How Seaweed Farming Empowers Women and Supports Climate Action Along Tanzania’s Swahili Coast

Authors: Gerald Sumari & Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Centre

Featured Photo Credit: Loshni Rodhia, Reef Resilience Network

Climate change has severely affected coastal livelihoods through declining fish stocks, ecosystem degradation, and rising ocean temperatures, disproportionately impacting women in fishing communities. Seaweed farming has emerged as an alternative livelihood that provides income stability, enhances gender equity, and delivers ecosystem services such as carbon capture, shoreline protection, and reduced ocean acidification.

  1. Introduction

Global climate change has become one of the most pressing challenges facing coastal communities worldwide, particularly in developing countries where livelihoods are intricately tied to fragile marine ecosystems. Rising sea surface temperatures, ocean acidification, and the destruction of nearshore habitats have significantly affected fisheries productivity and the socioeconomic stability of communities dependent on marine resources (IPCC, 2019). In Tanzania, the Swahili coastline, stretching over 1,424 kilometers and encompassing key regions such as Tanga, Bagamoyo, Lindi, Mtwara, and the Zanzibar Archipelago, is increasingly vulnerable to these climate-related disruptions (FAO, 2020). Fishing communities, long the backbone of coastal economies, face declining fish stocks, irregular seasonal patterns, and ecosystem degradation. These changes have disproportionately impacted women, who are often relegated to secondary roles in fisheries yet bear the primary responsibility for household sustenance and income diversification.

Seaweed farming has emerged as a promising alternative livelihood strategy for coastal women in Tanzania. Beyond providing a supplementary source of income, it has grown into a significant economic activity in Zanzibar, where it ranks as the third largest source of income and accounts for approximately 90 percent of marine exports (Msuya, 2013). This growth highlights the potential of seaweed farming not only as a means of economic empowerment for women but also as an important contributor to climate change mitigation and adaptation. From a climate perspective, seaweed aquaculture contributes to carbon sequestration by absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide and storing it in biomass and sediments, while also providing ecosystem services such as shoreline protection and reduced ocean acidification (Krause-Jensen & Duarte, 2016).

Despite this potential, seaweed farming in Tanzania has not yet been fully recognized or developed as a sustainable economic sector. Current efforts remain fragmented, largely driven by donor agencies and philanthropic initiatives, with limited strategic integration into national marine and climate change policies. Furthermore, women farmers face barriers such as weak institutional support, limited technical knowledge, and restricted access to markets and finance, which constrain their ability to scale production and maximize climate and economic benefits

This study therefore seeks to explore the nexus between seaweed farming, women’s economic empowerment, and carbon sequestration along Tanzania’s Swahili coast. Specifically, it examines the economic opportunities created for coastal women through seaweed aquaculture, the climate benefits associated with carbon sequestration, and the institutional and policy gaps that hinder the sector’s growth. By situating seaweed farming within both the blue economy and climate resilience frameworks, the study aims to provide evidence-based insights and recommendations for scaling up this sector as a transformative pathway for women’s empowerment and climate change adaptation in Tanzania.

  1. Seaweed Farming and Carbon Sequestration

Seaweed farming refers to the cultivation of marine macroalgae in shallow coastal waters, often using ropes, stakes, or rafts to facilitate growth. Unlike wild harvesting, which can contribute to the depletion of natural stocks, seaweed aquaculture provides a sustainable means of production with both economic and ecological benefits. Globally, seaweed farming has grown into a multi-billion-dollar industry, producing over 35 million tonnes annually and supplying raw materials to food, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and biofuel industries (FAO, 2022).

From an environmental perspective, seaweed farming is increasingly recognized as an important contributor to the blue carbon framework. Seaweeds, through photosynthesis, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the ocean, converting it into biomass. A portion of this captured carbon is sequestered through long-term storage in sediments or through export to deep ocean waters. Krause-Jensen and Duarte (2016) estimate that seaweed ecosystems contribute substantially to global carbon sequestration, with macroalgal forests and farms acting as carbon sinks. Although the exact sequestration potential varies by species and location, emerging evidence suggests that large-scale cultivation could significantly offset greenhouse gas emissions.

Beyond carbon sequestration, seaweed farming provides adaptation benefits to coastal ecosystems and communities. Seaweed farms reduce wave energy, thereby protecting shorelines from erosion. They also elevate local water pH, mitigating ocean acidification, and enhance oxygen levels, which support biodiversity and reduce the risk of hypoxic conditions. These ecosystem services make seaweed farming a nature-based solution that addresses both mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

In Tanzania, seaweed farming particularly in Zanzibar and Pemba has demonstrated the dual benefits of ecological sustainability and socioeconomic empowerment. However, despite its potential to contribute to the country’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, seaweed aquaculture has yet to be fully integrated into climate policy frameworks. With improved recognition, investment, and research into carbon accounting methodologies, seaweed farming could position Tanzania as a regional leader in blue carbon and sustainable aquaculture practices.

  1. Nexus between Climate Change, Seaweed Farming and Carbon Sequestration

The nexus between climate change, seaweed farming, and carbon sequestration represents a crucial intersection of environmental sustainability, economic resilience, and gender empowerment. Climate change has exacerbated challenges faced by coastal communities in Tanzania, including declining fish stocks, saltwater intrusion, and increased vulnerability to storms and coastal erosion (IPCC, 2019). These pressures have heightened the economic and social vulnerabilities of women, who are often responsible for household livelihoods yet face restricted access to productive resources.

Seaweed farming provides an important adaptation pathway, enabling women to diversify income sources away from fisheries and reduce their dependency on diminishing fish stocks. By engaging in seaweed aquaculture, women are not only able to supplement household incomes but also enhance food security, education, and health outcomes within their communities (Msuya, 2013). This diversification strengthens household resilience to climate shocks, while also enhancing women’s agency in economic decision-making.

At the same time, seaweed farming contributes directly to climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration. Seaweeds absorb substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, which can be stored in their biomass or transferred to deep ocean sinks when fragments are detached and transported offshore (Krause-Jensen & Duarte, 2016). In this way, seaweed farms act as localized carbon sinks that help offset greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, seaweed aquaculture improves the ecological health of coastal zones by buffering wave energy, providing habitat for marine species, and maintaining ecosystem functions that are essential for coastal biodiversity.

Therefore, the nexus illustrates a dual dividend: while women benefit from improved economic opportunities and empowerment, communities and ecosystems benefit from enhanced carbon storage and climate adaptation services. Scaling up seaweed farming along the Swahili coast can thus create synergistic gains that address both social equity and environmental sustainability, aligning with Tanzania’s commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water).

  1. Seaweed Farming and Economic Empowerment Opportunities for Coastal Women

Seaweed farming has emerged as one of the most significant livelihood opportunities for women along Tanzania’s Swahili coast. Traditionally marginalized within the fisheries sector, women have increasingly turned to seaweed aquaculture as an alternative that offers greater autonomy, income stability, and social recognition. In Zanzibar, where the practice is most developed, women constitute the majority of seaweed farmers and contribute substantially to household incomes (Msuya, 2013).

Economically, seaweed farming provides a relatively low-cost entry point for women, requiring limited capital investment and basic technical knowledge. Once established, seaweed farms generate steady income through the sale of dried seaweed to domestic and international markets. Current estimates suggest that women farmers in Zanzibar can earn between USD 70 and USD 100 per month, depending on yields and market prices (FAO, 2020). While this income is modest, it represents a critical supplement in communities where alternative employment opportunities are scarce.

Beyond income generation, seaweed farming has broader implications for women’s empowerment. Earnings from seaweed sales enable women to invest in children’s education, improve household food security, and access healthcare services. In some communities, women seaweed farmers have reported greater decision-making power within households and community organizations, marking a shift in gender dynamics traditionally dominated by men (Lugomela et al., 2021). Seaweed farming has therefore become a pathway not only for economic resilience but also for advancing gender equity along Tanzania’s coastline.

In addition, the growing global demand for seaweed-derived products including cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and biofuels offers significant potential for value addition. With adequate support in processing, branding, and marketing, Tanzanian women farmers could capture higher value from their produce, moving beyond raw material exports into niche international markets. Such a transition would further enhance women’s economic empowerment and position seaweed farming as a competitive sector within Tanzania’s blue economy framework.

Nevertheless, challenges remain. Price volatility in international markets, limited bargaining power, and the absence of cooperative structures reduce women’s profitability. Furthermore, inadequate access to credit and modern farming technologies constrains productivity. These challenges highlight the need for targeted policy interventions and institutional support to strengthen the role of seaweed farming as a driver of women’s empowerment and sustainable coastal development.

  1. Policy and Practice Gaps

Despite its economic and ecological potential, seaweed farming along Tanzania’s Swahili coast faces significant policy and practice gaps that limit its growth as a sustainable sector. These challenges can be broadly categorized into institutional, technical, financial, and environmental dimensions.

Institutional Gaps: Seaweed farming remains weakly integrated into Tanzania’s broader marine and aquaculture policies. While Zanzibar has made notable progress, the lack of a comprehensive national seaweed strategy undermines efforts to scale the sector. Policy implementation is fragmented, with limited coordination between government agencies, research institutions, and development partners.

Technical Gaps: Women farmers often rely on traditional, low-yield methods and face limited access to improved farming technologies and resilient seed varieties. Rising sea surface temperatures and ocean warming have also affected yields by weakening the productivity of commonly farmed strains such as Eucheuma spinosum and Kappaphycus alvarezii. Without investment in research and innovation, farmers remain vulnerable to climate-induced declines in production.

Financial Gaps: Access to finance remains a major barrier for women farmers, who often lack collateral and financial literacy to secure loans from formal institutions. The sector’s dependence on donor-funded projects has created uncertainty, with few sustainable financing mechanisms available to expand farm acreage, adopt new technologies, or invest in value addition. Limited access to cooperative structures and collective bargaining further weakens women’s market position.

Environmental Gaps: Competition for coastal space with tourism and fishing industries, coupled with environmental degradation, reduces the availability of suitable farming areas. Climate change continues to exacerbate these challenges through rising ocean temperatures, shifting tidal patterns, and increased frequency of extreme weather events, all of which impact seaweed yields and farm stability.

Comparative evidence from Kenya and Madagascar suggests that stronger policy frameworks, investment in seaweed breeding programs, and development of women-led cooperatives can significantly enhance sector resilience. Without similar reforms in Tanzania, however, seaweed farming will remain underdeveloped, leaving coastal women unable to fully harness its economic and climate-related benefits.

  1. Recommendations

To unlock the full potential of seaweed farming for women’s economic empowerment and climate resilience along Tanzania’s Swahili coast, a set of targeted recommendations is necessary. These measures should address institutional, technical, financial, and environmental barriers while aligning with national development priorities and global sustainability goals.

1. Training and Capacity Building: Strengthen technical training for women farmers on modern aquaculture techniques, resilient seed varieties, and farm management practices. Capacity-building programs should also include business management, marketing, and financial literacy to improve income stability and bargaining power.

2. Policy Reform and Institutional Support: Develop a comprehensive National Seaweed Farming Strategy that positions the sector within Tanzania’s Blue Economy framework. Policy reforms should enhance coordination among government agencies, research institutions, private sector actors, and women’s organizations to create an enabling environment for sector growth.

3. Scaling Up Production and Value Addition: Encourage expansion of farm acreage while supporting investments in processing, packaging, and value addition for products such as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and biofuels. This would enable women to capture greater value beyond raw exports.

4. Financing and Investment Mechanisms: Establish tailored financial products, such as microcredit schemes and women’s cooperative funds, to address the sector’s financing gaps. Access to climate finance and blue carbon credits should also be explored to compensate women for the carbon sequestration benefits of seaweed farming.

5. Research and Development: Invest in research on climate-resilient seaweed species, disease management, and carbon accounting methodologies. Partnerships with universities, international research institutes, and regional organizations should be promoted to build a stronger knowledge base.

6. Environmental Management and Coastal Zoning: Introduce integrated coastal management practices that balance seaweed farming with tourism, fisheries, and conservation needs. Clear zoning and environmental monitoring frameworks would minimize conflicts and protect marine ecosystems.

  1. Strengthen Women seaweed farmers Association, as vehicles for engaging with government policy makers and other stakeholders while protecting the interests of women sea weed farmers. The existing networks are still infant, suffer from nascent resources and internal capacity challenges to into large scale ventures. Moreover, women sea farmers face significant health risks due to poor protection gear and over exposure to salty ocean water. Women complain of skin rushes and other risks due to over exposure.

By implementing these recommendations, Tanzania can transform seaweed farming into a resilient and competitive sector that delivers triple dividends: economic empowerment for women, enhanced climate mitigation through carbon sequestration, and strengthened adaptation for coastal communities. Aligning these efforts with the Sustainable Development Goals—particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water)—would further position Tanzania as a leader in inclusive and sustainable blue economy development.

  1. Conclusion

Seaweed farming holds transformative potential for Tanzania’s Swahili coastline, offering a sustainable livelihood for women, a pathway for climate change mitigation, and a contribution to the country’s broader blue economy agenda. As climate change continues to undermine traditional fisheries and coastal ecosystems, seaweed aquaculture provides an alternative that empowers women economically while also delivering critical ecological services such as carbon sequestration, shoreline protection, and improved marine biodiversity.

The evidence presented in this study demonstrates that while seaweed farming already plays a significant role in Zanzibar’s economy accounting for nearly 90 percent of marine exports it remains underdeveloped along the broader Tanzanian coastline. Institutional, technical, financial, and environmental gaps continue to constrain its full potential. Women farmers face challenges such as weak policy support, limited access to technology and finance, and exposure to climate-induced risks. Addressing these barriers is essential if seaweed farming is to deliver its dual dividends of economic empowerment and climate resilience.

Targeted interventions, including stronger policy frameworks, enhanced training, value addition, and innovative financing models, can unlock the sector’s potential. By scaling up seaweed farming and integrating it into national climate and marine strategies, Tanzania can position itself as a leader in sustainable aquaculture and blue carbon initiatives in East Africa.

In conclusion, seaweed farming is more than an economic activity; it is a climate-smart development strategy that empowers women, supports households, and strengthens ecological resilience. Harnessing this potential requires a coordinated effort among government, development partners, research institutions, and coastal communities. If pursued strategically, seaweed farming can significantly contribute to Tanzania’s achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, while building a resilient and inclusive coastal economy.

 

References

FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO. (2022). Global production statistics for seaweed farming. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

IPCC. (2019). Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Krause-Jensen, D., & Duarte, C. M. (2016). Substantial role of macroalgae in marine carbon sequestration. Nature Geoscience, 9(10), 737–742.

Lugomela, C., Msuya, F. E., & Kyewalyanga, M. S. (2021). Seaweed farming and gender dynamics in coastal Tanzania. Journal of Applied Phycology, 33, 1457–1468.

Msuya, F. E. (2013). Social and economic dimensions of seaweed farming in Zanzibar. In D. Valiela (Ed.), Aquaculture: Ecological, Economic, and Social Dimensions (pp. 121–138). Springer.

Duarte, C. M., Wu, J., Xiao, X., Bruhn, A., & Krause-Jensen, D. (2021). Can seaweed farming play a role in climate change mitigation and adaptation? Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 638802.

 

Webinar on Geopolitics of Critical Minerals and implications for Eastern and Southern Africa

Topic: An Analysis of the strategic gains and risks offered by the EU Strategic Partnership, Lobito Corridor and Minerals for Security deals on East and Southern Africa’s Critical Transition Minerals

The surging demand for minerals critical to green transition offers potential economic benefits for mineral rich countries however the dash to secure their supply chain has kicked off geopolitical interests, competition and realignments whose outcomes could have long lasting relationship with divergent unforeseen impacts.

With the Eastern and Southern Africa combined as a single economic bloc, the region has the highest concentration of critical green transition minerals such as cobalt, coltan, nickel, graphite, tungsten, tantalum, copper in the world. Yet the history of governance and management of the mineral sector has never yielded very positive dividends for mineral-rich countries in the region. Minerals have fueled conflicts in the DRC and Mozambique, Debt traps in Zambia, political patronage and environmental concerns in Zimbabwe and economic inequalities in South Africa and Botswana.

This webinar will provide an overview of the critical mineral wealth in Eastern and Southern Africa with a particular focus on the strategic gains and risks that geopolitical initiatives such as the EU Strategic Minerals Partnerships, the Lobito Corridor and emerging minerals for security deals offer. It is estimated that the mining industry needs to invest $1.7 trillion over the next 15 years to extract and supply enough metals for renewable energy and Africa possess almost half of these.   

The webinar will discuss the geostrategic machinations at play by superpowers such as the US, Europe, Russia and China in the context of the dash for control of critical minerals for the green transition and the current extractive governance challenges facing the region. While strategic alliances may not entirely be a bad idea, there are concerns over the underlying possible geopolitical, security and perceived neocolonial undertones that may come with these initiatives.

And how the historical socio-economic justice concerns of similar geopolitical jostling, security guarantees at the Berlin conference and hinterland to port initiatives contributed to the colonial exploitation of Africa’s resources for benefits elsewhere. Moreover, the mineral for security deals are tainted with opacity, designed with a biased potentially exploitative and a perceived neocolonial mindset aimed at rewarding the dominant superpower and the aggressor against the victim in exchange for its resource. The minerals for security deals are negotiated behind closed doors and their full terms are not availed neither to the public nor the citizens of the mineral rich country.

Amidst this mineral dash and possible geopolitical balkanization, it is feared that without strategic positioning, the Eastern and Southern Africa critical minerals rich countries could again miss out from this mineral boom.

Our expert speakers at this webinar will delve deeper into this topic, highlighting on the possible risks and benefits that the region can garner from these initiatives and measures the region can take so as to avert the risks and maximize benefits from these partnerships. This webinar is organized by the Governance and Economic Policy Centre in Collaboration with Botswana Watch Organisation. 

Our distinguished speakers will be

  1. Ketakandriana Rafitoson, Executive Director, Resource Justice Network (formerly PWYP): Key concerns for critical minerals Governance and our desired sustainable future. Dr Ketakandriana is a political scientist, researcher, activist, and human rights defender with distinguished career in anti-corruption, where she served as leader of Transparency International Chapter in Madagascar. Her work mainly focuses on issues of resource governance, anti-corruption, citizens’ participation, good governance and democracy.

 

  1. Adriano Nuvunga, Executive Director, Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CDD), Mozambique: The Geopolitics of critical minerals, neocolonial extractivism and conflict. Prof Adriano Nuvunga is a Mozambican scholar, anti-corruption advocate and human rights defender. He is the director of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights (CDD), an organization that promotes democracy and protects human rights in Mozambique and Professor of professor of political science and governance at the Eduardo Mondlane University in Maputo. He has widely published on resource governance and violence in Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado province.

 

  1. Mr Robert Lestatsi, Executive Director, Botswana Watch Organisation; Assessing the Lobito corridor project and Africa’s desired benefits from critical mineral wealth. Robert Letsatsi is the Executive Director of Botswana Watch (BW), an organization focused on promoting transparency and accountability in Botswana. He is also involved with the PWYP coalition in Botswana and the UNCAC Coalition, an international anti-corruption network. Additionally, he has been involved in advocacy of mineral resource governance and training on human rights violations, in collaboration with Ditshwanelo – The Botswana Centre for Human Rights.
  1. Moses Kulaba, Executive Director, Governance and Economic Policy Centre, Moderator. Mr Moses Kulaba is a Governance and political economist, tax law expert and economic diplomat with more than 20 years of active service in international public, private and civil society sector.  Prior to joining GEPC he served as the East Africa Regional Manager for the Natural Resources Governance Institute, where he worked with various stakeholders including governments to advance governance of the extractive sector. Has served on the international board of the EITI and in consultancy roles for DFID , the EU and the UN on governance, extractives and peace processes in Eastern and Africa Great Lakes region.

 Date: 30th July, 2025

Time: 12pm EAT, 11 AM Gaborone (CAT) and 9 AM Lagos

Login:  https://us05web.zoom.us/j/84450912293?pwd=lwabYIwsvJ27A8bP0v8hVQpaUOaYQ3.1

Meeting ID: 844 5091 2293

Passcode: 7XFcHc

Assessing Implications of Trumps Tariffs on Intra East Africa’s Regional and International Trade

By Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Centre

Effective 5th April 2025 (with a pause of 90 days) the US President Donald Trump slapped a global tariff of 10% on all exports to the US. The US tariffs has caused a lot of turbulence and uncertainty about the future of the WTO rules based global trade as we knew it. The future of EAC -US trade is unknown and during this period loses will be counted particularly in the agriculture, textiles, apparel and handcrafts sector. However, in the midst of turbulence, the EAC has an opportunity of re-inventing its intra-regional and international trade, and perhaps emerging stronger.  This policy brief analyses the implications of the US tariffs on EAC intra-regional trade and what options the member states can take.

Background on EAC -US Trade Relations and Trade Flows

The East African Community (EAC) and Sub-Saharan Africa generally have been major trading partners with the United States for decades and so far, the fastest growing markets in the world according to the International Monetary Fund.  The US has signed multiple trade agreements allowing smooth trade flows across the two regions, with the US enjoying an overwhelming trade surplus for decades. In 2008 the U.S. signed Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFA) with the EAC regional economic block in 2008.

The purpose of the TIFA was to strengthen the United States-EAC trade and investment relationship, expand and diversify bilateral trade, and improve the climate for business between U.S. and East African firms. Earlier in 2000 the US had passed the African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade preference program that allowed selected goods from EAC duty free market entrance into the United States. AGOA had helped expand and diversify African exports to the United States, while at the same time fostering an improved business environment in many African countries through the application of eligibility requirements.  In 2015, the U.S. Congress extended AGOA through 2025. 

According to the Office of US Trade Representative data the U.S. goods exports to East African Community in 2022 were $1.1 billion, up 2.0 percent ($22 million) from 2021 and up 15 percent from 2012. U.S. goods imports from East African Community totaled $1.3 billion in 2022, up 40.4 percent ($367 million) from 2021, and up 121 percent from 2012. The U.S. trade balance with East African Community shifted from a goods trade surplus of $211 million in 2021 to a goods trade deficit of $135 million in 2022[1].Although the US suffered a goods trade deficit in 2022, it has continued to enjoy trade surpluses with individual EAC member Countries as reported by the US trade Administration.

Table of US-EAC Trade flows and Surplus for 2023-2024

Country

Total Goods Trade with US 2024 (USD)

US Exports

(2024)

US Imports

(2024)

Surplus (2024)

% Increase in Surplus compared to 2023

Kenya

1.5Bln

782.5Mln

737.3Mln

45.2Mln

110 (454.6Mln)

Tanzania

778.1Mln

573.4Mln

204.7Mln

368.7Mln

45.8 (115.8Mln)

Uganda

238.9 Mln

106.3 Mln

132.6 Mln

26.3Mln

574.3 ($31.9Mln)

Rwanda

75.0Mln

44.8Mln

30.2Mln

14.5Mln

4,060 (($14.2Mln)

Democratic Republic of Congo

576.4Mln

253.3Mln

323.1Mln

69.8M

20.9 ($18.4 Mln)

Burundi

$10.4Mln

$6.6Mln

$3.7Mln

$2.9Mln

224.3 (5.2Mln)

South Sudan

$60.1Mln

$59.3 Mln

$0.8Mln

$58.5 Mln

16.0(8.1Mln)

Somalia

$51.6Mln

$49.1 Mln

$2.5 Mln

$46.6Mln

0

Source: Office of US Trade Representative data analyzed and presented by GEPC researcher

Over the years, through its trade diplomacy, the US had cemented long lasting relations paving way for other strategic economic, political and security relations, with the EAC member states including defense. With the new tariff wall, if not changed, this long-term relationship could be bound for a new trajectory.

Knock-on Effects of Tariffs

Tariffs have knock offs whose effects can trickle down the goods and services value chain in many ways, affecting both producers, exporters and consumers down the trade supply chain.

A tariff is a duty imposed by a national government, customs territory, or supranational union on imports of goods. Besides being a source of revenue, import duties can also be a form of regulation of foreign trade and policy that burden foreign products to encourage or safeguard domestic industry[1]. At their core, tariffs are simple: they raise the domestic price of imported goods. But their effects ripple through the economy in complex ways – altering prices, wages, exchange rates and trade patterns.

Simply put, a tariff is a tax on imported products. It creates a difference between the world price and the domestic price of a product. Tariffs raise the price of imported goods relative to domestic goods (good produced at home).  For example, if a US Tarif of 10% is applied on world price of coffee of USD200, the domestic price of coffee in the US market becomes USD 220 per kilogram. The government collects the difference of USD20 dollar as tariff revenue to finance other public expenditures.

Tariffs can also affect the world price of a product, particularly when they are imposed by a large economy. The logic is that higher domestic prices reduce domestic demand, which in turn lowers world demand, and thus world prices. In our example, the world price might fall to $150 after the tariff is imposed, resulting in a domestic price of $165. In this case, part of the tariff is effectively paid by foreign producers[2].

This cost-shifting creates incentives for large economies to unilaterally impose tariffs. However, this so-called optimal tariff argument overlooks the possibility of retaliation. If country A imposes tariffs on country B, country B has an incentive to respond in kind. The end result is a trade war that leaves both sides worse off[3].

With the current US tariffs, the prices of goods entering into the US market will increase by 10%. For example, the price of coffee will increase by 10% making it more expensive for Americans to afford. Similarly, the costs for other agricultural products, textiles and handcrafts will suffer the same fate. The resultant effect of this will be a low demand for these goods in the US markets affecting EAC farmers and exporters. We can further illustrate this with a simple of the effects of the tariffs on handicrafts from the EAC. 

Because of increased tariffs and a decline in demand for the Makonde carvings, the exporter of Makonde Carvings and paintings will buy less. The Makonde carver and painter in Mtwara and Mwenge will lose business and sell less. The transporter of Makonde carvings will have little business and therefore send a few trucks to collect and deliver the carvings to Dar es Salaam. The exporter will send a few containers and therefore the port handlers and clearing firms will have no business. The Makonde artist may completely close and ultimately the transporter and port handler may lay off staff. A similar experience can be the same for the Coffee producer in Uganda and Kenya, whose knock off effect of the US tariffs will trickle down the supply chain in a similar manner.

Tariffs in the Context of WTO and GATT rules

In the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules-based system, when countries agree to open their markets for goods or services, they “bind” their commitments. A country can change its bindings, but only after negotiating with its trading partners, which could mean compensating them for loss of trade[1].

Under the WTO (GATTs, GAT and TRIPs agreements) international trade and commerce is run based on a rule-based system and principles. These include;

  1. Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN), which requires treating other people equally. Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members[2]
  2. National Treatment of foreigners and locals equally where by imported and locally-produced goods should be treated equally — at least after the foreign goods have entered the market. This also applies to services, trademarks, copyrights and patents. (Article 3 of GATT, Article 17 of GATS and Article 3 of TRIPS) although there can be some variations in applications depending on an existing arrangement such as a Regional Economic block or once a product, service or item of intellectual property has entered the market can be a subject to customs duty or any other applicable duties.
  3. National treatment only applies once a product, service or item of intellectual property has entered the market. Therefore, charging customs duty on an import is not a violation of national treatment even if locally-produced products are not charged an equivalent tax.
  4. Freer trade gradually through negotiations and reducing of trade barriers such customs duties (tariffs), import bans or quotas, selective restriction on quantities, bureaucracy and exchange rate policies.
  5. Predictability of trade through binding commitments and transparency. This encourages investment, job creation and consumers can enjoy the benefits of competition
  6. Promotion of fair competition, with an allowance of a limited. number of tariffs for limited protection, allowing thriving of domestic industry and protection against entry of harmful products.
  7. Generally, encouraging development and economic reforms aimed at increasing global trade flows and particularly allowing less developed countries to equally enjoy benefits of the global trade system.
    Tariffs as Tools for Trade Policy and Geopolitical Statecraft

    Tariffs are not universally banned from trade policy. Tariffs can be a useful tool for protecting domestic industries, generating revenue, and supporting economic development, especially in developing countries. They can equally be used as a foreign policy instrument to advance economic diplomatic ties between nations.

    According to the WTO, tariffs must not be used as weapon for trade distortion, carry the risk of increased costs for businesses and consumers, potentially stifling economic growth and competitiveness. However, the recent US Trump measures reorganize the rules on International Trade. Tariffs are now used as a political tool for advancing geopolitical and national security interests, including cajoling other trading partners and WTO member states into curving in to pressure aimed at achieving domestic political gains.

    There are contending views (including from the US Council on Foreign Relations) that according to the WTO rules, the US Trump tariffs are illegal, arbitrary, based on a wrong formular, not reciprocal, distortionary[1] and must be fought either at the WTO or through reciprocal measures taken by affected Countries. Poor application of tariffs can spark a contagion effect of tariffs wars across nations.

    Implications on EAC Trade and economic growth
    1. Rise in prices of EAC Export products in the US market by a commensurate percentage in response to the tariff charges unless the EAC exporters absorb or the US government cushions the consumers in someways
    2. Decline in export volumes EAC goods to the US by a commensurate percentage decline, depending on the tariff elasticity of the good affected by the US imposed tariffs
    3. Increase in import driven inflationary pressures in the EAC causing on the already current inflationary pressures in the EAC region
    4. Potential slow down in the regional economic growth in line with the IMF projected global economic slowdown of 2.8% in 2025 due to disruptions in global trade
    5. Shortage in supply of US dollars due to declining inflow from trade with the US. This could exert some depreciation of domestic currencies, as the dollar demand to purchase imports increases.
    6. Incentivize the rise in the use of Tariffs and blockades by countries in the region as tools for trade policy and coercion to achieve specific strategic interests, as countries mimic US behavior
    EAC Response options for Trade Creation and Diversion to new markets

    To date the EAC as a regional block has remained silent while its respective member states have decided to individually not to retaliate.  Uganda’s Ministry of Finance, clearly stated that it had taken a decision not to retaliate[2].  Similar statements were made by Kenya’s Ministry of Trade[3].

    Uganda’s trade volumes with the US were small and the US was a major beneficiary of this trade relationship, enjoying a goods trade surplus, while its nationals enjoyed cheap high quality agricultural exports such as coffee, tea, fruits and handcrafts from the EAC.

    The AGOA partnership agreement was bound to expire at the end of 2025 and the US and EAC were already on the road towards negotiating new trade arrangements, if AGOA was not extended. Moreover, some Countries such as Uganda, Burundi, South Sudan and Somalia were not eligible for AGOA in 2024 due to among others sanctions imposed by the US for various reasons (including conflicts, human and political rights violations) and were already searching for markets elsewhere.

    The EAC as a regional block was pushing for increased intra-regional trade. The East African Business Council, an apex body of businesses and companies, has always been concerned with low volumes of intra EAC trade as compared to other economic regions. 

    This has been widely linked to existence of tariff and non-tariff barriers, including stringent rules of origin, Stay of Applications which allows member states to charge or exempt different tariffs on some specific goods different from the Common External Tariff, differences in taxes such VAT, Income Taxes and Exercise duties. It was further concerned with the bilateral negotiations of trade deals with third parties. The East African Business Council (EABC) advocated and has been pushing the EAC to continue negotiating the EAC-EU Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) and the EAC-UK EPA as a region to avoid creating mistrust and distortion of the EAC Common External Tariff (CET)[4]

    The new US tariffs therefore offer the EAC and Sub-Saharan Africa region with a window of an opportunity to disconnect itself from the US markets by deepening intra-regional trade, diversifying and diverting its trade to other regions such as Africa via Africa Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the EU, the Middle East and China.

    AFCTA offers flexible rules and unfettered free access to a market population of about 1.3 billion people and a combined GDP of approximately US$ 3.4 trillion[5]. The AfCFTA aims to eliminate trade barriers and boost intra-Africa trade. In particular, it is to advance trade in value-added production across all service sectors of the African Economy[6]. There are a lot of opportunities in the AfCFTA for the Private sector in the EAC as it offers a larger and diversified market for goods and services. According to President Museveni Uganda will now focus on African markets[7]

    The EU has been a major trading partner and EU trade in goods (imports and exports) with the EAC has risen steadily comparatively to 2007 volumes[8]  In 2023 the EU trade in goods and services with the EAC region amounted to EUR106Bln. The EU trade in services amounted to EUR 5.9bln. If compared to 2022 the EU trade in goods with the EAC region reached EUR 5.7bln while imports from the EAC were EUR4.9bln. Exports in services were valued at EUR3.0Bln compared to EUR2.9 bln imported from the EAC[9]. The major exports to the EU from the East African Community are mainly coffee, cut flowers, tea, tobacco, fish and vegetables. Imports from the EU into the region are dominated by machinery and mechanical appliances, equipment and parts, vehicles and pharmaceutical products[10].  Kenya and Tanzania were the leading EU trade partners.

    China is already a major trading partner with the EAC and had surpassed the EU and the US. In 2023, China was the largest source of imports for the East African Community (EAC), with imports valued at $11 billion. The EAC’s exports to China in the same year were valued at $15.8 billion. China is closely followed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at US$6.4 billion in 2023[11].

    From the statistics, the EAC already enjoys a trade surplus with China. Although there are concerns over unethical business conducts, including the risk of stifling industrial growth by flooding the EAC with cheap substandard goods, China remains a huge market of about 1billion people, it is the second largest economy in the world and the largest one in RCEP with a GDP of 16,325 billion USD in 2022 (World Bank, 2023).  Chinese demand for EAC products is enormous and projected to grow.

    The EAC also has an opportunity of benefiting from arbitrage practices, whereby producers from highly US tariffed countries set up business to produce, buy, sell or reroute their products via the EAC to take advantage of the tax and price differences. In this case highly taxed countries such as China and Lesotho would be interested in setting up business in EAC.  Kenya has already made a move with President Ruto’s visit to Beijing to attract Chinese businesses to set business in Nairobi.

    Recommendations

    For this to happen, the EAC and its member states will have to

    1. Diversify, Divert and Create trade. This happens when new or existing regional economic grouping (Free Trade Areas or Customs Unions) leads to creation of new trade that never existed before or leads to shifts in trade flows from efficient nonmember exporters to non-efficient member exporters among others due to preferential tariffs charged amongst member states.
    2. Invest in processing and industrial production of agricultural products and raw materials into finished products that can be sold or consumed locally and in the new markets
    3. Address existing tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade such as VAT, Excise duties, income taxes, bureaucracy and infrastructure which have been an obstacle to intra-regional trade.
    4. Revive old economic partnerships with the EU and explore new partnerships with the EU, South America, Middle East and China
    5. Establish linkages between the farmers and manufacturer so as to create value and sustainable supply chains of quality products for the market
    6. Address political differences, instability and conflicts affecting cordial economic cooperation and free flow of goods across EAC and African borders.

     References 

    European Commission: Trade and Security available at https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/east-african-community-eac_en

    Ralph Ossa; Views of the Chief Economist, World Trade Organisation, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/blogs_e/ce_ralph_ossa_e/blog_ro_11apr25_e.htm accessed 14 April 2025

    The New Times (May 02, 2025) available at https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/21152/news/africa/eabcs-adrian-raphael-njau-advocates-for-stronger-eac-market

    WTO; Principles of the Trading system available at: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm#:~:text=In%20the%20WTO%2C%20when%20countries,the%20case%20in%20developing%20countries.

    [1] https://www.cfr.org/blog/five-things-know-about-trumps-tariffs

    [2] Mr Ramadhan Ggobi , Permanent Secretary for Treasury made these remarks while addressing a press conference at the Ministry of Finance

    [3] Mr Lee Kinyanjui, PS for Trade, Kenya in an Interview with  Citizen TV available on Citizen digital via https://www.citizen.digital/news/what-it-means-for-kenya-after-us-imposes-10-export-tariff-trade-cs-kinyanjui-n360379

    [4] https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/21152/news/africa/eabcs-adrian-raphael-njau-advocates-for-stronger-eac-market

    [5] https://au-afcfta.org/about/

    [6] ibid

    [7] https://eastleighvoice.co.ke/african%20markets/140091/museveni-says-uganda-to-focus-on-african-markets-amid-us-tariff-hike

    [8] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/766228/EPRS_BRI(2024)766228_EN.pdf

    [9] ibid

    [10] https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/east-african-community-eac_en

    [11] https://www.eac.int/trade/79-sector/trade#:~:text=China%20is%20the%20dominant%20source,US%246.4%20billion%20in%2020

Webinar Series: Assessing Implications of Trumps Tariffs on Intra East Africa’s Regional and International Trade

The rules of world trade are being redefined. We are delighted to invite you to plug and join in as we explore and discuss this interesting topic on regional economic cooperation, trade and investment. 

The East African Community (EAC) and Sub-Saharan Africa generally have been major trading partners with the United States for decades and so far, the fastest growing markets in the world according to the International Monetary Fund.   Since 2001, the US has signed multiple trade agreements (including AGOA in 2001 and TIFA in 2008) allowing smooth trade flows across the two regions, with the US enjoying an overwhelming trade surplus for decades. Under AGOA EAC selected products had duty free access to US markets. US trade relations with EAC member states were booming.  For instance, in 2024 the US trade surplus with Rwanda increased more than 4000% compared to 2023.

Effective 5th April 2025 the US President Donald Trump slapped a global baseline tariff of 10% on all exports to the US. The US tariffs have caused a lot of turbulence and uncertainty about the future of the WTO rules based global trade as we know it. The future of EAC -US trade is unknown and during this period loses will be counted particularly in the agriculture, textiles, apparel and artifacts sector. However, in the midst of this turbulence, the EAC may have an opportunity of re-inventing its intra-regional and international trade, and perhaps emerging stronger by looking elsewhere. 

This webinar will enable stakeholders and the public understand the issues at play and the potentially new World Trade Order that we could moving towards. Expert speakers at this webinar will analyze the implications of the US tariffs on EAC intra-regional and international trade and what options the EAC block and member states can take.

The Governance and Economic Policy Centre (GEPC) is a regional governance and development policy organization, based in Tanzania, interested among others in promoting economic and fiscal governance, with a national and regional focus on East and Africa Great Lakes Region.

The webinar is organized as part of GEPC’s project on promoting regional economic cooperation, trade and investment implemented in collaboration with the Africa Economic Diplomatic Study Circle (AEDSC), a loose network of practicing professionals, students of economic diplomacy, international relations and development based on the African continent, working to promote Africa’s position in the global space.

Our distinguished speakers will be;

Ms McDowell Juko, Chairperson East Africa Business Network (EABN): Elsa Juko-McDowell, a native of Uganda, is a remarkable individual with a deep passion for people and business. Her journey began in 2015 when she joined the East Africa Chamber of Commerce (EACC), an 18-year organization devoted to fostering trade and investments between the United States and East Africa, currently known as the East Africa Business Network. owns multiple businesses, including real estate development, investments, and consulting ventures. Additionally, Elsa serves as a North Texas District Export Council member.  Can be reached via: info@eabn.co or chairman@eabn.co

Mr. Adrian Njau, Ag. Executive Director, East African Business Council: Adrian Njau is the Executive Director of the East African Business  Council (EABN), the apex advocacy body of private sector associations and corporates from the 7 East African Community (EAC) Partner States (Kenya, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and South Sudan). Adrian holds a Master’s Degree in International Trade and a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics, both obtained from the University of Dar es Salaam. His academic background is complemented by professional certifications and specialized training in trade, investment, policy and regional integration from Switzerland, Singapore, and Sweden, among others. With over two decades of experience, Adrian has been instrumental in research and policy at the Chamber. Can be reached via: Email: info@eabc-online.com

Mr Robert Ssuna, International Trade and Tax Expert, Researcher and Consultant, Governance and Economic Policy Centre:  Robert is an Independent Consultant on Tax Trade and Investment. He is Chartered Economic Policy Analyst (CEPA), a Fellow of the Global Academy of Finance and Management with over 15 years of experience in economic policy analysis focusing on tax, trade, and investment at national, regional, and global levels. He is also a member of the Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS) Monitoring Group. Prior to this, he served as a Supervisor Research Statistics and Policy Analysis in the Research and Planning Division of the Uganda Revenue Authority. Can be reached via: ssuunaster@gmail.com

Hon: Dr Abullah H Makame, Member of East Africa Legislative Assembly (EALA):  Dr Makame, is a distinguished member of the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) based in Arusha, Tanzania, where he is a commissioner and a former Chairperson of the Standing Committee in Agriculture, Environment, Tourism and Natural Resources. Dr Makame has served in various senior capacities in both the Government of United Republic of Tanzania and Zanzibar; academically, his docorate is from Birmingham UK and MSc from Strathclyde – Scotland, he holds a Professional Certificate in International Trade from Adelaide and has published both locally and internationally. Dr Makame serves in various boards across the EAC region. Can be reached via email: abdullah.makame@gmail.com

Mr Moses Kulaba, Executive Director & Convenor, Governance and Economic Policy Centre: Mr Moses is a political economist, tax and economic diplomat with more than 20 years of active service in international public, private and civil society sector.  Prior to joining GEPC he served as the East Africa Regional Manager for the Natural Resources Governance Institute, where he worked with various stakeholders including governments to advance fiscal policies and governance of the extractive sector. Has served on the international board of the EITI and in consultancy roles for UN, DFID and the EU. Can be reached via : moses@gepc.or.tz or mkulaba2000@gmail.com

Webinar Date: Tuesday, 6th May, 2025

Time: 10:30AM-12:30 PM (Nairobi Time)/ 9:30AM (CAT)/ 7:30AM (GMT)

Online Participation via Google meet video link: https://meet.google.com/odd-ysgh-dtf

Tanzania’s Mining Investment Climate: Reforms that government should take to attract and retain new mining investors

According to the Ministry of Minerals, government stands ready to facilitate investor meetings and explore potential business ventures in Tanzania. However, investors operating under the current mining regime in Tanzania still face challenges which require a thorough regime review and fix, for the challenges to go.

Author:  Governance and Economic Policy Centre

Tanzania is endowed with a variety of mineral resources and has been successful in attracting large mining investments. However, over the past few years, this investment curve stagnated and has zigzaged out, as potential new investors stayed away in fear of a potentially unpredictable regulatory mining regime.  In order to attract and retain new large-scale projects, investors suggest, that pertinent reforms must be made.

This brief traces Tanzania’s mining history and from an investor perspective, shows how the country started losing the momentum and its share as a leading mining destination. It proposes some actions and reforms that could be made to reclaim its glory while at the same time achieving a win-win regime for sustainable mining and development.

Tanzania’s mining in a historical context

Mining and minerals trading has a long history in Tanzania, dating back to 18th century when Arab traders plied the Tanzanian coastal towns bringing spices from the Arabian gulf in exchange for gold, copper, iron and other minerals.  Records show that the German colonialists discovered gold in Geita and Sekenke (Singida) where the first gold mine was established in 1909.

In 1940 a Canadian Geologist Dr. John Williamson discovered the Mwadui Kimberlite pipe and established a diamond mine there.  After his death in 1958 his heirs sold the mine to De Beers (50%) and the British colonial government (50%).

In 1971 the government of Tanzania nationalised all mines.  The State Mining Corporation (STAMICO) took ownership of the Diamond mine and run it between 1974 to 1993 when years of ill maintenance took their toll to cause an urgent need of recapitalisation and equipment overhaul.  This need came at a time when the country was going through a tough economic situation that it was not possible to accommodate the need.  A decision was made to invite De Beers to the rescue. They agreed to recapitalise the company and in return acquired a 75% stake in the mine in 1994.  In 2009 DE Beers sold their 75% stake to Petra Diamonds.

Following economic troubles of the seventies, raising fuel prices, geopolitical tensions between ‘east and west’, the 1978/79 war between Tanzania and Uganda, low commodity prices for the country’s backbone agriculture produce (cotton, coffee & sisal) exports, the Tanzanian economy continued to deteriorate to the extent that the country was left with no other option but to embrace free market economic policies advocated by the Bretton Woods Institutions. 

With advice and guidance from the World Bank and IMF, Tanzania liberalised its mining sector and invited foreign investors.  This was during the 3rd phase government of H.E. Benjamin William Mkapa (RIP). The shift to free market economy and liberalised mining industry required new policies, laws and regulations.

New Mining Reforms and knock off effects

A Mineral Policy was formulated in 1997.  The policy gave way for private sector to take the lead in mineral exploration, development, mining, beneficiation and marketing.  Instead of being an active participant, the government would become the facilitator, the regulator and the administrator. This policy was complimented by the Mining Act 1998.

The Mineral Policy 1997 and accompanying Mining Act 1998 together with personal efforts by the late President Benjamin William Mkapa resulted in foreign mining investors in their multitudes flocking the country.  In a span of about eleven years (1998 – 2009) six large scale gold mines were opened.  These are:

  • Golden Pride Mine in 1998, owned by Resolute Mining Limited of Australia
  • Geita Gold Mine in 2000, owned by Anglogold Ashanti of South Africa
  • Bulyanhulu Gold Mine in 2001, owned by Barrick Gold of Canada
  • North Mara Gold Mine in 2002, owned by Sutton Resources of Canada and later the mine was acquired by Barrick Gold of Canada
  • Tulawaka Gold Mine in 2005, owned by Pangea Minerals – a wholly owned subsidiary of Barrick Gold of Canada
  • Buzwagi Gold Mine in 2009, owned by Barrick Gold

Despite the many benefits that the new mines brought, including improved balance of trade realised by increased gold exports, increased government revenue collection through import & employment taxes, the multiplier effect that was created by new business opportunities to local suppliers and contractors, there was still a public outcry that the country was not getting enough.

It deemed necessary to form various committees and task them with reviewing the country’s policy, law, regulations and public views on the mining industry and compare the findings to the practice in other African countries.  The aim was to improve the playing field to achieve a win-win situation.  Four committees were formed for the cause at different times between 2002 and 2009:

  • General (Rtd) Robert Mboma Committee in 2002
  • Kipokola Committee in 2004
  • Lau Masha Committee in 2008
  • Judge Mark Bomani (RIP) Committee in 2009

Observations and opinions collected from the various committees led to the formation of a new Mineral Policy in 2009 and enactment of the (new) Mining Act 2010.

Vision of the Mineral Policy 2009 was to attain an effective mineral sector that contributes significantly to the acceleration of socio-economic development of the country, through sustainable development and utilization of mineral resources by the year 2025.  This included attaining a GDP contribution of 10%.  Note that the GDP contribution of the mining sector was 2.7% in 2010 (BOT Annual Report June 2011). Focus of the Mineral Policy 2009 was to integrate mining with other sectors of the economy.

It’s interesting to note that:

  • After establishment of the Mining Act 2010 and its accompanying regulations, only one ‘medium scale’ gold mine was constructed – the New Luika Mine in 2012.
  • Thereafter, there have been a limited number of medium scale mines (smaller in size and production capacity than New Luika) which have been constructed, but not a single large scale mine has been built ever since.

Following the change of government in 2015, the Mining Act 2010 was further overhauled in 2017 and led to the current version of the act – Mining Act CAP 123 R.E. 2019.  This overhaul was complemented by two new acts:

  • The Natural Wealth and Resources (Permanent Sovereignty) Act, 2017
  • The Natural Wealth and Resources Contracts (Review and Renegotiation of Unconscionable Terms) Act, 2017

The Mining Act CAP 123 R.E. 2019 introduced new clauses which imposed more control of natural resources by the government.  It banned export of mineral concentrates and put more emphasis on local refining of extracted minerals.  It revoked retention licenses and introduced new clauses to govern local content and corporate social responsibility.  The intent was to see more participation of Tanzanians in management of the foreign owned mining companies and in the value chain of the mined minerals.  Instead of exporting raw minerals the companies were required to beneficiate locally before export. The Government was also enabled by the law to acquire at least 15% un-dilutable free carried interest in Mining Licenses and Special Mining Licenses.

Key takes from the new law on ‘permanent sovereignty’ were introduction of clauses which mandated for:

  • Arbitration of commercial disputes in local courts and using Tanzanian law
  • Review by Parliament of agreements entered on natural resources
  • Local beneficiation of mined minerals
  • Retention of earnings in local banks

The ‘review and renegotiation of unconscionable terms’ act gave mandate for the Parliament to review any agreement on natural resources previously entered by the government, to be reviewed and renegotiated if the terms entered appeared to be unconscionable.

In a 2017 commentary, titled: Tanzania Overhauls Mining Laws, Fines Investor US$190 Billion: Is Your Investment Protected?  the JonesDay, a leading commercial law firm wrote; ‘The new laws heighten the government’s role and power in investment contracts, increase the costs of foreign investment, and substantially reduce investment protections, including international arbitration. Investors should take immediate action to mitigate the risks associated with the Tanzanian government’s actions pertaining to the mining industry[1]. Despite current government reassurances, to date these fears have continued to revibrate among risk averse investors, who remain uncertain of Tanzania’s future investment climate. For these laws have never been repealed.

Factors driving mining investment decisions

To put matters in context, one crucial criterion that attracts mining investors to a country is rich geology that has a scientific potential to host high grade orebodies. Tanzania is among the African countries blessed with such geology.  But to attract mining investors rich geology cannot stand on its own.  Rich geology must be complemented by:

  1. A conducive business environment
  2. A stable fiscal/mining regime
  3. Security of tenure
  4. Political stability and peace in the country
  5. Skilled artisans
  6. Good infrastructure – roads, rails, power, etc.

Over the years until in the recent past the country managed to do well in the list above on items 4 to 6.  Items 1 to 3, however, have been a challenge.

 Wins and missed opportunity

When the first large scale mine was established in 1998 at Lusu ward, Nzega district, Tanzania had a challenging road, rail and power infrastructure.  Some important mining skills were lacking.  But the country was politically stable, mining companies owning Special Mining Licenses had their fiscal issues stabilised by the Mining Development Agreements (MDA) signed with the government, there was security of tenure and a good business environment.  Over time, good progress continued to be made in some areas, but there was deterioration of circumstances in other areas as noted by  investors. 

Frequent and unilateral changes to laws and regulations led to breach of mine development agreements (MDAs).  Some concessions given to investors through the signed Mine Development Agreements were not honoured by the Tanzania Revenue Authority because they were not gazetted, and despite requests from concerned investors the Ministry of Finance avoided gazetting the MDA’s.

Significant improvement and upgrade made to road and power infrastructure; and skills development was defeated by unnecessary red tape brought about by introduction of a multiplicity of regulators who appeared to be more focused in raising revenue through hefty fines rather than providing oversite and regulating the sector.

Security of tenure was put at risk by uncontrolled gold rushes and haphazard trespassing by unlicensed artisanal miners. Investors who had invested millions of US Dollars in green field exploration witnessed invasion of their tenements by unlicensed artisanal miners with no serious intervention by authorities to rescue the situation, allowing the invasions to be politically concluded at the demise of the investor.

In summary, the current mining industry in Tanzania has been a mixed grill of successes and failures. Despite the many ups and downs over the years, several ‘wins’ have been witnessed by the sector following revision of the Mining Act CAP 123 R.E. 2019 and enactment of the laws on sovereignty in natural resources and renegotiation of unconscionable terms on agreements entered by the government on natural resources:

  • Renegotiation of the Mining Development Agreement entered between the Government of Tanzania and Barrick Gold Corporation which led to Acquisition of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake by the Government in Barrick Gold mining projects in Tanzania (Bulyanhulu & North Mara Gold Mines) and signing of a Framework Agreement between the Government and the company.
  • Acquisition of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake by the Government of Tanzania in the Kabanga Nickel project (Tembo Nickel Corporation).
  • Acquisition by the Tanzanian Government of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake in the Ecograph Epanko graphite project
  • Acquisition by the Tanzanian government of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake in the Peak Resources Ngualla REE project (through Mamba Minerals)
  • Acquisition of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake by the Government in the Strandline Resources Heavy Minerals Sands project through Nyati Resources
  • Acquisition by the government of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake in the Evolution Energy Chilalo Graphite project through Kudu Graphite Limited
  • Acquisition of a 20% un-dilutable free carried government stake in the Perseus Mining Nyanzaga Gold Project through Sota Mining Ltd.
  • Increased royalty collections following increase of the royalty on gold to 6% from the previous 4%
  • Increased gold revenue collections through the introduction of 1% inspection fee on gold exports
  • Construction of 3 gold refineries in Mwanza, Geita and Dodoma which have not only facilitated purchase of refined gold by the Bank of Tanzania but have also created employment opportunities to Tanzanians.
  • Enforcement of local content regulations which have in turn facilitated the participation of Tanzanians in the mines supply chain.
  • Enforcement of new local content regulations have made it possible for several Tanzanians to take over senior management positions in foreign mining companies investing in Tanzania
  • Enforcement of new CSR regulations have enabled CSR projects to be managed in a fair and transparent manner, ensuring value for money of the projects.
  • Introduction of the online Mining Cadastre system has revolutionised the licensing process by modernising it. The ‘first come first served’ approach in license application is working fine and fairly.  So long as they have all the required supporting documents in soft / electronic form, applicants are now able to lodge license applications from wherever they are in the world. They just need to be connected to the internet.
  • Significant improvements in power generation and transmission capacity have enabled connection of major mines to the national electricity grid. It was heartwarming to witness connection of the Geita Gold Mine (Anglogold Ashanti) to the national power grid.  This event shall not only save the company millions of US Dollars in energy cost, but it will also increase Tanesco’s revenue.  The Geita mine used to consume about 8 million litres of diesel every month to generate electricity using a rented thermal plant.

But, have the country now achieved a win-win situation? How is this goal going to be realised?

In the business world the investors would always want to maximise their profits and governments would always want to maximise their tax and fees collections to support socioeconomic development.  An attractive and well researched mining regime that involved stakeholder participation in its making is the only one that will manage to at least strike a delicate balance between the profits anticipated by the investors and the taxes and fees anticipated by the Government.

Obstacles that Tanzania Mining investors face

Courtesy Photo: Tanzania Minerals Minister, Anthony Mavunde speaks to stakeholders in Dar es Salaam

According to the Ministry of Minerals, government stands ready to facilitate investor meetings and explore potential business ventures in Tanzania. This unwavering commitment to attracting foreign investment underscores the nation’s dedication to unlocking the full potential of its mining sector. Tanzania Mining industry is highly important since it accounts for a significant share of the country’s export revenues. The Government plans to have this sector contribute 10% of GDP by 2025.

However, investors operating under the current mining regime in Tanzania still face challenges which require a thorough regime review and fix, for the challenges to go.

  • Several advanced mining projects including the ones in Graphite, REE, Heavy Mineral Sands and Gold have continued to struggle in raising project finance due to some clauses in different laws governing the mining sector in relation to the ownership of won minerals as well as banking of mineral sales proceeds
  • Extended negotiations on the making of framework agreements have been one area that frustrates many investors whose projects have reached that stage in their development
  • If left the way they are, some local content procurement tendering procedures have the potential to cause costly delays during the construction phase of the advanced projects
  • If left as currently reads, some wording on Section 56 of the Income Tax Act CAP 332 R.E. 2006 will end up ‘taxing’ capital of exploration companies when shareholding changes. Triggering imposition of Section 56 will cause a 30% capital gain tax on a junior exploration company when part of whose shares are acquired by another company for the intent of capitalising the junior company.  It should be noted here that exploration companies are not operating mines and instead of making money they normally burn money trying to find a mineable mineral deposit.  Trying to tax a non-trading company is weird and unheard in the mining industry.  The only way we can generate new mines to replace closed ones is by promoting exploration – not discouraging, investors say
  • The Income Tax Act CAP 332 R.E. 2006 disallows deduction of Royalty costs when calculating taxable income of a mining entity. This is a concern because no company is allowed to export minerals unless it has paid Royalty, meaning that royalty is part and parcel of the costs incurred to generate revenue of the company and should therefore be an allowable deduction

The above listed are only a few issues of concern to mining investors and something that the Government needs to have another look about or even conduct a study to see their quantitative impact in discouraging mining investment in Tanzania and what will be the impact (pro or cons) if some of the clauses will be amended to reflect investor’s proposals.

Proposed remedial actions and reforms that government should take

 There is a raft of measures that government can take. These include;

  1. Asses the current investment climate with a view to determine whether the 2017 mining reforms achieved any significant dividend to the mining sector
  2. Re-examine the current laws, particularly those passed in 2016 and 2017 to see if there are any remaining clauses that may be of concern to the mining investors. Some changes were made , however government should evaluate and see if there are any areas that need further review, without losing the core purpose of securing maximum value for Tanzania.
  3. Re-evaluate Tanzania’s mineral geology and mining potential in the current context and future mining investments trends, with a view of keeping aligned and on course to attract and retain new large-scale investors
  4. The final approach would be to form yet another task force made of representatives who are experts in the field of mining business and mining taxation, from the government and the mining private sector, to mutually consult and come up with a proposal that would attain a level play field balancing the profit anticipation of the investors and the tax and fees anticipation of the Government.

Minerals will always be a finite resource. Value can only be derived from them when they are extracted from underground and used to the benefit of the country.

The opportunity is still there to exploit minerals in Tanzania for the fair benefit of both the Government of Tanzania (on behalf of its people) and the investors. With tweaks to some of the current mining laws, bolstered with stability and government confidence building measures, the Tanzania can recapture and retain its glory as the prime mining investment destination in Africa.

While contemplating on the next move, the government should also make a thorough assessment of mark-timing mining projects – public (like the Liganga iron ore and Mchuchuma coal) and private ones (like the Kabanga Nickel, Mkuju River Uranium and Nyanzaga Gold), to see how such projects can be fast tracked and brought to production stage. With the speed at which technology is developing in the world, Tanzania faces the big risk of having some of its mineral deposit being stranded.  The coal deposits at Mchuchuma are faced with the highest risk with the current push for the world to go green and stop the use of fossil fuels.

With determination and the right people and policies at the forefront, the government can profitably and timely exploit the country’s minerals for the social economic development of its people.

[1] https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2017/08/tanzania-overhauls-mining-laws-fines-investor-us190-billion-is-your-investment-protected

Enhancing Implementation of East Africa’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for Climate Resilience: Is it an Exercise in futility?

The Paris Agreement in 2016 set targets to cut global cut global emissions and keep temperatures below 2 degrees Centigrade by 2030 and total net zero by 2010. But so far, we doing so badly, that these targets are largely likely to be missed. In the last few years C02 emissions have been hitting record new high levels ever recorded in billions of years.

Author: Nader M. Khalifa, Governance & Economics Policy Centre, Tanzania, October 2024

  1. Introduction

East Africa faces increasing climate risks, including unpredictable rainfall patterns, severe droughts, and flooding. These climate challenges threaten livelihoods, economic development, and environmental sustainability across the region. Under the Paris Agreement, East African nations have committed to ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhancing resilience to climate impacts. This policy paper explores the state of NDCs in East Africa and offers a comparative analysis of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda’s NDCs, emphasizing recommendations to increase funding, strengthen climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.

  1. Context of NDCs in East Africa

Countries in East Africa are committed to reducing emissions and adapting to climate impacts. Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda have outlined ambitious NDCs centered on expanding renewable energy, promoting climate-smart agriculture, and building climate-resilient infrastructure. However, significant challenges hinder the implementation of these targets, including financial constraints, limited technical capacity, and political and social barriers. Addressing these challenges is essential to achieve East Africa’s climate resilience goals.

  1. Comparative Analysis of East African NDCs: Emission Targets and Key Factors

East African countries exhibit varied commitments and approaches within their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) based on their unique socio-economic contexts, vulnerability to climate impacts, and institutional capacities. Below is a detailed comparison of emission targets, adaptation and mitigation efforts, financial requirements, and implementation challenges among Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda.

  • Emission Reduction Targets

  • Kenya: Kenya has committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 32% by 2030 compared to the Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario. Kenya’s mitigation efforts focus primarily on the energy sector, which includes an ambitious plan to expand renewable energy (particularly geothermal) and enhance energy efficiency across industries.
  • Tanzania: Tanzania’s NDC commits to reducing emissions by 30% by 2030 relative to its BAU scenario. Tanzania’s mitigation focus is on increasing the share of renewable energy, combating deforestation, and improving energy efficiency in industries.
  • Uganda: Uganda aims for a 22% reduction in emissions by 2030. Like Kenya and Tanzania, Uganda’s mitigation strategy heavily emphasizes renewable energy, particularly hydropower, and afforestation efforts, along with energy efficiency improvements in households and industry.

These are quite high targets. For these to be achieved EAC will have to plant so many trees and decarbonize to zero emission in so many sectors such as manufacturing, transportation, agriculture and construction.

Adaptation Strategies

  • Kenya: Kenya is highly vulnerable to climate change, particularly in agriculture, water resources, and human settlements. Its adaptation strategies include promoting drought-resistant crops, improving irrigation and water management systems, and investing in climate-resilient infrastructure (such as flood-proof buildings and early warning systems for extreme weather events). Kenya’s NDC prioritizes ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA) practices to enhance resilience in both rural and urban areas.
  • Tanzania: Tanzania’s adaptation efforts center around sustainable agriculture and forestry, recognizing the importance of these sectors for food security and livelihoods. The country prioritizes improving water resource management, soil fertility restoration, and expanding agroforestry. Adaptation initiatives also target improving the health sector’s ability to cope with climate change-induced diseases.
  • Uganda: Uganda’s adaptation strategies are focused on improving agricultural productivity, increasing resilience in water resource management, and developing sustainable forestry practices. A major component of Uganda’s adaptation plan is strengthening community-based adaptation, particularly in regions vulnerable to extreme weather events like floods and droughts.

Renewable Energy and Mitigation

  • Kenya: Kenya is one of Africa’s renewable energy leaders, with over 90% of its electricity generated from renewable sources, predominantly geothermal, hydropower, and wind. The country aims to further increase its share of clean energy, making it central to its mitigation strategy. The government’s expansion plans include increasing solar installations and expanding geothermal capacity.
  • Tanzania: Tanzania’s renewable energy sector is less developed compared to Kenya. However, the country plans to expand its reliance on hydropower and solar energy, with targeted investments in rural electrification projects powered by renewables. Tanzania’s NDC also prioritizes improving energy efficiency in both industrial and domestic sectors.
  • Uganda: Uganda’s energy mix is primarily hydropower-based, and its NDC targets further expansion of this sector. The country is also exploring solar energy as part of its rural electrification strategy. Uganda’s mitigation efforts also focus on reducing emissions from deforestation and promoting sustainable land management practices.

Financial Requirements and Challenges

NDC is proving  too expensive for EAC Countries to achieve. The cumulative estimated mitigation and adaptation  funding requirement for Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya is about USD109.3Bln 

  • Kenya: Kenya has estimated that it will need $62 billion to implement its NDC by 2030, of which 87% is expected to come from international climate finance. Financial constraints, particularly in securing adequate international support, remain a critical challenge for implementing large-scale renewable energy projects and climate-resilient infrastructure.

 

  • Tanzania: Tanzania’s NDC estimates the need for $19.2 billion by 2030 to meet its mitigation and adaptation targets. Securing adequate financing from both domestic and international sources is a major hurdle, especially for funding long-term initiatives like reforestation, energy efficiency programs, and renewable energy development.
  • Uganda: Uganda’s NDC implementation is projected to cost $28.1 billion, with a significant portion expected from external sources. Uganda’s challenges revolve around mobilizing sufficient funds for rural electrification projects, water management systems, and agricultural resilience initiatives.

 

Implementation Barriers

  • Kenya: While Kenya has strong institutional frameworks for implementing its NDCs, challenges include weak local capacity in monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, as well as difficulties in attracting consistent international funding. Political stability in the country helps foster a more conducive environment for climate action, but there are gaps in integrating climate policy across sectors.
  • Tanzania: Tanzania faces significant barriers in terms of technical expertise and capacity for implementing its NDCs. Limited access to data and modern technologies, particularly in rural areas, hampers the effective rollout of renewable energy and agricultural adaptation strategies. Political commitment is strong but often challenged by competing development priorities.
  • Uganda: Uganda’s main implementation challenges include a lack of technical capacity and institutional coordination. While Uganda has ambitious NDC targets, the limited financial and technical resources available for adaptation, especially in agriculture and water management, slow down progress. Moreover, the country struggles with integrating climate action into local governance structures.

The global total emissions is over 50 bln tones annually shared out per sector as follows

No Sector % Co2 Emissions
1 Manufacturing (Oil, Gas, Steel, Cement, Chemicals & Mining) 29%
2 Electricity (Coal, Natural Gas, Oil) 29%
3 Agriculture (Landuse, Waste, Crops & Livestock) 20%
4 Transportation 15%
5 Building (Cooling, Heating) 7%

Source:  Netflix Documentary; What is Next? The Future with Bill Gates

 

The long-term trend is that are not seeing any decline in Co2 emissions in the next future. The last time the planet was this hot was about 20,000,000 years ago. To get to net zero requires netting out to zero by sectors for each Country and this is a gigantic task.

  • Regional Cooperation and Potential Solutions

There is potential for stronger regional cooperation among East African countries to address common climate challenges, particularly around renewable energy development, cross-border water resource management, and shared capacity-building efforts. This includes:

  • Joint Renewable Energy Projects: Collaborative renewable energy initiatives, such as regional geothermal or hydroelectric projects, can reduce costs and improve energy access across borders.
  • Capacity Building through Regional Bodies: Institutions like the East African Community (EAC) and African Union (AU) can help facilitate knowledge sharing, technical training, and the development of MRV systems tailored to regional needs.
  • Shared Climate Finance Mechanisms: Establishing a regional climate fund or enhancing existing ones could help streamline the mobilization of climate finance to meet the collective NDC ambitions of East African countries.
  1. Recommendations for Enhancing East African Countries’ NDCs and Climate Resilience

East African countries like Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda have made significant strides in formulating their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to combat climate change. However, to effectively meet their climate goals and enhance resilience, the following strategic recommendations are essential:

  • Increase Climate Financing Access

Recommendation: Establish a more structured approach to accessing international climate finance and improve domestic resource mobilization.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Strengthen partnerships with international financial institutions such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Global Environment Facility (GEF), and bilateral climate finance partners.
    • Develop and refine national climate finance strategies to better align with donor priorities and global climate funding criteria.
    • Encourage private sector participation by developing incentives such as tax breaks, green bonds, and public-private partnerships to fund renewable energy and adaptation projects.
    • Enhance Regional Cooperation

Recommendation: Foster collaboration among East African countries for shared climate solutions, leveraging regional strengths and resources.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Establish regional climate action platforms under the East African Community (EAC) to facilitate joint renewable energy projects, share best practices, and coordinate climate adaptation measures.
    • Promote cross-border initiatives like regional renewable energy projects (e.g., geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric plants) that can serve multiple countries and reduce costs.
    • Strengthen regional bodies for coordinated action on shared ecosystems, such as the Nile Basin Initiative, to ensure joint management of water resources affected by climate change.
    • Strengthen Technical Capacity and MRV Systems

Recommendation: Develop and improve Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems to ensure more accurate tracking of NDC implementation and climate progress.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Invest in training programs for local technical experts on MRV systems, GHG inventory, and data management, with support from international partners.
    • Collaborate with international organizations like the Initiative for Climate Action Transparency (ICAT) and UNEP to implement best practices in MRV across sectors.
    • Develop a regional MRV framework within the EAC to allow for collective data tracking, knowledge sharing, and standardization of methods for measuring progress on NDCs.
    • Focus on Climate-Resilient Agriculture

Recommendation: Prioritize climate-smart agriculture to safeguard food security, livelihoods, and ecosystem health.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Expand the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices, such as promoting drought-resistant crop varieties, efficient water use systems, and agroforestry.
    • Increase investment in agricultural research and development to identify crops and farming techniques that are more resilient to changing climate conditions.
    • Provide capacity-building support to smallholder farmers through training programs on sustainable agricultural practices and offering financial mechanisms (e.g., microloans) for adopting these methods.
    • Develop Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

Recommendation: Promote the development of climate-resilient infrastructure to adapt to future climate risks in urban areas.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Invest in green urban planning that includes building flood-proof structures, expanding public green spaces, and improving waste and water management systems in urban centers.
    • Encourage the adoption of eco-friendly public transportation systems, such as electric buses or improved public transport infrastructure, to reduce emissions from the transport sector.
    • Create urban climate resilience strategies that incorporate natural solutions, such as restoring wetlands and reforestation to serve as buffers against climate impacts like flooding and heatwaves.
    • Promote Renewable Energy Development

Recommendation: Expand renewable energy initiatives to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and enhance energy access.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Fast-track the development of large-scale solar, wind, and geothermal projects to increase renewable energy capacity.
    • Provide incentives for both local and international private investments in clean energy infrastructure, including tax reliefs, subsidies, and regulatory reforms that encourage clean energy deployment.
    • Integrate renewable energy initiatives with rural electrification programs to provide off-grid renewable energy solutions to rural areas, improving both energy access and climate resilience.
    • Integrate Climate Adaptation into National Development Plans

Recommendation: Ensure climate resilience is mainstreamed across all sectors of national development policies and strategies.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Align national development goals (e.g., poverty eradication, healthcare, and education) with climate action priorities to foster sustainable development pathways.
    • Develop sector-specific adaptation plans (e.g., in agriculture, water, health, and infrastructure) and ensure these are supported by legislation and long-term budget commitments.
    • Promote community-based adaptation strategies that empower local communities to develop localized solutions to climate impacts, such as improved land management or water conservation techniques.
    • Support Gender-Responsive Climate Action

Recommendation: Ensure that NDCs are gender-responsive and include strategies to protect vulnerable populations, particularly women and children.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Mainstream gender considerations into all climate action projects, ensuring that women, who are disproportionately affected by climate change, are included in decision-making processes.
    • Develop gender-specific programs that focus on building women’s resilience to climate impacts in areas like agriculture, water resource management, and entrepreneurship.
    • Collaborate with women-led organizations and networks to amplify their role in climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.
    • Promote Innovation and Climate Technology Transfer

Recommendation: Accelerate the deployment of climate technologies to enhance adaptation and mitigation efforts.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Establish a regional climate technology hub to facilitate the transfer and development of clean technologies tailored to East Africa’s unique climate challenges.
    • Create a favorable policy environment that incentivizes innovation, such as offering grants or tax credits for start-ups and businesses that develop climate solutions.
    • Encourage collaboration with international partners for access to cutting-edge technologies, including in renewable energy, early warning systems, and agricultural resilience technologies.
    • Strengthen Institutional Governance and Policy Coordination

Recommendation: Improve governance frameworks and inter-sectoral coordination to enhance the implementation of NDCs.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Establish national climate task forces to oversee the integration of NDCs across various government departments, ensuring climate policies are effectively coordinated and implemented.
    • Improve policy coherence between climate action, agriculture, energy, and economic development sectors to avoid conflicts and inefficiencies in NDC implementation.
    • Ensure strong participation from civil society, local governments, and the private sector to promote inclusive climate governance.

 

Conclusion

Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda have demonstrated strong commitment to their NDCs, yet significant challenges—such as financial constraints, technical capacity gaps, and implementation barriers—continue to hinder their climate ambitions. Overcoming these obstacles will require enhanced regional cooperation, dedicated capacity-building efforts, and innovative financing solutions, with support from the international community playing a crucial role. By embracing these strategies and recommendations, East African countries can strengthen their resilience to climate impacts, close the gap between climate goals and actions, and contribute substantially to sustainable development and global climate efforts, ultimately improving the quality of life for their citizens.

 

 

 

 

  1. References:
  1. African Development Bank (AfDB) (2020). African Economic Outlook 2020: Developing Africa’s Workforce for the Future. AfDB, Abidjan.
  1. Africa NDC Hub, https://africandchub.org/
  1. East African Community (EAC) (2021). EAC Climate Change Policy and Strategy. EAC, https://www.eac.int/environment/climate-change/eac-climate-change-policy-framework
  2. IPCC (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
  1. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report – Chapter 9, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-9/
  1. Kenya Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2020). Kenya’s Updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Government of Kenya, Nairobi.
  1. NDC Partnership Knowledge Portal, https://ndcpartnership.org/climate-finance
  1. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment (2022). Uganda’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Government of Uganda, Kampala.
  2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2015). The Paris Agreement. United Nations, Bonn, Germany.
  3. Tanzania Vice President’s Office (2021). Updated Nationally Determined Contribution of Tanzania. Government of Tanzania, Dodoma.

 

The Nexus of Climate Change and Energy Transition on women in Tanzania: Why and how government must address gaps

While Tanzania has made some progress in addressing climate change, significant policy and governance gaps to leverage women power still exist. Addressing these gaps requires putting in place a Climate Change policy, strengthening institutional capacity, enhancing coordination, improving legal frameworks, promoting transparency, and ensuring women inclusive decision-making processes backed with sustainable funding. An organ similar to a National Women in Climate Change and Energy Council, could be an ideal vehicle for channeling and championing women participation in climate change and energy transition in Tanzania. Conducting periodic women congresses on Climate Change, Gender and Energy Transition would propel this even further.

Author(s):  Gloria Shechambo, Researcher and Moses Kulaba,  Governance and Economic Policy Centre

Featured Photo: Courtesy of Pastoral Women Council, Tanzania (Africa Climate Adaptation Centre)

As covered in  the first part of this analytical brief, Tanzania has made some progress in addressing climate change by putting in place a number of frameworks. While these frameworks provide a foundation, more targeted policies integrating gender considerations are essential to promote women’s participation and leadership of climate change and energy justice driven initiatives. To date, significant governance gaps still undermine efforts to address climate change and energy concerns in Tanzania.           

 In Tanzania, the main policy and governance gap is that the Country does not have a single comprehensive Climate Change Policy to guide the governance of the sector. As a consequence there are significant coordination and risks for duplicated efforts spread across different documents and institutions, with little synergy.

Moreover issues of  women concern in climate change and energy are not tackled as an independent urgent contemporary issue but has been mainstreamed in this labyrinth of policy and regulation framework.

The problem with this mainstreaming approach is that when a critical issue such as gender is mainstreamed, it fades into depth of elaborate policy texts and loses the core urgency that it deserves. In fact, instead of getting mainstreamed, the issue gets out streamed and gradually loses core attention.

For example, while the National Climate Change Response Strategy 2023 is keen on Mainstreaming Gender, it does not provide a distinct organ through which women can channel their opinions on matters related to climate change and energy. Similarly, the National Strategy for Mainstreaming Gender in Climate Change (NSMGCC) is weak in this area. A part from providing guidance on how gender considerations should be made in policies and budgeting matters, the document does not create a distinct forum for women.  

The National Energy Policy 2015 (NEP 2015) is awkwardly silent on gender in energy sector and therefore does not provide and pivots on which a compressive engagement of women in energy can be built.  The LPG promotion plan and the National Gas Utilisation Master Plan have largely remained an implemented and the recent clean cooking gas initiative is an attempt to put this into action[1].

The government acknowledges that despite significant progress from the above efforts by the government and other stakeholders, there remain needs for increased mainstreaming of gender at all levels of climate change interventions including in policy, programs, strategies and activities using appropriate gender lens and mainstreaming instruments. Approaches such as gender analysis, gender audit and gender budgeting using gender disaggregated data in M+E and reporting on all climate change responses should be enhanced[2].

Moreover, the financing of women led and targeted climate change and just energy transition initiatives has been low and unsustainable. While the Clean Cooking Initiative in Tanzania is commendable, the downside of this is that it is largely donor funded, private sector driven and thus its long-term funding and wide scale affordability is largely unguaranteed.

Tanzania has set a target of achieving 50% renewable energy generation by 2030, however, budgetary allocations to support climate change mitigation and adaptation have generally focused on sectors like agriculture, water, and forestry, which are highly vulnerable to climate change. However, overall allocation specifically targeting climate change mitigation and adaptation remains relatively low compared to the needs identified in national strategies. According to a Research Report by REPOA, climate financing sources do not meet the expectations as by 2020 a total of TZS 24.7 trillion equivalent to USD 10.7 million were mobilized during FYDP II, which was only 3.6% of the targeted amount[3]

According to Africa Enterprise Foundation (AEF), the Tanzania Clean Cooking Project (TCCP) is a US$3.75 million three-year project, funded largely by the Government of Sweden, that aims to catalyse the clean cooking sector through enhanced private sector participation. The project will provide matching grant financing and technical assistance to small and growing businesses working in clean cooking. The financing aims to de-risk companies to venture into underserved markets and enhance the affordability and accessibility of clean cooking solutions for at least 60,000 beneficiary households.

By requiring or expecting the poor women in rural areas to switch from free firewood and biomass to paid cooking gas (LPG), the initiative places poor women directly into the market place driven energy cash economy which may be expensive and unsustainable to afford. According to the Ministry of energy, so far only 50% of rural women enrolled on to this initiative have continued[4]. For this initiative to succeed, the issues of reduced cost, increased household incomes and sustainability of supply must be addressed.

Generally, essential milestones need to be covered. These include lack of a comprehensive policy  coordination fragmentation, limited institutional capacity, inadequate or duplicative legal frameworks, weak enforcement mechanisms, and insufficient participation of women in designing, championing and leading initiatives that affect their welfare (Nachmany, 2018).

Why engaging women in Climate Change and Energy Matters:

Engaging women in climate change and energy transition decision-making processes is crucial and pays dividends. According to the UN and documented evidence in development, empowering women bears lasting solutions and can a be a multiplier factor in addressing climate change and achieving sustainable development.

Women make up nearly half of the agricultural labor force in developing countries. When provided with the same access to resources as men, women can increase their agricultural yields by 20 to 30 percent. This boost in productivity not only improves total agricultural output by 2.5 to 4 percent, but it can also help reduce world hunger by 12 to 17 percent.

Empowering women especially in rural areas in agriculture can also have a positive impact on climate adaptation. By providing appropriate technology and resources, we can promote more sustainable farming and conservation practices. And by reducing poverty, we can help individuals better adapt to the effects of climate change.

When it comes to building climate resilience in communities, involving women is crucial. In fact, the UN reports that communities are more successful in resilience and capacity-building strategies when women are part of the planning process. Moreover, by improving access to clean energy, women death due to toxic fumes and related disease can be reduced by half.

It is therefore essential that climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies adequately take into account women considerations, addressing gender inequality, reduced harms from climate injustice[5] and effective participation at the national and global climate change discussion tables.

Recommendations for engaging women in climate change and energy matters:

 While Tanzania has made some progress in a climate change, significant policy and governance gaps still exist. Addressing these gaps requires strengthening institutional capacity, enhancing coordination, improving legal frameworks, promoting transparency, and ensuring women inclusive decision-making processes backed with sustainable funding. An organ similar to a National Women in Climate Change and Energy Council, could an ideal vehicle for channeling and championing women participation in climate change and energy transition in Tanzania. Conducting periodic women congresses on Climate Change, Gender and Energy Transition would propel this even further.

 Some of our identified and recommended approaches include:

  1. Develop a comprehensive Climate Change Policy for Tanzania to address some of the gaps that exist.  Currently, Tanzania doesn’t have and are fragmented in different  documents such as the National Adaptations Programs, National Climate Response Strategy and the National Strategy for Mainstreaming Gender in Climate Change (NSMGCC). The absence of a comprehensive climate change policy constitutes a huge lacuna that Tanzania must bridge
  2. Creating and convening safe spaces for women dialogue on climate change and energy transition matters is fundamentally urgent. This includes establishing women’s groups, organizing consultations, and ensuring women’s representation in policy dialogues and negotiations at all levels. Women Must talk. It is for this reason that we (GEPC) advocate for a hosting periodic Women National Pan African Congresses on Climate Change and Energy Transition and a Women COP on Climate Change and Energy Transition in the nearest future.
  3. Support and Facilitate Women’s inspired and led participation in Climate Change and Energy transition: This includes encouraging and supporting women’s leadership in climate change and energy sectors by providing mentorship, networking opportunities, and skills development at all levels. In this regard we (GEPC) advocate for establishment of a National Women in Climate Change and Energy Council as a vehicle to advance women concerns and interests in climate change and energy matters. Existing studies support that women’s representation in decision-making bodies, advisory committees, and project management teams is crucial for better resource governance, conservation outcomes, and disaster readiness (Brixi et al., 2022). Moreover, effective participation of women will reduce climate and energy related vulnerability and death by thousands
  4. Promoting Education and Training: Investing in education and training programs to enhance women’s capacity in climate change adaptation, renewable energy technologies, sustainable agriculture, and natural resource management. We advocate for tailored vocational training on climate adaptation and energy transition solutions, workshops on business and enterprise development, and awareness campaigns as essential skills and tools measures to meet women’s specific needs and interests.
  5. Provide access to resources: Government and Private sector must ensure equal and cheap access for women to financial resources, technology, land, and other productive assets necessary for their participation in climate change and energy initiatives. This involves providing dedicated financing lines, affordable microfinance services, facilitating access to clean energy technologies, and promoting resource rights for women. The gaps and vulnerability scores as per current reports (Tanzania Demographic Health Survey and Malaria Indicator Survey TDHS-MIS, 2022) are significantly large and have remained tilted against women.
  6. Promoting and implementation of Gender-Responsive Policies: We advocate for going beyond the integration of gender considerations into climate change and energy policies, programs, and projects. Conducting gender analyses, integration of gender concerns as a distinct feature into project design and implementation are first steps monitoring, evaluating and learning from the gender impacts of interventions and renewed action is essential.
  7. Raising Awareness and Changing Attitudes: Conducting awareness-raising campaigns to emphasize the importance of women’s participation in climate change and energy matters. Challenging stereotypes and social norms that restrict women’s involvement in decision-making processes or limit their access to resources and opportunities is crucial.
  8. Promote Women in Green Entrepreneurship: Encouraging and supporting women entrepreneurs to develop and scale up businesses that promote climate resilience and sustainable energy solutions. Private sector initiatives such as Jasiri Green Bonds is a positive initiative, however the simplicity, affordability and onboarding of more women has to be improved and scaled up purposefully for women. Additionally cheap training, technical assistance, and access to markets must be undertaken to help women establish and grow their enterprises in sectors such as renewable energy, eco-tourism, and sustainable agriculture.
  9. Provide a collaborative and facilitative environment for Civil Society and NGOs to engage: Government, Private Sector and Donors must support, partner and collaborate with Civil Society and NGOs that work on Women and Climate Change and Energy Transition. Over the last years, the civic space and financing for climate rights-based organisations has been constrained.  Research suggests that leveraging on their expertise and networks as allies can enhance women’s engagement in climate change and energy initiatives can deliver more dividends (Nachmany, 2018).

By implementing these strategies and fostering collaboration across sectors, Tanzania can empower women to play a significant role in addressing climate change and driving sustainable energy transitions.

Conclusion:

This policy brief underscores the critical importance of addressing gender disparities in climate change and energy transitions in Tanzania. Both part 1 and 2 of the brief highlights the effects that climate change and energy injustice have on women and the inherent policy, governance and financing gaps that exist in Tanzania’s climate and energy transition space. The brief concludes that  despite the efforts, women are still at the periphery and their active engagement in the current climate change and energy discussions and decision-making processes is imperative to ensure climate change and energy transition interventions are inclusive and effective. By prioritizing gender equality and women’s empowerment, Tanzania can enhance resilience to climate change, address energy injustice, reduce climate change vulnerability and advance sustainable development.

References:

Agora Portal for Parliamentary Development. (n.d.). Climate change, energy, and gender. Retrieved from https://agora-parl.org/resources/aoe/climate-change-energy-and-gender

Brixi, H., Das, J., & Doss, C. (2022). People and planet together: Why women and girls are at the heart of climate action [Blog post]. World Bank Blogs. Retrieved from https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/climatechange/people-and-planet-together-why-women-and-girls-are-heart-climate-action

Energia. (2020). Gender and energy country brief for Tanzania. Retrieved from https://www.energia.org/assets/2021/02/Country-brief-Tanzania_Nov2020_final

Fadhila H.A Khatibu, Razack B. Lokina (2023). A Review of Tanzania’s Fiscal Regime for Climate Action. https://www.repoa.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/A-Review-of-Tanzanias-Fiscal-Regime-for-Climate-Action.pdf

Nachmany, M. (2018). Climate change governance in Tanzania: Summary policy brief. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science.

National Climate Change Strategy (2021-2026). Tanzania Government.

National Strategy for Mainstreaming Gender in Climate Change (2023). Tanzania Government.

Tanzania Demographic Health Survey and Malaria Indicator Survey TDHS-MIS. (2022).

UN Women. (n.d.). Fact Sheet: Women, gender equality and climate change. United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/womenwatch/

UNDP Tanzania. (n.d.). Bridging the gender gap: Empowering women in the agricultural sector. Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/tanzania/news/bridging-gender-gap-empowering-women-agricultural-sector

UNECA. (n.d.). Support for land use planning sees over 2000 women farmers in Tanzania become landowners. Retrieved from https://africa.unwomen.org/en/stories/news/2023/02/support-for-land-use-planning-sees-over-2000-women-farmers-in-tanzania-become-land-owners

[1] https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/news/national/roadmap-for-clean-cooking-energy-to-target-rural-masses-3921536

[2] National Climate Change Strategy, 2021-2026

[3] https://www.repoa.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/A-Review-of-Tanzanias-Fiscal-Regime-for-Climate-Action.pdf

[4] https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/news/national/roadmap-for-clean-cooking-energy-to-target-rural-masses-3921536

[5] https://genderclimatetracker.org/sites/default/files/Resources/Gender-and-the-climate-change-agenda-212.pdf

Unlocking Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) in Regional Agricultural Trade in East Africa: An Analysis of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Regime for Horticultural Products in Tanzania and Its Effects on International Trade.

Generally, Non-Trade Measures (NTMs) are good for safe and ethical international trade; however, when poorly regulated and applied irregularly, they transform into Non-Tariff Barrier (NTBs) and can be harmful to trade. Our short analytical study shows that Tanzania is both a perpetrator and victim of irregular SPS measures and could be losing billions in international trade and revenue foregone from its horticultural sector

By Jacob Mokiwa, Researcher , Governance and Economic Policy Centre

(Featured  top image, Courtesy of UNDP-Tanzania, Kizimba Project, Itete Ifakara Youth) 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (SPS) are standards and regulations put in place as Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) to ensure the safety and quality of food, as well as to protect humans, animals, and plants from risks associated with diseases, pests, and contaminants based on science. SPS decisions are supposed to be science based. These measures are integrated into Tanzania’s regulatory framework, including through legislation, policies, and adherence to international agreements like the WTO SPS Agreement and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) IPPC.

Also, the normative framework governing East African Community (EAC) SPS measures include but are not limited to Article 108 (c) of the EAC Treaty; Article 38 (1C) of the Customs Union Protocol, EAC SPS Protocol, SPS Information Sharing Platform, etc.).

This short policy brief analyzes Tanzania’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) regime for horticultural products, assessing their impact on international trade and concludes with recommendations for enhancing SPS policy measures to ensure safety, compliance and a facilitative smooth international trade in Tanzania horticultural products. It emanates from our economic governance work on regional economic cooperation, trade and investment, with multiple aims of creating awareness about SPS as a major regulatory tool in regional and international trade that small traders and aspiring international horticulture exporters must know.

State of Horticultural Products

Faraha Salim sells vegetables in the market in Lushoto thanks to a small loan from a community savings and lending group-VICOBA.

Tanzania is a largely an agricultural producing and exporting country with its horticulture sector becoming a rapidly expanding sector with a huge potential to contribute to Tanzania’s economy through employment, trade and export foreign income earning. The country has large chunks of arable land, water bodies and favorable climate for horticulture in many regions across the country.

Tanzania’s horticultural sector encompasses various products, including fruits, vegetables, flowers, and spices.

In recent years, Tanzania has registered impressive export performance of different horticultural products, and this presents an advantageous opportunity to the smallholder farmers to increase their production. Despite this huge potential, the horticultural sector still suffers multiple challenges, including financing, regulation and export standardization. 

The local market infrastructure  conditions are still poor. The cold storage chain for horticultural products from the gardens to the market is limited. Horticulture products are transported in hot trucks, sold in open markets damaging quality  and export standards. The net effect is that Tanzania’s export share of the regional and global horticultural trade has been growing but remains low, compared to its neighbors such as Kenya. According to Ministry of Agriculture statistics, the horticulture sector has become the second largest growth driver of the entire agricultural sector, after food crops contributing about 25% of the sector but has remained stagnant in  growth at 11% annually.

According to the Tanzania Horticultural Association (TAHA) and the BoT Monthly Economic Review (MER), for the year ending in December 2023, the value of horticultural crops’ exports grew to $417.7 million (Sh1.044 trillion) as compared to $290.1 million (Sh725.25 billion) recorded in 2022. This shows that exports grew by $127.6 million (Sh319 billion), which is equivalent to 43.9 percent. The growth in exports comes after a decline from $384.9 million (962.25 billion) reported in 2021 to $290.1 million (Sh725.25 billion) in 2022. The decline accounted for a total of $94 million (Sh237 billion), which is equal to 24.4 percent[1].

This data if extrapolated for the last five years indicates that the Horticultural sector can be a major game changer in Tanzania’s international trade exports, serving as a major source employment to the bludgeoning unemployed youthful population of foreign revenue through increased investment in horticulture and export trade.  Moreover, the sector can leap frog Tanzania to a regional competitor, outpacing its neighbors and rivals in the horticultural sector.

However, the limited awareness, selective and uncoordinated application of SPS standards by both export and importing partners in intra-regional and international trade has gradually turned them from being Non-Tariff Measures (NTM) to become Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) to trade in Horticultural products amongst others.

According to Land O Lakes Trade of Agriculture Safely & Efficiency (TRASE) report, the East African Community (EAC) represents one of the fastest growing regional economic communities in the world. And yet, trade of agricultural products from and within this region has been hindered by Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) issues 

SPS Measures Regime in Tanzania

Tanzania’s SPS regime consists of several legal frameworks articulated and differentiated under the three SPS functions of animal health, food safety and plant health. This involves the Plant Health Act, 2020 with the mandate of issuing phytosanitary certificates, among other functions, Standards Act No. 2 of 2009 with the mandate of regulating and developing mandatory standards and responsible for inspection and certification). 

The regulatory institutions include the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Tanzania Pesticides and Plant Health Authority (TPPHA) established under the Act No. 04 of 2020 with a mandate to comply with the requirements of International Plant Protection Convection (IPPC) on sanitary and phytosanitary measures[2].  The other regulatory institution is the Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS) established under Act No. 3 of 1975 as the National Standards Institute and subsequently renamed Tanzania Bureau of Standards under Act No. 1 of 1977. On 20th March 2009, the Standards Act No. 3 of 1975 was repealed and replaced by the Standards Act No. 2 of 2009.

The Bureau was established as part of the efforts by the government to strengthen the supporting institutional infrastructure for the industry and commerce sectors of the economy. Specifically, TBS is mandated to undertake measures for quality control of products of all descriptions and to promote standardization in industry and commerce[3]. So far, the regime has been quite robust, enabling Tanzania to enforce its SPS measures, however faces multiple challenges that would benefit from improvement.

Challenges

The agricultural sector already faces multiple challenges but the SPS regime in Tanzania adds another layer of complexity, potentially hindering Tanzania’s ability to invest in the horticultural sector, produce, export and compete effectively in the global market. For instance, some stringent SPS requirements cannot be met by small farmers in Tanzania due to the limited resources required for modern agriculture and consequently hinder the export of horticultural products, as meeting the standards can be costly.

Additionally, inconsistent enforcement of SPS regulations across different institutions and regions within Tanzania creates confusion and delays in trade processes and hence affects the competitiveness of Tanzanian products in international markets.

Furthermore, procedural framework for SPS regulation has shortcomings in the institutional framework and that, as a result, application of the existing legislations is impaired. There is limited capacity for speedy and quality testing and certification facilities. This lead to bottlenecks in the export process, delaying shipments and increasing costs for exporters.

Other challenges are; limited funding to attract and retain high quality talent, lack of transparency in certification, duplication of regulatory functions, poor coordination among the various SPS control agencies, lack of mutual confidence between enforcement agencies in different countries and non-existence of arrangements and mutual recognition agreements signed to facilitate trade.

Impact on regional and International Trade

 The effectiveness of Tanzania’s SPS regime significantly influences its international trade in horticultural products and therefore, there is a need to balance regulatory practices for health protection with trade facilitation. However, if not addressed, the regime may, and for purposes of enforcement of SPS controls, create trade constraints such as;

  • Market Access Restrictions: Non-compliance with SPS measures restricts access to lucrative international markets that is with stringent regulations, the production costs for horticultural producers may increase and making Tanzanian products less competitive compared to those from other countries. Kenya, Tanzania’s immediate horticultural competitor has been successful in meeting the standards at lower costs and thereby dominating the regional and international market of horticultural products.
  • Loss of Revenue: Inability to meet SPS standard leads to rejected shipments, financial losses, and diminished competitiveness in global markets, affecting the revenue generated from horticultural exports and thus undermines economic growth potential in the horticultural sector.
  • Diminished Reputation: Persistent challenges in meeting SPS standards tarnish Tanzania’s reputation as a reliable supplier of safe and high-quality horticultural products, thereby reducing consumer confidence and market demand.
  • Market Diversification: Strict regulatory requirements may incentivize Tanzanian exporters to explore new markets where compliance costs are lower or where there is greater alignment between domestic and international standards.
  • Quality Perception: Adherence to rigorous quality and safety standards can enhance the perception of Tanzanian horticultural products in international markets, positioning them as premium offerings valued for their quality and reliability. This could open up opportunities for niche markets and premium pricing strategies.

Policy Recommendations

Addressing challenges in Tanzania’s SPS regime for horticultural products is crucial for unlocking the sector’s full export potential, facilitating more investment and fostering sustainable economic growth. By implementing the recommendations outlined in this brief below, Tanzania can overcome SPS-related barriers to international trade and position itself in the global horticultural market as a reliable supplier of high-quality horticultural products and maximize the benefits of international trade for the citizens and economy. The following recommendations are proposed:

  1. Improve coordination among regulatory agencies and investing in digital platforms for documentation and compliance verification to simplify and accelerate SPS certification procedures for horticultural products and this will cut costs, reduce trade barriers and enhance market access.
  2. Strengthen enforcement mechanisms by putting in place an enabling legal framework to create effective and expeditious administrative mechanisms and provide clear administrative redress mechanisms for handling trade complaints and disputes. Also, the framework should provide for coordination of the various SPS control agencies to avoid overlaps and duplication. The current regime lays a solid foundation for further improvement.
  1. Improve infrastructure by allocating resources for upgrading SPS-related infrastructure including laboratories, inspection facilities and cold chain logistics that will enable producers and exporters to meet international standards and capitalize on emerging market opportunities. Tanzania has a deficit of cold storage capacity and its location along the equator exposes horticultural products to heat waves and vulnerability rapid quality deterioration and waste.
  1. Recruit and retain high quality staff with the of international testing and certification requirements. This must also be followed by addressing administrative limitations and sealing off opportunities for corruption.
  1. Prioritize capacity building, awareness and improve dissemination of information on SPS particularly for producers, small-scale traders, exporters and raising initiatives for regulatory agencies, on legislation and regulations, processes, procedures, standards, best practices, and technological advancements to enhance competitiveness in global markets.
  1. Foster partnership between public and private sector stakeholders to develop and implement SPS-related programs, training, research & development, technology adoption and technical assistance so as to address common challenges and promote innovation in the horticultural value chain. This must be backed by scaled up SPS technical assistance, going beyond the implementing institutions but also extended to horticultural farmers.
  1. Advocate for harmonization of SPS standards with international norms and regional trade agreements to streamline trade procedures and facilitate market access for Tanzanian horticultural products. Horticulture farmers and exporters still complain of disharmony in application and enforcement between Tanzania and its trading partners such as the Tanzania-South Africa Avocado case in 2021[4].
  1. Establish and empower the National SPS Committee to address and resolve technical SPS issues faced by traders and increase transparency on SPS requirements. Moreover, the committee should also be the main source of information on new SPS regulations, including measures introduced by trading partners.
  1. Constantly review to ascertain the extent to which Tanzania’s SPS regime is aligned to the EAC SPS protocol and its application is consistent and facilitative of international trade. There are cases of selective application and enforcement even among EAC member states.

References

Ministry of Agriculture. (2022). “National Horticulture Development Strategy.” Retrieved from Online:    https://www.kilimo.go.tz/uploads/books/Mkakati_wa_Kuendeleza_Horticulture.pdf

Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS). (2022). “Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures for Horticultural Products: Regulations and Compliance Guidelines.” Retrieved from Online: https://www.tbs.go.tz/uploads/files/LIST%20OF%20COMPULSORY%20TANZANIA%20STANDARD%20AS%20OF%20JULY%20%202022.pdf

Trade of Agriculture Safely and Efficiently in East Africa (TRASE) (2021). “Assessment of SPS Legal/Regulatory Frameworks in the EAC Partner States”. Retrieved from Online: https://storcpdkenticomedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/idd/media/lolorg/publications/assessment-of-sps-legal-systems-in-eac-partner-states-4th-june-2021.pdf

Trade of Agriculture Safely and Efficiently in East Africa (TRASE) (2021). “Assessment of SPS Systems in the EAC Partner States”. Retrieved from Online:  https://storcpdkenticomedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/idd/media/lolorg/publications/assessment-of-sps-systems-in-eac-partner-states-18th-march-2021-print-file-4th-june-2021.pdf

TradeMark East Africa: (2021). Standards, Quality Infrastructure, and SPS Programme: Project Brief: Retrieved from Online: https://www.trademarkafrica.com/project/standards-quality-infrastructure-and-sps-programme/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2021). “Good Practices for Strengthening National Plant Protection Organizations.” Retrieved from Online: https://www.fao.org/3/i6677e/i6677e.pdf

 [1] https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/magazines/what-44-percent-rise-in-horticulture-exports-means-to-tanzania-4510004

[2] https://www.tphpa.go.tz/

[3] https://www.tbs.go.tz/pages/historical-background

[4] https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/business/tanzanian-avocado-exports-poised-to-grace-sa-tables-3506248

Debt Budgets: A post budget political economy analysis of EAC Countries 2024/25 budget priorities, viabilities, risks and how governments can restore public confidence

Economists have always asserted that you know a country’s priorities from its budget while political scientists further suggest that a state and government’s health is reflected by the budget it makes and implements. In short, show us a good budget and we will show you a prosperous nation!

By Moses Kulaba, Gloria Shechambo, Robert Ssuuna, Dorine Irakoze, and Boboya James Edimond

Governance and Economic Policy Centre

@GEPC_TZ

The budget is an essential social contract that establishes the relationship between the government and its citizens, and the only one renewed annually, yet budget making in East Africa is becoming an exercise in futility.

This brief uses a political economy and trend analysis of the budget allocation priorities and estimates for 2023/4 and 2024/2025 as a basis to evaluate the extent to which East Africa Community (EAC) Countries budget policies and priorities are viable, fit into the local and global context but at the same time promote equity and reduce the economic burden on ordinary citizens.  We exposes the embedded risks, misalignments and further highlights the magnitude of the debt burden plaguing all EAC countries and its likely impact on budget viability and future macro-economic targets. We rekindle the need for an evaluation of budgeting processes in EAC, a revival of citizens participation in budgeting and repositioning the budget at the Centre for public policy. Our final conclusion is that there are malignant risks. Governments must budget better, tax wisely, address debt and strengthen public participation to revamp citizens confidence and trust in the national budget processes.

The 2024/25 Budget Context

The 2024/25 year’s budgeting was met with insurmountable obstacles and political economy pressures never anticipated before. East Africa is undergoing extreme budgetary pressures amidst a hectic political cycle. Governments are experiencing constantly, dwindling foreign aid, high indebtedness, a restless population, apathy to more taxation, ahead of a sensitive election period in many EAC Countries. The years 2024 to 2027 will be election years in Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya. 

Normally election budgets tend to be quite generous as the incumbent regimes seeking re-election avoid taking drastic measures that alarm citizens and discourage their courted voters.   The 2024/25 financial year’s budgets however came at a time of increasing economic hardships, outcries over taxation, violent tax protests, a persistent global economic slowdown and jobless growth. This complicates the budget choices that governments can take and whether the desired budget goals can be achieved.

According to the Africa Development Bank, East Africa and Africa’s is expected to record an economic growth of 3.4% in 2024[1] but we project that this growth could be staggered by a myriad of externalities such as the ongoing tax protests, conflict, climate change hazards and a general slowdown in global economic growth.

Moreover, there is increasing uncertainty about the impact of the continuing Russia-Ukraine war and an escalating and endless Israel-Palestine war on the global economy by exerting political pressures and extracting resources away from development. Besides disruptions in international trade and commerce, the wars have devastating economic impacts on EAC country’s traditional donors such as the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

These traditional donors are constrained with multiple domestic political, social and economic challenges to finance at home.  There is uncertainty about foreign policy shifts. For example, the outcomes of the United States (US) Presidential election may determine a major shift in US foreign policy and therefore the future US-Africa foreign policy cannot be guaranteed.

The European Union (EU) has witnessed a resurgence in nationalistic tendencies and drastic swing to the right with increasing demands for inward looking policies to secure Europe’s future. The EU faces huge political and social challenges such as immigration to tackle. All these constrain EU budgets for external aid assistance and their continued support for Africa is jeopardized.

Faced by such unpleasant realities, EAC governments are obliged to make national budgets that can realistically be achieved, balancing economic and political targets at the same time, while reducing the economic burdens on ordinary citizens. However, a quick review of the 2024/25 national budgets passed by EAC countries indicates that this year’s budgets were a major gamble and fumble. 

Some countries such as Kenya has already failed to pass the test.  Others muddled through however their expectations look ambitious, plans misaligned, over burdened with debt. Precisely, the political and economic budgeting terrain is quite murky and tenacious and end of year collection out turns for 2024/25 financial may never be achieved.  

Yet in recent years, the budget exercise has become of less interest to ordinary citizens, viewed as quite top-down executive driven exercise, led by technocrats with less consideration of citizens views[2]. Questions are asked how can governments in the future balance between political and economic expediency, debt financing and development most significantly restore public confidence in the budget process as means of raising legitimate public money and delivering public goods. In this analysis, we explore and share commentary perspectives to answer this question and what citizens and governments can do.

Aligning EAC Budgeting to Regional and Global Context

The regional and global economic trajectory and potential outlook shows a zig zag pattern or mixed bag of hits and misses.  Globally there are signs of a general economic slowdown and inequitable growth. 

According to the OECD’s latest Economic Outlook, the global economy is continuing to growing at a modest pace, The Economic Outlook projects steady global GDP growth of 3.1% in 2024, the same as the 3.1% in 2023, followed by a slight pick-up to 3.2% in 2025[3]. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) baseline forecasts the world economy to continue growing at 3.2 percent during 2024 and 2025, at the same pace as in 2023. The IMF notes that a slight acceleration for advanced economies—where growth is expected to rise from 1.6 percent in 2023 to 1.7 percent in 2024 and 1.8 percent in 2025—will be offset by a modest slowdown in emerging market and developing economies from 4.3 percent in 2023 to 4.2 percent in both 2024 and 2025. The forecast for global growth five years from now—at 3.1 percent—is at its lowest in decades[4]. Even some spikes of growth in some insular countries such as Rwanda, Senegal and regions like Asia will not catapult the global economies to the desired targets of about 7% consistent economic growth over the next three years.

Moreover, multiple reports indicate that over 60% of Africa’s GDP is spent on debt serving and this significantly affects resources available to spend on development and real economic growth. According to the Economic Commission for Africa, the average debt-to-GDP ratio for the entire continent was projected to rise to 63.5% in 2023. The Commission warns that escalating debt levels in Africa are prompting concerns that repayment may not only constrain economic performance but could become virtually impossible for many African countries.

The AfrexExim Bank reports that Africa’s debt burden has grown significantly in the past 15 years surging by 39.3 percentage points between 2008 and 2023, resting at 68.6% of GDP in 2023[5].  At the current interest rates, less developed countries will never wean themselves off external debt and many countries defaulting in the near future is real.

The EAC governments therefore need to be extremely cautious and trend with maximum care on the economic their targets and priorities they make. The following guard rails are essential must be considered in advance planning of the budgets in the current obtaining and foreseeable context.

  • Avoid over taxation and stifling of nascent businesses by taking a precautionary facilitative approach verses ambitious revenue collection targets. Spare disposable incomes in the pockets of citizens and small business could stimulate both consumption, production and growth
  • Addressing economic stagnation, inflationary pressures and jobless growth
  • Addressing climate change and transition to clean energy by encouraging investment and financing of green businesses
  • Harnessing natural resources such as critical minerals to maximize benefits and revenues during the current and future envisaged boom
  • Weaning off the exorbitant external debt pressures and addressing persistent distortions in the global financial lending architecture
  • Designing and setting of long-term goals and tax policies which can drive politics, investment and trade into the future
  • Funding agriculture to support food security, create jobs and agriculture-based industrialization and value addition

An analysis of the budget statements indicates that these critical elements were largely missed by many governments’ economic planners. The net effect of the year’s (2024/25) budget processes is that the midterm and long-term targets in most EAC countries may never be fully gained and economic hardships could remain a persistent future moving forward.

Summary Analysis of EAC Countries Budget Priorities: A detailed Country Analysis of each is available via: xxx

Country Budget Allocation Summary Commentary
Tanzania Allocated Tsh49.35 Tln . Prioritized debt servicing (27%) and infrastructure (11%) with moderate funding of social-economic development sectors. Sectors such as Preoccupied on financing legacy infrastructure projects and continuity, missed revenue targets by 2% over the last two years raising concerns over budget sustainability. Limited citizen participation and budget reliability and credibility of have been flagged by studies and development partners under the FISCUS PEFA report 2022.
Uganda Allocated a budget of Ush72.139 Tln up from up from an initial Ush 58.34Tln (increase of Shs14.050 trillion) proposed in May 2024 and Shs 52.74 Tln in the financial year 2023/24, representing a 36% increase over the last year’s resource envelope. Debt servicing accounts for 57.8% of the total budget allocation with Human Development following at a paltry 14% A quite ambitious budget, overtaking Tanzania’s total budget allocation for the first time in history. Given the economic growth, missed revenue targets and tax protests, it is not clear how those resources will be raised. Moreover, wide spread corruption and over expenditure on political organs and projects has raised concerns, reducing credibility and interest among citizens.
Rwanda For the fiscal year 2024/25 Rwanda passed a budget of Frw 5,690.1 billion (USD4.3bln). Has prioritized Economic transformation pillar (59.6%), social transformation (26.6%) and Transformational Governance (13.8%) Despite stellar economic performance, Rwanda faces constant external threats such as the war in the neighboring DRC and a tainted image from UN accusations of Rwanda as a regional destabilizer.  Over reliance on agriculture is a risk too.
Burundi Allocated 4.4 trillion Burundi francs ($1.5 billion) in the 2024/25 representing an increase of 15% from previous years. Prioritised funding public service and agriculture. Public debt rose from 68.4% of GDP in 2022 to 72.7% in 2023.Has an international credibility issue to regain. Opportunities in Burundi’s critical minerals sector could offer a major breakthrough.
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) 2024 budget data is scanty, reports indicate DRC prioritized funding defense against the war in the Eastern Part of DRC and public service. Social development sectors and infrastructure are still underfunded DRC Faces serious instability in the East, and public management challenges, a debt problem. Potential from its mineral wealth but a risk of expensive resource backed loans is real
South Sudan Failed to pass the 2024/2025 national budget. In the FY 2023/2024, allocated a budget of South Sudanese Pounds2.105 trillion (USD1.32bln). Prioritized infrastructure (22%). Other social development sectors took less than 10% each. South Sudan has a huge external debt estimated at over USD $ 2,051,335,901 The government’s petroleum revenues have suffered from the ongoing conflict in Sudan, stifling its economy and ability to raise revenue. Many public servants and essential social delivery are yet to be paid. The ongoing conflict amidst reports of corruption and a huge national debt will affect the country’s future economic possibilities.
Kenya Failed to pass a budget of Ksh3.99Tln    and reverted to using the Finance Bill 2023 to raise revenue. The country has witnessed wide spread violent tax protests, forcing the government to backdown on major tax measures.  The government is under siege and not able to tax. With a bludgeoning external debt, a government under siege and restless population opposed to more taxation, Kenya’s economy is at its weakest.  Kenya was downgraded to Junk status making it more expensive to borrow and raise external capital.  A risk of an economic meltdown is real.

Risks to EAC Countries National Budget Priorities, Viability and Success

In the final Analysis we identify the following risks to the 2024/25 budgets and budgeting generally in  East Africa

Debt Risk: Huge public debt risk is real and if unchecked will literary transform EAC governments into debt collectors on behalf of their lenders. At the current rates, over 50-60% of tax collected by EAC governments in the next 2-3 years will be spent on debt servicing, effectively locking the region into a permanent cycle of debt payment and slow progress. As observed by Uganda’s legislator, Hon Semuju Nganda, “Next financial year (2024/25) Uganda will spend Shs 34 trillion (close to half) on debt servicing  and yet the country thinks it is processing a budget.” The debt risk is significant.

Political and Democracy risks.  Politics and governance in EAC are driven with political alliances and favoritism.  As governments head towards elections there is an increased risk of proposing ambitious budgets that are unviable and could be misaligned with citizens demands. Moreover, large proportions of the budget are being spent on politicians (large cabinets, large parliaments, political advisors, Governors, MCAs etc) and political enterprises such as subsiding political parties. Political parties with representation in parliament have become state enterprises funded by public resources. This is a risk

Credibility risks– The national budgets are losing credibility as statements of macroeconomic policy and social contracts between the governments and citizens. Citizens are increasingly getting detached from the budget with stronger perceptions that their views do not matter- The tendency is never to understand government incentives and plans. If unaddressed will drive constant apathy and resistance against taxation and revenue collection strangling public expenditure.

Economic growth and equity risks: Caused by among others persistent jobless growth, misaligned priorities, unfulfilled earlier economic promises, global economic slowdown and shifting economic policies that may have significant impacts on the EAC countries and region’s growth. The risk is that Budgets may not create tangible economic impacts on ordinary people.

Conflict and Distress risks- This risk is aggravated by the ongoing internal protests against taxation and civil wars such as in the ones in Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and the DRC. The risk is that available resources will continue being channeled towards war. Further, the international conflicts such as the Ukraine-Russia war will disrupt global supply chains of essential such as grain and redefine geo-economics’ alignments affecting volumes and direction flow of supportive development linkages to the EAC Countries.

Climate Risks: Unpredictability of whether patterns affecting heavily agricultural reliant countries and economies such as Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda. Affecting food supplies and foreign revenues from agricultural sources.

Corruption and Public Management risk– Rising opulence and failure to tame corruption, place and enforce guard rails to mismanagement of public expenditure, exacerbating resistances or rebellion against taxation and budgets generally.

Forward looking, Restoring National Budget Credibility and Public Confidence

  1. Develop and pass realistic national budgets with less ambitious and white elephant projects to be funded in the next few years
  2. Leverage on existing natural resources such as critical minerals and the abundant blue economy as new levers to driver the economy further
  3. Mitigate expectations of large streams revenues from fossil-based projects such as Oil and Gas, factoring in the climate change global pressure to decarbonize and how this could impact on fossil-based revenues in the future
  4. Repurpose investment in young people (the Gen-Z) with jobs created in non-traditional fields and professions such as technology, e-commerce, content creation and redistribution of economic opportunities and wealth beyond the political class
  5. Re-channel heavy investment into agriculture, as a ‘go back to basics’of agriculture as the backbone of our economies, given its potential and ability to cushion other sectors of the economy, including providing food security and incomes to millions of citizens. Remember a hungry person will always be an angry person. Addressing agriculture and food constraints can radically address the spiraling costs of living and desperation that we are currently experiencing in the region.
  6. Tax rationally, modestly, and spend less on nugatory public finance expenditures, tame corruption and malfeasance of public resources. Clearly punish the corrupt and reward the best performers.
  7. Ramp up a global campaign against debt and reform the shylock global lending system which is designed to largely constrain and drain more resources from less developed countries. 
  8. Avoid mistakes in Tax policy and administration that we experienced this year. Be consultative, listen to the views and concerns of stakeholders with mutual respect and consideration. No one wants more demonstrations and violent tax protests next year.

 

NB: The full policy brief and individual country analysis reports for Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, DRC, Rwanda, Burundi and South Sudan  will be published soon

 

[1] https://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/press-releases/41-african-countries-set-stronger-growth-2024-keeping-continent-second-fastest-growing-region-world-african-development-banks-economic-outlook-71384

[2] https://theconversation.com/kenya-protests-show-citizens-dont-trust-government-with-their-tax-money-can-ruto-make-a-meaningful-new-deal-234008

[3] https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/economic-outlook-steady-global-growth-expected-for-2024-and-2025.htm#:~:text=The%20global%20economy%20is%20continuing,up%20to%203.2%25%20in%202025.

[4] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2024/04/16/world-economic-outlook-april-2024

[5] https://media.afreximbank.com/afrexim/State-of-Play-of-Debt-Burden-in-Africa-2024-Debt-Dynamics-and-Mounting-Vulnerability.pdf

Political Risk and Investment in EA: An Expose of violent tax protests and political risk on Trade and Investment in East Africa

In our previous brief on Tax and Fiscal governance in East Africa, we observed that with dwindling foreign aid, it appears the governments in East Africa have resorted to squeezing everywhere to raise some dime.  We cautioned that Taxation may be good however, when the extremes are beyond reasonableness, governments are bound to break their break the back of the economies they aspire to build[1]. The recent and ongoing tax protests that have rocked the East African regions, with violence and vandalism spiraling out of control in Kenya, clearly underscore this point. A failed tax administration and an irate society.

By Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Centre

@taxjustice @politicalrisk

Freedom of expression, the right to picket and demonstrate and resist punitive taxation has been established over the years.  The doctrine of no taxation without proper representation was long established by the Romans, Greeks and Americans during the famous Boston Tea Party 1773) and American war of independence, The French Revolution and the English, paving way into the famous Magna Carta.

This was further advanced by Adam Smith in his legendary Canons of Taxation asserting that generally, a good tax system must be underlined by proportionality and ability to pay[2] and political scientist Harold D Laswell’s tax law of who pays, what and when, and each individual or group should “pay their fair share. These principles that tax liability should be based on the taxpayer’s ability to pay is accepted in most countries as one of the bases of a socially just tax system and generally citizens are duty bound to reject a system that is regarded as unfair and disproportionally beyond their means[3].

However, when peaceful protests and demonstrations strategically drift towards violence, vandalism and murder like the ones we saw in Kenya, then these effectively transform into high level political risks to trade and investment.

According to multiple sources a political risk is a type of risk faced by investors, corporations, and governments that political decisions, events, or conditions will significantly affect the profitability of a business actor or the expected value of a given economic action. In simple terms, a political risk is the possibility that your business could suffer because of instability or political changes in a country: conflicts and unrest, changes in regime or government, changes in international policies or relations between countries, as well as changes that occur in a country’s policies, business laws or investment regulations[4]. Examples of political risks include; unilateral state decisions, war, terrorism, and civil unrest

By their nature, these risks are expensive to be insured against and constitute a major determinant factor for business in deciding where to invest or do business. Highly political risk countries experience sharp declines in investment and may attract low new trade and investments flows.

According to Trade and Investment experts such as Pierre Lamourelle, Deputy Global Head of Specialty Credit within Allianz Trade for Multinationals, the interconnected nature of the global economy makes it very possible that a political risk in one country may affect many businesses across the globe.

“What has changed in the 25 years since I started in this business is that we are living in a more connected world today,” says Pierre. On the upside, that means business is easier to conduct on a global scale. Almost everybody now has the ability to reach out to emerging countries or to conclude a contract and secure a sale in a foreign country.

On the downside, this means that when something goes wrong in one part of the world, you can feel the impact halfway around the globe – directly, if you are dealing with the country in question, or indirectly because of your diverse supply chain. Remember when the 20,000-ton container ship “Ever Given” got stuck in the Suez Canal in March 2021, shutting down international trade for a week?

In today’s increasingly interconnected world, “just-in-time” supply chains, global internet connection, and smartphones give SMEs the ability to conduct business in a global arena. This means the possibility for great opportunities, but also that every business is just steps away from political risk.

Persistent violent tax protests can make it difficult and unpredictable for the government to raise enough tax revenue to finance its obligations, including servicing of sovereign commitments such as paying off its debts and makes the economic environment very unpredictable. This can lead  global economic and financial institutions to flag or down grade the Country’s economic status as risky , making difficult and more expensive for the country and companies to raise external capital for investment.

Moreover, the violent protests occurred or are happening at a critical period of the year when East African Countries such as Kenya record the highest number of tourist arrivals into the Country for the summer holiday. Before the protests, national parks, hotels and beaches in Kenya’s tourist hot spots had already recorded high tourist bookings and were expecting a bumper harvest this season as the global economies and travelers rebound from the COVID 19 lock down.  Reports from multiple travel agents and hoteliers already indicate that most tourists have either cancelled or postponed their decisions to travel to Kenya and East Africa generally. Indeed, some already in the Country were gripped with fear of uncertainty and have left.

The burning image of an old plane at Uhuru Park did not send a good image either as most people around the world, unfamiliar with Kenya, thought Jomo Kenyatta International Airport was attacked and planes on the tarmac set on fire.  A recorded video clip that trended on social media of passengers crammed up at JKIA with a voice note indicating that many were fleeing the country added salt to the pinch suggesting Kenya was not safe anymore!

Similarly, travel advisories have been issued to foreigners in country and intending to travel to Kenya, to do that if it is essential and be vigilant of their security as safety during this violent period cannot be guaranteed. With all these at play, Kenya may remain a blacklisted destination among some foreign tourists for some period to come, denying the country the much-needed foreign revenue and jobs in its service sector. At least a number of high conferences that were planned for Nairobi were cancelled.

The net effects of the demonstrations therefore go beyond having the bill rejected but have long-term economic effects on Kenya’s economy. The violent Gen-Z’s may have to reconsider their approach to avoid a full economic meltdown.

Of course, there are legitimate concerns that some current established large business and investments were already not providing benefits to the young people. Multiple reports have shown that some businesses were tax dodgers while others belong to the politically connected who used their political connections to shove deals and amassing wealth on the backbone of the majority Kenyans. Moreover, given the current loopholes in the governance systems, new trade and investment opportunities would not support or create many new economic opportunities either.

However, when these arguments are advanced, it is also imperative to look at the broader picture of the net effect that violent protests can have on Kenya’s economy and future that the Gen-Z seeks to address. Kenya’s economy is extensively connected and dependent on the global economy with most global business having chosen Nairobi as a regional financial hub.  Violent demonstrations and disruption of such a magnitude can have significant long-term impacts.

With a government under siege and  constrained with a debt tinkering on the margins of default and  unrelenting rancorous youth roaming and burning the streets of Nairobi armed with negative social media, Kenya’s economy could slide into a free fall and recession, whose impacts on everyone could be far reaching.

Taxation and a strong tax system may contribute to improved governance through 3 maximum channels. Taxation establishes a fiscal social contract between citizens and the taxing state. Tax payers have a legitimate cause to expect something in return for paying taxes and are more likely to hold their governments to account. Governments have a stronger incentive to promote economic growth when they are dependent on fair taxes.

In this regard, we suggest the following;

  1. Resistance demonstrations and protests for tax rights must be expressed with limitations and restraint from both sides- The state and citizens alike
  1. Government must be rational when imposing taxes. Tax policies must be clear and predictable.  Clearly, imposing taxes on bread and blanket exemption of choppers is a sign missed priorities.
  1. Government communication apparatus must be robust enough to explain to the citizens the justifications for taxation and the political class must lead by example demonstrating frugality in public expenditure.
  1. There must be distinction between private, public and national critical infrastructure, whose destruction may or can affect Kenya’s national security interest and state existence. Lest we forget, Kenya has been a victim of terrorism and still faces extensive threats from both internal and external elements, whose interests to harm Kenya has never wavered. Attacks on its critical infrastructure exposes the Country and Kenyans further to major threats.
  1. Re-engineering of Kenya’s governance and economy to address the contemporary needs for the Gen-Z. Times have changed and the Gen-Z who now constitute an overwhelming majority will effectively from 2027 be forever a major determinant of East Africa’s political future. Women will no longer be a game changer in electoral politics and outcomes but the Gen-Z will be.
  1. There is need for both political and social sobriety. East Africa needs good leadership and peace!

[1] Tax and Fiscal Governance: Is VAT milking the broken tax cow dry? An analysis of tax trends and impacts on EAC small traders, with a case of the recent traders’ demonstrations and boycotts in Uganda:

[2] Adam Smith, in his book, The Wealth of Nations, 1776

[3] Schronharl, K,  etal; Histories of Tax Evasion , Avoidance and Resistance; https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/346cfc5f-6001-40e3-8a3b-fe46405df8c2/9781000823882.pdf

[4] https://www.allianz-trade.com/en_US/insights/what-is-political-risk.html#:~:text=Political%20risk%20is%20the%20possibility,country’s%20policies%2C%20business%20laws%20or