| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-101 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2009-07-26 |
Zimbabwe: Ministry of Agriculture |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwe has single marketing channel for basic commodities. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that this is no longer obtaining. |
|
|
NTB-000-102 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-26 |
Mauritius: Ministry of Agriculture |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mauritius has single marketing channel for agricultural products |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mauritius reported that she is a net food importer and therefore state regulated agencies are necessary to coordinate food imports into that country for food security purposes |
|
|
NTB-000-074 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2009-07-23 |
South Africa: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South African Government has monopoly on trade in tobacco |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Afric areported that the applied tariff rate for tobacco imported from SADC countries is zero. Apart from WTO compatible SPS regulations there are no other technical barriers, including quantitative restrictions, on the importation or exportation of tobacco in South Africa. |
|
|
NTB-000-099 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2009-07-26 |
Botswana: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana has single marketing channel for maize |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana reported that she has multi channel maize marketing. Ministry of Agriculture issue import permits to ensure balance between local sourcing and importation. |
|
|
NTB-000-126 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-26 |
Eswatini: Ministry of Trade |
Eswatini |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Single channel marketing for sugar and sugar products. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Swaziland reported that the status quo remains because the Sugar Act has not been reviewed. |
|
|
NTB-000-073 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2009-07-23 |
South Africa: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South African government has monopoly on trade in Tea |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that the applied tariff rate for tea imported from SADC countries is zero. Apart from WTO compatible SPS regulations there are no other technical barriers, including quantitative restrictions, on the importation or exportation of tea in South Africa. |
|
|
NTB-000-546 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2010-09-01 |
Zimbabwe: Harare offices |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2016-08-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwe has too many agencies issuing agricultural Permits, thereby giving problems to those who would want to obtain them, for example you have to go to gugunyana offices then you go to Mazowe Plant and Quarantine offices then also you have to go to AMA (agricultural marketing authority) this process we feel its too long why cant it be done under one roof, or one just live your application then the move around into different offices is done within the office bearers |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that most of the issues are of policy nature therefore awareness programmes with relevant stakeholders and government agencies will be undertaken . |
|
|
NTB-000-511 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-03-14 |
Tanzania: Ministry of Transport |
Kenya |
Resolved
2012-06-01 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya tourist vans are not allowed to enter Tanzania. They are required to off load tourists to Tanzania registered vans. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 1 June 2012, Tanzania reported that, Tourist vans from Kenya are allowed to enter into Tanzania as foreign vans provided they have C32 formerly known as C36. A van carrying below 9 passengers are allowed free for 7 days. Van with 10 and above passengers are categorized as commercial vans and required as per Transit Act, 1995 to pay US$ 16 per axles in every 100 kms.
Tanzania advises Partner states to adhere to requirements for entry into another Partner State to avoid delays and inconveniences. Tourist vans should make sure they check all requirements and have fulfilled them before they set off for Tanzania. |
|
|
NTB-000-524 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-08-06 |
Zimbabwe: At road blocks |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Zimbabwe road traffic authorities are enforcing vehicle equipment regulations that pertain only to their own country and are not harmonized with other countries.
An example of this is for a truck to display its tare and gross mass on the exterior of the vehicle, in numbers and letters of a particular size. This requirement is not the same as for other countries. The Zimbabwe authorities should accept the certificates of roadworthiness from other countries. Zimbabwe should not harass drivers for such issues. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13 September 2013, FESARTA reported that they had subsequently received a letter from the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Infrastructural Development, directed to the Zimbabwe Republic Police, instructing the police to accept the standards of South African vehicles. FESARTA believes that this letter will also indirectly apply to vehicles from countries other than South Africa entering Zimbabwe. Therefore, FESARTA recommends that NTBs 524 and 563 be considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-528 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-09-10 |
Zimbabwe: Nyamapanda |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2015-06-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Port Health at Nyamapanda, Zimbabwe, has issued a notice to the effect that all goods transiting the border are to be inspected, from 10th September.
The inspection in itself is not a problem.
However, a charge is to be levied for this inspection. This is unacceptable.
Port Health is a government department, which has a duty to perform, in the course of its daily work.
This duty is part of Port Health's daily workload and it budgeted for from Central Government.
Health inspections are done in the interests of the country and are not asked for by the transporter.
There should be no extra charge for this.
What would happen if every government department charged citizens for carrying out their daily duties? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the meeting of COMESA Heads of Customs Sub- Committee held in Nairobi on 19-20 June 2015, Zimbabwe reported that the NTB was an internal control measure and what was required was sensitization of stakeholders on various import and export requirements. This was resolved at the 31st COMESA Trade and Customs Committee meeting held on 7-10 September 2015. |
|
|
NTB-000-531 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-09-28 |
Botswana: Kazungula Ferry |
Botswana |
Resolved
2016-08-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Chobe municipality is charging foreign transporters a fee to pass through its area of jurisdiction.
There is no justification for any municipality to charge transporters for travelling on the national roads through their areas.
The municipalities do not provide services to the transporters and the national roads are maintained by the national roads authorities.
This practice was started by Zambian municipalities and was halted by the Zambian government.
However, some Zambian municipalities continue to charge.
The practice also does not align with the RECs requirement that the transporters should pay road user charges and not other charges. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Focal Point advised that the Chobe Municipality no longer charges foreign transporters the fees. |
|
|
NTB-000-535 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-10-12 |
South Africa: Vioolsdrift |
South Africa |
Resolved
2014-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by the Road Freight Association.
The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency is requiring cross-border permits for two vehicles to take one load from South Africa to Namibia.
One permit is required to take the load from Johannesburg or Cape Town to Upington, and another permit to take the load from Upington to Namibia.
The Truck taking the load from Johannesburg or Cape Town to Upington should not require a cross-border permit, since the transport is being done wholly in South Africa.
The CBRTA quotes the following excerpt from the Act: "“cross-border road transport” means the transport of passengers for reward or the transport of freight to or from the Republic crossing or intending to cross its borders into the territory of another state or in transit across the Republic or the territory of another state with a vehicle on a public road; (xv)"
If this clause means that two permits are required, then the clause must be changed.
In the meantime, a moratorium to remove the requirement for two permits, must be put in place. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 April 2014, Namibia Focal Point reported that the explanation provided by South Africa Focal Point confirming that CBRTA was acting within the legal framework was adequate evidence to have this NTB resolved. This NTB is therefore resolved on the grounds that the CBRTA action was legal. |
|
|
NTB-000-548 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-11-30 |
Botswana: Kazungula Ferry |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-03-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Botswana Department of Veterinary Services is requiring a permit for agricultural products to be purchased in Gaborone and for the original to be carried on the truck.
This procedure is time-consuming and inefficient.
The process should be done electronically and the truck carry an electronic copy. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 25 March 2015, Botswana Focal Point reported that transit permits are now issued in various Veterinary Offices countrywide. Issuance of such permits has now been decentralized. Botswana still requires that permits original (hard) copies MUST always accompany consignment. It must be noted that 1 consignment requires 1 permit which is neither time consuming nor inefficient. Introduction of electronic copies (for convenience) is still being considered. With this explanation, and that transporters can obtain permits easily, the NTB should be considered resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-549 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-11-01 |
Mozambique: Maputo |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Matola Council, near Maputo, is requiring transporters to purchase a permit to enter its area.
The permit costs in the region of US$80 per trip.
It is not acceptable for a municipality to charge transporters to enter its area.
Transporters pay road user charges for the wear and tear they cause to the roads.
Furthermore, they purchase services and goods from the area and so increase trade. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mozambique reported that road user charges were charged at national level and not by Municipalities and that such charges are not legal. Mozambique requested FESRATA to provide proof of payment on the said charges as this is not legal in Mozambique. Proof of payment is provided in the online system. It was therefore agreed that this NTB be resolved and that FESRATA should report any such further charges to Mozambique authorities. |
|
|
NTB-000-553 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-11-20 |
Zambia: Mbala town |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Mbala town in Zambia is levying a parking fee on all transporters.
Transporters are not allowed to park along the roadside, but have to use ZAMESCO's parking yard, at a cost of US$36 per day.
This is not acceptable as the transporters are not given any alternative and the parking fee is high. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool held from 9-10 April 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Zambia reported that transporters are allowed to park along the road side. |
|
|
NTB-000-562 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-12-10 |
Kenya: Throughout Kenya |
Kenya |
Resolved
2014-07-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Kenya National Highways Authority (KENHA) is enforcing the axle load limits, rather than the GCM limit for the vehicle combination.
This is seriously compromising the ability of the transporters in Kenya to operated effectively and the Kenya Transporters Association (KTA) has taken the matter to court.
Some comments by the KTA:
1. KENHA is implementing this axle load rule on an axle by axle case rather than group axles. We realize the official position is group axle because when our enraged members stormed the Mariakani weighbridge yesterday, they promptly switched to weighing on group axles and giving a 5% tolerance, a matter that had hitherto not happened.
2. Their axle weights are 8-16-24 rather than 8-18-24 as the case is said to be in Tanzania. To comply here means one can’t optimize on his load.
3. The Traffic Act in Kenya requires an offender in this case is taken to court, fined and then made to redistribute cargo so that each axle is in conformity before the truck can proceed. The complication arises when the cargo is containerized transit goods which cant be opened sice continer is sealed and opening is criminal!
4. Similar complications arise in the case of liquid cargo which moves rapidly even when truck is being weighed or “sandy” like cargo such as clinker and the like which shifts depending on road terrain/condition or upon braking.
5. Our members are now forced to load 22 to 24 tons of the above cargo instead of the normal 27 tons. Unfortunately the overheads do not come down at all and they are now left with no option but to raise their rates by a similar margin. The question is whether our corridor and hinterland can afford such excessive costs.
FESARTA has drawn up a proposal to solve the problem and it is attached to this complaint. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 03 July 2014 FESARTA Kenya was about to sign a Load Charter with its transporters, which covered this issue therefore the NTB should be considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-565 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2013-02-05 |
Zambia: Copperbelt |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-03-31 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
When a vehicle foreign to Zambia, enters that country and wishes to operate to the copperbelt, the driver has to identify the destination town and pay the relevant road user charge.
During the trip, after offloading, the transporter may wish to load at a different town on the copperbelt.
The driver then has to purchase additional road user charges to that town, from Ndola, which is the only town issuing rucs. The vehicle may not be going to Ndola.
This is very inconvenient and costly to the transporter. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 31st March 2016, Zambia Focal Point advised that it is mandatory for transporters to pay Road User Chargers in all cities in Zambia. This applies to the cited area (Kasumbalesa and Mufulira Mokambo) in the complaint posted. The charges apply during working days and over the weekend, transporters can only pay at the border post (Kasumbalesa and Mufulira Mokambo). Given this clarification, Zambia therefore recommended that this complaint be resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-575 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2013-03-14 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
South Africa |
Resolved
2017-06-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The old bridge at Beitbridge cannot be opened to traffic because of an existing agreement between the government of Zimbabwe and a private sector company.
It is accepted that it is an old bridge and that it may not be safe for many heavy trucks using it at one time. However, there is a railway line over it and there does not seem to be any refusal to allow trains to use it.
It could be used by private motorists, so freeing the new bridge for heavy goods.
There seems to be no justification to renew the existing agreement. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that the two Governments of Zimbabwe and South Africa had agreed that the old Bridge remain closed following commissioning of the new bridge that is functioning properly without congestion. |
|
|
NTB-000-576 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-04-16 |
South Africa: Pretoria |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
In 2011 the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency, raised its cross-border road transport permits by up to 600%.
Not only was this increase unjustified, but it was done without negotiation with the road transport industry.
The resultant costs are also out of line with the costs for road transport permits in other countries.
FESARTA sent a letter (attached) to the Minister of Transport in South Africa, copied to SADC, but no response was received.
The South African Road Freight Association (RFA) has taken legal action against the increases.
The resultant permit fees put unecessarily high increases on the costs to transport goods to landlocked countries.
This is against trade facilitation. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-600 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2013-07-17 |
South Africa: Durban sea Port |
SADC |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA) is fining transporters for transporting goods from Gauteng to Durban without a cross-border permit. The fine is R2000 (USD200) per truck.
The goods are being transported from Botswana and offloaded in a warehouse in Gauteng, South Africa.
The goods are then re-loaded on to different vehicles and transported to Durban.
The vehicles transporting the goods from Botswana, have cross-border permits.
There should be no reason for vehicles transporting goods from Gauteng to Durban to have cross-border permits, even though the goods come from Botswana. The transportation is wholly within South Africa and on South African vehicles.
See NTB 535/6 for a similar complaint. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. The explanation from CBRTA was acceptable to FESRATA |
|
English
Français
