The difficulties being faced by South Africa’s steel industry extend beyond the well-documented problems of primary steelmaking, epitomised by the recent mothballing by ArcelorMittal South Africa (AMSA) of the Newcastle Works and the closure of its longs business.

Mid-stream and downstream processors and fabricators are also facing the pressures associated with an industry that has a fundamental supply/demand imbalance globally – pressures that are amplified by the fact that most countries treat their steel industries as strategic.

The result is that governments around the world, including the South African government, are generally pretty active and activist in supporting their industries, largely through trade protection, but even through direct and indirect subsidies.

When such actions are taken, there are always trade-offs.

Striking the correct balance between protecting upstream domestic manufacturing while ensuring that downstream users have secure and affordable supply is hard to do and the risk of unintended negative consequences is high.

South Africa is currently seeking to strike precisely such a balance with its two-phase steel tariff review and through a possible large-scale transaction between AMSA and the Industrial Development Corporation.

The first phase has already resulted in a number of steel products receiving higher levels of protection. This, after the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (Itac) proposed that duties across various tariff subheadings should be increased to the World Trade Organisation bound rate.

Since May, imports under a number of subheadings have attracted general duties of between 10% and 30%, with some products also subject to additional anti-dumping or safeguard duties.

After a strong stakeholder response to the review, a second phase was launched. It is now drawing to a conclusion and Itac’s preliminary determinations, including proposals of yet more protection, are out for public comment.

In both phases, Itac has also outlined the creation of rebates to ensure that downstream users are able to secure affordable product, especially given the risk of interruption created by the closure of AMSA’s longs business.

Worryingly, there are reports that the lag between the imposition of tariffs and the creation of rebates is disrupting the supply of certain products used in mining, construction, and manufacturing.

The problem appears to be especially acute for structural steel, where imports from the key source markets of China and Thailand face anti-dumping duties of 74.98% and 20.32% respectively in addition to the 10% general duty.

There are reports of shipments having been diverted and of product lingering in bonded warehouses in anticipation of the rebate.

While the authorities are aware of the problem, officials appear process rather than outcome oriented, and are linking rebates to the finalisation of the review.

This is arguably a natural response in a context where so many decisions fall foul of the public-participation rule, with the recent Public Procurement Act being a highly visible example.

The damage caused by a bureaucratic delay is not nearly as visible as a Constitutional Court verdict. That does not automatically make it any less costly, however.