Assessment of the potential impact of the African Continental Free Trade Area on the right to food security of small-scale farmers and vulnerable groups

4.1 Overview and objectives

The relevant AfCFTA instruments for agriculture are the main agreement, Protocols on Trade in Goods and Trade in Services. In addition, the annexed AfCFTA state party schedule of concessions will form part of the applicable agreement to trade in agricultural goods and services. At this stage there is no separate agreement on Agriculture unlike the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement. The AfCFTA aims to create a single market for goods and services across Africa to promote intra-African trade. It also seeks to improve harmonisation of trade policies between RECs and across the continent more broadly to help integrate Africa’s economy.77 Of relevance to the topic of this research contribution, AfCFTA aims to promote agricultural development and food security.78 AfCFTA in its fifth objective stresses the importance of promoting and attaining sustainable and inclusive socio-economic development, gender equality and structural transformation of the state parties.

4.2 Potential benefits of AfCFTA to food security

Policy debates in Africa regarding agricultural market organisations remain contentious, with many governments questioning the effectiveness of market liberalisation and advocating for state intervention to achieve food security.79 The academic literature is divided, with some scholars arguing that market reform supports agricultural growth and food security, while others attribute the poor results to inadequate attention to institutional foundations and infrastructure.80

Market reforms at the domestic level in Africa can have a positive impact on consumers, millers, traders, and producers by increasing competition and reducing costs and risks.81 According to a study by the United Nations (UN) Economic Commission for Africa, the AfCFTA is expected to significantly boost trade within Africa.82 It is projected to increase the value of intra-African trade by 15 to 25 per cent (between $50 billion and $70 billion by 2040), depending on the level of liberalisation efforts.83 Simply removing tariffs on goods could increase the share of intra-African trade by nearly 40 per cent to over 50 per cent between 2020 and 2040.84

The AfCFTA is expected to have a significant impact on intra-African trade, particularly in industrial sectors. In 2040, with the implementation of the AfCFTA, trade in industrial products within Africa could increase by 25 to 30 per cent (between $36 billion and $44 billion), depending on the level of liberalisation.85 Similarly, trade in agriculture and food products could increase by 20 to 30 per cent (between $9,5 billion and $17 billion, while energy and mining products could see a growth of 5 to 11 per cent (between $4.5 billion and $9 billion).86 This offers valuable opportunities for industrialisation through trade within the continent.

The AfCFTA agreement is expected to increase regional output and productivity, leading to a redistribution of resources across sectors and countries.87 By 2035, total production in Africa would be significantly higher, with the services sector experiencing the most gains, followed by manufacturing and natural resources.88 However, agriculture is projected to decline in output, except for North Africa, which is shifting towards manufacturing and services under AfCFTA.89

AfCFTA aims to attract more foreign direct investment (FDI) into Africa. Increased FDI can bring in new technologies, managerial expertise, and capital, which can help upgrade and modernise value chains.90 It can also facilitate the transfer of knowledge and best practices, supporting the development of local industries.

The above projections do not mean that every region or every country in each region in Africa would reap similar benefits. For example, an empirical simulated study of the impact of AfCFTA in grains trade in SADC Region found that ‘AfCFTA will only lead to positive outcomes in four (Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Madagascar and Namibia) of the fifteen SADC countries, with the rest remaining unchanged’.91 This is because ‘previously closed economies, such as economies which were not part of a free trade agreement (FTA) or a deeper arrangement, will stand to gain more than open economies because they are already opened up at the free trade level, which is equivalent to the AfCFTA’.92 It, thus, concluded that ‘as far as cereals and food security is concerned, the AfCFTA will add minimal value’.93

4.3 Potential challenges and risks to food security

The implementation of the AfCFTA brings immense opportunities but also poses risks for food security among marginalised populations across the continent. Smallholder farmers and vulnerable groups with limited resources could face increased challenges in remaining competitive as trade barriers fall. While increased trade flows can improve availability and affordability of food, this upside comes with potential risks as trade can also lead to the displacement of small-scale farmers and the loss of local food systems, which can exacerbate food insecurity.94 This displacement could be direct or indirect. Directly, large agribusinesses may simply buy out small-scale farmers. Indirectly, market forces may force out small-scale farmers due to increased competition. Elsewhere, trade liberalisation has led to the displacement of small-scale farmers and increased land concentration, particularly in countries such as Cambodia, where more land has been bought and sold, leaving farmers with inadequate or no land.95 This has contributed to landlessness and increased inequality in land ownership.96

Trade policies can also undermine food sovereignty, which is the right of communities and countries to determine their own food systems and policies.97 Food sovereignty encompasses food security, food safety, diverse sustainable agriculture, and subsistence and small-scale farming.98 It emphasises the importance of diverse and sustainable agricultural practices in ensuring an abundant supply of affordable, safe, and nutritious food for everyone.99 This approach also contributes to the well-being of rural and urban communities, preserving cultural heritage, and maintaining a healthy environment.100 Countries such as India have seen a decline in self-sufficiency in edible oils due to increased imports, and many developing countries have experienced a shift towards prioritising export crops over domestic food production.101 This shift has undermined food security and the ability of households to feed themselves.102 Trade policies that prioritise exports or imports over domestic food production can lead to a loss of control over the food system and create dependency on foreign countries for food.

Studies consistently show that trade liberalisation has heavily impacted women and exacerbated gender inequality in countries such as Kenya, Ghana, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Jamaica, and the Philippines.103 The women, who produce a significant portion of food in many African countries, have been disproportionately affected by the elimination of subsidies, rising input costs, and increased food imports.104 As noted above, up to 52 per cent of the agricultural workforce in Africa are women.105

Writing specifically about the impact of regional economic integration in East Africa, Lloyd-Ellis and Nordstrom find that the gains from reduction of trade barriers are highly nuanced and depend on many factors.106 In other words, the potential gain is not uniform, but depends on ‘the characteristics and activities of the households.’107 For example, they argue:108

Female-headed houses are often among the poorest and, within households, income changes for females may affect their standing in intrahousehold decision-making. By impacting these incomes, trade liberalisation and regional integration can partly determine their poverty status.

The production and consumption habits of a household is another factor that can lead to different outcomes depending on whether the household is a consumer or a producer.109 A fall in food price due to removal of trade barriers may benefit consumers more than producers.110 However, if local producers enjoy a comparative advantage and are efficient, they can reap better rewards.

Furthermore, small-scale farmers and large-scale farmers are not impacted the same way. Thus:

High initial costs, as well as long term costs, represent key barriers to participation, which large farms are often able to manage better than smaller farms ... as larger scale producers are better able to undertake the documentation and certification required for formal trade and have access to lower average transportation and logistics costs.111

In addition, geographical factors such as climate, soil quality, and patterns of precipitation are key determinants of agricultural productivity which in turn impact the community’s capacity to ‘produce marketable goods or a surplus of commodities’.112 The location of remote and isolated communities where road infrastructure is lacking can also impact on whether they can take advantage of the benefits of trade liberalisation.113

One of the overriding outcomes of trade liberalisation is the reduction or elimination of tariffs on a range of products, including agricultural products. AfCFTA is no exception. Reduction of tariffs can make imported products cheaper. One may say this is a good thing for consumers. However, it comes at the expense of ‘creating disincentive to domestic food production and encouraging reliance on imported food’.114 To use Amartya’s Sen’s framework, this phenomenon adversely impacts production entitlement, that is the ability of the producing class to produce food. This was observed in earlier regional liberalisation that took effect in North America under the framework of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Upon joining NAFTA, Mexico introduced several measures in compliance with its treaty requirements. With the start of tariff-free imports in 1994, Mexico’s agriculture sector experienced a reduction of public support for credit, infrastructure, research and development, and technical assistance.115 The ending of the assistance impacted corn farmers in Mexico and, to an extent, consumers, due to an increase in food prices when domestic subsidies were eliminated.116 On the other hand, the subsidies given to the US farmers continued. According to an Oxfam report, the more than $10 billion subsidies given to US farmers had resulted in the fall of the price of Mexican corn by more than 70 per cent since NAFTA took effect and severely reduced the incomes of 15 million Mexicans who depend on corn for their livelihood.117 Even if the rules are equally applied in Mexico and the United States, the impact on Mexico is more pronounced given corn (maize) is a staple of a Mexican diet, while it is just a major export crop in the United States.118

The strategy pursued by the country may also determine whether trade liberalisation adversely or positively impacts its food security. Some countries may follow food reliance, while others may follow food self-sufficiency strategies.119 Gayi defines these strategies as follows:120

Self-reliance in food is when a country pursues an externally oriented trade regime with a view to earning enough from its exports of goods and services to finance its food requirements. On the other hand, the food self-sufficiency approach entails the country meeting its food requirements - or a substantial part of it - from domestic production.

In a way, countries may not have a choice but to pursue a strategy that enables them to capitalise on the sectors in which they have a comparative advantage. Nonetheless, these ideal choices are impacted by additional factors. For example, a country that pursues a food self-reliance strategy and is prone to terms-of-trade losses that reduces its purchasing power, is exposed to variability in food supplies which in turn threatens its food security.121 Primary commodities sold by African countries are prone to market or climate shocks from time to time. Furthermore, African commodity producers are not necessarily the ones to reap the benefit of rising prices given the bulk of the profit goes to other actors in the value chain as is evident from the experiences of small-scale coffee and cocoa producers.122 According to FAO, given that agri-food global chains are dominated by few transnational corporations, these corporations take the benefits of comparative advantage and economies of scale due to their monopsony position.123

The loss of revenue from reductions or elimination of tariffs could also ‘adversely affect the governments’ capacity to invest in infrastructure, education and social programs, which are crucial for attaining sustainable development and decrease inequality in developing countries’.124 This can affect both production and transfer-based entitlements by

reducing the government revenue available to support domestic subsidies, such as subsidised or free inputs, research and extension services, access to credit, irrigation projects and investments subsidies ... reducing the ability of governments to finance food-price subsidies, targeted feeding programs, food stamps, labour-intensive public works programs and income safety nets.125

Other researchers find that ‘tariff liberalisation reduces tariff revenue, but the reduction is expected to be small for most countries in Africa, and on average compensated by increased economic activity’.126

Another impact of trade liberalisation is its mandate to reduce and eventually remove agricultural subsidies. While AfCFTA does not have a separate agreement on agriculture, its Protocol on Trade in Goods in article 17 allows subsidies to assist members to pursue their own development programmes. However, any member impacted by these subsidies can request consultations with a member party that provides subsidies. The fact that subsidies are permitted means that member states are not hamstrung by trade rules that prevent them from taking measures to alleviate production and entitlement-based concerns. The question, however, is for how long these permissive rules will continue to exist within the framework of AfCFTA.

If many African countries continue to protect some of their sensitive agricultural sectors, experience from at least one other regional trade agreement should provide insight as to what can be expected. As per the study of the South Asian Free Trade Area Agreement (SAFTA), the cereals sector, which remained highly protected by SAFTA’s sensitive lists, showed a decrease in trade and there has been no increased specialisation and competition in this sector.127 There has also been little improvement in production.128 However, in the livestock sector, which was not on the sensitive list in many member states, trade in meat and meat preparations became more regionalised, and certain countries have specialised and are producing more in this sector.129

At the same time, low-income countries (LICs) and lower middle-income countries (LMICs) to which most African countries belong, have ‘historically protected poor consumers using trade and market policies that keep domestic prices low, implicitly penalising the farming sector’.130 This is usually done through market price control such as administered prices used for direct government procurement from farmers.131 The dilemma here is that such policies would prevent small-scale farmers from reaping the benefits of free trade, whilst protecting poor consumers. But the level of support should not be overestimated, particularly in the context of LICs given the financial constraints these countries face.

Universal price subsidies, while benefiting everyone, tend to be ineffective as the largest portion of the subsidies is often claimed by well-organised, politically influential groups such as urban residents, government workers, and industrial labourers.132 As a result of surging costs of these subsidies and intermittent international donor pressure, most developing nations are driven to progressively liberalise their food markets.133

At the same time, government support, ‘has the potential to affect the cost and affordability of healthy diets by shaping production and consumption choices as well as affecting food supply chain dynamics and food environments’.134 For instance, import tariffs or export ban measures can favour producers of certain crops and potentially discourage production of others.135 These same measures can also affect consumption decisions as they raise the price of imported foods, as well as their domestic substitute to consumers.136 This can impact food security of farmers who do not produce these goods and those of vulnerable groups. Input subsidies provided without any condition may also lead to overuse of agrochemicals, natural resources and promote mono-culture with negative impacts on the environmental sustainability of agrifood systems.137 Such subsidies may also ‘hinder positive nutritional outcomes, in some cases by disproportionately fostering the production of cereals in the long term at the expense of other foods that contribute to healthy diets, such as fruits and vegetables’.138 Having said this, FAO in its state of food security and nutrition in the world 2022 report acknowledges that, ‘if designed with sustainability objectives in mind, fiscal subsidies may contribute to better production and livelihoods’.139

In addition to tariffs, non-tariff measures (NTMs), which are still more prevalent and higher than tariff impositions, can ‘impact agrifood trade and diet affordability and diversity, because producers and traders may have complied with standards and other regulatory requirements that increase trade costs’.140 These measures are likely to increase the cost of food to consumers, particularly vulnerable group consumers.141

Trade agreements commonly lead to commercial liberalisation, which opens markets to competition from imported products. This increased competition could encourage crop growers to embrace industrialised agriculture systems with a view to maximising yields and reducing costs. Industrialised farming systems generally favour mechanisation, chemical inputs, and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), which could prompt the abandonment of traditional, small-scale farming practices that have been passed down through generations. Growers may experience pressure to produce more, faster, and more affordable ways to continue competing, resulting in the potential loss of conventional farming knowledge and techniques.

Trade agreements can also lead to the standardisation of agricultural products and farming methods. These standards, often developed by international bodies, can be beneficial in ensuring the safety and quality of agricultural goods.142 However, they could also be incompatible with traditional farming practices, especially those in developing countries.143 To meet these international standards and remain competitive, farmers might need to adopt new farming methods or crop varieties, which can lead to the erosion of traditional agricultural knowledge and biodiversity.

Intellectual property rights can also be a contentious issue in trade agreements. Some agreements include provisions that protect the intellectual property rights of seed companies and other agribusinesses. These provisions might allow companies to patent certain seeds or farming techniques, which can limit farmers’ ability to save and exchange seeds, a practice integral to many traditional farming systems.144 This can also lead to the loss of traditional knowledge as farmers are forced to rely on patented seeds or practices. In this connection, it is important to note that small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa supply 80 to 90 per cent of all the seeds planted in Africa, using their own inter-generational knowledge, experiences, and skills.145

Article 8 of the draft Protocol on Intellectual Property creates an opportunity to address this challenge.146 The provision requires state parties to establish a sui generis system for the protection of new plant varieties; this system should include farmers’ rights, plant breeders’ rights, and guidelines on access and benefit sharing. Furthermore, they must adhere to additional obligations specified in an Annex to the Protocol on Plant Varieties, which may incorporate relevant African and international instruments that align with their developmental objectives and interests.

In addition to AfCFTA’s upcoming Protocol on Intellectual Property, efforts towards the harmonisation of seed laws in continental Africa are made on two levels: the African Union and various regional trading blocs and intellectual property organisations.147 Key programmes such as the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the African Seed and Biotechnology Programme (ASBP) have led to efforts in seed sector development.148 Criticisms arise with the development of two continental guidelines for harmonisation of seed regulatory frameworks in Africa, with some alleging a lack of articulation on farmers’ rights and agricultural diversity.149

Regional efforts towards implementing seed laws through different trading blocs and Plant Variety Protection (PVP) components also exist, but the implications and effectiveness of these are uneven and face criticism.150 For example, seed certification, variety testing, and regulation also differ among regions, with some restrictions noted in COMESA, and more flexibility seen in SADC and ECOWAS.151 The discussion clearly highlights the complex and layered nature of seed laws and regulations in Africa, with varying degrees of inclusivity for farmers’ rights and interests.152

AfCFTA recognises the fact that African countries find themselves in different stages of economic development and that the challenges each country faces could be different from each other. That is why it acknowledges the need to provide special consideration to some economies. For example, article 6 of Protocol on Trade in Goods requires state parties to provide flexibilities including special consideration and additional transition periods for implementation of the AfCFTA to account for differences in economic development levels or individual circumstances between countries.153

Likewise, the Protocol on Trade in Services in its Preamble recognises ‘the serious difficulty of the least developed, land locked, island states and vulnerable economies in view of their special economic situation and their development, trade and financial needs’. Article 7 of the Protocol on Trade in Services further notes that state parties should ‘grant flexibilities such as transitional periods, on a case-by-case basis, to accommodate special economic situations and development, trade and financial needs of the state parties’.

Thus, the AfCFTA Agreement and the Protocol on Trade in Services both emphasise the need for flexibility and special consideration for state parties with specific economic situations or development needs. These provisions aim to ensure that the benefits of trade are inclusive and mutually beneficial.

4.4 Policy and legal recommendations

To mitigate potential negative impacts of AfCFTA on food security, countries will need to proactively implement protective policies and support investments to safeguard vulnerable groups, while also taking advantage of opportunities to improve regional food availability. Safeguards are necessary to ensure greater trade does not undermine local farmers or production.

Addressing food insecurity in Africa requires collaborative efforts from multiple stakeholders including governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international organisations, businesses and communities to ensure underprivileged groups have adequate access to food. Member states of AfCFTA can work together and individually through policy reforms while organisations like the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa demonstrate how partnerships between different entities can help small farms boost production and access markets.154

Ideally, small-scale farmers can rise to the challenge, become competitive to take advantage of the benefits of AfCFTA. However, the reality is that small-scale farmers and vulnerable groups in sub-Saharan Africa, who contribute to 80 per cent of the region’s food, require significant support due to challenges like limited access to resources, technology, markets and support programs, and unfavourably skewed transportation and trade policies.

Governments could help by subsidising farm implements farmers need, giving microloans, sending agricultural advisors, and building roads and such in rural areas. Providing subsidies for farm equipment is a worthwhile strategy, as it can reduce the cost burden on farmers while promoting the use of modern, efficient tools to improve crop yield.155 However, it has been shown that assistance programmes aimed at certain demographic groups, or those focusing on the consumption of specific foods linked with a particular health goal (such as reducing anaemia), produce more effective results.156 Such subsidies can be justified on the basis of AfCFTA’s safeguard provisions.

Microloans can serve as an excellent mechanism to financially support farmers, especially those that cannot access conventional loans due to their lack of collateral or credit history.157 This approach has been empirically endorsed by researchers, who found that microcredit significantly improved the socio-economic conditions of farmers in India.158 There are a few suggestions in public private partnership format that could be explored. Such suggestions advocate strategic use of public funding to stimulate increased private sector lending to smallholder farmers, who have traditionally lacked financial access.159 Recommended public-private partnerships include guarantee funds to de-risk bank lending, risk sharing facilities to incentivise private loans, start-up capital to incubate rural financial institutions, co-financing to leverage donor funds, investments in financial infrastructure as public goods, reforms to state agricultural banks, and supportive policies/regulations.160 These measures aim to crowd-in private finance by absorbing risks, providing platforms, and creating incentives.161 It is argued that public funds should be used catalytically to address market failures and systemic barriers, while promoting commercially-oriented rural financial systems.162 By de-risking and structuring partnerships appropriately, limited public resources can mobilise significant private capital for the unmet smallholder finance needs.

The deployment of extension workers can contribute considerably to enhancing farming techniques, offering access to innovative farming methods that could increase productivity and income. However, these services often face limitations in coverage, leaving many remote areas and female farmers underserved.163 To address this, innovative methods like using traditional media and digital platforms are being employed to expand access to agricultural extension services and enhance their effectiveness across diverse regions in Africa.164 Hence, more innovative approaches need to be explored.

In the event that enough extension workers are not available, one can use other farmers as substitutes. Some countries have used a lead farmer approach - a method intended to facilitate agricultural learning and growth among farmers, through the sharing of knowledge from peer farmer trainers.165 Although such extension methods have typically formed the nucleus of most extension models, their implementation has suffered criticism due to selectivity of prosperous farmers and lacklustre development impacts.166 Current efforts seek to ameliorate these challenges by focusing on farmer-trainers that reflect an average community farmer and promoting a community-based selection process.167 Although lead farmers assist extension workers, the approach suffers from limited coverage and poor implementation efficaciousness, demonstrating no significant influence over increasing awareness or adoption of majority promoted management practices.168 Yet, notable effects on awareness and adoption have been recognised, prompted through improvements in lead farmer quality, adoption behaviour, and regular training.169

Infrastructure improvements, such as roads, greatly facilitate the transport of produce from farms to markets, minimising the loss and assuring farmers get the best prices for their produce.170 According to a World Bank study, post-harvest losses in sub-Saharan Africa average 30 to 50 per cent due to inadequate transport and storage infrastructure.171 Better rural road connectivity in developing nations is estimated to increase agricultural productivity and outputs.172 Additionally, improved roads allow more farmers access larger urban markets with higher demand, encouraging further agricultural investment and specialisation.

Aid and school meal programmes can help the food insecure to get healthy food too. Ethiopia’s safety net programme has given money to 8 million people, reducing poverty and hunger.173 However, providing direct aid should always be considered as a last resort option, as it may potentially disrupt local food systems and markets if relied on as a long-term solution.174 While Ethiopia’s safety net programme has positively impacted poverty and hunger levels by giving money to millions, alternative measures that strengthen domestic food production, processing and distribution should remain a priority over the long run. Empowering small-scale farmers through training, infrastructure and access to financing can help countries develop sustainable and resilient local food economies that are less dependent on outside aid during times of crisis.

Traditional farming practices support biodiversity and resilience while being threatened by modern technology. Support programs are needed to protect small farmers from risks through promoting biodiversity and helping with market fluctuations, disasters, and disease.

The AfCFTA provides avenues to strengthen food sovereignty that member states should leverage. Article 4(a)’s allowance for gradual tariff reductions means priority crops can be excluded from immediate liberalisation, buying time for domestic production development. This flexibility must be used strategically via a progressive ‘sensitive products’ schedule that safeguards food security inputs. Furthermore, article 19 of Protocol on Trade in Goods establishes special safeguard mechanisms to temporarily raise tariffs if imports surge in a manner threatening markets or livelihoods as trade opens up.

The promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women farmers, who are among the most vulnerable groups in society and often face discrimination, is essential. Implementation of measures to guarantee equal access to resources, training, and decision-making forums, and address bias in agricultural spaces, alongside developing an inclusive culture that eradicates historical obstacles is critical. Enacting robust social support programs that cater to the most disadvantaged groups, such as small-scale farmers, women, and indigenous communities, can considerably lessen disparities and enhance women’s rights and powers, given their crucial role in all aspects of food systems.175

Another challenge small-scale farmers and vulnerable groups face is securing land rights and access to natural resources, a problem that could be exacerbated due to economic liberalisation.176 Secure legal claims to land and guaranteed access to natural resources are essential for the longevity of small farms, therefore policies enhancing land tenure security and resource access are necessary.

Land tenure reforms varying from individual land rights to integration of customary systems into statutory law have been experimented with in various countries, with varying success and influence on marginalised groups such as women. Land tenure reforms, such as those seen in Ethiopia and Rwanda, have had positive impacts on investment, agricultural productivity, and food security, particularly benefiting female-headed households.177 However, these reforms are complex and not thoroughly studied, with a need for more high-quality studies amidst diverse tenure systems.178 The surge in land demand exposes weak tenure systems and poses a threat to food and livelihood security of marginalised groups, requiring careful land governance to prevent the exploitation of customary land rights and elite capture.179 Key elements deciding if customary land and smallholder farmers are shielded from land acquisitions by investors include (a) legal acknowledgment of customary land and its land rights; (b) the feasibility of transitioning customary land to state land for investor leasing; (c) if such converted land returns to its customary status post-lease; (d) the power of traditional leaders to grant customary land to investors; and (e) the state’s authority to seize customary land for investor allocation, potentially without compensation.180

Land tenure security needs to be supported by other policy measures. The fragmentation of agricultural land, particularly in African countries, is a significant issue impacting the sustainability and productivity of farming.181 This trend is often exacerbated by increasing population pressures and land acquisition by investor farmers, intensifying the marginalisation of smaller farmer households.182 Combined with the sentimental value attached to land, this makes consolidation challenging.183 To address this, it is crucial to formulate policies that support viable consolidation of farming lands, balance the needs of small and investor farmers and encourage modernised agricultural practices.184 Incentive structures could be developed to promote joint or cooperative farming, allowing smallholder farmers to benefit from economies of scale while maintaining their connection to their land.185 Increasing rural employment and skill development opportunities can also alleviate pressure on land and contribute to a more productive agricultural sector.186 Furthermore, recognising smallholders as a diverse group, development policies should be tailored to support their dynamic needs based on their constraints and economic stages.187 While some could profit from commercial agriculture, others must be supported in transitioning to non-farm employment, bearing in mind the various challenges such as climate change, price shocks, limited financing, and access to nutritious food.

Guarding traditional seed types from improper patenting under trade agreements could involve multiple tactics, inclusive of recognising exceptions for biodiversity and indigenous wisdom in intellectual property clauses, implementing compulsory disclosure and documentation procedures to ascertain prior work, availing registration and legal aid to farmers for preserving rights over local varieties, providing profit allocation plans for commercial products sourced from traditional seeds, obligatory licensing arrangements to ensure uninterrupted access, sui generis plant variety protection structures adapted to meet regional necessities and customs, and setting up community seed banks and databases.188 There should also be overarching commitments to policies that honour farmer rights. The simultaneous execution of these disclosure regulations, licensing methods, registries, traditional rights protections, benefit allocation, and impact evaluations can facilitate an equilibrium between motivation for innovation and preventing the improper use of traditional agricultural knowledge and resources.

A one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be effective or appropriate given the complexities of the situation. Therefore, individual countries can boost their food security and the prosperity of their inhabitants by concentrating on their unique domestic objectives and benefitting from the domains in which they possess a comparatively advantageous standing. Optimal strategies will vary from one member state to another based on diverse socio-economic, geographic, and cultural determinants. Thus, practical endeavours are more likely to emerge from nationally tailored approaches grounded in an accurate understanding of each context’s specific strengths, limitations, and priorities.189

There is not a single magic bullet here. Supporting small-scale farmers and vulnerable groups, working together, monitoring effectively, stimulating innovation and capacity, and leveraging regional markets can all help ensure African people get adequate, nutritious diets. Targeted policies and political willpower will be key to making solutions work on the ground.

While a good start, the impact of AfCFTA does not need to be overstated, particularly in some regions that already have regional free trade agreements. This calls for deeper integration levels of common markets and economic unions which allow for movement of production factors such as capital and labour.190

Studies show that to stimulate agricultural trade across Africa, individual policy measures will not yield significant benefits in isolation, but need to be implemented together.191 In other words, to fulfil its promise of boosting African trade, the AfCFTA cannot rely solely on tariff liberalisation.192 This must be paired with regulatory reform to streamline administrative import and export procedures, as well as investments to enhance port efficiency and lower inland transportation costs.193