Has AfCFTA Reduced SPS Barriers in Agricultural Trade?

Tariff reductions were never the most complicated part of African trade integration. The real challenge lies in sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) controls that determine whether agricultural goods can cross borders at all. Several years into AfCFTA’s implementation, the practical test is straightforward: are food shipments moving more smoothly between African countries, or are exporters still facing the same regulatory barriers?

The institutional framework exists. AfCFTA includes an SPS Annex and has established an SPS Sub-Committee tasked with coordination, transparency and alignment. Member states have committed to applying science-based measures and avoiding unnecessary trade restrictions. In formal terms, the architecture for cooperation is in place. At the operational level, however, progress is uneven.

Persistent Border Frictions and Capacity Constraints

Agricultural exporters continue to report repeated inspections, divergent pesticide residue thresholds and inconsistent documentation requirements across neighbouring markets. A consignment of fresh produce cleared in one country may require new laboratory tests in another. Meat and dairy products frequently face extended clearance timelines due to variations in inspection protocols. For perishable goods, delays translate directly into financial loss.

The difficulty is not  regulatory stubbornness; it is capacity. Several countries lack accredited laboratories, digitised certification systems and sufficient technical personnel to conduct risk-based assessments. In the absence of trusted domestic testing infrastructure, authorities often default to precautionary measures. While framed as health protection, such measures can function as de facto trade barriers when applied inconsistently.

Limited Mutual Recognition and Incomplete Digitalisation

Trust deficits between regulatory authorities further complicate matters. Mutual recognition of standards remains limited. Without equivalence agreements, exporters are required to comply with multiple national systems even when safety outcomes are comparable. This duplication raises costs and discourages formal cross-border trade, particularly for small and medium-sized producers.

Digitalisation, frequently cited as a solution, has not yet been uniformly implemented. Electronic SPS certificates linked to customs systems could significantly reduce processing times and improve traceability. Instead, paper-based processes and manual verification still dominate at many border posts. The result is administrative bottlenecks that undermine AfCFTA’s objective of strengthening regional value chains.

The Implementation Test

None of this suggests that SPS controls should be weakened. Food safety, plant health and animal disease prevention are legitimate and necessary public policy concerns. The issue is consistency and regulatory confidence. Without interoperable systems and shared testing capacity, national authorities remain cautious about accepting each other’s certifications.

AfCFTA has laid the institutional foundation for SPS cooperation, but tangible improvements at border level remain uneven. While the legal framework and coordination mechanisms are now in place, widespread mutual recognition, shared laboratory capacity and fully digitised certification systems are still developing. Progress is visible in structure, yet incomplete in execution. For agricultural exporters, the reduction of SPS frictions remains a work in progress rather than a settled achievement.