental transport and telecommunication networks, liberalisation of the movement of people, improvement of trade logistics, and governance reforms. Here the key development partners – such as the UN agencies, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, African Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (active in North Africa), EU, US, China and other countries involved in providing aid to Africa – have an important role to offer.

[1] https://au.int/sites/default/files/pressreleases/34033-pr-indication20of20signing20authority20-20updated20final20final20docx.pdf

[2] See analyses and comments of Bruegel researchers on this issue – Dadush (2018), Chiacchio (2018), Demertzis, Sapir and Wolff (2018).

 

References

African (2018): African Continental Free Trade Area. Questions and Answers, African Union, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, African Trade Policy Centre, March 15, https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/33984-doc-qa_cfta_en_rev15march.pdf

AEO (2017): African Economic Outlook 2017, African Development Bank, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, United Nations Development Program, Chapter 3: Trade policies and regional integration in Africa, http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/outlook/trade-policies-and-regional-integration-in-africa

Chiacchio, F. (2018): Which sectors would be most vulnerable to EU-US trade war?, Bruegel Blog, 15 March, http://bruegel.org/2018/03/which-sectors-would-be-most-vulnerable-to-eu-us-trade-war/

Donaldson, D., Jinhage, A., and Verhoogen, E. (2017): Beyond borders: Making transport work for African trade, The International Growth Center, The London School of Economics and Political Science, March, https://www.theigc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TransportGrowthBrief_FINAL_WEB.pdf

Dadush, U. (2018): U.S. steel and aluminium tariffs: how should the EU respond?, Bruegel Blog, 9 March, http://bruegel.org/2018/03/u-s-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs-how-should-the-eu-respond/

Demertzis, M., Sapir, A., and Wolff, G. (2018): Europe in a New World Order, Wirtschaftsdienst Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, Vol. 98, Issue 13, https://archiv.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/downloads/getfile.php?id=3924

Kazeem, Y. (2018): One African Market? Africa’s hope for a historic continental free trade area is off to a shaky start, Quartz Africa, March 22, https://qz.com/1235235/africa-continental-free-trade-area-44-countries-sign-agreement-without-nigeria/

Siba, E., and Sow, M. (2018): Strengthening regional value chains: What’s the role of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement?, Africa in Focus, Brookings, March 21, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2018/03/21/strengthening-regional-value-chains-whats-the-role-of-the-african-continental-free-trade-agreement/


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Something Putin and Juncker appear to agree on – the euro.

“It is absurd that Europe pays for 80% of its energy import bill – worth €300 billion a year – in US dollars when only roughly 2% of our energy imports come from the United States,” said President Juncker in his state of the union speech.* Europe’s largest supplier of energy – Russia, who accounts for a third of that bill – couldn’t agree more. Russia’s offer to switch to euros in trade with the EU will likely be costly to implement, but the US switch towards unilateralism is forcing its long-standing partners to question the dollar’s global dominance.

By: Elina Ribakova Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 25, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Oct
3
09:00

International trade and the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement

This event; jointly organised by Bruegel and the Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University, will discuss the EU-Japan trade deal and asses its impact.

Speakers: Sonali Chowdhry, Gabriel Felbermayr, François Godement, Hiroo Inoue, Sébastien Jean, Yoichi Matsubayashi, Tamotsu Nakamura, Masahiro Nakata, Luis Portero, André Sapir, Alessio Terzi, Agata Wierzbowska and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage: Developing the EU-China relationship amid rising global trade tensions

Bruegel director Guntram Wolff is joined by Alicia García-Herrero, senior fellow at Bruegel, and Zhang Weiwei, director at The China Institute of Fudan University, following up a Bruegel conference focused on the potential for closer economic links between China and the EU.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 20, 2018
Read about event

Upcoming Event

Oct
11-12
20:00

Policy responses for an EU-MENA shared future

In the third edition of the "Platform for Advanced & Emerging Economies Policy Dialogue" we will discuss trade flows and trade policy between Europe and MENA, integration of developing economies into global value chains, and regional energy relations.

Speakers: Mounssif Aderkaoui, Karim El Aynaoui, Marek Dabrowski, Uri Dadush, Giuseppe Grimaldi, Badr Ikken, Joanna Konings, Zahra Maafiri, Pier Carlo Padoan, Visar Sala, Nicolò Sartori, Nathalie Tocci, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Location: Rome
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

China Made Two Promises in Africa. Can It Keep Them?

China has committed to a market-driven relationship with Africa, as well as a new $60 billion investment plan on the continent, following the recent China-Africa summit. In this light, the author assesses the China-Africa economic relationship, suggesting those new objectives may not be so easy to achieve.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 19, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

External Publication

Electrification in sub-Saharan Africa: The role of international institutions

Bruegel fellow Simone Tagliapietra contributed to the new issue of the 'Oxford Energy Forum' with an article on the role of international and European financing institutions in fostering the electrification of Africa.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Date: September 11, 2018
Read article More on this topic

External Publication

Energy in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities

Bruegel fellow Simone Tagliapietra co-authored a new book on energy in Africa.

By: Manfred Hafner, Simone Tagliapietra and Lucia de Strasser Topic: Energy & Climate Date: September 5, 2018
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

Bruegel Annual Meetings 2018

The 2018 Annual Meetings will be held on 3-4 September and will feature sessions on European and global economic governance, as well as finance, energy and innovation.

Speakers: Maria Åsenius, Richard E. Baldwin, Carl Bildt, Barbara Botos, Maria Demertzis, Benjamin Denis, Lowri Evans, Mariya Gabriel, Svend E. Hougaard Jensen, Joanne Kellermann, Jörg Kukies, Emmanuel Lagarrigue, Philippe Lespinard, Rachel Lomax, Dominique Moïsi, Jean Pierre Mustier, Ana Palacio, Jean Pisani-Ferry, Lucrezia Reichlin, Norbert Röttgen, André Sapir, Johan Van Overtveldt, Martin Sandbu, Margrethe Vestager, Reinhilde Veugelers, Nicolas Véron, Thomas Wieser, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Brussels Comic Strip Museum, Rue des Sables 20, 1000 Brussels Date: September 3, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

International trade under attack: what strategy for Europe?

This Policy Contribution analyses the economic consequences of a full-scale trade war. The US position, focusing on bilateral trade imbalances presumably resulting from unbalanced trade policies, is seriously threatening the multilateral trading system. The authors estimate the impact would be damaging for everyone. Though the EU is partly protected by the size of its internal market, it must engage resolutely in a strategy of defence of trade multilateralism.

By: Sébastien Jean, Philippe Martin and André Sapir Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: August 28, 2018
Read article More by this author

Opinion

US-China trade war: What’s in it for Europe?

To help evaluate whether the market response is warranted or exaggerated, the author measured the trade impact of additional import tariffs based on standard economic theory, namely two key parameters—the tariff pass-through rate and the price elasticity of demand. The end of multilateralism seems clear, at least for trade.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: August 23, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Is Europe America’s Friend or Foe?

Since Donald Trump took office as US president, a new cottage industry in rational theories of his seemingly irrational behavior has developed. On one issue, however, no amount of theorizing has made sense of Trump: his treatment of America's oldest and most reliable ally.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 30, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Ubu ou Machiavel?

L'administration Trump veut imposer une approche transactionnelle des relations économiques gouvernée par le rapport de force bilatéral en lieu et place du contrat multilatéral. Un défi d'une ampleur inédite pour l'Europe.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 6, 2018
Load more posts