writes DOUGLAS RASBASH
Africa-Press – Botswana. Trying to use permits for both revenue and regulation is counterproductive.
It has been made known that there is a new line of thinking that permits can become useful sources of revenue for various purposes. This line of thinking comes with a huge health warning that touches on a critical policy tension: the dual use of permits as both a regulatory control mechanism and a source of fiscal revenue often leads to conflicting objectives, particularly in the transport sector.
Here’s why this is problematic: As a control tool, a permit is meant to limit access, ensure compliance with safety, environmental, and infrastructure standards, and manage congestion or competition. As a revenue tool, the incentive shifts towards maximising the number of permits issued (or raising fees) to boost government income.
These are inherently contradictory: You can’t control and limit something while also trying to profit by expanding it. Charging a high price (e.g. $500 per permit) may deter legitimate operators but not necessarily reduce the actual freight volumes — it may just push activity underground or lead to permit-sharing and evasion.
Retaliatory
When used as a revenue instrument, permits can favour large, capital-intensive operators who can afford the fees; exclude small-scale or regional carriers, thus reducing competition; inflate logistics costs, which ultimately hit consumers and producers; and will assuredly attract retaliatory counter-measures.
In a landlocked economy like Botswana’s, such a policy may discourage investment in logistics, weaken trade competitiveness, and reduce the country’s appeal as a transit corridor. Infact, the use of permits is imposing a non-tariff barrier to trade which must be minimised in regionally integrated markets.
For Botswana’s aspirations to become a transport and logistics hub, increasing the cost of accessibility to its territory is decidedly counter-intuitive. The temptation to use permits as an easy source of revenue would run counter to regional trade policy and stimulate counter-measures from neighbouring countries. Imposing a $500 for transiting trucks has the same impact as raising tariffs.
Post-diamond era
As Botswana increasingly recognises that in the post-diamond era, the nation is not gifted by a quirk of geology but only through the endeavour of its citizens. In this scenario, the last strategy should be to catalyse constraints on trade and doing business.
We also need to consider what economic benefits are generated by encouraging transit traffic. Apart from purchasing fuel and wellness breaks, heavy trucking generates no benefits but instead imposes massive costs on road infrastructure and operations. The confusion of generating revenue from transit permits to help fund road maintenance extends further to the development of the railway from Francistown to Kazungula Bridge.
Is the planning strategy to promote trucking by road or divert the traffic to rail? It cannot be both. Although there is revival of interest in the concept of becoming a regional logistics hub, as with promoting transit traffic, there has never been a socio-economic analysis to guide decision-makers and it is time that there was.
Actual road use
If revenue is the goal better alternatives exist. It is more transparent and efficient to collect from fuel levies, road tolls or distance-based user fees — which correlate better with infrastructure usage and levels of service.
Even better, satellite-based tolling (GNSS road user charging) offers a smart solution. By equipping trucks with GPS-enabled On-Board Units (OBUs), Botswana can charge trucks based on actual road use—no toll booths or gantries required. OBUs record trip data (distance, route, time) and transmit it to a central billing system. Charges are calculated automatically, and transporters are billed monthly or prepay.
Truckers can obtain OBUs from licensed service providers, either at major border posts, fuel stations or via logistics platforms. OBUs can be leased or bought, and interoperability with South African or regional systems can reduce duplication. This system is already in use in countries like Germany, Slovakia and Hungary—and can be tailored for Botswana. With satellite tolling, Botswana can become a digitally-enabled, revenue-smart transit hub, strengthen its fiscal base, and lead innovation in SADC corridor management.
Targeted
If control is the aim of permits, they should be limited in number, targeted, and priced only to cover administrative costs, not to generate surplus revenue. Trying to use permits for both revenue and regulation is counterproductive. It creates perverse incentives, discourages compliance, burdens trade, and undermines the very purpose of a modern, enabling transport policy.
Note well that a permit is not a fare. Botswana would do better to separate fiscal and regulatory goals — and ensure that transport serves the economy, not the other way around.
Source: Botswana Gazette
For More News And Analysis About Botswana Follow Africa-Press
