Last week, Dr. Richard Sezibera, the Secretary General of the East African Community (EAC) was visiting Uganda. A notable thing he said, was although regional non-tariff barriers (NTBs) were steadily coming down, a couple of new ones were also coming up. 

Coincidently his words came when the acting Chair of the Council of Ministers, (the second highest body after the EAC Heads of States), was reporting that intra-EAC trade was making modest gains.

Dr. Abdulla Saadala said the sales of goods amongst member countries had gone up from $2 billion in 2005 to $5.5 billion in 2013.

He said the implementation of the Single Customs Territory has already signaled significant positive results in terms of faster turnaround time for the movement of cargo. It was long agreed that NTBs, including endless roadblocks and duplication of paperwork, were very costly and time wasting to business people.

Sezibera said the private sector has done much in tearing down these trade barriers. Understandably so, because NTBs make it expensive to do business. But he said six new NTBs have been recorded.

EAC leaders better get to grips with this situation fast, because NTBs obviously mock the basic pillars on which the EAC Treaty stands on. 

Nearly 15 years ago, it was the regional leaders themselves who declared that in contrast to the first attempt at integration which was predominantly government-driven, the new EAC hinges on the private sector and civil society: the principles that govern the objectives of the community shall be ‘centred and market-driven’ (Article 7 of the EAC Treaty).

In such circumstances, it helps to go back to the very beginning and ask the question: why do we want the East African Community?

EAC economic integration will help drive down prices for goods and services. This is because the removal of trade barriers reduces or removes the tariffs entirely. All major enterprises in the region are facing up to the realities of new competition. For some, dominance in the domestic market is being chipped away by a brand from across the border. They are not happy and loudly wonder what their respective governments are doing to save precious jobs. 

These are the kind of situations that cause emotions to run high but often overlook the fact that the end consumer wins by way of lower prices. In East Africa, probably sugar is the most sensitive locally manufactured item. All countries have production capacities of their own and jealously guard the industry because sugar is also a political issue.

Whenever there are occasional shortages, EAC countries are more likely to import further afield than from a neighbour who has a surplus. Indeed, sugar is the most common commodity that faces a barrage of NTBs. Which suggests its time to think more seriously about specialisation or some kind of sugar regime in which all manufacturers are treated equally in a common market.

But this where it becomes tricky and national concerns over-ride the common regional good. Inefficient producers, long protected by their governments are not likely to withdraw easily. Nor are politicians likely to abandon their constituents.

And yet some specialisation offers economies of scale, which means that the average cost of producing the good falls because more is being produced. Consumers benefit from lower prices and greater quantity of goods. Certainly dependency on another country is risky. On the other hand, some specialisation gives EAC a chance to become globally competitive. Duplication of effort can be costly.

Business people may often abuse their contacts with governments to hold on to market share. But it is governments that impose protectionist policies. And although governments can also act petty, in the context of regional integration, trade protectionism spells eventual doom for all.