20. Africa and the World Trade Organisation

Constantine Michalopoulos, “Trade and Development in the GATT and the WTO: The Role of Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries”, World Bank, Working Draft, 2000, http://​siteresources.​worldbank.​org/​INTARD/​825826-1111405593654/​20432097/​Tradeanddevelopm​entintheGATTandW​TO.​pdf

Michalopoulos, “Trade and Development in the GATT and the WTO”.

“The minister in Doha, at the fourth Ministerial Conference mandated the Committee on Trade and Development to examine these special and differential treatment provisions. Also the Bali Ministerial Conference established a mechanism to review and analyse the implementation of provisions in December 2013”. See World Trade Organisation, https://​www.​wto.​org/​english/​tratop_​e/​devel_​e/​dev_​special_​differential_​provisions_​e.​htm

Maika Oshikawa, Ukamaka Anaedu, and Vicky Chemutai (2016), “Trade Policy Trends in Africa: Empirical Evidence from Twenty Years of WTO Trade Policy Reform”, in Patrick Low, Chiedu Osakwe, and Maika Oshikawa (eds.), African Perspective on Trade and the WTO: Domestic Reforms, Structural Transformation, and Global Economic Integration (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 69–104. These scholars argue that Africa did not fully implement WTO provisions, or was inconsistent in the applying the reform process for tariff and non-tariff barriers. For more nuanced and critical perspectives on the issue, see Rob Davies, “Trade Investment and Development”, in Low, Osakwe, and Oshikawa (2016), pp. 18–23; Rick Rowden, “Africa’s Boom Is Over”, Foreign Policy, 31 December 2015, http://​foreignpolicy.​com/​2015/​12/​31/​africas-boom-is-over/​; Dani Rodrik, “Has Globalization gone too far?”, Institute for International Economics (March 1997); and Yash Tandon, “Africa Draws Red Lines on the Sands of the WTO Ministerial”, Pambazuka (2015), https://​www.​pambazuka.​org/​global-south/​africa-draws-red-lines-sands-wto-ministerial

This was part of the outcome of the 2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration, para 42 D. The adoption and announcement of the work programme was made on 12 February 2002.

The AFT was part of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, which also established a Task Force to operationalise AFT, para 57.

Between 2005 and 2010 countries such as Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Swaziland and Zimbabwe have been third parties joining in consultation stages of dispute cases. Henrik Horn, Louise Johannesson, and Petros C. Mavroidis, “The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995–2010: Some Descriptive Statistics”, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, https://​www.​econstor.​eu/​bitstream/​10419/​81532/​1/​wp891.​pdf

Finger, “Rising Africa in World Trade?”.

UNECA, “Economic Report on Africa: Industrialising through trade”, 2015, p. 33.

UNECA, “Economic Report on Africa”.

UNECA, “Economic Report on Africa”.

UNECA, “Economic Report on Africa”.

UNECA, “Economic Report on Africa”.

All WTO member states from Africa have right of membership to the group. The Africa Group is presently composed of Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The Africa Group’s technical experts meet periodically to discuss technical issues in the negotiations and to consult with each other in identifying and reaching consensus on issues in the negotiations. They are organised in terms of focal points for different technical areas. The ambassadors meet to adopt the positions that are articulated as group positions. Coordination of the group rotates in alphabetical order every six months, with exceptions for another six-month period. The focus is to seek commonality, where this is feasible, so as to gain from strength in numbers.

Africa’s LDCs are: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia.

Seven countries are at various stages of the WTO accession process: Algeria, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Liberia, Libya, Seychelles, and Sudan. Cape Verde acceded to the WTO in 2007.

Net food-importing developing countries, all LDCs: Botswana, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gabon, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, and Tunisia.

This section benefitted tremendously from comments and insights from my colleagues Aileen Kwa and Peter Lunenborg of the South Centre and also from Wase Musonge-Ediage. All interpretation is made by the author.

UNECA,“Economic Report on Africa”.

UNECA,“Economic Report on Africa”; Pierre Sauvé and Natasha Ward, “The Preferential Liberation of Trade in Services: African Perspectives and Challenges”, Swiss Centre for Competence in Research Working Document, WP 2012/01, (January 2012); and Joy Kategekwa, “The State of Play: Where Do We Go From Here”, http://​www.​ictsd.​org/​downloads/​2008/​08/​state-of-play-in-the-gats-negotiations_​joy-kategekwa.​pdf

According to UNECA’s,“Economic Report on Africa”, Services accounts for 13% of Africa’s exports in 2013 and the services sector is the main contributor for 35 of 54 according countries but for Egypt, South Africa and Morocco and about nine other countries account for about 52% of services trade in Africa in the year 2012.

As noted in the UNECA, “Economic Report on Africa”, this should be along the guidelines of the ninth WTO Ministerial Conference that was held in Bali, Indonesia in 2013.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

UNECA “Economic Report on Africa”.

Nagar, “COMESA and SADC: The Era of Convergence”, p. 207.

Since 2011, these so-called plurilateral agreements and negotiations have been actively pushed in order to reach agreement on specific issues on which the major demanders find it difficult to reach multilateral consensus. Hence they have limited participation. However, there are differences in the type of plurilaterals: some have most favoured nation provisions or applicability, and some do not. Existing plurilaterals such as the Agreement on Government Procurement (the GPA of 1980, renegotiated in parallel with the Uruguay Round in 1994, entered into force 1 January 1996, with 17 members, covering 47 parties including the EU) and the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (1980, 32 signatories) are only applicable to members to the agreement. But other WTO members can accede to the agreement over time. African countries’ participation in these negotiations was marginal. Cameroon was an observer to the GPA and Mauritius is the only African country to participate in the Trade in Services Agreement so far. See Low, Osakwe, and Oshikawa, African Perspective on Trade and the WTO.

The Information Technology Agreement was negotiated in 1996; ITA II has expanded the list of products covered to include many goods that were not classified as information and communications technology products under the original agreement, such as medical appliances, electric conductors and instruments, new-generation semi-conductors, GPS navigation systems, medical products including magnetic resonance imaging machines, machine tools for manufacturing printed circuits, telecommunications satellites, and touch screens, and has over 50 members, including Mauritius. It will cover 99% of the value of global information and communications technology goods, and some 80% of all product lines in this category. See United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, http://​unctad.​org/​en/​pages/​newsdetails.​aspx?​OriginalVersionI​D=​1159

This section draws heavily on unpublished and forthcoming research work by South Centre’s Trade Team, Aileen Kwa and Peter Lunenborg.

South Centre, “The WTO Special and Differential Treatment Negotiations”, AN/ SC/AN/TDP/2017/3 (January 2017), para 44.

WTO, “Trade-Related Investment Measures”, Communication from Brazil and India, G/C/W/428, G/TRIMS/W/25 (9 October 2002).