Public private partnerships can help close Africa's infrastructure deficit
There is a consensus that Africa can increase economic growth by making significant investments in connecting infrastructure — the physical and digital networks that connect towns, cities and countries, enabling seamless trade and data exchange. This includes transport, communication, energy, as well as water and sanitation, which are vital for the free flow of people, goods and services.
When this infrastructure operates optimally it facilitates increased trade, communication, commerce and social development — critical pillars in the objectives of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
The Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) in 2023 stated that the Africa infrastructure deficit reduced continental economic growth by 2% annually and reduced productivity by 40%, an alarming state of affairs. To address this infrastructure deficit, the Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (Pida), an African Union initiative, produced the Pida Priority Action Plan (2021-2030) with the support of the United Nations. The plan has a critical list of 69 infrastructure projects to be developed in Africa for about $160 billion. Intra-Africa trade is extremely low at only 15%, compared with 68% in Europe and 59% in Asia. According to the ECA, once fully implemented, the AfCFTA aims to increase intra-Africa trade to 35% by 2040.
The objective is to not only increase trade volumes but also promote economic diversification away from reliance on commodity exports towards manufacturing and value-added industries. The changes in the global trade architecture, tariff regimes, aid cancellation, shifting political alliances and elevated geopolitical tensions indicate an urgent need for Africans to increasingly rely on other Africans. This means addressing the critical infrastructure deficits and unlocking intra-African trade is the most important task facing Africa today.
Financing connecting infrastructure
The technical White Paper, titled Missing Connection: Unlocking Sustainable Infrastructure Financing in Africa and co-published by the Africa-Europe Foundation and African Union Development Agency – NEPAD for the Finance in Common Summit held in Cape Town, South Africa in February 2025, noted the continent needs about $150 billion annually in infrastructure investment to address the infrastructure deficit.
Current investment is about $80 billion annually, of which only 40% of this financing comes from governments. About 35% of the financing is from donors and other international partners. The balance of current financing is from the private sector, whose role has taken on increased significance considering the changing donor patterns and decline in China-led financing in recent times. Creating enabling environments for private sector partners to invest in is critical for closing the significant funding gap.
Public private partnerships (PPPs) are increasingly viewed as one infrastructure financing modality that should be increasingly considered by African governments. These partnerships are long-term agreements that involve the granting of specific rights to the private sector to build new infrastructure or undertake substantial renovations of existing infrastructure using private financing and at significant private sector risk. In exchange, the private sector investors are granted long-term concessions over the operations of the assets and are remunerated through user charges, government unitary payments, or a blend of the two where revenue viability gaps exist.
The assets at the end of the partnership contract are transferred to the state and the state has the option to operate the assets or tender out to the private sector for another contract term.
Over the last few years, there has been a huge interest from African governments in using such partnerships to fund their infrastructure deficits. The continent has a low deal flow compared to other regions of the world, but this is set to change if the right policy interventions are applied. McKinsey and Company, in an article titled Solving Africa's Infrastructure Paradox, noted that although Africa has a large pipeline of projects, for example, the Pida Priority Action Plan initiatives, but on average fewer than 10% of these receive funding.
There are international funds with an appetite to invest in Africa. So why are so few deals being funded? Some of the reasons for the slow conclusion of public private partnership deals in Africa are:
Feasibility studies or business plans are not undertaken in sufficient detail to assess risks or commercial viability.
Inadequate enabling legislation, frameworks, and policies tailored for concluding PPP transactions efficiently.
The inability of governments to issue guarantees because of weak balance sheets or challenges with credit ratings.
A shortage of skilled public servants who possess the necessary experience to conclude PPP contracts.
Low liquidity or highly risk averse domestic lenders, thus making foreign lenders the primary option in some markets.
Currency fluctuations and other political risk factors discourage investment because of the elevated perceived risks.
The African Legal Support Facility (ALSF) based at the African Development Bank undertook a study in 2024 to assess the progress in the development of public private partnership frameworks and supporting legislation. The study, titled Public Private Partnerships, Legal and Institutional Frameworks in Africa: A Comparative Analysis, produced some key findings:
Out of 54 countries in Africa, 42 have enacted PPP legislation. Out of the 42 countries, 24 have civil law, 13 have common law and five have mixed legal systems.
Western and Central Africa have the highest percentage of economies that have enacted specific PPP laws, with all countries in the region having laws in place, except for Equatorial Guinea and The Gambia.
Eastern and Southern Africa have enacted the least specific PPP laws. Among the 12 countries that make up the Southern Africa region, four remain without a specific PPP law: Botswana, eSwatini, Lesotho and South Africa.
Annual trends showed that the highest rate of enacted laws was from 2015 to 2017 with 16 laws passed over the three years.
The first African country to enact a specific PPP law was Mauritius in 2004, while the most recent is the Republic of Congo in 2022.
The restricted tendering method is the most common form of PPP procurement.
South Africa had concluded the most public private partnership deals in Africa as of the end of 2024, raising nearly $5 billion, with Nigeria in second place. South Africa appears to have had better success in PPP deal closure because of an advanced financial market, stable economic policy, favourable legal framework and a perceived transparent procurement process according to various studies.
The country uses Treasury Regulation 16 under the Public Finance Management Act for national and provincial governments and the Municipal PPP Regulation 309 under the Municipal Finance Management Act for local government. These regulations have been undergoing amendments, with Regulation 16 amendments complete and coming into effect on 1 July 2025 and Regulation 309 amendments still need finalisation.
Donor agencies and development finance institutions have directed funding to support the training and institutional building of PPP capabilities in African governments. The Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility, a World Bank programme, has successfully implemented institution-building activities to enhance the capacity of government officials around the world. This technical assistance helps to catalyse the adoption of PPP laws, regulations and guidelines in a streamlined manner to facilitate investments.
2025 and beyond
Attracting both domestic and global private sector investors to Africa is a critical part of closing the financing gap and making inroads to closing the infrastructure deficit that prevents Africa from growing at a rate fast enough to create meaningful opportunities, especially for its burgeoning youth population. One of the attractive features of PPPs is the transfer back to the state of the asset at the end of the agreement.
We have seen many privatisations of state-owned enterprises, usually accompanied by opposition from political parties or civil society because of the more permanent transfers of state assets to the ownership and control of the private sector. Governments have raised debt capital in private markets or by tapping into pension funds to fund infrastructure — another at times controversial route because of perceived risks to pensioners of the funds being mismanaged.
Public private partnerships are, however, not a silver bullet to the funding deficit because of the complex nature of the agreements and the real risk of African governments assuming contingent liability exposures inadvertently because of a shortage of skilled bureaucrats. It is incumbent upon our governments to develop the necessary legal frameworks and innovative de-risking mechanisms that will allow the successful conclusion of private sector investments.
Dr Mthandazo Ngwenya is a managing director at Bigen Africa Group and has also served as Africa director of Intellecap Advisory Services.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald
2 hours ago
- The Herald
ActionSA wants urgent parliamentary debate amid SAPS allegations
ActionSA has called for urgent intervention by parliament to address what it describes as a deepening crisis within the SA Police Service (SAPS) and the broader criminal justice system. The party said it has written to the speaker of parliament requesting a debate after explosive allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi on Sunday at a media briefing, which have raised serious concerns about the integrity and functionality of the SAPS. Mkhwanazi came out guns blazing, alleging that there was political interference in some cases police were working on. He also questioned some of the decisions allegedly made by police minister Senzo Mchunu on the dissolution of the political killings task team. ActionSA said Mkhwanazi's unprecedented claims, pointing to widespread criminal infiltration and corruption at the highest levels of the SAPS, including the minister of police, raises grave concerns about the integrity and functionality of the country's law enforcement leadership and, more critically, the troubling national security threat this poses. 'Recognising the unprecedented nature of a police commissioner publicly speaking out about national colleagues and the minister of police no less, including allegations of the deliberate sabotage of efforts to combat political killings and the direct involvement of senior police leadership in organised crime, represents one of the most alarming indictments of the state's security apparatus in democratic South Africa,' said ActionSA MP Dereleen James.
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Africa must help steer the world away from deep-sea mining
Unilateral deep-sea mining, such as that planned by the Trump administration, could have grave impacts on Africa. The continent has a vital role in global ocean stewardship and safeguarding humanity's shared future. Under President Donald Trump, the US' rush for critical minerals spans Ukraine, Greenland, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and now the last untouched frontier – the deep sea. A recent White House executive order aims to position the US as a 'global leader in seabed mineral exploration and development both within and beyond national jurisdiction'. It involves extracting critical minerals such as cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel and rare earth elements from the ocean floor through dredging, hydraulic systems and subsea drilling. Seabed or deep-sea mining (DSM) risks irreversible harm to ocean ecosystems. It involves extracting critical minerals such as cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel and rare earth elements from the ocean floor through dredging, hydraulic systems and subsea drilling. These ventures do not align with Africa's long-term economic and environmental priorities. As the global debate intensifies – led by the United Nations' International Seabed Authority (ISA) – ocean governance is being reshaped. African countries must engage collectively or risk being sidelined. The short-term economic benefits for miners are apparent, but several countries and stakeholders are concerned with the industry's long-term financial viability and environmental impact. This has stalled the finalisation of the ISA Mining Code to govern DSM activities, which has been in development since 2014. During the March 2025 ISA Council meeting, Sierra Leone, on behalf of the African Group, highlighted key concerns about DSM commencing before the code is finalised. These include potential impacts on land-based mining economies and the need to bolster the economic assistance fund. There is also a need for environmental thresholds, effective compliance and enforcement mechanisms, robust anti-corruption and transparency measures, and a fair financial model for benefit sharing. The US's planned exploration outside its waters goes against the 'common heritage of humankind' principle in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The principle requires collective global governance of seabed resources. Although the US is neither an ISA member nor a party to UNCLOS, the country has generally observed the treaty as customary international law. However, Trump's executive order enables unilateral exploitation of the global seabed. Trump's global seabed 'exploitation' It was issued barely a month after Canadian firm The Metals Company (TMC) announced it would circumvent the ISA by applying for mining licences under a US mining code. In April, TMC USA filed for licences under the 1980 US Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act to mine in the Pacific Ocean's Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Trump's executive order risks undermining decades of multilateral efforts to protect the ocean. According to ISA Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho, 'Any unilateral action threatens not only this carefully negotiated treaty (UNCLOS) and decades of successful implementation and international cooperation, but also sets a dangerous precedent that could destabilise the entire system of global ocean governance.'' The executive order has also drawn criticism from China (which shares DSM interests), France and the European Commission for its apparent violation of international law. Even before the order was issued, 33 developed and developing countries called for a precautionary pause on DSM until scientific certainty ensured its safety. June's UN Ocean Conference (UNOC3) in France saw global opposition to DSM grow, with 37 countries supporting a moratorium or precautionary pause. UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the deep sea couldn't become the 'Wild West'. Although Trump's executive order faces strong global pushback, African countries have been less vocal than other regions. 'African states should advocate for science-based decision-making and address environmental knowledge gaps to protect shared marine resources,' says Dr Kirsty McQuaid, a researcher at the Nelson Mandela University Institute for Coastal and Marine Research and African Network of Deep-water Researchers coordinator. Altered seafloor topography Addressing knowledge gaps is vital. A recent study in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone revealed that more than 44 years since DSM experiments in 1979, mining equipment tracks, sediment plumes and altered seafloor topography remain. Biodiversity was also impacted, particularly among slow-growing and endemic species. Scientists continue to sound the alarm on the irreversible harm posed to marine ecosystems. Forecasts suggest that DSM could damage African economies, particularly in land-based mineral-exporting countries. Seabed minerals could undercut the value of land-based exports like cobalt, nickel and manganese, which are major sources of revenue for several African countries. The industry could also depress terrestrial mineral prices by flooding markets with seabed-derived alternatives. The DRC, Eritrea, Gabon, Madagascar, Mauritania, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe are especially vulnerable. Zambia and the DRC derive over half their export earnings and a substantial share of gross domestic product from these metals. African manganese producers such as South Africa, Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire may also be affected. Ocean governance and maritime security expert Dr Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood told ISS Today that the US executive order 'will likely increase competition for seabed exploitation and risk further ocean degradation'. This would undermine social equity and ecological conservation, 'which is concerning given the vital role of marine fisheries in the livelihoods of millions of Africans. Africa must establish a clear stance on DSM'. Professor Edwin Egede, an expert on international law of the sea and member of the ISA Legal and Technical Commission, agrees. 'Any unilateral appropriation of the deep seabed area and the resources therein contravenes both UNCLOS and customary international law.' He says 'Africa should raise its voice and uphold its legacy in global ocean governance, protect the common heritage of humankind developed by a rules-based international order, and ensure international cooperation and equity guide decisions shaping humanity's shared future.' African protective options African states have two possible options. First, they could ask the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to clarify states' obligations under the 'common heritage of mankind' principle. In 2011, the tribunal affirmed that sponsoring states must comply with UNCLOS environmental standards and due diligence obligations – a decision that discourages unilateral or domestic licensing. Second, ahead of the mid-July ISA General Assembly meeting, African countries could advocate for a DSM pause to ensure environmental safeguards and address regulatory gaps. The momentum achieved at UNOC3 for the High Seas Treaty – with 50 of 60 required ratifications reached – faces serious threats from the rise of unilateral DSM activities, which weaken ocean governance. Africa has a vital role in global ocean stewardship and safeguarding humanity's shared future. By advocating for stringent environmental safeguards and equitable benefit-sharing in ISA policy discussions, African countries can prevent DSM from compromising the health of our oceans and the rights of future generations. DM
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Africa Energy Forum presents a unique opportunity for African collaboration
In the rural village of Gwanda, Zimbabwe, a mother walks several kilometres each day to find firewood so she can cook for her children. She's never had access to reliable electricity, and her story is not unique. Across Africa, 600 million people still live without energy access – a fact that affects every aspect of their lives. The former United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, summarised Africa's biggest challenge when he said: 'Energy is the golden thread that connects economic growth, increased social equity, and an environment that allows the world to thrive'. Without electricity, communities cannot run clinics, power schools, or create jobs – all of which are fundamental to dignity and development. That is why I attended the Africa Energy Forum in Cape Town recently, a milestone that marked the first time in the event's 27-year history that it was hosted in South Africa. This year's theme, 'Africa United', could not be more fitting. As the global investment meeting for Africa's power, energy, infrastructure and industrial sectors, it was attended by stakeholders who hold the key to accelerating energy access - African presidents, ministers, policymakers, continental executives, the World Bank, African Development Bank and DFIs. With South Africa chairing the G20 this year, the continent must use the momentum of the Africa Energy Forum (AEF) and the G20 Summit to amplify a cohesive African voice in global energy governance. As geopolitical instability rises, with trade wars and fractured alliances, it's more urgent than ever to ask: Can Africa present a united energy agenda? And can it do so on its terms? To seize this opportunity, Africa must first agree on a set of shared energy priorities. These must include scaling up renewable resources like solar, wind and hydro, where the continent has a competitive advantage, while also affirming the sovereign right to include coal, gas and nuclear in the energy mix where needed. This is not a contradiction, but a necessity. Industrialised countries built their economies using all available energy sources. Africa must be afforded the same space to grow. Some of the critical arguments at this year's event will be around balancing the need for energy access and economic development with plotting a sustainable energy future that includes an abundance of Africa's renewable energy resources. Favourable terms for the financing of African energy projects will also be another important topic of debate. Although there are hundreds of initiatives to ensure the achievement of universal energy access on the continent, more than half the continent still lacks access to modern energy, which is why African energy stakeholders believe that amid the drive for reducing carbon emissions, Africa should have a sovereign right to include coal, gas and nuclear as part of its energy mix in line with how developed nations built their economies. What will the US role be in Africa's energy future? The first Power Africa Summit was launched by former US President Barack Obama in June 2013 as a private sector-led initiative with the ambitious goal of doubling electricity access on the continent. Through USAID, 12 US government agencies implemented Power Africa activities by providing financing and technical assistance to support the power sector in 40 African countries. Though different US administrations advised countries on electricity access for years, Power Africa's approach was different in that it took a demand-driven, transactional approach by reviewing actual transactions between private-sector players like investors, entrepreneurs, and manufacturers, and with governments and then identified obstacles that were preventing transactions from moving forward. A large reason for the success of Power Africa in the past was the power of diplomacy to level the playing field for U.S. investments in the energy sector. US President Trump and his administration announced that Power Africa would be dismantled, after more than a decade of successful work on the continent. With almost all of Power Africa's programmes listed for termination, the diminishing role of the US in Africa's energy sector opens opportunities for new alliances and greater intra-African collaboration. Energy financing must be favourable The challenge for Africa is that it needs to industrialise and electrify its economy, but at the same time, it needs the finances to do so in a sustainable way. Africa has also been most severely affected by climate change, and so its infrastructure development needs to be climate-resilient. Most African nations don't need an energy transition, but energy accessibility. Many African countries are grappling with rising inflation, which has also impacted the amount of developmental finance available to African nations. But America may want to maintain its presence and footprint in Africa's energy sector, especially as China seeks to play a leading role in the continent's infrastructure development. Despite the challenging global environment, Africa needs its member states and voices to unite with a collective vision to fund Africa's energy revolution with international financing mechanisms that are just. After all, Africa is responsible for less than 3% of the world's carbon emissions and home to massive, unlocked energy potential, while also being home to 1.2 billion youth aged between 15 to 24 years that account for 16% of the global population (according to the UN). Greg Nott is Director Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc
