Opinion
AfCFTA Implementation Strategies: Cascading Opportunities or Rising Risks?
By Danilo Desiderio
“To draw legs on a snake” – a Chinese proverb warning against unnecessary embellishment – is more than a cautionary tale about overdesign. It’s a mirror held up to African governance, where well-intentioned policies risk being undermined not by lack of vision, but by excess complexity.
Nowhere is this tension more evident than in the evolving landscape of AfCFTA implementation strategies, which have cascaded from continental ambition to national blueprints – and now, increasingly, into the realm of sub-national initiatives.
From Continental Vision to Local Action
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) was born out of a bold dream: to unify Africa’s markets, boost intra-African trade, and position the continent as a competitive player in global value chains. To turn that dream into reality, policymakers recognized early on the need for structured implementation frameworks.
In May 2018, African ministers of finance and economic development convened in Addis Ababa and made a pivotal decision: each member state should develop a National AfCFTA Implementation Strategy. These were meant to be practical roadmaps – diagnosing constraints, identifying opportunities, and aligning domestic reforms with regional integration goals.
Progress has been encouraging. Nearly all African Union member states have drafted or adopted national strategies.
Regional Economic Communities (RECs) like ECOWAS, EAC, IGAD, and SADC have followed suit, creating harmonized regional approaches. But momentum has sparked an unintended evolution: the emergence of sub-national AfCFTA strategies.
Nigeria’s Oyo State is on September 12 2025, set to officially launch what is believed to be Africa’s first sub-national AfCFTA strategy, signaling a new frontier in decentralized trade planning. Other states and administrative units in Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, and South Africa are reportedly exploring similar paths.
This raises a critical question: Is this decentralization a necessary step toward inclusive implementation – or a bureaucratic detour threatening coherence?
The Promise: Localization That Works
There is merit in bringing AfCFTA closer to the ground. After all, trade doesn’t happen at the level of policy documents; it happens in markets, warehouses, farms, and factories – places governed by local institutions.
Sub-national strategies can:
- Leverage regional economic strengths: A cocoa-producing region like Oyo can tailor export support systems specific to agro-processors, while a manufacturing hub like Kigali Province might focus on industrial zones and customs efficiency.
- Empower SMEs through proximity: Local governments often have direct relationships with small businesses, chambers of commerce, and cooperatives. This enables faster feedback loops and targeted interventions.
- Democratize ownership of integration: When governors, mayors, and traditional leaders engage with AfCFTA, it ceases to be an abstract “Addis-to-Victoria Falls” agreement and becomes a tool for job creation and local development.
- Foster innovation: Sub-national actors can pilot digital trade platforms, cross-border barter arrangements, or informal sector inclusion models that, if successful, can be scaled nationally.
In federal systems – particularly Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Kenya – much of the levers of production, infrastructure, and regulation reside at the state or county level. Ignoring these levels risks rendering national strategies irrelevant.
The Peril: Fragmentation in the Name of Empowerment
Yet, without guardrails, sub-nationalism could fracture AfCFTA’s foundational principle: a single, unified market. Key risks include:
1. Policy Incoherence
If Lagos promotes tariff-free access for Nigerian textiles while neighboring Ogun State imposes non-tariff barriers to protect local weavers, the result isn’t competition – it’s internal disintegration. Such contradictions erode trust and deter investment.
2. Capacity Deficits
Many sub-national governments lack technical expertise in trade policy, standards compliance, or rules of origin administration. Drafting a strategy becomes symbolic rather than strategic – a photo-op without follow-through.
3. Duplication and Waste
Multiple layers of strategy-making – continental, regional, national, zonal, state, municipal – risk turning AfCFTA into a paper exercise. Resources spent on redundant consultations and reports could otherwise fund trade facilitation projects.
4. Local Protectionism
Decentralization opens doors to rent-seeking. “Buy Local” campaigns may morph into disguised protectionism, undermining the very free movement AfCFTA seeks to guarantee.
As one policymaker wryly noted: “We fought colonial-era borders dividing our countries – we shouldn’t create new ones between provinces.”
A Path Forward: Coordinated Decentralization
The solution lies not in halting sub-national initiatives, but in embedding them within a coherent, tiered governance framework. What’s needed is coordinated decentralization – empowering local action without sacrificing continental unity.
Key Recommendations:
- Mandatory Alignment Mechanisms
National AfCFTA coordination units (e.g., Nigeria’s Presidential Committee on AfCFTA) must require sub-national strategies to undergo technical review and approval, ensuring alignment with national objectives, sectoral priorities, and REC commitments. - Tiered Monitoring and Evaluation
Establish joint monitoring frameworks where national bodies track sub-national progress using shared indicators – e.g., number of SMEs trained on rules of origin, reduction in border clearance times, participation in regional trade fairs. - Peer Learning Networks
Create inter-state councils or virtual platforms where sub-national planners exchange experiences. For instance, Kenya’s counties could learn from Ghanaian districts on leveraging diaspora networks for exports. - Co-Financing Models
Encourage cost-sharing between central and local governments for high-impact initiatives such as:- Export incubators for women-led enterprises
- Cross-border trade posts managed jointly by neighboring states
- Digital customs training for local customs agents
- Capacity Building Hubs
RECs and AU partners should establish regional academies to train mid-level officials in trade policy, logistics, and dispute resolution – ensuring sub-national efforts are technically sound. - Clear Jurisdictional Boundaries
Define what falls under national competence (e.g., tariffs, international agreements) versus local mandates (e.g., business registration, transport corridors, skills development), avoiding regulatory overlap.
Simplicity as Strategy
AfCFTA’s success hinges not on how many strategies are written, but on how effectively they translate into fewer barriers, faster movement, and fairer opportunities. Sub-national strategies can be powerful catalysts – if they serve as transmission belts of integration, not silos of divergence.
Let us remember the snake. It moves swiftly because it has no legs.
The AfCFTA must move swiftly too – unburdened by layers of uncoordinated plans, untangled from duplication, and undistracted by symbolic gestures.
Africa does not need more strategies for the sake of activity. It needs fewer, better-aligned actions that empower people, connect economies, and fulfill the promise of a continent trading freely with itself.
In embracing decentralization, let us not lose sight of unity. Because true integration isn’t measured by how many plans we make – but by how seamlessly a farmer in Malawi sells her tomatoes to a market in Morocco.
And that journey begins not with another document, but with one clear, legless snake, gliding forward – together.
Danilo Desiderio serves as the CEO of Desiderio Consultants Ltd in Nairobi, Kenya, specializing in African customs, trade, and transport policies. He is a customs and trade expert at the World Bank and a senior associate to the Horn Economic and Social Policy Institute (HESPI).
