From the 22nd – 24th of August 2023, the BRICS, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, held its 15th Summit in South Africa. This was the third time South Africa hosted the group. The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) was initially formed with a focus on foreign investment strategies and held its 1st formal Summit in 2009. South Africa joined the group in 2010, and together, they became synonymous with fast-growing emerging economies. These emerging markets currently represent 43% of the world’s population and a third of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP). The BRICS countries, which in the early 2000s were considered to be the fastest growing economies, have not maintained this performance. Brazil, Russia, and South Africa’s economic growth has been sluggish, averaging less than 1% annually since 2013, while India and especially China experienced annual GDP growth rates of over 6% during the same period. The commodity shocks experienced in 2014/2015 had an impact on the economic growth trajectories of commodity-dependent member states such as Brazil, Russia, and South Africa. Furthermore, the BRICS differ considerably in demographic, economic, military, and political terms as well as in terms of their regional and global ambitions. Despite their unique characteristics, these nations must prioritize diversifying their economies and increasing the involvement of the private sector.

This Trade Brief provides an update on the trading relationship between the BRICS countries over the past decade with specific focus on South Africa’s position and performance. Additionally, it explores the development of the BRICS bloc and emerging issues, including the role of the New Development Bank (NDB), the expansion of the bloc, and the proposed currency as an alternative to the US dollar in international trade. The report concludes with a summary of its findings.

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.

A year ago, Russia invaded Ukraine. At that point a quick “special military operation” was predicted to “demilitarize and denazify” Ukraine. But President Putin soon declared that he also wanted to secure the independence of eastern Ukrainian territories and to protect the inhabitants from Ukrainian “bullying and genocide”.

The UN General Assembly denounced the Russian invasion as an act of aggression and a violation of the UN Charter in a vote in which South Africa abstained. That resolution said the UN “deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine”. It demanded that Russia “immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine” and “unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces”. The West has imposed sanctions on Moscow, while the International Criminal Court has begun collecting evidence of war crimes.

Pretoria chose a very different path in its response to this war. Senior South African politicians and the President made pro Russia statements, invited the Russian Foreign Minister for an official visit and allowed Russian war ships into local ports. Joint naval exercises with Russian and Chinese vessels took place during the same week that saw the commemoration of one year of fighting in Ukraine. The country of Nelson Mandela apparently stands firmly with Russia in this war.

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.

DOWNLOAD PUBLICATION

Decent work conditions and trade policies can have a great impact on a country’s economy and its workforce. For this reason, the International Labour Organization (ILO) recently published a guide addressing decent work indicators in trade policies and trade agreements. Many aspects such as employment, rights at work, social protection and social dialogue are identified as priorities in this context. The report aims to provide an assessment of the relation between trade and labour law. By proposing decent work indicators, this guide can be used for a comprehensive assessment of the trade policies’ effect on the labour market and vice versa.

While much research on this subject still needs to be done, ILO proposes a human-centred approach for policymakers to assess trade agreements. This guide should therefore be consulted by policymakers before negotiating and concluding new trade agreements to line up with the ILO objectives of inclusive growth, full employment, and decent work for all. This Trade Brief reviews the first chapter of the report: Conceptual framework: a decent work approach.

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.

On 30 December 2021, a California-based producer of lemon juice and other related products (Ventura Coastal LLC) petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), alleging that producers in South Africa and Brazil were selling lemon juice to U.S. importers at less than fair value (LTFV). The petition requested that punitive anti-dumping duties be levied on imports into the U.S. of such products sourced from (the named) businesses in South Africa and Brazil.

The preliminary investigation undertaken by U.S. authorities has not had a favourable outcome from the perspective of South African (and Brazilian) lemon juice exporters, since it was unable to find compelling evidence that would have resulted in a termination of the investigation. The petition to launch the investigation had earlier been found to be legally sufficient and representative of the local lemon juice industry. The U.S. Department of Commerce expects to complete its preliminary investigation and announce its findings by the end of July 2022. An adverse finding would, from that point onwards, compel U.S. importers to lodge cash deposits or guarantees equivalent to the preliminary dumping margin, pending the completion of the investigations, public hearings and briefs from interested parties.

The investigation will create a significant amount of uncertainty for producers, exporters and importers (and industrial consumers in the U.S.), and it can reasonably be expected that this uncertainty will already be having an impact. Businesses can ill afford a potential dumping margin of 100% or more, and importers may shy away from trade in subject goods or incorporate a defensive strategy into any contracting to minimise the potential impact of anti-dumping duties. The uncertainty and resulting financial and trade impact is unavoidable, irrespective of the merits of the case, especially since the preliminary investigation resulted in a continuation of the investigation against certain imports from both named countries.

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.

The discussion on export restrictions is a long-standing issue in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agriculture negotiations. This discussion is generally prompted by economic crises, which puts pressure on food security, leading to rising food prices and a surge in the use of export restrictions on food supplies. In 2008/2009, the export restrictions debate was brought to the fore in the WTO, due to increased export restrictions on food supplies. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the export restrictions debate gained momentum as many WTO members imposed export restriction on medical supplies as well as food supplies. This debate has gained prominence once more in the WTO agriculture negotiations due to the conflict in Ukraine.

This paper unpacks the contending arguments on export restrictions within the WTO. It also demonstrates how members shift policy positions and deviate from WTO rules in periods of crises.

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.

The conflict in Ukraine has caused a global economic and humanitarian catastrophe. The global catastrophe encompasses human suffering, loss of lives, global food price increases, food shortages and food insecurity mainly in poor countries. This war is happening at a time when the world is just emerging from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which also ravaged the global economy. Food shortages are predominantly affecting countries that are dependent on Ukraine and Russia for imports of key food staples; in addition, shortages of fertilizer will impact their food production.

Some members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) who are major exporters of staple foods and fertilizer have resorted to export restrictions, as a result of market uncertainties triggered by the war. These WTO members are opposed to an export restrictions outcome that seeks to introduce stringent notification requirements on grounds that they need additional flexibility to take appropriate measures in the current context of food shortages and volatile prices. The WTO rules allow countries to impose export restrictions as a temporary measure under certain circumstances. These will be further explained in the paper.

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.

South African producers and exporters of lemon juice (and no doubt exporters of citrus fruit) received an unwelcome surprise early January 2022 that a California-based company producing various citrus juices – Ventura Coastal LLC – had petitioned the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) and the Department of Commerce (DOC) to investigate shipments of lemon juice from South Africa and Brazil, claiming these were being sold on the U.S. market at less than fair value (LTFV), i.e. being dumped.

On 11 February 2022, the USITC voted to continue the investigation, finding in its preliminary investigation that there is a reasonable indication that there is material injury (or the threat thereof), or that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded by subject imports (South African and Brazilian lemon juice). The preliminary investigation also established that subject imports had grown to 28.1% of the import market in the 9-month period to September 2021, thus exceeding any negligibility criteria set out in the legislation which may otherwise have resulted in a possible early termination of the investigation.

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.

The SADC-EU Economic Partnership Agreement was concluded and signed on the 10th of June 2016 by the European Union and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) EPA Group comprising Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, and Eswatini (formerly Swaziland). Angola has the option to join the Agreement in the future. The SADC-EU EPA became the first regional EPA in Africa to be fully operational after Mozambique started applying it in February 2018. The Agreement grants duty-free, quota-free access to European markets for goods exported from Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, and Eswatini (BLNS countries).

South Africa, whose trade relations with the EU were previously governed by the Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA), is guaranteed duty-free, quota-free access for 98.7% of their goods imported into the EU. The transition from the TDCA to the EPA meant enhanced market access for a number of South Africa’s agricultural exports; this has included the addition of expanded and new tariff rate quotas (TRQs), a combination of import quotas (that limit quantities) and tariffs (duties). This trade brief focuses on the SADC-EU EPA TRQs in South Africa.

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.

Angola is a resource-rich (predominantly oil, precious gems, and metals) sub-Saharan African country located on the west coast of Africa. It is one of the largest oil producers in Africa and the largest African country by land area south of the equator (roughly twice the size of Texas or continental France).

Angola is currently recognised by the United Nations (UN) as a least developed country (LDC). LDC status is an indication to the international community of the necessity for special concessions to support. According to the UN, such concessions cover benefits in the areas of development financing (grants and loans from donors and financial institutions), the multilateral trading system (including preferential market access and special treatments), and technical assistance (towards trade mainstreaming through the Enhanced Integrated Framework). Graduation from LDC status is an important milestone in a country’s development path. However, graduation is not without its challenges given the loss of international support measures at a critical time in the process of integration into the global economy. Changes specific to Angola will be discussed in this Trade Brief.

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.

It is a long-held view of developing countries in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that some restrict-ions imposed by WTO trade rules and trade related agreements tend to hinder the adoption of local development policies that could lead to economic development. Flexibilities in the form of Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT) provisions in the implementation of WTO rules were proposed for developing countries. This flexibility is meant to provide policy space to pursue development policies. However, it is the view of developing countries that the application of S&DT provisions in the implementation of WTO rules is not practical. As a result, a WTO mandate to review S&DT provisions with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and operational was adopted by all WTO members.

This paper provides background on the S&DT mandate that is accorded to developing countries for implementing WTO Agreements. Furthermore, the paper analyses what some members may view as a misinterpretation and possibly the abandoning of the S&DT mandate broadly between developing and developed members. Discussions that evolved over the years resulted in a confusion that caused a stalemate in negotiations and led some members of the WTO to attempt to abandon the S&DT mandate. These members have proposed alternative approaches and a new agenda; however, this is without agreement by all WTO members.

The paper reflects the established positions of WTO members in the S&DT negotiations and provides an analysis of the views including the new agenda and approach on development envisaged by developed members. The study suggests an approach that calls for buy-in from all WTO members to ensure an inclusive outcome in S&DT negotiations that would lead to sustainable economic development for developing countries.

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.