| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-478 |
8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-20 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Cuchamano |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-02-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mozambique restricts an articulated vehicle carrying general cargo, to 18 metres length. It restricts an artic carrying ISO shipping containers to 16.5 metres length. This does not conform to the recommendations given by both COMESA and SADC. Generally, artics in Southern Africa are up to 18.5 metres in length, in accordance with the SADC recommendations. Transporters cannot practically shorten their artics and comply with the Mozambique regulations. Fines are received by transporters when they try to travel through Mozambique with artics longer than 16.5 or 18 metres. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 February 2015, Mozambique Focal Point advised that the NTB be resolved in according to the existing Regulation (Decree 14/2008 of 25 June) and that it should be noted that Mozambique did not have infrastructure prepared to adopt the specifications of South Africa, so that the movement of carriers in Mozambique is made on specific routes. However, Mozambique was working towards conforming to SADC specifications on vehicle length and weights.
FESARTA confirmed that there had been no reports of recent problems with NTB 478 and therefore the NTB should be resolved. FESARTA made an observation that the regulation was probably introduced many years ago, when there could have been a particular issue that resulted in the regulation and that the regulation may not have any relevance now. |
|
|
NTB-000-480 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-07 |
Zambia: Chililabombwe Municipal Council, Zambia |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Transporters are being charged a motor vehicle fee by Chililabombwe Municipal Council. There is no justification for such a fee since the transporters do not receive any services from the Council. The transporters are travelling on national roads, which are maintained by the government and not the Council. The transporters pay road user charges to the government to maintain the roads. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 7 September 2016, Zambia Focal point reported that All Levies collected by the Council are guided by Section 69 and 70 of the Local Government Act CAP 281 of the Laws of Zambia which specifies the Levies to be collected. Under this Act (CAP 281), no Council is mandated to collect motor vehicle fees. The supporting Local Government Act was uploaded for reference |
|
|
NTB-000-484 |
7.10. Other |
2012-01-03 |
Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls Weighbridge |
South Africa |
Resolved
2012-10-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Old and inaccurate weighbridge. The Vic Falls weighj bridge is a manual weighbridge and transporters have endless trouble there with trucks which pass all Zambian electronic weighbridges and are then declared overweight in Vic Falls. The fines also are astronomical. They will not allow a reweigh and when the fine is paid the truck is allowed to proceed without any adjustment or offloading and it then passes all other Zimbabwe weighbridges and RSA weighbridges without any overweight. The weighbridge is old and inaccurate and should not be used for enforcement. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 03 October 2012, FESARTA reported that they had recieved input from the Zimbabwe VID, to the fact that the Victoria Falls weighbridge is reasonably new and calibrated regularly. FESARTA reported that there had been no reports of problems at this weighbridge and therefore FESARTA recommended that this NTB can be removed from the system. |
|
|
NTB-000-486 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-02-15 |
SADC |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are a South African Transport Company transporting goods into DRC. We are paying on weekly basis exorbitant road duties in Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe & DRC if we offload loads from Johannesburg RSA to Mutanda DRC. Our cost on a tri-axle on road fee is 1060 Pula on return trip (Martinsdrif to Kazangula and back), insurance 50P for 3 months and then about 100 Pula on a yearly level also. Zambia insurance 300 000KW for year, then toll fee for 285USD on return trip Kazangula to DRC border and back, 200 000KW carbon tax, 70 000KW for extra toll fees on road. Zimbabwe insurance 170USD for year, the 100USD on toll fees, then coupons another 10USD and environmental cost depends on the load and weight up to 160USD & 90USD carbon 3 months. Going into the DRC, border customs parking 133USD, entry fee and costing 350USD, 300USD PEAGE, 4x 150USD for toll fees going to Mutanda and coming back.
None of the foreign trucks from DRC, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana or Namibia pay this cost when entering South Africa. We drive on the roads to supply clients with goods, we provide a service, the same as for the foreign transporters, but they don't pay similarly high costs when entering South Africa. We need an explanation from the countries listed above as to why is this done. At the moment, we give to a driver for one load going to DRC from JHB, 2400USD, 2500 PULA & R5000 to cover these expenses and we cannot increase our rates easily, without risking losing our clients. What can be done about this situation? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Focal Points from Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe reported the current standard official charges and argued that these are in accordance established regional protocols. At the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013, South Africa focal point requested that the NTB be considered non actionable as they could not trace the complainant.
However, the NTB is considered resolved as it does not fall under the ' non actionable' category of complaints. |
|
|
NTB-000-493 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-04-16 |
South Africa: Gauteng |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Note: This is not reported by South Africa, but by FESARTA; a sub-regional organization.
The South African National Roads Agency, SANRAL, is planning to introduce new toll fees on its upgraded Gauteng freeways (E-tolls). The proposed fees are in excess of fees agreed at regional level, viz:
In 2007, the SADC-recommended road user charge for South Africa, was US$2.92/100kms, for a heavy goods vehicle. In 2009, this was revised to US$3.46/100kms. These recommended figures were calculated from the road maintenance data submitted to SADC by South Africa in those years.
On its busiest freeway, the N3 from Durban to Gauteng, the 2012 toll fees charged by SANRAL amount to approximately US$13/100kms. This is far in excess of the fees recommended by SADC.
Now, SANRAL is proposing to charge around US$19/100kms for the use of the Gauteng freeways by a heavy goods vehicle.
It is considered that these fees are excessively high and will unnecessarily add to the cost of goods to the consumer in the East and Southern African region. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At its 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, SCTF noted that the report was based on toll fees that were not yet implemented. As such traders are not affected. It was agreed that matter be filed until such time that the fees are effected |
|
|
NTB-000-497 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-05-08 |
Eswatini: Bordergate |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-12-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Swaziland is to impose Quantitive import restrictions on imported edible cooking oil from within the SADC region as well as 15% import duties over and above the quantitive restriction. Such has happen already on Wheat Flour and after 8 years of 'Infancy Protection', NO IMPORT permits are issued to date. Court Case is currently being heard by the High Court of Swaziland. (Various Stakeholders versus Government of Swaziland) |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At their meeting held on 23 May 2013, the SCTF recalled Articles 3 and 7 of the Trade Protocol, on elimination of trade barriers and quantitative restrictions. Swaziland reported that measure was implemented in the context of the SACU, which provides for quantitative restrictions and protection of infant industry protection. SCTF requested Swaziland to provide its relevant national legal instrument and information on how the measure is applied including whether or not it is applicable to trade with non-SACU SADC FTA Member States. Swaziland undertook to provide the information as requested. Swaziland submitted the legislation as per requirement . This NTB is therefore resolved . |
|
|
Products:
|
1205.10: Low erucic acid rape or colza seeds "yielding a fixed oil which has an erucic acid content of < 2% and yielding a solid component of glucosinolates of < 30 micromoles/g", 1205.90: High erucic rape or colza seeds "yielding a fixed oil which has an erucic acid content of >= 2% and yielding a solid component of glucosinolates of >= 30 micromoles/g", whether or not broken and 1206.00: Sunflower seeds, whether or not broken |
|
|
NTB-000-512 |
8.6. Vehicle standards |
2012-06-01 |
Tanzania: Tunduma |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
While the SADC and most EAC countries as well as most international countries allow a vehicle length (semi truck and trailer) of 18,5 M Tanzania only allows 17,5M. This is, in itself, not really a problem, and we are willing to buy permits in order to comply with that country's rules. However the only way you can obtain a permit is to arrive at Tunduma border post (or any border post ) then you have to pay someone to catch a bus for about 900 Kms and apply in Dar es Salaam. This can take days and then to aggravate the situation, the permits will only be issued on a Thursday, then the runner has to catch a bus all the way back to the border post in unreliable busses etc. It only took two days to clear the transit goods into Tanzania for transit into Kenya, however we have had to wait approximately ten days just to get a permit for being the normal SADC length of vehicle. We are carrying UN goods and we have now missed the deadline for the goods to be loaded onto the ship in Mombasa. It is entirely unacceptable that Thousands of Dollars of time and money are now lost due to such a rule that the rest of world has moved past. Also if Tanzania wishes to continue to collect revenue for permits then is it not an easier solution for them to have an office at the border (possibly VID) that can issue a permit and allow goods to move in due time. At the very least could Tanroads, or the Ministry not simply allow pre purchase or order of the permits via internet and let VID issue and check the vehicle dimensions at the border? Why does this have to be such a difficult and time consuming issue that slows down trade into and across Tanzania's borders |
|
|
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, Tanzania had consultations with South Africa and agreed it was a one off incident and if any issues arise they should contact Tanroad office at the Tunduma Border. |
|
|
NTB-000-514 |
8.4. Transport related corruption |
2012-02-06 |
Zambia: Nakonde |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
A company by the name of ZAMESCO, is charging transporters to park at the Nakonde border post.
The charge is 24 US dollars per day.
There is no official parking area and so the trucks would normally park along the road.
However, they are forced to park in ZAMESCO's parking area, without being given any alternative.
The Zambian authorities have not regulated these parking charges, nor have they condoned them. These are arbitrary charges imposed by a company that has no authority to do so.
They are uneccessarily increasing the cost of transport on the Dar es Salaam corridor.
Attached are scanned copies of parking receipts.
|
|
|
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 ZAMESCO is a private dry port. Vehicles have the option to park along the road side. |
|
|
NTB-000-515 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2012-06-27 |
Zambia: Kazungula Ferry |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Transporters are being charged a motor vehicle fee by Siavonga Municipal Council. There is no justification for such a fee since the transporters do not receive any services from the Council. The transporters are travelling on national roads, which are maintained by the government and not the Council. The transporters pay road user charges to the government to maintain the roads.
Please refer to NTB 480 |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zambia advised that all Levies collected by the Council are guided by Section 69 and 70 of the Local Government Act CAP 281 of the Laws of Zambia which specifies the Levies to be collected. Under this Act (CAP 281), no Council is mandated to collect motor vehicle fees. The measure shall be uploaded onto the online NTMs database . |
|
|
NTB-000-518 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2012-07-09 |
South Africa: Durban sea Port |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-10-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency is wanting to fine trucks for not having road transport permits for the complete trip from Durban to the DRC.
In terms of the bi-lateral transport agreement between Zimbabwe and South Africa, Zimbabwe had issued a permit to a transporter for the Durban-Zimbabwe leg of the trip.
Zimbabwe could not issue a bi-lateral permit all the way to DRC because there is no bi-lateral transport agreement between Zimbabwe and DRC.
Both Zimbabwe and DRC are members of COMESA and therefore Zimbabwe was able to issue a COMESA PTA Carriers Licence to the transporter, to operate between Zimbabwe and the DRC.
Thus, effectively, the transporter had permits to cover the complete trip from Durban to DRC.
The fact that neither the CBRTA nor Zimbabwe could issue a single permit for the full trip, was not the fault of the transporter.
The CBRTA should be facilitating trade between the three countries and not be trying to find any opportunity to fine transporters. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
FESARTA reported that the NTB does not exist at present. |
|
|
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-000-526 |
1.1. Export subsidies
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-08-26 |
Zambia: Chirundu |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-10-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Zambian Ministry of Agriculture has cancelled all export permits and required exporters to apply for an individual permit for each truck. No notice was given.
This has resulted in significant delays in that trucks en route have to wait at the border whilst new permits are applied for.
In addition, permits are only being issued for up to 30 tons.
56-ton gross combination mass vehicle combinations can load 33 tons and over, meaning a reduction of at least 10% of the load.
There is no legal justification for restricting the load to 30 tons, since the road traffic regulations control loads through axle loads, gvm and gcm. Never the load on the vehicle.
This will result in an increase in cost to transport the goods. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
FESARTA reported that the NTB does not exist at present. |
|
|
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-000-551 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-11-02 |
Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Zimbabwean Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure is levying a toll of US$30 per trip, for the crossing of the Victoria Falls bridge. Ref: SI 171 of 2012.
This toll is not justified because it was never discussed with those who are having to pay the toll and there is no reconciliation for the amount of the toll.
Furthermore, transporters pay road user charges, which are to cover the wear and tear caused to the roads and bridges. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-553 |
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-000-535 |
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-000-575 |
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-000-563 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2013-01-11 |
Zimbabwe: Chitungwiza |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
A transporter's vehicle has once again been held up by the road traffic authorities in Zimbabwe, for the vehicle not complying strictly to the Zimbabwe vehicle regulations.
In this instance, the rear lights of the truck were not in precisely the right position, according to the Zimbabwe regulations.
The official, in this instance, was constable Munaki, official number 060189F.
After intervention by the road transport industry and much delay, the vehicle was released with a warning.
This complaint is similar to that in NTB 524, where the information plate on the vehicle did not comply with the Zimbabwe regulations.
The practice of Zimbabwe road traffic authorities harassing transporters over trivial vehicle equipment regulations is not acceptable.
Vehicles foreign to Zimbabwe, comply with the regulations in their own countries and receive a certificate of fitness to show that they are compliant.
This certificate of fitness should be acceptable to the Zimbabwe authorities, unless, of course, the vehicle is clearly not roadworthy. The rear lights being in a different position, or the information plate giving different information, does not make the vehicle unroadworthy.
Two of the clauses in one of the bi-lateral road transport agreements that Zimbabwe holds with another country, state that each country should "promote fair and equitable treatment for carriers from both countries" and "strengthen their economic and commercial relations in the spirit of co-operation and friendship".
The actions of the Zimbabwe road traffic authorities do not subscribe to the above requirements and the authorities are requested to adhere to the objectives of the bi-lateral agreements. |
|
|
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. |
|
English
Français
