Human rights and AfCFTA tariffs: A practical implementation think-piece for trade negotiators
Panel discussion during 2023 WTO Public Forum “Pay attention! AfCFTA tariff schedules from a human rights perspective”
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 and elaboration of our panel discussion during the 2023 WTO Public Forum’s session on AfCFTA tariffs and human rights.
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) represents a transformative opportunity to reshape the economic landscape of an entire continent. While much attention has focused on its potential to boost intra-African trade by 52% and accelerate industrialisation, the human rights implications of AfCFTA tariffs remain underexamined and often neglected in negotiation processes. This disconnect between technical trade policy and human lives is not merely an academic concern - it strikes at the very heart of whether the AfCFTA will deliver on its promise of inclusive development that benefits all Africans.
In an article examining tariff liberalisation in Egypt and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), I discussed how different approaches to AfCFTA tariffs can significantly impact vulnerable populations.
When Egypt categorised almost all dairy products for rapid liberalisation while excluding only processed cheese, the negotiators made decisions that could potentially undermine the livelihoods of the 69% of milk producers who are subsistence micro-farmers with limited capacity to compete with larger regional producers. By contrast, ECOWAS adopted a more cautious approach, categorising many dairy products as "unspecified" (likely to become sensitive or excluded items), potentially offering greater protection for small producers who constitute the backbone of the dairy sector in West Africa.
These contrasting approaches illustrate how seemingly technical decisions about AfCFTA tariffs carry profound human rights implications. The categorisation of products as non-sensitive (Category A), sensitive (Category B) or excluded (Category C) reflects unquestioned assumptions about whose interests matter and how trade liberalisation should advance development. When human rights considerations are absent from these decisions, the resulting tariff schedules may undermine rather than advance the welfare of the most vulnerable groups.
The human rights implications of AfCFTA tariffs extend far beyond the dairy sector. Research indicates that small-scale producers across agricultural sectors, women and girls, workers in vulnerable industries, youth, and local populations can all experience significant impacts - both positive and negative - from tariff liberalisation. The right to food, the right to work and enjoy decent work, and the right to an adequate standard of living emerge as particularly vulnerable to tariff policy decisions. Other affected rights include access to drinking water, health, freedom of association, and a healthy environment.
This article proposes a practical approach for trade negotiators seeking to integrate human rights considerations into AfCFTA tariff negotiations. Drawing on emerging methodologies for human rights assessment of tariff schedules, it offers concrete strategies for identifying vulnerable sectors, consulting stakeholders, developing human rights-sensitive negotiating positions, and implementing effective monitoring mechanisms. By adopting these approaches, negotiators can help ensure that AfCFTA tariffs advance rather than undermine human rights, contributing to an integration process that is both economically efficient and socially just.
Integrating human rights considerations into AfCFTA tariff negotiations is not merely a moral imperative - it is essential for achieving the agreement's stated objective to create a single market for goods and services while promoting the development as laid down under Agenda 2063. By systematically incorporating human rights into tariff talks, negotiators can help ensure that the benefits of integration are widely shared, particularly with those most vulnerable to economic disruption.
Discussing the human rights-tariff linkages: A framework for analysis
The relationship between human rights and AfCFTA tariffs is multifaceted and complex, requiring a nuanced understanding that goes beyond simplistic pro-trade or anti-trade positions. Trade liberalisation through tariff reduction generates opportunities and risks for human rights, with effects varying across different rights, sectors and population groups. Understanding these connections is the essential first step toward developing tariff schedules that advance rather than undermine human rights.
At the most fundamental level, AfCFTA tariffs influence human rights through their effects on prices, production patterns, employment, government revenue, and market access. When tariffs are reduced or eliminated, imported products become more affordable for consumers but may create competitive pressure for domestic producers. This can benefit consumers and export-oriented producers while challenging import-competing sectors. The distributional effects of these changes - who gains and who loses - directly affect human rights enjoyment across different segments of society.
Research on human rights and AfCFTA tariffs has identified three rights as particularly vulnerable to trade liberalisation decisions. The right to food is the most frequently affected, representing 31.8% of instances in my literature review. When agricultural tariffs are reduced, domestic producers may face competition from imports that benefit from economies of scale, subsidies, or other advantages. Small-scale producers, who often lack the resources, technology, and market access to compete with larger operations, may see their incomes decline or be forced to abandon farming altogether. In countries where a significant portion of the population depends on agriculture, AfCFTA tariff decisions in this sector directly affect food security and the right to food.
The right to work and to enjoy decent work, representing 18.2% of instances in the research, is also significantly affected by AfCFTA tariffs. Tariff reductions can lead to job creation in sectors where a country has comparative advantages but job losses in sectors facing increased competition. When workers lack the skills, resources, or mobility to transition to new sectors, unemployment and underemployment can result. The quality of employment may also be affected, with pressure to reduce wages or working conditions to remain competitive. These dynamics have direct implications for the right to work and decent working conditions, particularly for workers in vulnerable sectors.
The right to an adequate standard of living, also representing 18.2% of instances, is affected through AfCFTA tariffs' impacts on income, prices, and access to essential goods and services. Through their effects on employment opportunities, wage levels, food prices, and government revenue available for social services, tariff decisions influence people's ability to maintain an adequate standard of living. This includes access to housing, healthcare, education, and other essential services. The distributional effects of tariff changes—whether they benefit or harm different segments of society—determine their ultimate impact on this right.
Beyond these three most frequently affected rights, research has identified impacts on the right to access drinking water (9.1%), the right to health (7.6%), the right to freedom of association (4.5%), the right to a salubrious environment (4.5%), the right to education (3%), the right to property (1.5%), and the principle of non-discrimination (1.5%). This diversity of affected rights underscores the pervasive impact of trade policy on human rights enjoyment.
The human rights implications of AfCFTA tariffs vary significantly across different population groups. Small producers emerge as the most affected group, accounting for 37.9% of instances in the research. These producers often lack the resources, scale, technology, and market access to compete effectively in liberalised markets. Women and girls represent the second most affected group (34.8%), reflecting their concentration in vulnerable sectors and additional barriers they face in adapting to economic change. Other affected groups include workers (9.1%), youth (10.6%), and local populations (7.6%).
The agricultural sector stands out as particularly significant for human rights, with dairy products (16.7%), rice (12.1%), strawberries (7.6%), and poultry (7.6%) identified as products with especially important human rights implications. This sectoral concentration reflects both the centrality of agriculture to livelihoods in many African countries and the particular vulnerability of small-scale agricultural producers to competition from larger, more industrialised operations.
Understanding these connections between AfCFTA tariffs and human rights provides the foundation for more deliberate decision-making in tariff negotiations. When negotiators appreciate how specific tariff reductions might affect the right to food for small-scale dairy farmers or the right to work for employees in a vulnerable manufacturing sector, they can make more informed choices about which products to liberalise rapidly and which might require more gradual approaches or even exclusion from liberalisation commitments.
This nuanced understanding also challenges simplistic views of trade liberalisation as uniformly beneficial or harmful to human rights. The reality is far more complex, with varying effects across different rights, sectors, and populations. By analysing these specific connections rather than assuming uniform impacts, negotiators can develop more targeted and effective approaches to ensuring that AfCFTA tariff schedules advance rather than undermine human rights.
Pre-negotiation phase: Human rights assessment for AfCFTA tariffs
Before entering AfCFTA tariff negotiations, governments should systematically assess how different liberalisation scenarios could affect human rights within their territories. This pre-negotiation assessment need not be a resource-intensive comprehensive human rights impact assessment but a focused analysis that identifies key vulnerabilities and informs negotiating positions. By mapping the potential human rights implications of AfCFTA tariffs before negotiations begin, countries can develop more strategic and defensible positions that balance trade promotion with human rights protection.
Assuming preliminary consultations and due diligence have been carried out and allow moving forward, the first step in this assessment process is identifying vulnerable sectors and populations that might be significantly affected by AfCFTA tariff reductions. This requires mapping the domestic production landscape to understand which sectors include substantial numbers of vulnerable producers or workers. A matrix design is a practical tool for this analysis, organising information by HS code to align with the structure of tariff negotiations. For each product category, the matrix captures information on domestic production value, the number and characteristics of people dependent on production, current imports, and potential human rights implications of liberalisation.
For example, applying this approach to the dairy sector (HS Chapter 4) in West Africa would reveal that production is dominated by small-scale producers, with significant female participation in both production and marketing. Most producers operate at subsistence or near-subsistence levels, with limited capacity to compete with larger operations. Liberalisation of this sector without adequate safeguards could threaten the livelihoods of these producers, with implications for the right to food, the right to a satisfactory standard of living, and women's economic empowerment. A similar analysis across other sectors would identify additional vulnerabilities and potential human rights concerns.
The data for this mapping exercise comes from a variety of sources. National statistical agencies often maintain information on production patterns and employment by sector. Agricultural ministries typically have data on farming systems and producer characteristics. Civil society organisations and research institutions may have conducted relevant studies on vulnerable sectors or populations. Where specific data is lacking, proxies or estimates can be used with appropriate caution about their limitations. The key is to gather sufficient information to identify where human rights vulnerabilities might arise, even if precise quantification is not always possible.
The second crucial step in the pre-negotiation assessment is another round of stakeholder consultation. Meaningful engagement with potentially affected groups provides insights that technical analysis alone cannot capture. While full public participation in trade negotiations may not be feasible due to confidentiality requirements and the means to conduct them may be limited, targeted consultation with representative groups can provide critical understanding of potential vulnerabilities, adaptation capacities, and mitigation priorities.
Several consultation approaches can be effective in informing AfCFTA tariff positions. Sectoral roundtables bring together representatives from key sectors, including small producer associations, workers' groups and industry bodies to discuss potential impacts of different liberalisation scenarios. Technical working groups combining trade expertise with sectoral knowledge can analyse potential impacts more systematically. When in-person consultation is not possible, structured surveys can gather insights on potential vulnerabilities and adaptation capacities. Existing civil society platforms and networks can also be leveraged, as many organisations have deep expertise in specific sectors and communities.
These consultations should focus on understanding how different groups might be affected by potential AfCFTA tariff reductions, what capacities they have to adapt to increased competition, what support would help them benefit from regional integration, and what specific concerns they have about the liberalisation process. The insights gathered should be documented systematically and integrated into the negotiating strategy.
The third step in the pre-negotiation assessment is analysing the current tariff structure and trade patterns to understand the protective effects of existing tariffs and the potential implications of their reduction. This analysis should examine current tariff levels, import and export performance, key trading partners within Africa, market concentration and competition dynamics, and differential impacts on various producer groups.
For example, analysis of ECOWAS tariffs on dairy products reveals a nuanced structure with exceptionally high rates on yogurt (HS 0403.10) but significantly lower rates on processed milk (HS 0402). This structure appears designed to protect a nascent value-added dairy processing industry while acknowledging domestic supply constraints for basic milk products. Understanding these existing patterns helps predict how AfCFTA tariff reductions might affect different segments of the sector and their associated human rights implications.
The final step in the pre-negotiation assessment is developing a preliminary product categorisation strategy based on the human rights assessment. Under the AfCFTA framework, products are categorised as non-sensitive (Category A, liberalised within 5-10 years), sensitive (Category B, liberalised within 10-13 years) or excluded (Category C, not subject to liberalisation commitments). This categorisation provides flexibility to protect vulnerable sectors while still advancing overall liberalisation objectives.
Products where liberalisation poses minimal human rights risks or may generate positive impacts through lower consumer prices without threatening vulnerable producers can be placed in Category A. Those vulnerable groups needing time to adapt to increased competition might be categorised as sensitive (Category B), with the extended implementation period providing transition time for adaptation measures. Products where rapid liberalisation could cause significant harm to vulnerable groups without adequate alternative livelihoods or safety nets might be considered for exclusion (Category C), considering the 3% tariff line limitation.
This categorisation strategy should balance human rights implications with economic significance, strategic development priorities, existing commitments in regional agreements and potential for value chain development within Africa. The objective is not to minimise liberalisation commitments but to sequence and structure them in ways that allow vulnerable populations to adapt and potentially benefit from the integration process.
The pre-negotiation human rights assessment provides the foundation for developing both substantively sound and strategically effective negotiating positions. By systematically identifying vulnerabilities, consulting stakeholders, analysing trade patterns, and developing a preliminary categorisation strategy, negotiators can enter AfCFTA tariff discussions with a clear understanding of the human rights implications of different outcomes and a strategic approach to protecting crucial human rights interests while advancing regional integration objectives.
Negotiation preparation: Developing human rights-sensitive positions on AfCFTA tariffs
With a solid understanding of human rights vulnerabilities from the pre-negotiation assessment, the next step is translating these insights into effective negotiating positions. This requires careful framing, evidence-based justifications, and balanced approaches that protect human rights while advancing AfCFTA's broader integration objectives. Effective preparation enables negotiators to advocate persuasively for positions safeguarding vulnerable populations without being perceived as simply resistant to liberalisation.
The first key element in developing human rights-sensitive positions is linking tariff proposals to broader development objectives. Rather than framing protection for vulnerable sectors as exceptions or obstacles to liberalisation, negotiators can articulate how these positions advance shared development goals embedded in Agenda 2063 and the AfCFTA itself. This development objective framing connects technical tariff positions to larger aspirations that all African countries share.
For each key sector with significant human rights implications, negotiators should articulate how it contributes to national development goals, which specific human rights would be affected by liberalisation, what complementary policies would be needed to maximise benefits and minimise risks, and how the proposed tariff treatment aligns with the right to development. This comprehensive framing shifts the conversation from narrow protectionism to strategic development policy.
For example, rather than simply arguing to exclude dairy products from liberalisation commitments, a more effective approach would articulate how temporary protection for specific dairy products supports rural livelihood development, women's economic empowerment, and food security—all while moving toward eventual regional integration through complementary capacity-building measures. This development-focused framing resonates with the AfCFTA's broader objectives rather than appearing to contradict them.
The second crucial element is preparing evidence-based justifications for positions on AfCFTA tariffs, particularly for sensitive and excluded products. Human rights considerations are more compelling when supported by specific data and analysis demonstrating genuine vulnerabilities rather than merely asserting them. This evidence strengthens both the substantive basis for positions and their persuasiveness in negotiations.
Effective evidence includes data on the number and characteristics of people dependent on production in vulnerable sectors, information on the sector's contribution to food security, employment, and rural development, analysis of competitive dynamics and adaptation challenges, examples of impacts from previous liberalisation efforts, and assessments from relevant UN bodies or human rights organisations. The more specific and concrete this evidence, the more persuasive the resulting positions.
For instance, Egypt's decision to exclude processed cheese (HS 0406.30) from liberalisation commitments appears to be primarily motivated by economic factors - protecting a significant export product (63.7% of dairy exports). A human rights justification would require demonstrating how this exclusion protects vulnerable producers rather than just commercial interests. Without such evidence, the position may appear to be simple economic protectionism rather than a legitimate human rights concern.
Balancing human rights protection with meaningful liberalisation commitments is the third key element in developing effective positions. While human rights considerations may justify protection in specific sectors, an effective AfCFTA also requires substantial liberalisation. Negotiators should develop balanced positions protecting crucial human rights interests while contributing significantly to regional integration.
Several balancing strategies can be effective. Sectoral balance involves liberalising sectors where a country has competitive advantages while seeking protection in vulnerable sectors, resulting in substantial overall liberalisation while safeguarding specific human rights concerns. Product differentiation within sectors distinguishes between products primarily produced by vulnerable groups (which may need protection) and those dominated by larger commercial operations (which can be liberalised more rapidly). Graduated liberalisation for sensitive products proposes phased reduction as complementary measures take effect, providing time for adaptation while still committing to eventual integration.
This balanced approach recognises that the AfCFTA's development objectives are served not by maximising or minimising liberalisation but by structuring it in ways that allow vulnerable populations to adapt and ultimately benefit from regional integration. By offering meaningful liberalisation commitments in less vulnerable sectors, negotiators create space for the protection needed in areas with significant human rights implications.
The fourth element in developing human rights-sensitive positions is identifying specific complementary measures that would be implemented alongside liberalisation to mitigate negative impacts and enable vulnerable producers to adapt. These might include producer support programs providing technical assistance, access to finance, and market linkages; value chain integration initiatives helping small producers participate in regional value chains on favorable terms; social protection measures for individuals and communities experiencing negative impacts; and infrastructure investments addressing constraints that limit competitiveness.
By explicitly connecting tariff positions to specific complementary measures, negotiators demonstrate that protection is not an end in itself but part of a comprehensive strategy for inclusive development. This integrated approach is more persuasive and effective than positions that simply resist liberalisation without offering pathways for eventual integration.
Finally, negotiators should anticipate counterarguments and prepare responses that maintain focus on human rights considerations. Common counterarguments include assertions that protection perpetuates inefficiency, that consumers benefit from lower prices resulting from liberalisation, that investment will be discouraged by continued protection, or that regional suppliers are not genuinely competitive but subsidised. Prepared responses might highlight the temporary nature of protection to allow for adjustment, the importance of producer welfare alongside consumer benefits, the potential for targeted protection to attract investment in upgrading, or the legitimate need for level playing fields where subsidies exist.
Through careful framing, evidence-based justifications, balanced approaches, complementary measures, and prepared responses to counterarguments, negotiators can develop positions on AfCFTA tariffs that effectively protect human rights while advancing regional integration. This thoughtful preparation enables persuasive advocacy during the negotiations, increasing the likelihood that the final agreement will reflect human rights considerations alongside economic objectives.
At the negotiating table: Advocating for human rights in AfCFTA tariff rounds
When AfCFTA tariff negotiations begin, the careful preparation of human rights-sensitive positions must translate into effective advocacy at the negotiating table. This requires strategic framing, tactical approaches, coalition-building and specific negotiation techniques that maintain human rights protection as a high negotiating principle without being dismissed as merely obstructionist. By employing these strategies, negotiators can increase the likelihood that the final AfCFTA tariff schedules will protect vulnerable populations while advancing regional integration.
The first critical strategy is framing human rights considerations as advancing shared objectives rather than opposing liberalisation. The AfCFTA's preamble and objectives explicitly reference inclusive development, suggesting that human rights protection is integral to the agreement's purpose rather than an exception to it. By consistently connecting human rights concerns to the language and goals of the AfCFTA itself, negotiators can position their proposals as fulfilling rather than undermining the agreement's vision.
Effective framing language might include:
"Our position on dairy products reflects our shared commitment to inclusive development that benefits all segments of our societies, including small-scale producers who constitute the backbone of rural economies across our continent."
"The temporary protection for these products supports the gradual transformation of vulnerable subsistence farming into market-oriented production, advancing our common goal of food security."
"By categorising these products as sensitive, we ensure that the benefits of integration reach women producers, who represent the majority in this sector and who face particular challenges in adapting to increased competition."
This framing shifts the conversation from a binary choice between liberalisation and protection to a more nuanced discussion about how to structure liberalisation to achieve shared development objectives. It acknowledges the validity of regional integration while insisting that the process must be managed to ensure inclusive outcomes.
The second key strategy is proposing implementation safeguards when full exclusion is not possible or desirable. These safeguards provide ways to protect human rights during the liberalisation process without permanent barriers to integration. Such approaches may be particularly useful for products not qualifying for exclusion under the AfCFTA's 3% limitation but still present significant human rights concerns.
Potential safeguards include staged implementation beginning liberalisation with less sensitive varieties or quality segments while temporarily protecting those crucial for vulnerable producers; trigger mechanisms that temporarily halt or reverse liberalisation if specific negative impacts emerge; review clauses building in periodic assessments to evaluate human rights impacts and adjust implementation accordingly; and special agricultural safeguards for food security products, modeled on (but improving upon) WTO provisions.
For example, rather than seeking to exclude all poultry products, a negotiator might propose liberalising high-value cuts primarily consumed by urban elites while maintaining longer protection for whole birds and less expensive parts that compete directly with small-scale producers. This differentiated approach protects vulnerable producers while still advancing meaningful liberalisation.
The third strategy is linking tariff concessions to specific complementary measures that will be implemented to support affected groups. While tariff negotiations themselves typically do not address complementary policies, explicitly connecting liberalisation commitments to parallel support initiatives can make more ambitious tariff concessions viable from a human rights perspective.
A negotiator might state:
"As we gradually liberalise sector X, we will implement a comprehensive support program for small producers, including quality improvement and market access support."
"Our liberalisation schedule for Y is designed to align with our investment program in rural infrastructure, which will enable smaller producers to access regional markets."
"The extended implementation period for Z will be used to develop and implement targeted social measures for affected communities."
These linkages help shift the focus from tariffs in isolation to the broader policy framework determining whether liberalisation ultimately advances or undermines human rights. They demonstrate that protection is not an end in itself but part of a transition strategy toward inclusive regional integration.
The fourth effective strategy is building coalitions around shared human rights concerns. Individual countries may have limited influence in AfCFTA negotiations, but collective positions from multiple countries facing similar human rights challenges can be more persuasive. Several approaches to coalition-building can enhance effectiveness in advancing human rights considerations.
Sectoral alliances bring together countries concerned about specific sectors, such as dairy, poultry, or staple crops. These alliances can develop common positions, share evidence on human rights implications, and advocate collectively for appropriate treatment of vulnerable sectors. Thematic coalitions organise around specific human rights issues, such as food security, women in agriculture, or youth employment, bringing together countries across regions that share these priorities. Regional group coordination works within economic communities to develop common positions reflecting shared human rights priorities, leveraging established cooperation mechanisms.
By acting collectively, countries can amplify their influence and demonstrate that human rights concerns reflect broadly shared priorities rather than individual resistance to liberalisation. These coalitions can also facilitate knowledge-sharing about effective approaches to protecting vulnerable populations while advancing regional integration.
Finally, negotiators should employ specific tactical approaches when facing resistance to human rights-based positions. When counterparts dismiss human rights concerns as disguised protectionism, respond with specific evidence on the numbers and characteristics of vulnerable people who would be affected. When faced with demands for rapid liberalisation in sensitive sectors, propose staged approaches with clear timelines and benchmarks for complementary measures. When economic arguments dominate, introduce specific examples of how past liberalisation affected vulnerable groups when human rights were not adequately considered.
Throughout negotiations, maintain detailed documentation of human rights concerns raised and responses received. This creates a record that can be valuable for subsequent implementation monitoring and review processes, demonstrating that specific vulnerabilities were identified and discussed during the negotiation process.
By employing these strategies—framing human rights as shared objectives, proposing implementation safeguards, linking tariff concessions to complementary measures, building coalitions, and using specific tactical approaches—negotiators can more effectively advocate for AfCFTA tariff schedules that protect vulnerable populations while advancing regional integration. These approaches recognise the legitimate objectives of trade liberalisation while insisting that the process must be managed to ensure that human rights are protected and the benefits of integration are widely shared.
Conclusion: Toward human rights-centered AfCFTA tariff schedules
The successful integration of human rights considerations into AfCFTA tariff negotiations is just the beginning of a longer process. Once tariff schedules are agreed upon, countries must implement them in ways that realise their human rights objectives while advancing regional integration. This requires establishing monitoring mechanisms, developing adjustment measures and engaging in ongoing review processes to ensure that AfCFTA tariffs deliver inclusive development rather than exacerbating existing inequalities.
The first essential element of human rights-centered implementation is establishing robust monitoring mechanisms to track the impacts of tariff changes on vulnerable populations. These mechanisms should focus particularly on the sectors and groups identified in the pre-negotiation assessment as having significant human rights vulnerabilities. Effective monitoring begins with baseline assessments conducted before implementation to enable meaningful comparison over time. It should include both quantitative indicators (e.g., production levels, market prices, employment figures) and qualitative dimensions capturing the lived experiences of affected communities.
Multi-stakeholder oversight enhances the credibility and comprehensiveness of monitoring efforts. Including representatives from affected communities, civil society organisations, industry, and government creates a balanced perspective that captures diverse impacts. This approach also helps ensure that monitoring focuses on the most significant human rights concerns rather than being limited to standard economic metrics.
Regular reporting on human rights impacts, integrated into the AfCFTA's broader review mechanisms, ensures that findings inform ongoing implementation decisions. These reports should identify both positive developments and emerging challenges, providing the foundation for adaptive management of the liberalisation process. By making these reports publicly available, countries can enhance transparency and accountability in the implementation process.
The second key element is developing and implementing targeted measures to address any negative human rights impacts that emerge during implementation. These might include producer support programs providing technical assistance, market information, and value addition opportunities; value chain integration initiatives helping vulnerable producers participate in regional value chains on favorable terms; social protection measures for individuals and communities experiencing negative impacts; and infrastructure investments addressing constraints that limit competitiveness.
These adjustment measures should be specifically tailored to the human rights challenges identified through monitoring. For instance, if monitoring reveals that small-scale dairy farmers are struggling to meet quality standards required for regional markets, targeted programs might focus on improving milk handling practices, establishing collection centers with testing facilities, and supporting the formation of producer cooperatives to achieve economies of scale in processing and marketing.
The targeting of adjustment measures should prioritise the most vulnerable groups, particularly those with limited alternative livelihood options or facing multiple dimensions of disadvantage. Gender-responsive approaches are especially important, recognising that women often face particular constraints in adapting to changing market conditions due to limited access to land, credit, technology, and extension services.
The third element of human rights-centered implementation is active engagement in the review mechanisms established under the AfCFTA. These formal processes provide opportunities to address emerging human rights concerns and advocate for refinements to the agreement based on implementation experience. By bringing concrete evidence of human rights impacts to these discussions, countries can influence the evolution of the AfCFTA to serve inclusive development objectives better.
Engagement strategies should emphasise evidence-based advocacy, drawing on the monitoring data collected. Collaborative approaches to working with other states facing similar challenges can enhance the influence of these processes. A focus on progressive refinement - seeking incremental improvements rather than fundamental renegotiation - will likely be most effective in advancing human rights considerations within the established framework.
Beyond these specific mechanisms, effective implementation requires maintaining the human rights perspective throughout the process. This means consistently asking how liberalisation decisions affect the most vulnerable, whether benefits are being equitably distributed, and what adjustments are needed to ensure inclusive outcomes. It requires ongoing consultation with affected communities, adaptation of support measures based on emerging needs, and willingness to invoke safeguard mechanisms when significant negative impacts occur.
Integrating human rights considerations into AfCFTA tariff implementation represents an opportunity to demonstrate that regional integration can advance inclusive development rather than exacerbate inequalities. By establishing robust monitoring mechanisms, implementing targeted adjustment measures, and actively engaging in review processes, countries can help ensure that the AfCFTA delivers on its promise to create a more integrated, equitable and prosperous Africa.
The negotiation and implementation of AfCFTA tariffs ultimately reflect fundamental choices about development priorities and whose interests are served by economic integration. By systematically incorporating human rights considerations into these processes, African countries can create an agreement that genuinely serves their people—particularly those most vulnerable to economic disruption. This human rights-centered approach does not contradict the economic objectives of the AfCFTA. Instead, it ensures that its benefits are widely shared, contributing to sustainable and inclusive development across the continent.
Human rights and AfCFTA tariffs need not be in tension; they need to be adequately aligned, and they can mutually reinforce a vision of African integration that advances both economic prosperity and human dignity. By applying the approaches outlined in this article, negotiators and policymakers can help realise this vision, creating an AfCFTA that serves as a model for how trade agreements can contribute to inclusive development and the progressive realisation of human rights.
