| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
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-000-576 |
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 |
|
|
NTB-000-619 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2014-01-10 |
Mozambique: Tete Corridor |
South Africa |
Resolved
2014-07-02 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
South African-registered trucks are required to be escorted by the Mozambique authorities, from the Cuchamano border post, along the Tete Corridor, to their destinations. They are charged US$100 to the Zobue border post and US$150 to the Calomue border post.
Transporters have confirmed that they would prefer not to be escorted, as it delays their trips.
If the Mozambique authorities insist on escorting the vehicles, then the cost should be covered by Mozambique. Transporters should not have to pay for something that they do not want and it should be included in the Mozambique authorities' budget. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 03 July 2014 FESARTA reported that they had received communication from the Mozambique authorities that escorts are only required under exceptional cases, and no charges can be made. This NTB is therefore resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-639 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2014-08-25 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Director, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, South Africa, has instructed that, due to the outbreak of the ebola virus in DRC, no DRC citizens may enter South Africa until further notice.
See the attached notice.
Whilst it is accepted that the outbreak of the ebola virus is a serious issue, the transport industry recommends that other preventative measures be taken at the borders, rather than stop DRC citizens from entering the country? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-706 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2016-05-18 |
Uganda: Uganda Police |
Burundi |
Resolved
2016-12-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda recognizes the COMESA yellow card insurance but it is not honoured once there is an accident. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 22nd meeting of the EAC NTBs Forum held in December 2016 , accepted Uganda report that she recognizes COMESA Yellow Card insurance. However the policy requires that all trucks involved in criminal accidents should be held to allow investigation. |
|
|
NTB-000-835 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2018-01-19 |
Tanzania: Namanga |
Kenya |
Resolved
2019-05-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
KNCCI as a business membership organization, is in receipt of complaints that the chemical sector is being requested by the United Republic of Tanzania to:
1. Pay Tshs 90,000 equivalent to Kshs 4,500 annually for the Government Chemical Laboratory Transport Permit to allow them to transport their chemical products to their customers. The permit takes about 3 weeks for it to be approved
2. Register the companies in Tanzania and to use Tanzanian registered Vehicles instead of Kenyan registered vehicles to transport their products to the customers
The above is in addition to the import tax that the companies pay hence it is felt that these are additional costs being levied on the manufacturers/exporters |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
anzania informed the Regional Monitoring Committee on 3rd May, 2019 that:
1. According to the EAC vehicle load Act 2016, the permit is mandatory and hence is not an NTB.
2. The permit is now issued immediatly and is online since 1st April, 2019 www.portal.gcla.go.tz; www.gcla.go.tz
3. Registration of the transporter is mandatory in Tanzania due to the sensitivity of the goods and public health. This is a regional and international requirement.
4. GCLA does not require other Partner States to use Tanzania registered vehicles when transporting chemicals into Tanzania. It is the Company that needs to be registered by GCLA.
The meeting agreed that all Partner States should sensitze their business community on the requirements for the transportation and handling of Chemicals in region in accordance with Regional and International Laws.
The NTB was resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-911 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2019-10-15 |
Zambia: All Zambia Weighbridges |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2020-07-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zambia applies 0% tolerance on Gross Weight at all Weigh Bridge Stations when all the other counties on the North – South Corridor allows 2 – 5% tolerance on Gross Weight as allowance for weigh bridge weight variances, since weigh bridges give varying weights at any given time which results in fining transporters unnecessarily. The expectation is that Zambia should apply a 2% tolerance on gross weight thereby removing the current challenge faced by foreign operators in the country. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 8th Meeting of NTBs Focal Points held on 8- 10 July 2020, Zambia reported that it applies a 5% tolerance on Gross Weight at all Weigh Bridges. Zimbabwe needs to clarify whether they are still experiencing challenges. If not it should be considered resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-932 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2019-12-04 |
Zambia: Ministry of Transport |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2020-11-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zambia Proposed legislation to restrict foreign registered Road Freight Transport Operators from loading cargo into and out of Zambia violates the provisions of the SADC Protocol, particularly:
1.1 Section 5.1 which calls for the development of a strong and competitive road transport industry which provides effective transport services to consumers. Clearly the introduction of quotas is anti-competitive;
1.2 Section 5.2 calls for equal treatment, non-discriminatory, reciprocity and fair competition. As already pointed out the proposed legislation is discriminatory and anti-competitive;
1.3 Section 6 in which a Zambia/Zimbabwe Joint Route Management Group forum exist but apparently has been ignored by the Zambian authorities who have chosen to introduce the proposed legislation without the courtesy of discussion using the established channels.
The transporters see a backlash from regional countries if this comes to pass and we will soon see cargo staging/transfer points arising at border posts as pressure from regional transport operators mount on their respective Governments to implement similar regulation. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 November 2020, Zimbabwe Focal Point reported that this issue is one of proposed legislation which is not in force and still under consultation. Other Countries in the region are implementing similar provisions which in our view should be the ones reported as NTBs. Foreign Transporters are not experiencing any challenges in Zambia with respect to this particular complaint. |
|
|
NTB-000-937 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2020-01-26 |
Zambia: Chirundu |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2020-01-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Lamcast Refractories is a Manufacturing Company located in Redcliff, Zimbabwe. On the 26th of January 2020 we had an export to Zambia, transported via Chirundu border post. Upon arrival at the border our driver was advised through our clearing agent that the consignment needed a cross border permit.
Prior to the trip we had been advised by the VID in Zimbabwe and the Ministry of Transport that the vehicle that we are using is too small (5ton truck), and does not require a cross border permit because of its size and we were further advised that since the truck has yellow number plates it does not require a cross border permit. We were also advised that a cross border permit is issued to 15ton trucks and above of which our truck is a 5ton truck
Our driver has been at border since Sunday the 26th of January 2020 and up today 28/01/20 he has not been cleared on the Zambian side.
The driver had a hard time on both sides of the border because of the issue of the required cross border permit. What we were advised on the ground is different from what was encountered at the border.
May you kindly assist us on the way forward.
We have been exporting to Botswana via Plumtree border post since 2016, and we have never been asked to produce a cross border permit. The exports are being done using the same truck that we are using in Zambia. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe Focal Point reported that, the exporter took advice from Zambia Focal Point to seek assistance of Zambian Authorities at Chirundu border post who assisted him. The matter was therefore resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-003 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2021-01-26 |
Zambia: Zambia Revenue Authority |
|
Resolved
2024-06-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Government of Zambia issues Statutory Instrument 115 of 2020 , The Customs and Excise Ports of Entry and Routes Amendment Order, 2020, 9A(1) Reads , goods exported through Victoria Falls port in accordance with this paragraph shall be transported by rail, this Order automatically is a ban to export goods to Zimbabwe as the whole process to export using rail is a burdensome to trade by small scale players. Most goods are bought in Kamwala area shops and some being bought in the industrial areas which small players can easily transport using their vehicles or hired vehicles as they combine wares. Introduction for use of Rail is a clear indication by the Government of Zambia to ban export of certain commodities to Zimbabwe as market access will be a challenge to those living within Victoria Falls and the whole part of matebelalend as they are forced to use Chirundu exit .
Trucks can reach Victoria Falls within a day which is different from train, trucks you can accompany your goods different from train, trucks you can be cleared in time whereas using train everything is dumped at one place. this will open other avenues of bush borders or direct smuggling at the borders as officials will not be clearing goods in trucks |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The NTB is related to NTB-001-004 (which was resolved during the 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs). The NTB is therefore resolved, on the ground that NTB-001-003 and NTB-001-004 are equivalent, and that the basis on which later was later was resolved applies to the former. |
|
|
Products:
|
0401: Milk and cream, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter., 1905: Bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits and other bakers' wares, whether or not containing cocoa; communion wafers, empty cachets of a kind suitable for pharmaceutical use, sealing wafers, rice paper and similar products. and 34: CHAPTER 34 - SOAP, ORGANIC SURFACE-ACTIVE AGENTS, WASHING PREPARATIONS, LUBRICATING PREPARATIONS, ARTIFICIAL WAXES, PREPARED WAXES, POLISHING OR SCOURING PREPARATIONS, CANDLES AND SIMILAR ARTICLES, MODELLING PASTES, ‘DENTAL WAXES’ AND DENTAL PREPARATIONS |
|
|
NTB-001-025 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2021-08-10 |
Malawi: SONGWE KARONGA BOX 8 WEIGHBRIDGE |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2023-04-06 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Rwanda truck carrying Fertilizer TPT from Tanzania to Malawi Lilongwe was refused to enter Malawi and charged USD 1000 for violating third country rule a provision that is being applied betwen Zambia and Malawi to protect their national transport operators against foreign transporters not registered in Malawi. This is a discrimination against other trucks transporting goods to Malawi |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The COMESA workshop on Capacity building for Member States held on 2- 6 April 2023, reviewed this matter and recommended that the Secretariat to recommend to Rwanda to regard this NTB as resolved considering that there are Legal Instruments supporting its implementation. The relevant transport instruments would be shared with Rwanda. |
|
|
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-000-097 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-26 |
Botswana: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2020-03-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana has a single channel marketing for meat. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana reported that the BMC Act is under review by Ministry of Agriculture to allow entry of other players. |
|
|
NTB-000-097 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-26 |
Botswana: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2020-03-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana has a single channel marketing for meat. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13 March 2020, Botswana Focal Point reported that the Botswana Ministry of Agricultural Development and Food Security was in the process of establishing a meat regulator that will oversee import and export of meat products including beef. A regulation was issued late 2019 repealing the clause on the Botswana Meat Commission (BMC) Act that gave BMC the mandate as the sole exporter of cattle and its edible products, and instead mandated the Minister of Agricultural Development and Food Security to consider applications for any person wishing to export beef and its products. |
|
|
NTB-000-096 |
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 channeling marketing for wheat. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana reported that she does not have a single marketing channel for wheat. |
|
|
NTB-000-098 |
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 dairy |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana reported that there is free entry of other players. It is not restrictive |
|
|
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-000-071 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-23 |
South Africa: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Raw sugar can only be exported through a single channel |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that all excess raw sugar is exported by SASA on behalf of producers simply to safeguard on logistical costs etc to minimize the distortive effects of the world market. The manner in which it is done in SA does not conform to what is normally referred to as single channel - the implications of single channel can be much broader. |
|
English
Français
