By WASHINGTON AKUMU The EastAfrican
In Summary
- The perception from East African Cement Producers Association was that Savannah was enjoying undue advantage over the rest of the industry: a raft of sugary tax waivers and much more.
- Frenetic lobbying by EACPA, may have eventually convinced Savannah that it needed to let go of its incentive-laden status as an EPZ firm. The EastAfrican has learnt that Savannah has indeed applied for de-gazettement of its EPZ status.
- It is easy to understand why Savannah’s entry into the Kenyan and East African cement market late last year has raised questions. Located on the Athi River-Namanga Road, an EAC infrastructural project, Savannah is an oddity in many ways. Having a cement firm within an EPZ, albeit legal, is still considered a novelty.
- Savannah is also reputed to have more modern facilities than its peers. It is the biggest stand-alone cement factory in Kenya in capacity, with an annual production of 1.5 metric tonnes, and according to industry sources, there is room for further growth.
You have a strong hunch, even anecdotal evidence
that your competitor could be cutting corners, but you have no hard
evidence to prove it. Worse still, you are constrained in your abilities
to assemble the same.
Such a pursuit would require you to work with
bureaucratic state agencies in at least five countries. A large scale
investigation is not your core business, and the resources required
would be massive.
That is the place where the East African Cement
Producers Association (EACPA), a powerful lobby that brings together
cement makers in the region, finds itself regarding the sixth and
youngest entrant to the industry, Savannah Cement (EPZ) Ltd.
So what do you do? You make noise, and if your
core business is cement manufacturing, raising a little dust wouldn’t
hurt the cause. And that is what the EACPA has been doing.
It was a December 4 letter written by EACPA
chairman Kephar Tande, and frenetic lobbying by his organisation, that
may have eventually convinced Savannah that it needed to let go of its
incentive-laden status as an EPZ firm. The perception from EACPA was
that Savannah was enjoying undue advantage over the rest of the
industry: a raft of sugary tax waivers and much more.
Besides, there was the allegation that Savannah
could be selling more than 20 per cent of the cement it produces to the
local market.
The EPZ Act sets this as the local market sales’
ceiling for designated firms. Local market, according to the EPZ
parlance, refers to all the EAC countries: Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda,
Tanzania and Burundi.
The EastAfrican has learnt that Savannah has indeed applied for de-gazettement of its EPZ status.
“I confirm that as true. Savannah applied for
de-gazettement of their EPZ status early this year and the EPZA (Export
Processing Zones Authority) dully forwarded the same to the Ministry of
Trade as provided for in the EPZ Act,” the CEO of EPZA, Cyrille
Nabutola, said when contacted for comment.
On the delay in processing the application, Mr
Nabutola intimated that it may have been affected by the “uncertainty
following the elections and the subsequent transition” to a new
government structure.
The slow implementation of the application for de-gazettement by Savannah is only heightening the ferment in the industry.
“We have received no official communication on the
status of Savannah Cement, so we cannot speculate. At the EACPA, we
would want to know whether Savannah is still an EPZ firm or not.
Naturally, we would love a situation where all cement producers are
treated the same way. We are all for competition, fair competition,”
said Mr Tande, during an interview. He is also the CEO of cement maker
East African Portland Cement Company (EAPCC).
Mr Tande said their concerns were based on increased activity by Savannah in the Kenyan market in the recent past.
But even as EACPA and other industry players await
official word on Savannah’s fate, there is another issue that raises
serious governance issues around our tax regime for exports.
How do you ensure that Savannah sells only 20 per
cent of its production locally (read EAC states)? Do the EAC’s national
Customs’ bodies have the political will and the capacity to ensure that
only 20 per cent of Savannah’s cement is sold in the region?
True, the Kenya Revenue Authority has an office at the Athi
River EPZ, from which it administers firms operating within the facility
to ensure that they play by the tax rules. But how do you ensure that
the provisions of the EPZ Act are adhered to, even outside Kenya’s
borders, and especially among its EAC peers?
KRA and Savannah did not respond to e-mails sent
by the time we went to press. Neither did the Ministry of Trade, Tourism
and East African Co-operation, which is handling Savannah’s application
for de-gazettement.
Once, the de-gazettement is completed, Savannah is
expected to retain its location within land belonging to the Athi River
EPZ, but lose its coveted status.
“De-gazettement means that the land on which
Savannah is located ceases to be a gazetted EPZ area, but remains the
property of the EPZ Authority, leased out to Savannah, and for which
Savannah will continue to pay the EPZ Authority. If de-gazettement is
granted, Savannah therefore operates as a domestic company paying taxes
as per the tax laws applicable to non-EPZ firms,” explained Mr Nabutola.
It is easy to understand why Savannah’s entry into
the Kenyan and East African cement market late last year has raised
questions.
Located on the Athi River-Namanga Road, an EAC
infrastructural project that was launched last year by the region’s
heads of state, Savannah is an oddity in many ways. (See picture gallery)
In an industrial town that hosts no less than five
cement factories within a five-kilometre radius, having a cement firm
within an EPZ, albeit legal, is still considered a novelty — the site
was the alternative after loud protests from residents of nearby
Kitengela over a previous location. Savannah is also reputed to have
more modern facilities than its peers.
The other cement makers in the neighbourhood are
Bamburi, EAPCC, National and Mombasa Cement. ARM Cement is the other
major producer in Kenya. Both Bamburi and ARM are regional players. The
former has plants in Tanzania and Uganda, while the latter is in
Tanzania.
But perhaps its biggest marker is its claim that
it is the biggest stand-alone cement factory in Kenya in capacity, with
an annual production of 1.5 metric tonnes, and according to industry
sources, there is room for further growth. Other major producers like
Bamburi and ARM have more than one production unit in the country.
Back to the regional picture; Savannah is part of a
recent wave of investments in the sector that have upped capacity in
the region, heightening competition and more importantly, holding out
potential benefits for consumers in terms of stable and lower prices and
bankable supply.
Surplus
Unlike her EAC peers, Kenya with an installed
capacity of eight million metric tonnes, and consumption of four million
metric tonnes, is a cement surplus country.
What this means is that the EAC and other nearby
regional markets such as DR Congo, South Sudan and the wider Comesa FTA
have become a major theatre of competition for the country’s six cement
manufacturers. Here, they come face to face with low cost producers from
Egypt and Asia.
The only hope for cement manufacturers is an
increase in demand, especially from the huge infrastructure projects
that the region is lining up.
The Kenyan market is bound to become even more saturated with
the planned entry of Cemtech, a subsidiary of Sanghi Industries, which
plans to construct a $120 million, 1.2 million tonnes-a-year plant in
West Pokot.
READ: Cemtech to produce 1.2m tonnes of cement in Pokot
Mombasa (which owns Uganda’s Tororo Cement) and National Cement are some of the latest entrants into the Kenyan market with production units in Athi River.
Mombasa (which owns Uganda’s Tororo Cement) and National Cement are some of the latest entrants into the Kenyan market with production units in Athi River.
In Tanzania, the sector has attracted interest
from Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote. His Dangote Group is
constructing a $535-million plant in the southern part of the country
that starts production next year.
It will have a capacity of over two million metric
tonnes a year. Another Tanzanian producer, Tanga Cement Company Ltd,
recently increased its capacity from 750,000 metric tonnes to over 1.2
million metric tonnes, through the launch of a second mill.
No comments :
Post a Comment