1
Assessment of the impact of EU ban of fish on Uganda’s exports
By
Kateregga Dennis
This paper was submitted in partial f...
2
Table of Contents
Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………3
1.1Introduction ……………………………………………………………......4
1.2Problem Sta...
3
Abbreviations
EAC East Africa Community
NTBs Non – Tariff Barriers
EU European Union
COMESA Common Market for Eastern an...
4
1.1Introduction
Uganda over time has looked at its neighbors for trade;total imports in 2000 were US$ 958
million, which...
5
1998 and 1999 on fish. This paper is going to analyze the effects of the two fish bans on
Uganda’s gross exports between...
6
1.5Literature Review
Uganda boosts to have 43% of Lake Victoria making her the second after Tanzania and followed
by Ken...
7
1.6Evidence and Data analysis
Table 0.1 & Chart 0.1 shows exports while Table 0.2 & Chart 0.2 shows gross exports; figur...
8
January 1998 and March 1999. In 2001 after Uganda was in conformity with EU quality
assurance standards, fish exporting ...
9
picked up in 2001 after the ban was lifted in October 2000. Since fish contributed 40% of the
total non – traditional ex...
10
MugyenyiOnesmus, Naluwairo Ronald (2003) Uganda’s Access to the European Union
Agricultural Market; Challenges and Oppo...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Kateregga dennis assessment of the impact of eu bans on uganda

354 views

Published on

Analytical paper

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
354
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Kateregga dennis assessment of the impact of eu bans on uganda

  1. 1. 1 Assessment of the impact of EU ban of fish on Uganda’s exports By Kateregga Dennis This paper was submitted in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the award ofthe Postgraduate Certificate inInternational Trade Policy and Development Awarded by Trade Policy Training Centre in Africa TRAPCA P.O.BOX 3030 ARUSHA TANZANIA March, 2014
  2. 2. 2 Table of Contents Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………3 1.1Introduction ……………………………………………………………......4 1.2Problem Statement……………………………………………………….....4 1.3 Objective of the Study………………………………………………………5 1.4 Methodology ……………………………………………………………….5 1.5 Literature Review…………………………………………………………...6 1.6Evidence and Data analysis…………………………………………………7 1.6.1 Fish Exports………………………………………………………………7 1.6.2 Gross Exports……………………………………………………………..8 1.7Conclusion………………………………………………………………….9 1.8 Recommendations………………………………………………………….9 1.9References………………………………………………………………….9
  3. 3. 3 Abbreviations EAC East Africa Community NTBs Non – Tariff Barriers EU European Union COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa ICTs Information Communication Technologies DIREE Dealers in Reconditioned Electronic Equipment UETA Uganda Electronics and Technicians Association WTOWorld Trade Organization WITS World Integrated trade Solutions UNCOMTRADE United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Data DFR Department of Fisheries Resources
  4. 4. 4 1.1Introduction Uganda over time has looked at its neighbors for trade;total imports in 2000 were US$ 958 million, which grew to US$ 2.05 billion in 2005, while exports nearly were from US$ 401 million in 2000 to US$ 812 million in 2005(Khorana, Kimbugwe and Perdikis ,2007). The above was made possiblewith the re –establishmentof East Africa Community (EAC) on 30/11/1999 and later coming into force on 07/07/2001 (Othieno and Shinyekwa, 2011). A custom union was established in January, 2005 to open inter and intra trade (Karugia, Freeman and Wanjiku, 2011), with tariffs and non – tariff barriers (NTBs) meant to increase economic gains among member states (Okumu and Okukynakori, 2010) and a common external tariff to all non EAC imports. Governments of EAC partner states have selectively applied various types of NTBs to promote specific sectors and this has hampered trade between members, Uganda in a bid to bridge that trade deficit created by the EAC customs union, it has looked at other trade partners like European Union (EU), USA and other African economic blocks like Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). Trade bans actually affect trade flows (Imports & Exports), where countries and economic blocks prevent the movement of certain products across their borders; it is done for economic, political, security, health and social reasons. The EU banned Uganda’s fish in 1998 and 1999 for food quality/safety requirementsreasons the first ban fish, exports dropped from US$34.6m to US$31m (1998) while the second the loss was estimated to be US$36.9m (1999). 1.2Problem Statement The EU banned Uganda’s fish exports for Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) reasons, for this case it was health, because they felt Uganda’s fish was not fit for consumption. The first ban which started in January 1998, the EU cited failure of Uganda’s fish factories to meet the EU quality assurance standards. This was as result of Spain and Italy detecting traces of bacteria in the fish from Lake Victoria in 1997. Cholera outbreak in East Africa was an insult to injury; the EU banned and imposed mandatory tests for frozen fish, vegetables and fruits from East Africa. The second ban which is the longest started in March 1999, the EU noticed levels of organochlorine pesticides, PCBs and organophosphate pesticides in fish exports. EU ban impacted on the volume of exports; the fall in Uganda gross exports may have been as result of the EU bans in
  5. 5. 5 1998 and 1999 on fish. This paper is going to analyze the effects of the two fish bans on Uganda’s gross exports between 1998 and 2001. 1.3 Objectives of the study The general objective is to analyze the effect of EU bans on the gross exports of Uganda. The study will look at export statistics from 1998 to 2001, where the two fish bans were imposed by the EU. The ban also affected vegetables and fruits from Uganda, which may have had a significant effect on the gross exports.The paper is going make information available on EU bans of fish highlighting a research gap of the effects of the EU ban on vegetables and fruits a reason for further study. 1.4Methodology Using quantitative analysis on the data generated from World Integrated trade Solutions (WITS) using United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Data (UNCOMTRADE); I was able to summarize the data into tables and using variables like years and exports to generate charts. The tables and charts will give a visual assessment of the effects of two fish bans on the general volume of exports of Uganda to EU from 1998, followed by interpretations of the trend there after. Data was not readily available in some nomenclatures that would have given a big clusterof several forms in which fish was exported to the EU, the available clusters could not give me data in some years, hence data gap.
  6. 6. 6 1.5Literature Review Uganda boosts to have 43% of Lake Victoria making her the second after Tanzania and followed by Kenya, it has managed to fish in those waters over years, giving birth to the fish industry in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s (Ponte, 2005). The Nile Perch has been the target of most fishermen, though not native in Ugandan lakes, it was introduced in Lake Vitoria, Lake Kyoga and Lake Albert in the 1960’s, ever since then it has been the most commercial fish caught. In 1991 fish was being exported to Kenya to be processed and later re – exported to Europe, but the government puta ban on exporting unprocessed whole fish to Kenya, this ban gave birth to the fishing industry in Uganda as Kenyans decided to open shop. This led to a fish boom estimated at $5.038m in 1991 to $39.78m in 1996 (Balagadde, 2003). The EU provides 26.4% of Uganda’s export earnings following the COMESA market (2003 UBOS Statistics). EU member states importers of Uganda’s fish are Spain (8%), Netherlands (27%), and Belgium (21%)(Nahamya and Mitala, 2004). Of the nontraditional cash crops, fish is among the highest earner, it is followed with coffee in 2001 (Mugyenyi and Naluwairo, 2003), where fish contributes 40% of the total nontraditional exports by 1998. “Uganda suffered a tremendous loss in terms of reduced returns for the whole duration of the ban from January 1998 and April to August 1999. Until July 1999 losses were estimated at US$ 36.9 million (USH 54,243 million). Losses to the fishermen community due to reduced prices and less fishing activity amounted to US$ 4.25million (USH 1.250 million) per month. (Odongo-Omoding, 2001)” That was after the EU banned Uganda’s fish due to the detection of Salmonella, cholera outbreak on beaches and landing sites and incidences of fish poisoning (Keizire, 2006). The EU noticed levels of organochlorine pesticides, PCBs and organophosphate pesticides in fish exports. Under SPS agreement the EU was obliged to take measures to protect its citizens from the harm they would get after consuming the fish (GATT Article 3.3 under SPS agreement). The Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR) monitored the levels of heavy metals and pesticides in fish, as well as in the water and sediments from Lake Vitoria, which led to the lifting of the fish ban by EU in October 2000
  7. 7. 7 1.6Evidence and Data analysis Table 0.1 & Chart 0.1 shows exports while Table 0.2 & Chart 0.2 shows gross exports; figures generated from WITS under UNCOMTRADE. I choose Netherlands, France and Belgium because they were the major imports of fish from Uganda. My analysis will be based on the figures got, tabulated and chart generated to show the actual trend of fish exports. 1.6.1 Fish Exports Table 0.1 and Chart 0.1 shows the trend of fish exports between 1998 and 2001. Table 0.1: Fish exports to EU (US$000) Years 1998 1999 2000 2001 Netherlands 44.007 32.625 116.798 France 0.057 Belgium 32.639 Source: UNCOMTRADE Chart 0.1: Fish Exports to EU (US$000) Table 0.1 and Chart 0.1 shows that between 1998and 2000fish exports to the three major importers declined from $44,007 to $0, this was due to the two fish bans imposed by the EU in 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1998 1999 2000 2001 Exports($000) Years Fish Exports Netherlands france Belguim
  8. 8. 8 January 1998 and March 1999. In 2001 after Uganda was in conformity with EU quality assurance standards, fish exporting to the EU resumed leading to a growth from $0 to $149,494. The above scenario signifies that EU bans affected fish exports in great magnitude. 1.6.2 Gross Exports Table 0.2 and Chart 0.2 shows the trend of gross exports between 1998 the year of the first fish ban and 2001 when the ban was lifted. Table 0.2: Gross Exports(US$000) Year Exports 1998 509,850.85 1999 505,700.67 2000 402,823.51 2001 450,527.17 Source: UNCOMTRADE Chart 0.2: Gross Exports Table 0.2 and Chart 0.2 shows there was a drop in gross exports from 1998 to 2000, with a trade value of 1998(US$509,850,848), 1999(505,700,672) and 2000(402,823,507). The gross exports 0.00 100,000.00 200,000.00 300,000.00 400,000.00 500,000.00 600,000.00 1998 1999 2000 2001 Exports($000) Years Exports Exports
  9. 9. 9 picked up in 2001 after the ban was lifted in October 2000. Since fish contributed 40% of the total non – traditional exports by 1998, the gross exports were affected proportionally to that level. 1.7Conclusion Trade restrictions are meant to protect countries and economic blocks; they may be used for economic, political, security, health and social reasons. They are tariffs and non – tariff barriers meant to enforce such protection, in recent years bans have been used to totally prevent products to enter countries and economic blocks. The affected parties have channels of redress under trade arrangements like WTO or petitions in their countries. These bans affect the trade flows and value as seen above; that when the EU banned Uganda’s fish exports it affected the gross exports negatively. 1.8 Recommendations Due to data unavailability under some clusters, I would not access different forms fish was exported, a further study answering the same research question should be carried out in the future. The findingsdo not give the true picture of what happened when the EU banned fish exports between 1998 and 1999, because in the same time fruits and vegetables were affected, this may have had an impact on the gross exports of Uganda. A study should be carried out to assess the effects of fruits and vegetable ban by EU on the gross exports of Uganda. 1.9References Balagadde, Sam (2003), Fish safety and quality assurance – Uganda’s experience, Uganda National Bureau of Standards KarugiaJ,Wanjiku, J, and A, freeman (2011)The impact of non-tariff barriers on maize and beef trade in East Africa Keizire, B. Boaz (2006) Sustainability impact assessment of proposed WTO negotiations: the fisheries sector, Fisheries Khorana, Sangeeta, Kimbugwe Kato, Perdikis Nicholas (2007) The Impact of tariff reductions under the East African community custom union: Intra-trade effects on Uganda, Aberystwyth University
  10. 10. 10 MugyenyiOnesmus, Naluwairo Ronald (2003) Uganda’s Access to the European Union Agricultural Market; Challenges and Opportunities, ACODE Policy Research Nahamya, Sam and Mitala, John (2004) Increasing Incomes through Exports: A Plan for Zonal Agricultural Production, Agro-processing and Marketing, Republic of Uganda Okumu, Luke and Nyankori J. C. Okuk (2010) Non-tariff barriers in EAC customs union: Implications for trade between Uganda and other EAC countries, Economic Policy Research Centre Omoding Ignatius Odongo (2001) Facilities Inspection Manual for assessing conditions and operational requirements in a typical Uganda fish Processing Establishment with particular reference to legal requirements for general conditions relating to premises and equipment Othieno Lawrence, Shinyekwa Isaac (2011) Trade, revenue and welfare effects of the East African community customs union principle of asymmetry on Uganda: an application of wits-smart simulation model, Economic Policy Research Centre Rudaheranwa, Nichodemus (2004) Trade Policy and Transport Costs in Uganda, Credit Research Paper

×