Why NTM is a Challenge in Trade Relations? Evidence from India–Africa Agricultural Trade

Introduction

The current world trade regime is not free from protectionism. India and Africa have gone through a rapid expansion of bilateral trade during the last two decades. Both the countries being agrarian societies have strong complementarities in the agriculture sector and apply a diversity of approaches to combat the current developmental issues. Agriculture is an important component of ‘policy priority’ in both the countries. Real growth in Africa’s agriculture sector began with the process ‘globalisation in reverse’ post 2007–08 crises. India too experienced tremendous growth in agriculture post-1960s and economic reforms in 1991. The current debate continues for both the economies to take maximum comparative advantages in agro-trade and diversify their production and to move towards quality improvements in exports for building the trade-growth nexus. Despite tariff reductions worldwide, the recent substantial escalation of non-tariff measures (NTMs) has severely affected the India–Africa international trade. The role of NTMs in the India–Africa trade is unavoidable and has a deep impact on each other’s growth. NTMs are one of the multi-faceted challenges of agriculture and remain a task to judge whether the measures imposed were legitimate or not. Dubey (2016) contended that India is one of the emerging players with a competitive edge, which aims to diversify its economic linkages in Africa and raised the question whether Indian multinationals would be successful in raising Africa’s agriculture sector. For the mutual growth of both the economies, India may leverage its growth strategies and experiences and help in Africa’s development. India’s valuable input can escalate Africa’s strategic interests. On the other hand, Africa too provides a growing platform for India’s investments. Such forward-looking agendas and emerging outreach can definitely synchronise mutual trade and investment.

Literature Review

Desai (1972) studied the India–Africa trade over the period 1960–69 and identified that India mostly exported traditional products such as tea, cotton and spices to Africa. He also suggested that India may engage in trade with developing African countries with diverse exports and attain mutual benefits. Vink (2000) highlighted that there has been paucity of research on the issues related to Africa’s trade. Amanda et al. (2015) stated that both the countries aim to build economic diplomacy with each other. They also analysed the India–Africa trade for 2005–11 and argued that Africa’s export to India remained low overall except with few countries such as South Africa and Nigeria. Martin (2008) studied Africa’s global trade over the period 1948–98 and interpreted that India has emerged as a strong competitor for South Africa’s trade and investment. Naidu (2008) presented the pattern of India–Africa trade over the period 1999–2006 and regarded Africa as a ‘strategic market’. Flames (2011) pointed out that India and South Africa produce similar goods and share confined complementarities and stressed on the promotion of trade facilitation. Sandrey et al. (2011) studied the agro-trade of South Africa over the period 1970–74 and 2006–08 and concluded that the impact of trade liberalisation on South Africa was still unexplored. Roy (2012) highlighted that tariffs and NTMs have reduced the bilateral agro-trade of India–Africa and discussed few measures by which Africa could increase her economic prospects by following the developmental models of India and reduce tariff barriers. In a study conducted by Confederation of Indian Industry and World Trade Organization (WTO 2013), it was highlighted that during 2005–11, NTMs such as standards and technical regulations were one of the major factors which have hindered African exports to India. Folashadé (2013) studied the India–South Africa trade over the period 1995–2002 and argued that protectionist barriers such as tariffs from India have restricted the South Africa’s agro-trade. ASSOCHAM (2015) highlighted that African countries applied mostly pre-shipment inspection measures to restrict the imports of India. It also emphasised on bringing regional co-operation, developing proper regulatory procedures and promoting trade partnerships to achieve more mutual benefits in the agriculture sector. Sidiropoulos and Alden (2015) argued that India’s trade with Africa has increased at both bilateral and multilateral levels with the initiation of the India–Africa Forum Summit (IAFS). Bestbier (2016) while studying non-tariff barriers (NTBs) in South Africa found that India restricted South Africa’s apples imports through 40 per cent import duty. Mullen and Arora (2016) studied the India–Africa trade over the period 2009–15 and discussed the achievements of IAFS and recent developmental programmes. Dubey and Biswas (2016) argued empirically that India was a bigger player than Africa and explained that India’s regular involvement offers economic development to Africa. They also contended that both trading partners have actively participated in developing their trade policies and other trade negotiations at the WTO. Alden and Verma (2016) emphasised that India’s exporters faced many obstacles in making investments in African markets due to the lack of capital resources, business environment and investment agreements. Gieg (2016) discussed that India has attained momentum in trade and investment with Africa and become a ‘decisive emerging power’ in Africa’s international relations and posed challenges for China, which has been ahead in trade with Africa due to earlier liberalisation policies compared to India. Kumar (2017) studied the India–Africa trade over the period 2007–16 and suggested that the Continental Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) and the ‘Asia Africa Growth Corridor’ (AAGC) initiative may bring mutual benefit and synergy for both the partners. It will also generate more market access and reallocation of resources. Mishra (2018) studied the India–Africa trade over the period 2005–15 and analysed the role and impact of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCTA). He also pioneered that African government must work to eliminate and harmonise tariffs and NTBs. It was further suggested that India’s integration effects in Africa may bring the long-term economic growth.

Although there have been few considerable efforts to analyse the India–Africa trade, most of the literature focused on the impact of tariffs and very scarce on NTMs. Against this background, and considering the growing incidence of imposing NTMs, it is necessary to examine the effect of NTMs on the bilateral agro-trade of India and Africa. This research contributes to expand literature by providing empirical analyses of the effects of NTMs on the agro-trade between both the trading partners. The study mainly addresses two research questions: first, what role NTMs play in the bilateral agro-trade of India–Africa? Second, are the NTMs imposed legitimate or justifiable?

Data and Methodology

Unavailability of data is one of the major constraints in the study of NTMs. Till today, UNCTAD TRAINS NTMs is regarded as the major database to study NTMs. The measures are collected from official sources, national trade sources of given countries and different regulations. As a part of qualitative research, trade relations of India–Africa were studied over the period 2010–16 and the cases of bilateral agro-trade restrictions were compiled from the UNCTAD database. For this, it used the approach of content analysis. For the quantitative research, the study calculates the Revealed Trade Barrier (RTB) index to analyse any trade restrictions between both the trading partners. For this, 28 agro-products of the HS-4 digit level were considered for calculations. The study also uses frequency index (F_i), coverage ratio (C_r) and prevalence score (P_s) to highlight the pattern of NTMs in India and selected African countries. Data were taken and compiled from institutional bodies such as Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), World Trade Organization (WTO), International Trade Centre (ITC) Database, etc.

Non-Tariff Measures: An Introduction

Addressing the issues and challenges of trade is not a new phenomenon. For many years, trade among the countries remained restrictive. Governments induced restrictions or barriers on the international trade to protect their domestic market. These trade barriers, mainly tariffs and NTBs, were detrimental and decreased the overall economic efficiency. Tariffs restricted imports by increasing the price of the imported product and protected the domestic products from foreign competition. Post-1990s, tariff reductions worldwide resulted in continued protectionism through the intense use of NTBs or NTMs to affect the cross-border trade. As per the UNCTAD (2012), ‘NTMs are the policy measures other than ordinary customs tariffs that potentially have an economic effect on the international trade in goods, changing quantities traded or prices or both’. NTMs are broadly categorised as technical and non-technical measures. Technical measures include sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), technical barriers to trade (TBT) and pre-shipment inspection. Non-technical measures include intellectual property rights, rules of origin, distribution restrictions, finance measures, etc. NTMs affect trade more ambiguously than tariffs. Different views are present in favour of NTMs which include from protecting domestic exporters to concerns for human life and so on. They are used with trade-distortive and trade-protective intent. NTMs such as standards are crucial factors which create disputes as well as improve food safety systems. They act as barriers as well as catalysts and severely affect the high-value exports of different countries. Exporting countries have to comply with a wide range of requirements such as technical regulations, product standards, customs procedures, etc. Despite the widespread use of NTMs, its effects on the international trade are still understudied. NTMs have become an important agenda from the perspective of meeting economic development, competitiveness and global demand. The effects of NTMs on the agro-trade are still understudied due to its non-generalised diverse impact. In the recent decade, market access in trade depends to a large extent on how trading countries manage NTMs and comply with different regulatory measures.

India–Africa Trade Relations

Africa has gone through a rapid structural transformation in the last decade. Although it is highly dependent on the international aid, it has started promulgating its trade. Africa faces the challenges of food security. It is also prone to critical poverty due to unfavourable trade policies and mounting debt burdens. Africa is not well-equipped in complying with the SPS and TBT measures of developed countries in the agriculture sector. The international trade is a principal source of revenue for Africa and tariffs and NTBs have played a major role in creating trade impediments. Meyersfeld and Meyersfield (2008) argued that factors such as tariffs, dumping and subsidies have severely affected Africa’s agriculture sector. Wood and Mayer (2001) advocated that Africa possessed capability to produce more returns through increased exports in the world market. Taylor (2014) based on the GDP data, regarded Africa as ‘the next Asia is Africa’. In a study done by ECA and OECD (2015), it was pointed out that reducing trade barriers and facilitating trade has been one of the top commitments of Africa which was well powered by establishing the Continental Free Trade Area [CFTA]. Jensen and Sandrey (2015) also pioneered that eliminating tariffs and NTBs in the intra-African trade has a positive impact on trade.

Africa is the next frontier in the economic growth. It is an average trader that needs to draw attention to bring competitiveness and export diversification and liberal trade regimes. Some African countries have high chances to benefit from trade openness in spite of practicing high trade protection. It depends a lot on the other advanced countries that how Africa can achieve more opportunities through international trade.

On the other hand, India has experienced a paradigm shift in its trade right from the economic reforms in 1991. Remarkable changes have occurred in the international trade where India has also embraced new market strategies for building the two-way trade in the multilateral trading system. Still, a huge trade gap prevails between India and its few trading partners. India has made strenuous efforts to develop the agriculture sector. But bans on agro-products cause harm to farmers as well as the traders. India is regarded as a new influential power in the global arena. As a commitment to the WTO, it actively participates in the world trade but its shares are low compared to the developed countries. Anti-dumping duties and import bans are also highly frequent here. NTMs are one of the major factors behind its low growth and trade. Unprecedented and unforeseen growth in NTMs can be found in India where developed countries have highly restricted India’s agro-products especially horticultural products. Food security agendas such as implementation of safety standards result in high costs making India’s agro-trade sensitive. Thus, there is an urgent need to take NTMs vigorously and maintain consistency as per the WTO guidelines.

As per the data available from APEDA (2018), in 2016–17, among all the African countries, India imported maximum pulses (value USD 303.31 million) from East Africa followed by cocoa products (USD 2.49 million) and fruits and vegetables seeds (USD 2.02 million). From North Africa, pulses (USD 71.99 million) were also highly imported followed by other fresh fruits (USD 60.46 million). From West Africa, top imports were cocoa products (USD 33.02 million) followed again by pulses (USD 8.97 million). From Central Africa, pulses (USD 54.92 million) again remained as the top exports followed by the cocoa products (USD 4.47 million).

Table 1 shows that during the period 2010–16, India has exported the maximum agro-products to West Africa. The exports increased from USD 183.71 million in 2010 to USD 1277 million in 2016. During the same period, the exports to East Africa grew from USD 89.96 million to USD 424.68 million. India’s exports to Central Africa increased from USD 6.13 million in 2010 to USD 34.53 million in 2016.

Table 2 shows that India’s agro-imports were maximum only from East African countries during the period 2010–16. Imports from the other African countries were very low. The value of agro-imports from West Africa was USD 31.36 million in 2010 which increased to USD 108.02 million in 2011 but decreased to USD 40.01 million in 2016. The value of the agro-imports from North Africa grew from USD 23.14 million in 2010 to USD 117.49 million in 2016 but that of the agro-imports from South African Customs Union decreased from USD 66.52 million to USD 15.84 million during the same period.

India has engaged in many trade agreements with Africa and liberalised many of her tariff lines as duty free for African countries. India started a programme named Duty Free Tariff Preference (DFTP- LDC) in 2008 which was also revised in 2014. It was a big booster for creating low tariff lines. In a report prepared by Afreximbank and Exim India (2018), it was reflected that few African countries were unaware of the DFTP scheme which resulted in restrictions in exports into India.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

India’s Exports of Agro-Products to Africa (USD, Million)

Year	East Africa	West Africa	North Africa	Central Africa	South African Customs Union (SACU)
2010	89.96	183.71	417.88	6.13	48.35
2011	253.69	1106.41	596.77	20.45	160.18
2012	623.76	1736.43	635.31	43.53	224.32
2013	528.29	1682.38	813.86	44.56	229.04
2014	426.12	1413.03	828.50	45.88	192.26
2015	403.33	1267.06	682.68	37.09	141.72
2016	424.68	1277.95	623.69	34.53	156.21

Source: APEDA 2018. http://agriexchange.apeda.gov.in/indexp/reportlist.aspx

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

India’s Imports of Agro-Products from Africa (USD Million)

Year	East Africa	West Africa	North Africa	Central Africa	South African Customs Union (SACU)
2010	320.30	31.36	23.14	42.16	66.52
2011	141.42	108.02	36.46	39.58	19.10
2012	303.06	125.88	65.46	83.02	31.68
2013	333.14	71.30	53.62	38.50	26.22
2014	399.12	133.04	124.52	82.46	30.48
2015	508.14	26.16	144.04	159.76	43.88
2016	308.58	40.01	117.59	62.83	15.84

Source: APEDA 2018. http://agriexchange.apeda.gov.in/indexp/reportlist.aspx

Table 3 provides the list of selected trade agreements between India and African countries and their impact on the agro-trade. Many trade agreements were framed to strengthen the trade relations between these two trading partners. The first trade agreement between India and any African country was with Cameroon which was signed on 22 February 1968. Further, agreements were also signed with Ghana, Mauritius, Senegal, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. These agreements mainly focused on the trade promotion where emphasis was given on increasing the agro-trade of products such as cereals, tea, coffee, cotton, spices, vegetable oils, etc. It also aimed to create mutual trade benefits and the removal of trade barriers. It was also found that regular Memorandum of Understanding (MoUs) is being signed for encouraging bilateral trade. One such MoU was made between India and Mozambique for the trade of pulses. It can be inferred that government of both the countries view trade as an extremely important factor for prosperity but NTMs have severely affected the economic growth and reduced the trade volumes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Impact of Trade Agreements on Agro-Trade Between India and Selected African Countries

Year	Country	Remarks
22 February 1968	Cameroon	The agreement aimed to co-operate mutual benefits and strengthen economic relations. The agro-products encouraged for export from Cameroon to India were: spices, edible oils, chillies, green roasted or ground coffee, sugar, tea, fruit juices, chutneys, confectionery and biscuits, chocolates, groundnuts, bananas, cocoa, seeds and oilcakes, vegetable oils, oilseeds and essential oils. Agro-exports encouraged from India to Cameroon were: spices, preserved fruits, juices, pickles, chutneys, hydrogenated and vegetable oils.
22 May 1974	Senegal	As per the agreement, agro-exports encouraged from Senegal to India were: live animals, cotton and raw cashew nuts. However, the agro-exports encouraged from India to Senegal were tea and coffee.
22 May 1981	Zimbabwe	As per the agreement, agro-exports encouraged from Zimbabwe to India were: vegetable oils, sugar, meat products, maize, tea, coffee, beans, groundnuts and oil cakes. However, the agro-exports encouraged from India to Zimbabwe were: spices, pepper, cardamom, oilcakes, rice, marine products and sugar.
12 October 1981	Ghana	As per the agreement, the agro-exports encouraged from Ghana to India were: cocoa beans, cocoa products, timber products, coffee and pineapples (fresh and canned), whereas from India to Ghana were: tea, spices including pepper and cardamom, oil cakes, tobacco, rice, marine products, raw jute, agricultural machinery and equipments, etc.
24 November 1981	Uganda	The agreement encouraged the agro-exports from Uganda to India of products such as cotton and its by-products, cotton yarn, coffee, cassava, ginger, pineapples, peas, beans, groundnuts, soya beans, fish and fish products, tobacco, tea and sugar. The agro-exports encouraged from India to Uganda were: spices, pepper, cardamom, oilcakes, rice and marine products.
28 October 1982	Mozambique	As per the contract, both the parties agreed to accord most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment for import–export licenses, exempt custom duties and other taxes to promote mutual trade, and establish a Joint Committee to meet once every 2 years to discuss emerging trade issues and initiate activities like examining trade pattern, formulating measures and recommendations for higher trade, etc.
27January1983	Nigeria	The agreement aimed to increase the mutual trade.
4 October 1986	Angola	The agreement encouraged the exports of foodstuffs including wheat and rice from India to Angola.
11 November 1988	Zaire	The agreement looked forward to increase the mutual trade.
13 June 1990	De La	Accord MFN treatment and promote trade, etc.
17 February 1993	Cote D’Ivoire	It proposed to accord MFN treatment and increase the trade in conformity with laws and regulations.
15 January 1999	Liberia	Accord MFN treatment for trade, promote business partnership in fairs, exhibitions and increase investment as well as technological cooperation for both domestic production as well as exports.
22 August 1994	South Africa	Accord MFN treatment and promote mutual trade set up a Joint Trade Committee, etc.
18 September 1998	Seychelles	The agreement looked forward to develop MFN treatment and build mutual trade.
14 January 2000	Tanzania	The agreement aimed to increase the mutual trade.
12 January 2001	Botswana	Both parties agreed to grant MFN treatment and initiate technological cooperation for domestic production and exports.
10 March 2002	Mauritius	A Joint Trade Committee was set to meet once every 2 years to discuss emerging trade issues and initiate activities such as examining trade pattern, formulating measures and recommendations for higher trade, etc.
18 April 2002	Swaziland	The agreement aimed to increase the mutual trade.
7 September 2004	Southern African Customs Union (SACU)	The IndiaSACU Preferential Trade Agreement was signed. Both partners agreed on SPS, TBT, dispute settlement procedures and ‘Customs Cooperation and Trade Facilitation’ procedures.
21 April 2003	Zambia	The agreement aimed to encourage the trade and organise trade fairs, etc.
20 January 2005	Chile	A preferential trade agreement was signed on 8 March 2006.
8 July 2016	Mozambique	A MoU was signed between India and Mozambique to increase pulses bilateral trade during period 2016–2020.
12 September 2018	Egypt	As per the agreement, a MoU was signed for promoting agriculture and allied sectors including agro-trade, food safety, etc.

Source: Government of India (2018).

Abbreviations: MFN = most favoured nation; SACU = Southern African Customs Union; SPS = sanitary and phytosanitary measures; TBT = technical barriers to trade.

NTMs in India–Africa’s Agro-Trade

NTMs have a more trade-inhibiting impact than the tariffs in the India–Africa trade (Kareem 2016). A report by Afreximbank and Exim India (2018) analysed that infrastructure deficit in African countries has increased the NTMs and transaction costs for Indian exporters. UNCTAD (2018) illustrated that quantitative restrictions in agriculture are prevalent in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) which is mostly applied by Nigeria.

Table 4 shows the trend of NTMs in India and selected 33 African countries in general over the period from December 2000 to 30 June 2018. India is one of the frequent users of NTMs and is the champion country in using anti-dumping (AD) measures in the world to restrict trade. India used more AD measures compared to 33 African countries together (336 AD** measures compared to Africa’s 62). India has also used more quantitative restrictions (59 measures) compared to Africa (50 measures). Africa on the other hand has used maximum technical measures, for example, 515 SPS and 2703 TBT measures compared to India (220 SPS and 125 TBT measures). Africa also widely uses the tariff rate quota and export subsidies.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Trend of NTMs Imposed by India and Africa in the World from 1995 to 30 June 2018 (in No.)

Measures	India	Africa1
SPS	220	515
TBT	125	2703
AD2	336	62
Countervailing duties2	2	2
Safeguard measures	4	11
Special safeguards	–	–
Quantitative restrictions	59	50
Tariff rate quotas	3	82
Export subsidies	–	62

Source: WTO 2018. https://i-tip.wto.org/goods/default.aspx?language=en

Notes: ¹ Total countries included for this research are 33. List of countries are: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, The Gambia, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

² Data of the period from December 2000 to 30 June 2018 were analysed.

Abbreviations: AD = anti-dumping; NTMs = non-tariff measures; SPS = sanitary and hytosanitary; TBT = technical barriers to trade.

Table 5 depicts the three NTM indicators for India and Africa. The frequency ratio shows the presence or absence of an NTM or the percentage of the products subject to NTM. The coverage ratio shows the percentage of imports subject to NTM and the prevalence score shows the average number of NTMs applied to a product. It is inferred from Table 5 that among African countries, Nigeria has used maximum NTMs in order to restrict the international trade in general as well as in the agriculture sector. Other countries applying most NTMs are Algeria, Liberia, Tunisia, etc. In the case of India, the frequency index and the coverage ratio in agriculture were found to be very high (96 and 100 per cent) respectively and the prevalence score was 4.2 per cent.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

NTM Scores of India and African Countries 2018

Country	Frequency Index (%)		Coverage Ratio (%)		Prevalence Score (%)
	In general	In the agriculture sector (HS 2-level products)	In general	In the agriculture sector (HS 2-level products)	In general	In the agriculture sector (HS 2-level products)
Algeria	54	97	57	92	3.6	10.6
Benin	30	100	64	100	1.7	9.4
Burkina Faso	19	99	54	100	0.6	3.2
Cameroon	11	76	47	90	0.6	3.0
Cote d’Ivoire	13	91	22	90	0.2	1.0
Gambia	17	90	61	88	1.8	11.4
Ghana	35	96	50	99	2.6	9.7
Liberia	50	98	19	99	1.7	6.8
Niger	19	94	29	99	0.6	3.0
Nigeria	91	100	94	100	2.3	8.3
Senegal	20	64	50	76	0.5	2.4
Tunisia	61	97	71	94	2.2	7.1
India	29	96	42	100	2.1	10.6

Source: UNCTAD 2018. http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DITC/Trade-Analysis/Non-Tariff-Measures.aspx?Ev=4,3

Table 6 elaborates the trade restrictions imposed by African countries on India’s agro-products. Few African countries such as Guinea, Ivory Coast, Liberia of Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, The Gambia and Tunisia have actively restricted India’s agro-products through different measures. Phytosanitary certificates are the major root cause behind the rejection of consignments and trade prohibitions. Seychelles demanded certificates for the import of India’s fresh tomatoes into the country. This was also followed by Guinea, Ivory Coast and Mauritania. The presence of any pest in India’s agro-imports has been taken seriously by African countries. Thus, the standards have diminished India’s trade with African countries. It was noticed that with the imposing of a measure, trade of the particular product was not conducted. In the case of rice, the scenario was quite different. Guinea had imposed a pre-shipment inspection on rice imports of India into the country in 2011. The concern was taken seriously by India and the required necessary step was taken. This did not reduce the trade in the next subsequent years to Guinea. But, the measure had curbed the trade of other products such as wheat, sugar, etc., to Guinea.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Trade Restrictions Imposed by African Countries Against India’s Agro-Products

Country	Trade Restriction
Benin	On 29 March 1991, it used price inspection measure and notified that the import of agro-products was only allowed from the port and the airport of the Cotonou city of the country. The products affected were meat of bovine animals (HS0202), meat of rabbits (HS0208), frozen fish (HS0303), fish fillets (HS0304), etc. On September 2006, Benin had banned the imports of vegetable oils such as soya bean (HS1507), groundnut oil (HS1508) and olive oil (HS1509) from India. Since then, during 2006–2018, no exports have been made from India to Benin for this product. Further, on 18 December 2007, Benin had again temporarily prohibited the import of food oils from India. The products affected were pig fats (HS1501), fats of bovine animals (HS1502), etc. Since 2007, no exports have been made from India.
Guinea	On 29 September 2006, used SPS measures to prohibit the imports of products such as all live birds (HS0105) and live animals excluding horses (HS0106) with avian influenza. During the same period, Guinea wanted an authorisation certificate from India from the National Directorate of Livestock for the imports of products such as (HS0105), (HS0106), fresh or chilled fish livers (HS030270), birds eggs in shell, etc. Such a measure has resulted to no trade from India to Guinea of given products since 2006.
	Guinea also made the international veterinary certificate compulsory for India’s imports of products such as meat edible offal of fowls (HS0207), bird’s eggs in shell (HS0407), etc. On 11 August 2011, it used pre-shipment inspection and made entry points specifications for the trade of rice (HS1006), wheat (HS1101) and cereal flours (HS1102), vegetable oils (HS1516), sugar (HS1701), etc. This measure had a little impact on the trade of rice since the exports of rice from India were USD 2212 in 2011 which increased to USD 97180 in 2012 and USD 172634 in 2018. This also shows the competency of India in handling NTMs in the rice trade. But in the case of wheat, India’s exports to Guinea were USD 21 in 2011 which decreased to USD 10 in 2012 and USD 2 in 2014. It reached to USD 11 in 2018.
Ivory Coast	On 10 December 1963, it imposed SPS measures and prohibited edible fruit (HS060220) from India. Further, if imported with conditions, it required inspection on its arrival in the country as well a phytosanitary certificate. During the same period, it had prohibited the imports of banana fruit (HS0803), vine (vitis) (HS060220) fresh or dried guavas (HS080450), maize seed for sowing (HS100510) and rice (HS 100610). Further, it notified that citrus fruit fresh or dried (HS0805) and vegetable products (HS140490) were prohibited if they contained pest Xanthomonas citri. Product Allium spp (HS060110) was prohibited from countries where onion charcoal was used for vegetable material for consumption of allium spp. Further, it prohibited the imports of pineapple fruit (HS080430) if pest Dacus dorsalis was present. Citrus fruits (HS0805) were prohibited if pest bacteria canker or oriental fly was present. The imports of paddy-whole grain were permitted with prior treatment.
Mauritania	On 1 August 1965, it used SPS measures and required phytosanitary certificates for indicating that the products are disease free. The products affected were live animals and different varieties of fish. It also made health inspection compulsory for imported pets on the same day. On 1 November 2002, it made phytosanitary certificates (updated) necessary for the imports of plant and plant materials (HS060220) followed by their inspection. No trade has been made from India for this product since 2002 into the country.
Morocco	On 1 September 1994, it imposed SPS measures on India’s agro-products and required veterinary health certificates for the imports of animal products stating that the products were free from contagious diseases and were approved by authorised slaughterhouses. Products affected were pigs or boars (HS050210), products of dead animals (HS051199), etc.
Tunisia	On 1 August 2001, it used export-related measures and notified that products containing hazardous wastes would be allowed with prior approval from Ministry of Environment. Products affected were skins and parts of birds (HS050590), bones and horncores and their powder waste (HS050690), vegetable products (HS140490), poultry fat (HS150190), glycerol (HS1520), fats of bovine sheep or goats excluding tallow (HS150290), cocoa shells (HS1802), etc.
	On 1 May 2012, it used SPS measures and notified that products with pest Bactrocera zonanta would be prohibited. The products affected were fresh or dried guavas, mangoes (HS080450), fresh papayas (HS080720) and fresh sour cherries (HS080921). No export was made from India to Tunisia for these three products during 2012–2018. Further, on 1 August 2011, it notified that products if contaminated with avian influenza are prohibited. The products in the list are live birds of prey (HS010631), live parrots (HS010632), bird’s eggs in shell (HS0407), skins and other parts of birds (HS0505), etc. With this NTM, no trade was made between both the trading partners for given agro-products.
The Gambia	On 28 May 2010, it used price control measures and applied 1 per cent import levy on all the agro-products coming from India.
Liberia	On 3 January 2011, it used price control measures for all goods from India. It also required the importers to pay a tariff of 0.5 per cent of the CIF value of goods imported to Liberia.
Seychelles	On 21 December 2016, it used SPS measures to restrict India’s fresh tomatoes (HS070200) due to risks arising from the presence of pest Tuta Absoluta. Further, Seychelles also applied phytosanitary conditions for imports from India.
Zimbabwe	On 22 June 2012, Zimbabwe used price control measures and imposed a surtax of 25 per cent ad valorem on India’s agro-products such as fresh or chilled chicken, processed cheese, peas, beans, jams, tomato sauces, biscuits, etc.

Source: Compiled from UNCTAD NTMs database 2018. http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DITC/Trade-Analysis/Non-Tariff-Measures.aspx?Ev=4,3

Abbreviations: CIF = cost, insurance and freight; NTM = non-tariff measure; SPS = sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

It was evident from Table 7 that trade restrictions were also imposed by India on African countries’ agro-products. India has applied SPS measures and required Africa’s agro-products to be treated with methyl bromide fumigation (MBF) prior to imports. India had also significantly affected Chile’s agro-imports. It restricted alcoholic beverages, fruits, vegetables, etc., and notified labelling requirements for Chile’s products. A dramatic decline can be noticed in Chile’s exports due to imposing of NTMs. For example, the value of Chile’s exports of apples (HS0808) to India was USD 12442 in 2008 which increased to USD 36246 in 2014 but when India imposed a TBT measure in 2015, during the same year, Chile’s exports decreased to USD 15232. This figure later increased to USD 17330 in 2017. Thus, a significant consequence of NTMs can be seen here. India also restricted the agro-products of countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, etc. SPS have curtailed the exports of many agro-products for African countries to India.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 7.

Trade Restrictions Imposed by India on African Countries’ Agro-Products

Country	Trade Restriction
India	India has used SPS measures for many African agro-products. On 1 January 2004, it notified African countries that product Artemisia annua (seeds for sowing (HS12113019) should be free from tobacco rattle virus. Product Irvingia seeds for consumption (HS12119019) should be free from weed seeds and plant debris. Further, India had notified that cocoa (HS060210) should not be imported into the country from Africa. India restricted the imports of agro-products of mainly Cote d’Ivoire, Sudan, Ghana, Chile and South Africa through SPS measures. India made the use of methyl bromide fumigation (MBF) mandatory for agro-products such as cashew nuts, timber, peas and pulses from January 2017 onwards for all African trading partners. Senegal reported that many countries have restricted its MBF use due to the presence of high toxicity and Montreal Protocol-related issues. Thus, India relaxed this requirement for Senegal. Further, Senegal pointed out that the measure was still in force and should be removed since other African countries such as Burkina Faso, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria and Togo were also affected by this measure. On this, India had relaxed the measure till 31 December 2017 and asked for alternative fumigants if available. On 9 March 2016, a draft concerning Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2015, was made for the trade of alcoholic beverages from Chile and South Africa. On 4 November 2015, India used TBT measures and notified Chile that the import of apples will be from only one port instead of the previous four ports. On 24 March 2011, India had put specific labelling requirements for Chile’s food and processed food products. On 9 July 2014, Chile complained against India’s requirement of MBF on blueberries and avocados. Later, India considered this factor and asked Chile to produce necessary documents. On 1 January 2004, India had imposed many SPS measures and created trade barriers for Africa’s agro-products. • For Algeria, miracle fruit (HS060210) should not contain any weed seeds. No trade was noticed between both the countries during 2004–2018. • For Egypt, potato for consumption (HS070190) should not contain any pest. Also, for the import of lettuce (for consumption) (HS07051), no soil and plant debris should be present and it must be fumigated with MB. The export of this product from Egypt to India was USD 77 in 2004 which decreased to USD 6 in 2005. From 2006 to 2018, there has been no trade of this product between both the countries. Further, India notified that product lawsonia (HS14049090) should not contain any soil or plant debris. No exports were made to India during 2004–2018. • For Ghana and South Africa, weed seeds should not be present in product gloriosa (seeds for sowing) (HS12119019). The export of this product to India has remained nil during 2004–2018. • For Madagascar, raphia (HS14019090) should not contain any coconut beetle. The export of this product to India has remained nil during 2004–2018.
	• For Mauritius, for the import of miracle fruit (seed for sowing) (HS12099910) and mangosteen (HS060210), an approval was necessary from the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation and the product should be free from weed seeds. India made post-entry quarantine growing for six to nine months except for research for durian (HS060210) for Mauritius. Export of this product to India has remained nil during 2004–2018. • For Morocco, olive leaves for consumption (HS12119029) should be free from pests. Export of this product to India has remained nil during 2004 to 2018. • For Nigeria, dried chips of tuber (HS071410) should not contain soil or plant debris. The export of this product to India has remained nil during 2004 to 2018. • For South Africa, India made post-entry quarantine growing for six months for lucky bamboo (HS06029090). It also wanted the product from South Africa to be free from silver leaf whitefly, banana moth and tomato foot rot. Also, no pest or soil should be present in wild olive (HS060210) imports.  The NTM created trade barrier for South Africa to export lucky bamboo (HS06029090) to India. The exports were nil in 2004 which reached to USD 55 in 2008 and USD 101 in 2013 but subsequently zero during 2014–2018. India also required squash (HS12099190) to undergo crop inspection.

Source: Compiled from UNCTAD NTMs database 2018. Trade data referred from ITC UNCOMTRADE database 2018. http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DITC/Trade-Analysis/Non-Tariff-Measures.aspx?Ev=4,3

Abbreviations: MBF = methyl bromide fumigation; SPS = sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

Table 8 highlights the RTB value of 28 agro-products (HS-4 digit level) between India and all the African countries. For many agro-products, the values obtained were both zero and one. The value less than one indicates the presence of trade barriers in the importing country. The products such as live horses (HS0101), meat of bovine animals (HS0202), live fish (HS0301), potato seed (HS0701), tomatoes (HS0702), cabbages (HS0704) and wheat (HS1001) obtained value zero. This shows that India is exporting these commodities relatively more to the rest of the world than to African countries possibly due to the presence of trade barriers in Africa. But, the RTB results for cocoa (HS1803) has increased from 1.13 in 2010 to 10.44 in 2017. This shows that the product has high export potential in Africa and is free from any trade barrier. It is important to note that cocoa is also one of the top products exported by India to East Africa and Central Africa. Other products where the RTB value was high are cloves, whole fruit and stems (HS0907). The calculated value was 2.74 in 2010 which increased to 12.70 in 2016. Coconut (HS0801) also had the value more than one during 2010–2017. It was 10.29 in 2010 which increased to 11.31 in 2014 and 11.97 in 2017. This gives the sign of high demand and almost no trade restriction in Africa. The RTB value obtained for India’s horticultural products such as citrus fruits fresh or dried (HS0805) was 4.93 in 2010 which reached to 12.70 in 2016. This may probably be due to the impact of rainbow revolution (for fruits). The value for cotton and cocoa was also more than one which may be due to silver fibre revolution and brown revolution in India. But, still trade barriers from Africa can be found in many agro-products such as maize (HS1005), cane or beet, sugar (HS1701) wine of fresh grapes (HS2204), etc.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 8.

RTB Index Between India and Africa (in %)

S. No.	Product	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
1	HS0101 (Live horses, asses, mules & hinnies)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2	HS0201 (Meat of bovine animals, fresh or chilled)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3	HS0301 (Live fish)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4	HS0409 (Natural honey)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
5	HS0508 (Coral and similar materials & shells of mollusks)	3.63	5.01	1.56	2.09	2.84	0.33	4.95	7.00
6	HS0602 (Live plants including their roots, cuttings and slips)	0.17	0.16	0.13	0.39	0.42	0.29	0.44	0.27
7	HS0604 (Foliage, branches and other parts of plants)	3.90	2.81	3.95	8.46	4.65	3.80	3.90	3.76
8	HS0701 (Potatoes fresh or chilled seed)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
9	HS0702 (Tomatoes fresh or chilled)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
10	HS0704 (Cabbages, cauliflower)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
11	HS0713 (Dried leguminous vegetables, shelled whether or not skinned or split)	1.47	1.29	1.29	1.17	1.35	1.32	1.72	0.69
12	HS0801 (Coconuts, Brazil nuts and cashew nuts, fresh or dried)	10.29	10.62	10.46	11.1	11.31	11.13	13.15	11.97
13	HS0805 (Citrus fruit, fresh or dried)	4.93	2.17	6.75	10.34	9.85	10.62	12.70	1.06
14	HS0806 (Grapes fresh or dried)	0.08	0.07	0.13	0.05	0.03	0.04	0.07	0.11
15	HS0808 (Apples)	0.19	0.21	0.22	0.15	0.24	0.36	0.45	0.06
16	HS0902 (Tea, whether or not flavoured)	3.36	0	3.32	4.70	3.53	3.39	4.10	4.29
17	HS0905 (Vanilla)	0.29	0	1.41	8.15	10.38	10.73	5.58	1.20
18	HS0907 (Cloves, whole fruit, cloves and stems)	2.74	4.80	8.59	7.11	10.11	9.45	12.70	9.67
19	HS1001 (Wheat and meslin)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
20	HS1003 (Barley)	0.22	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
21	HS1005 (Maize or corn)	0	0	0	0.43	0.69	0.14	0.12	0.26
22	HS1006 (Rice)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
23	HS1701 (Cane or beet sugar, chemically pure sucrose)	0.03	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
24	HS1801 (Cocoa beans whole or broken, raw or roasted)	2.58	9.40	9.55	3.33	8.67	0.22	4.27	4.68
25	HS1803 (Cocoa paste, whether or not defatted)	1.14	2.44	3.03	10.66	9.46	9.43	11.38	10.44
26	HS2008 (Fruits, nuts and edible parts of plants, prepared or preserved)	0.20	0.08	0.13	0.15	1.21	0.33	0.77	1.03
27	HS2204 (Wine of fresh grapes, including fortified wines, partly fermented)	0.29	0.29	0.22	0.24	0.26	0.04	0.43	0.28
28	HS5201 (Cotton not carded or combed)	4.86	4.75	5.38	4.62	6.36	5.56	4.05	3.87

Source: Authors’ own calculation based on data from ITC UNCOMTRADE database 2018. http://www.intracen.org/itc/market-info-tools/trade-statistics/

Analysis and Discussion

India and Africa are two major consumer markets. Economic liberalism in both the countries needs to be designed in such a way that they fully avail the comparative advantages and factor endowments. India and Africa have high levels of trade protection which severely leads to economic distortions. Eliminating NTMs as well as NTBs should be the top priority. For this, government has to proactively participate and create enabling environment which can bring structural transformation. Today, there are two important agendas which both the trading partners must consider seriously. First, the reduction of NTMs and second the transparency in NTMs. International agreements play a crucial role in NTMs reduction because if both the trading partners come to any agreement, they also agree to comply with the different obligations of the institutional bodies such as the WTO. But, in the real world, practices found are quite different. Despite the strict norms adopted by India to promote food safety and health standards, defects persist in India’s packaging norms, which results in trade rejections by the outside foreign market due to inefficiency in complying with the international standards. This definitely decreases the export potential of exporters. To avoid such contaminations, many rules and regulations are continuously being made and awareness is created. In this regard, Indian government bodies such as APEDA have also made positive interventions for creating regular awareness among the exporting communities for the promotion of India’s agro-trade. It is essential for Africa as a participant for the globalisation process that whether it wants to continue engaging in global trade or become an investment destination for others or be a self-sufficient player in the international trade. SPS measures are the most crucial factor for the export loss of many agro-products in Africa. Thus, it can be interpreted that when NTMs would be eliminated and necessary negotiations would be made, the trade between India and African countries would flourish.

India has become an important export destination for South Africa in many products. The exports from South Africa to India increased from 5168 Rm in 2006 to 17996 Rm in 2008 (International Trade and Economic Development Division 2010). South Africa is regarded as a ‘predominantly modern market’. Edwards and Alves (2006) consider South Africa as a ‘competitive, outward oriented economy’. Kirsten et al. (2007) argued that trade restrictions were present in South Africa’s agro-trade since 1994 where wide tariff rates were fixed but later quantitative restrictions and price control measures have replaced tariffs. High Commission of India Pretoria, South Africa (2019) also described that India had imposed embargo with South Africa in 1946. Later, it started trade with the country from 1993. Further, regular visits were made by both the government authorities to promote and foster trade and cooperation in different agendas. Further, IBSA was formed on 6 June 2003 and BRICS in 2011. Many agreements were made and priority sectors were identified for the growth between both the trading partners. Agriculture was also a key area in this. This can be seen through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Cooperation in the Field of Agriculture and Allied Sectors which was signed on June 2010. Then, Harshe (2012) also highlighted that the high tariff barriers between India and South Africa have reduced trade and stressed to increase the strategic partnership through taking the lessons from each other’s strengths. Harshe (2010) argued that India’s consistent trade relations with South Africa will help India to access other Southern and West African countries. Oliver (2013) explained how South Africa was included in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and emphasised that India has rapidly increased her presence in Africa. Ofodile (2011) endorsed on the role of India and South Africa as major players in the global trade and investment in the international arena. Ekor et al. (2015) calculated the average trade intensity index (TII) between India and South Africa and concluded that India had the highest trade intensity in BRICS.

In order to encourage the South–South trade, a trilateral partnership named India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) was also created on June 2003. On 12 September 2018, a MoU was signed between India and Egypt over the mutual co-operation in different segments of agriculture and allied sectors which included food safety and food security. Upfront investments in agriculture in both the countries can create good will in long term. Revitalizing agriculture to bring transformational change is an important phenomenon. Building agricultural infrastructure can definitely catalyse the productivity. India may leverage its growth strategy and experiences and help in Africa’s development. India’s valuable input can escalate Africa’s strategic interests. On the other hand, Africa too provides a growing platform for India’s investments. Such forward-looking agendas and emerging outreach can definitely synchronise both trading partner’s trade and investment. Different trade initiatives were also started from time to time for making sound strategy in lieu of trade and investment. Puri (2007) suggested for a trilateral approach comprising convergence, co-operation and collaboration to combat the barriers related to standards between India, Brazil and South Africa. He also favoured that economic integration is the right direction to dismantle SPS and TBT issues to bring a positive change in the trade.

Agriculture is an emerging sector of co-operation between both the countries. India’s imports from African countries have been confined to selected countries. There is a need to overhaul the production capacity of African countries in order to increase the exporting capability and benefit from India as a favourable export destination (Mohanty and Chaturvedi 2008). Forward-looking comprehensive reforms should be brought in Africa by India by engaging in different trade agreements and providing other trade preferences. Reduction of NTBs followed by the tariff liberalisation will create a win-win situation for both the trading partners (Dash 2014). It is difficult to fully eliminate NTMs because they are important from the point of sustainable development and food safety. But, the trade costs emerging out of these NTMs can be reduced through adopting regulatory mechanisms and mutual recognition by both the trading partners. African countries should try to converge towards the adoption of international standards in the agro-products which will bring competitiveness in their firms and help in market access. At the same time, they should develop a mechanism to find out the most appropriate level of protection which they may impose so that the trade does not become distortive (UNCTAD 2018). Panagariya (2003) had also given a very interesting conclusion in the paper entitled ‘International Trade’ that a ban or restriction is not a solution to combat the environmental effects emerging due to the international trade. Instead, new environmental policies should be embedded in the trade policies which must fulfil the economic objectives and must not harm the environment. Chakrabarty (2017) had also suggested that India must implement proactive initiatives based on the priority areas in lifting Africa’s food insecurity. For example, Indian seed companies can provide seeds to African producers and help in increasing the agricultural production level in the continent.

Further, in a report by the World Bank (2000), it was suggested that African countries should participate in multilateral negotiations in agriculture and dismantle restrictive trade measures. Draper et al. (2006) argued that India can pose threat in the tea trade for South Africa when negotiating for a free trade agreement. India also has a stiff competition in the cotton trade. Mpinganjira (2012) also emphasised that African countries should negotiate preferential trading agreements and take advantage of India’s increasing exports though diversification.

Conclusion

NTMs have become complex and pervasive tools to address legitimate concerns, which sometimes become illegitimate. This study has used the theoretical literature as well as economic analysis from the RTB index to interpret the expanding role of NTMs in the agro-trade between India and Africa. This research solves the first question and shows that NTMs play a crucial role in the bilateral trade of India–Africa. India’s rich agro-trade potential shows a positive trade with Africa in products such as spices, horticultural products, cocoa, cotton, etc. The volume of agro-trade from India to African countries had increased but agro-trade from Africa to India had declined (Tables 1 and 2). Trade relations between both the trading partners in recent times have been strengthened where creating trade agreements has an appealing impact on the externality of the agro-trade (Table 3). It is significant to analyse whether NTMs are being reduced or increased. India has been a champion user of anti-dumping measures in the world till date, whereas African countries prefer to apply mostly technical measures (Table 4). There are also opportunities present for both the trading partners in many agro-products to benefit from the trade agreements followed by the mutual reduction of NTMs. The agriculture sector is highly protected through NTMs by many African countries such as Nigeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Liberia, etc. India has also high agriculture protection through different NTMs (Table 5). Africa has restricted India’s many agro-products imports into the country (Table 6). On the other hand, India has also restricted the agro-products of Africa (Table 7). The results from the RTB index clearly show the complex nature of trade practices in the recent times (Table 8). The continuous use of NTMs by few African countries such as Ivory Coast, Guinea, Mauritania and Chile shows that NTMs has become a major tool to restrict the trade.

Africa used NTMs to ensure the safe agro-imports into the country and protect the domestic trade within the continent. Similar conditions prevail in India too but rapid trade liberalisation has improved trade linkages with African countries. Based on the number of trade restrictions imposed by both the trading partners on each other’s agro-products, it is difficult to say for the second research question whether the NTMs imposed on the agro-products were legitimate or justifiable since both the trading partners are on the way to achieve excellence in economic growth by protecting their domestic production. This problem can be solved by reducing the frequent application of NTMs and applying the strategic policy to a large extent. Also, transparency in NTMs must be a major concern. Both the trading partners may benefit by engaging in extensive trade through creating a favourable trading environment and value-added production. NTMs are not of recent origin between both the trading partners. It is the high time to develop and strengthen economic relations by mutual reduction of NTMs. This will have profound effects on providing opportunities for expanding foreign markets and bringing economic integration between both the trading partners. Thus, if both the trading partners try to take preventive lessons from now onwards, it would flourish trade and investment in a balanced way.

Market access, productivity enhancement, conformity assessment and favourable trade environment must be given top priority to strengthen the India–Africa trade ties. Since Africa has become more structured and institutionalised than before, it can take lessons from India to achieve food security and become an emerging partner in the global agriculture sector in the twenty-first century. Recent improvement in the India and South Africa trade also offers an interesting insight in trade openness. Lastly, the paper suggests for evolving strategic trade policies and offering distinctive opportunities to exploit agro-trade potential in India–Africa. The increase in India’s investment may also boost the multilateral trade with African countries. Given the complexity of global trade, the scope of future research resides in evaluating trade restrictions between India and a particular African country with the major focus on the study of NTMs in the non-farm sectors.