| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-356 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2026-04-15 |
Zimbabwe: Robert Gabriel Mugabe International Airport |
COMESA |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwe's on line COMESA system has been down since September last year. This has resulted in exporters facing some challenges in producing online COMESA certificates. We did a shipment to Tunisia and had to fill in a new COMESA certificate on a PDF format printed from the computer. This resulted in Tunisian customs rejecting this document claiming that it doesn't have a serial number, therefore its not authentic, even though it was stamped and signed by ZIM customs (ZIMRA). We notified our authorities of the ordeal, and they confirmed that the system was still being rectified. To bail out the situation ZIMRA confirmed that it would contact the Tunisian customs and clarify the prevailing issue currently in Zimbabwe with regards to the on line COMESA certificates. Our market in Tunisia is still facing some clearance problems cause of this incident. We understand that Tunisian customs, wants to resend back the shipment to Zimbabwe at our cost as the shipper. We hereby seek your intervention with regards to this matter. We are dealing with Horticultural fresh and dried produce. Tunisia has proved to be a reliable market, considering the COMESA trade agreements and both countries being member states. We look forward to your earliest response towards in solving our issue. Currently our client is exposed to USD500.00 storage fees per day. |
|
|
Products:
|
0802.90: Nuts, fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or peeled (excl. coconuts, Brazil nuts, cashew nuts, almonds, hazelnuts, filberts, walnuts, chestnuts, pistachios, macadamia nuts, kola nuts and areca nuts) |
|
|
NTB-001-200 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2024-07-16 |
Zimbabwe: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In June 2024, a member of Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited, entered into an agreement with a Zimbabwean company, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, to supply them with blankets.
Starting on July 11, 2024, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited completed all the necessary procedures in Malawi to facilitate the export of blankets to Zimbabwe under the COMESA trade agreement to ensure they would receive preferential treatment. On July 16, 2024, the Export Bill of Entry No. E 3645 (dated July 15, 2024) was released by Customs in Malawi, and the consignment was loaded onto Truck No. NE 10666 / NE 10702.
However, on the same day, just as the truck driver was about to depart, Nuline Textiles received a call from their client in Zimbabwe, instructing them to hold off on the shipment. The following day, the client, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, informed Nuline Textiles that the blankets required an import permit or license, which the client had not yet obtained. They assured Nuline Textiles that they were working to secure the permit as quickly as possible.
On July 18, 2024, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd requested additional time to work on obtaining the import license and asked Nuline Textiles to offload the truck and return the blankets to their warehouse.
As of today, the import license has still not been secured. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the SADC Regional Meeting on Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) held from 14–15 April 2026, the National Focal Points from Malawi and Zimbabwe met to discuss this NTB.
It was noted that Zimbabwe’s domestic blanket manufacturing industry has been facing significant challenges due to the influx of imported blankets, which has led to market saturation and negatively affected local producers. As a result, the Government of Zimbabwe introduced measures aimed at protecting and supporting the growth of the domestic industry by restricting the importation of blankets.
Furthermore, it was clarified that, in accordance with Statutory Instrument 59 of 2026, the current position allows individuals to import one blanket per person every month. This measure is intended to balance support for the domestic industry while still permitting limited personal imports. |
|
|
NTB-001-292 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2025-07-01 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
Egypt |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
It has been revealed that Kenya imposed a new duty called “Export and Investment Promotion Levy” as of the beginning of July 2025 on several imports, including some steel products on which duties were imposed at a value of 17.5% of the customs value on all exporting countries without exception for customs items 7213 and 7214, even if they were from partner countries such as Egypt, which The COMESA privileges are effectively emptied of their content on the ground upon application and actually lead to raising the total cost of the Egyptian product and undermining the customs exemption privilege granted under the agreement. (Attached is the relevant document, which was issued on June 27, 2025)
These fees come under names such as “market regulation fees” or “infrastructure development fees,” and are used as an indirect tool to limit the price competitiveness of Egyptian products, which practically means that the Egyptian product has begun to incur the same financial burdens imposed on imports from China, Turkey, and others.
It should be noted that Egypt's exports of rebar and iron coils to Kenya during the first half of 2025 amounted to approximately 60 thousand tons, according to data from the General Authority for Export and Import Control, which reflects the importance of the Kenyan market as one of the vital African markets, and highlights the direct impact of these duties on the movement of Egyptian exports.
These measures represent a direct threat to the ability of Egyptian exports to competitively access the markets of member states, and also weaken the effectiveness of the regional agreements that Egypt is striving to activate in order to support intra-trade on the African continent, at the heart of which is the COMESA Agreement.
Accordingly, the relevant authorities in Kenya, to ensure adherence to the signed commitments, and to safeguard the rights of Egypt and its exporters under the agreement |
|
|
NTB-001-345 |
|
2025-06-26 |
Djibouti: Djibouti sea port |
Ethiopia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A procedural inconsistency exists in the handling of export shipments from Ethiopia to the Djibouti Free Zone, whereby the acceptance of tarpaulin-covered trucks is applied inconsistently in comparison to containerized cargo. In practice, some shipments transported in tarpaulin-covered trucks are permitted entry into the Free Zone, while others are denied access and required to be containerized without clear justification or prior notice. This inconsistent enforcement creates uncertainty among traders and transport operators, leading to delays, additional handling and transportation costs, and operational inefficiencies.
As a result, exporters particularly small-scale traders face difficulties in planning their logistics and complying with requirements, which ultimately reduces their competitiveness and limits smooth market access along the corridor. |
|
|
NTB-001-347 |
|
2026-03-17 |
Zimbabwe: |
Zambia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Informal traders carrying small quantities of goods, such as fresh produce, cooking oil, rice, sugar and pasta.
These traders cross the Victoria Falls border post by bike or foot.
The complaint concerns over 50 traders per day, crossing the border.
When entering Zimbabwe, they get stopped by Customs and will face seemingly arbitrary restrictions on quantities of goods that can enters (which change on a daily basis and depending on the specific officer on duty). When these arbitrary quantities are exceeded, the officers often confiscate all of the goods or demand bribes to release the traders. They also face threats when questioning the behaviour of the officer.
When returning after selling goods on the market in Zimbabwe, and after clearing the Zimbabwe Customs, they will often get stopped by police or soldiers in the no-mans-land between the borders to be demanded further bribes from the proceeds of their sales.
If bringing merchandise from Zimbabwe back to Zambia, depending on the officers at the border and despite the small quantities carried, they will be asked to obtain an export license from Harare. Or to pay another bribe to be released. |
|
|
NTB-001-361 |
|
2026-01-14 |
Ethiopia: Dilla Customs Office |
Ethiopia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Dilla Customs Office has repeatedly delayed the clearance of export goods destined for the Moyale Border for extended periods, despite all required documents and formalities having been duly completed. These products were issued permits with specific validity periods, yet the delays persist, causing unnecessary disruptions. This issue has occurred several times at the same government institution. |
|
|
NTB-001-362 |
|
2025-09-23 |
Ethiopia: Ethio-Dibouti Railway |
Ethiopia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Ethio-Djibouti Railway, in addition to providing transport services to the Dewele border, also offers freight forwarding services to exporters, either directly or through its agents. While the contractual agreement is established between the exporter and the railway operator, the actual service delivery is often carried out by third-party agents with whom exporters have no direct contact.
This arrangement limits the exporters ability to track consignments in real time. In several instances, exporters only become aware about the missing consignment at the border. So,the remaining/missing goods will be shipped separately through the same process, resulting in additional transport costs and delays. Consequently, there is a delay in meeting delivery deadlines, which affects the trader’s reliability and lead to financial losses as well. |
|
|
NTB-001-363 |
|
2025-11-18 |
Ethiopia: Government Institutions at One Stop Border Post |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
There is a lack of coordination arising from the fragmented structure of the offices and the limited number of officers assigned to support operations. Offices are located in different buildings that are not interrelated, and staffing constraints further reduce efficiency. For example, only one officer is responsible for conducting standard inspections for both export and import goods, creating a bottleneck.
In addition, each institution operates independently under its own supervision, with limited cross-agency integration. While some services, such as agriculture-related offices, still rely on manual processes, others, such as customs, have fully adopted digital systems for clearing goods. However, customs procedures still depend on confirmations from these other agencies before goods can be cleared, leading to delays and inefficiencies.
Overall, these structural and operational challenges contribute significantly to the lack of coordination. |
|
|
NTB-001-364 |
|
2026-01-07 |
Kenya: |
Ethiopia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Ethiopian maize quality standards are not accepted in Kenya, requiring additional conformity assessment. This has resulted for an extra costs of approximately 44,000 Kenyan Shillings per consignment, increasing the cost of doing business. |
|
|
NTB-001-365 |
|
2025-12-10 |
Ethiopia: Moyale |
Ethiopia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
There were delays in obtaining approval or certification for goods imported through the Moyale border. Samples are required to be tested in Addis Ababa before clearance can take place. As a result, importers are expected to obtain the necessary approval before the goods are shipped to Ethiopia. Otherwise, if the approval is sought after the goods arrive and undergo document verification, significant delays may occur.
Following the complaint received, a visit was conducted to the Moyale One-Stop Border Post (OSBP), where these issues were confirmed. For instance, a Vaseline product with all the required specifications (five types) intended for import into Ethiopia was required to obtain prior approval. However, the process took up to two months. This approval or certification is essential for clearance.
If importers fail to secure the approval before the goods arrive at the border, they may face extended waiting periods to obtain the necessary authorization before clearance can proceed. This situation was observed at the Moyale OSBP and confirmed by officers responsible for document verification. |
|
|
NTB-001-367 |
|
2026-02-02 |
Djibouti: Djibouti sea port |
Ethiopia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The importer experienced significant challenges during the customs clearance process at the Port of Djibouti. Upon arrival of the shipments (both containerized cargo and vehicles), they were informed of multiple documentation-request by customs authorities. These issues included minor discrepancies such as spelling errors in the Bill of Lading, as well as requirements to provide additional supporting documents that had not been communicated to them prior to the arrival of the cargo.
Importantly, these documentation requirement were not raised in advance, which prevented them from making the necessary corrections before the shipment has reached to the port. As a result, they were required to repeatedly amend and resubmit documents under a time pressure leading to delays in the clearance process.
Due to these combined challenges, the cargo remained at the port beyond the allowed free storage period. Consequently, the importers has incurred significant unplanned costs, including demurrage charges and other related port fees. |
|
|
NTB-001-368 |
|
2026-03-06 |
Djibouti: Galafi |
Ethiopia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The movement of goods through the Galafi border corridor is significantly constrained by poor road infrastructure between Ethiopian border and Djibouti, particularly around the Dikil town corridor, which stretches approximately 80 kilometers. Traders and transporters said that traveling within this route can take up to 19 hours for a relatively short distance compared to the same distance takes 4 hours in normal road infrastructure, mainly due to the poor condition of the road.
The prolonged travel time has several direct and indirect impacts on traders. First, delays in transportation often result in late arrival at the border post, which in turn leads to additional costs such as extended storage/container fees, and missed clearance schedules. These delays also significantly affect perishable goods, including agricultural products and livestock trade. Traders indicated that animals transported along this route sometimes suffer from stress, illness, or death due to the long and difficult journey, resulting in financial losses.
Another major concern is the health and safety of drivers. Spending nearly a full day to cover only 80 km exposes drivers to extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and limited access to medical or emergency services along the route. The difficult road conditions also increase the likelihood of vehicle accidents and mechanical failures.
In cases of vehicle breakdown or accidents, transporters face additional burdens such as expensive car towing services, which further increase operational costs. Moreover, traders highlighted that insurance coverage for goods in transit is either unavailable or extremely expensive for this route. Because of the high risk associated with the road condition, many transporters are unable to afford insurance, leaving them financially vulnerable in the event of accidents, cargo or container damage, or loss.
Traders also emphasized that these challenges persist despite the existence of an alternative road that has already been constructed but is not yet operational. If this alternative route were opened and fully functional, it could significantly reduce travel time, lower transport costs, improve driver safety, and minimize losses related to perishable goods and livestock.
Overall, the poor infrastructure along the Galafi–Dikil corridor represents a substantial non-tariff barrier to trade, creating delays, increasing costs, and exposing traders and transporters to significant financial and safety risks. |
|
|
NTB-001-369 |
|
2026-02-16 |
Kenya: |
Ethiopia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Under the East African Community (EAC) Vehicle Load Control Act, 2016, Kenya applies permissible maximum axle load limit of 28-ton along the Moyale–Nairobi (A2) corridor. In contrast, Ethiopian trucks are permitted to carry loads of up to 40 tons up to the Moyale One-Stop Border Post (OSBP). Due to this regulatory mismatch, Ethiopian trucks cannot proceed further into Kenya and must offload their cargo at the border.
This process is further delayed by the limited availability of Kenyan trucks to take over the cargo, as well as a shortage of warehouse facilities at the border, which forces vehicles to wait longer with their goods. Conversely, Kenyan trucks are generally able to transport goods into Ethiopia without similar restrictions. |
|
|
NTB-001-244 |
6.5. Variable levies |
2020-10-13 |
Uganda: URA |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda is subjecting Kenya manufacture furniture to discriminative excise duty of 20% that it is not subjected to Uganda manufactured furniture.
Uganda is requested to remove the discriminative excise taxes on Kenya furniture transferred to Uganda as it is prohibited in the EAC Customs Union Protocol; Articles 1 and 75 (6) of the Treaty as well as Articles 15 (1) (a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol on National Treatment, and Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol of the Community Laws.
The charges are also in violation of Article 10 of the Custom Union Protocol that obligates Partner States to remove all internal tariffs and other charges of equivalent effect. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During 39th RMC, noted that the matter is under bilateral discussions and will be handled as per the agreement.
2.The 40th RMC was informed that the NTB was resolved thorugh a letter dated 30th September 2025 subimmtted to the meeting.However, the matter to be resolved by 30th June 2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-348 |
1.5. Requirement for counter trade |
2025-11-23 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal (OGEFREM) |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, through the Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal (OGEFREM), introduced an additional requirement mandating the acquisition of the OGEFREM Certificate. OGEFREM (Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal) is a real DRC agency involved in port/freight management and levies.This measure constitutes a Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB), particularly given that it’s paid for both in Uganda and DRC for the same product; apart from livestock, the fees aren’t standardised, and it’s not clear what value It adds. It constrains cross-border trade and undermines the principles and objectives of the East African Community (EAC) agreement, which promotes free movement of goods and regional integration.
Furthermore, this whole process creates delays and extra costs for cross‑border trade.
Traders have therefore proposed that the requirement to have an OGEFREM certificate be removed, and to the least have the cost of the OGEFREM Certificate be standardized and reduced. They note that small-scale traders are disproportionately affected, as they are often subjected to varying and elevated fees for the certificate, in addition to paying further OGEFREM-related charges that aren’t documented upon entry into the DRC. |
|
|
Progress:
|
The 40th RMC was informed that DRC will consult on the double payment with the view to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-351 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-07-15 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanza Tanzania discriminatory treatment of IndustIndustrial Development Levy of 10% on metal and metal products. The same is not being subjected to Tanzania local manufacturers |
|
|
Progress:
|
The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-360 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2026-03-01 |
South Sudan: Nimule |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The implementation of electronic permits (e-permits) and related electronic cargo tracking for goods entering South Sudan from Uganda has led to significant delyas and costs to traders eg Over 1,000 trucks are currently stranded at the Nimule border due to challenges with the e-permit system such as additional charges, and slow processing. On the same issue,there are complaints of Extortion.Truck drivers have reported that some officials refuse electronic payments and instead demand cash, leading to corruption and higher, unofficial fees. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the 40th RMC RSS informed the meeting that the e-Permit is a system Customs is relying on pending integration of the RSS Customs systems with other EAC systems. The Secretariat shall work with RSS on a roadmap to integrate the systems.
2. South Sudan Focal Point reported that e-Permit is a government policy to improve revenue collection and prevent smuggling, the system is operation in full knowledge of revenue authorities in the two Partner States of Kenya and Uganda. The delay of clearing cargos at the border are case by non-compliance.
3.During the 40th RMC, RSS informed the meeting that the e-Permit is a system Customs is relying on pending integration of the RSS Customs systems with other EAC systems. The Secretariat is in the process to facilitate RSS systems integration with the rest of EAC Customs systems.
4. On 10 May 2026, RSS provided the resolution between government of South Sudan and Regional Drivers Association (EAC) on the Trade challenges reported by Republic of Uganda at Nimule border and the highway to Juba. The resolution is a measure to facilitate trade and remove the trade barriers along that corridor. |
|
|
NTB-001-353 |
5.14. Restrictive licenses |
2026-04-10 |
Rwanda: Rwanda FDA |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
wanda FDA is subjecting Kenya products to costly charges for re-testing and registration of the products despite the products being certified by the Kenya bureau of standards with valid standardization mark.
The two products include ace pine fresh and ace citrus fresh liquid toilet cleaners. Rwanda FDA informed that the certifications for the two products had been revoked on the basis that they allegedly contained Nonyl Phenol despite successfully applying for and receiving product registrations from Rwanda FDA under certificates Rwanda FDA‑ADP‑MA‑0070 and Rwanda FDA‑ADP‑MA‑0072. Further the manufacturer confirmed they not using Nonyl Phenol
|
|
|
NTB-001-366 |
|
2026-01-08 |
Ethiopia: |
Ethiopia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Imported tyres are subject to duplicated conformity assessment at destination, despite having undergone identical testing procedures in the country of origin. The absence of recognition of prior test results leads to unnecessary duplication and additional testing cost. |
|
|
NTB-001-169 |
7.2. Discrimination |
2024-01-01 |
Burundi: Rugerero |
Tanzania |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Republic of Burundi is charging USD 152 Flat rate on Road user Charges from Kobero/Kabangato Bujumbura which is equivalent to USD 65.5 per 100KM, While Tanzania is charging USD 10 per 100KM. This discriminatory charge is contrary to directives made on the 18th Meeting of Sector Council on Transport,Communication and Meteorology |
|
|
Progress:
|
1.The 18th Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed:
(a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle;
(b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle.
(c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles:
● Buses;
● Trucks of three or less axles; and
● Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles / semi-trailers);
(d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so;
(e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states;
(f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonized charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC;
(g) Secretariat to mobilize funds for the study in (vi) above;
(h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry;
(i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and
(j) Partner States prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry.
2. Updates from the 45th Council of Ministers:
The NTBs on Road User Charges were also considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States:
The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that:
(a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favors big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size.
(b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates.
(c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers
(d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries.
(e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load / weight and distance but also considering other factors that favor all of us as a region
(f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies.
3. The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that:
(a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and
(b) They were still consulting on the matter.
4. The Council therefore observed that:
(a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and
(b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the Sectoral Council on TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of the Sectoral Council on TCM on harmonization of Road User Charges.
The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC / CM 45 / Directive 56).
Update from the 19th Sectoral Council on TCM:
The 19th Sectoral Council on TCM considered the matter and received inputs from Partner States as follows:
United Republic of Tanzania
Tanzania provided a presentation containing the background, findings and recommendations on the issues of Road User Charges as follows:
(i) Prior to the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania was charging a rate of USD 16 / 100km for vehicles over three axles and USD 6 / 100 km for vehicles of up to 3 axles;
(ii) After the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania reviewed her rates to USD 10 / 100km for vehicles above three axles and USD 06 / 100 km for vehicles below three axles
(iii) Under the road-user principle, road users are supposed to pay RUCs to compensate damage caused by vehicles;
(iv) There is need for non-discriminatory charging for road users from foreign vehicles;
(v) Studies reveal that the principles to be used to calculate RUCs should be foreign operators to pay for road use; non-discrimination and charges related to damage caused on the road infrastructure.
Uganda
5. Uganda submitted that:
(i) All roads are paid for by citizens through taxes and there are no free roads
(ii) Roads have a design life, and the main cause of deterioration is the weight (load carried by vehicles), and the distance moved. The heavier the weight carried the more the degradation and the longer the distance the more the degradation; hence the higher the repair costs required;
(iii) Road user charges are not profits for utilization of the roads but a contribution for the maintenance and repair of the roads;
(iv) The position of the 18th Sectoral Council of TCM is not discriminatory at all as it stipulates that whoever degrades the roads should meet a proportionate contribution to their repair and maintenance; moreover, all Partner States were involved in making that decision;
(v) The weight + distance consideration in the road user charge is an equitable basis for contributing to the maintenance and repair of roads;
(vi) Tanzania has already carried out a study similar to the one being proposed by some Partner States whose results were shared in the meeting, and they support the weight + distance basis for determining the road user charges;
(vii) Deferring the decision on the user charges will cause an unnecessary vacuum which will have serious effects in the road sector; the largest mode of transport at the moment.
The Republic of Uganda therefore supports the position of the 18th TCM.
Burundi
6. Burundi was of the view that landlocked countries should not be disadvantaged to access the world markets through high transit charges along coastal countries. The fixed rate for RUCs should be maintained. The RUCs include fuel levy for road maintenance, vehicle license fees, international transit fees and others such as congestion fees. The concern raised by Burundi is that RUC should be restricted to transit fees. The road user from neighboring countries pay for damage to the road network is catered for by the fuel levy.
Rwanda
7. Rwanda was of the opinion that the rates should be determined by the Committee responsible for fees, charges and levies since that committee handles all sectors of the economy that includes all modes of transport. What was needed was the timeline within which to harmonize the charges. The charges incurred by transporters are actually borne by the citizens, who are the end users of the cargo being transported.
Kenya
8.Kenya supports the directives of the 18th TCM. However, EAC Secretariat was supposed to prepare TORs for a regional study on harmonized RUCs. Alternatively, the study could be done by a TWG. Through a bilateral arrangement, Kenya and Tanzania harmonized their charges to comply with COMESA rates. But the proposed study by the Secretariat should take into account the principals. further, the quality of roads in the region are not the same, hence there was a need to harmonize the road quality standards so that the cost of maintenance of roads is similar for all countries.
9.The Secretariat clarified that the draft TORs had been prepared but needed to be updated and submitted to Partner States for review in two weeks. Regarding the modality for the study, the TCM had agreed that the study be carried out by an independent consultant oversighted by a technical working group. The issue of RUCs is also an agenda in SADC and COMESA and, therefore, is a Tripartite issue. Currently discussions are ongoing with the EU and TMA, and it is hoped that a solution will be found.
Conclusion
10. Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania were of the opinion that the principles of charging agreed by the 18th TCM (distance + weight) should be maintained, as the region awaits the outcome of the study by the Secretariat. However, Rwanda and Burundi positions are that the charges should be further analyzed by the Committee on rates, fees and levies.
11. The meeting noted that the 19th TCM among others reiterated its directive to Partner States applying the COMESA rates on RUCs as directed by the 18th TCM (EAC / TCM 19 / Directive 08).
The Republic of Rwanda and Republic of Burundi were of the view that the study should come first before implementation of the TCM Directives.
Permanent / Principal / Under Secretaries noted the need for the study by TCM on harmonization of road user charges, as they have direct impact on the cost of doing business in the Region and be subjected to the joint consideration by the Sectoral Council on TCM and SCTIFI.
The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment took note of the directives of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology on the harmonized road user charges; and recommended to Council to direct the Secretariat to convene a joint meeting of the Sectoral Council of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology and Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment to consider the recommendations of the study on the harmonization of road user charges once finalized by the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 47).
The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19)
12.The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19)
13.During 39th RMC, Burundi informed the meeting that, she is still waiting for the outcome of the study.
14. During the 40th RMC Burundi informed the meeting that they are implementing the status core directed by the 46th Council and hence considers the complaint resolved as Council lagalised the charges each Partner State was charging at that moment. Other Partner States, however, were of the view that status core as directed by the Council does not solve the challenge for harmonised road user charges and hence insisted on the finalisation of the study on Harmonisation of EAC Road User Charges. |
|
English
Français
