Topics publications: Agriculture and commodities
Working Papers
Developing Value Chains in Africa – mapping the soya value chain
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) has ignited and put emphasis on deeper integration and the development of regional value chains in Africa, an important feature of the AfCFTA Agreement which aims to boost intra-Africa trade through reducing the time and cost of transacting across borders, enabling resources and skills to be shared across the continent, creating new market opportunities, and an enhancing regulatory environment for business.
Africa’s majority population is highly dependent on agriculture for food security, incomes, and employment. Therefore, the promotion of agro-value chains is key to the development of most African economies. In this regard, analysis of agro-value chain is essential to an understanding of markets, their relationships, the participation of different actors, and the critical constraints that limit the growth of agricultural production and consequently the competitiveness of farmers.
This Trade Report focuses on the soya value chain (SVC), which is one of the 10 value chains identified by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the AfCFTA Secretariat’s 2021 Futures Report titled “Which Value Chains for a Made in Africa Revolution.” Other value chains identified include Automotives; Leather and Leather Products, Cocoa; Textiles and Apparel; Pharmaceuticals; Vaccine Manufacturing; Lithium-Ion Batteries; Mobile Financial Services; and Cultural and Creative Industries.
See a related Factsheet here.
Readers are encouraged to quote and reproduce this material for educational, non-profit purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. All views and opinions expressed remain solely those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of tralac.
Working Papers
The Potential of the Agribusiness Regional Value Chain under the AfCFTA
This Trade Report analyses one of the value chains identified as a development priority by the AfCFTA: the broadly-defined agricultural/agro-processing/agribusiness sector in Africa, from the perspective of the regional and global value chain dimensions. The paper firstly establishes the imperative for value chain development in the context of the AfCFTA, before undertaking an analysis of existing and potential regional value chain development within the specific sector. Finally, a gender analysis using enterprise (microeconomic) data is undertaken, before conclusions and policy recommendations are drawn out in the final section.
See a related Factsheet here.
Readers are encouraged to quote and reproduce this material for educational, non-profit purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. All views and opinions expressed remain solely those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of tralac.
Trade Briefs
Profiling the African Agricultural Value Chain: Basic and Gender Dimensions
The AfCFTA Secretariat, in a recent report entitled The Futures Report 2021: Which Value Chains for a Made in Africa Revolution, identified certain industrial sectors and sub-sectors as potential candidates for value chain development under the AfCFTA agreement. The broad sectors included in their list were agricultural/agro-processing, textiles and leather, automotive, pharmaceuticals, mobile financial services and cultural industries.
This Trade Brief looks at the broadly-defined agricultural/agro-processing/agri-business sector in Africa[1], from the perspective of the regional and global value chain dimensions. The intention is to present the basic value chain metrics of the sector, including gender-disaggregated employment metrics, as a precursor to several more extensive studies forthcoming from tralac over the next few months.
[1] Due to differences in aggregating sectoral industrial data, the sector has been defined as ‘the broadly-defined agricultural/agro-processing/agri-business sector’. The aggregate contains data for agricultural production; agri-business production, defined as ‘economic activities derived from or connected to farm products’ (BBVA, 2022) and agro-processing, defined as ‘the sub-sector of the manufacturing that beneficiates primary materials and intermediate goods from agricultural, fisheries and forestry based sectors’ (DTIC, 2022).
Readers are encouraged to quote and reproduce this material for educational, non-profit purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. All views and opinions expressed remain solely those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of tralac.
Working Papers
The new EU rules for citrus imports from South Africa: Background, applicable legal texts and processes, and the dispute declared by South Africa under the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
Citrus fruits are one of the most important export products for the South African economy. The South African Citrus Growers Association (CGA) estimates that the country exported 158.7 million cartons of oranges in 2021, making it the biggest revenue earner in Africa from orange exports. The European Union (EU) is one of the main destination markets for South African citrus fruits, making up 40% of South African orange exports and 27% of its soft citrus exports.
The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) announced on 11 August 2022 that the South African government had managed to negotiate a settlement with the EU to clear containers of citrus blocked in EU Ports as a result of the EU’s recently-introduced phytosanitary measures on False Codling Moth (FCM). The EU measures were published on 21 June 2022, entered into force on 24 June 2022, and required that consignments arriving in Europe from 14 July 2022 onwards had to comply with the new requirements.
Taking the shortest sailing time to the EU, it meant that consignments that left South Africa on 24 June 2022, three days from the publication of the new measures, should have been certified in accordance with the new measures on leaving. The DALRRD assertion was that for South Africa to change the inspection and certification system within three days was unrealistic, considering what was needed in terms of adjusting systems and communication to the different regulatory sites. Its view was that a reasonable date for compliance with the new documentation requirements would have been for consignments leaving South Africa from 9 July 2022 onwards.
Updated: 16 August 2022
Readers are encouraged to quote and reproduce this material for educational, non-profit purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. All views and opinions expressed remain solely those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of tralac.
Working Papers
WTO Farm Talks on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes: Consequences of the missed deadlines for a Permanent Solution
Public stockholding (PSH) for food security purposes continues to be a contentious issue in the WTO Agriculture negotiations. While contending positions are put forcefully in the negotiations, there is limited research on the use of the Peace Clause. Since the Bali Ministerial Conference agreed on the Peace Clause in 2013, only India, which is one of the major users of PSH programmes has taken recourse in the Peace Clause. The Peace Clause protects the users of PSH programmes from legal challenges that emanate from breaches of countries’ allowable domestic subsidy ceilings. The use of the Peace Clause by India has strengthened the need and urgency to finalize the Permanent Solution on PSH. Some developed countries have argued that there is no track record in the use of the Peace Clause. They have claimed that the limited use of the Peace Clause suggests lack of interest in public stockholding programmes. They have also maintained that the method of calculating domestic subsidies used by the proponents of PSH programmes is incorrect, given that it is based on eligible production. They propose that instead of eligible production, total production should be used, which results in higher domestic subsidies. This proposed method includes other elements, resulting in inflated trade distorting domestic subsidies. The aforementioned methodology suggests that developing countries provide more trade distorting domestic subsidies than what is notified to the WTO.
This Trade Report argues that although the AoA has put PSH programmes under trade distorting domestic subsides, these programmes should be accounted for differently. PSH programmes are designed to provide food security to poor resources farmers and communities. Therefore, counting PSH programmes under trade distorting domestic subsidies defeats the purpose of providing food security. Additionally, the recent use of the Peace Clause by India underscores the need and the urgency to finalize the permanent solution on PSH.
Readers are encouraged to quote and reproduce this material for educational, non-profit purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. All views and opinions expressed remain solely those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of tralac.
Working Papers
Protecting Geographical Indications in an African context: The South African Rooibos saga and its aftermath
Geographical indications (GIs) are used to identify a good as originating in the territory of a specific country, or a region or locality in that country, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. GIs can acquire a considerable reputation and commercial value and for these reasons, may fall prey to misappropriation, misuse and counterfeiting. This is why it is widely recognised that they need to be protected. The GI category is generally recognised as a separate type of intellectual property (IP).
Broadly speaking, there are three major conditions for the recognition of a sign as a GI: It must relate to a good or goods, as opposed to say a service; the good must originate from a defined area; and the good must have qualities, reputation or other characteristics which are clearly linked to its geographical origin.
Rooibos (Aspalathus linearis) is one of several Cape fynbos plants that have traditionally been used in South Africa to brew tea and cure ailments. The Rooibos experience is a highly relevant topic for those taking an interest in Trade Law and IP Law and, in the South African context, there are a few questions which should be raised. Firstly, when and how the South African protection for the Rooibos GI will be updated to reflect the full set requirements set out in the EU’s entry of Rooibos into its register of PDOs? Second, will the lessons learnt plus the availability of a formalised mechanism dedicated to the protection of GIs (even if limited to certain products for now) will assist South African producers in their pursuit of GIs that will add value to their products. Thirdly, whether the precedents set in the EU (and now the UK), will assist South Africa in broadening the protection its GIs may enjoy in other parts of the world.
Readers are encouraged to quote and reproduce this material for educational, non-profit purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. All views and opinions expressed remain solely those of the author and do not purport to reflect the views of