Contestation

Stringent new measures relating to the export of citrus – primarily oranges – from southern Africa to the EU have been implemented under recently revised and adopted regulations by the European Commission.

The requirements came into effect on 24 June and have been implemented since 14 July. Although some SA citrus consignments were already on their way to Europe before the new regulations were implemented, they have also been affected.

The new regulations amend the plant health rules, primarily those on the false codling moth. Before being exported, citrus from southern Africa is now required to undergo cold treatment at temperatures between 0°C and -1°C for at least 25 days.

According to the EU, the measures are intended to prevent the introduction and spread of Phyllosticta citricarpa – citrus black spot (CBS) – in the European market. Citrus black spot is a fungal disease that affects citrus fruit development.

SA citrus shipments bound for the EU have experienced the highest number of CBS interceptions in the past 10 years, followed by Argentina and Uruguay.

There were 43 detections from SA citrus consignments in 2021. Notwithstanding the importance of the EU market to the SA citrus industry, the recurrence of CBS in its exports threatens this market.

Although South Africa has secured improved market access in the EU through the Economic Partnership Agreement, the new plant health regulations have imposed additional compliance requirements that are costly for SA citrus exporters.

SA’s concerns

South Africa has raised concerns with the EU about the revised plant health regulations that are seen as trade restrictive.

SA’s specific concerns include the precooling obligations, which require the use of a technique known as forced-air precooling. It needs specialised facilities, infrastructure as well as onerous supervision obligations.

The requirements are difficult to comply with, are disruptive to trade and will reduce the number of South African oranges exported to the European market.

In the past 10 years, South Africa’s citrus industry has implemented measures to meet the EU’s CBS phytosanitary requirements. These initiatives have been costly for the citrus industry and are difficult to implement.

SA has previously expressed concerns to the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee at the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming the measures implemented by the EU since the interceptions are not scientifically justified, lack a technical basis and are inconsistent with the level of risk posed by CBS found on fruit exported to the EU.

As a result of the new EU regulations on the false codling moth, South Africa has requested WTO dispute consultations with the EU regarding certain restrictions on South African citrus fruit imports. South Africa is contesting the recent changes to EU phytosanitary requirements for the importation of oranges and other citrus products containing false codling moth. South Africa claims that the EU measures violate various provisions of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994.

This is South Africa’s first WTO dispute settlement case, which is prompted by the failure of the EU to recognise SA’s already strengthened systems approach to integrated pest risk management of the false codling moth.

Consultations

The request for consultations formally initiates a WTO dispute. Consultations allow the parties to discuss issues of concern and reach amicable solutions without resorting to litigation. If consultations fail to resolve the dispute within 60 days, the complainant may request adjudication by a panel.

Through the dispute consultations, South Africa seeks to convince the EU to base sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures on scientific principles and risk assessment as outlined in the SPS agreement.

The new EU plant health regulations and their rapid implementation have unsettled the SA citrus industry. The industry employs more than 140,000 workers and generates about R30-billion in export revenue. The reduction in citrus exports to the EU because of the new stringent plant health regulations will have an impact on SA’s economy as well as the economies of neighbouring countries.

One hopes the consultations will produce positive results and avoid a lengthy dispute resolution process, which will be costly and has no guarantee of a positive outcome.

What could be worse than a populist? Perhaps an effective one? Enough of the buffoons. Across Western democracies there has been a sea change. From the ham-fisted bellicosity of Boris Johnson to the assured calm, able, yet lethal contradictions of Liz Truss. From Donald Trump, via the spectacularly absent Joe Biden to Ron DeSantis, the competent governor of 21 million residents of Florida, who has a chance to run at the White House.

The difference? It is simply a question of competency; the attention span to make it to the end of a briefing memo, an ability to negotiate corridors of power, a sufficient grasp of reality to appreciate the labyrinthine difficulties of enacting legislation in modern bipolar democratic contexts.

Italy is, as ever, ahead of the curve (in the worst possible sense). If the Romans created the first effective state apparatus, the Renaissance emerged from Florence, Mussolini invented Fascism, and more recently the 1990s’ Silvio Berlusconi wrote the first populist playbook, once again Italy is a vanguard of the most depressing sort.

The frontrunner for next prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, is a populist. She is archetypical of the next iteration, those who exhibit populist characteristics (a consistent ability to blame your own problems on someone or something else, effective use of social media, complete inability to come up with solutions or govern) yet combine it with a calmer, more poisonous, more controlled, more electorally palatable competency.

What we have here is Populism 2.0. Where will it lead us? First, we should consider the political effects of Meloni, DeSantis, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen and the Thatcher-lite Truss. Large-scale changes to enshrined Western constitutions? None have ruled it out. Respect for rights and free speech? Under the banner of threats posed by “wokeness” and “cancel culture”, this needs to be reconsidered. They say the “LGBTQ+ lobby” poses a menace to the traditional family unit. Truss attacks Bank of England independence, Meloni the parliamentary democracy of Italy. None have the incapacity to fail.

Second, economically, there are ramifications. Until now, there has not been an economics of populism. Populism has been a countermovement. In power, gasping for the toxic gases of nihilist opposition, populism has traditionally been asphyxiated.

This second wave seems to have advanced the cause, however. Reciting a late 1980s playbook, Truss embodies this move towards low taxes and a weakened state, alongside a flagrant disregard for the necessary ensuing budgetary cuts and sacrifices. It seems naive, and quaintly déjà vu.

Higher debt to GDP and increasingly reluctant attitudes to essential economic structural reforms, of the sort where there are guaranteed to be losers in the short term, are nigh certainties. But is that not politics? To assess priorities and enable those hit by policy change to deal with it with a mix of nationalist hocus pocus and blind optimism. As Bismarck said, effective politics is “the art of the possible”. Such realism ill fits a populist.

A friend said today’s UK has all the symptoms of Bettino Craxi’s Italy of the 1980s. Latter-day populists embody the optimism, promising everything to everyone, without that critical element of which Bismarck was so clear – the crunching reality of tradeoffs.

In South Africa, a candidate for Populist 2.0 is Paul Mashatile. No one has a clear idea what he thinks about economic policy, about what should be done or what should not. He cunningly bides his time between various internecine camps of the ANC, keeping his cards concealed. Surely, the smart money post CR17 is on him? A populist, but a potentially far more effective one than his erstwhile predecessor, who spent his time on ever-expanding families and firepools.

Whereto from here? The ridiculous spectacle of vapid political and economic debates of the 2010s, ending catastrophically with a global pandemic and war in Ukraine, could be about to shift gear. Rather a more deliberate and competent attack on the machinery of the state, the levers of democracy, the essential gravity of market economics. We can barely wait to see the outcome.