This paper deals with regional integration in Southern African. It uses Southern African Development Committee (sadc) and Southern African Development coordination conference (SADCC) as the pivot point. The paper seeks to compare and contrast between the organizations on the basis of structure, legal status, objectives, member states and the challenges they face. In order to compare and contrast the analysis of the paper was based around the historical evolution from SADCC to SADC and the changes the transformation brought. The shift brought the emergence of a legal and internationally recognize regime through a legally binding treaty to which SADCC did not have. Furthermore the transformation resulted in change in objectives and increase in member state. Be that as it may they are also similarities that still remain. These similarities being challenges, some of the objectives and also the structure.
Regional economic integration has become an essential requirement in accelerating economic, social and political development for many Southern African countries .This is mostly because the small economies are not resourceful and capable of achieving economic growth at reasonable timeframe on their own and are at risk of being marginalized. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative and differential analysis between Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) and Southern African Development Community (SADC) through the use of past research projects from other authors and tables/graphs. The two organizations have a mandate of regional integration. According to (Schoemar, 2002) regional integration is an “economic process occurring largely as a result of greater interaction between neighboring states”. The theory is based on the establishment of organization such as SADCC established in 1980 and its successor SADC established in 1992.
The paper is organized as follows; the second section of the paper entails a literature review which discusses the history of the SADCC and SADC, policies, arguments. The third section is based on the analysis of SADCC and SADC and compares and contrasts the organization based on objectives, structure, legal status and challenges faced.
According to the Declaration and Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, SADCC was an association of nine majority ruled states formed on April 1st 1980. The whole idea behind the inception of SADCC according to (Schoemar, 2002) was,
“In essence a politically motivated response and defensive mechanism by front line states”.
The original members were Botswana, Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia and late entry Zimbabwe. The others were Lesotho, Malawi and Swaziland. This defensive mechanism was prompted by the vulnerability to South Africa in which Southern African states depended on. This was at a time which an apartheid regime ruled the country.
In light and anticipation of South Africa’s liberation a treaty was signed by the Heads of States and Government at a Summit held in Namibia on August 17 1992, the SADC Declaration. This successfully transformed the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) into the Southern African Development Community (SADC) established under Article 2 of the Treaty. The Treaty replaced the Memorandum and gave the organization a legal character. This decision was discussed before in 1989 at the Summit of Heads of State meeting which was held in Harare, Zimbabwe. The Treaty set out the main objectives of SADCC’s successor to become the driving force behind economic integration in Southern Africa. A point which was pointed out by (Tsie, 1996) in which he said:
“The new SADC seek to provide a framework which will provide for a deeper economic integration and cooperation.”
The basis of this being the existence of balance, mutual interest and clearing a path for cross border investment and trade in the region.
The transformation also included an increase in the number of member states following the independence of the rest of the Southern African countries. The organization currently has 15 member states.
It has been observed by some critics that developing countries such as those of this regional economic bloc are less devoted to regional agreements and more devoted to other multilateral and bilateral commitments. (Kibret, 2002)
It is also argued that SADC sets overambitious targets which have a well-known history of poor and weak implementation. In addition to that, it is said that for economic integration to be successful through regionalism, member states should be selfless and trustworthy. However, some members are more equal than others and that makes it difficult. (Muyengwa-Mapuva, 2014). For instance, Zimbabwe’s overbearing nature in the affairs and verdict of the SADC Tribunal shows that arrogance and lack of sincerity by member states hinder the bloc from achieving regional integration based on mutual trust.
Mapuva also mentions that SADC’s failure in implementing its goals is supported by, “the Trade Protocol signed by 11 out 15 member states in 2000. The countries sought to liberalize 85% of intra-regional trade by 2008, liberalize 100% of trade by 2012, and form a customs union for the region by 2010. All these targets have since been missed.”
Some also view the Regional Trading Agreements (RTA) that may come with regional economic integration as potential obstacles. These initiatives are feared for their potential to result in trade diversion. This is a situation where a country stops importing from an efficient producer outside the trading bloc to a less efficient producer within the trading bloc. This ultimately affects the welfare of the people of the country importing. (Yayo, 2013)
Since its inception in 1980 as SADCC, SADC has come up with strategies and policies for regional integration to fuel economic growth and development in the region. This includes The Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan created in 2003 which contains clear priorities and regional integration guidelines. The organization has also developed a Protocol on Trade formulated in 1996 which advocates that member states of the region should do away with unfair business practices and barriers to trade. It advocates that member states should make custom procedures easier and harmonize trade based on international standards. It formulated Protocol on Finance and Investment (2006) which outlines the strategies as well as the SADC policy on investment that member states should implement to bring in investors and nurture entrepreneurship in the region. It has also formulated a Protocol draft on Trade in Services in 2012. However, it is important to understand that the draft Protocol does not lead to any integration of markets on its own but is merely a guide which requires member states of the region to negotiate elimination of barriers to trade in services.
A successful regional integration will depend on the existence of institutions or structures with sufficient competence and capacity to manage the process of integration.
Article 9 of the SADC treaty established that there shall be, the summit of heads of state (article 10). It is responsible for supreme policy making of SADC. Second is the council of ministers (article 11). It consist of one minister from each member state. It is responsible to oversee the development and implantation of policies of SADC. Third is the commissions (article 12) which is responsible for guiding and coordinating integration policies and programs in delegated sectorial areas. Forth is the standing committees of officials (article13). It consist of one permanent secretary from each member state. This committee shall be technical advisory committee to the council. Furthermore SADC structure constitutes the secretariat (article 14). It is responsible for strategic planning and management of the programs of SADC. Last but not least, the tribunal. Article 16 of the SADC treaty mentioned that tribunal shall be constituted to ensure adherence to and the proper interpretations of the provisions of this treaty.
The structure of the SADCC came into effect in 1981 as a memorandum was accepted. It stated the main institutions which were, the summit, council of ministers, standing committee of officials and sectorial commissions. According to (Bowen, 1990) this was amended in 1982to include the secretariat. The institutions from SADC and SADCC aforementioned above are more or less the same. They have the same responsibility which show a continuation from the SADCC. The only evident difference in the institutions would be the tribunal. The tribunal was an institution in SADC but not in SADCC.
SADC Decision making Structure and Sectors
OBJECTIVES OF SADCC AND SADC
This section will focus on the objectives of SADC and SADCC. As mentioned before the main objective of SADCC was the reduction of economic dependence, particularly, but not only on the Republic of South Africa, Table 1 . The other objectives outlined in the Lusaka declaration were as follows:
• ‘ The forging of links to create a genuine and equitable regional integration;
• The mobilization of resources to promote the implementation of national, interstate and regional policies;
• Concerted action to secure international cooperation within the framework of our strategy for economic liberation.’
Table 1: Dependence of Southern Africa on South Africa
Botswana Lesotho Malawi Mozambique Swaziland Zambia Zimbabwe
Trade:% of imports from RSA 85.1 98.1 34.0 8.1 82.9 14.5 22.1
Exports to RSA as % of total exports 11.3 41.3 34.7 1.8 39.6 0.3 17.1
% supply from RSA:
% regional transportations through RSA 95 100 50 0
70 50+ 50+
The data above data gives an outline of the dependence on RSA. The data ranges from 1982-1987. Angola and Tanzania did not have substantial economic links with RSA until 1986.
Source: (Hanlon, 1986), Green(1987)
SADC recognizes the challenges experienced by the region. It set out its objectives to address these complex challenges through co-operation and integration. According to (Ndlovu, 2013) SADC’s main objective is ‘to build a developed, prosperous and peaceful community through regional integration guided by a vision of a common future.
The other objective outline in the SADC treaty, Article 5(I) are to;
• ‘Achieve development and economic growth, alleviate poverty ,enhance the standard and quality of life of people of Southern African and support socially disadvantaged through regional integration;
• Evolve common political value , systems and institutions;
• Promote and defend peace and security;
• Promote self-sustaining development on the basis of collective self-reliance and the independences of member states ;
• Achieve complementary between national and regional strategies and programs
• Promote and maximize productive employment and utilization of resource of the region.
Although the transformation from SADCC to SADC yielded a lot of differences in their objectives it is clear that the goal was always to pursue collective self-reliance through regional integration.
SADCC had no legal document binding member states and therefore no central authority or treaty to ensure its decisions were implemented. Its project coordination approach was good at engaging member states to participate, however, the decentralized structure meant that there was no central authority and hence no accountability and weak implementation of regional projects by member states. For instance, under the decentralized approach responsibility for transport and communications was assigned to Mozambique, Energy to Angola and Food and Security to Zimbabwe. This was a serious problem faced by SADCC. Even so, SADC has not totally removed this approach and it remains an integral part of SADC as proved by the retention of sectoral responsibilities. (Tsie, 1996). The legal document, which is the SADC Treaty clearly states under Article 10 that, ‘The Summit shall be responsible for the overall policy direction and control of the functions of SADC and that its decisions shall be by consensus and shall be binding”.
Initially, SADCC had 9 member states, namely Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. SADC on the other hand currently has 15 member states. These are, Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. It is important to note that as the political landscape of South Africa changed, SADCC (now SADC) had to change its ideological approach and accommodate South Africa. (Bowen, 1990)
The SADC and SADCC faced more or less the same persistent challenges. The most evident challenge is the high rates of HIV which is highest in the world and has slowed down developments. Another major challenge faced by SADC and SADCC is the lack of resources and financial capacity. As mentioned before both organizations are decentralized structures. They heavily rely on donor funding. According to (Schoemar, 2002) donor dependency meant that preferences of donors dominated SADCC activities. The problem was donors were hesitant to provide funds because the relevant sectors did not have the capacity to utilize the funds. This problem has also affected SADC. Another obstacle that the organization faced low and limited intra-regional trade due to the fact that states in the region produce homogenous primary goods. Intra-regional trade is up to 5% of total trade. Figure 1 shows the variation in imports and exports of the period in which SADCC was in full effect and a period in which SADC was in full effect.
The aim of this paper was to compare and contrast Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) and Southern African Development Community (SADC). This was done on the basis of structure, legal status, objectives, member states and challenges. From what has been discussed it is evident that there has been a major shift since the transformation from SADCC to SADC. This shift being the emergence of a legal regime, change in objectives and increase in member states. SADC has continued to make great strides since its transformation, however one major thing that has remained the same is its challenges which are HIV prevalence, donor dependency and member states’ incapacity to utilize funds. Few changes were made to the structure however, most of it still remains the same.