African leaders, export trade organizations and corporate businesses have an extraordinary opportunity to design a well-timed strategy to take advantage of the growing market and to boost trade as a way to reverse considerably trade imbalance that has existed from Soviet days between Russia and Africa, both foreign and local experts have suggested.
In an interview, Maxim Chereshnev, the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Council for the Development of Foreign Trade and International Economic Relations, explains that nowadays there are equally good business perspectives for Africa and that his organization, for instance, is ready to help with trade facilitation and can offer support for African companies, either small or medium enterprises that are looking for new trade opportunities in the Russian Federation.
“It’s pleasure to note that Russia and African states have a long story of relations. Import of coffee, cocoa, tea, citrus, sea products and many more from African countries are important for Russia,” he stressed assertively, adding that import substitution policy of Russia and the economic diversification are favorable for African countries to promote export/import and to cooperate in investment spheres with Russian companies.
In light of Russia’s anti-sanctions – the ban on imports of many types of European agricultural products – diversification of sources of such raw materials has become especially crucial, while import substitution in the country is only fledging. This presents an opportunity for strengthening trade with Asia and Africa.
Chereshnev, at least, is not alone calling for exports from Africa. Quite recently, Olga Kulkova, a research fellow at the Center for Studies of Russian-African Relations, Institute for African Studies in Moscow, noted assertively in her opinion article that “Africa has already started filling the niche, Russian market shelves are enjoying a surge in African vegetables and fruits, most of which used to be re-exported through the EU.”
In 2014, African farmers expressed readiness to boost direct exports to Russia, bypassing European mediators. African countries of the continent can make a fortune by selling agricultural products to Russia.
Interestingly, there are only few Africans trading products in Russia’s market due to multiple reasons including inadequate knowledge of trade procedures, rules and regulations as well as the changing market conditions. And there are many other obstacles hindering African trade to Russia that have been identified and discussed in many business conferences and seminars, but concrete measures to improve the situation have not been seriously implemented.
As Ibrahim Usman Gafai, Charge d’Affairs at the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Moscow explained in an interview with Buziness Africa, that the overall trade volume between Africa and Russia has been extremely low and highly skewed in favor of Russia.
Gafai pointed out the key challenge from both sides, Africa and Russia, has been dearth of information on doing business and the market environment, and thus has over the years created a condition of uncertainty, misgivings and negative perceptions among prospective traders and investors.
He, however, called for the need to create a mechanism for the dissemination of vital business and trade information that will enhance business interaction among African exporters and Russian importers. In addition, African leaders have to cultivate business interest in organizing trade platforms and business mission to showcase their potentialities in the Russian Federation.
Comparatively, African exports to the United States, European Union and even to India and China has been growing due to trade preferences, lower custom tariffs and other trade incentives that were made available to African exporters by these big-time players, for instance the U.S. offers incentives through the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA).
According to Rex Essenowo, chairman of the Russian Chapter of Nigerian Diaspora Organization in Europe (NIDOE), “African exporters have keen interests in the Russian market but face many challenges in getting their goods delivered on time to consumers in Russia. They know that the market potential is vast in both ways and further understand that Asian countries have comparative advantage trading with Russia, in terms of distance, transportation of goods and other infrastructure including logistics and warehousing.”
In addition, he pointed out assertively that one key advantage is regional trade alliances have helped their member states over the years in providing adequate information about the market rules and custom regulations of exporting products of all kinds to Russia.
“In order to boost Russia-African trade, there should be policy interventions, initiate trade platforms for both Russians and Africans to participate in practical discussions on how to make trade policies more effective and to offer import and export credit support for corporate traders to achieve appreciable results,” Essenowo told me further in his interview discussion.
“If we look at the trade volume between China and Africa, both regions have done so much for more than the past 10 years despite all the skepticism and criticism, but can’t African countries raise their trade volume dramatically in order to cut down the trade imbalance given the necessary trade incentives and lower custom duties by Russia?” the chairman of NIDOE asked rhetorically.
As for ways on how to reverse the huge trade imbalance that exists between Africa and Russia, Dr Shaabani Nzori, a Moscow based independent African expert on Russia-African issues, doesn’t see much that could be done at the moment for the following simple reasons:
First, there is no much that Africa can propose to Russia that Russia lacks in its own country, that is raw materials in the form of gas, oil, minerals, and other products such as agricultural produce that Russia can easily and cheaply get from other regions like Latin America and/or Asia.
Secondly, the lack of developed infrastructure, manufacturing, strict quality control and packaging in Africa also add to the odds of Africa’s failure to export its products to Russia.
As for quality control and packaging, this is a huge problem with Russians as they seem to be too strict and particular on this subject, thereby among others, their reluctance to offer trade preferences to African goods, as they consider African products as being of poor or questionable quality, Dr Nzori explains.
Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov has stated several times in his speech to African diplomats that Russia was prepared to consider new initiatives aimed at improving trade between the two regions.
In May 2014, Lavrov wrote in his own article:”we attach special significance to deepening trade and investment cooperation with the African States. Russia provides African countries with extensive preferences in trade.”
Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry has posted an official report on its website that “traditional products from least developed countries (including Africa) would be exempted from import tariffs. The legislation stipulates that the traditional goods are eligible for preferential customs and tariffs treatment.”
As far back as 2008, the African Development Bank (AfDB) said in a report that the importance of Russia as a trading partner to African countries is quite minimal when compared to other developed countries and emerging markets such as the European Union, the United States, China, India, and Brazil. Bilateral trade between Russia and Africa reached its peak of US$ 7.3 billion in 2008.
That is understandable. However, Georgi Petrov, vice president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation said at the executive board meeting of the Coordinating Committee for Economic Cooperation with African Countries (AfroCom) held in April 2015, that Russia’s trade with Africa, south of the Sahara, was only US$3.2 billion. The fact still remains that African trade has been minimal in the Russian Federation. And unbelievably, African trade figures with Russia are very hard to find from both African and Russian sources.
For trade relations between Russia and Africa to improve appreciably, Professor Dmitri Bondarenko, deputy director of the Institute for African Studies, also confirmed to Buziness Africa that “Russia gives some trade preferences to African countries – for example, tax exceptions or reduction among other measures. This can become an effective political step to strengthen trade relations with African countries.”
According to the views of Jimmy Saruchera, a director at Schmooze Frontier Markets, an investment fund that works to support small-and-medium sized businesses in new emerging markets, both Russia and Africa need work on a good trade policy, stable and transparent institutions that are fundamental ingredients, then tools such as credits and export guarantees can be more effective in boosting trade to both regions.
Experts have repeatedly called for state support and for radical corporate trade initiatives that can systematically bolster private African entrepreneurs’ efforts not only to raise their economic presence but also to facilitate in making strong inroads into the Russian market.
Russia is a member of the newly created Eurasian Economic Union (which constitutes a huge market and allows free movement of goods among member countries) and the other members include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The Eurasian Economic Union is an economic union of states located primarily in northern Eurasia.
Reforms Key to Romania’s Resilient Recovery
Over the past decade, Romania has achieved a remarkable track record of high economic growth, sustained poverty reduction, and rising household incomes. An EU member since 2007, the country’s economic growth was one of the highest in the EU during the period 2010-2020.
Like the rest of the world, however, Romania has been profoundly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, the economy contracted by 3.9 percent and the unemployment rate reached 5.5 percent in July before dropping slightly to 5.3 percent in December. Trade and services decreased by 4.7 percent, while sectors such as tourism and hospitality were severely affected. Hard won gains in poverty reduction were temporarily reversed and social and economic inequality increased.
The Romanian government acted swiftly in response to the crisis, providing a fiscal stimulus of 4.4 percent of GDP in 2020 to help keep the economy moving. Economic activity was also supported by a resilient private sector. Today, Romania’s economy is showing good signs of recovery and is projected to grow at around 7 percent in 2021, making it one of the few EU economies expected to reach pre-pandemic growth levels this year. This is very promising.
Yet the road ahead remains highly uncertain, and Romania faces several important challenges.
The pandemic has exposed the vulnerability of Romania’s institutions to adverse shocks, exacerbated existing fiscal pressures, and widened gaps in healthcare, education, employment, and social protection.
Poverty increased significantly among the population in 2020, especially among vulnerable communities such as the Roma, and remains elevated in 2021 due to the triple-hit of the ongoing pandemic, poor agricultural yields, and declining remittance incomes.
Frontline workers, low-skilled and temporary workers, the self-employed, women, youth, and small businesses have all been disproportionately impacted by the crisis, including through lost salaries, jobs, and opportunities.
The pandemic has also highlighted deep-rooted inequalities. Jobs in the informal sector and critical income via remittances from abroad have been severely limited for communities that depend on them most, especially the Roma, the country’s most vulnerable group.
How can Romania address these challenges and ensure a green, resilient, and inclusive recovery for all?
Reforms in several key areas can pave the way forward.
First, tax policy and administration require further progress. If Romania is to spend more on pensions, education, or health, it must boost revenue collection. Currently, Romania collects less than 27 percent of GDP in budget revenue, which is the second lowest share in the EU. Measures to increase revenues and efficiency could include improving tax revenue collection, including through digitalization of tax administration and removal of tax exemptions, for example.
Second, public expenditure priorities require adjustment. With the third lowest public spending per GDP among EU countries, Romania already has limited space to cut expenditures, but could focus on making them more efficient, while addressing pressures stemming from its large public sector wage bill. Public employment and wages, for instance, would benefit from a review of wage structures and linking pay with performance.
Third, ensuring sustainability of the country’s pension fund is a high priority. The deficit of the pension fund is currently around 2 percent of GDP, which is subsidized from the state budget. The fund would therefore benefit from closer examination of the pension indexation formula, the number of years of contribution, and the role of special pensions.
Fourth is reform and restructuring of State-Owned Enterprises, which play a significant role in Romania’s economy. SOEs account for about 4.5 percent of employment and are dominant in vital sectors such as transport and energy. Immediate steps could include improving corporate governance of SOEs and careful analysis of the selection and reward of SOE executives and non-executive bodies, which must be done objectively to ensure that management acts in the best interest of companies.
Finally, enhancing social protection must be central to the government’s efforts to boost effectiveness of the public sector and deliver better services for citizens. Better targeted social assistance will be more effective in reaching and supporting vulnerable households and individuals. Strategic investments in infrastructure, people’s skills development, and public services can also help close the large gaps that exist across regions.
None of this will be possible without sustained commitment and dedicated resources. Fortunately, Romania will be able to access significant EU funds through its National Recovery and Resilience Plan, which will enable greater investment in large and important sectors such as transportation, infrastructure to support greater deployment of renewable energy, education, and healthcare.
Achieving a resilient post-pandemic recovery will also mean advancing in critical areas like green transition and digital transformation – major new opportunities to generate substantial returns on investment for Romania’s economy.
I recently returned from my first official trip to Romania where I met with country and government leaders, civil society representatives, academia, and members of the local community. We discussed a wide range of topics including reforms, fiscal consolidation, social inclusion, renewably energy, and disaster risk management. I was highly impressed by their determination to see Romania emerge even stronger from the pandemic. I believe it is possible. To this end, I reiterated the World Bank’s continued support to all Romanians for a safe, bright, and prosperous future.
First appeared in Romanian language in Digi24.ro, via World Bank
US Economic Turmoil: The Paradox of Recovery and Inflation
The US economy has been a rollercoaster since the pandemic cinched the world last year. As lockdowns turned into routine and the buzz of a bustling life came to a sudden halt, a problem manifested itself to the US regime. The problem of sustaining economic activity while simultaneously fighting the virus. It was the intent of ‘The American Rescue Plan’ to provide aid to the US citizens, expand healthcare, and help buoy the population as the recession was all but imminent. Now as the global economy starts to rebound in apparent post-pandemic reality, the US regime faces a dilemma. Either tighten the screws on the overheating economy and risk putting an early break on recovery or let the economy expand and face a prospect of unrelenting inflation for years to follow.
The Consumer Price Index, the core measure of inflation, has been off the radar over the past few months. The CPI remained largely over the 4% mark in the second quarter, clocking a colossal figure of 5.4% last month. While the inflation is deemed transitionary, heated by supply bottlenecks coinciding with swelling demand, the pandemic-related causes only explain a partial reality of the blooming clout of prices. Bloomberg data shows that transitory factors pushing the prices haywire account for hotel fares, airline costs, and rentals. Industries facing an offshoot surge in prices include the automobile industry and the Real estate market. However, the main factors driving the prices are shortages of core raw materials like computer chips and timber (essential to the efficient supply functions of the respective industries). Despite accounting for the temporal effect of certain factors, however, the inflation seems hardly controlled; perverse to the position opined by Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
The Fed already insinuated earlier that the economy recovered sooner than originally expected, making it worthwhile to ponder over pulling the plug on the doveish leverage that allowed the economy to persevere through the pandemic. The main cause was the rampant inflation – way off the 2% targetted inflation level. However, the alluded remarks were deftly handled to avoid a panic in an already fragile road to recovery. The economic figures shed some light on the true nature of the US economy which baffled the Fed. The consumer expectations, as per Bloomberg’s data, show that prices are to inflate further by 4.8% over the course of the following 12 months. Moreover, the data shows that the investor sentiment gauged from the bond market rally is also up to 2.5% expected inflation over the corresponding period. Furthermore, a survey from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) suggested that net 47 companies have raised their average prices since May by seven percentage points; the largest surge in four decades. It is all too much to overwhelm any reader that the data shows the economy is reeling with inflation – and the Fed is not clear whether it is transitionary or would outlast the pandemic itself.
Economists, however, have shown faith in the tools and nerves of the Federal Reserve. Even the IMF commended the Fed’s response and tactical strategies implemented to trestle the battered economy. However, much averse to the celebration of a win over the pandemic, the fight is still not through the trough. As the Delta variant continues to amass cases in the United States, the championed vaccinations are being questioned. While it is explicable that the surge is almost distinctly in the unvaccinated or low-vaccinated states, the threat is all that is enough to drive fear and speculation throughout the country. The effects are showing as, despite a lucrative economic rebound, over 9 million positions lay vacant for employment. The prices are billowing yet the growth is stagnating as supply is still lukewarm and people are still wary of returning to work. The job market casts a recession-like scenario while the demand is strong which in turn is driving the wages into the competitive territory. This wage-price spiral would fuel inflation, presumably for years as embedded expectations of employees would be hard to nudge lower. Remember prices and wages are always sticky downwards!
Now the paradox stands. As Congress is allegedly embarking on signing a $4 trillion economic plan, presented by president Joe Bidden, the matters are to turn all the more complex and difficult to follow. While the infrastructure bill would not be a hard press on short-term inflation, the iteration of tax credits and social spending programs would most likely fuel the inflation further. It is true that if the virus resurges, there won’t be any other option to keep the economy afloat. However, a bustling inflationary environment would eventually push the Fed to put the brakes on by either raising the interest rates or by gradually ceasing its Asset Purchase Program. Both the tools, however, would risk a premature contraction which could pull the United States into an economic spiral quite similar to that of the deflating Japanese economy. It is, therefore, a tough stance to take whether a whiff of stagflation today is merely provisional or are these some insidious early signs to be heeded in a deliberate fashion and rectified immediately.
Carbon Market Could Drive Climate Action
Authors: Martin Raiser, Sebastian Eckardt, Giovanni Ruta*
Trading commenced on China’s national emissions trading system (ETS) on Friday. With a trading volume of about 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide or roughly 12 percent of the total global CO2 emissions, the ETS is now the world’s largest carbon market.
While the traded emission volume is large, the first trading day opened, as expected, with a relatively modest price of 48 yuan ($7.4) per ton of CO2. Though this is higher than the global average, which is about $2 per ton, it is much lower than carbon prices in the European Union market where the cost per ton of CO2 recently exceeded $50.
Large volume but low price
The ETS has the potential to play an important role in achieving, and accelerating China’s long-term climate goals — of peaking emissions before 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality before 2060. Under the plan, about 2,200 of China’s largest coal and gas-fired power plants have been allocated free emission rights based on their historical emissions, power output and carbon intensity.
Facilities that cut emissions quickly will be able to sell excess allowances for a profit, while those that exceed their initial allowance will have to pay to purchase additional emission rights or pay a fine. Putting a price tag on CO2 emissions will promote investment in low-carbon technologies and equipment, while carbon trading will ensure emissions are first cut where it is least costly, minimizing abatement costs. This sounds plain and simple, but it will take time for the market to develop and meaningfully contribute to emission reductions.
The initial phase of market development is focused on building credible emissions disclosure and verification systems — the basic infrastructure of any functioning carbon market — encouraging facilities to accurately monitor and report their emissions rather than constraining them. Consequently, allocations given to power companies have been relatively generous, and are tied to power output rather than being set at absolute levels.
Also, the requirements of each individual facility to obtain additional emission rights are capped at 20 percent above the initial allowance and fines for non-compliance are relatively low. This means carbon prices initially are likely to remain relatively low, mitigating the immediate financial impact on power producers and giving them time to adjust.
For carbon trading to develop into a significant policy tool, total emissions and individual allowances will need to tighten over time. Estimates by Tsinghua University suggest that carbon prices will need to be raised to $300-$350 per ton by 2060 to achieve carbon neutrality. And our research at the World Bank suggest a broadly applied carbon price of $50 could help reduce China’s CO2 emissions by almost 25 percent compared with business as usual over the coming decade, while also significantly contributing to reduced air pollution.
Communicating a predictable path for annual emission cap reductions will allow power producers to factor future carbon price increases into their investment decisions today. In addition, experience from the longest-established EU market shows that there are benefits to smoothing out cyclical fluctuations in demand.
For example, carbon emissions naturally decline during periods of lower economic activity. In order to prevent this from affecting carbon prices, the EU introduced a stability reserve mechanism in 2019 to reduce the surplus of allowances and stabilize prices in the market.
Besides, to facilitate the energy transition away from coal, allowances would eventually need to be set at an absolute, mass-based level, which is applied uniformly to all types of power plants — as is done in the EU and other carbon markets.
The current carbon-intensity based allocation mechanism encourages improving efficiency in existing coal power plants and is intended to safeguard reliable energy supply, but it creates few incentives for power producers to divest away from coal.
The effectiveness of the ETS in creating appropriate price incentives would be further enhanced if combined with deeper structural reforms in power markets to allow competitive renewable energy to gain market share.
As the market develops, carbon pricing should become an economy-wide instrument. The power sector accounts for about 30 percent of carbon emissions, but to meet China’s climate goals, mitigation actions are needed in all sectors of the economy. Indeed, the authorities plan to expand the ETS to petro-chemicals, steel and other heavy industries over time.
In other carbon intensive sectors, such as transport, agriculture and construction, emissions trading will be technically challenging because monitoring and verification of emissions is difficult. Faced with similar challenges, several EU member states have introduced complementary carbon taxes applied to sectors not covered by an ETS. Such carbon excise taxes are a relatively simple and efficient instrument, charged in proportion to the carbon content of fuel and a set carbon price.
Finally, while free allowances are still given to some sectors in the EU and other more mature national carbon markets, the majority of initial annual emission rights are auctioned off. This not only ensures consistent market-based price signals, but generates public revenue that can be recycled back into the economy to subsidize abatement costs, offset negative social impacts or rebalance the tax mix by cutting taxes on labor, general consumption or profits.
So far, China’s carbon reduction efforts have relied largely on regulations and administrative targets. Friday’s launch of the national ETS has laid the foundation for a more market-based policy approach. If deployed effectively, China’s carbon market will create powerful incentives to stimulate investment and innovation, accelerate the retirement of less-efficient coal-fired plants, drive down the cost of emission reduction, while generating resources to finance the transition to a low-carbon economy.
(Martin Raiser is the World Bank country director for China, Sebastian Eckardt is the World Bank’s lead economist for China, and Giovanni Ruta is a lead environmental economist of the World Bank.)
(first published on China Daily via World Bank)
Wendy Sherman’s China visit takes a terrible for the US turn
US Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman, had high hopes for the meeting in China. At first, the Chinese side...
4 Crucial Factors That Helps in Selecting the Ideal FX Expert Advisor
The forex market is increasingly expanding at a rapid pace with millions of active traders executing trades daily. The use...
Top 10 Reasons to Come Back to Tokyo
Rediscover Japan’s captivating capital with these top 10 experiences, curated by the Concierge team at Four Seasons. 1. Stay at...
Thoughts From the Frontline
“Hip/Hop, Trap. I would describe my music as different, unique, compared to what I hear in the music industry in...
Middle Eastern interventionism galore: Neither US nor Chinese policies alleviate
A recent analysis of Middle Eastern states’ interventionist policies suggests that misguided big power approaches have fueled a vicious cycle...
The Taliban Are Back — And Its Fine
The Taliban have recently conquered large portions of Afghanistan and seem poised to overrun the Afghan government in Kabul. Yet,...
Why Jen Psaki is a well-masked Sean Spicer
When Sarah Huckabee Sanders showed up on the scene as White House Press Secretary, the reaction was that of relief....
South Asia3 days ago
Why France holds the key to India’s Multilateral Ambitions
Americas3 days ago
As Refugees Flee Central America, the Mexican Public Sours On Accepting Them
Economy3 days ago
US Economic Turmoil: The Paradox of Recovery and Inflation
South Asia2 days ago
Examining the impacts of Globalization: A Case study of Afghanistan
Environment2 days ago
No pathway to reach the Paris Agreement’s 1.5˚C goal without the G20
East Asia3 days ago
Quad Infrastructure Diplomacy: An Attempt to Resist the Belt and Road Initiative
EU Politics3 days ago
Commission proposes draft mandate for negotiations on Gibraltar
Middle East2 days ago
The Russian bear in Lebanon