Tanzania’s removal of penalties on transfer pricing: What did government seek to achieve?
Tanzania Finance Hon Mwigulu Nchemba

In this year’s (2021/22) budget speech Tanzania’s Minister for Finance, Mr Mwigulu Nchemba, made a surprising announcement that government would/had scrapped the 100% penalty for transfer pricing. The announcement was surprising as transfer pricing or mispricing in international transactions and currently a point of discussion globally as one of the leading enablers of illicit financial out flows and capital flight from developing and extractive rich countries.  From a Tax justice perspective, the government’s decision was received as a slight slip in the gains scored over the past 10 years.

According to Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Mbeki High-Level Panel Report on IFFs latest reports, shows that IFF’s from the African continent have been increasing with losses estimated between USD50 Million and USD 80 Million over the past years. Corruption and the extractive sector has constantly provided a major conduit for tax avoidance and illicit resource outflow from Africa

Transfer pricing is an accounting practice that represents the price that one branch, subsidiary or division in a company charges another branch, subsidiary or division for goods and services provided. Transfer pricing allows for the establishment of prices for the goods and services exchanged between a subsidiary, an affiliate or commonly controlled companies that are part of the same larger enterprise.

A transfer price is based on market prices in charging another division, subsidiary, or holding company for services rendered. Transfer pricing can lead to tax savings for corporations.  However, companies have used inter-company transfer pricing to reduce the tax burden of the parent company. Companies charge a higher price to divisions in high-tax countries (reducing profit) while charging a lower price (increasing profits) for divisions in low-tax countries.  This is what is also often referred to as transfer mispricing which is problematic for tax collection purposes. We have discussed this concept in detail via another publication via: https://gepc.or.tz/how-to-curb-transfer-pricing-tax-dodging-and-illicit-financial-flows-in-extractive-sector/

Why were heavy penalties imposed in Tanzania’s statutes?

Heavy penalties were imposed for transfer pricing  in Tanzania’s tax statutes because many companies dodged taxes through complex structures and subsidiaries in foreign jurisdictions which made it difficult or impossible for government to track transactions for tax purposes.

According to Financial Secrecy Index (2018) reported that Tanzania lost billions of shillings through potential transfer arrangements between mining companies.

The government was not explicit why it had taken this dramatic decision and therefore left experts and civil society actors bewildered and speculating. The reasons given were pointing towards improving Tanzania’s investment climate. The investment motive was more than the tax revenue imperative.

The potential hefty penalty for transfer mispricing was an inhibiting factor for attracting foreign investments as companies feared or found it difficult to structure their businesses with an international network of subsidiaries and branches anchored to Tanzania making sourcing for foreign financing and sourcing or procurement difficult.

The difficulties in determining market price or an arms price in transactions between related parties and establishing without any iota of doubt whether a given transaction was a mispricing arrangement and illicit in the face of Tanzania’s statute may have been another factor.

The Minister made another drastic announcement.  Effective 2021/22 the Minister responsible for finance was empowered to grant tax exemptions on specific projects without full cabinet approval.

The Minister proposes to restore the power of the Minister to grant income tax exemption on projects funded by the government on specific projects, grants and concessional loans if there is an agreement between the donor or lender with the government providing for such exemption. The measure would streamline and make it efficient for such exemptions to be provided as it has been a pain sticking point for many projects.

The government was attempting to address bureaucracy in approving exemptions and waivers which was a major stumbling blocks to investment and vitality to the success of some strategic projects. This was certainly a welcomed change for players in the construction and large-scale investment projects. At the time of presenting the budget some big and strategic projects were in offing. These included the OreCorp Nyazanga Gold Mine project in Mwanza, Kabanga Nickel project, the ongoing Standard Gauge Railway project and the East African Oil Company project (EACOP). The government announced a specific exemption of VAT on imported and local purchases of goods and services for East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). The government aimed to ensure the costs of EACOP are minimised.

However, by doing this, the government is walking a very tight rope and contentious terrain with a significant risk of returning to bedeviled fiscal policy regime era which dogged its tax revenue collection efforts in the early 2000s.  Hon Jerry Slaa, Member for Parliament for Ukonga Constituency in Dar es Salaam posted a passionate that perhaps the Minister may have been deceived or even this dangerous paragraph may have been smuggled into the Minister’s Speech. He passionately appealed to the Minister does not sign off this years financial appropriation bill which this provision. It is a dangerous route to take with potential risks.

In our opinion, for these latest decisions to be effective government will have to

  1. Strengthen its monitoring and surveillance capacity to ensure the international companies do not structure their operations and tax arrangements in a manner that facilitates tax avoidance and evasion.
  2. Strengthen its (TRA’s) International Tax department to detect in advance and reverse any transactions of a potential transfer pricing arrangement before they happen.
  3. Improving data collection capabilities to establish the true arm’s length price for potentially contentious transactions, such e-commerce, services, and intellectual property.
  1. Increase transparency around exemption by perhaps requesting the Minister to publish the list of all exempted projects and values within a short period of 30-90 days after approval, clearly stating the purpose and rationalisation for the exemption.
  2. Retain some mechanism for punishment for noncompliance to the commensurate level deterrent enough to the induce compliance.

Highlights of Tanzania’s Budget 2021/22

Projected Total Budget 36.6% Trln (3.2% increase) Domestic 26.0 Trln (72%)
Expected GDP Growth 5.6% Grants 2.9 Trln (8%)
Inflation forecast 3.3% Development 13.3 Trln
Tax to GDP ratio 13.5% from 12.9% (2020/21 Recurrent 23.0 Trln
Debt to GDP ratio projections 37.3% Domestic Loans 5.0 Trln (14%)
Projected Budget Outturn 2020/21 86% – 95% External Loans 2.4 Trln (6%)

** The key challenge to government will be to raise domestic revenues in the face of shrinking grants and concessional loans and the COVID 19 pandemic which is stiff affecting key sectors such as tourism.

Uganda-Tanzania East Africa Oil Pipeline: signed deal yes, but hurdles lie ahead.

Samia, Museveni witness pipeline project final actsThe East African Oil Pipeline project received significant boots in April 2021 with Uganda with a series of key oil infrastructure related agreements signed between the government of Uganda and Tanzania and the oil companies for the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project to transport crude from Uganda to the Tanzania port of Tanga.

According to the government communications, these agreements signal Final Investment Decision (FID) which could be announced soon with production, expected around 2025. There has been already significant work going on at the oil sites in Hoima and as one of the Company officials remarked, work has started. The project is very important to the East Africa region as it promises great economic benefits to the governments and their citizens in the form of jobs, revenues, and other associated economic linkages.

Despite this rekindled hope, shortly after the signing of these agreements, it was evident that multiple uncertainties still lie ahead.

The details of the signed agreements remained undisclosed and technical experts involved in the negotiations remained secret on essential information on key fiscal terms surrounding the tariffs.

The project financing arrangement remains a quagmire.  Few days after signing of the agreements, several banks in France where the lead investor Total is based announced that they were staying away from the financing of the pipeline. The French banks included, BNP Paribas, Société’ Générale and Credit Agricole, Credit Suisse of Switzerland, ANZ of Australia and New Zealand and Barclays.

According to earlier government reports, The Standard Bank of South Africa, China’s ICBC and SMBC of Japan are lead advisors of the EACOP financing. These were under immense pressure from their counterparts Bank Track, Reclaim Finance and Energy Voice for what they described as pushing responsible financing of projects worldwide. According to these banks and activists EACOP’s environmental credentials were failing.

The Uganda government announced that it was not bothered by announcement, describing it as not new. However, the announcement by the banks signalled that the project could be still facing serious negative diplomacy from environmental activists and other political interested actors regionally and globally.

President Museveni described the project and the agreement signing occasion as an act economic liberation. This followed the political liberation which in his view happened some decades ago when Tanzania helped exiled Uganda political groups to take power in Uganda and change the course of history. With the hurdles still to overcome, it was evident that perhaps the financial, environmental, and political woes were not over, and the project was yet to fully get on track.

SADC in Economic Meltdown; Can Tanzania be German of the Region?

On Saturday 17th August, Tanzania assumed the chair of the South African Development Cooperation (SADC), amidst disturbing economic figures indicating that the region was facing a serious economic meltdown. Can Tanzania be the ‘German’ of the region, playing the economic big daddy role by calling the other states into political order and bailing out the struggling member states?

By Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Analysis Center, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

The SADC is a 16-member state regional economic block established with among others promoting sustained economic growth and sustainable development amongst its objectives. However, the recent economic data indicates that region is witnessing an economic meltdown with most of its member states, except perhaps Tanzania, positing negative or stunted economic growth over the past years.

According to the economic and social indicators data compiled and released by its secretariat the the SADC region posted an estimated average growth rate of 1.4% in 2016 compared to 2.3% in 2015. At country level Tanzania registered the highest growth of 7% among the member states followed by Botswana with a far below rate of 4.3%[i].  

In 2017 Tanzania recorded an economic growth of 7.1% followed by Seychelles (6.3%) whilst Angola registered negative growth for the second consecutive year in order of 2.5%[ii] The region’s growth was increasing at a decreasing rate since the post global period in 2009.

The region’s economic giant South Africa has witnessed rapid economic slowdown, bring along its small neighbors and trading partners under its weight.  Countries such as Zimbabwe were collapsing under the weight of economic sanctions, Namibia and Angola recorded negative annual real GDP (at market price) of 10.8% and -2.5% respectively in 2017 due to the slump in commodity prices and other related risks. Botswana at 2.4% did not perform well either. The region posted an overall trade deficit with rest of the world of USD6.7bln. 

The AfDB report for 2018 warned that the economic outlook for Southern Africa region was cautious[iii]. Broad based economic activity was expected to recover at slow pace, but the outlook remained modest given the diverging growth patterns for the region’s economies. Upper middle income countries turned in low and declining rates of growth meanwhile lower income transitioning economies recorded moderate and improved growth, albeit at reduced rates.

Despite the improvement, economic performance remained subdued as the region’s economic outlook continued to face major headwinds. High unemployment, weak commodity prices, fiscal strain, increasing debt and high inflation.

Real GDP was estimated to have grown at an average of 1.6% in 2017 before increasing to a projected 2.0% in 2018 and 2.4% in 2019.

The future regional growth was expected to be bolstered with primary expectations of increased investment in non-oil sectors such as electricity, construction and technology in large infrastructure projects, mining as well as continued recovery in commodity prices.

However, the latest figures show that the region was not well on that front either.  The decline in commodity prices in recent years reaching the lowest point in 2015 translated into significant income loses for the economies, implying a negative impact on public and private sector spending and therefore growth in employment.

Before the 2008-2009 global recession, the region experienced moderate growth, though individual countries contributed differently. For example, Angola, Mozambique and Namibia exhibited robust growth that collectively outpaced the regional group.

Thereafter, Angola, the region’s foremost oil producer and former raising economic star received the worst bashing with its economy experiencing adverse economic growth effects due to weak oil prices.

Overall the region experienced negative GDP growth with Swaziland (-10.08%), Zimbabwe (-8.38%),  and Angola (-6.31%)  being among the worst hit[iv]  Other Countries such as Zambia, Namibia , Mozambique and Malawi were not performing better either. South Africa reported the highest public debt soaring in billions dollars followed by Angola.

South African Institute of International Affairs observed that intra-regional investment and trade levels had declined markedly since the commodity slump in 2013. Moreover, the trade and economic growth in the region remained imbalanced, exacerbating political strains among member states. Non-tariff barriers and other factors had adversely affected intra-regional trade and investment in recent years.

Assuming the mantle, at the end of its 39th Summit held in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania’ President John Pombe Magufuli was furious with against the Secretariat for having not provided adequate and alert to the political leadership that the region was experiencing an economic meltdown with reduced or stunted growth and an expanding trade deficit.

Speaking at the SADC People’s forum on the sidelines of the main summit in Dar es Salaam, the South African Professor, Patrick Bond, described the situation as alarming, catastrophic and turbulent and yet no one was bold enough to speak about it.

He was perhaps communist in view and radical in approach, blaming what he described as the capitalistic enterprise and its puppeteers for under mining economic justice, risking lives of by putting profit before the people and causing climate change whose effects were ravaging SADC but remained quite revolutionary in suggesting that the ordinary people perhaps needed to send a clear signal to its political leadership that all was not okay. The economic fundamentals were tattered and the regional leaders needed to wake, Prof. Bond lectured.

Can Tanzania emerge and become the ‘German’ of the region?

With this state of the Union, the question therefore arose can Tanzania emerge and become the ‘German’ of the region, playing the economic messiah role by providing both political leadership and economic bail out to its neighbors. 

In 2013 up to 2015 when the European Union experienced economic turbulence, Brussels turned to German to liberate it from the gigantic economic Dracula which was tearing down its economic block and leaving some of its small states indebted and facing bankruptcy. German wrote cheques in financial bailouts, provided guarantees and political prop up for economically struggling states such as Greece, Portugal and Italy.

German relied on its economic prowess and its political might as the industrial central pillar of the European Union. The charismatic leadership of its Chancellor, Ms Angela Merkel, was a distinct asset. Even at the risk of her own political career and constant onslaught from the German far right, Merkel could not tolerate any nonsense and was not ready to allow Europe to fall back.

In the face of the similar economic doldrums which seems now to face SADC, can Tanzania afford such muscle or a German equivalent?

Tanzania has done it before. In the 1960’s until 1990’s when the region was facing serious political, Tanzania pulled up its resources and committed it to the liberation struggle. It hosted training camps and provided pupilage to thousands of liberation fighters. Dar es Salaam became to the political headquarters of Frontline States where the idea of SADC in its current form was initiated and a spring for independence for many of the current South African states.  For some, therefore SADC at 39 years, just came back home.

In assuming the SADC Chairmanship, President Magufuli warned the Secretariat that it will not be business as usual as of now and for the next one year his interest would be to see that resources placed at the disposal of the Secretariat were not spent on conferences but on meaningful tangible projects which benefited the people. Could this be the kind of approach that region needs to take in order to deal with its increasing economic challenges.

An agile kind of leadership which places the people at the heart of politics and fights with cunning shrewdness against corruption, public waste, nepotism and personal drive to accumulate wealth by those in power.

Over the years these have been some of the vices which have dogged the region and bringing the much needed progress to stagnation and ultimate halt in some member states. Comparatively, perhaps the SADC is the largest economic group in Sub-Saharan Africa. With over an estimated population of 337.1 million people in 2017, is larger than its western equivalent, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and obviously bigger than the European Union has a just a fraction of the SADC population yet somehow progress has been considerably steady in the other regions.

According to experts the region was faced by multiple non trade barriers and low intra region trade which still at around 20%.  Technically, speaking, the members are happy to do business with other countries outside the region rather than their economic neighbors partners in SADC. The member states are living alongside each other but not fully economically and trade integrated.

Political uncertainties which has dogged the former economic giants of the region such as South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Angola created fertile conditions negative to investment and economic growth.  The governments lost grip on the economic mantle and directed attention towards managing internal politics and mechanics for political survival.  

Xenophobic attacks in South Africa could have also created a sense of fear and caused disarray in a fragile informal sector which was quietly the driving factor or fulcrum on which the South African economy relied. Crushing cost of electricity, turmoil in the extractive sector and stalemate in the platinum industry in 2016 perhaps were also a contributory factor to South Africa’s political woes. 

Overall, according, to Professor bond, the region was just poorly governed and a new leadership impetus led by the people was necessary to bring back the declining glories

For many years SADC was so much preoccupied on political stability. With good success, it has managed to tackle conflicts and bring peace amongst its member states. Overall, political conflict in the form of civil wars in the region has been declining with all except the DRC reporting any semblance of a conventional Civil war in recent years. 

Even, this has significantly been downgraded in recent years. Currently, there is no severe risk of any threat from any member state to destabilize any other through an arms insurrection. The ongoing conflict in the Eastern DRC is largely a war of survival for the remaining tribal and ethnic elements rather than a fully-fledged military configuration to overall and capture power in the DRC. If it can be dealt with, then perhaps the war in the DRC will be over or significantly reduced to minimal levels in many decades.

The future wars of the SADC will therefore be largely economic and perhaps resource based on key issues such as land, water and control of the real means of production and profit. Acute poverty could be the other driver of the masses towards insurrection. For Tanzania therefore, to take up the German challenge will be a touch endeavor.

Tanzania’s economic benefit or contribution to the region is too minimal. According to trade statistics, Tanzania is among the least exporters to SADC and its overall trade balance with its SADC neighbors was still low. It therefore lacks the economic might of German stature.

Over the past three years Tanzania’s political leadership has commitment itself to building its economy first before looking outside. Cutting back on public waste and flogging its population into line to start paying up taxes to finance its public service and infrastructure ambitions, Tanzania is building its economy from within.

Throughout the 1960s to the 1990s Tanzania sacrificed a lot in order to politically liberate virtually all the SADC member states and yet gained very minimal in return.  Political historians have even have even argued with some level of confidence that Tanzania under developed itself in sacrifice for others to develop. Tanzania would be therefore quite cautious in economic diplomatic terms and perhaps uncomfortable at this moment in giving out too much of what it has acquired over the years to salvage its economic neighbors.

The conditions in the region appear to have turned so bad in the past few years with persistent drought raving across the region only to be replaced by wrecking floods leaving behind famine and death in communities along its way.  Approximately over 1000 people dies in the last floods in Mozambique and Malawi caused by cyclone Idai and Keneth. Millions at a risk of starvation.  Essential infrastructure such as road and bridges connecting rural areas to urban centers and across countries such as the port of Beira are badly battered and incapable of supporting economic productivity.

The region has not been able to attract in Foreign Investment into its natural resource wealth and flagship infrastructure projects such as the Mighty Inga dam electro power project in the DRC which would have brought life into the SADC power master plan have remained incomplete for many years now. The region is badly in need of both reconstruction and reconfiguration to sustain itself and its ambitions.

At the end of the summit Tanzania’s former President Benjamin Mkapa advised that SADC member states should stop relying heavily on foreign donors for aid to support or finance their development agenda. Building internal capacity through a reliable market for products from the block, investment in education, technology, domestic revenue collection and unlocking the potential amongst its budging population to drive the economies forward would be a better option. Perhaps the SADC leadership should fine tune an ear to the wisdom of its elders.

The meeting concluded with signing off of three development cooperation programs worth 47 Million Euro deal with the European Union under its European Development Fund (EDF) 11 financing round. According to official statement, the funds will be used over the next five-year period to support improvement in the Investment and Business Environment (SIBE), Trade Facilitation Program (TFP) and Support to Industrial Productive Sectors (SIPS) three programs to be implemented by the SADC over the next five-year period

The SIBE program aims at achieving sustainable and inclusive growth and job creation by transforming the region into an investment zone, promoting intra-regional investments, foreign Direct Investment and a focus on Small and Medium Enterprises. The TFP will contribute to enhance inclusive economic development in the region through deepened economic integration while the SIPs aimed at contributing to the SADC industrialization agenda, improving performance and growth of selected value chains. How this EU injection translates into lifting the region from its economic downward spiral will yet to be found out at the next summit when SADC turns 40. What is clear is that something has to be done.

[i] SADC: Selected economic and social indicators, 2016

[ii] SADC: Selected economic and social indicators, 2017

[iii] AfDB: Southern Africa Economic Outlook, 2018

[iv] https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/southern-african-development-community

Elation as Kenya exports Oil; what does it mean for Oil rush in East African region

On 1st of August 2019, President Uhuru Kenyatta announced that Kenya had joined the list of world oil exporting Countries by selling its first crude oil at a cost of 12 Million United States dollars.

While the news reverberated across the Country and the region with elation, it is also possible that Kenya’s announcement could trigger a contagious rush to the bottom with East African Countries jostling to outcompete each other by signing off deals and agreements locking off future markets with potential buyers. Some of these deals may not be necessarily good.

By Moses Kulaba; Governance and Economic Analysis Center

Addressing the cabinet and media in Nairobi, President Kenyatta said Kenya had sold its barrels of crude oil to a buyer whose identity still remained a secret.

“We are now an Oil exporter. Our first deal was concluded this afternoon with 200,000 barrels at a price of USD 12 Million.  So I think we have started the journey and it is up to us to ensure that those resources are put to the best use to make our Country and to ensure we eliminate poverty, said Kenyatta.

The news reverberated in the region and globally with a new player on the market. Obviously there was more excitement and elation in the Lokichar Oil fields where Tullow Oil and its joint partners continue to explore more blocks with more vigour and determination.

Kenya discovered its first Oil in 2012 and since then, explorations have continued in the Lake Turkana basin region with deposits being reported and more projections made to increase. In its previous reports Tullow estimated some 560 Mln Barrels in possible reserves and these are now projected to increase as prospects for more discoveries are higher than before.

This would translate into 60,000 to 10,000 barrels per day of gross production, which is said to be insufficient to warrant the construction of a refinery locally hence the export plans

The sold consignment was delivered by truckers at the Kenya Petroleum Refineries facilities in Changamwe, Mombasa since July last year, under what the government described under the early oil project

What does this mean for Kenya and the East African region?

The deal concludes that Kenya once ruled off as an oil novice in the region, with the lowest volumes of discovered oil is running a head of its East African neighbors in reaching exporting oil country status many months before any of its East African neighbors can sell a drop of oil.

For Kenya, this is game changer in regional geopolitics as not only does the oil revenue bring a new line of foreign exchange earnings into its economy and thus consolidating its position as the regional economic superpower.

Galvanizing on its early market entry status, Kenya could tap the available markets and seal off any available contracts beating off any potential competition from its neighboring countries.

The oil revenues could also breathe some life into its Lamu Port South Sudan Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor development plan which has stalled for among others lack of partners. With oil revenues flowing, Kenya can go alone developing the ambitious infrastructure projects along the corridor all the way to the Ethiopian boarder.

Contrary to nay Sayers, the oil export could be a window to emboldened security in the Turkana area as the government seeks to protect vital oil installations and export routes to the coast.  For many years, Lake Turkana basin has been one of the most volatile and insecure areas in Kenya as marauding armed warriors move from one village to another raiding for cattle. Civilians and military installations have been attacked and people killed.

In June, 2018 Turkana residents stopped five trucks from ferrying crude oil to Mombasa over rising insecurity along the border with Baringo. The resident complained of insecurity in the area but also complained of what they call consider unresolved issues on oil sharing benefits between the National governments, County governments and local communities over the 5% share which they wanted channeled to their bank accounts rather than for development as rallied by a section of leaders.

There is no way we can be a security threat to the oil we have protected and guarded for years. So the specialized and additional security personnel (protecting oil) should head to Kapedo and secure people.

Kenya’s oil export announcement could trigger a contagious rush for oil in the East African region, with each country racing to drill to bottom in search for oil. In an effort to outcompete each other, those already with oil discoveries such as Uganda and South Sudan could race to the market sealing off deals and contracts with potential buyers and agreements for future markets. Some of these deals maybe bad.

 Uganda was the first to strike oil around its Albertine graben in 2005. According to Uganda’s Ministry of energy the petroleum deposit discovered so far were estimated at 6.5barrels of which 1.5bln are considered as recoverable.

The Ugandan oil is supposed to be exported to the global market through a 1,443 electric heated East African Oil Pipeline (EACOP) via Tanzania. The East African Crude oil pipeline is expected to unlock East Africa Oil potential by attracting invest and companies to explore the potential in the region.

According to the project schedule available on the EACOP website the detailed engineering and procurement and early works were supposed to have been made in 2018 and construction started in 2019. The first oil exports were expected in 2020. But it appears all these are behind schedule.

According to Ministry of Uganda expected to conclude its financial deal for its joint pipeline with Tanzania by June, 2019, opening for the way for its construction. According to the information provided by then, Stanbic Bank Uganda, was supposed to be the lead arranger for USD2.5billion funding for the 1,455 km (EACOP) project. The deal was expected to have been concluded in June, 2019.

Kampala was also expecting that the Final Investment Decisions (FID) between the government and the oil partners to determine when funds for the project will be made available, the terms of the financing and when the project execution will commence with a projected timeline between 20 and 36 months

The pipeline was expected to jointly develop the USD 3.5 billion pipeline, described as the longest electrically heated crude oil pipeline in the world. The balance of USD 1billion is expected to come from shareholders in equity

However, by the time Kenya announced its export deal in July, the earth breaking ceremony commencing the start of the EACOP pipeline construction had not started. Negotiations were reported as ongoing. In June 2017, the Daily Business Newspaper carried an article with a headline ‘Uganda’s Oil may not flow by 2020’ as the required infrastructure may not be complete  by then[i]

What this means for Uganda is that time is of essence and the sooner the EACOP project construction takes off the better for its potential oil market.

Figure 3: The Government of Tanzania and Uganda sign the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP)  in May, 2017

 

So why do some oil projects like take long to materialize?

Lack of astute leadership, effective institutions and canning ambition to drive the projects to fruition. In some countries the political leadership and responsible institutions can be weak, whereby the essential operational process surrounding the oil projects can be clogged in political rhetoric and undertones which make decision making quite cumbersome, inefficiently slow and less assuring to the investors

Technical aspects such as Quality of crude oil discovered

High Sulphur crude oil can such as the Ugandan and Kenyan crude oil can be waxy and costly to transport via pipeline as it requires constant heating along the route.  This explains why the 1,433 km EACOP is described as the longest electric heated pipeline in the world. This adds to complexity in technology and costs on heating required to operationalize the project. Investors may

Oil reservoir behaviors and recoverable volumes – The discovered oil reserves are not always the same as the recoverable volumes. In some projects the reserves can be large yet due to geological and technological factors the recoverable volumes are low.  The behavior of the oil reservoirs is therefore a significant factor in determining whether the recoverable volumes will be consistent with the early projections and economic models over the plateau period. A change in the recoverable volumes can trigger massive losses and may lead to complete closure of the oil project. Investors are happy to rush projects where recoverable volumes will be sustained

Financing aspects such as financing structure -Lack of financing for some reasons or high interests on the investment loans secured from investment-lending institutions can be a delaying factor.  The decision to invest may therefore take long as the investors or partners to the oil project juggle and weigh the available financial options viz a vis the current and future costs of the project on the country and the investors

Economic metric considerations such as the Net Present Value (NPV), Rate of Return (RoR) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of the project.

These are calculations undertaken to determine the economic and financial viability of the project. They are used to determine how much return and how long it will take to recoup the initial investment and starting generating profit.

According to online sources such as Investopedia, the Net present value (NPV) is the difference between the present value of cash inflows and the present value of cash outflows over a period of time. NPV is used in capital budgeting and investment planning to analyze the profitability of a projected investment or project.

The Rate of Return (RoR) is the net gain or loss on an investment over a specified time period, expressed as a percentage of the investment’s initial cost. This simple rate of return is sometimes called the basic growth rate, or alternatively, return on investment, or ROI. If you also consider the effect of the time value of money and inflation, the real rate of return can also be defined as the net amount of discounted cash flows received on an investment after adjusting for inflation.

The rate of return is used to measure growth between two periods, rather than over several periods. The RoR can be used for many purposes, from evaluating investment growth to year-over-year changes in company revenues. Its calculation does not consider the effects of inflation.

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a measure used in capital budgeting to estimate the profitability of potential investments. The internal rate of return is a discount rate that makes the Net Present Value (NPV) that makes the Net Present Value (NPV) of all cash flows from a particular project equal to zero.  It is mathematically calculated as IRR=NPV=t=1∑T (1+r)t −C0 =0)

IRR is the rate of growth a project is expected to generate. The IRR is used in capital budgeting to decide which projects or investments to undertake and which to forgo.

Generally speaking, the higher a project’s internal rate of return, the more desirable it is to undertake. Assuming the costs of investment are equal among the various projects, the project with the highest IRR would probably be considered the best and be undertaken first. IRR is sometimes referred to as “economic rate of return” or “discounted cash flow rate of return.”

Social factors such as land acquisition and due diligence for compensation– The nebulous and intricate balancing act between the local laws and the international standards as guided by the International Finance Corporation can be a hindrance. Quite often the local standards for compensation can be law, corrupt unfair yet the IFC standards requires fair and equity

Negative diplomacy: The oil projects could delay or fail to take off all together due to negative diplomacy. Whereby disgruntled actors such as activists, companies, politicians who may not be excited or about the project may quietly lobby, urge, convince or cajole the financing institutions not to finance the project.

Security Risk:  Oil projects cost lots of money in investment and thus require assurances that financial investments and their installations will be guaranteed.  Oil projects can stall as investors and their partners gauge the security risks

Some or all of these factors could be now at play in the East African region and could be explanatory factors as to why some petroleum projects are progressing at a snail’s pace or stalled all together. Perhaps Kenya’s early oil export could be trigger for its neighbors to start thinking ahead.

 

 

 

[i] https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/economy/Uganda—oil—2020-Standard–Poors-Tanzania/3946234-3982464-j7rbsq/index.html

Why Rules of Origin (RoO) should not be used exclusively to pursue trade policy objectives

This article shades light on a major instrument in international trade and customs management, which has been used by states to achieve multiple trade objectives. The concept of RoO has become controversial in the current interconnected global trading system where the point of production and sale across have become quite seamless and yet international trading rules requires that the definite origin of goods are identified for preferential treatment, statistical and tax purposes. The article argues that despite the implicit functions they play RoO should never be used a tool for negative trade pursuit rather a conduit for trade facilitation. The paper defines rules of origin and trade policy, outlining the objectives of trade policy, explaining the linkages between the two and discusses other instruments which can be used to achieve trade policy objectives

By Moses Kulaba; Governance and Economic Policy Analysis Center

Rules of origin (RoO) are common defined as laws, regulations and administrative criteria applied by a country to determine the country of origin of goods, for tariff preference purposes, subject to specific conditions as defined in WTO agreements and Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs)[i].  The East African Customs Union has summarized the rules of origin as ‘the vital link between the goods and country where they are produced’[1][ii] RoO are categorized as Preferential and non preferential depending on their characteristics and objectives.

Preferential RoO aim at determining whether goods qualify for preferential treatment and while Non Preferential RoO used to determine goods for trade statistical purposes. Rules of origin have significant relation and influence on a country’s trade policy or member countries which are contractually related or mutually obliged under a given contractual or non contractual trade arrangement. Rules of origin also may determine or assist the countries in understanding their comparative and competitive advantage. They are commonly used as a trade policy tool to protect local markets, give preferential treatment and a measure against unfair trade.

Trade policy can be defined as a collection or law, rules and practices aimed at achieving a country’s trade objectives. Tanzania’s trade policy aims to contribute to raising per capital income to levels targeted in National Development Vision 2025, trade development measures to stimulate and expand domestic demand through product and market diversification and limited interim safe guard of domestic economic activity threatened by liberalization, while building economic competitiveness[iii] It seek to achieved sustainable growth rate in trae of not less than 14% and long-term share of exports to GDP  of about 25%, double fold increase in manufacturing and raised value of merchandise export earnings in absolute terms to USD1,700 in the next five years[iv]

The Tanzania government recognizes the importance or Rules of origin as a tool for implementing trade policy objectives and has committed towards using the RoO in a manner that can strengthen the country’s industrial and trade potential. The Tanzanian clearly articulates this position in its trade policy where it states:

The Government of Tanzania will undertake measures to observe RoO preferences requirements prevailing in the different trading arrangements with a view to maximizing benefits accruing in the cause of implementation…with priority focus on building national capacity for effective utilization of this instruments[v]”

While RoO are a common factor in Trade policy, because of the challenges that RoO have in relation to international trade, they are considered as not the tools of most preference in achieving trade policy objectives. Indeed, increasingly governments are being advised that RoO should not be used to achieve trade policy objectives for the following reasons.

Firstly, they can be distortionary and work contrary to trade policy objectives especially where there is no harmonization of trade policy objectives. “If Clear, predictable, transparent and fair, rules of origin and their application facilitate the flow of international trade. Nevertheless, RoO can create unnecessary obstacles to trade and nullify or impair the rights of members in regional and multilateral trading arrangements including the EAC, SADC and WTO. Consequently, RoO have to be applied in a transparent, predictable, consistent and neutral manner so as to avoid their negative effects[vi].

Secondly, rules of origin is also important in facilitating international trade where the objective is free flow of goods, irrespective of trade policies or various countries

It can be sometimes difficult for countries to achieve trade targets in situations where it is a member to multiple contractual obligations which may conflict with its own national trade objectives. This is a common challenge for countries like Tanzania which belongs both to the EAC and SADC and has therefore a challenge in determining or applying RoO for goods originating from both economic blockings

Implementation of rules of origin is sometimes cumbersome and sometimes can be distortionary especially where there is need to determine various technical dimensions to the items for preferential purposes.

Rules of Origin are also not the only instruments for achieving trade policy objectives. They are just one instrument and other instruments could be effectives. These instruments include a combination of other trade policies, which can be elaborated as below:

Trade policy instruments are described as measures taken by governments to influence the direction and pattern of trade development. The application of these instruments in Tanzania is guided by the need to stimulate domestic production, promotion of exports, safeguard domestic industry against dumping practices and protection of consumers. Tanzania exercises these trade policy options in line with its international obligations. These instruments include: Tariff Based (Advalorem) Instruments, NTBs: Trade defense mechanisms; trade development instruments; and international trade policy instruments.

Tariff based instruments, include;

Tariffs, which are major trade instruments for trade policy implementation which are used to achieve duo objectives of revenue generation and protection of domestic industry. Heavy import substitution protection regimes can harm unprotected industry and ultimately reduce consumer welfare. It is for this purpose that Tanzania has been reforming its tariff band structure to a current four band structure (0,10,15 and 25)

Duty Draw Back Schemes (DDB) which are tools for export promotion through refund of import taxes on imported inputs that go towards production for exports. Tanzania has implemented a DDB scheme, although the scheme faces multiple challenges, including difficulties in technical verification. This also includes the mechanisms for VAT refund

Taxation, which comprises of   tax regime characterized by different taxes and levies imposed by the central and local government to achieve a duo purpose of revenue collection and protection used for administration of quota restrictions

Export Taxes which are levied as instruments to discourage export of raw materials in favour of value added products. In Tanzania the use of export taxes has been gradually reduced, with restrictions currently imposed on export of geological or mining products and raw hides and skins.

Non Tarrif Barriers/Measures these are measures aimed the protection of industry that work on the basis of restriction of imports. These instruments include;

Import licenses which is aimed at both controlling and regulation of the volume of imports and also taking track of importers, automatic licences issued automatically without discretionary powers and non-automatic licenses

Reshipment Inspection requirements (PSI) which are sets of activities aimed at the verification of quality, quantity, price, exchange rates, financial terms and customs classification of goods undertaken in the exporting countries

Trade Related Investments Measures (TRIMS)-Local Content Requirements, falling within the WTO TRIMS agreements, which cover a number of restrictive issues on foreign investments in view of their restricting impact. These include conditionalities on local content, local equity, foreign exchange balancing, import obligations and others that are specifically prohibited. This is aimed at enabling local industry to gain the necessary capacity and competence in developing its competitiveness.

Customs Valuation; which involves determination and ascription of value to items based on WTO customs compatible valuation procedures, guided with principles of fairness, uniformity and certainty

Standards-Technical Barriers to trade (TBTs) such as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures and other standards, used as instruments of trade policy to authenticate the quality and specification of imports and exports in conformity with the international safety requirements and regulations aimed at consumer protection.

State Trading Operations which are undertaken by both Government and Non Government enterprises, including marketing boards, which are granted exclusive special rights or privileges including statutory or constitutional powers in the exercise of which they influence through their purchases or sale the level or direction of imports or exports.  State Trading is clearly different from government procurement.

Government Procurement: This refers to a system which governs or regulates government procurement, requiring it to procure goods and services through a centralized international and national procurements process. It requires this process to be fair, transparent and allow competitiveness amongst suppliers and thus lowering costs. In pursuing trade objectives, the policy of transparence and open competitiveness has to be balanced with considerations for protection or stimulation of local industry.

Administrative procedures. These are other instruments that can be used to achieve trade policy objectives. Administrative procedures prevail in developing economies as a response to difficult situations at times of natural disasters such as the need to ensure food security when grain shortages are envisaged due to shortfalls in production yields. These may applied from one region to another as a way of balancing out the shortages. In Tanzania, this instrument has been used from time to time, especially in the control and regulation of export of maize and coffee to neighboring countries.

Trade Instruments

Trade policy objectives are also achieved through other trade defence instruments which are allowed by the WTO for safeguarding specific economic activities within a limited time-frame through application of  a set of instruments. These include:

Safeguard Measures aimed at protecting a sector or subsector of the economy or domestic industry from suffering from certain consequences. These normally take the form of raised tariffs and temporary relief measures

Antidumping aimed at protecting a country’s economy or industry from being flooded by cheap goods, which have no significant economic value. The WTO prescribes action against dumping

Subsidies and Countervailing duties: These include measures that confer benefits to producers and exporters and exist where a public body or government provides financial contribution to producers in the form of grants, soft loans or equity etc. These subsidies can be categorized into permissible and non specific subsidies that are non-actionable, permissible but actionable subsidies and prohibited subsidies. Currently Tanzania has not developed an export subsidy regime although it is permissible under the WTO arrangement.

Rules of origin are a combination of laws, regulations and administrative criteria used by a country to determine the origin of goods and determines how specific goods should be treated for tax purposes.

Trade Development instruments include:

Export Process Zones–This refers to trade development instruments used to stimulate export oriented economic activities through inculcation of a value addition and import culture, acquisition of appropriate technology

Investment Codes and rules which work through compensation for distortions which impede the flow of foreign investments largely due to market imperfections

Export promotion and market linkages which entails provision of support services to exporters with the objective of expanding trade for existing product lines

Export Facilitation which is pursued through the simplification of trade procedures and reduction of high costs involved through measures such as provision of export credit

International Policy Instruments can also be achieved to achieve trade policy objectives and these include

  • Bilateral Cooperation initiatives amongst willing countries depending on the variant agreements between contracting partner’s states
  • Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) which have evolved through the growth and expansion of Economic Integration arrangements like the EAC
  • WTO agreements and Multilateral trading system which aims at stimulation of sustainable economic growth through trade expansion, encouraging specialization and opening up of national economies through elimination and reduction of Non Tarrif Barriers (NTBs)

Conclusively, despite the limitations, rules of origin still play an important role in driving trade policy objectives. However, for them to be effective, they need to be applied in a transparent, fair and predictable manner to avoid causing distortionary effects to international trade.

[i] URT: National Trade Policy for a Competitive economy and export led growth, Ministry of Industries and Trade, February, 2003

[ii] East African Community Customs Union Rules of Origin, September 2005

[iii] ibid

[iv] ibid

[v] ibid

[vi] ibid