Beyond numbers - How AfCFTA tariffs impact a human rights-oriented conception of development in Africa
Chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat during the AfCFTA Signature ceremony in March 2018
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) has the potential to increase intra-African trade by up to 52% and lift 30 million Africans out of extreme poverty. Central to this initiative are complex technical tools, primarily tariff schedules, which specify which products will be liberalised and the timeline for this liberalisation. While these tariffs may seem like straightforward economic instruments, they have significant implications for human rights and development across the continent.
My recent study, "Tariffs and Human Rights: A Pilot Analysis of the AfCFTA Tariff Schedules", conducted with Anaïs Cren-Larvor and published by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, examines how AfCFTA tariff schedules impact vulnerable groups, particularly small-scale farmers. The research developed a new methodological approach to assess tariff liberalisation through a human rights lens, with case studies from Egypt and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) demonstrating how different approaches to AfCFTA tariffs can either protect or jeopardise the rights of vulnerable communities.
This analysis revealed something deeper that connects directly to reinterpreting the "acquis principle" within the AfCFTA framework. When AfCFTA tariffs are designed without adequate consideration of broader rights and development objectives, they risk undermining the very development goals the agreement aims to achieve. The technical aspects of trade policy - often relegated to closed-door negotiations among trade experts - deserve greater scrutiny regarding their alignment with African Union commitments to human rights and inclusive development.
This article explores the connections between AfCFTA tariffs and human rights, arguing that technical trade instruments must be understood as policy tools with profound human implications. By examining how different approaches to tariff liberalisation in the dairy sector affect small-scale producers, we can better understand how AfCFTA implementation could be reoriented to advance Africa's comprehensive development agenda rather than merely increasing trade volumes regardless of distributional impacts.
The intersection of AfCFTA tariffs and human rights is not merely an academic question - it is fundamental to whether the AfCFTA will deliver on its promise of inclusive development that benefits all Africans, not just those already positioned to compete in liberalised markets. This perspective invites us to move beyond seeing AfCFTA tariffs as purely economic instruments and recognise them as crucial vehicles for either advancing or undermining fundamental rights.
When technical rules meet human lives: AfCFTA tariffs in practice
The liberalisation modalities of AfCFTA tariffs - determining which tariffs will be phased out rapidly (Category A, 90% of tariff lines), which more gradually (Category B, 7% of sensitive products), and which will remain (Category C, 3% of excluded products) - might seem far removed from everyday human concerns. Yet these decisions directly affect livelihoods, food security, and economic opportunities for millions across the continent.
The dairy sector provides a compelling example of how AfCFTA tariffs translate into real-world human impacts. In Egypt, milk production is stratified across different scales of operation, each with distinct vulnerabilities to trade liberalisation. Subsistence micro-farmers, holding between one and ten animals, account for approximately 69% of Egypt's milk yield. These producers primarily focus on household consumption, selling any surplus on local markets through informal channels. Their modest scale and limited resources make them particularly susceptible to competition from larger producers following tariff liberalisation.
Small and medium-scale producers, holding between eleven and one hundred head of livestock, contribute about 6% of Egypt's milk production. Like micro-farmers, they typically consume a substantial portion of their output domestically while selling surplus through informal networks. Their economic viability depends on maintaining stable local markets for their products - markets that could be disrupted by increased regional competition resulting from AfCFTA tariff reductions.
Egypt's approach to AfCFTA tariffs categorised almost all dairy products as non-sensitive, meaning they will be liberalised over five years, except for processed cheese, which was excluded from liberalisation commitments. This approach may boost Egypt's export competitiveness in regional markets, particularly for cheese and curd products, which constitute over 60% of its dairy exports to Africa. However, it creates substantial risks for the small-scale farmers who produce most of Egypt's milk by exposing them to competition without adequate transition periods or protection measures.
By contrast, ECOWAS - presumably - took a more cautious approach to AfCFTA tariffs in the dairy sector. While ECOWAS has only submitted its offer for non-sensitive products so far, it has treated several dairy products as "unspecified," suggesting they will likely be categorised as sensitive or excluded items in future negotiations. This approach potentially offers greater protection for vulnerable small producers while still promoting processed milk exports, for which the region has comparative advantages.
The ECOWAS tariff structure already demonstrates a nuanced approach to dairy products, with generally high tariffs (averaging 17.2%) but significantly lower rates for processed milk (particularly powdered milk) and exceptionally high protection for yogurts. This structure appears designed to balance meeting domestic demand for basic dairy products while protecting emerging value-added processing industries. When extended to AfCFTA tariff negotiations, this balanced approach may better protect the rights and livelihoods of small-scale producers while still advancing regional integration.
These contrasting approaches to AfCFTA tariffs in the dairy sector reveal how technical trade decisions reflect different priorities and visions of development. Egypt's approach prioritises export competitiveness and rapid integration, potentially at the expense of small producers. ECOWAS's more cautious strategy attempts to balance integration with protection for vulnerable sectors and value-addition opportunities. The human rights implications of these different approaches are significant, potentially affecting food security, rural livelihoods, and economic opportunities, particularly for women who play critical roles in dairy production and distribution across Africa.
This analysis demonstrates that AfCFTA tariffs are not merely technical instruments but policy tools that shape economic opportunities and risks for different segments of society. How governments approach tariff negotiations - which products they prioritise for liberalisation, protection or exclusion - reflects implicit value judgments about whose interests matter in the integration process. A human rights perspective on AfCFTA tariffs makes these value judgments explicit and encourages more inclusive approaches to trade policy development.
Beyond technicalities: Reinterpreting the AfCFTA acquis principle in the tariff negotiation context
The divergent approaches to AfCFTA tariffs in the dairy sector connect directly to a broader question about the foundational principles guiding AfCFTA implementation - particularly the "preservation of the acquis" principle established in Article 5(f) of the Framework Agreement. This principle has been predominantly interpreted in a narrow manner focused exclusively on existing Regional Economic Community (REC) free trade arrangements. The conventional understanding suggests that the AfCFTA should build upon existing regional trade liberalisation while avoiding regression in already-achieved integration.
However, a broader interpretation of this principle suggests that it encompasses the entire African Union (AU) legal framework, including other AU treaties, Assembly decisions on development, human rights instruments (particularly those recognising the right to development) and continental strategic frameworks like Agenda 2063. This expanded conception of the AfCFTA acquis finds strong textual support within the agreement itself, particularly in Article 3(a), which explicitly references the pan-African vision of an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa enshrined in Agenda 2063.
When applied to AfCFTA tariffs, this broader interpretation would transform the negotiation process. Rather than focusing narrowly on preserving existing tariff preferences within RECs, negotiators would need to consider how tariff schedules impact broader development objectives and human rights commitments. For instance, when designing tariff offers for agricultural products like dairy, governments would need to evaluate not just trade impacts but also effects on food security, rural livelihoods, and the right to an adequate standard of living.
The dairy sector case studies provide evidence for this broader interpretation. Egypt's approach to AfCFTA tariffs, which rapidly liberalises most dairy products without special protection for small producers, may advance narrow trade objectives while undermining broader rights to food and adequate living standards. This contradicts the AU's established commitments to human rights and inclusive development enshrined in instruments like the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, which recognises the right to development as a fundamental human right.
ECOWAS's more cautious approach to dairy tariffs better aligns with this broader understanding of the AfCFTA acquis. By potentially treating dairy products as sensitive items deserving protection, ECOWAS’s approach acknowledges the vulnerability of small-scale producers and the importance of ensuring that trade liberalisation supports rather than undermines food security and rural livelihoods. This approach recognises that AfCFTA tariff negotiations must balance trade expansion with protection for vulnerable groups - a balance that requires considering the full spectrum of AU legal commitments, not just existing trade arrangements.
This broader interpretation of the acquis principle would have significant implications for AfCFTA implementation across all sectors, not just dairy. It would require evaluating all AfCFTA provisions against not just trade objectives but broader development commitments. For instance, the Protocol on Women and Youth in Trade would need to align with existing AU frameworks on gender equality and youth empowerment. Similarly, tariff liberalisation in industrial sectors would need to consider impacts on decent work, environmental sustainability and the right to development.
By reinterpreting the AfCFTA acquis to encompass the broader AU legal framework, we can ensure that tariff liberalisation and other trade measures serve Africa's comprehensive development vision rather than becoming ends in themselves. This approach recognises that the AfCFTA is not merely a trade agreement but an integral component of Africa's development architecture, designed to advance multiple continental objectives simultaneously.
Reimagining AfCFTA tariff negotiations through a human rights lens
What would change if we adopted this broader interpretation of the AfCFTA's legal foundations when designing tariff schedules? My research suggests several transformative shifts in how AfCFTA tariffs would be negotiated, designed, and implemented.
First, inclusive stakeholder consultation would become essential, not optional, in tariff negotiations. When developing initial tariff offers, states would ensure comprehensive consultative processes that include not just large exporters but also smallholder farmers, women's cooperatives, and other potentially affected groups. Their first-hand experience would provide valuable information on potential human rights challenges and necessary adjustment measures to address risks associated with tariff liberalisation.
This approach represents a significant departure from traditional trade negotiations, which often receive inputs from a limited group of stakeholders. When trade negotiators primarily hear from larger commercial interests, the perspectives of underrepresented social groups can be overlooked. The human rights lens would ensure that all affected communities have meaningful input into how tariff schedules are designed.
Second, systematic impact assessment would become standard practice before finalising tariff offers. Governments would evaluate the potential effects of different liberalisation scenarios on vulnerable groups, examining not just aggregate economic impacts but also distributional consequences across different segments of society. These assessments would identify sectors where rapid liberalisation might threaten rights to food, work, or adequate standards of living, informing decisions about which products to categorise as sensitive or excluded from tariff reductions.
In the dairy sector, such assessments might reveal that rapid liberalisation of fresh milk could undermine the livelihoods of small-scale producers who lack the resources to compete with larger regional producers. This information would justify placing fresh milk in Category B (sensitive) or Category C (excluded), allowing more time for adjustment or maintaining protection where necessary to safeguard rights.
Third, AfCFTA tariff schedules would be explicitly designed to advance development goals, not just increase trade volumes. Rather than pursuing economic growth as an end, governments would strategically use tariff policy to promote inclusive development. This might involve protecting sectors dominated by small-scale producers, women, or youth while liberalising areas where African producers can compete effectively in regional markets. It would also include complementary measures to help vulnerable producers adapt to changing market conditions resulting from tariff reductions.
In the dairy example, this could mean maintaining strategic protection for products produced by small-scale farmers while liberalising processed dairy products where larger firms have comparative advantages. Complementary support measures - such as technical assistance, infrastructure development or access to finance - would help smaller producers improve productivity and product quality, eventually enabling them to benefit from regional market opportunities created by tariff liberalisation.
Fourth, legal coherence between tariff commitments and human rights obligations would be strengthened. When designing tariff schedules, trade ministries would work closely with other government departments responsible for agriculture, social development, gender equality and human rights. This coordination would ensure that tariff policies align with broader national development strategies and human rights commitments. It would also facilitate the development of complementary policies to maximise benefits and mitigate risks from tariff liberalisation.
For instance, if tariff reductions on dairy products are expected to create adjustment challenges for small producers, governments might simultaneously implement targeted support programs, social protection measures, or transitional assistance to ensure that liberalisation advances rather than undermines broader development objectives.
This reimagined approach to AfCFTA tariff negotiations would not mean abandoning trade liberalisation. It would mean pursuing it more strategically, with greater attention to distributional impacts and alignment with broader development goals. By integrating human rights considerations into tariff policy, African governments can ensure that the AfCFTA delivers on its promise of inclusive development that benefits all segments of society, not just those already positioned to compete in liberalised markets.
Conclusion: Toward a more human-centered AfCFTA implementation
Analysing AfCFTA tariffs through a human rights lens reveals challenges and opportunities. On one hand, narrowly designed tariff schedules prioritising rapid liberalisation without adequate safeguards for vulnerable groups risk undermining the very development objectives the AfCFTA aims to achieve. On the other hand, strategically designed tariff policies that balance integration with protection for sensitive sectors can advance both trade expansion and human rights.
As the AfCFTA implementation progresses, several practical steps could help ensure that tariff policies support inclusive development. First, the AfCFTA Secretariat and other strategic partners could develop guidelines for human rights impact assessments of tariff offers, helping member states evaluate potential effects on vulnerable groups before finalising commitments. Second, capacity-building programs could strengthen the ability of government officials, civil society organisations and affected communities to engage meaningfully in tariff negotiations. Third, monitoring mechanisms could track the actual impacts of tariff reductions on different segments of society, allowing for adjustments if implementation threatens rights or livelihoods.
The dairy sector case studies demonstrate that different approaches to AfCFTA tariffs can have significantly different human rights implications. Egypt's rapid liberalisation approach creates risks for small-scale producers who may struggle to compete with larger regional competitors. ECOWAS's more cautious strategy potentially offers greater protection for vulnerable producers while still advancing regional integration. These contrasting approaches highlight the importance of context-specific tariff policies that reflect each country's unique production structures, vulnerabilities, and development priorities.
My ongoing research seeks to bridge African integration's technical and human dimensions. The methodological approach developed for analysing AfCFTA tariffs through a human rights lens offers a template that could be applied to other aspects of trade policy, from rules of origin to services liberalisation. By connecting technical trade rules to human rights obligations, we can help ensure the AfCFTA fulfills its promise as a tool for inclusive development rather than simply increasing trade volumes regardless of who benefits.
The ultimate question is not whether Africa should integrate. It is how this integration can serve the continent's broader development vision while respecting the rights and needs of all Africans, especially the most vulnerable. By adopting a broader interpretation of the AfCFTA acquis that encompasses the full spectrum of AU legal commitments, we can transform tariff negotiations from technical exercises focused narrowly on trade expansion to strategic policy processes that advance Africa's comprehensive development agenda.
AfCFTA tariffs are not merely technical instruments - they are powerful policy tools that can either advance or undermine human rights and inclusive development. By recognising this fundamental connection, we can ensure that the AfCFTA's implementation serves its ultimate purpose: creating an integrated, prosperous, and peaceful Africa where the benefits of economic integration are widely shared across all segments of society.
This article is a further reflection on the linkages between AfCFTA tariffs and human rights. It builds on my work for the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
