Just over a month after South Africa became the eleventh country to notify of its initiation of a safeguard investigation in 2026, the twenty-first such case, it increased the tally to 22 by notifying the World Trade Organisation (WTO) of the launch of a safeguard investigation on certain cold-rolled products of iron and steel on July 10.

The WTO Committee on Safeguards informed its members of the notification by the Southern African Customs Union (Sacu) on July 14.

The WTO member-notified initiations are, in brackets, as follows: Australia (1), Canada (2), the EU (1), India (1), Madagascar (4), Morocco (1), New Zealand (1), the Philippines (2), Russia (2), South Africa (2), Türkiye (3), and Zimbabwe (2). This is a total of 38 countries, considering that the EU is made up of 27 members. Well, 42 members, given that Sacu consists of five members.

Sacu’s second notification came shortly after the instalment of this column published on June 26, ‘Escape clause’, which provides a detailed analysis of the 2026 safeguards. An ‘escape clause’ mechanism, also known as a ‘safety valve’, allows WTO member countries to temporarily restrict imports of a good if a sudden, unexpected surge threatens serious injury to a domestic industry.

Should you need reminding, the modern use of safeguards is a US invention. Safeguards were used by its states for centuries to restrict imports temporarily and feature in all US trade agreements. They found their way into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1947 through Article XIX, Emergency Action on Imports of Particular Goods, which is a foundational provision. The US’s practice of imposing temporary bans or duties on imported goods originated in medieval Europe, where rulers imposed them when domestic industries or strategic sectors were threatened. For clarification, the Agreement on Safeguards, negotiated later, clarifies and governs the application of Article XIX.

If you thought that the piece would be about Sacu’s second safeguard notification, then you would be mistaken. It is about member 43, a recent addition to the ‘Escape Club’. Any guesses? Hint: the safeguard investigation was initiated on July 13 and notified to the WTO on July 17. Another hint? Its name had already been mentioned. It is indeed the father of modern-day safeguards – the US. The investigation was initiated by the US International Trade Commission (ITC).

Regular readers will know that a safeguard, or a safeguard measure, is a fair trade remedy, which means that it remedies fair trade practices, unlike a dumping duty or a countervailing duty (anti-subsidy), which remedies unfair trade practices. Thus, when a WTO member country’s domestic industry is not able to compete against “a sudden, unexpected surge” in imports, it can turn to a safeguard, which, if imposed, will ultimately restrict all imports of the good in question.

I could find no gushy tribute to a safeguard, unlike a tariff, which President Donald Trump described as “the most beautiful word in the dictionary”. Ironically, a US tariff can also be imposed on fair-trade goods, provided that its increase is restricted to the bound rate the US agreed with WTO members. Even so, the US has been imposing tariffs in excess of its bound rates.

So, why initiate a safeguard investigation? Well, that is the million-dollar question, and quite possibly a column for another day.

Would you want to venture a guess on the good on which the safeguard investigation is being initiated? What good would require such intervention for which a tariff could not be employed, putting aside the US’s conflict with its WTO commitments?

It is for fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb meat, excluding live lambs and sheep, and meat of mature sheep (mutton).

According to the ITC, the investigation is “extraordinarily complicated” and it will therefore “make its serious injury determination” by November 13. Prehearing briefs are scheduled for October 8. If the ITC’s determination is affirmative, or the ITC is equally divided, then it will submit its report to the President within 180 days of the date on which the petition was properly filed, January 9, 2027.

The deadline for submitting comments on the lamb meat safeguard investigation is August 11.