The Southern African Customs Union– (Sacu–) India trade negotiations bring to mind an apt phrase from the Buckingham Palace statement issued on behalf of the late Queen Elizabeth II on March 9, 2021: “Recollections may vary.”

As to the varying recollections, what is not in dispute is that on August 12, in New Delhi, Sacu and India signed the terms of reference to guide negotiations towards a preferential trade agreement (PTA), which was announced through a Sacu press statement.

A PTA is a trade arrangement under which participating countries agree to reduce or eliminate tariffs on selected products while retaining tariffs on others.

In isolation, the five-paragraph press statement offers no insight into its historic prelude, positioning it as a starting point, which brings us to the varying recollections. Spoiler alert: the press statement follows a ‘hiatus’. This is also not in dispute; what is disputed is the exact starting point, which is, depending on your source of reference – 2002, October 2007, or November 26, 2008. This equates to 24 years ago, 18 years and ten months ago, or 17 years and nine months ago. This raises the question: Is it a hiatus, an extended hiatus or a reboot?

Also not in dispute are the two Department of Trade and Industry (dti) Government Gazette notices of September 19, 2008 (‘Trade Negotiations with India: Product Lines of Interest to Exporters to India’) and May 25, 2012 (‘South African Response to Indian Product Lines of Interest for Sacu-India Preferential Trade Agreement’). For the first, comment closed on October 10, 2008, while for the second it closed on June 15, 2012.

And here we are, after all those years, with terms of reference being signed but no mention of the memorandum of understanding that was signed in New Delhi in 2008 to facilitate PTA negotiations. Why not reference the past and create the impression of a new beginning – a new dawn, as it were?

The press statement cites “a significant milestone in strengthening economic and trade relations” between the six countries, adding that “the conclusion of the terms of reference reflects the shared commitment and strong political will of Sacu and India to deepen their economic partnership and advance cooperation in areas of mutual interest”.

It goes on to state: “The terms of reference provide a structured basis for the PTA negotiations, setting out the parameters within which the parties will engage as they pursue a balanced, mutually beneficial and development-oriented agreement. The terms of reference will guide discussions aimed at enhancing trade, promoting investment and strengthening economic cooperation between Sacu and India.”

Interestingly, it references “the progress made” – yes, you read right: “Sacu welcomes this important achievement, which encapsulates the progress made through constructive engagement between the parties and demonstrates their shared ambition to expand economic opportunities and foster sustainable growth. Sacu looks forward to working closely with India in advancing the negotiations towards a meaningful and mutually beneficial outcome that supports the development objectives of both parties.”

So, prior to this “important achievement”, would you guess how many trade agreements Sacu and India have respectively completed since November 2008? It is 11 for India and four for Sacu. For India: India-Nepal Treaty of Trade (2009), India-ASEAN CECA (2009), India-South Korea CEPA (2009), India-Japan CEPA (2011), India-Malaysia CECA (2011), India-Mauritius CECPA (2021), India-UAE CEPA (2022), India-Australia ECTA (2022), India-EFTA TEPA (2024), India-UK CETA (2025), and India-Oman CEPA (2025). For Sacu: Sacu–Mercosur PTA (2016), SADC–EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) (2016), SACU-Mozambique-UK EPA (2021), and the African Continental Free Trade Area (2019/2021).

This raises the question: How long will it take to conclude the Sacu-India PTA? Pause now if you want to ponder. It is understood that a strict one-year deadline has been set to finalise the PTA, covering eight chapters, including rules of origin, customs procedures, and market access. One year seems highly ambitious in the context of the lapsed years, depending on your number preference.

Is the expectation that a Department of Trade, Industry and Competition Government Gazette notice will be published, or will the information obtained through the earlier dti notices suffice?