The second East African Community Common Market Scorecard 2016, released last week, suggests a region that is still a long way off if the goal to economic integration is to be realised. According to the scorecard, member states continue to trade as separate and distinct markets keeping their economies small and disconnected, despite a standing treaty giving the countries freedom of movement of goods, labour, services, and capital across the six-nation bloc. Only two of the 20 operations that facilitate deeper financial integration were found to be free of restrictions in all of the member states. At least 63 non-conforming measures are slowing down trade in the service sector, while regional trade in goods continues to be constrained by not less than 51 non-tariff barriers (NTBs). Widely disparate recognition of certificates of origin by the member states is a case in point, though there was a slightly better resolution of new NTBs for the 2016 period, at about 54 per cent, compared to the 38 per cent reported in the 2014 Scorecard. But it is evident all is not well. Another analysis carried out early this year, The Political Economy of Regional Integration in Africa: The East African Community Report, pointed to policy implementation that is affected by weak or absent formal institutions, as well as strong emerging informal institutions. The report observed that a large number of formal rules to provide checks and balances on policy implementation have not been institutionalised. This includes the power provided to the Heads of States Summit to sanction member countries over non-compliance with the 2009 EAC Treaty, which is yet to be exercised. And, while power should be distributed between the Summit, Council of Ministers and the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA), this is not the case. As things currently stand, power is vested in the Summit and Council, which are both composed of national politicians, rather than the member states’ representatives in the EALA. The analysis also observed that apparent member states’ lack of agreement over proposed institutional arrangements, which would provide more capacity but also give the EAC more supranational authority. This is something the EAC Secretariat has been striving for but which some member states’ governments appear to be against. This emphasises apparent contradiction between formal EAC policy documents which describe the EAC Secretariat as a coordination, support, implementation and monitoring body, and others which describe the EAC’s role solely in terms of support and coordination. The debate is yet to be resolved over whether the organisation should have more authority. This also underscores a dearth in policy harmonisation echoed by the Common Market Scorecard 2016. As expressed by the EAC Deputy Secretary-General for Productive and Social Sector, Ms Jesca Eriyo, during the launch of the scorecard, “Governments in the region instead of concentrating on harmonising and implementing the EAC policies, they are coming up with new policies at the national level that are contradicting the policies which have already been agreed upon and signed.” In the meantime, heightening disagreement is brewing between the EALA and the EAC Secretariat over allegations of misconduct. The regional parliament has raised alarm on a cash crisis that is paralysing operations, while accusing the Secretariat of ineffectiveness amid concerns over transparency in the EAC’s hiring processes. And with concerns of chronic delay in payment of fees by member states, it raises questions about their commitment to the EAC integration agenda. Then there is the hesitation of some member states to commit to arrangements initially agreed upon, in principle, by all the partner states, with the delayed signing by some countries of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the EAC and the European Union one of such cases.
