Small Ivory Coast cocoa firms say EU deforestation rules might bankrupt them
The proposed law, which aims to end the estimated 10% of global deforestation fuelled by EU consumption, requires companies importing goods such as cocoa, soy, beef and coffee to prove their supply chains do not contribute to the destruction of the world's forests, or face hefty fines.
In order to meet the regulations, Ivory Coast has opted for a digitalised sales and purchasing system to facilitate verification.
However, cooperatives and small local exporters are concerned they will not be able to compete with Western multinational companies, which have better financial and human resources to handle the additional cost and workload.
Two sources at Ivory Coast's Coffee and Cocoa Council regulator said around 900,000 out of 1-million cocoa farmers had already received their digital ID cards, which will also serve as bank cards.
Under the new system, farmers will be paid via mobile money operators by exporters after buyers or cooperatives deliver their beans to ports - effectively cutting out the usual cash payments to middlemen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
US tariffs will test South Africa's economic resilience
Nyaniso Qwesha | Published 5 hours ago On August 1, 2025, the United States will impose a 30% tariff on select South African exports, a move the Trump administration frames as a corrective to "trade imbalances" but which South Africa decries as a unilateral overreach. President Cyril Ramaphosa has rejected the US justification, noting that 77% of U.S. goods enter South Africa duty-free, with an average tariff of just 7.6%. Yet, the policy threatens to derail South Africa's fragile economic recovery, destabilise global supply chains, and escalate protectionist tensions worldwide. This article examines the tariff's sectoral impacts, systemic risks to multilateral trade, and strategic responses to mitigate the fallout. South Africa's automotive sector, a beneficiary of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), faces existential risk. Reuters reported that the US absorbed 6.5% of South Africa's vehicle exports (worth $1.8 billion in 2024) and is a critical market for manufacturers like BMW and Ford. The 30% tariff could force plant closures and mass layoffs, eroding a sector contributing 5.2% to GDP. Citrus: The U.S. accounts for 5–6% of South Africa's citrus exports ($100 million annually), supporting 35 000 jobs. Tariffs may cede market share to Chile and Peru. Wine: Producers are scrambling to redirect stock or absorb price shocks, but the U.S. market's premium margins are irreplaceable. Macadamia Nuts and Grapes: High-value perishables face logistical hurdles in pivoting to new markets swiftly. The textile sector may lose competitiveness in the U.S., while aluminium exports face a $534.5 million risk, with 24.6% going to the U.S. Furthermore, the South African Reserve Bank warns of 0.3% GDP contraction and 100,000 job losses. Fiscal strain from reduced export revenues and a weaker rand. The tariffs will disrupt global logistics: Freight bottlenecks: A pre-tariff rush to ship goods to the U.S. has already caused 6–10-week delays on routes like China and South Africa. Cost inflation: U.S. consumers will pay more for South African goods, while businesses face redundant inventory and working capital crunches. BRICS Retaliation: The U.S. has threatened an additional 10% tariff on BRICS-aligned nations, politicising trade. WTO Erosion: Unilateral tariffs bypass dispute mechanisms, undermining multilateralism. South Africa may expand its exports by increasing trade with markets in the EU and Asia. AfCFTA: Boosting intra-African trade as a buffer. The trade deal reached today (27 July 2025) between the United States and the European Union will ease tariff barriers and improve market access between the two economies. For South Africa, this development could have significant ramifications. First, EU exporters may displace South African goods in U.S. markets, particularly in competitive sectors like wine, citrus, and manufactured components. Second, the EU may divert more of its exports to the U.S., limiting the space for South African exports to expand into Europe. Unless offset by diplomatic interventions and aggressive trade diversification, this deal risks marginalising South Africa in both the U.S. and EU markets simultaneously. To navigate the crisis, South Africa must leverage trade finance tools: Export Credit Facilities: Bridge cash flow gaps for exporters facing margin compression. Risk Mitigation: Insurance products to hedge against payment delays and demand shocks. Market Diversification: Enter new markets (e.g., EU, ASEAN). Local Substitution: Support domestic production to replace costly U.S. imports. Conclusion: The U.S. tariffs are a stress test for South Africa's economic resilience. While the short-term pain is inevitable, strategic diplomacy, trade finance innovation, and market diversification could transform this threat into an opportunity for long-term resilience. The world will watch whether South Africa and the global trading system can adapt without fracturing further. About the Author : Nyaniso Qwesha, MBA, is a trade finance consultant with expertise in global commerce and risk management. He advises clients on trade policy, market access, and financial solutions in emerging economies.
eNCA
5 hours ago
- eNCA
EU defends Trump trade deal in face of backlash
STOCKHOLM - The European Union on Monday defended its trade deal with President Donald Trump, with EU capitals and businesses sharply divided on an outcome some branded a "capitulation". "I'm 100-percent sure that this deal is better than a trade war with the United States," top EU trade negotiator Maros Sefcovic told journalists. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clinched the framework accord with Trump on Sunday after dashing to Scotland as the 1 August deadline loomed for steep levies that threatened to cripple Europe's economy. EU exports are now set to face across-the-board tariffs of 15 percent -- higher than customs duties before Trump returned to the White House, but much lower than his threatened 30 percent. The 27-nation bloc also promised its companies would purchase energy worth $750 billion from the United States and make $600 billion in additional investments -- although it was not clear how binding those pledges would be. "This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances," Sefcovic said. Full details of the agreement -- and crucially which sectors could escape the 15-percent levy -- will be known in the coming days, although the EU says it has avoided steeper tariffs on key exports including cars and medicines. - European criticism - The reaction from European capitals -- which gave von der Leyen the mandate to negotiate -- ranged from muted to outright hostile. French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said it was a "dark day" for Europe and that the accord was tantamount to "submission". Speaking for Europe's biggest economy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said his country would face "substantial damage" from the tariffs but that "we couldn't expect to achieve any more". He argued that the deal's negative effects "will not only be limited to Germany and Europe, but we will see the effects of this trade policy in America as well". Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said he gave his support for the deal "without any enthusiasm". Industry groups in both countries made plain their disappointment, with Germany's main auto sector body saying the 15-percent levy "burdens" carmakers while its VCI chemical trade association said the rates were "too high". Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban attacked the deal in blunt terms, saying: "Trump ate Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast." European stock markets dipped later on Monday, wiping out early gains and reflecting unease at terms viewed as lopsided. "It looks a bit like a capitulation," said Alberto Rizzi of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). "The EU accepted a fairly unbalanced deal," he added, saying it delivered a "political victory for Trump". - Europe security stakes - Von der Leyen had faced intense pressure from EU states to strike a deal quickly with the bloc's biggest partner and protect a $1.9-trillion trading relationship. Defending Brussels' approach, Sefcovic warned that a no-deal scenario -- meaning a 30-percent tariff and the prospect of further escalation -- would have risked up to five million jobs in Europe. Throughout the months-long talks, Brussels prioritised stability and maintaining good relations with Washington over escalation. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a Trump ally, said the deal had avoided "potentially devastating" consequences. Hanging over the negotiations was the risk to other areas of cooperation -- such as the war in Ukraine -- if the EU descended into a trade war with its closest security partner. "It's not only about the trade -- it's about security, it's about Ukraine," Sefcovic told reporters Monday. Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics acknowledged it was "clearly an imbalanced deal" if judged purely on trade terms. "But if you're trying to avoid worse national security outcomes, well then maybe the deal is not so bad," he said. - Cautious approach - The EU had sought to ramp up the pressure in the final stretch of talks, fearing a bad deal and higher levies, with countries approving a $109-billion package of counter-tariffs at the last minute. And states led by France were pushing for a more robust response including the option to deploy the trade "bazooka" known as the anti-coercion instrument. But the threat of retaliation was consistently framed by Brussels as a last resort should talks fail, and experts suggested the hardening stance may have come too late to make a real difference. "If the EU had played hardball at the very beginning, it probably could have got a better deal," ECFR's Rizzi told AFP.
Eyewitness News
6 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
EU defends Trump trade deal in face of backlash
BRUSSELS - The European Union on Monday defended its trade deal with President Donald Trump, with EU capitals and businesses sharply divided on an outcome some branded a "capitulation". "I'm 100% sure that this deal is better than a trade war with the United States," top EU trade negotiator Maros Sefcovic told journalists. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clinched the framework accord with Trump on Sunday after dashing to Scotland as the 1 August deadline loomed for steep levies that threatened to cripple Europe's economy. EU exports are now set to face across-the-board tariffs of 15% - higher than customs duties before Trump returned to the White House, but much lower than his threatened 30%. The 27-nation bloc also promised its companies would purchase energy worth $750 billion from the United States and make $600 billion in additional investments - although it was not clear how binding those pledges would be. "This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances," Sefcovic said. Full details of the agreement - and crucially which sectors could escape the 15% levy - will be known in the coming days, although the EU says it has avoided steeper tariffs on key exports including cars and medicines. EUROPEAN CRITICISM The reaction from European capitals - which gave von der Leyen the mandate to negotiate - ranged from muted to outright hostile. French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said it was a "dark day" for Europe and that the accord was tantamount to "submission". Speaking for Europe's biggest economy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said his country would face "substantial damage" from the tariffs but that "we couldn't expect to achieve any more". He argued that the deal's negative effects "will not only be limited to Germany and Europe, but we will see the effects of this trade policy in America as well". Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said he gave his support for the deal "without any enthusiasm". Industry groups in both countries made plain their disappointment, with Germany's main auto sector body saying the 15% levy "burdens" carmakers while its VCI chemical trade association said the rates were "too high". Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban attacked the deal in blunt terms, saying: "Trump ate Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast." European stock markets dipped later on Monday, wiping out early gains and reflecting unease at terms viewed as lopsided. "It looks a bit like a capitulation," said Alberto Rizzi of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). "The EU accepted a fairly unbalanced deal," he added, saying it delivered a "political victory for Trump". EUROPE SECURITY STAKES Von der Leyen had faced intense pressure from EU states to strike a deal quickly with the bloc's biggest partner and protect a $1.9-trillion trading relationship. Defending Brussels' approach, Sefcovic warned that a no-deal scenario - meaning a 30% tariff and the prospect of further escalation - would have risked up to five million jobs in Europe. Throughout the months-long talks, Brussels prioritised stability and maintaining good relations with Washington over escalation. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a Trump ally, said the deal had avoided "potentially devastating" consequences. Hanging over the negotiations was the risk to other areas of cooperation - such as the war in Ukraine - if the EU descended into a trade war with its closest security partner. "It's not only about the trade - it's about security, it's about Ukraine," Sefcovic told reporters Monday. Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics acknowledged it was "clearly an imbalanced deal" if judged purely on trade terms. "But if you're trying to avoid worse national security outcomes, well then maybe the deal is not so bad," he said. CAUTIOUS APPROACH The EU had sought to ramp up the pressure in the final stretch of talks, fearing a bad deal and higher levies, with countries approving a $109-billion package of counter-tariffs at the last minute. And states led by France were pushing for a more robust response including the option to deploy the trade "bazooka" known as the anti-coercion instrument. But the threat of retaliation was consistently framed by Brussels as a last resort should talks fail, and experts suggested the hardening stance may have come too late to make a real difference. "If the EU had played hardball at the very beginning, it probably could have got a better deal," ECFR's Rizzi told AFP.
