project implementation review of the nepad infrastructure short term action plan (stap)

Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action Plan - 2010

i Draft Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... X

LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................... XIII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1

Key Concerns in the Implementation of STAP projects ......................................................................... 2

Energy Sector Projects ............................................................................................................................... 3

ICT Sector Projects ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Transport Sector Projects .......................................................................................................................... 7

Trans-boundary Water Sector Projects .................................................................................................... 9

Dovetail into PIDA ..................................................................................................................................... 13

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 14

1 CURRENT OVERVIEW OF STAP .......................................................................... 15

1.1 History of STAP ............................................................................................................................ 15

1.2 Current NEPAD STAP Project Portfolio ..................................................................................... 16

1.3 Key Concerns in the Implementation of STAP projects .......................................................... 18

1.4 Recommendations of the 2004 Implementation Review .......................................................... 19

1.5 Greater Support for Infrastructure Development in Africa ...................................................... 20

1.6 Continent-wide Infrastructure Initiatives ................................................................................... 22

2 ENERGY SECTOR PROJECTS ............................................................................. 24

2.1 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Energy Portfolio ............................................................................. 24

2.2 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Energy Portfolio .................................................. 26

2.3 Identification and categorization of challenges ........................................................................ 42

2.4 Ranking challenges by severity of impact ................................................................................ 47

2.5 Recommendations and the Way Forward for STAP Energy projects .................................... 48

3 ICT SECTOR PROJECTS ...................................................................................... 53


ii Draft Final Report

3.1 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP ICT Portfolio ................................................................................... 53

3.2 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP ICT Portfolio ........................................................ 53

3.3 Identification and categorization of challenges ........................................................................ 68

3.4 Ranking challenges by severity of impact ................................................................................ 71

3.5 Categorization of ICT Projects .................................................................................................... 72

3.6 Way forward on STAP ICT Projects ........................................................................................... 74

4 TRANSPORT SECTOR PROJECTS ...................................................................... 76

4.1 Overall Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Transport Portfolio ........................................................... 76

4.2 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Air Transport Portfolio .................................................................. 77

4.3 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Air Transport Portfolio ....................................... 78

4.4 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Road Transport Portfolio .............................................................. 89

4.5 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Road Transport Portfolio ................................... 89

4.6 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Rail Transport Portfolio ............................................................... 104

4.7 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Rail Transport Portfolio .................................... 104

4.8 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Maritime Transport Portfolio ...................................................... 109

4.9 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Maritime Transport Portfolio ........................... 109

4.10 Impact of 2004 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 117

4.11 Identification and categorization of challenges ...................................................................... 119

4.12 Ranking challenges by severity of impact .............................................................................. 123

4.13 Categorization of Transport Projects ....................................................................................... 126

4.14 Way forward on STAP Transport Projects .............................................................................. 130

5 TRANS-BOUNDARY WATER SECTOR PROJECTS .......................................... 132

5.1 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Trans-boundary Water Portfolio................................................. 132

5.2 Identification and categorization of challenges ...................................................................... 139

5.3 Ranking challenges by severity of impact .............................................................................. 143

5.4 Categorization of Trans-Boundary Water Projects ................................................................ 144

5.5 Way forward on STAP Trans-boundary Water Projects ......................................................... 146

6 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 147


iii Draft Final Report

6.1 General Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 147

6.2 Dovetail into PIDA ...................................................................................................................... 154

7 APPENDIX-1: TYPES OF PROJECTS ................................................................. 155

7.1 Capacity-Building projects........................................................................................................ 155

7.2 Investment projects ................................................................................................................... 155

7.3 Studies ........................................................................................................................................ 156

7.4 Facilitation Projects ................................................................................................................... 156


iv Draft Final Report

GLOSSARY

AAP Africa Action Plan

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States

AfCAC African Civil Aviation Commission

AfDB African Development Bank

AfREC African Energy Commission

AICD Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic

AMCOW African Ministerial Conference on Water

AMU Arab Maghreb Union

ASECNA L'Agence pour la Sécurité de la Navigation aérienne en Afrique et à Madagascar

ASYCUDA Automated Systems for Customs Data ++

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATU African Telecommunications Union

AU African Union

AWF African Water Facility

BAG Banjul Accord Group

BASA Bilateral Air Service Agreements

BOAD Banque Ouest Africaine de Développement

BOOT Build Operate Own Transfer

BPL Broadband over Power Line

CAB Central African Backbone Programme

CAPP Central African Power Pool

CASSOA Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency

CCC Community Computer Centre

CDN Corredor de Desenvolvimento do Norte

CEMAC Communauté Économique et Monétaire de l'Afrique Centrale

CIP Centre Inter-Etats de Prévision


v Draft Final Report

CNS Communication, Navigation, Surveillance

COMELEC Comité Maghrébin de l'Electricité

COMESA Common Market for East and Southern Africa

COSCAP Co-operative Development of Operation Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme

CRGRE Centre régional de gestion des ressources en eau

CRIS CRISIL Risk and Infrastructure Solutions Limited

DANIDA Danish International Development Agency

DBSA Development Bank of Southern Africa

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

EAC East African Community

EADB East African Development Bank

EAPP East African Power Pool

EARNP East Africa Road Network Programme

EASSy East African Submarine System

EBID ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development

ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States

ECIC Export Credit Insurance Corporation of South Africa

ECOWAN ECOWAS Wide Area Network

ECOWARN ECOWAS Warning and Response Network

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

EDF European Development Fund

EDM Electricidade de Moçambique

EEC European Economic Community

EIB European Investment Bank

EIRR Equity Internal Rate of Return

ERERA ECOWAS Regional Regulatory Authority

EU European Union

FIR Flight Information Region

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System


vi Draft Final Report

HoA Horn of Africa

HVDC High-voltage direct current

HIPSSA Support for Harmonization of the ICT Policies in Sub-Sahara Africa

HYCOS Hydrological Cycle Observation System

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

ICA Infrastructure Consortium for Africa

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

ICC Information & Co-ordination Centre

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IDA International Development Agency

IDB Islamic Development Bank

IFC Inter-state Forecasting Centre

IGAD Inter-Governmental Authority on Development

IGWA Intergovernmental Water Association

IPPF Infrastructure Project Preparation Facility

ISPS International Shipping and Port Facilities Security

ITU International Telecommunication Union

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management

JCA Joint Competition Authority

JICA Japan International Co-operation Agency

KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

KRC Kenya Railways Corporation

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MEDA Euro-Mediterranean Programme

MIGA Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency

MLTSF Medium Long-Term Strategic Framework

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

NBA Niger Basin Authority

NCB National Consulting Bureau


vii Draft Final Report

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NPCA NEPAD Planning and Co-ordinating Agency

OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

OPIC Overseas Private Investment Corporation

OSBP One-Stop Border Posts

PAD Port Autonome de Dakar

PCU Project Co-ordination Unit

PDIUs Project Development and Implementation Units

PIDA Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa

PIRR Project Internal Rate of Return

PISRs Project Implementation Status Reports

PMAESA Ports Management Association of East and Southern Africa

PPIAF Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility

PPP Public Private Partnership

PRG Political Risk Guarantees

PSP Private Sector Participation

RAERESA Regional Association of Energy Regulators for the Eastern and Southern Africa

RASCOM Regional African Satellite Communication Organisation

RBO River Basin Organisation

RCA Regional Competition Authority

RCBG Regional Customs Bond Guarantee Scheme

REC Regional Economic Community

RERA Regional Electricity Regulator Association

RIGF Regional Infrastructure Guarantee Fund

RIP Regional Integration Programme

RIPD Regional Infrastructure Project Database

RMC Regional Member Country

RRDO Regional Regulation Development Organization

RSWIDP Regional Strategic Water Infrastructure Development Programme


viii Draft Final Report

RTIS Regional Trade Information System

RVRC Rift Valley Railways Consortium

SADC Southern African Development Community

SAPEI Sardinia and Peninsular Italy

SAPP Southern African Power Pool

SASO System Approach to Safety Oversight

SBAS Satellite Based Augmentation System

SCA Standard Contribution Agreement

SCO-BAG Air Security Organisation

SDI Spatial Development Initiative

SIS Sector Informative System

SRII SADC Regional Information Infrastructure

SRUACC Sub-Regional Upper Airspace Control Centre

STAP Short Term Action Plan

STEM Short-Term Energy Market

TWRM Trans-boundary Water Resources Management

UACC Upper Air Space Control Centre

UNCTADA United Nations Transport and Communications Decade in Africa

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa

URC Uganda Railways Corporation

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USCC United Space Control Centre

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

USTDA United States Trade Development Agency

VGF Viability Grant Funding

WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union

WAGP West African Gas Pipeline

WAPP West African Power Pool


ix Draft Final Report

WATRA West African Telecommunications Regulatory Assembly

WMO World Meteorological Organization

WRTC Water Resources Technical Committee

YD Yamoussoukro Decision


x Draft Final Report

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Constraints affecting STAP energy projects ................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Constraints affecting STAP ICT projects ........................................................................................ 5

Table 3: Constraints affecting STAP transport projects ................................................................................ 7

Table 4: Constraints affecting STAP water projects ..................................................................................... 9

Table 5: Action points for implementation of STAP recommendations ...................................................... 11

Table 6: NEPAD STAP energy projects and progress ............................................................................... 26

Table 7: Overview of progress of energy projects by type .......................................................................... 28

Table 8: Progress of all STAP energy capacity-building projects ............................................................... 29

Table 9: Progress of all STAP electricity investment projects .................................................................... 31

Table 10: Progress of all STAP pipeline investment projects ..................................................................... 33

Table 11: Progress of all STAP energy study projects ............................................................................... 35

Table 12: Progress of all STAP energy facilitation projects ........................................................................ 37

Table 13: Current constraints and their source ........................................................................................... 47

Table 14: Projects and progress categories ............................................................................................... 48

Table 15: Current constraints and responsibility ......................................................................................... 50

Table 16 : NEPAD STAP ICT projects and progress .................................................................................. 54

Table 17: Overview of progress of ICT projects by type ............................................................................. 57

Table 18: Progress of all STAP ICT capacity-building projects .................................................................. 58

Table 19: Progress of all STAP ICT investment projects ............................................................................ 60

Table 20: Progress of all STAP ICT facilitation projects ............................................................................. 64

Table 21: Progress of all STAP ICT study projects .................................................................................... 68

Table 22: Current constraints and their source ........................................................................................... 71

Table 23: Projects and progress categories ............................................................................................... 72

Table 24: Overview of progress of transport projects by type .................................................................... 77

Table 25: NEPAD STAP air transport projects and progress ..................................................................... 78

Table 26: Overview of progress of air transport projects by type ............................................................... 80

Table 27: Progress of all STAP air transport investment projects .............................................................. 81


xi Draft Final Report

Table 28: Progress of all STAP air transport study projects ....................................................................... 82

Table 29: Progress of all STAP air transport facilitation projects ................................................................ 83

Table 30: NEPAD STAP road transport projects and progress .................................................................. 90

Table 31: Overview of progress of road transport projects by type ............................................................ 93

Table 32: Progress of all STAP road transport capacity-building projects ................................................. 93

Table 33: Progress of all STAP road transport investment projects ........................................................... 94

Table 34: Progress of all STAP road transport study projects .................................................................. 100

Table 35: Progress of all STAP road transport facilitation projects .......................................................... 101

Table 36: NEPAD STAP rail transport projects and progress .................................................................. 104

Table 37: Overview of progress of rail transport projects by type ............................................................ 106

Table 38: Progress of all STAP rail transport capacity-building projects .................................................. 106

Table 39: Progress of all STAP rail transport investment projects ........................................................... 107

Table 40: Progress of all STAP rail transport study projects .................................................................... 107

Table 41: NEPAD STAP maritime transport projects and progress ......................................................... 109

Table 42: Overview of progress of maritime transport projects by type ................................................... 111

Table 43: Progress of all STAP maritime transport capacity-building projects ......................................... 112

Table 44: Progress of all STAP maritime investment projects .................................................................. 112

Table 45: Progress of all STAP maritime transport study projects ........................................................... 114

Table 46: Progress of all STAP maritime transport facilitation projects .................................................... 114

Table 47: Types of Challenges and their sources of conflict .................................................................... 119

Table 48: Current constraints and responsibility ....................................................................................... 124

Table 49: Projects and progress categories ............................................................................................. 126

Table 50: NEPAD STAP projects and progress........................................................................................ 132

Table 51: Overview of progress of water projects by type ........................................................................ 134

Table 52: Progress of all STAP water capacity-building projects ............................................................. 135

Table 53: Progress of all STAP water investment projects ....................................................................... 136

Table 54: Progress of all STAP water study projects ............................................................................... 136

Table 55: Progress of all STAP water facilitation projects ........................................................................ 137

Table 56: Types of Challenges and their sources of conflict .................................................................... 139


xii Draft Final Report

Table 57: Current constraints and responsibility ....................................................................................... 143

Table 58: Projects and progress categories ............................................................................................. 144

Table 59: Timeline for Implementation of Action Points ........................................................................... 149

Table 60: Summary of Regional Infrastructure Projects that successfully used risk mitigation instruments ........................................................................................................................................................... 150

Table 61: Timeline for action points of bankable projects ......................................................................... 152


xiii Draft Final Report

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Total number of NEPAD STAP projects ........................................................................................ 2

Figure 2: Total number of NEPAD STAP energy projects ............................................................................ 3

Figure 3: Total number of NEPAD STAP ICT projects ................................................................................. 5

Figure 4: Total number of NEPAD STAP transport projects ......................................................................... 7

Figure 5: Total number of NEPAD STAP water projects .............................................................................. 9

Figure 6: NEPAD STAP projects by sector ................................................................................................. 16

Figure 7: NEPAD STAP projects by type .................................................................................................... 17

Figure 8: NEPAD STAP projects by REC ................................................................................................... 18

Figure 9: No. of STAP Projects in 2009 review........................................................................................... 18

Figure 10: Location of STAP Energy projects ............................................................................................. 25

Figure 11: Power Pools and their member countries .................................................................................. 40

Figure 12: Project lifecycle of a typical capacity-building project .............................................................. 155

Figure 13: Project lifecycle of a typical investment project ....................................................................... 155

Figure 14: Project lifecycle of a typical Study project ............................................................................... 156

Figure 15: Project lifecycle of a typical facilitation project ......................................................................... 156

Third Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure STAP - 2009

1 Draft Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents an overview of the findings of the third review of the progress made in the implementation of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Short Term Action Plan (STAP). This report is drawn from the findings detailed in the Project Implementation Status Reports (PISRs) which were prepared following visits to the seven Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to ascertain the current status of the implementation of the STAP projects under their purview.

This report has reviewed the STAP programme by each sector, namely Energy, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Transport and Trans-boundary Water. In each sector the progress of the four types of projects i.e. capacity-building, facilitation, investment and study projects have been analyzed and the key challenges affecting projects in these sectors have been derived. A detailed explanation of the stages of each of these types of projects has been provided in the Annexure. Each of these challenges has been subsequently analyzed and ranked in terms of the severity with which it affects the progress of the NEPAD STAP projects. Possible solutions and institutions for addressing these challenges have also been identified. Lastly, each of the STAP projects has been categorized in order to suggest a way forward and recommendations have been made accordingly.

This review also makes some additional recommendations which can be applied cross sector, and would support stakeholders in fast-tracking the implementation of regional infrastructure projects and programmes. The recommendations have parallels in other countries and have been tailored for Africa.



Key Concerns in the Implementation of STAP projects

The main intention of the third review of the STAP is to assess where the programme stands today in relation to its status at the time of the last review that was held in 2004. The third review reveals that the implementation progress of the STAP programme has been below expectations. In all, 103 STAP projects were reviewed; of these 16 projects reached completion. Approximately 70% of the STAP projects have progressed in some form or another. Among the STAP projects, 89% of study projects progressed followed by 80% of investment projects, 65% of facilitation projects and 36% of capacity-building projects. A similar ranking is also observed among the STAP completed projects - 33% of studies were completed followed by 20% of investment projects, 6% of facilitation projects and 0% of capacity-building projects. The same has been presented in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Total number of NEPAD STAP projects

The numbers from left to right in Figure 1 under each section in the graph indicate the number of projects in the 2009 review, number of progressed projects followed by the number of completed projects

The progress has been particularly slow in the case of capacity-building and facilitation projects due to various reasons such as financing constraints, inadequate mechanisms of project monitoring, unclear definitions of projects, etc. The progress has been good in the case of study projects and moderate in the case of investment projects. In the case of studies, the ownership/control of the STAP projects rests with the RECs; hence their progress is better than that of any other project type. In the case of investment projects, externalities dominate the progress of projects, namely financing, political and capacity constraints.

The most glaring observation of the third review was that the majority of the RECs did not have up-to-date information on many of the STAP projects. This was once again mostly observed for capacity-building and facilitation projects. Most RECs were unsure of the progress made by such projects and had very little information to share on their progress.



Energy Sector Projects

In all, 27 STAP energy sector projects were reviewed. These can be grouped into four capacity-building projects, five facilitation projects, six studies and twelve investment projects. In the energy sector, approximately 80% of the projects have progressed since 2004 while five projects have been completed. Once again implementation progress was best observed in study projects and investment projects with all of them showing good progress. Among the completed STAP energy projects, three were of the nature of studies while two were investment projects. The other energy projects have not progressed as satisfactorily – only 75% of capacity-building projects and 40% of facilitation projects have progressed. The same has been presented in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Total number of NEPAD STAP energy projects

The numbers from left to right in Figure 2 under each section in the graph indicate the number of projects in the 2009 review, number of progressed projects followed by the number of completed projects.

Key Challenges in the Implementation of STAP Energy sector projects

In the third review, seven key constraints which have impacted the implementation progress of STAP energy sector projects were identified. These constraints were then ranked by their severity of impact so that stakeholders could take cognizance of the same while addressing them. The same have been presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Constraints affecting STAP energy projects

SEVERITY

OF IMPACT

CONSTRAINTS TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

Severe High degree of political risk for regional energy projects

Political

Severe No regular monitoring of projects Project Management

Severe Lack of project management framework Project Management



SEVERITY

OF IMPACT

CONSTRAINTS TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

Severe Difficulty in securing project financing Financial

Average High degree of regulatory risk Technical

Average Private sector participation not exploited Financial

Average Limited political mandate of power pools and regional regulatory bodies

Political

Key Recommendations for STAP Energy sector projects

• African Union (AU), African Development Bank (AfDB), United National Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) or the NEPAD Secretariat must hold regular forums for national governments to foster co-operation between the countries

• RECs must encourage the formation of a regional electricity regulator’s association

• RECs, NEPAD Secretariat and AfDB could set up a Regional Infrastructure Project Database (RIPD) that tracks project progress and is accessible by all stakeholders.

• AfDB could support the RECs in bridging a contact between the RECs and the regional development banks

• National governments need to cede power to power pools and need to set up an organization/association that acts as a promoter of regional integration



ICT Sector Projects

In all, 18 NEPAD STAP ICT sector projects were reviewed. These are subdivided into four capacity-building projects, five facilitation projects, eight investment projects, and one study project. In the ICT sector, approximately 50% of the projects have progressed since 2004 and two projects have been completed. Investment projects and facilitation projects formed the majority of the ICT projects and the progress in these projects was fair. There was only one study project and it progressed but there was absolutely no progress in the four capacity-building projects. The same has been presented in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Total number of NEPAD STAP ICT projects

The numbers from left to right in Figure 3 under each section in the graph indicate the number of projects in the 2009 review, number of progressed projects followed by the number of completed projects

Key Constraints in the Implementation of STAP ICT sector projects

In the third review, six key constraints which have impacted the implementation progress of STAP ICT sector projects were identified. These constraints were then ranked by their severity of impact so that stakeholders could take cognizance of the same while addressing them. The same have been presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Constraints affecting STAP ICT projects

SEVERITY OF

IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

Severe Uncertainty of project financing Financial

Severe Inadequate project management and monitoring Institutional

Severe Lack of technical capacity and ICT infrastructure in REC secretariats and implementation agencies

Technical



SEVERITY OF

IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

Average Lack of political will in RECs to support projects. Political

Average Lack of ownership of projects by RECs Institutional

Average Slow adoption of regulating acts and common standards

Technical

Key Recommendations for STAP ICT sector projects

• Additional investment is required in technical, human and financial resources

• Provide clarity to stakeholders on project objectives, roles and responsibilities

• Improve the adoption of latest ICT technologies to leapfrog progress

• Improve regulatory systems and capacities

• A common policy and standards for streamlining regional implementation of ICT reforms and initiatives are needed



Transport Sector Projects

In all, 47 NEPAD STAP transport sector were reviewed across four sub-sectors namely air transport, road transport, rail transport and maritime transport. These were grouped into four capacity-building projects, 15 facilitation projects, 10 studies and 18 investment projects. In the transport sector, approximately 74% of the projects have progressed since 2004 and eight projects got completed. Once again implementation progress was best observed in the case of study projects and investment projects with 90% of study projects and 83% of the investment projects progressing well. The implementation of other projects in the transport sector has not been as satisfactory – only 67% of facilitation projects and 25% of capacity-building projects have progressed. The same has been presented in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Total number of NEPAD STAP transport projects


Key Constraints in the Implementation of STAP Transport sector projects

In the third review, seven key constraints which have impacted the implementation progress of STAP transport sector projects were identified. These constraints were then ranked by the severity of their impact so that stakeholders could take cognizance of the same while addressing them. The same has been presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Constraints affecting STAP transport projects

SEVERITY

OF IMPACT CONSTRAINT

TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

Severe Difficulty in securing financing Financial

Severe Lack of political support Political

Severe Lack of technical capacity of RECs Technical



SEVERITY

OF IMPACT CONSTRAINT

TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

Average Unclear roles and responsibilities of NEPAD and RECs Institutional

Average Lack of a well-defined project framework Institutional

Average Capacity-building challenges Technical

Low Lack of information on environmental impacts Environmental

Key Recommendations for STAP Transport sector projects

• Setting up of local NEPAD/REC offices to strengthen the relationship between national government sponsor agencies.

• Standardization of the inter-state Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which is pre-approved by all member-states (especially in the case of continental projects).

• RECs undertaking capacity-building programmes to raise their skill levels.

• Designating one regional organization as the main point of contact for continental projects.

• RECs to frame clear milestones for projects with a definite timeframe and define clear roles and responsibilities.

• Enacting uniform environmental protection legislation.

• Commission a specific analysis of the environmental aspects in the implementation of the NEPAD STAP transport projects.



Trans-boundary Water Sector Projects

In all, 11 STAP trans-boundary water sector projects were reviewed out of which there was progress in only six projects i.e. 67% of the trans-boundary water sector projects progressed. Unlike in the case of other sectors, facilitation projects have progressed more than other projects. 67% of facilitation projects progressed while only 50% of capacity-building and investment projects progressed. There was only one study project and strangely there has been no progress on it. Of 11 trans-boundary water sector projects, only one project (facilitation project) got completed. The same has been presented in Figure 5 below

Figure 5: Total number of NEPAD STAP water projects


Key Challenges in the Implementation of STAP Trans-boundary Water sector projects

In the third review, five key constraints which have impacted the implementation progress of STAP trans-boundary water sector projects were identified. These constraints were then ranked by the severity of their impact so that stakeholders could take cognizance of the same while addressing them. The same have presented in Table 4 below

Table 4: Constraints affecting STAP water projects

SEVERITY

OF IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

Severe Difficulty in securing project financing Financial

Average Hydro-political vulnerability Political

Average Regulatory risk Technical

Average Affordability vs. Capital recovery Socio-economic



SEVERITY

OF IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

Average Changing face of water resources Environmental

Key Recommendations for STAP Trans-boundary Water sector projects

• Underdeveloped River Basin Organisations (RBOs) need to be assisted by successful RBOs to enhance their technical and financial credibility.

• Greater involvement by African Water Facility (AWF) is needed.

• Uniformity in trans-boundary legal instruments and legislation is needed.

• Development of a common vision for sharing water needs to be encouraged.

• Good climate change forecasting is required at the REC level.

• Co-ordinated basin transfers from water-rich to water-scarce areas are required

• Uniform environmental protection legislation is required.



Overall Recommendations

The third review of the NEPAD STAP programme revealed that the programme had been successful in providing an initial impetus to the development of regional infrastructure projects in Africa. However, over time, most RECs have developed their own regional infrastructure programmes (e.g. Horn of Africa initiative of Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)) that are more aligned to their current regional priorities. Also, due to the lack of frameworks for regular monitoring, insufficient capacity and nebulous roles of various entities, the implementation of the programme has suffered. The current needs are to fast-track the implementation of STAP projects and steer the programme towards a firm closure. It is recommended that the STAP projects be categorized into three distinct categories:

• Projects that need to be shelved,

• Projects that can be completed within a time horizon of two years, and

• Projects that can be completed beyond a time horizon of two years and are best handled through new initiatives like Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA).

The overall recommendations can be applied cross-sector, and would support stakeholders in fast tracking the implementation of regional infrastructure projects and programmes. The recommendations have parallels in other countries and have been tailored for Africa. The recommendations are broadly categorized into those which could accelerate the progress of regional infrastructure projects, those which would enhance private sector participation, and those which would address institutional capacity gaps. A potential timeline for achieving these recommendations has also been suggested. This timeline has been indicated in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Action points for implementation of STAP recommendations

ACTION POINTS POTENTIAL LEAD AGENCY & TIMELINE

Accelerate Progress

Creating Project Database for STAP projects

Potential Lead Agency: RECs to develop regional databases while other stakeholders (AfDB, NEPAD Co-ordination and Planning Agency (NPCA)) to integrate these at a continental level

Timeline: By April 2011

Developing Project Monitoring Frameworks

Potential Lead Agency: Collaborative effort by all stakeholders. NPCA to ensure that RECs update the databases frequently

Timeline: By July 2011

Developing effective communications strategy for STAP projects

Potential Lead Agency: RECs


Enhance Private Sector Participation

Use existing facilities in Africa (For Example, Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF)) for hiring of external

Potential Lead Agency: RECs & NPCA




ACTION POINTS POTENTIAL LEAD AGENCY & TIMELINE

advisors or consultants to prepare STAP investment projects for bidding and negotiations

Develop risk assessment frameworks

Potential Lead Agency: AfDB


Increase the gamut of risks that can be mitigated prudently. If required, establish a dedicated Regional Infrastructure Guarantee Fund (RIGF) for Africa


Timeline: By September 2011

Showcase financial closure of bankable regional infrastructure projects and prepare a database of leading providers of risk mitigation instruments

Potential Lead Agency: NPCA


Establish Viability Gap Funding (VGF) mechanism to make socially viable projects commercially viable



Develop model contracting documents and legal documents



Develop various options for project and financing structures for STAP along with leading development finance institutions in Africa



The third review of the STAP programme revealed that all the implementing agencies viz. RECs, Regional Power Pools, River Basin Organizations etc were facing capacity constraints (severe in some cases) at. We recommend a two pronged approach for the development of regional infrastructure projects in Africa

1. NEPAD and AfDB must provide short-term assistance in improving the institutional capacity to fast track STAP projects nearing completion or envisaged to be completed within the next two years. This could be done by taking onboard project management consultants/advisors that would assist the implementing agencies in taking the projects towards closure.

2. It is envisaged that once PPP in regional infrastructure projects materialises, there would be a need to monitor their performance/contractual obligations on a regular basis. These are specialized skills which require a unique approach in institutional development. In India, PPP cells have been housed within sub-sovereign contracting agencies to support them in monitoring the contractual obligations of PPPs. We recommend that such dedicated PPP cells should be formed within all agencies which implement regional infrastructure projects in Africa.



Dovetail into PIDA

The STAP programme that was rolled out in 2002 has served its purpose of kick starting regional infrastructure development in Africa. Most of the STAP projects should have been completed by now but it has been observed that only a few projects are completed while the majority of these projects are still underway. Considering the STAP programme was a short-term initiative there is a need to move forward and bring this programme to its logical end. It is recommended that the STAP projects which have to be taken forward be categorised into two i.e. one, those:

• Projects which are underway and expected to be completed in the next two years;

• Projects which are underway and expected to be completed beyond the next two years and should be ideally taken forward by new initiatives such as PIDA

Since projects in the first category are nearing completion. It is envisaged that the same would happen over a period of two years. However, many projects are facing challenges which could delay their implementation if not sorted out at the earliest. We recommend that such projects be rolled into/dovetailed into new initiatives like PIDA.



INTRODUCTION

The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) had launched the Short-Term Action Plan (STAP) in 2002 to kick-start the process of developing regional infrastructure in Africa. STAP consisted of approximately 120 regional infrastructure projects spread across the continent, covering four sectors – Energy, ICT, Transport and Trans-boundary Water.

The Third Review of the Implementation Progress of the NEPAD STAP was undertaken by the African Development Bank (AfDB). The previous two reviews of NEPAD STAP were undertaken in 2003 and 2004. The third review primarily focuses on conducting an analysis of the implementation progress of the STAP projects since the last review held in 2004, identifies the major challenges that are affecting implementation and provides recommendations on the way forward. The information for the third review has been collected from AfDB, Regional Economic Communities (RECs), and secondary sources.

The third review of STAP commenced in the last week of September 2009 with an initial set of meetings with AfDB. The diagnostic meetings with seven of the identified RECs were conducted over a period of four months, starting mid-October 2009. Since the RECs are responsible for the STAP projects in their geographies, it was crucial to meet the Secretariats to collect the latest implementation progress. To make the diagnostic process more efficient, information templates were sent to all RECs to enable them to collect the progress data prior to the visits.

This report is organized into six chapters with the following objectives:

Chapter 1 – Current Overview of STAP: It provides a brief history of STAP and the recommendations made in the 2004 review along with a snapshot of the current STAP project portfolio and the latest infrastructure initiatives in Africa.

Chapter 2 – Energy Sector Projects: This chapter details the implementation progress of the STAP projects in the energy sector, identifies challenges, prioritizes projects and makes recommendations on the way forward for energy projects.

Chapter 3 – ICT Sector Projects: It details the implementation progress of the STAP projects in the ICT sector, identifies challenges, prioritizes projects and makes recommendations on the way forward for ICT projects.

Chapter 4 – Transport Sector Projects: This chapter details the implementation progress of the STAP projects in the transport sector, identifies challenges, prioritizes projects and makes recommendations on the way forward for transport projects.

Chapter 5 – Trans-boundary Water Sector Projects: This chapter details the implementation progress of the STAP projects in the trans-boundary water sector, identifies challenges, prioritizes projects and makes recommendations on way forward for trans-boundary water projects.

Chapter 6 – Recommendations: This chapter highlights initiatives and solutions that could improve the implementation of STAP and the way forward.



1 CURRENT OVERVIEW OF STAP

This chapter provides a historical background of STAP, recommendations made during the 2004 review, and a snapshot of the current status of STAP projects. It also outlines current initiatives for developing infrastructure in Africa. The purpose is to provide a backdrop for the third STAP review and establish the base for reviewing the implementation progress of STAP projects across all sectors and geographies.

1.1 History of STAP

In 2001, NEPAD was launched with the objective of eradicating poverty, promoting sustainable development and arresting the marginalization of Africa in the global context. The NEPAD Secretariat is based in Midrand, South Africa and focuses on eight sectors, including the infrastructure sector. Recently, as part of the process to integrate NEPAD into the African Union (AU) structures and processes, the NEPAD Secretariat was transformed into the NEPAD Planning and Co-ordinating Agency (NPCA).

African economies are typically too small and fragmented to generate the economies of scale required to significantly foster trade and contribute towards poverty reduction. Hence, the development of regional infrastructure is seen as an essential building block for accelerating economic growth. In order to be effective in this endeavour, reforms necessary for harmonization of policies and legal and regulatory frameworks become an important priority for the continent. The NEPAD Short-Term Action Plan (STAP) for infrastructure was launched in 2002 to assist in the implementation of necessary policy reforms in RECs and Regional Member Countries (RMCs) and also to facilitate and support the implementation of short-term regional infrastructure, leading to increased investment in four infrastructure sectors, viz., Energy, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Transport and Trans-boundary Water Resources Management.

STAP identified approximately 120 regional infrastructure projects in conjunction with RECs and broadly classified them into four types of projects:

• Facilitation – Establishing policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks to create a suitable environment for investment and efficient operations;

• Capacity-building – Launching initiatives to empower the implementing institutions to perform their mandates;

• Investment – Investing in physical and capital projects; and

• Studies – Preparing future projects.

NEPAD’s role in ensuring the successful implementation of the STAP was seen as:

• Mobilizing political will and actions to implement policy and institutional reforms, including harmonizing regulatory systems and ratifying agreements;

• Facilitating the mobilization of resources for regional projects; and

• Facilitating knowledge-sharing, networking and dissemination of best practices among countries, RECs and technical agencies.



1.2 Current NEPAD STAP Project Portfolio

The third review of the NEPAD Infrastructure STAP has been conducted using the second STAP review as the starting point for information on STAP projects. The STAP project list, prepared for the Medium Long-Term Strategic Framework (MLTSF) 2007, was provided by AfDB and was used as the preliminary list of projects to be covered under the current review. This list and approach were agreed upon by AfDB.

The 2009 review of the NEPAD STAP projects includes 103 projects spread across seven RECs. The STAP project portfolio consisted of four types of projects: capacity-building projects, investment projects, studies, and facilitation projects. A summary of NEPAD STAP projects across Africa is presented in Figure 6.

The STAP project portfolio consisted of projects from four sectors -- Energy (26%), ICT (17%), Transport (46%) and Water (11%). The REC capacity-building project is an overarching project which is not classified as per any sector.

Figure 6: NEPAD STAP projects by sector

The STAP project portfolio consisted of four types of projects -- capacity-building projects (14%), investment projects (39%), studies (14%) and facilitation projects (17%). These have been shown in Figure 7. The REC capacity-building project has not shown any progress across almost all of the RECs and has hence been left out of the purview of this review



Figure 7: NEPAD STAP projects by type

The projects have also been classified across the RECs. Arab Maghreb Union (AMU) and Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) supervised 14 and 11 projects respectively. East African Community (EAC) and Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) were co-ordinating 13 and 31 STAP projects respectively. Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) monitored 42 and 13 projects respectively while Southern African Development Community (SADC) was in charge of 30 projects. This has been represented in Figure 8.



Figure 8: NEPAD STAP projects by REC

This list is higher than the actual number because continental projects which have been spread across the RECs have been counted individually for each REC.

1.3 Key Concerns in the Implementation of STAP projects

The main intention of the third review of the STAP is to assess where the programme is in relation to its status at the last review that was held in 2004. The third review reveals that the implementation progress of the STAP programme has been below expectations. A total of 103 STAP projects were reviewed out of which 16 projects got completed. Approximately 70% of the STAP projects progressed in some form or other. Among the STAP projects, 89% of all study projects progressed followed by 80% of investment projects, 65% of facilitation projects and 36% of capacity-building projects. A similar ranking is also observed in the STAP completed projects, namely 33% of studies were completed followed by 21% of investment projects, 6% of facilitation projects and 0% of capacity-building projects.

Figure 9: No. of STAP projects in 2009 review



The progress has been particularly slow in the case of capacity-building and facilitation projects due to various reasons such as financing constraints, inadequate mechanisms in project monitoring, projects not being sharply defined, etc. The progress has been good in the case of study projects and moderate in the case of investment projects. In the case of studies, the ownership/control of the STAP projects vests with the RECs and hence progress is better than any other project type. In the case of investment projects, the externalities dominate the progress of projects namely financing, political and capacity constraints.

The most glaring observation in the third review was that majority of the RECs did not have up-to-date information on many of the STAP projects. This was once again mostly observed for capacity-building and facilitation projects. Most RECs were unsure of the progress made by such projects and had very little information to share on their progress.

1.4 Recommendations of the 2004 Implementation Review

In this section, the key recommendations made during the second review of STAP in 2004 are highlighted.

• Streamline REC Decision-Making Processes

REC decision-making processes and mechanisms could be made efficient and effective by streamlining them to meet the requirements of their current NEPAD mandate without compromising transparency and accountability.

• Consistently and Effectively Implement Regional Decisions

The translation of political will into concrete actions in countries could be facilitated by certain regional decisions automatically binding on member countries and by improving the capacity of countries to undertake the necessary actions to ensure compliance with agreed regional decisions and protocols.

• Strengthen the Capacity of RECs

There should be an augmentation of the capacity and resources of RECs to enable them to provide technical assistance to countries, especially in their efforts to comply with sectoral harmonization programmes, and to monitor compliance therewith. In this respect, an expansion of NEPAD Infrastructure Project Preparation Facility (IPPF) to encompass facilitation projects should be considered.

• Create Project Development and Implementation Units (PDIUs) for Each Region

The preparation of bankable cross-border infrastructure projects could be accelerated through the creation of regional PDIUs, suitably equipped with the right skills-set and appropriate grant funding such as that being considered by ECOWAS.

• Increase Financial Funding for RECs from Member/Partner States

Countries should be encouraged to provide the Secretariat of their respective RECs with regular funding that is sufficient to not only support, at the minimum, each RECs basic functions/activities, but also, to make a meaningful contribution towards improvements in capacity, in order to advance the NEPAD programme.



• Scaling-Up Private Sector Participation (PSP) in the Implementation of STAP

A coherent package of policies needs to be devised and implemented at the continental, regional and country level, to support and encourage private sector investment in STAP. This should include policies designed to enhance the capacity of the African private sector to effectively participate at all levels in the development of infrastructure projects throughout the continent.

• Improve Communication and Co-ordination between the Key Stakeholders

Institutional relationships between the key stakeholders could be strengthened through the creation of a co-ordination framework, as recommended and agreed to by the stakeholders at the NEPAD workshop in Abuja in March 2005. Further to this, it is recommended that dedicated project-specific secretariats be established as soon as countries agree to collaborate on particular cross-border investment projects.

• Review, Improve and Expand the Capacity of the AfDB NEPAD Unit and the NEPAD Secretariat

The growing demand for their services with relation to the STAP agenda will necessitate an expansion of the capacity (financial, human, technical) of both the AfDB NEPAD Unit and the NEPAD Secretariat. In this regard, an urgent review should be undertaken with a view to ensuring their continued effective contribution in the implementation of STAP. Further to this, it is recommended that the AFDB act on the following:

1. Adopt a more proactive approach to bring to the market innovative financing and risk mitigation instruments that will catalyze a scale-up of private sector participation. Examples of such an approach are: the Asian Infrastructure Development Company, the Private Sector Infrastructure Facility, which were both established by the Asian Development Bank.

2. Taking cognizance of the outcomes of the 2005 G8 Summit, AfDB should develop policies, structures and facilities in order that it may be able to take a leadership role in mobilizing funds from within and outside the continent and effectively channelling those funds for infrastructure development.

• Improve Donor Co-ordination and Alignment with NEPAD priorities

Development partners should be encouraged to collaborate more effectively and to adapt their internal systems and practices to the priorities of NEPAD, so as to be able to better contribute to the acceleration of the implementation of STAP. The creation of a pooled development fund in each region would address poorly focused or skewed programmes and obviate the need for separate funding applications for each project component.

1.5 Greater Support for Infrastructure Development in Africa

In the past few years, there has been a greater focus on infrastructure development in Africa. This section highlights some of the important initiatives in this area.

1.5.1 Infrastructure Consortium for Africa

The Infrastructure Consortium for Africa (ICA) was launched in 2005 with the objective of acting as a catalyst for enhancing, accelerating and precipitating the development of Africa’s infrastructure. The ICA covers the four sectors that are part of the STAP programme. ICA is not a financing agency but a platform to catalyse donor and private sector financing of infrastructure projects and programmes in Africa. ICA



members include the G8 countries, the World Bank Group, the AfDB Group, the European Commission, European Investment Bank and the Development Bank of South Africa.

The ICA is supported by a small secretariat which is hosted by AfDB. The secretariat is funded by voluntary contributions from some ICA members and is staffed by a combination of permanent staff from AfDB and experts on secondment from ICA member countries.

ICA commitments were approximately US$ 12.4 billion in 2007. This includes US$ 8.8 billion from multilateral commitments and US$ 3.6 billion from bilateral commitments (from G8 countries). Some of the important infrastructure projects that have benefited from ICA commitments include the Communauté Économique et Monétaire de l'Afrique Centrale (CEMAC) Trade Corridor Project, Bujagali Hydro-power project and the East African Submarine System (EASSy).

1.5.2 European Union (EU) Africa Partnership on Infrastructure

The EU Africa Partnership on Infrastructure was established in 2005 as an overall integrated and long term framework for interaction between the whole of Europe and Africa at all levels, namely the pan-African institutions such as the AU, regional organizations and national authorities. The partnership is based on the EU strategy for Africa and on objectives defined by STAP. The partnership supports physical infrastructure investments, institutional development measures and capacity-building, as well as measures for the political and regulatory framework at the national level.

The funding of operations under the partnership is based on several instruments:

• Regional and national allocations under the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) amounting to €5.6 billion;

• Intra-African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) resources, including those allocated through the energy and water facilities; and

• The new fiduciary fund set up by the EU and the European Investment Bank (EIB), aimed at cross-border infrastructure investments in particular. This fund is co-financed by the Commission, the concerned member-states, European and African financial development institutions. During the initial phase (2006-2007), the fund was credited with €87 million, which was allocated in the form of grants from the community and the member–states; another €260 million would be allocated in the form of loans by the EIB.

Some of the important STAP projects that have benefited from the EU Africa Partnership on Infrastructure include the implementation of the Yamoussoukro decision, the INGA Hydro-power study, and the feasibility study for EASSy, capacity-building for power pools, and trans-boundary river basins.

1.5.3 Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic

The Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic (AICD) is an innovative knowledge program to improve public understanding of what network infrastructure does to promote economic growth in Africa. It provides a baseline against which future improvements in infrastructure services can be measured, making it possible to monitor the results achieved from donor support. It also provides a more solid empirical foundation for prioritizing investments and designing policy reforms in the infrastructure sectors in Africa.

AICD has undertaken unprecedented data collection (covers the years 2001 to 2006, report completed in 2009) and analysis on the status of the main network infrastructures, including energy, information and



communication technologies, irrigation, transport, and water and sanitation. The analysis encompasses public expenditure trends, future investment needs and sector performance reviews.

AICD is being implemented by the World Bank on behalf of a steering committee comprising the African Union Commission, NEPAD, AfDB, Africa’s regional economic communities, and donors investing in African infrastructure. It was commissioned by the ICA; the main contributors financing the AICD are the UK Department for International Development, the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF), Agence Française de Développement, the European Commission, and the World Bank.

1.6 Continent-wide Infrastructure Initiatives

This section covers the continent-wide initiatives in the infrastructure sector.

1.6.1 Africa Action Plan

The AU/NEPAD Africa Action Plan (AAP) is the defining statement of Africa’s current priority programmes and projects related to the promotion of regional and continental integration anchored in NEPAD’s guiding principles. The AU/NEPAD African Action Plan (AAP) was originally conceived and developed in 2005/2006, in the drive to fast track the implementation of Africa’s development and initiatives, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It consists, primarily, of the current priority programmes and projects with high potential impact on regional integration in Africa and requiring co-ordination at the continental level.

Specifically, the AAP aims at:

• Mobilising sufficient resources for the implementation of Africa’s priority programmes/projects;

• Harmonising and synchronising AU/NEPAD programmes/projects for effective and efficient implementation;

• Preparing a platform for programme/project collaboration and partnership; and

• Facilitating the monitoring and evaluation of the priority programmes/projects at national, sub-regional and continental levels with the AU/NEPAD, RECs and other African institutions as part of fast-tracking implementation.

1.6.2 Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA)

The PIDA is a continent-wide infrastructure programme that is currently in the initial stages of development. The overall objective of PIDA is to optimise the efforts and use of resources in order to enable African stakeholders to have one voice based on a common agenda and propose a common vision for infrastructure development.

The objectives of PIDA are to enable African stakeholders to:

• Establish a strategic framework for the development of regional and continental infrastructure (Energy, Transport, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Water) based on a development vision, strategic objectives and sector policies;

• Establish an infrastructure development programme articulated around priorities and phases; and



• Prepare an implementation strategy and process including, in particular, a priority action plan.

The PIDA sector studies will assist in developing a vision on Africa’s infrastructure based on strategic objectives and sector polices. The PIDA studies will also prioritize regional and continental infrastructure investment programs (Energy, Transport, Information and Communication Technologies and Trans-boundary Water Resources) over the short, medium, and long term, up to the year 2030. In addition, the studies will recommend the required institutional arrangements, legal frameworks, and financing mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring of the programs.

PIDA would draw inputs from the STAP, AU Master Plans and Continental Policies initiative launched in 2005 and the NEPAD Infrastructure Medium to Long-Term Strategic Framework (MLTSF) launched in 2006.



2 ENERGY SECTOR PROJECTS

This chapter covers the STAP energy sector projects. This chapter initially outlines the implementation progress of the energy projects by region and type and subsequently discusses the impact of the STAP programme on Power Pools, identifies implementation challenges, ranks the challenges by the severity of their impact and provides recommendations to take the STAP energy projects forward.

2.1 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Energy Portfolio

For this review, the status of 27 NEPAD STAP energy projects has been analysed. These have been divided into four capacity-building projects, five facilitation projects, six studies and twelve investment projects. The investment projects can further be split into eight electricity projects and four gas or petroleum pipeline projects. In the 2004 review, there were only 24 energy projects, meaning that three new projects have been added. They are:

� Uganda-Rwanda-Burundi Oil Products Pipeline (investment project in the EAC region);

� Djibouti-Ethiopia interconnector (investment project in the IGAD region); and

� Sudan-Ethiopia interconnector (investment project in the IGAD region).

The inclusion of new projects in the NEPAD STAP programme does not follow a rigid and well defined procedure. It is not even clear whether the NEPAD Secretariat is informed by the RECs about the inclusion of new projects. The map in Figure 10 lists all NEPAD STAP projects and shows their geographic location.



Figure 10: Location of STAP Energy projects

The regional economic communities of AMU, SADC and ECOWAS are responsible for most of the energy projects (all have seven projects) followed by ECCAS (5), EAC (3) and IGAD (2). The total is more than 27 because three projects are jointly executed by two or more RECs. These are:

� The Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline Study which is under the responsibility of both ECOWAS and AMU. Since the pipeline would connect Nigeria and Algeria, both RECs have a regional interest in this project.

� The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Grand Inga Interconnector study for which both SADC and ECCAS Secretariats have responsibility, since DRC is a member of both the RECs. Given the important scale of the INGA project and the considerable regional impact it would have on the region and the continent, it is not surprising that a number of regional organisations should be actively involved in the project.

Institutional Support to Central African Power Pool (ECCAS)

Energy Observatory (ECOWAS)

Continental: Capacity Building projects in Energy sector

Algeria-Morocco-Spain interconnection (AMU)

Algeria-Sardinia (Italy) Interconnection Project (AMU)

Algeria-Spain interconnection (AMU)

Tunisia-Italy interconnection project (AMU)

Djibouti-Ethiopia Interconnector (IGAD)

Sudan-Ethiopia Interconnector (IGAD)

Mepanda UncuaHydropower project (SADC)

Mozambique-Malawi Interconnection (SADC)

Tunisia-Libya Gas Pipeline (AMU)

Kenya-Uganda Oil Pipeline (EAC)

Tanzania-Kenya-Uganda Gas Pipeline (EAC)

West African Gas Pipeline (ECOWAS)

East African power Master plan (EAC)

Study on Interconnectivity of Electricity Networks (ECCAS)

Master Plan regional interconnection (ECOWAS)

Westcor Interconnection project (SADC)

Grand Inga Interconnector project (ECCAS, SADC)

Trans Saharan Gas Pipeline Study (ECOWAS,AMU)

Facilitation project in Energy (ECCAS)

SAPP Generation capacity and transmission expansion (SADC)

Regulation Development in ECOWAS

Facilitation project for Energy (ECOWAS)

West African power Pool (ECOWAS)

Uganda-Rwanda-Burundi Oil Products Pipeline (EAC)

Institutional Support to Central African Power Pool (ECCAS)

Energy Observatory (ECOWAS)

Continental: Capacity Building projects in Energy sector

Algeria-Morocco-Spain interconnection (AMU)

Algeria-Sardinia (Italy) Interconnection Project (AMU)

Algeria-Spain interconnection (AMU)

Tunisia-Italy interconnection project (AMU)

Djibouti-Ethiopia Interconnector (IGAD)

Sudan-Ethiopia Interconnector (IGAD)

Mepanda UncuaHydropower project (SADC)

Mozambique-Malawi Interconnection (SADC)

Tunisia-Libya Gas Pipeline (AMU)

Kenya-Uganda Oil Pipeline (EAC)

Tanzania-Kenya-Uganda Gas Pipeline (EAC)

West African Gas Pipeline (ECOWAS)

East African power Master plan (EAC)

Study on Interconnectivity of Electricity Networks (ECCAS)

Master Plan regional interconnection (ECOWAS)

Westcor Interconnection project (SADC)

Grand Inga Interconnector project (ECCAS, SADC)

Trans Saharan Gas Pipeline Study (ECOWAS,AMU)

Facilitation project in Energy (ECCAS)

SAPP Generation capacity and transmission expansion (SADC)

Regulation Development in ECOWAS

Facilitation project for Energy (ECOWAS)

West African power Pool (ECOWAS)

Uganda-Rwanda-Burundi Oil Products Pipeline (EAC)

Investment projects StudiesCapacity Buidling FacilitationInvestment projects StudiesCapacity Buidling Facilitation



� The continentally rolled out capacity-building project is nominally part of several of the RECs’ NEPAD STAP portfolio. However, this project is hardly being pursued by any of the RECs. It seems that most RECs are uncertain about the implementation of this project. As outlined in Table 8 this is mainly due to a lack of proper project management and ownership of the project.

2.2 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Energy Portfolio

Table 6 provides an overview of all NEPAD STAP energy projects reviewed, their costs and their progress since the last review in 2004. The light grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress in 2004 and the dark grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress as of 2009.

= Project stages completed as of 2004


Table 6: NEPAD STAP energy projects and progress

NAME OF PROJECT REC COST PROGRESS

CAPACITY-BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

Capacity-Building Project in Energy Sector All RECs n.a. No progress reported by most RECs because the project was not defined, or was transferred as a part of the power pool capacity-building project

Institutional Support for Central African Power Pool (CAPP)

ECCAS US$ 2 million

Energy Observatory ECOWAS n.a.

Regional Regulation Development Project for Electricity Sector

ECOWAS n.a.

INVESTMENT-ELECTRICITY

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

Algeria-Morocco-Spain interconnection AMU US$ 430 million

Algeria-Sardinia (Italy) Interconnection AMU US$ 260-690 million




Algerian Gas Fired Power station and Algeria-Spain interconnection

AMU US$ 382 mill.

Tunisia-Italy Interconnection AMU US$ 490-530 million

Sudan Ethiopia Inter Connector (New) IGAD US$ 71 million

Djibouti Ethiopia Inter Connector (New) IGAD US$ 121 million

Mepanda Uncua Hydropower Project SADC US$ 2 billion

Mozambique – Malawi Interconnection SADC US$ 85 million

INVESTMENT-OIL AND GAS PIPELINES

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

Tunisia-Libya Gas Pipeline Project AMU n.a.

Kenya-Uganda Oil Pipeline EAC US$ 110 million

Uganda-Rwanda-Burundi Oil Products Pipeline EAC n.a.

West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP) ECOWAS US$ 380 million

STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

East African Power Master Plan EAC n.a.

Gas Pipeline Tanzania-Kenya-Uganda EAC US$ 0.5 million

Interconnectivity of Electricity Networks ECCAS US$ 4.5 million

Master Plan for Sub-regional Interconnection. ECOWAS US$ 9 billion Converted to investment

DRC-Grand INGA Integrator Study (incl. investment costs)

ECCAS, SADC US$ 520 million

Trans Saharan Gas Pipeline Study AMU, ECOWAS US$ 2.5




million

FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

Facilitation Project in the Energy Sector ECCAS n.a. No update, no project defined

Facilitation project for Energy ECOWAS n.a No update, no project defined

West African Power Pool (WAPP) ECOWAS US$ 9 billion

(WESTCOR) Interconnection Project SADC US$ 10 million Project shelved

Southern African Power Pool (SAPP) Generation Capacity and Transmission Expansion

SADC n.a.

Overall, projects in the energy sector have seen good improvement across all RECs, sectors and types of projects. Of the 27 reviewed projects, 23 have progressed, but of those only 51 have been completed, as shown in Table 7. Capacity-building and facilitation projects have been the slowest to progress, while studies and investment projects have seen the best improvement.

Table 7: Overview of progress of energy projects by type

TYPE NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2004

NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2009

NO. OF

PROGRESSED

PROJECTS

NO. OF

COMPLETED

PROJECTS

Capacity-building 4 4 3 -

Investment 9 12 12 2

Studies 6 6 6 3

Facilitation Project 5 5 2 -

Total 24 27 23 5

1 This included the AMU investment project ‘Algerian Gas Fired Power station and Algeria-Spain interconnection’ which is partially

complete as the Power Station has been constructed but not yet the interconnection



2.2.1 Progress of Capacity-Building Projects

Table 8 summarises the progress of the four capacity-building projects in the energy sector. One is a new project, one has been ongoing since 2004 and one is a near-continental project. Detailed project constraints, status and success factors for each project in each REC are listed in the Project Implementation Status Reports.

Table 8: Progress of all STAP energy capacity-building projects

CAPACITY-BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

Capacity-Building Project in Energy Sector (New) All RECs n.a. Varies across RECs

No specific capacity-building project is recognised by most secretariats and this project has not been pursued in a formally defined framework. However, personnel changes have been made across RECs and capacity has been built up, but not through a formal project definition.

Constraints

Other:

Not embracing STAP Capacity-Building Programme

Lack of well-defined project milestones and objectives

Lack of project monitoring

Institutional Support for CAPP ECCAS US$ 2 million

ECCAS aims to build up capacity for the CAPP and this project is therefore included in the project for Institutional Support for CAPP. The capacity at CAPP has not improved since 2004 and it is still lacking in qualified personnel and basic equipment. Technical capabilities at the ECCAS Secretariat have improved. However, as a new energy expert has been hired since 2004.

Constraints

Financial: Lack of financing

Political: Political mandate of CAPP not strong enough

Other:

Lack of well defined project management framework

Lack of monitoring

Energy Observatory ECOWAS n.a.

The WAPP Information & Co-ordination Centre (ICC) has now replaced the Energy Observatory initiative under WAPP. The ICC has a focal point in all member-states to co-ordinate the collection of data. This

Constraints

Political: Lack of co-ordination between member-states



CAPACITY-BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

project is a part of the WAPP facilitation project.

Regional Regulation development Project for Electricity Sector2

ECOWAS n.a.

This project has now been included as a part of the WAPP facilitation project. The Proposal of Missions and Powers of the ECOWAS Regional Regulatory Authority (ERERA) and definition of the legal instrument to create ERERA was created in November 2006. The ERERA was set up in Accra, Ghana in January 2008.

Constraints

Institutional: Continuation of the regulatory actions initiated by the Regional Regulation Development Organization (RRDO)

Financing: Financing is a key constraint for progress of the project

Others: Lack of clear project management framework

Apart from the energy observatory at ECOWAS, which has been integrated with the WAPP facilitation project, capacity-building projects in the energy sector have registered limited advancements – see box on CAPP.

2 Project is treated as capacity-building and not facilitation project in this report, because REC classifies it as capacity-building

project

Case Note: Institutional Support for CAPP

The key problem with this project is that it does not have clearly defined objectives and a project management framework. This is a recurring problem with capacity-building and facilitation projects. Consequently, this project is not defined at ECCAS and the REC does not treat it as a short-term project, but as an ongoing task. Without a

clearly set out final objective and interim targets, such projects will go on indefinetly and ownership of such projects will be weak.

It is of crucial importance to clearly spell out objectives and decide interim targets and time-lines, while launching capacity-building projects. This would raise ownership of the project and force initiators of a programme to assess

the realisability of the project. Further, the institution monitoring the programme of which the project is a part has to regularly supervise (at least every six months) the progress and status of the project. This would avoid the

project being shelved and neglected by the Secretariat.

To facilitate the flow of information between the monitoring agency and REC, a regional online database could be

set up that would be accessible to and updated by all stakeholders. This would add transparency to the progress and process of infrastructure programmes. This has to be initiated by the organisation that plans and monitors the

NEPAD STAP programme, Hence, the onus falls on NEPAD Secretariat.



Capacity at a number of RECs has however been built up and developed over the last few years, albeit without a clearly defined project management framework. It is nonetheless important while integrating capacity-building projects with a new infrastructure programme that a clear set of targets, milestones and responsibilities be defined to maintain ownership and momentum of the projects.

2.2.2 Progress of Investment Projects - Electricity

Eight NEPAD STAP investment projects in the electricity sector are included in the current review. Four of the electricity investment projects are North Africa interconnector projects with Europe (AMU region). These projects have largely been promoted in the framework of the EU-sponsored Euro-Mediterranean Programme (MEDA). Of the other four electricity investment projects, two are under the supervision of IGAD and two are under the supervision of SADC. The former are new STAP projects and did not feature in the 2004 review. Table 9 summarises the progress made in each project and highlights the key constraints.

Table 9: Progress of all STAP electricity investment projects


AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

Algeria-Morocco-Spain interconnection AMU US$ 430 million

Prymsian (Italy) and Nexans (France) were contracted to build the Spain Morocco connection and in 2006 the second submarine cable (31 km) between Morocco and Spain was completed. Concerning the connection between Algeria and Morocco, a third 400 kV double circuit line was constructed in 2006 and initially operated at 220 kV.

Constraints

None

Algeria-Sardinia (Italy) Interconnection AMU US$ 260-690 million

Cost estimates for the connection are of the order of US$ 260-690 million, which was established in the feasibility study completed in June 2004. The construction of this line is however under question as its financial feasibility is uncertain and the project is strictly tied to the entry in service of the Sardinia and Peninsular Italy (SAPEI) project (High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable between Sardinia and mainland Italy), which is currently under construction. This project is therefore on hold due to technical difficulties and financial uncertainty.

Constraints

Financial: Insecurity concerning exact costs of project

Technical: Only sensible project if SAPEI connection is operational

Algerian Gas Fired Power station and Algeria-Spain interconnection

AMU US$ 382 million

This project has two components: (i) the building of a gas-fired power plant in Algeria and (ii) an interconnection between Algeria and Spain. The gas-fired power station became fully operational in 2006 and this part of the project is therefore completed.

The feasibility study for a sub-sea interconnection cable was finished in 2003. The study proposes a 2000 MW, 400 kV DC connection between Terga (Algeria) and the Litoral de Almeria (Spain). Currently the project is on hold due to a lack of financing and technical difficulties (depth of sea at deepest point 1,900 m).

Constraints

Financial: Lack of financing for interconnection

Technical: Depth of sea at chosen point particularly deep

Tunisia-Italy Interconnection AMU US$ 490-530




AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

million

Feasibility is complete and construction is expected to start in 2010. Constraints

None

Sudan Ethiopia Interconnector (New) IGAD US$ 71 million

The project has been included as a part of the East African Power Pool and the Nile Basin Initiative. The study for the interconnection has been completed and the works have been contracted. The funding agents for the project are the World Bank and India. The fee for conducting a feasibility study for this project was US$ 1 million. The estimated project cost is US$ 71 million.

Constraints

None

Djibouti Ethiopia Inter Connector (New) IGAD US$ 121 million

The project has been included as a part of the East African Power Pool. The study for the interconnection has been completed and the works have been contracted. The funding agents for the project are the Governments of Ethiopia and Djibouti and the AfDB. The fee for conducting a study for this project is US$ 3.3 million. The estimated project cost is US$ 121 million

Constraints

None

Mepanda Uncua Hydropower Project SADC US$ 2 billion

A consortium constituting Electricidade de Moçambique (EDM), Camargo & Correia, and Energia Capital is developing this project. The project has recently achieved financial closure.

Constraints

None

Mozambique – Malawi Interconnection SADC US$ 85 million

Construction is scheduled to start soon on the Mozambique side. The Malawi side is still awaiting Parliamentary approval of the World Bank

loan to begin construction.

Constraints

Financial: Delay in obtaining loan approval

The progress of electricity investment projects since 2004 has been good. The majority of the projects have passed the feasibility stage and are now either in the construction stage or already in operation. This is a considerable improvement compared to 2004, when only one project was in the construction phase while most other projects were either in the agreement or feasibility stages. The box describes one of the successful regional energy projects studied.



2.2.3 Progress of Investment Projects - Pipelines

Four energy investment projects in the current NEPAD STAP review are gas and petroleum products pipeline projects. Table 10 shows the progress of all STAP pipeline investment projects

Table 10: Progress of all STAP pipeline investment projects

INVESTMENT-OIL AND GAS PIPELINE

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

Tunisia-Libya Gas Pipeline Project AMU n.a.

A detailed pipeline Route Survey was initiated in 2004 under a contract signed with National Consulting Bureau, NCB (Libya) which was completed in 2007. Tunisia has submitted a funding request for AfDB’s consideration.

Constraints

Technical: Insecurity of Libyan gas supply

Financial: No funding for project secured

Kenya-Uganda Oil Pipeline EAC US$ 110 million

Tamoil East Africa Limited has been selected as a Build-Own-Operate- Constraints

Case Note: Algeria-Morrocco-Spain Interconnection

Like most electricity investment projects, the interconnection has seen very good progress. The transmission line construction was completed in 2006 and the interconnectors are now fully operational.

Several success factors contributing to the advancement of this project can be identified. Firstly, very good political co-operation between the three countries and the realisation of the mutual economic gains from the

project were at the heart of the project. This co-operation was facilitated by the various forums and platforms of exchange between Mediterranean electricity regulators, utilities and politicians organised through the European-

Mediterranean Co-operation (MEDA) framework. Secondly, the Maghreb electricity markets use the same

voltage, grid codes and technical arrangements as the liberalised European electricity markets. This meant that no other regulatory and political costs had to be incurred for the construction of the interconnection. Thirdly, the active involvement of the state utilities that financed the project and assessed its feasibility and profitability ensured ownership of this project.

When setting up regional electricity investment projects, it is important that the regulatory and technical requirements needed for the successful completion and operations of the projects are put in place in advance of

project completion. This means that it is not enough to finance and implement investment projects but the necessary regulatory and facilitation reforms need to be included in the programme as well. Regionally developed

electricity infrastructure investments require regulatory and operational frameworks to be harmonised. Also, political support by the member-states involved needs to be ensured for the successful completion of electricity

investment projects. Creating and managing forums of exchange and discussions among the key stakeholders is the best way to achieve political consensus.



INVESTMENT-OIL AND GAS PIPELINE

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

Transfer ( BOOT) developer for the pipeline project. (Structure: 49 % will be owned by the governments of Kenya and Uganda, and the balance by the private sector company Tamoil, based in Libya). A 25-year concession has been granted to the concessionaire. Commencement of construction works is awaited.

Technical: Possible re-orientation of the flow of oil products would allow exports to pass through the port of Mombasa to feed into refinery.

Other: Delay in start of construction;

The procurement process for selection of the appointed developer was challenged by one of the competing bidders.

Uganda-Rwanda-Burundi Oil products pipeline (New) EAC n.a.

This petroleum products pipeline project will be an extension of the Kenya - Uganda oil pipeline (therefore accessing the port of Mombasa). Request for funding of feasibility study for the project has been made to the AfDB – Project Implementation Manual submitted by EAC in April 2008. Key objective of the study will be to carry out a detailed assessment of the overall feasibility of the extension of oil products pipeline from Kampala to Kigali and Bujumbura.

Constraints

Technical: The proposed plan for setting up a refinery in Uganda may impact the configuration of the project

Financial: Funding due to be tied up to carry out feasibility study

West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP) ECOWAS US$ 380 million

Currently, work is progressing on the remaining onshore portions of the WAGP (Compressor Station at Lagos Beach, R&M Stations in Cotonou, Lome and Tema, onshore pipelines) to deliver compressed gas. Compressed gas deliveries from the pipeline are expected by Q2 2010.

Constraints

Political: The full operation of the pipeline is delayed due to growing political instability in regions through which the pipeline passes

While progress in pipeline investment projects has not been as good as that of electricity investment projects, progress has nevertheless been very satisfactory. WAGP has been completed and is now ready for operation; its full operation is still constrained due to security issues and technical problems – see box. All other projects are either in the definition or funding stages, which is a reasonable improvement compared to 2004. None of the pipeline projects are currently being constructed.



2.2.4 Progress of Studies

The six reviewed study projects are two electricity master plan studies (i.e., long-term least cost power development plans carried out by power pools), three inter-connector studies, and one feasibility study. Table 11 lists all energy study projects and briefly highlights their development since 2004.

Table 11: Progress of all STAP energy study projects

STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

ULTA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

Gas Pipeline Tanzania-Kenya-Uganda (New) EAC US$ 0.5 million

The main objective of the project is to develop a pipeline from Dar-es-Salaam to Tanga (Tanzania) and Mombasa (Kenya) for the export of gas from Tanzania to Kenya for the purpose of power generation and other uses.

Status: Funding has been tied up for conducting a feasibility study for the project. Consultants have been short-listed and a proposal evaluation is underway – targeted appointment is November 2009.

Constraints

None

East African Power Master Plan EAC n.a.

The power master planning exercise was concluded in March 2005 and therefore is not covered in this review. While this project for the preparation of the master plan can be deemed completed, it is understood that an update to the plan may be needed to include analysis for Rwanda and Burundi that had joined the EAC after the development of this master plan.

Constraints

Financial: Financing needs to be arranged for various initiatives recommended as per the master plan

Other: Update to the plan may be needed to include analysis for Rwanda & Burundi that had joined the EAC after the development of this master plan

Interconnectivity of Electricity Networks ECCAS US$ 4.5 mill

Case Note: West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP)

The West African Gas Pipeline has seen very good progress at its inception and thanks to strong political support and the involvement of the private sector early on in the project stages, the WAGP was constructed and completed by 2008. However, as of today, the pipeline is not fully operational due to some technical problems, but more fundamentally due to security threats and political instability. The failure of Nigeria to supply gas via the WAGP has undermined several gas-to-electricity projects which had been planned in neighbouring countries.

Proposing a solution for security in West Africa is clearly beyond the scope of this report, but this project highlights two key factors that need to be considered when setting up new infrastructure projects. Firstly, the risk

of projects needs to be thoroughly assessed. For projects with a risk level that can be contained, appropriate risk mitigation measures need to be developed. If the risk of a project is deemed to be too high, it might be best to

exclude the project from the programme. It is up to the organisation initiating the programme to assess the risk and find possible risk mitigation measures. Secondly, it is dangerous to set up projects on the premise that

another project will be completed. This can lead to a number of projects stalling even though only that project is

severely constrained. If the progress of one project depends on the progress of another, these projects must be closely monitored.



STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

ULTA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

Flagship project: Study analyses technical, economic and institutional feasibility of integrating electricity networks. Financed by AfDB, the study was started in 2007 and is now 80% complete and expected to be finished in Q3 2010.

Constraints

None

Master Plan for Sub-regional Interconnectivity ECOWAS US$ 9 billion (for investment)

Converted to investment

The ECOWAS Secretariat passed a decision in 2005 adopting a revised ECOWAS Master Plan for the generation and transmission of electrical energy. The projects envisaged in this plan are currently under implementation. A thorough revision of the Master Plan is to be carried out in 2010. This project is also a part of the WAPP Project.

Constraints

Technical: Completion of pre-investment studies to ensure projects go into funding stage

Financial: Difficulty in securing funding

DRC-Grand Inga Integrator Study ECCAS, SADC US$ 520 mill.

Funding for the feasibility study of INGA 3 and the possibility of interconnectivity has been secured. AfDB is the main financier. Currently a consultant to conduct the study is being sought. This procurement stage has been in process for at least two years and the project seems to be blocked by divergence of interests of a large number of stakeholders and lacking in a clear definition of roles and responsibilities. Particularly, the roles of the DRC Government, SADC, Westcor and ECCAS/CEMAC need to be clearly defined.

Constraints

Political: Objectives of various stakeholders are not aligned

Other: No definition of responsibilities of stakeholders

Lack of communication between parties involved

Trans Saharan Gas Pipeline Study AMU, ECOWAS US$ 2.5 mill

The feasibility study was completed in September 2006 by Penspen Ltd (UK) and it concluded that the pipeline was economically and technically feasible and reliable. The cost of the feasibility study

amounted to US $ 2.5 million.

Constraints

None

The studies have clearly progressed most among all project types: three studies are finished and are now becoming investment projects. Other study projects have also progressed well – see box on the ECCAS interconnectivity study. It is hardly surprising that studies have achieved progress quicker than all other project types. RECs can generally work relatively independently while conducting feasibility and technical studies and do not have to wait for political co-operation and sign-offs by member-states.



2.2.5 Progress of Facilitation Projects

Five facilitation projects have been reviewed. A feature of the reviewed facilitation projects is the lack of clearly defined objectives for the projects. As a result, most projects are not carried forward by the RECs with vigour; there seems to be a considerable lack of ownership about these projects. Symptomatic of these problems is the fact that three energy facilitation projects have been shelved. Table 12 lists all facilitation projects and their development since 2004.

Table 12: Progress of all STAP energy facilitation projects

FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

Facilitation Project in the Energy Sector ECCAS n.a. No update

Project is led by African Energy Commission (AFREC) and no well-established contacts exist between AFREC, ECCAS and CAPP. As in 2004, no progress has been achieved.

Constraints

Political: AFREC convention needs to be ratified.

CAPP is still not fully operational and has no strong political mandate.

Financial : Lack of resources to build capacity at CAPP

Other: Lack of communication between AFREC and

CAPP

Facilitation project for Energy ECOWAS n.a. No update

This project has been included as a part of the WAPP Project and Constraints

Case Note: Interconnectivity of ECCAS Electricity Networks

Even though this study has not made as much progress as other studies, it is now nearly complete and is a project that can be categorised as very successful due to its potential long-term effects on regional integration of

electricity markets in central Africa. The key success factors for the study to be almost complete include a very strong level of ownership at the ECCAS Secretariat. As the conducting of regional studies mainly depends on the

REC Secretariats and is largely independent of national politics or other external factors, the degree of motivation and ownership of the Secretariat is the key component for the successful completion of these studies. Also, the

relatively small financing requirements of a study project means that they are seldom constrained by a lack of finance. Furthermore, studies like investment projects have tangible ‘end products’ and this undoubtedly spurs the

RECs to pursue these projects with much greater vigour than vaguely formulated capacity-building or facilitation projects.

Ownership and motivation for a project or indeed a programme will largely depend on the willingness and available time of staff at the RECs. However, the level of ownership at the REC can and should be fostered by the

programme’s implementing agency. By (i) regularly monitoring project progress, (ii) providing clear project objectives, and (iii) including RECs at an early stage of the programme set-up, i.e., deciding the projects to be

included in the programme, the AfDB and NEPAD Secretariat could have ensured higher levels of ownership at the REC level.



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

objectives and key milestones are not clearly defined. None

West Africa Power Pool (WAPP) ECOWAS n.a.

The WAPP was granted the status of a specialised institution of the ECOWAS in January 2006. The Energy Protocol was ratified in 2007. WAPP has undertaken many investment, facilitation, and capacity-building initiatives. These include projects like setting up of an energy observatory, regional regulation development, and implementation of the revised Master Plan for generation and transmission of electrical energy.

Constraints

Institutional: Project is an umbrella initiative overseeing many smaller capacity-building and facilitation initiatives which makes it difficult to monitor and control

Westcor Interconnection project SADC US$ 10 million Project shelved

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) had sought the Inter-Governmental MOU to be amended and the construction of Inga 3 to be excluded from the project. Since the construction of the Inga 3 Hydro-Power Generation Plant (in DRC) was the anchor of this project, this amendment was not agreeable to the other stakeholders. Hence, a decision to shelve the Inga 3 Project has been taken in February 2010.

Constraints

Political: Serious differences between stakeholder countries on the way forward for this project

SAPP Generation Capacity and Transmission Expansion3

SADC n.a.

Updated Pool Plan to be adopted by Council of Ministers (planned for April 2010). Implementation of Pool Plan to be co-ordinated by SAPP thereafter.

Constraints

Accuracy of results depends on the comprehensiveness and consistency of the projects submitted by member-states

The table shows the disappointing performance of the facilitation projects, and the following box describes a particular instance. As previously mentioned, the key factor for this slow progress is the lack of ownership and project management framework for these projects.

3 Conform with SADC classification, this project is classified as a facilitation and not a study project



2.2.6 Impact of 2004 Recommendations

The overall solutions proposed in the 2004 review for the energy sector have had a limited impact. This is in part due to the high level at which these were specified: the constraints did not precisely identify the key problems for each project and were too general to define specific solutions. The approach was not compatible with assigning precise implementation responsibilities, milestones, time frames, etc.

However, in addition to the high level recommendations, the 2004 review also had more detailed analysis and recommendations for the power pools. The following section presents a summary of the positive impact of NEPAD STAP on the power pools and looks forward to the increasingly confident and competent role the power pools will play in implementing regional electricity projects. A note on NEPAD STAP experience in other sub-sectors of energy follows in Section 2.2.8.

2.2.7 Impact of NEPAD STAP programme on Power Pools

A major thrust of the NEPAD non-investment energy projects has been direct assistance of various kinds to the power pools, which are direct beneficiaries of seven of the 15 reviewed non-investment projects. CAPP and WAPP have benefited from capacity-building projects, WAPP and SAPP from facilitation projects and East African Power Pool (EAPP), WAPP and ECCAS/CAPP from master plan-type studies to formulate long-term regional generation and transmission investment plans. It is therefore worth assessing the impact of STAP projects on the role of regional power pools and the effect the NEPAD STAP programme had on their development.

Case Note: Facilitation Project in the Energy sector

This project suffered from a lack of well-defined objectives. Most RECs were not informed that such a project was part of the NEPAD STAP programme and consequently did not pursue it at all and failed to provide detailed information about the project.

Several lessons can be learned when analysing the progress of this facilitation project. Firstly, clear objectives need to be defined when setting up facilitation projects. As the end outcome is less tangible than in the case of

studies or investment projects, it is crucial to outline detailed objectives and provide a project management framework. Secondly, when rolling out a project at the continental level, closer contact between RECs and the

resposible continental agency (in this case the African Energy Commission, AfREC) needs to be ensured. This can be done by setting up forums of discussion and exchange among RECs and the respective continental

organisations. Thirdly, more regular monitoring and guidance is needed for facilitation projects. This would avoid projects being shelved and levels of ownership dropping at the REC level. Fourthly, on a more general note, the

number of projects included in the programme needs to be feasible and should include projects that can be

realistically completed. This would mean that RECs could focus their efforts on a smaller number of well-defined projects.

Similar to capacity-building projects, an online database tracking the progress, responsibilities and advancement of projects would provide the basis for a good solution for most of these constraints.



Figure 11: Power Pools and their member countries

The map in Figure 11 shows the geographic delineations of the power pools and the existing overlaps. As shown in the map, several countries belong to more than one power pool, the most notable being the DRC. This, in part, reflects the fact that East, Central and Southern Africa, all see their long-term electricity needs being met to a greater or lesser extent by low-cost power from Inga in the DRC.

Overall, the STAP projects, complemented by initiatives outside of NEPAD STAP (such as the ongoing ACP-EU Energy Facility and United Stated Agency for International Development (USAID)-sponsored capacity-building projects together covering all of Africa’s power pools) have resulted in the strengthening of some of the power pools and a consolidation of others as compared with their situation in 2004. However, each of the power pools has been affected to differing degrees.

� CAPP was established in 2003, but is still developing the structure and acquiring the resources needed to play a lead role in regional electricity development in Central Africa. Two of the reviewed STAP projects are targeted at the CAPP. While one STAP project is aimed at overcoming the resource shortage at the power pool (‘Institutional Support for CAPP’), the other (‘Interconnectivity study of electricity networks’) is expected to raise the political standing and importance of the CAPP for regional electricity and energy policy. Unfortunately, the resources and capabilities at CAPP have hardly changed since 2004 and it seems that the project has not been defined at the Secretariat. However, political institutional support for the CAPP is provided by the ECCAS Secretariat by increasingly involving the CAPP in regional electricity policy forums. Furthermore, the interconnectivity study has been expanded to assess the regulatory and institutional role of CAPP in an integrated Central African power market. STAP therefore might have a long-term positive effect on CAPP. Its exact role in a possible Central African regional



power policy will ultimately depend on the ability to interconnect the Central African Electricity networks and the willingness of member-states to do so.

� Created in 1999, WAPP has a strong Secretariat and is attracting considerable development partner support for its investment programmes. WAPP has benefited considerably from the NEPAD STAP programme. The capacity-building project has strengthened its ability to make decisions more quickly and effectively. The regional regulation capacity-building project has been an important step towards creating the environment needed to foster electricity trade in the WAPP region. It has resulted in the ECOWAS Regional Regulatory Authority (ERERA) being created in 2006 and established in Accra, Ghana in 2008. The completion of the Interconnection-Master plan has acted as a catalyst for ECOWAS member-countries to realise the potential gains from regional integration in electricity markets, underlining the important role of WAPP. Finally, the WAPP facilitation project has helped the power pool to monitor the various projects and programmes that are currently being rolled out.

� SAPP is the longest established of the power pools. It was founded in 1995 as an initiative of the southern African utilities to foster trade in electricity and co-ordinate power sector investments. SAPP has been notably successful in developing energy markets, but has never been given the mandate by member-states to implement the more significant regional challenge of implementing a co-ordinated investment strategy. The SAPP Short-Term Energy Market (STEM) which began in 2001, operated successfully until the regional capacity shortage emerged in 2006. It is now being replaced by a more sophisticated Day Ahead Market. Only one STAP project has directly benefited SAPP and that is the first least-cost regional power development plan, known as the SAPP Pool Plan. This was completed in 2001, but unfortunately was never implemented, thereby precipitating capacity shortage from 2006; it has imposed significant economic costs on the region. A new SAPP Pool Plan has recently been produced and hopefully this time it will be implemented with more vigour by the member-states.

� EAPP was formed recently (in 2005). A three-year capacity-building project is presently being executed with EU support, during which EAPP will begin to play an increasingly forceful role in advancing regional integration in the electricity sector. There is no project in the NEPAD STAP currently that particularly targets EAPP. The Master plan listed in the above tables was completed in 2005. A review of this master plan is urgently needed for EAPP to understand its future roles in regionally integration in electricity markets and the targets it needs to achieve.

� Comité Maghrébin de l'Electricité (COMELEC) in North Africa has as its long-term objective the establishment of a common Maghreb power market. The development of COMELEC is independent of the STAP programme and none of the reviewed projects are targeted at COMELEC. It is likely that COMELEC will continue the trend of focussing on the European power markets.

While the power pools are increasingly becoming competent to undertake planning and market development activities, the member-states of the various power pools have been reluctant to give the power pools the actual mandate to implement investment projects, including the NEPAD STAP investment projects already discussed.



2.2.8 Impact of NEPAD STAP in other energy sub-sectors

In addition to the electricity sector, there have also been NEPAD STAP energy investment projects in the oil and gas sub-sectors. The 2004 review rightly highlighted project structuring, private sector participation, financing and risk mitigation achievements of the West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP) project. It has not yet proved possible to emulate these aspects of WAGP in the other pipeline projects or indeed in electricity projects.

This may in part be due to the fact that while construction of the WAGP was successfully completed in December 2006, the pipe has not actually transported a significant quantity of gas. This is partly due to leaks and political problems affecting upstream supply. Booster stations are now being installed to ensure gas is delivered at requisite pressure to Nigeria’s neighbouring countries. The lack of clear success in the case of WAGP has had adverse consequences for other STAP projects, in particular, the Trans-Saharan gas pipeline. Set to have a similar source of supply in Nigeria, this pipeline project is unlikely in the short run to progress from the feasibility study stage towards full implementation. The Kenya-Uganda Oil Pipeline envisaged in STAP similarly had feasibility and design studies completed some time ago (in 2001), but this was followed by controversy over the selection of the project developer (from Libya) and more recent uncertainty about viability following the discovery of exploitable petroleum reserves in Uganda.

2.3 Identification and categorization of challenges

This section identifies seven key challenges for the progress of NEPAD STAP energy projects. Not all the constraints are equally important, but together they define the factors limiting the overall progress of regional energy projects. The constraints are structured around four categories (political, technical, financial and project phasing challenges); for each constraint, source and impact (low, average, severe) is estimated and responsibility for potentially overcoming the constraints is assigned.

2.3.1 Political challenges

2.3.1.1 High degree of political risk for regional energy projects

Regional energy infrastructure projects are politically riskier than national projects. Two main factors are at the source of this political risk. Firstly, the fragile political commitments of co-operating states in a given region lead to an increasing focus on national infrastructure capacity rather than regional projects. In periods of stress, there is always the fear that energy and electricity supplies contracted for regional customers will be appropriated for national use in exporting countries, leaving importing countries with deficits which cannot be met in the short run. This perception is the strong underlying reason for countries in practice preferring to rely primarily on national infrastructure capacity and only secondarily on imports from neighbours. It therefore hinders the progress of regional integration of the power and energy markets. The second source contributing to political risk is the political instability in some regions in Africa. The insecurity of political stability increases the costs of regional projects.

The impact of this constraint on regional integration in general and on the progress of NEPAD STAP energy projects is severe. A lack of political will, co-operation and instability is creating an uncertain investment environment – this is the key reason for certain projects being shelved or for their not progressing.



However, overcoming this constraint is not an easy task and this does not fall directly in the scope of RECs. One possible approach to reduce the political risk in energy projects however would be for AU, AfDB, UNECA or the NEPAD Secretariat to organise and hold regular forums between respective governments to foster and facilitate political co-operation. This would also provide a platform for these organisations to promote and demonstrate clearly the economic benefits of regional integration in the energy markets. Regarding political co-operation in regional electricity markets, electricity regulators of countries within a REC should be encouraged to set up a regional electricity regulator association, as was done in southern and eastern Africa (Regional Electricity Regulators Association (RERA) and Regional Association of Energy Regulators for Eastern and Southern Africa (RAERESA)), or to go beyond this to create a regional regulator with powers which supersede those of the national regulators in the regional context, as seems to be the intention in West Africa (ERERA). These bodies can then act as ‘promoters’ for regional integration of electricity markets with their respective national governments. This could be initiated and monitored by the RECs.

Even though these measures would not be enough to overcome political risk, they would increase political co-operation and the willingness of regional energy projects and this over time would reduce the political risk associated with regional energy projects.

2.3.1.2 Political mandate of Power Pools and lack of Political Support by member-states

The responsibility for implementing projects that might strengthen or support regional energy projects currently lies with the member-states, and not with the power pools or the RECs. This is symptomatic of what happens elsewhere, because countries around the world, not just in Africa, are unwilling to cede sovereignty to regional power organisations to enforce an optimised investment plan. Countries prefer instead to remain in direct control and often lapse into pursuing national investment agendas. In so doing, they are forfeiting the enormous collective gain that adherence to the regional approach to investment would deliver.

Projects particularly affected by this constraint are implementation of Master plan type studies or interconnectivity studies. These studies define precisely the capital investments needed by national governments. Since the initial costs are very high and domestic solutions to electricity problems are easier and cheaper to implement in the short term, national governments might not be willing to invest in regionally integrated power networks.

While this constraint is of primary significance in the context of regional electricity development, the impact of this constraint directly on NEPAD STAP energy projects is average and is only of concern for some investment and to some extent facilitation projects. It is ultimately the responsibility of national governments to provide power pools or RECs with a stronger political mandate. This will only be the case if the benefits of regional integration in energy markets are very clear to national governments. AU, AfDB, UNECA or the NEPAD Secretariat should therefore try to promote and continuously inform national governments about the benefits of regional integration.

2.3.2 Financial challenges

2.3.2.1 Difficulties in securing financing

When considering the implementation of regional infrastructure investment strategies, a major constraint is the lack of availability of financing. The gap in financing estimated by AICD is very large - US$23 billion per annum (but only a portion of this relates to regional energy projects). However, not only investment



projects are constrained by the lack of financing; facilitation and capacity-building projects are also lacking resources to progress further.

Several reasons for the lack of financing can be highlighted. Firstly, while the macro-picture is one of a massive financing gap, individual regional energy projects readily attract financing, provided such projects are well-prepared and match regional priorities. Hence, there seems to a lack of well-prepared and bankable regional infrastructure projects. Secondly, there is a lack of private sector participation, which could act as the main financier in the infrastructure sector in Africa. This will be discussed in detail in the following section. Thirdly, the required capital resources, particularly for capacity-building and facilitation projects, are not always known to the RECs, because the objectives of the projects are uncertain. Without knowing the exact capital needs and objectives of a project, it is very difficult to obtain financing. Fourthly, RECs might not always be aware of the different financing sources and rely too heavily on the AfDB to provide financing.

The impact of this constraint on NEPAD STAP energy projects is severe. The AfDB is the key continent-level institution to assist RECs to overcome this constraint, either directly with its own resources or indirectly. Closer co-operation with regional development and commercial banks, which could be initiated and facilitated by AfDB, might help to overcome financing constraints. The regional development banks have the necessary expertise to: (i) inform the RECs of their financing possibilities, and (ii) assist in developing bankable project proposals. As a result, RECs would be in a better position to attract the private sector for potential investments. Furthermore, RECs should set up project preparation facilities, which they are doing currently.

2.3.2.2 Inadequate private sector participation

As mentioned above, one of the key difficulties in securing financing for STAP energy projects is the extremely low level of private sector involvement. The electricity sector is particularly affected by this. The main countries involved in private power arrangements at the national level have been Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Senegal, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia. In no case has private sector involvement extended to regional electricity projects. This short list of countries reflects in part the fact that the expected widespread and continuous reforms of the electricity sector across the continent have failed to materialise. Many countries have established autonomous electricity or energy regulatory bodies, but most have preferred to go no further with reforms than commercialisation of vertically integrated, state-owned utilities. This lack of private sector involvement in national electricity markets makes it difficult and not interesting for the private sector to get involved in regional electricity projects.

Besides the lack of private sector participation in national electricity markets, the reasons for the lack of private sector participation in regional energy projects has already been detailed in Section 2.4 and include (i) high risk associated with cross-border energy projects, (ii) lack of well-prepared and ‘bankable’ project proposals, and (iii) uncertain recent global economic climate. These have resulted in a reduced interest in regional African infrastructure projects.

The impact of this constraint on the progress of NEPAD STAP energy projects is average. It mainly affects electricity projects and can be classified as a ‘sub-constraint’ to severe lack of financing. Thus, solutions to overcome this constraint are similar to those mentioned in the case of the previous constraint: RECs should actively seek closer co-operation with regional development banks.



2.3.3 Technical challenges

2.3.3.1 High degree of operational and regulatory risk for regional energy projects

Investment in a regional energy infrastructure project, whether by a state-owned utility or potentially by a private firm, is often constrained by the risks associated with an uncertain operational and regulatory environment. This makes energy projects more problematic for potential financiers. In Africa, part of the rationale for the formation of the power pools and regional electricity regulatory bodies is to provide:

� Co-ordinated operational frameworks for the operation of the interconnected electricity systems;

� Certainty about access to the transmission system -- when this will be needed, how this will be operated and the associated costs; and

� Assurance about regulatory consistency – governance structures that preclude discretionary decisions being made.

To date, the power pools have achieved these objectives in varying degrees, and this is one of the underlying reasons for the slow progress in implementing beneficial regional investment programmes. The same concerns apply to the investment projects in gas and oil pipelines; in these cases, the institutional frameworks are much weaker than in the case of the electricity sector.

The impact of this constraint on the progress of NEPAD STAP projects is average. A number of completed interconnectivity or Master plan studies cannot be implemented and investments cannot be made, in part, because there is no harmonised regulatory framework within the regional electricity markets.

Another reason for the lack of co-ordination of policies and harmonisation of rules and regulations within a REC is the failure of national electricity regulators within a region to meet regularly and exchange best practices and ideas. Creating such a platform of frequent interaction between regional electricity regulators would help to accelerate the regional power integration process.

2.3.4 Project Management Challenges

2.3.4.1 Lack of project management framework provided to RECs

A key constraint identified for capacity-building as well as facilitation projects in the energy sector is the lack of a well-defined project framework. The progress of most projects, in particular capacity-building and facilitation projects, suffers from the fact that the key milestones are not defined, responsibilities are not assigned and objectives are not clarified. Most capacity-building projects (’Capacity-Building Project in Energy Sector’, ‘Institutional Support for CAPP’ and ‘Energy Observatory’) are hindered by a lack of well-defined project management frameworks. These projects are often not pursued or in some cases even recognised by the RECs.

It seems that these constraints are a result of poor communication between NEPAD Secretariat and the RECs. Absence of clearly defined project management frameworks (objectives, timelines, etc.) and irregular monitoring of projects are the key constraints of the NEPAD STAP programme in general. The impact on the progress of the programme and energy projects is severe. For a majority of facilitation and



capacity-building projects, the REC Secretariats only have very limited information and they sometimes are not even aware that some of these projects exist. It is important to overcome this constraint.

RECs, NEPAD Secretariat and AfDB need to find a way to interact and communicate quickly, clearly and regularly on projects. An Internet-based project database is the recommended solution, with the one currently being implemented by COMESA providing a best practice example. This database would act as the main project communication tool between the organisations and could provide RECs with a management framework and information on the objectives of the project and timelines. Overcoming this constraint is crucial for the progress of most projects (including but not limited to the energy sector) and should be tackled when setting up new regional infrastructure projects.

2.3.4.2 No regular monitoring of projects

A number of projects have failed to progress due to the lack of ownership of the projects by the RECs. A key reason for this is the lack of a centralised agency which monitors energy projects on a regular basis. It seems that the progress of most NEPAD STAP energy projects hinges on the level of motivation and ownership displayed by the personnel at the respective RECs. More frequent supervision would raise the ownership of projects at the RECs and thereby contribute to their definition and progress.

Besides energy capacity-building projects, the facilitation projects are most affected by the lack of regular monitoring of projects. This has resulted in most projects coming to a halt or not having been defined in the first place. It is unclear which organisation, institution or association was given the responsibility to oversee the development of the NEPAD STAP programme and it seems unreasonable to set up a large infrastructure programme and not monitor and review its progress on a regular basis. One would expect this role to be taken up by the NEPAD Secretariat, but from conducted interviews, it is apparent that there is no frequent and close interaction between RECs and the NEPAD Secretariat.

The impact of this constraint is severe and this situation should be avoided at all costs when setting up a new infrastructure project. It has to be very clear which institution or institutions monitor the projects and this monitoring has to be done on a regular basis (at least every six months) and not every few years. Hence, the NEPAD Secretariat and AfDB need to devise a mechanism which would result in regular monitoring of the progress of these projects. The previously mentioned project database would be an ideal tool for regularly monitoring the project process provided the RECs can update the database.



2.4 Ranking challenges by severity of impact

This section aims at ranking the seven above identified key challenges by the severity of their impact. It is difficult to do this ranking because of the inherent challenge of quantifying the impact of each constraint. The prioritisation presented in this section is therefore not based on a detailed analytical methodology but is informed by the findings obtained through the conducted interviews. Table 13 shows the ranking of the seven constraints and briefly highlights the key sources of the constraints.

Table 13: Current constraints and their source

SEVERITY

OF

IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

KEY SOURCES

Severe

High degree of political risk for regional energy

projects

Political � Fragile political commitments to regional co-operation

� Political instability in African countries

Severe

No regular monitoring of projects

Project Management

� Unclear which institution is designated ‘programme supervisor’

� No formal framework in place allowing

for regular monitoring

Severe

Lack of project management framework

Project

Management

� Project’s objectives not defined

� Lack of key milestones and project

framework

� No clear assignment of responsibilities

Severe

Difficulty in securing

project financing

Financial � Lack of bankable projects

� Unknown financial requirements for

some projects

� RECs not informed about financing

opportunities

Average High degree of regulatory risk

Technical � Lack of co-operation among electricity regulators within a REC

Average

Private sector participation not

exploited

Financial � High risk associated with cross border regional energy projects

� Lack of bankable project proposals

� Uncertain global economic climate

Average

Limited political mandate of power pools and regional regulatory

bodies

Political � Lack of political willingness by governments

The table shows that four constraints affect the NEPAD STAP projects severely. While one challenge (political risk) is largely influenced by external forces and can only marginally be influenced by AU, AfDB,



RECs or UNECA, the other three challenges can be largely addressed by one or two of these organisations. Potential ways to overcome these challenges will be outlined in Section 6. It is important to note that six of the seven identified key challenges are overarching constraints, i.e., they affect all regional infrastructure sectors equally and are not specific to the energy sector. The seventh challenge relates to the specialised regional institutions which have been formed in the electricity sector – power pools and regional regulatory bodies. These hold the promise of overcoming many of the constraints on regional projects, but these bodies have so far been given only limited mandates and authority by the member-states. As these bodies prove their capabilities, pressure will grow on the national governments to commit to regional integration of power markets. This would involve some degree of surrender of sovereignty in exchange for substantial technical and economic benefits.

2.5 Recommendations and the Way Forward for STAP Energy projects

This section will firstly review all STAP energy projects and identify those factors that have contributed to the successful completion progress of STAP energy projects and those that need to be addressed if these projects are to advance further in their project lifecycle. The aim is also to assign responsibilities to the potential correction of some of the challenges. Secondly, the section will outline the key factors that need to be considered in future infrastructure programmes in the energy sector.

2.5.1 Remaining STAP energy projects

Although this review shows that only a small number (5) of the 27 STAP energy projects have been formally completed, it needs to be emphasized going forwards that the majority of the projects appear to be on course for completion within the next one-two years. Most non-investment projects are even expected to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2010 or the first quarter of 2011. The projects can be broadly grouped into five categories: (i) completed projects, (ii) projects that are well underway and on course for completion within the next one to two years, (iii) projects depending on the completion of other projects or other external factors (iv) projects where concerns about successful implementation persist, and (v) defunct projects that have been shelved.

Table 14: Projects and progress categories

PROJECT STATUS ENERGY PROJECTS

(i) Projects Completed

� Algeria-Morocco-Spain interconnection

� Algerian gas Fired Power Station and

Algeria-Spain interconnection

� East African power Master Plan

� Master Plan of sub regional interconnectivity

(ECOWAS)

� Trans Saharan Gas Pipeline study



PROJECT STATUS ENERGY PROJECTS

(ii) Projects underway end expected

to be completed in the next years

� WAPP project (incl. Energy Observatory,

Regional Regulation Development)

� Sudan-Ethiopia interconnector

� Djibouti-Ethiopia interconnector

� West African Gas Pipeline

� Gas pipeline Tanzania-Kenya Uganda study

� Interconnectivity of Electricity Networks

(ECCAS)

� DRC Grand Inga Interconnector Study

� SAPP generation capacity and transmission expansion

� Tunisia-Italy interconnection

(iii) Pending Projects whose

completion depends on other

projects or other external factors

� Algeria-Sardinia Interconnection

� Kenya-Uganda oil Pipeline

� Uganda-Rwanda Burundi Oil pipeline

(iv) Projects where concerns about

implementation persist

� Mozambique-Malawi interconnector

� Tunisia-Libya Gas pipeline

� Mepanda Uncua Hydropower project

(v) Shelved/Defunct projects

� Capacity-Building project in Energy Sector

� Institutional Support for CAPP

� Facilitation project in Energy Sector (ECCAS and ECOWAS)

� Westcor interconnection project

Projects in Category (i) are complete and therefore can be excluded from future reviews of NEPAD STAP. Similarly, projects in Category (ii) are moving forward rather well and only minimal constraints impede the implementation of these projects. The key success factors that can be highlighted from projects in these categories are:

� Strongly committed and qualified staff members at REC level -- One of the key factors for the successful advancement of the projects was the support for the projects at the REC level.

� Involvement of national utilities and the private sector -- Projects carried out with the participation of national utilities and the private sector (e.g. North African interconnection, WAGP, Trans-Saharan Gas Pipelines, and Ethiopia Interconnectors) have seen great progress because the ownership of the projects was transferred towards institutions that had an economic and financial interest in the projects.

� High degree of political support provided by national governments -- Projects that benefited from political support were those that advanced the most. The ECOWAS Master plan is a good



example of power transfer and political freedom given to WAPP. This, however, did require West African governments to cede power to the power pools.

More interestingly, projects listed under Section (iv) and (v) are currently not moving forward due to the key constraints identified in Section 2.3. Section (iii) of the table lists projects that are stalled because their progress depends on other external factors including the completion of other projects. Table 15 summarises these constraints again, but instead of listing the sources and reasons for the constraints, lists the organisations that could potentially overcome the respective constraints.

Table 15: Current constraints and responsibility

SEVERITY

OF

IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTION AND

POSSIBLE ACTION

Severe High degree of political risk for regional energy

projects

Political

� AU, AfDB, UNECA or the NEPAD Secretariat to hold regular forums for national governments to foster co-operation between the countries

� RECs to encourage regional

electricity regulator’s association.

Severe No regular monitoring of

projects

Project

Management

� AfDB or NEPAD Secretariat needs to take role of monitoring and supervision of NEPAD STAP

projects more seriously

Severe Lack of project management framework

Project Management

� RECs, NEPAD Secretariat and AfDB could set up a project database that tracks project progress and is

accessible by all stakeholders.

Severe Difficulty in securing project financing

Financial � AfDB could support RECs in

bridging a contact between RECs and regional development banks

Average High degree of regulatory risk

Technical � RECs to encourage regional

electricity regulator’s association.

Average Private sector

participation not exploited Financial

� AfDB could support RECs in bridging a contact between RECs and regional development banks

Average

Limited political mandate of power pools and regional regulatory

bodies

Political

� National governments need to cede power to power pools. Need to set up an organisation/association that acts as promoter of regional integration.

Detailed solutions and possible time plans and responsibilities will be outlined in Section 6.



2.5.2 Future regional energy projects

Besides the proposed solutions in Section 6, to overcome project-specific challenges the following factors need to be taken into account when setting up new infrastructure programmes in the energy sector:

Electricity Sector

Regular, comprehensive least cost power development plans need to continue to be developed by the respective power pools. Ideally, the power pools should be given more discretion to implement the resulting plans, but in line with other regions around the world, it seems most unlikely that member-states would cede sovereignty in this domain. A practical recommendation is for the utilities, power pools, and other stakeholders to take every opportunity to educate the public and the politicians on the enormous savings in investment and recurrent costs which a properly co-ordinated regional approach would deliver.

To complement the building of physical inter-connectors and associated generation capacity, further facilitation and capacity-building projects are needed to provide harmonised grid codes, regulations and tariff mechanisms to facilitate regional trade in electricity. At present, there are associations of regional regulators in some parts of the continent, but as experience is gained and confidence is built, consideration should be given by member-states to turning these into regional regulators per se – that is to say, regulatory institutions empowered to make regulatory decisions in the context of regional trade in electricity.

The Guidelines for Regulating Cross-border Power Trading in Southern Africa which are to be published in 2010 by the Regional Electricity Regulators Association (RERA) of Southern Africa provides an important example of what can usefully be done to further regional power integration in circumstances where politicians are not yet willing to grant the autonomy needed for a full-fledged regional regulator to be established. The RERA Guidelines provide an enabling framework for cross-border trade and investment in infrastructure that will reduce some of the earlier uncertainties deterring investment and undermining efforts to improve security of supply through cross-border trading. The key issues covered are regional market operations, control area services, balancing markets, grid codes, power purchase, transmission and wheeling agreements, and associated pricing. Other regions in Africa would do well to draw on and adapt these guidelines to meet their own needs.

Petroleum and Gas Sector

In the petroleum sector, study and capacity- building projects supporting importing countries in joint

procurement of liquid fuels would be potentially most beneficial. To implement such strategies, investment projects to augment regional storage capacity may be needed. Corresponding approaches for oil exporters would be studies on optimising refinery and export facilities on a regional basis. In the gas sector, the full and effective implementation of WAGP would go a long way towards encouraging future investments in regional gas pipelines.

The sub-sector specific comments made above address the political and technical constraints identified in Section 2.3. These are general, high-level recommendations which do not lend themselves to being framed within specific timetables. It is important at the same time that the more specific lessons from the protracted implementation of the NEPAD STAP programme should be incorporated into the approach adopted in future regional infrastructure programmes. These lessons relate to financing, private sector participation and project phasing and monitoring, which are the remaining constraints identified in Section 2.3.



The basic tool that is being recommended in this review is the establishment of a Regional Infrastructure

Project Database (RIPD) in each of the RECs, with an aggregated database being maintained for monitoring purposes by NEPAD. Most of the action is expected to be at the level of the RECs and the power pools, but continent-level interventions may be required when there are potential conflicts between the ambitions of different sub-regions. The intention of the three power pools to which the DRC belongs -- to have their long-term electricity security being provided by the proposed Grand Inga Dam -- is a case in point.

Allied to this, it is recommended that much closer attention be paid to the upstream steps in the project

cycle, in particular, to examining whether careful structuring of the project would make it possible to attract private sector participants and to ensuring that the feasibility studies and financing documents are comprehensive and coherent enough to shorten the time required to reach financial closure. It is important to build on the work that is currently undertaken in most RECs, where regional project preparation facilities are being developed to ultimately help design bankable projects.



3 ICT SECTOR PROJECTS

This chapter covers the STAP ICT sector projects. It initially outlines the implementation progress of the ICT projects by region and type and subsequently identifies the implementation challenges, ranks challenges by severity of impact and provides the recommendations and way forward on STAP ICT projects.

3.1 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP ICT Portfolio

For this review the status and progress of 18 NEPAD STAP ICT sector projects have been detailed and analysed. These are subdivided into four capacity-building projects, five facilitation projects, eight investment projects, and one study project. The continentally rolled out capacity-building project is part of all RECs’ STAP portfolio. If we take it into account, then there in all 19 ICT projects. However this project is hardly being pursued by any REC and it seems that most RECs are uncertain its implementation. This is mainly due to a lack of project management and ownership. Therefore, this project has not been considered in this review.

The 2004 review considered 17 ICT projects which means that one new project has been added to the NEPAD STAP portfolio i.e.

1. ECOWAS: ECOWAS Interconnection project

The East African Community Broadband Infrastructure Network (same as the project ‘Establishment of a Regional Telecom Carriers Company) has been recast as a study project

Among the RECs, the responsibility for the highest number of ICT projects rests with ECOWAS (10 projects) followed by ECCAS (8 projects), EAC (4 projects), COMESA (3 projects), SADC (3 projects), AMU (2 projects) and IGAD (1 projects). This totals to more than 18 projects, since nine projects have been rolled out across more than one REC. Therefore a total of 31 ICT projects were reviewed.

3.2 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP ICT Portfolio

Table 16 below provides an overview of all NEPAD STAP ICT projects reviewed, their costs and their progress since the last review in 2004. The light grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress in 2004 and the dark grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress as of 2009. Projects which are being implemented across more than one REC have been included multiple times in the table.





Table 16 : NEPAD STAP ICT projects and progress


CAPACITY BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

Strengthening of African Telecommunications and ICT Institutions

ECCAS n.a. No update, no project defined

ICT Human Resources Capacity Development Initiative for Africa


Programme to broaden and enhance Africa’s Participation in the Global ICT Policy and Decision Making

ECCAS US$ 0.5 million

No update, no project defined


ECOWAS n. a.


ECOWAS US$ 0.5 million for travel to conferences

No update

RECs Institutional Capacity-Building – ECOWAS Wide Area Network (ECOWAN)

ECOWAS US$ 35 million


ECOWAS US$ 2.15 million

INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

Maghreb Fibre Optic Telecommunications Interconnection Project

AMU US$ 0.5 million (study)




COMTEL Telecommunications Interconnectivity Project

COMESA US$ 240 million4

East African Submarine Cable System (EASSy) project

EAC US$ 200 million

No update

Regional African Satellite Communication Organisation (RASCOM)

ECCAS US$ 360 million

SAT3/WASC/SAFE – Utilisation to improve interconnectivity

ECCAS n.a.

Development of Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturing in Africa

ECCAS n.a No update, Unclear role of REC in project


ECOWAS n.a No update

Regional African Satellite Communications Organization (RASCOM)




SADC Regional Information Infrastructure (SRII) Project

SADC US$ 172.6 million

STUDY

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

East African Community Broadband Infrastructure Network (same as the project ‘Establishment of a Regional Telecom Carriers Company)

EAC US$ 20 million

4 Funding requirement estimated as per initial COMTEL project design – project configuration is likely to change




FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

ICT Policy and Regulatory Framework at Regional Level

AMU US$ 0.5 million (study)

ICT Policies and Regulatory Harmonisation at Regional Level

COMESA N.A.

Frequency Spectrum Management COMESA Not known No update


EAC US$ 3 million



Continental Umbrella Initiative to Facilitate the Utilisation and Exploitation of ICTs in African Countries

EAC, ECCAS n.a. No update, no project defined


ECCAS n.a.


ECOWAS n. a.

ECOWAS Interconnection Project – New ECOWAS EUR 0.256 million for feasibility study


ECOWAS EUR 50,000 secured

Regional Information and Communication Technologies Support Programme

IGAD US$ 27.5 million

Continental Umbrella Initiative to Facilitate the Utilisation and Exploitation of ICTs in African Continent

SADC US$ 180 million





SADC US$ 1 million

Out of the 18 projects reviewed, nine have progressed while two5 have got completed. Among the projects that have progressed since the 2004 review, the highest have been facilitation projects (all 4 projects have progressed in at least 1 REC) while there has been absolutely no progress in the capacity-building projects.

Table 17: Overview of progress of ICT projects by type

TYPE NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2004

NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2009

NO. OF

PROGRESSED

PROJECTS

NO. OF

COMPLETED

PROJECTS

Capacity-Building 4 4 0 0

Investment 8 8 4 2

Studies 1 1 1 0

Facilitation Project 4 5 4* 0

Total 17 18 9 2

* Continental Umbrella Initiative to Facilitate the Utilisation and Exploitation of ICTs in African Continent has made significant progress in

ECOWAS but seems defunct in ECCAS and SADC.


Table 18 summarises the progress achieved for the four capacity-building projects in the ICT sector. Detailed project constraints, status and success factors for each project in each REC are listed in the Project Implementation Status reports. Projects which are being implemented across more than one REC simultaneously are included multiple times in the table when the reported progress from the individual REC report differs.

5 This includes Regional African Satellite Communications Organization (RASCOM) project and Regional Information and

Communication Technologies Support Programme



Table 18: Progress of all STAP ICT capacity-building projects

CAPACITY- BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NE

TA

L

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

Strengthening of African Telecommunications and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Institutions

ECCAS n.a No Update

The objective of this project is to provide skilled manpower and alignment of their respective training modules for technicians, engineers and other professional cadre qualifications. However, no formal framework has been put in place. No regional organization was responsible for the project in Central Africa.

Constraints

Political: No designated responsible regional organisation

Other: No formal framework in place in Central Africa


ECCAS n.a No Update

The objective of this project is to build capacities in the ICT sector by providing support to national governments on selected ICT policies. However, no formal framework has been put in place. No regional organization was responsible for the project in Central Africa.

Constraints

Political: Secretaries do not have political mandate

Other: Lack of capabilities at ECCAS Secretariat


ECCAS US$ 0.5 million No update

The objective of this project is to foster and promote international co-operation in building an information society in all the regions. However, no project as such is defined at ECCAS or CEMAC and it is thus not considered to lie in the responsibility of a regional organisation.

Constraints

Political: Secretariats do not have political mandate and/or acceptance among national governments for capacity-building projects

Technical: Lack of capabilities at ECCAS Secretariat.

Information and Communications Technology (ICT)Human Resources Capacity Development Initiative for Africa

ECOWAS n.a

This project seeks to establish a reliable regional database enabling ECOWAS to host the databank on the performance of member- states in all the key development indicators in ICT and other sectors. SIGTEL, in

Constraints

Technical: Change in vendor due to termination of the



CAPACITY- BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NE

TA

L

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

collaboration with International Telecommunications Union (ITU) would provide a databank for potential investors, partners, and community citizens, integrating data and graphics. Due to unsatisfactory performance, the initial contract of the original vendor was terminated. ECOWAS– Community Computer Centre (CCC) will develop the database

contract

Financial: Funding for the project


ECOWAS US$ 0.5 million No Update

The project seeks to foster and promote international co-operation in building an information society in all the regions particularly in ECOWAS. Member-states are quite actively involved but ECOWAS is able to do limited work only due to staff constraints

Constraints

Political: Secretariats do not have political mandate and/or acceptance among national governments

Technical : Lack of technical capabilities in the ECOWAS Secretariat

Other: Not embracing the STAP Programme, Goals covered in capacity-building projects would be pursued in Support for Harmonization of the ICT Policies in Sub-Sahara Africa (HIPSSA) or Central African Backbone Programme not STAP programme

RECs Institutional Capacity-Building – ECOWAS Wide Area Network (ECOWAN)


This project would bring all fifteen member-states into a single private network for information and knowledge sharing in a closed and seamless space for both internal data gathering and information dissemination. It could also be multi-modal including marine based fibre-optic channels (SAT-3), which offer even greater and much cheaper bandwidths. An AfDB feasibility study has ended & report was presented in Accra in October 2009. ECOWAN was extended to cover not only ECOWAS offices but also government offices (foreign affairs ministries). ECOWAN will use SAT3 (5 landing points) & hybrid of fibre optic. Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) is no longer used for network coverage for ECOWAN. A conference is planned soon to help raise additional funding. Additionally, a strategy meeting is planned early 2010 for future Public-Private Participation in the project.

Constraints

Technical: Increase in the scope of the project

Financial: Requirements of increased funding for change in scope



The objective of this project is to provide skilled manpower and alignment Constraints



CAPACITY- BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NE

TA

L

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

of their respective training modules for technicians, engineers and other professional cadre qualifications. It also seeks to manage and fund requirements of ECOWAS-CCC in response to the rapidly changing nature of Information Technology. Presently, the project is stalled as the funding has not been secured for the study.

Institutional: No designated responsible regional organizations

Financial: Funding has not been secured

Other: Not embracing the STAP programme

3.2.2 Progress of Investment Projects

Table 19 summarises the progress of seven investment projects in the ICT sector. Detailed project constraints, status and success factors for each project in each REC are listed in the Project Implementation Status Reports. Projects which are being implemented in multiple RECs are included multiple times in the table when the reported progress from the individual REC reports differs. These regional or multi-REC projects are viewed as individual projects for the purposes of tallying.

Table 19: Progress of all STAP ICT investment projects

INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

Maghreb Fibre Optic Telecommunications Interconnection Project

AMU US$ 0.5 million

The project will assess the technological status quo of the existing Fibre Optic Telecommunications network and define the potential for technical and economic improvements. Funding for feasibility study has been sought from AfDB and implementation will be undertaken by the national government.

Constraints

Financial: Lack of funds for study

Other: Lack of ownership and clearly defined project management framework

COMTEL Telecommunications Interconnectivity

Project

COMESA US$ 240

million

The project involves building of a mainly fibre optic regional telecommunication network to be managed by COMTEL Communications Limited. This would lead to development of rural telecommunication through reduced costs and harmonisation of tariffs. PricewaterhouseCoopers suggested two business models for regional connectivity i.e. least cost routing and settlement and regional IP

Constraints

Political: Collection of necessary data from member-states

Financial: Project feasibility not established and configuration is vulnerable to change



INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

peering. The project has not moved beyond the planning stages since the last review.

Other: Reluctance of operators to adapt to new market structure

East African Submarine Cable System (EASSy) EAC US$ 200 million

No update available

Regional African Satellite Communication Organisation (RASCOM)


The objective of the project is to improve inter-urban communication between each African country and provide facilities for data, telephone, radio and TV broadcasting services including exchanging of radio and TV programmes between African countries. The project is currently progressing without any major glitch or constraint

Constraints : None


ECCAS n.a.

High capacity, optic fibre submarine cable system for competitive backbone ICT infrastructure with modest usage cost compared to satellite systems. SAT3/WASC/SAFE project has been completed. However, now interconnectivity between ECCAS countries is currently

being financed as well as studied.

Constraints : None


ECCAS n.a No update, Unclear role of REC in project as there is no designated Central African regional organization

The objective of this project is to identify the viability of establishing a manufacturing/assembly plant in ICT consumer products that are commonly used in day-to-day applications. No progress has been achieved on the study to this date and there is no ownership for this project at the ECCAS Secretariat

Constraints

Institutional: No designated Central African regional organisation


ECOWAS n.a No update

The objective of this project is to identify the viability of establishing manufacturing/assembly plants in ICT consumer products that are commonly used in day-to-day applications i.e. television sets, radios, electronic products and other applied ICT wide band products.

Constraints: None

Regional African Satellite Communications Organization(RASCOM)


The project will also improve inter-urban communication between each African country and provide facilities for data, telephone, radio, and TV broadcasting services including exchanging of radio and TV programmes between African countries.

Constraints: None

:



The objective of the project is to improve the capacity utilization of the high capacity, optic fibre submarine cable system for competitive backbone ICT infrastructure with modest usage cost compared to

Constraints: None



INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

satellite systems.

SADC Regional Information Infrastructure (SRII) Project


The project aims to connect users in the region with a seamless network and interconnect individual networks to achieve a harmonised land network; through the establishment of intra-regional links. This would reduce telecommunications costs and improve connectivity to facilitate trade. The implementation of SRII was divided into three stages of short, medium and long-term duration. The implementation has progressed well with short-term (digitalization of transmission links) and medium term (expansion of the digitalized transmission links) goals being completed with long term goals being 80% completed.

Constraints

Political: No political support

Other: No designated regional organisation



Case Note: Regional African Satellite Communications Organisation (RASCOM) Project

The RASCOM project is one of the few real tangible successes of the ICT initiatives and programmes under NEPAD STAP. The project comprises a geo-stationary telecommunications satellite and corresponding ground ICT infrastructure across Africa to utilise the services provided by the satellite. Services include Internet connectivity, television and radio broadcasting capability, and telephony. The objectives of the project include increased direct Internet connectivity between African states to reduce reliance on European networks to route

African Internet traffic, increase Internet coverage to the entire continent including associated islands, and provide Internet and telephone connectivity to rural as well as urban areas.

African ICT infrastructure has always been very weak. The costs and associated difficulties in developing terrestrial telephone and data networks across a continent with a predominantly dispersed rural population, and

limited power distribution means that ICT has not been fully utilised as a tool for social and economic development. The concept of a dedicated satellite to enhance African intra-continental communication capacity

has been advocated by international organisations such as ITU, World Bank and AfDB since the late 1980s.

The RascomStar-QAF company, a public-private partnership between predominantly African telecommunication interests and Alcatel Spacecom, a French satellite telecommunications firm, was established to implement and

manage the project. The majority of the African states are involved in the project through their national telecom operators. The RASCOM satellite was launched at the end of 2007 and began operational service in February

2008. However, damage during the launch reduced the operational lifespan of the satellite from 15 to approximately 2 years. A replacement satellite will launch in August 2010.

The RASCOM satellite had immediate impact on the ability of member-states to utilise ICT as a development tool in Africa. The Pan-African e-Network project, an initiative sponsored by the Indian Government was already

operating in 20 African states providing education and health services through ICT. This project is being expanded to include all 53 countries on the continent. The RASCOM satellite had gateways and terminals set up

with national telecoms operators which upon operation became integrated into one of the integral links of the telecommunications network in Africa. RASCOM terminals also provide connectivity in rural areas, even where electricity is unavailable.

The NEPAD ICT project portfolio has had projects stalled during planning, preparation and financing stages and

projects at implementation stages have not always run smoothly. It is important to analyse projects such as RASCOM which have been successfully implemented and to identify the factors which led to success in order to

improve future implementations. The success of the RASCOM project is attributed to:

1. Project Preparation: The project concept was sound and was well planned, financially, technically and operationally.

2. Bankability: The project attracted a lot of investment because of the sustainable and profitable nature of the enterprise.

3. Private Sector Participation: The project was implemented and is operated with majority involvement from the private sector, both in terms of investment and execution. The partnership and technical

investment of Alcatel Spacecom (later Thales Group) is a huge factor in the success of the project. 4. Project Ownership: African state governments represented by the RASCOM organisation recognised

the importance of the project and the importance of private sector involvement for success. The levels of co-operation to implement the project were a key factor in its success.

The success of the RASCOM project is hugely important for the development of Africa, not just in ICT but in all sectors. It has created an infrastructure upon which economic and social development can more effectively take

place. It is a flagship project for the entire continent in terms of levels of co-operation between state governments, private sector and other stakeholders. It shows that ambitious projects of this scale can be successfully

implemented, sustained and made profitable with the right preparation, planning and support.




Table 20 summarises the progress made of five facilitation projects in the ICT sector. Detailed project constraints, status and success factors for each project in each REC are listed in the Project Implementation Status Reports. Projects which are being implemented in across more than one REC are included multiple times in the table when the reported progress from the individual REC reports differs.

Table 20: Progress of all STAP ICT facilitation projects

FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N


AMU US$ 0.5 million

The project itself aims to assess the status of ICT policy and regulatory environment in each of the sub-regions and to develop harmonised policies and regulations that can be commonly adopted. This study would look at ways to facilitate a common legislation across the countries, while building on current legislation. The proposal for the study to identify areas for the harmonisation across AMU countries ICT sectors and policies is being sought by the AfDB

Constraints

Financial: Funding for study not yet secured

Other: Lack of well defined institutional framework

Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Policies and Regulatory Harmonisation

COMESA N.A.

This project will assess the status of the ICT policy and regulatory environment in the sub-region, develop harmonised policies and regulations that can be commonly adopted and monitor and evaluate progress towards harmonisation. It will trigger external and local investments in all the sectors. Currently, member-states are at different stages of progress in terms of finalization of national ICT policies/bills and setting up of ICT regulators

Constraints

Political: Cyber crime in member-states

Financial: Funds yet to be mobilised

Other: Bewilderment regarding implementation of national level ICT policies

Frequency Spectrum Management COMESA n. a. No update

Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Policies and Regulatory Harmonisation

EAC US$ 3 million

It will assess the ICT Policy and Regulatory environment in all the five member-states and then develop harmonised policies and regulations. An EU funded consulting exercise to draft framework for harmonisation is being undertaken. In September 2008, a consulting exercise to recommend a draft framework for the harmonisation of national ICT policies was concluded. The draft framework now awaits consideration and adoption by the EAC Policy Organs. In April 2008, a consulting assignment to recommend the harmonisation of national ICT

Constraints

Political: Partner states are at different stages of development of ICT policies

Fin Other: Recommendations not available with EAC secretariat



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

communication regulatory regimes was undertaken. The study developed a draft of recommendations on what needs to be undertaken to harmonize the communications regulations for a single market. The implementation of the recommendations of the study has commenced.


EAC n.a. No Update


ECCAS n.a. No Update

E-strategy readiness to enable accelerated development in the Trade and Agricultural sectors. The project is intended to design and develop key Sector Informative System (SIS) for Trade Facilitation and Agricultural Development. The aim of the ECCAS Secretariat is to have a similar data exchange system as in the ECOWAS region, where the Trade Information System (RTIS) facilitates rapid information exchanges among buyers and sellers. There was no update available on the project

Constraints

Political: Lack of political support for the project

Other: ECCAS has not yet embraced ownership for this project and it is not clear what role CEMAC, if any, can play in the process of this project

ICT Policy and regulatory framework at regional level

ECCAS n.a.

The objective of the project is to assess the status of ICT policy and regulatory environment in each of the sub-regions and develop harmonised policies and regulations that can be commonly adopted. This continental project is overviewed by African Telecommunications Union (ATU). ECCAS was awaiting AfDB’s response to possible funding for a feasibility study, to develop a regional programme for the utilisation of ICT. The heads of state of CEMAC adopted six directives harmonising regulatory structures in November 2008 and three additional directives on International interconnection, cyber-criminality and cyber-security have been adopted in 2009. These initiatives have been carried out under the auspices of the HIPSSA project.

Constraints

Financial: Financing has not been secured

Other: No sense of ownership at ECAS secretariat


ECOWAS n.a.

The objective of the project is to design and develop key Sector Informative System (SIS) for Trade Facilitation and Agricultural Development. One component of the project is the ECOWAS Regional Trade Info System (RTIS). RTIS uses ECOWAN, the Community Wide

Constraints: None

Other: Multiplicity of systems envisaged makes it a challenge to implement the project across 15 countries



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

Area Network for information exchange. It facilitates rapid information exchanges among buyers and sellers. RTIS provides an integrated platform for trade promotion and economic co-operation among member-states. It includes a web of databases providing content about goods and services in the ECOWAS space and beyond. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is helping ECOWAS in developing a prototype for the Customs system.

A fact-finding mission to study the RVAIS system prevalent in each ECOWAS country, is planned for early 2010

ECOWAS Interconnection Project – New ECOWAS EUR 0.256 million for feasibility study

32 links are required to interconnect all member-states. The Intelcom- project originally linked the country capitals. As part of Intelcom II, in December 2008, Phase 3 Telecom, a Nigerian based telecom company who operates carrier networks along existing power infrastructure in Nigeria, entered into a deal facilitated by ECOWAS to extend its carrier network to Benin, Togo, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, and Senegal using the high-voltage power transmission lines in these states. The objective of Intelcom-II is to interconnect all 15 member-states using a Fibre Optic cable network. The EU at a cost of €256,000 has funded a feasibility study on plans to connect 4 member-states

Constraints:

Political: Political unrest in the region can pose a challenge to the implementation and operation of the programme

ICT Policy and regulatory framework at regional level

ECOWAS EUR 50,000

The objective of this project is to assess the status of ICT policy and regulatory environment in each of the sub-regions and to develop harmonised policies and regulations that can be commonly adopted. Regional infrastructure was identified by the EU Strategy for Africa as a means of interconnecting Africa for contributing to economic growth, competitive trade and regional integration. ECOWAS had a contract with the ITU to harmonise the telecom & ICT legislation in Western Africa. Currently, the heads of state and government adopted a new regulatory framework (6 Supplementary Acts) in January 2007 that is more favourable for the development of telecommunications and ICT in the sub-region.

Constraints

Political: Expedite the adoption of the acts in the member-states to reduce disputes

Other: Communication and co-ordination between West African Telecommunications Regulatory Assembly (WATRA) and ECOWAS

Regional Information and Communication Technologies Support Programme


The project’s purpose is to achieve a reduction in the digital divide by Constraints: None



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

removing some of the constraints hampering the efficient use in ICT and contributing to regional integration. The Regional ICT Support Programme successfully achieved preparation of national ICT policy guidelines; improved connectivity and Automated Systems for Customs

Data ++ (ASYCUDA++) implementation; improved access to information, and cross-cutting activities.

Continental Umbrella Initiative to Facilitate the Utilisation and Exploitation of ICTs in African Continent

SADC US$ 180 million

Initiative is made up of six separate projects namely:

• African SCAN-ICT and E-Readiness Initiative

• African Regional Telemedicine Initiative

• Electronic Governance Initiative for Africa

• African Electronic Commerce/Trade Initiative

• African Regional Tele-education Initiative

• Africa Content Development Promotion Initiative

• SADC has validated regional e-strategy

Constraints

Political: No political support

Other: Long term implementation has capacity constraints


SADC US$ 1 million

Assess the ICT policy and regulatory environment in all the five member-states and then develop harmonised policies and regulations. It has also launched “e-SADC” initiative which seeks to harness ICT for socio-economic development. The project will encourage inward foreign investment in the SADC region

Constraints

Other: Innovative technology has posed challenges in its development



3.2.4 Progress of Studies

Table 21 summarises the progress made for the only one study project in the ICT sector. In the earlier review, this project was considered as an investment project, while in the current review it is being considered as a study project. This change is based on the inputs sought from the REC (EAC in this case) during our diagnostic visit.

Table 21: Progress of all STAP ICT study projects

STUDY

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

East African Community Broadband Infrastructure Network

EAC US$ 20 million

The objective of the project is the pre-investment analysis/study to develop business plans, technical designs, and legal and institutional frameworks for the establishment and operation of a regional broadband carrier network. The feasibility study commenced in May 2009, and data gathering and preparation of draft report was undertaken in June - August 2009. A stakeholders’ workshop to validate the findings and recommendations of the study was held in September 2009. The Final Report is expected in January 2010. The next stages of the project are: consideration and adoption of feasibility study, project development, and commencement of services. The EAC Secretariat envisages the commencement of services by October 2011, again an ambitious estimate.

Constraints

Institutional: Detailed information on project not available with the REC Secretariat

Financial: Uncertain project bankability


This section identifies six key challenges for the progress of NEPAD STAP ICT projects. Not all the constraints are equally important, but together they define the factors limiting the overall progress of regional ICT projects. The constraints are structured around four categories (political, financial, institutional and technical) and for each constraint, the source and impact is estimated along with responsibility for potentially overcoming the constraints is assigned.


3.3.1.1 High Degree of political risk / lack of political will

There is a clear lack of political mandate for Secretariats to initiate regional ICT policy and expedite the adoption of the Acts in the member-states to reduce disputes and effectively co-ordinate regional initiatives/projects.

Political differences between member-states cause delays, damage and even failure in regional infrastructure projects during implementation. Often strong monopolies and vested local interests prevent member-states from coming together.



RECs expend considerable time and effort in getting regional infrastructure projects, mainly facilitation/capacity-building projects, to the stage of legal approvals/implementation. Once at the national implementation stage however, these projects are often delayed or suspended due to slow adoption of regulating Acts/MoUs by the member-states.

Political unrest in individual member-states within a region continues to pose a challenge to the implementation and operation of regional projects in many countries.


3.3.2.1 Uncertainty of project financing

Many, if not most of the STAP projects have failed to clearly demonstrate their financial viability. This has been largely due to lack of ability or in some cases willingness, to attract private sector participation to augment project funding. Detailed business planning exercises are in the final stages of completion in the case of many projects. However, no concrete information on project structure, revenue models and expected funding sources is available yet. Also, poor project monitoring/reporting is a common constraint across most RECs. This entails the risk that project preparation may still be far from bankable.

The capacity of individual member-states and RECs to invest money in ICT infrastructure differs widely from region to region. This is reflected in the number of ICT projects in development in each REC (ECOWAS and ECCAS for example have higher participation in ICT development). State investment in ICT encourages private sector investment. The states and RECs which are most actively involved in ICT projects also have higher private sector investment. RECs like AMU, IGAD and EAC have comparatively fewer ICT projects being planned or under implementation.

3.3.3 Institutional challenges

3.3.3.1 Lack of ownership

In some RECs, notably AMU and IGAD, there is a lack of ownership for NEPAD STAP projects, While this lack of ownership at the secretariats still persists, given that most of the NEPAD STAP projects are now managed by member-states, national utilities or other regional organisations, it is doubtful whether the RECs active involvement at this stage would help in driving the remaining STAP projects forward.

3.3.3.2 Unclear roles and responsibilities and lack of a well-defined project management framework

Weak project enforcement and monitoring mechanisms across RECs is one of the biggest problems faced in ICT programme co-ordination by NEPAD. Most RECs do not have up-to-date information on the status of ongoing projects and therefore are unable to make any serious contribution in expediting them.

Some RECs, especially AMU and others with low ICT involvement, have unclear roles and responsibilities. The last review suggested a dialogue between NEPAD, AfDB and AMU to firstly clarify each party’s role in the NEPAD STAP projects and secondly ameliorate relations between AMU and AfDB. It was hoped that this would strengthen the AMU’s identity with these projects and improve its degree of involvement. Even though relations between AfDB and AMU now seem to have improved, there is still a high degree of uncertainty regarding the respective roles of AfDB, the NEPAD Secretariat and AMU in STAP infrastructure projects. The urgent dialogue between AfDB, AMU and NEPAD, identified as a potential solution in the last review, has not borne fruit or was not initiated in the first place.



For the most part, no designated regional organizations exist to co-ordinate ICT projects. There is a lack of communication between stakeholders involved in the projects.

The capacity of implementation/regulatory agencies in member-states, which have the responsibility of project monitoring and implementation, is constrained. The growth of ICT in Africa is relatively new. Laws and Acts governing the cyber economy are being drafted, but most of the ICT regulatory bodies have limited experience. Hence these RECs have a capacity constraint in engaging with the operators, service providers and other private sector players, and drafting complex contractual and concession agreements. Project delays are a clear risk on account of this lack of capacity and are compounded by the problems of losing sector experts at the implementing agencies or shortage of experts within the REC Secretariat.


3.3.4.1 Lack of technical capacity and ICT infrastructure at Secretariat Offices

There is a general lack of technical capacity and adequate ICT facilities at the Secretariat level. RECs are understaffed and under-funded to effectively monitor the STAP ICT projects. Concerning technical equipment and infrastructure, considerable progress has been made in ensuring adequate ICT infrastructure including Internet connectivity. However, the progress on this account differs greatly between RECs and even between member-states within RECs.

3.3.4.2 Slow adoption of regulations and standards

The growth of information and communication technologies in Africa is relatively new. Laws and Acts governing the cyber economy are being drafted. Rapid advances in technology pose a challenge to regulating ICT services, especially as common regulations and policies across regions are so difficult to implement in the first place. Rapid technical advances combined with slow project progress due to poor implementation capacity at the REC and state level cause projects to be severely technologically irrelevant before they are even completed or in some cases ready for implementation. This is also the most common cause of projects becoming financially unviable during the planning or preparation stage.

Regional project implementation is a great challenge, especially those involving multiple systems and states with differing technical capacity. The lack of technical capacity evident in state project implementation is compounded and exaggerated in the case of regional projects. Lack of adequate competition is the single most important reason for lack of technology innovation, high tariffs and poor customer service.




This section aims at ranking the six above mentioned key challenges by the severity of their impact. It is difficult to do this ranking because of the inherent challenge of quantifying the impact of each constraint/challenge. The prioritisation presented in this section is therefore not based on a detailed analytical methodology but is informed by the findings obtained through the conducted interviews. Table 22 shows the ranking of the six constraints and briefly highlights the key sources of the constraints.

Table 22: Current constraints and their source

SEVERITY

OF

IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

POSSIBLE ACTION

Severe Uncertainty of project financing

Financial

� Lack of bankable projects

� Lack of engagement with private sector

� Unknown financial requirements and inadequate business planning

Severe Inadequate project management and monitoring

Institutional / Project Management

� Unclear which institution is designated ‘programme supervisor’

� Project’s objectives not defined

� No formal framework in place allowing for regular monitoring

Severe

Lack of technical capacity and ICT infrastructure in REC secretariats and implementation agencies

Technical

� Shortage of ICT sector experts in implementing agencies and RECs.

� Regulatory bodies have limited experience.

� Planning and monitoring of projects on the whole is lacking.

Average Lack of political will in RECs to support projects.

Political

� RECs largely unable to expedite adoption of regulatory acts where necessary.

� Co-ordination of regional initiatives is difficult.

Average Lack of ownership of projects by RECs

Institutional

� Consequence of unclear roles and responsibilities of RECs, member-states and other agencies.

� Projects are largely managed by member-states, national utilities or other regional organisations.



SEVERITY

OF

IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS

POSSIBLE ACTION

Average Slow adoption of regulating acts and common standards

Technical

� Regional projects prepared and approved by RECs delayed / stalled at implementation stage in member-states.

� Poor implementation capacity in member-states leads to significant project delays and projects become technically defunct or outdated.

� Lack of common policy and standards cause difficulty in regional implementations.

The constraints identified in this section are linked, and reflect a cycle of unsatisfactory project implementations and outcomes in the ICT sector in Africa at the local, national, regional and continental levels. Essentially, the lack of political will in the ICT development sector is at the core of all the challenges encountered in the implementation of STAP projects. This lack of political will manifests in several ways: deference to incumbent national ICT operators’ interests (whether public or private monopolies) causing problems in implementation of effective regulation and regional policy harmonization. This creates a situation where there are no bankable projects for investment in the ICT sector which in turn keeps technical capacity low. Low technical capacity means lack of well-defined project management and monitoring frameworks so projects intended to implement policies cannot be effectively monitored or reviewed and hence their implementation suffers. This cycle continues to restrict ICT sector development in Africa.

3.5 Categorization of ICT Projects

The reviewed ICT projects are categorised into four categories viz. completed, defunct, underway and those where implementation concerns persists. Projects in category (i) are complete and therefore can be excluded from future reviews of the STAP programme. Projects in category (iii) and (iv) are currently not moving forward due to some of the challenges/constraints identified above. The projects in category (ii) are moving forward but their progress can be improved.


PROJECT STATUS ICT PROJECTS


• Regional African Satellite Communications Organisation (RASCOM) Project (Operational with 2nd Satellite to be launched in 2010 ECCAS, ECOWAS)

• SAT3/WASC/SAFE – Utilisation to Improve Interconnectivity (operational with upgrades pending




in ECCAS)

• Regional Information and Communication Technologies Support Programme (RICTSP), IGAD.

(ii) Projects underway

• Maghreb Fibre Optic Telecommunications Interconnection Project (further study to identify areas of improvement has been proposed AMU)

• Continental Umbrella Initiative to Facilitate the Utilization and Exploitation of ICTs in African Continent (underway and progressing in ECOWAS)

• SAT3/WASC/SAFE – Utilisation to Improve Interconnectivity (ECOWAS)

• Information and Communications Technology (ICT)Human Resources Capacity Development Initiative for Africa (underway and progressing in ECOWAS)

• ICT Policy and Regulatory Framework at Regional Level (Varied progress in all RECs except IGAD in which the project is not being implemented)

• RECs Institutional Capacity-Building – ECOWAS Wide Area Network (ECOWAN)

• ECOWAS Interconnection Project (ECOWAS)

• East African Community Broadband Infrastructure Network (EAC)

• SADC Regional Information Infrastructure (SRII) Project

(iii) Projects where

concerns about

implementation persist /

Project on which there is

no progress

• COMTEL Telecommunications Interconnectivity Project

• ICT Policy and Regulatory Framework at Regional Level (project has limited progress and ownership in ECCAS)

(iv) Defunct

• Strengthening Of African Telecommunications And ICT Institutions (ECCAS, ECOWAS)

• Continental Umbrella Initiative to Facilitate the Utilization and Exploitation of ICTs in African Continent (defunct in ECCAS, SADC, EAC)

• Development Of Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturing In Africa (ECCAS, ECOWAS)

• Information and Communications Technology (ICT)Human Resources Capacity Development




Initiative for Africa (ECCAS)

• Programme to broaden and enhance Africa’s Participation in the Global ICT Policy and Decision Making (ECCAS, ECOWAS)

• Frequency Spectrum Management (COMESA)

The ICT projects under ECCAS are a cause for some concern in terms of project ownership by the REC. Only projects which have been adopted by or being driven predominantly by other organisations have seen progress or success. Successful projects include the RASCOM project and the SAT/WASC/SAFE project which both involve significant levels of private sector investment and involvement. The STAP programme for the ICT sector seems to have been replaced by other programmes such as the Central African Backbone Programme (CAB), the Support for the Harmonisation of the ICT Policies in Sub Saharan Africa (HIPSSA) project and private sector projects.

Of the projects defined as defunct, some have seen progress in certain RECs. Both the Continental Umbrella Initiative to facilitate the utilization and exploitation of ICTs in African and the ICT Human Resources Capacity Development Initiative for Africa are active and have achieved progress in ECOWAS. These projects are however not progressed very significantly in other RECs. For such projects, the decision to scrap should be made on an REC by REC basis rather than scrapping the project in all RECs.

Other projects deemed as defunct have seen no progress in any REC since 2004 or their inception. There is no project update on Strengthening of African Telecommunications and ICT Institutions project, in ECCAS and ECOWAS. In ECOWAS the funding requirements have been outlined in 2005 but have not been met. In ECCAS this project has neither ownership nor any defined responsibility for management. The Development of Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturing in Africa project in ECOWAS and ECCAS has not reported any progress since 2004. Given the total lack of progress since the project was conceptualised it would be safe to assume that the scope of the project is not seen as relevant by the RECs and the objectives of the project should be re-evaluated.

3.6 Way forward on STAP ICT Projects

It is difficult to manage multi-REC projects considering the low level of technical capacity within REC secretariats. ECOWAS, for example which is implementing most of the ICT projects amongst all RECs has only one ICT specialist. In most REC secretariats, even basic ICT infrastructure does not exist. As a consequence, the RECs and as an extension, the NEPAD’s capacity to track and monitor project progress is extremely weak. This requires additional investment in technical, human and financial resources to fully realise its goals. The regional NEPAD ICT infrastructure programme requires additional dedicated staff, strengthening of the REC capacity and retention programmes will help attract committed staff to this initiative.

The rate of technology absorption is low and the gestation time for adoption of new cutting edge ICT technologies is low. Technologies such as Broadband over Power Line (BPL), also called Power Line Communication (which entails using standard power cables for communication and provision of Internet connectivity) provide an excellent opportunity to leapfrog conventional technologies.

The poor state of ICT infrastructure in some African countries is not necessarily a huge cause for concern. With effective co-ordination of the development efforts of the countries farthest behind in terms



of ICT, these countries can catch up if not overtake developments elsewhere. Developing your modern ICT infrastructure from scratch has certain benefits if the challenges are seen as advantages:

ICT does not have a linear development process. It is possible to develop leading edge technological infrastructure and leap-frog older technologies. Development goals can be met quickly and cost effectively. Starting development late implies key learning’s and best practices are well established from the development experiences of countries in the same region or same socio-economic circumstances.

ICT is now a well established tool for implementing social projects and driving economic and social change. An ICT revolution/development plan can be a springboard for implementing wide reaching social changes in developing countries. ICT development can also be a driver for economic growth, especially in countries with lower cost of labour and high number of English or French-speaking citizens. For example, the development of IT and IT-Enabled Services in India alongside the development of ICT infrastructure led to successful industrial growth.



4 TRANSPORT SECTOR PROJECTS

This chapter covers the STAP transport sector projects. The chapter initially outlines the implementation progress of the transport projects by region and type, and identifies the implementation challenges, ranks challenges by severity of impact, and provides recommendations and shows the way forward for STAP transport projects.

The transport section is subdivided to cover the following sections:

1. Air Transport 2. Road Transport 3. Rail Transport 4. Maritime Transport

Each of the sectors has been discussed in detail in the following sections.

4.1 Overall Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Transport Portfolio

For this review, the status of 47 NEPAD STAP transport projects has been analysed. These have been grouped into four capacity-building projects, 15 facilitation projects, 10 studies and 18 investment projects. The investment projects can alternatively be split into four air transport, 24 road transport (including one transport/Spatial Development Initiative (SDI) project in COMESA), eight rail transport and 11 maritime transport projects. In the 2004 review, there were 50 transport projects. The reason for the drop in the number of projects is due to the inclusion of all five road investment projects in EAC under the East Africa Road Network Programme (EARNP). Moreover, the strengthening of stakeholders’ associations for trade facilitation has also been taken as a single project being implemented across the RECs instead of five separate projects. The new projects added are:

� ECCAS: Road project Ouesso-Sagmélima’

� ECOWAS: Implementation of Overload Control along Road Corridors

� ECOWAS: Strengthening of Stakeholders Association for Trade Facilitation

� ECCAS: Feasibility Study on Railway Interconnection Franceville-Lékéti’

� SADC & EAC: Rehabilitation of selected East African and SADC Railways (in support of concessioning) – an investment project

� ECOWAS: Regional Strategy for Ship Waste Reception Facilities Study

� ECOWAS: Project for increasing the capacity and construction of a container terminal at the port of Dakar



The inclusion of new projects in the NEPAD STAP programme does not follow a rigid and well-defined procedure. It is not even clear whether the NEPAD Secretariat is informed by the RECs about the inclusion of new projects.

RECs i.e. ECOWAS (20), ECCAS (16), and SADC (14) are responsible for the largest number of transport projects followed by COMESA (9), IGAD (8), EAC (6) and AMU (4). The total exceeds 47 as three projects are rolled out across more than one REC as explained in Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.6 and Section 4.8.

Overall, projects in the transport sector have seen improvement across all RECs, sectors and types. Of the 47 reviewed projects, 35 have progressed to some extent or the other, but of those only eight have been completed, as shown in Table 24. Capacity building and facilitation projects have been the slowest to progress, while studies and investment projects have seen the best improvement.

Table 24: Overview of progress of transport projects by type

TYPE

NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2004

NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2009

NO. OF

PROGRESSED

PROJECTS

NO. OF

COMPLETED

PROJECTS

Capacity-Building 6 4 1 -


Studies 9 10 9 3

Facilitation Project 15 15 10 1

Total 50 47 35 8

4.2 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Air Transport Portfolio

For this review, the statuses of four NEPAD STAP air transport projects have been analysed. These are grouped into three facilitation projects and one study project. All the four projects are spread across more than one REC. Some of the RECs have re-categorized the air transport projects:

• EAC: The Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) facilitation project and the Sub-regional Upper Airspace Control Centre (SRUACC) study project have been re-categorized as investment projects.

• ECCAS: The GNSS facilitation project has been converted into an investment project.

• COMESA: The Co-operative Development of Operation Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP) and GNSS facilitation projects have been converted into investment projects, i.e. Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) Systems.

• SADC: The SRUACC study project has been converted into a facilitation project.

The 2004 review considered four air transport projects, meaning that no new projects have been added. However, in the case of EAC, the COSCAP facilitation project (of 2004) has been replaced by the Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency (CASSOA) facilitation project.



4.3 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Air Transport Portfolio

Table 25 provides an overview of all NEPAD STAP air transport projects reviewed, their costs and their progress since the last review in 2004. The light grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress in 2004 and the dark grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress as of 2009.



Table 25: NEPAD STAP air transport projects and progress


CAPACITY BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

A

PP

RO

VA

LS

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

AIR TRANSPORT – NO PROJECTS

INVESTMENT A

GR

EE

ME

NT

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

AIR TRANSPORT

Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) Systems

COMESA Not known

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) EAC US$ 1.5 million

Sub-Regional Upper Airspace Control Centre (SRUACC)

EAC n.a.

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) ECCAS n.a

STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

AIR TRANSPORT

Study on the Upper Space Control Centers ECCAS n.a.

Study on the Upper Space Control Centers ECOWAS n.a. Study suspended




FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NTA

L

AP

PR

OVA

LS

LE

GA

L IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

AIR TRANSPORT

Institutional Support for the Yamoussoukro Decision

AMU n.a.

Institutional Support for the implementation of Yamoussoukro Decision (YD)

COMESA US$ 1.2 million / p.a. (for operations of the Joint Competition Authority (JCA))

Co-operative Development of Operation Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP)

COMESA Not known

Establishment of East African Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency (CASSOA)

EAC US$ 1 million

Institutional Support for Yamoussoukro Decision EAC US$ 1.2 million/per annum.

Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP)


Institutional Support for Yamoussoukro Decision ECCAS n.a.

Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme(COSCAP)

ECOWAS US$ 3-4 million

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) ECOWAS n.a.

Institutional Support for Yamoussoukro Decision ECOWAS US$ 2.5-4 million

Co-operative Development of Operation Safety and Continuing Air Worthiness Programme (COSCAP)

IGAD N. A. Project is under the aegis of COMESA

Institutional Support for the implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision


Study on the Upper Space Control Centers [currently known in the STAP as ‘Sub-Regional Upper Airspace Control Centre (SRUACC)’ project]







Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) SADC n.a.

Institutional Support for the implementation of Yamoussoukro Decision (Institutional Support for the Implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision)


Air transport projects are continental projects being implemented across Africa. These are all in differing stages of development across the RECs. The study project on SRUACC has shown little progress in ECCAS and ECOWAS while it has been converted into investment projects in COMESA and EAC. This SRUACC study project has been converted into a facilitation project with moderate progress for the SADC. The three facilitation projects, viz., COSCAP, GNSS and implementation of the YD, have shown varying degrees of success across the RECs. The COSCAP project has shown the greatest progress in ECCAS and SADC. The GNSS project has made progress in ECOWAS. The implementation of the YD has shown good progress across EAC, COMESA, SADC and ECCAS. Facilitation projects are usually ongoing projects and therefore do not have a definite completion timeframe. Their progress has therefore alternatively been measured in the table below.

Table 26: Overview of progress of air transport projects by type

PROJECT & TYPE RECs PROJECT IS SPREAD

ACROSS

NO. OF RECs

WHERE PROJ.

PROGRESSED

NO. OF

COMPLETED

PROJECTS

SRUACC (Study) 5 (EAC, ECCAS, ECOWAS, COMESA, SADC) 2 -

GNSS (Facilitation) 6 (AMU, EAC, ECCAS, ECOWAS, COMESA, SADC) 2 -

COSCAP (Facilitation) 6 ( EAC, ECCAS, ECOWAS, COMESA, IGAD, SADC) 4 -

YD(Facilitation) All RECs 6 1

Total 24 14 16


There are no capacity-building projects in the STAP air transport sector.

6 This included the Institutional Support for Yamoussoukro Decision in EAC.




Four STAP air transport investment projects are included in the current review. None of these had been incepted in 2004. These are facilitation projects which have been re-categorized into investment projects by the RECs. Table 27 summarises the progress achieved in each of the investment projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 27: Progress of all STAP air transport investment projects

INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

AIR TRANSPORT

Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) Systems

COMESA Not known

This project encompasses the two projects in air transport namely Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and Study on Upper Air Space Control Centres. Little progress has been achieved in this project as per its status in the last review.

Constraints

Others

Feasibility study consultants are facing a challenge in collecting the necessary data from member-states for the completion of the exercise

Financial

Funding not tied up for assistance in development of institutional framework to set up and manage a regional control centre

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) EAC US$ 1.5 million

A feasibility study for setting up the GNSS equipment has been completed and recommendations adopted by member-states in 2009. It is expected that the project would be able to mobilize funding which would be required to complete the project.

Constraints

Financial

The next step to the completion of the feasibility study and adoption of recommendations by member-states is to mobilise funding to set up GNSS

Sub-Regional Upper Airspace Control Centre (SRUACC)

EAC n.a.

A feasibility study for setting up the SRUACC has been completed with Constraints



INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

AIR TRANSPORT

United States Trade Development Agency (USTDA) funding. Member-states are considering the recommendations. A second study to assess the sustainability of management of lower air space is planned with funding being sought from the USTDA and United States Department of Transportation (USDoT)

Financial

Study to assess independent viability of lower airspace is due to be procured. In case it is assessed that lower air space management would not be sustainable by the member-states, a subsidy or viability gap arrangement will have to be put in place.

Approval of funds and commissioning of the lower airspace sustainability study has not yet been achieved [Funding is being sought from the United States Trade Development Agency (USTDA) and Department of Transportation (US)]

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) ECCAS n.a

This is a continental project managed by L'Agence pour la Sécurité de la Navigation aérienne en Afrique et à Madagascar (ASECNA). Project status is unclear and ECCAS Secretariat needs to liaise with ASECNA to clarify its role in the project.

Constraints

Others

Lack of clear assignment of responsibility for the project in Central African region

The progress of the investment projects since the last review has not been very satisfactory. The main constraint impeding the progress of these projects is a lack of funding.

4.3.3 Progress of Study Projects

One STAP air transport study project is included in the current review. Table 28 summarises the progress achieved in each of the study projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 28: Progress of all STAP air transport study projects

STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

AIR TRANSPORT

Study on the Upper Space Control Centres ECCAS n.a.

This is a continental project under the supervision of the African Civil Aviation Commission (AfCAC). CEMAC had the responsibility for this project in the Central African Region and ECCAS therefore was unable to provide information on the progress of this project

Constraints

Other

Lack of communication between CEMAC and ECCAS



STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

AIR TRANSPORT

Study on the Upper Space Control Centres ECOWAS n.a. Study suspended

This project has currently been suspended as funding has been an issue. ECOWAS is not able to monitor the progress of this project.

Constraints

Financial

Funding has been a constraint to the study

Other

Awaiting the results of the SADC study on SRUACC

The progress of the study projects since the last review has not been very satisfactory due to a lack of funding. The SRUACC project in ECOWAS has been suspended due to financial constraints.


There are three STAP air transport facilitation projects included in the current review. Table 29 summarises the progress achieved for each of the facilitation projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 29: Progress of all STAP air transport facilitation projects

FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

AIR TRANSPORT


AMU n.a.

The implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision has been monitored by the AfCAC and UNECA. The AMU Secretariat is not involved in this project.

Constraints

Political

Member-states reluctant to ratify national laws

Institutional

Lack of assigned responsibilities

Others

No well defined project management framework.



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

AIR TRANSPORT

Institutional Support for the implementation of

Yamoussoukro Decision (YD)

COMESA US$ 1.2 million / p.a. (for operations of the JCA)

The project is in advanced stages of implementation. The Tripartite summit of COMESA, EAC, and SADC held in Kampala (Uganda) in October 2008 adopted the implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision as a priority program for the three sub-regions. It established a Joint Competition Authority (JCA) to be located at SADC Secretariat to co-ordinate the implementation of the Decision. One of the key objectives of the JCA is to ensure competition and to prevent large and dominant regional carriers from practicing anti-competitive pricing strategies.

Constraints

Institutional

COMESA legal notice number 2 has not been incorporated into national legislations of member-states

Continuation of Bilateral Air Service Agreements (BASA) as a means for exchange of traffic rights between member-states

Weak enforcement and follow up mechanism to facilitate and ensure implementation of Legal Notice No. 2 [This may get resolved after operationalisation of the JCA]

Technical

Weak air transport safety oversight actions in a liberalized air transport market hinder operations of international carriers


COMESA Not known

Very slow progress of the program. The project status is inherently unchanged since the last review as funding for the implementation of the COSCAP programs has still not been tied up. This is in contrast to the COSCAP programs in the region – EAC and SADC – which have progressed through COSCAP initiatives in their member-states.

Constraints

Financial

Funding not available for implementation of the COMESA COSCAP program

Establishment of East African Civil Safety and Security Oversight Agency (CASSOA)

EAC US$ 1 million

The project has been transformed from the earlier COSCAP and is in the advanced stages of implementation. A review of key aviation regulations in line with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) norms has been completed across several categories. CASSOA has been established in June 2007 to oversee the implementation of these regulations.

None


EAC US$ 1.2 million/per

annum.

The project is in advanced stages of implementation. The Tripartite summit of COMESA, EAC, and SADC held in Kampala (Uganda) in October 2008

None



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

AIR TRANSPORT

adopted the implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision as a priority program for the three sub-regions. It established a Joint Competition Authority (JCA) to be located at SADC Secretariat to co-ordinate the implementation of the Decision. One of the key objectives of the JCA is to ensure competition and to prevent large and dominant regional carriers from practicing anti-competitive pricing strategies.

Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP)


This project has progressed. A Plan of Action 2008-2015 was formulated in September 2008 by ECCAS to accelerate the legal approvals for member-states. The POA stipulates the creation of a regional transport regulation authority in the ECCAS region to ensure security of air travel as well as to ensure affordability. However, the advancement of this project would depend upon the availability of continuous political co-operation and financing.

Constraints

Political

Continuous political co-operation not assured

Financial

Lack of finances to ensure all delegates are present at meetings


Yamoussoukro Decision (YD)

ECCAS n.a.

The Plan of Action 2008-2015 prepared as part of the COSCAP project also includes the implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision. The ECCAS provides institutional support.

Constraints

Financial

Lack of finances to ensure all delegates are present at the meeting

Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and

Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP)

ECOWAS US$ 3-4 million

The project has moderately progressed with four member-states having significantly improved their safety standards. The project is being implemented in three Member State groupings, the Banjul Accord Group (BAG), ECCAS and West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU). The Air Security Organisation (SCO-BAG) in charge of the project implementation has been created. Funding (gap of US$ 1.66 million) and improvement in technical capabilities for member-states have been a constraint. There is a need to persuade the States to ratify the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as this has stymied the progress of the project. Progress can also be improved by ensuring greater co-ordination between ECOWAS and WAEMU.

Constraints

Political

Need to persuade the states to ratify the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

Financial

Funding for the project has been a constraint

Lack of financial capacity of aviation authorities

Technical

Lack of technical capabilities of aviation authorities

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) ECOWAS n.a.



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

AIR TRANSPORT

The GNSS Procedures were elaborated for all the main international airports. Grace period is completed. The studies started for the planned operation of the Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) project for the period 2006-2017. Efforts of implementation have been made by the Air navigation Service Providers: ASECNA, Roberts Flight Information Region (FIR), and Accra FIR. Progress can be achieved by securing higher levels of financing.

Constraints

Financial

Significant financial difficulties and inadequate regulatory capacity of aviation authorities

Others

Limited progress on the United Space Control Centre (USCC) component of the study


ECOWAS US$ 2.5-4 million

The implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision is weak on ground because the aviation agreements are not in conformity with the Yamoussoukro Decision. The current target for the project is the implementation of the Common Air Transport Economic Regulations for West and Central Africa. There is good scope for private sector participation on this project. It is envisaged in the future that African Civil Aviation Commission (AfCAC) would take up the mandate of the implementation agency for the YD.

Constraints

Technical

Increase in human and technical resources required for implementation of the YD

Financial

Lack of financial resources is an impediment to the implementation of the YD

Other

Protection provided to internal airlines in countries despite poor records contributes to impediment the implementation of YD

Co-operative Development of Operation Safety and Continuing Air Worthiness Programme (COSCAP)


The IGAD does not monitor air transport projects. These projects are monitored by COMESA.

Constraints

Technical

No designated expert in the Secretariat for co-ordination of programmes

Other

Lack of communication between COMESA and IGAD

Institutional Support for the implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision


The IGAD does not monitor air transport projects. These projects are monitored by COMESA.

Constraints

Technical



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

AIR TRANSPORT

No designated expert in the Secretariat for co-ordination

of programmes

Other

Lack of communication between COMESA and IGAD

Study on the Upper Space Control Centres [currently known in the STAP as ‘Sub-Regional Upper Airspace Control Centre (SRUACC)’ project]


This project is now a facilitation project. SADC has undertaken a feasibility study for the Upper Air Space Control Centre (UACC) project which was completed in July 2008. The project is now in the facilitation stage (and hence termed as a Facilitation project in the STAP list of projects under SADC). The study concluded that the UACC is feasible and produced an Annexure to the SADC protocol on Transport, Communications and Meteorology which would be signed by member-states, which are desirous of participating in the UACC.

Constraints

Other

Challenge would be to arrive at an early consensus among participating member-states on the next steps (finalization of protocol, location of Upper Air Space Control Centre (UACC) headquarters, etc.)



The project has progressed well. The SADC Secretariat has co-ordinated and facilitated the implementation of Phase I of the COSCAP project which commenced in April 2008 with the recruitment of two experts from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to undertake the task identified as critical to the process of establishing the regional System Approach to Safety Oversight (SASO). The SADC Secretariat is now co-ordinating the implementation of the Action Plan for the development of SADC Generic Regulations and Technical Procedures for Phase II as the basis for harmonisation of aviation safety standards in the member-states. This program is also linked to the JCA initiative in which EAC-SADC and COMESA are also participating.

Constraints

Financial

Delay in securing funding for Phase II

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) SADC n.a.

No information was available Constraints

Other

No latest information available


Yamoussoukro Decision


This project has progressed well. SADC has established the Regional Competition Authority (RCA) to oversee the implementation process.

The RCA has to be operationalized by establishing a Secretariat and promotion exercises.

The Joint Competition Authority (JCA) for COMESA/EAC/SADC has to be

Constraints

Financial

The challenge of securing funding for the implementation



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

AIR TRANSPORT

operationalized by establishing a Secretariat. There is an improved level of funding and appropriate institutional structures exist to facilitate the completion of the project.

of Phase II

The three facilitation projects under air transport have shown varying degrees of success across the RECs. These air transport projects have shown the maximum progress in EAC. There is a need to reinvigorate the transport facilitation projects in Africa through a political decision by the African Union heads of state and government by reaffirming their commitment to full integration through improved facilitation of trade and transport between countries and regional blocks.

Case Note 1: Implementation of the Yammoussoukro Decision

The implementation of the YD has shown good progress across the RECs in the Eastern and Southern Africa EAC, COMESA, SADC. Considerable progress has been achieved with collaboration between them. Also, a Joint Competition Authority (JCA) has been set up to ensure competition and prevent large and dominant regional carriers from practicing anti-competitive pricing strategies. The three RECs developed a framework to work

together and specified the responsibility for each REC. SADC took the leading/co-ordination role in the setting up of the JCA. Significant decisions with respect to the Yamoussoukro Decision were made during the tripartite

summit of COMESA-EAC-SADC, held in Kampala, October 2008. The summit dealt with overlapping issues and sorted out any potential duplication of efforts. SADC Secretariat has established institutions to facilitate the implementation of measures necessary for liberalisation of air transport markets within COMESA, EAC and SADC

as a part of Yamoussoukro Decision.

There are new lessons for new continental programmes that are planned for regional infrastructure. Where RECs

collaborate, cognisance should be taken of the fact that they may be in different stages of meeting their infrastructure agenda and it would be more prudent to build on the advances already made rather than start from

ground zero. Also, there would be more synergies if continental programmes focussed on harmonizing/assisting either Inter-REC projects or continental projects.



4.4 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Road Transport Portfolio

For this review, the status of 24 NEPAD STAP road transport projects has been analysed. These are grouped into two capacity-building projects, 13 investment projects, five facilitation projects, one transport/SDI facilitation and three study projects. Some of the facilitation and capacity-building projects are continental projects spread across the RECs. These projects are:

1. Strengthening of Stakeholders’ Associations for Trade Facilitation (COMESA, EAC, ECOWAS, , IGAD and SADC)

2. Establishment of One-Stop Border Posts (COMESA, EAC, SADC)

3. Implementation of Overload Control along Corridors (COMESA,ECOWAS, IGAD, SADC, )

4. Facilitation of Road Transit Transport Plan (ECCAS and ECOWAS)

5. Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)/SADC Uniform Custom Document and Bond Guarantee Scheme (COMESA and SADC)

Some of the RECs have re-categorized the road transport projects:

1. EAC: The establishment of One-Stop Border Posts has been converted into an investment project.

2. COMESA: The establishment of One-Stop Border Posts has been converted into an investment project.

In the 2004 review, there were 31 road transport projects. Three new projects are included in this review. These are:

1. ECCAS : Road project Ouesso-Sagmélima’ 2. ECOWAS: Implementation of Overload Control along Road Corridors 3. ECOWAS: Strengthening of Stakeholders’ Association for Trade Facilitation

The reason for the drop in the number of projects is due to the inclusion of all five road investment projects in EAC under the East Africa Road Network Programme (EARNP). Moreover, the strengthening of stakeholders associations for trade facilitation has also been taken as two projects with differing implementation in each REC instead of as five separate projects.

4.5 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Road Transport Portfolio

Table 30 provides an overview of all NEPAD STAP road transport projects reviewed, their costs and their progress since the last review in 2004. The light grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress in 2004 and the dark grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress as of 2009.





Table 30: NEPAD STAP road transport projects and progress


CAPACITY-BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

A

PP

RO

VA

LS

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

ROAD TRANSPORT

Transit and Trade Facilitation COMESA Not known

Strengthening of Stakeholders Associations for Trade Facilitation

EAC n.a. This project is a part of the East African Business Council Initiative.


ECOWAS EUR 1 million

Strengthening of stakeholders association for Trade Facilitation

IGAD n. a.

Strengthening Stakeholders Associations for Trade Facilitation

SADC US$ 8 million

INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

ROAD TRANSPORT

Maghreb Highway Project AMU n.a.

Establishment of One-Stop Border Posts COMESA Not known

Implementation of East Africa Road Network Programme (EARNP)

EAC US$ 3.975 billion

Establishment of One Stop Border Posts EAC US$ 22 million

Fougamou-Doussala Road Project ECCAS n.a.

Road project Ouesso-Souanké-Sangmélima (New) ECCAS US$ 500 million

Agades-Zinder, 130 km upgrading ECOWAS n. a.

Akatsi-Dzodze-Noepe, 31 km upgrading ECOWAS n. a.

Boke-Quebo, 206 km upgrading ECOWAS n. a.

Kante(Togo) – Burkina Faso Border, 194 km upgrading

ECOWAS n. a.




Kati-Kita(Mali) – Saraya(Senegal), 345 km upgrading

ECOWAS n. a.

Mamfe-Efok(Cameroon) – Abakaliki(Enugu, Nigeria), 161 km upgrading in Cameroon and rehabilitation in Nigeria

ECOWAS UA 230 million

Zinder-Nigeria Border, 110 km rehabilitation ECOWAS n. a. No information

Djibouti – Addis Highway (Dobi-Galafi-Yakobi Road Upgrading)

IGAD US$ 43 million

Mombasa – Nairobi – Addis Ababa Road Corridor Development


STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

ULTA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

ROAD TRANSPORT

Feasibility Study of Road Doussala/Gabon Border – Brazzaville


Feasibility Study of Rail/Road Bridge Brazzaville-Kinshasa


Transport Recovery Study in Angola and DRC ECCAS US$ 420 million

FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

ROAD TRANSPORT

Implementation of Overload Control along Corridors COMESA Not known (process underway to identify investment need)

Regional Customs Bond Guarantee Scheme (RCBG) COMESA Not known

Road Safety COMESA Not Known No update available

Facilitation of Road Transit Transport Action Plan including

Implementation of Overload Control Along Road





Corridors


Establishment of Common Border Posts

Facilitation of Road Transit Transport Plan ECOWAS EUR 63 million

Implementation of Overload Control along Corridors ECOWAS n. a.

Implementation of Overload Control along Road Corridors

IGAD n. a.

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)/SADC Uniform Custom Document and Bond Guarantee Scheme

SADC US$ 3 million

Establishment of One-stop Border Posts SADC n.a.

Implementation of Overload Control Along Road Corridors

SADC US$ 5 million

(2006)

TRANSPORT/SDI

Adoption of Spatial Development Initiative (SDI) Framework in COMESA Infrastructure Projects

COMESA US$ 20.35

million 7

The only capacity-building projects in the road transport sector, i.e., ‘Strengthening of stakeholders’ associations for trade facilitation’ and ‘transit and trade facilitation’ have shown little or no progress across all the RECs. Investment projects across the seven RECs have shown the greatest progress with two projects being completed and nine projects being in advanced stages of implementation. Studies have shown a fair degree of progress with one study being completed. Facilitation projects which consist of the implementation of overload control along road corridors have shown varying degrees of success across the seven RECs.

Overall, projects in the road transport sector have seen good improvement across all RECs, sectors and types. Of the 24 reviewed projects (23 road transport projects + 1 transport/SDI), 20 have progressed, but of those, only four8 have been completed, as shown in Table 31. Capacity-building and facilitation projects have been the slowest to progress, while studies and investment projects have registered the best improvement.

7 Budget for trade facilitation and administrative issues identified for the North-South corridor – pilot Aid for Trade Program

8 This included the Agades-Zinder, 130 km upgrading, Kante(Togo) – Burkina Faso Border, 194 km upgrading, Transport Recovery

Study in Angola and DRC and Implementation of Overload Control Along Road Corridors (SADC)



Table 31: Overview of progress of road transport projects by type

TYPE

NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2004

NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2009

NO. OF

PROGRESSED

PROJECTS

NO. OF

COMPLETED

PROJECTS

Capacity-Building 5 2 - -


Studies 3 3 3 1

Facilitation 5 5 5 1

Facilitation (Transport/SDI)

1 1 1 -

Total 30 24 20 4


One STAP road transport capacity-building project is included in the current review. Table 32 summarises the progress achieved for these projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 32: Progress of all STAP road transport capacity-building projects


CAPACITY BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

A

PP

RO

VA

LS

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

ROAD TRANSPORT

Transit and Trade Facilitation COMESA Not known

Efforts are ongoing in the East African region to strengthen stakeholder associations which are involved in transit, trade and transport. These projects are part of the East Africa trade and transit facilitation project being implemented with the assistance of the World Bank. The latest updates on the project were not known

Constraints

Institutional: Project scope not clearly established – this hinders objective assessment of progress


EAC n.a. n. a.

This is an ongoing initiative to create awareness among stakeholders with regard to trade facilitation instruments and operational issues along the central and northern corridors.


ECOWAS EUR 1 million

The diagnostic study completed. Action Plan prepared. ECOWAS would require monitoring of the progress of this project at a closer level

None




to help it come to fruition.

Strengthening of stakeholders association for Trade Facilitation

IGAD n. a.

This project is solely handled by the COMESA Secretariat Constraints

Financial

Project has not been able to secure funding for the study


SADC US$ 8 million

No progress as it is a low priority project. Constraints

Others

Low priority project

The capacity-building projects across the different RECs have shown little or no progress due to either a lack of funding or low priority accorded to the projects. Some RECs included this project in other initiatives being implemented in the region.


Thirteen STAP road transport investment projects are included in the current review. These projects also include facilitation projects which have been re-categorized into investment projects by the RECs. Table 33 summarises the progress achieved in each of the investment projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 33: Progress of all STAP road transport investment projects

INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

ROAD TRANSPORT

Maghreb Highway Project AMU n.a.

This project has progressed and segments of the highway have been built. The role of the AMU Secretariat in this project is limited as this project is supported by the MEDA programme.

Constraints

Financial

No funding for project secured

Others

Lack of project information with AMU Secretariat

Establishment of One-Stop Border Posts COMESA Not known



INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

ROAD TRANSPORT

The Chirundu (between Zambia and Zimbabwe) border post is operational and is awaiting formal inauguration as a model/pilot project for One-stop Border Posts (OSBP). There is a common infrastructure in place; implementation of a common (harmonized) ICT platform is in progress.

The OSBP initiatives include a component of training for associated agencies like customs and immigration – this has been undertaken for Chirundu.

Other corridors earmarked for development of one-stop border posts in the next phase under COMESA include Kasumbalesa – between Zambia and DRC, and Mchinji – between Malawi and Zambia.

None

Implementation of East Africa Road Network Programme (EARNP)

EAC US$ 3.975 billion

The five projects of the East Africa Road Network Programme have now been included as one project. These projects are:

1. EAC Central Corridor – incorporated as corridor 2 of EARNP

2. EAC Northern Alternative

3. EAC Northern Corridor – incorporated as corridor 1 of EARNP

4. Mombasa-Nairobi-Addis – incorporated as corridor 5 of EARNP

This is one of the largest infrastructure investment initiatives in the EAC region and involves construction/up-gradation of five regional road corridors. Several sub-sections of the project are at different stages of implementation – preparation, funding, procurement, development, etc.

The combined length of the five-road corridors is 8,353 km and the total development cost is expected to be close to US$ 4 billion.

The corridor project has been expanded after the inclusion of Burundi and Rwanda into the EAC, for extension of these corridors into these countries.

The most significant issue in the progress of the project was identified as an insufficient pipeline of bankable projects. Multiple donors have contributed to the EARNP including the AfDB, World Bank, EU, Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), and Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW).

Constraints

Institutional

Key issue is insufficient pipeline of bankable projects (project preparation is a bottleneck)

Weak control and process of stock-taking with the EAC Secretariat. The project update meetings are scheduled once in a year (spacing varies) and accuracy of reported data by member-state representatives is weak.

Financial

Constant need to secure funding for project preparation and development – being co-ordinated through multiple donors

Even when a donor is agreeable to funding – in some cases, counterpart funding is not forthcoming

Establishment of One Stop Border Posts EAC US$ 22 million

One bilateral agreement was signed between Kenya and Uganda Constraints



INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

ROAD TRANSPORT

in 2006; thereafter, EAC was mandated in 2007 by partner-states to develop a multilateral agreement. Consultants were appointed in Sept 2009 through Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA) funding for development of this multilateral agreement (Corridor Development Consultants, Namibia); Their output is expected in March 2010, which shall be a draft OSBP Bill to be debated by the East Africa Legislative Assembly. Thereafter, it shall be developed and enacted into an Act. The three border posts being implemented are the Namanga border posts for which architectural drawings are being prepared and detailed construction design preparation is on-going. The Holili (Taveta) border post and the Lunga Lunga (Horohoro) border post are also in advanced stages of development.

The pilot border post at Malaba between Kenya and Uganda is already complete and operational.

Financial

There is a funding shortfall for the completion of works for the Namanga border post (deficit of US$ 11 million as per detailed designs); it is expected that the national governments of Tanzania and Kenya would finance this additional funding requirement.

Fougamou-Doussala Road Project ECCAS n.a.

The connection Fougamou-Ndendé is currently being constructed and the connection Ndendé-Doussala is currently under study. Both the construction and the study are co-financed by the AfDB under the supervision of the Gabonese government. ECCAS only plays a limited role in the actual management of the project.

Constraints

Financial

Lack of financing for remaining road segments

Road project Ouesso-Souanké-Sangmélima (New) ECCAS US$ 500 million

Project has greatly progressed since the last review. Financing has largely been secured but there are still road segments that have not secured financing. Management and supervision is done by the ECCAS Secretariat and the governments of Gabon and Cameroon. On account of the improved political stability in the region, it is expected that the project would be able to secure financing.

Constraints

Financial

Financing Gap of US$ 200 million

Agades-Zinder, 130 km upgrading ECOWAS n. a.

The objective is to upgrade and rehabilitate the 130 km section between Agades and Zinder. This project has been completed.

None

Akatsi-Dzodze-Noepe, 31 km upgrading ECOWAS n. a.

This project has progressed well from the 2004 review as it has secured funding and work on the sections has already commenced.

None

Boke-Quebo, 206 km upgrading ECOWAS n. a.

All the required studies for the project have been completed. The Constraints



INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

ROAD TRANSPORT

project has obtained partial financing from the AfDB. Considering the improved political stability in the region, it is envisaged that the project would be able to secure the funding required for the completion.

Financial

The project has obtained partial financing from AfDB and required extra financing to close the financing gap

Kante(Togo) – Burkina Faso Border, 194 km upgrading

ECOWAS n. a.

The project has been completed. None

Kati-Kita(Mali) – Saraya(Senegal), 345 km upgrading

ECOWAS n. a.

Feasibility studies and engineering design have been completed and the project is under implementation.

Constraints

Other

Speeding up the implementation of the project

Mamfe-Efok(Cameroon) – Abakaliki(Enugu, Nigeria), 161 km upgrading in Cameroon and rehabilitation in Nigeria

ECOWAS UA 230 million

In 2007, a MoU concerning the transport facilitation project on the Bamenda - Enugu corridor was signed between Nigeria and Cameroon setting off the actual plans for financing of the project. The project is still in the development/construction phase. The project can be completed if it acquires technical and financial assistance.

Constraints

Political

Delay in the establishment of the title deeds for the land of the joint border post after the agreement of the Cameroon Authorities to accept the localization of the Joint Border Post in Nigeria.

Technical

Technical Assistance required from ECOWAS for the implementation of the project

Financial

Project requires funding to ensure implementation

Zinder-Nigeria Border, 110 km rehabilitation ECOWAS n. a. No information

No update was available. None

Djibouti – Addis Highway (Dobi-Galafi-Yakobi Road Upgrading)

IGAD US$ 43 million

The badly deteriorated section of the road between Dobi in Ethiopia and Yakobi in Djibouti has been completed by World Bank financing. However, the section Galafi-Yakobi needs major upgrading. A final study and financing is required for the main upgrading which is still pending.

Constraints

Financial

Financing required for the main upgrading is the major constraint for the project.



INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

ROAD TRANSPORT

Technical

Final Study required for the main upgrading

Mombasa – Nairobi – Addis Ababa Road Corridor Development


This project has been included under the Ring Corridor project of the Horn of Africa Initiative. The Ethiopian and Kenyan road authorities are expected to float out tenders for the works in December 2009 for the section to be financed between Isiolo and Moyale which is an important inter-regional link.

The road between Isiolo and Moyale is divided into three sections, i.e., Isiolo to Merille River is under construction with EU financing.

Constraints

Financial

Financing required for completion of remaining sections and feasibility studies.

Technical

Feasibility Study is required to be conducted for remaining sections

Political

Implementation of project would require a high level co-ordination between countries involved in the project.

Others

Insecurity in the project area

The progress of the investment projects since the last review has been good. Two projects have been completed while nine are in advanced stages of development. The projects on one-stop border posts have been converted from facilitation projects in the last review to investment projects in EAC and COMESA. These projects have progressed well with the establishment of some operational border posts like the Malaba project on the Kenya Uganda border. The main constraints impeding the progress of these projects are lack of funding and requirement of technical studies for the progress of the projects.



Case Note 2: Implementation of the East Africa Road Network Programme

This is one of the largest infrastructure investment initiatives in the EAC region and involves construction/up-gradation of five regional road corridors. In its original form, the project had 55 different road projects (20 in Kenya, seven in Uganda, and 28 in Tanzania). In 2003, 39 road projects were added making a total of 94 different

sub-projects. The combined length of roads in the project has therefore increased from 8,353 km to 12,000 km. It is indicated that the different road sections of the project are at different stages of implementation – preparation,

funding, procurement, development, etc. and that the project has progressed well. The corridor project has now again been expanded after the inclusion of Burundi and Rwanda in to the EAC, for extension of these corridors

into these countries. It is indicated that the project has been difficult to monitor its whole form as there is poor co-ordination between Road Transport Project Units in different partner states and the EAC secretariat which has a

very weak control and process of stock-taking. The project update meetings are scheduled once in a year (spacing varies) and accuracy of reported data by member-state representatives is often weak.

The previous STAP review pointed toward the need of increasing staff resources and infrastructure at the EAC Secretariat. There is continued narrow capacity at the Secretariat in terms of their ability to effectively manage

and implement infrastructure projects across infrastructure sectors, particularly in the roads sector. There is also

the risk of lack of continuity on projects in case a project officer happens to leave, since under the current staffing pattern, a single person oversees the activities for an infrastructure sector.

The most significant issue in the progress of the project was identified as an insufficient pipeline of bankable projects, and that project preparation is a bottleneck. There is constant need to secure funding for project

preparation and development – being co-ordinated through multiple donors. However, even when a donor is agreeable to funding – in some cases, counterpart funding is not forthcoming. Fragmentation of funding was also

found to increase administrative burden for beneficiaries due to the need for co-ordination with multiple donors on the same projects.

There are lessons to be learnt with respect to this project, namely:

• Although a massive project of this nature is promoted by a REC, there is need to reinforce the capacity of different member states to prepare bankable projects, clearly articulating project objectives, and

identifying milestones along with expected timelines. The identified milestones also act as a basis for project monitoring. Collaboration with regional development banks (like the East African Development Bank (EADB) in this case)) and relevant donor agencies earlier on in the project development cycle can be very useful in this respect.

• Appoint competent advisors to work with the REC to ensure robust project preparation (as discussed above) and to facilitate an effective procurement – whereby wide investor/developer interest is

mobilised.

• Undertake a structured knowledge management initiative for infrastructure development projects. This could be done through robust documentation of all projects by the Secretariat or by other means like developing an online project-level data aggregation system (a similar system is being developed by COMESA) whereby multiple stakeholders involved with the project could update information on progress

made / constraints being faced. This kind of a system would be useful to obtain and refer to the most

updated information on projects.




Three STAP road transport study projects are included in the current review. Table 34 summarises the progress achieved in each of the study projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 34: Progress of all STAP road transport study projects

STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

ROAD TRANSPORT

Feasibility Study of Road Doussala/Gabon Border – Brazzaville


Finance for the project has been secured from the African Development Bank (AfDB). A consultant has been selected and the project was expected to commence from Q2 2010. However, it did not have any designated national expert.

Constraints

Technical

No designated national expert (from DRC)

Feasibility Study of Rail/Road Bridge Brazzaville-Kinshasa


The project has progressed and is currently in the procurement stage for the selection of the consultant. It is expected to commence from Q3 -2010. However, there is a need for a closer co-operation between DRC and Congo-Brazzaville. This seems possible given the improving political stability in the region. Moreover, there has also been an improvement in the level of resources in the Secretariat which would assist in kick-starting the project.

Constraints

Political

Closer co-operation between DRC and Congo needed

Technical

No designated national expert (from Congo)

Transport Recovery Study in Angola and DRC ECCAS US$ 420 million

The project has been converted into an investment project. Six road segments (1 in DRC and 5 in Angola) have been included as part of the project. The project financing has largely been secured and the project will be implemented by the ECCAS Secretariat and the respective governments. It is envisaged that owing to improved political stability, better resources, and capabilities the project would be able to secure financing for the remaining sections.

Constraints

Financial

No Financing for DRC projects

Technical

No designated national expert (from DRC)

The studies have progressed well with one study being completed and the other two in advanced stages of development.




Five STAP transport facilitation projects along with one transport/SDI project are included in the current review. None of these existed in 2004. Table 35 summarises the progress achieved in each of the facilitation projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 35: Progress of all STAP road transport facilitation projects

FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

ROAD TRANSPORT

Implementation of Overload Control along Corridors COMESA Not known (process underway to identify investment need)

The project for the application of uniform overload controls along regional road networks has also registered progress. Common standards for overload control to be applicable across regional corridors have been drawn up. The process of identifying investments needed to upgrade roads and weigh bridge infrastructure in member-states, to enable compliance with the common loading standards, is underway. The project has progressed to a clear definition and articulated step-by-step approach.

Constraints

Technical

Some member-states are not in a position to apply the proposed standards for load control in order to preserve existing road infrastructure

Financial

Member-states need to make investments for weighbridge infrastructure. All member-states may not have available funds

Institutional

Need to harmonise axle loading legislations across member-states

Regional Customs Bond Guarantee Scheme (RCBG) COMESA Not known

Substantial progress has been achieved on this project. The RCBG has been under operation on a pilot basis since September 2009 for the Northern Corridor – Member-states of Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, and Rwanda, and is expected to be rolled out between other member-states.

None

Road Safety COMESA Not Known n. a.

The project provides a broad framework and strategic direction for co-ordinated road safety programmes and activities in the various COMESA countries. In the interim, the following actions are being developed: 1. Identification of priority actions. 2. Programmes and activities to be undertaken. 3. Timeframes. 4. Sources of funds. 5. Performance indicators. 6. Monitoring mechanisms.

No information available



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

ROAD TRANSPORT

Facilitation of Road Transit Transport Action Plan

including:

Implementation of Overload Control Along Road Corridors;

Strengthening Stakeholders Associations for Trade

Facilitation; and

Establishment of Common Border Posts.


It was agreed to pilot the programme on one road corridor, namely the road linking Bangui-Douala-N’djamena, i.e. linking the capitals of the Central African Republic and Chad. All the necessary financing has been obtained and the programme is currently underway. Currently, an agreement between the respective countries at their border is needed to agree on the location of the border controls. CEMAC is managing the project.

Constraints

Technical

Establishing of exact location of borders and control posts

Political

Ensuring continued political co-operation

Facilitation of Road Transit Transport Plan ECOWAS EUR 63 million

The electronic monitoring of truck movement study was completed in June 2009 and a bi-annual report on monitoring and auditing observations created with input from transport committees. This project comes under the Regional Integration Programme. Detailed design of Joint Border Posts have been prepared and validated. There has been

weak private sector involvement in the project.

Constraints

Other

Weak private sector involvement

Implementation of Overload Control along Corridors ECOWAS n. a.

This is a new project which has progressed well. All ECOWAS member-states have adopted the Axle Load Regulation. The enforcement measures are in progress. This project comes under the Regional Integration Programme (RIP).

Both the ECOWAS and WAEMU Commissions are involved with this project.

None

Implementation of Overload Control along Road Corridors

IGAD n. a.

The ToR for the study is ready but the project has not been able to secure funding.

Constraints

Financial

Project has not been able to secure funding

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)/SADC Uniform Custom Document and Bond Guarantee Scheme

SADC US$ 3 million

The project has progressed. Nine members are needed to ratify the Constraints



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

ROAD TRANSPORT

agreement. Relevant ministers need to ratify the tripartite agreement at a meeting planned in April 2010 before implementation can commence. The project is expected to progress with no constraints.

Political

9 members needed to ratify the agreement, only 7 have done so

Establishment of One-stop Border Posts SADC n.a.

The project is in the implementation stage with successful deployment of the pilot project. Member-states are expected to modify their legislations to help take this project forward.

Constraints

Political

Member-states need to modify their legislation

Technical

ICT – Seamless communication required

Others

• Security concerns

• Need to cater to informal traders

Implementation of Overload Control Along Road Corridors

SADC US$ 5 million

(2006)

This project was completed in 2008. As a part of the next stage, modal guidelines and procedures need to be prepared, applied and implemented by member-states.

None

TRANSPORT/SDI

Adoption of Spatial Development Initiative (SDI) Framework in COMESA Infrastructure Projects

COMESA US$ 20.35

million 9

Significant progress has been achieved in the implementation of the North-South Corridor initiative. This is a joint initiative of COMESA-EAC-SADC. Initial administrative and facilitation programs have been identified under the ‘North South Corridor Pilot Aid for Trade Programme.’

Diagnostic studies have been undertaken for several other corridors.

Constraints

Institutional

Project scope in terms of corridors under the purview of COMESA and exact activities not established. Several programs are ongoing for corridor development initiatives, but scope for these projects has not been defined.

9 Budget for trade facilitation and administrative issues identified for the North-South corridor – pilot Aid for Trade Program



The six facilitation projects under road transport have shown varying degrees of success across the RECs. The implementation of overload control along corridors has been completed in the SADC region.

4.6 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Rail Transport Portfolio

For this review, the status of eight NEPAD STAP rail transport projects has been analysed. These are grouped into one capacity-building project, two investment projects, and five study projects.

The 2004 review featured six rail transport projects. The new projects included in this review are:

• ECCAS: Feasibility Study on Railway Interconnection Franceville-Lékéti’, and

• SADC & EAC: Rehabilitation of selected East African and SADC Railways (in support of concessioning) – an investment project

The new project, i.e., rehabilitation of selected East African and SADC Railways, was considered in the interim and subsequently shelved.

4.7 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Rail Transport Portfolio

Table 36 provides an overview of all NEPAD STAP rail transport projects reviewed, their costs and their progress since the last review in 2004. The light grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress in 2004 and the dark grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress as of 2009.



Table 36: NEPAD STAP rail transport projects and progress


CAPACITY BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

A

PP

RO

VA

LS

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Institutional Support for Concessioning of Railways SADC n.a.

INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

RAIL TRANSPORT




The Ethiopia – Djibouti Railway Development Project

IGAD US$ 143 million

Rehabilitation of selected East African and SADC railways (in support of concessioning) – new

SADC, EAC n.a. Project Shelved

STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

ULTA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

RAIL TRANSPORT

Feasibility Study of the Trans-Maghreb (high speed) Railway

AMU n.a.

Feasibility Study of the Trans-Maghreb Railway AMU n.a.

Feasibility Study on Railway Interconnection ECCAS n.a.

Feasibility Study Franceville-Lékéti (New) ECCAS n.a.

Rail Inter-Connection Feasibility Study for ECOWAS Countries


FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

RAIL TRANSPORT – NO PROJECTS

The projects in the rail transport sector consist mainly of study projects which have been implemented to evaluate the feasibility of interconnections between the various railways systems existing across Africa. Once completed, these studies have a good chance of being converted into investment projects if feasibility is established and funding is obtained.

Overall, projects in the rail transport sector have seen good improvement across all RECs, sectors and types. All the eight reviewed projects have progressed, but of those 210 have been completed, as shown in Table 37. Study projects have shown the greatest improvement.

10 This included the Feasibility Study of the Trans-Maghreb (high speed) Railway and Feasibility Study of the Trans-Maghreb Railway



Table 37: Overview of progress of rail transport projects by type

TYPE NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2004

NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2009

NO. OF

PROGRESSED

PROJECTS

NO. OF

COMPLETED

PROJECTS


Investment 1 2 1 -

Studies 4 5 5 2


Total 6 8 5 2


One STAP rail transport capacity-building project is included in the current review. Table 38 below summarises the progress achieved in these projects and highlights its key constraints.

Table 38: Progress of all STAP rail transport capacity-building projects


CAPACITY BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

A

PP

RO

VA

LS

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Institutional Support for Concessioning of Railways SADC n.a.

The SADC Secretariat has now been directed by the ministers responsible for Transport to develop a programme that addresses the recommendations contained in the Study Report.

Constraints

Institutional

Robust framework needs to be developed to monitor progress

There has been little progress on the capacity-building project in the rail transport sector. However, steps to progress are being developed in this regard with the SADC Secretariat directing the ministers responsible for transport to develop a programme to address the recommendations of the study report.




Two STAP rail transport investment projects are included in the current review. Table 39 summarises the progress achieved in each of the investment projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 39: Progress of all STAP rail transport investment projects

INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

RAIL TRANSPORT

The Ethiopia – Djibouti Railway Development Project

IGAD US$ 143 million

This project has progressed and is slated for completion in 2010. An agreement was signed between the Italian Consortium of Costra in 2007 for the rehabilitation of sections of the line which has deteriorated. However, limited information was available on this project.

Constraints

Financial

Lack of financial resources for implementation of project

Institutional

Lack of a co-ordinated approach towards the implementation of the project

Rehabilitation of selected East African and SADC railways (in support of concessioning)

SADC, EAC n.a. Project Shelved

The project has been shelved. None

The progress of investment projects since the last review has not been very satisfactory. The main constraint impeding the progress of these projects is a lack of funding.


Five STAP rail transport study projects are included in the current review. Table 40 summarises the progress of each study project and highlights the key constraints.

Table 40: Progress of all STAP rail transport study projects

STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

RAIL TRANSPORT

Feasibility Study of the Trans-Maghreb (high speed) Railway

AMU n.a.



STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

RAIL TRANSPORT

The study is complete. However, differences between the railway sectors of member-states make this project difficult to implement. Moreover, investments for high-speed rail links in the region are managed by national

governments.

None

Feasibility Study of the Trans-Maghreb Railway AMU n.a.

The study is complete and most investments are being undertaken by the national governments under the framework of the MEDA transport programme.

None

Feasibility Study on Railway Interconnection ECCAS n.a.

The project has not achieved any progress due to a lack of political and financial support.

Constraints

Political

No political support for the project

Financial

No financial support

Feasibility Study Franceville-Lékéti (New) ECCAS n.a.

The project is part of the initiative to inter-connect all ECCAS capital cities. Financing is currently being sought by the AfDB. Renewed interest by Asian investors will revive this project. The new project, a feasibility study for connection between Congo and Gabon, is currently in its financing stage and is making good progress.

Constraints

Financial

Not yet secured financial support

Rail Inter-Connection Feasibility Study for ECOWAS

Countries


The Pre-feasibility study has been completed. Detailed studies in progress for the Abidjan-Ouagadougou-Niamey link. Public-Private Partnership to be explored for programme implementation.

Constraints

Technical

Significant delays in the selection of final consultant

The progress of the study projects since the last review has been good with two study projects being completed.


There are no facilitation projects in the rail transport sector.



4.8 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Maritime Transport Portfolio

For this review, the status of 11 NEPAD STAP maritime transport projects has been analysed. These are grouped into one capacity-building project, three investment projects, six facilitation projects, and one study project.

Three facilitation projects are spread across more than one REC, viz.:

1. Safe Navigation on the Tanganyika and Malawi/Nyasa Lakes (COMESA and SADC), 2. Maritime Security and Facilitation of Maritime Traffic (ECOWAS and SADC), and 3. Regional Strategy for Ship Waste Reception Facilities (ECOWAS and SADC)

The 2004 review featured 10 projects. The new projects included under this review are:

1. ECOWAS: Regional Strategy for Ship Waste Reception Facilities Study 2. ECOWAS: Project for increasing the capacity and construction of a container terminal at the port

of Dakar The number of projects increased only by one because one of the new projects was already included in the STAP list i.e. Regional Strategy for Ship Waste Reception Facilities Study being implemented in SADC.

4.9 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Maritime Transport Portfolio

Table 41 provides an overview of all NEPAD STAP maritime transport projects reviewed, their costs and their progress since the last review in 2004. The light grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress in 2004 and the dark grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress as of 2009.



Table 41: NEPAD STAP maritime transport projects and progress


CAPACITY BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

A

PP

RO

VA

LS

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

MARITIME TRANSPORT

Increasing the capacity and construction of a container terminal at the Port of Dakar (New)


No update




INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

MARITIME TRANSPORT

Ecomarine (Coastal Shipping Company) ECOWAS n. a.

Port of Djibouti and Dry Port at Addis Ababa IGAD n. a.

Rehabilitation of Nacala Port SADC

Concession to Corredor de Desenvolvimento do Norte (CDN)

Concession

for 15 years

STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

MARITIME TRANSPORT

Feasibility Study of Mayumba Port ECCAS US$ 140 to 200 million

FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

MARITIME TRANSPORT

Safe Navigation on the Tanganyika and Malawi/Nyasa Lakes

COMESA Not known

Safe Navigation on Lake Victoria EAC Not known

Maritime Pollution ECOWAS n. a.

Maritime Security and Facilitation of Maritime Traffic ECOWAS n. a.

Regional Strategy for Ship Waste Reception Facilities ECOWAS n. a. No update on project

Maritime Security and Facilitation of Maritime Traffic SADC US$ 3.6 million

(2005)




Advisory Services for Maritime Affairs SADC US$ 1.8 million

(2005)

Regional Strategy for Ship Waste Reception Facilities SADC US$ 1.5 million

(2004)

Safety Navigation on the Tanganyika and Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa Lakes


Investment and study projects have progressed well. However facilitation projects have shown little or no progress since the last review.

Overall, projects in the maritime transport sector have seen good improvement across all RECs, sectors and types. Of the 11 reviewed projects, five have progressed, but of those, only two11 have been completed, as shown in Table 42. Capacity-building and facilitation projects have seen little or no progress, while study and investment projects have seen the greatest improvement.

Table 42: Overview of progress of maritime transport projects by type

TYPE

NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2004

NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2009

NO. OF

PROGRESSED

PROJECTS

NO. OF

COMPLETED

PROJECTS


Investment 3 3 3 2

Studies 1 1 1 -


Total 10 11 5 2

11 This included the Rehabilitation of Nacala Port and Ecomarine (Coastal Shipping Company)




One STAP maritime transport capacity-building project has been included in the current review. Table 43 summarises the progress achieved in each of the capacity-building projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 43: Progress of all STAP maritime transport capacity-building projects


CAPACITY BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

A

PP

RO

VA

LS

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

MARITIME TRANSPORT

Increasing the capacity and construction of a container terminal at the Port of Dakar

ECOWAS US$ 68 million No update

Works of extension of the Container Terminal (TAC 3) are in the course of execution and are financed by the “Port Autonome de Dakar” (PAD). This Container Terminal will be concessioned by the PAD for 25 years. Project progress as at 2009 not provided by ECOWAS.

Constraints

Technical

Technical assistance required for the procurement of the concessionaire

The only capacity-building project progress was not provided by ECOWAS. However, works for extension of the container terminal are in the course of execution and are financed by the PAD.


Three STAP maritime transport investment projects are included in the current review. Table 44 summarises the progress achieved in each of the investment projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 44: Progress of all STAP maritime investment projects

INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

MARITIME TRANSPORT

Ecomarine (Coastal Shipping Company) ECOWAS n. a.

The company was established in 2003. However, its operations are Constraints



INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

MARITIME TRANSPORT

sluggish due to lack of investment and competition from better funded companies.

Financial

Lack of adequate investment

Others

Competition from better-funded companies

Port of Djibouti and Dry Port at Addis Ababa IGAD n. a.

The port of Djibouti has been privatized and sold to Dubai World.

The two projects namely, ‘Dry port at Addis Ababa and Port of Djibouti,’ should ideally be separated because they are mutually exclusive. The construction of the dry port at Addis Ababa has been included as part of the Mombasa-Nairobi-Addis Ababa Road Corridor Development which is part of the Horn of Africa Initiative.

Constraints

Financial

Financial funding is a constraint for the completion of the project

Institutional

Lack of a co-ordinated approach between the governments of Djibouti and Addis Ababa for implementation of the project

Rehabilitation of Nacala Port SADC

Concession to Corredor de Desenvolvimento do Norte (CDN)

Concession

for 15 years

This project was completed in 2005 with the Corredor de Desenvolvimento do Norte (CDN) winning a 15-year concession to operate the Nacala port and railway.

None

The progress of the investment projects since the last review has been satisfactory. The main constraint impeding the progress of these projects is a lack of funding.




One STAP maritime transport study project is included in the current review. Table 45 summarises the progress achieved in each of the study projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 45: Progress of all STAP maritime transport study projects

STUDIES

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

MARITIME TRANSPORT

Feasibility Study of Mayumba Port ECCAS US$ 140 to 200 million

This project has progressed well and is expected to be completed in Q2 2010. It is financed by the Islamic Development Bank. The Gabonese Government oversees the project with the ECCAS only playing an assisting role.

None

The progress of the study project has been good with completion of the same expected in 2010.


Six STAP maritime transport facilitation projects are included in the current review. Table 46 summarises the progress of each of the facilitation projects and highlights the key constraints.

Table 46: Progress of all STAP maritime transport facilitation projects

FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

MARITIME TRANSPORT

Safe Navigation on the Tanganyika and Malawi/Nyasa Lakes

COMESA Not known

No tangible progress has been achieved in the project since the last review though member-states have taken some initiatives.

Constraints

Institutional

Slow progress: The project has not moved forward in terms of its stage of progress – pre-investment analysis stage

Project objectives are not clearly established

Safe Navigation on Lake Victoria EAC Not known



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

MARITIME TRANSPORT

The legal framework for the project is in place with the enactment of the Lake Victoria Transport Act, 2007. The hydro-graphic survey has been completed for three main ports on the lake--Kisumu, Mwanza and Port Bell. Consultants to be engaged the survey and charting for the whole lake during Q4 2010. Installations of Aids to Navigation are to be completed for the entire lake by December 2010. Meteorology study for the whole lake to start by December 2010. The Lake Victoria Maritime Communications Project to proceed in two phases i.e. (a) Ring Communications Infrastructure implemented by Zain and Ericsson around the lake. Communication is now feasible around the whole lake and 20-30 km into the lake, and (b) Study for the establishment of Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre now completed and funding is now required to operationalize the Centre.

Maritime Pollution ECOWAS n. a.

As of 2007, ECOWAS was not ready to implement the programme unless more progress had been achieved in the Maritime Security and Facilitation Project. The objective of the project is to minimise the pollution of the coastal water and the deep sea in the ECOWAS region.

Constraints

Other

Not a priority project for ECOWAS

Maritime Security and Facilitation of Maritime Traffic ECOWAS n. a.

This project is being undertaken at four ports i.e. Lagos, Cotonou, Lome, and Abidjan. This project had become a necessity after the 9-11 incidents in 2001 under the International Shipping and Port Facilities Security (ISPS) codes. A European Union (EU)-funded mission started to identify capacity and investment requirement and the report was due by December 2009. ECOWAS has not indicated having received this report though. Some studies undertaken on Customs modernisation have been completed. The main challenges to this project are that many countries are yet to ratify the regulations and conventions required for effective institutionalisation of the project. This has also led to delays in two other NEPAD STAP projects namely, Maritime Pollution and Regional Strategy for Ship Waste Reception Facilities. However, SADC should engage the services of a maritime advisor to improve co-ordination for these projects.

Constraints

Political

Many countries have not yet ratified all the regulations and conventions they need to ratify for effective institutionalization of this project.

Technical

Local administrative teams do not have the technical capability and staff to understand and deal with all the issues.

Financial

Funding is required for seminars and for the purchase and operation of patrol boats.

Others

Illegal seizure of goods still takes place and there are ongoing safety concerns.

Regional Strategy for Ship Waste Reception Facilities ECOWAS n. a. No update on project

ECOWAS has made a decision to discontinue this project until more Constraints



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

MARITIME TRANSPORT

progress has been achieved in maritime security; this has been delayed, as many countries have not ratified regulations/conventions about maritime security.

Political

ECOWAS has made a decision to discontinue this project until more progress has been achieved in maritime security; this has been delayed, as many countries have not ratified regulations/conventions about maritime security

Maritime Security and Facilitation of Maritime Traffic SADC US$ 3.6 million

(2005)

This project is largely driven by the Ports Management Association of East and Southern Africa (PMAESA) as it has advantage in terms of skill levels, human resources capacity and stakeholder representation. However, SADC should engage the services of a maritime advisor to improve co-ordination for these projects.

Constraints

Institutional

No progress. SADC Secretariat does not have a maritime advisor

Advisory Services for Maritime Affairs SADC US$ 1.8 million

(2005)


Constraints

Institutional


Regional Strategy for Ship Waste Reception Facilities SADC US$ 1.5 million

(2004)


Constraints

Institutional


Safety Navigation on the Tanganyika and Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa Lakes


A SADC protocol on shared watercourses existed. This has been upgraded to take the place of bi-lateral agreements, but the revised protocol still needs to be checked so that it satisfactorily covers all issues mentioned in the bi-lateral agreements. However, SADC should engage the services of a maritime advisor to improve co-ordination for these projects.

Constraints

Institutional




The six facilitation projects have shown little or no progress across the RECs. This is mainly due to a lack of project officers to monitor these projects or a delay in ratifying all the regulations and conventions they needed for effective institutionalization of the project.

4.10 Impact of 2004 Recommendations

4.10.1 Selected Projects that benefited and why

The STAP review of 2004 identified several institutional constraints that hinder the progress of infrastructure projects among the RECs. Among them, co-ordination among stakeholders is responsible for delaying the regional implementation of projects. Co-ordination issues are also cited for projects that are applicable across multiple RECs. A specific institutional constraint is the delay by member-states in developing and implementing legal/regulatory frameworks required for some regional programs. Some of the projects which benefitted from the 2004 recommendations include:

• “Institutional Support for Implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision”: The Tripartite summit of COMESA, EAC, and SADC held in Kampala (Uganda) in October 2008 adopted the implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision as a priority program for the three sub-regions. It established a Joint Competition Authority (JCA) to be located at the SADC Secretariat to co-ordinate the implementation of the decision. One of the key objectives of the JCA is to ensure competition and to prevent large and dominant regional carriers from practicing anti-competitive pricing strategies. The creation of the JCA was an effort to provide the needed co-ordination of the project at the level of the four RECs if IGAD is included as a part of COMESA.

• “Road Transport projects in the COMESA Region”: The 2004 review also made recommendations with regard to dedicated project staff in order to fast-track the implementation of NEPAD STAP. There is an identifiable correlation between the capacity of available project management staff members to various projects and progress achieved in these respective projects. In the COMESA region, three project management resource persons are active at the COMESA Secretariat. Three of the four projects in this sector have progressed significantly since the last review. These include the Establishment of One-stop Border Posts (investment), Implementation of Overload Control along Road Corridors (facilitation), and Regional Customs Bond Guarantee (RCBG) Scheme (facilitation). Of these three, the project for ‘Implementation of Overload Control along Road Corridors’ stands out as the greatest beneficiary of the 2004 review recommendations in terms of both dedicated project staff and co-ordination among RECs. This project is being implemented across the COMESA, EAC and SADC regions with COMESA being the REC co-ordinating its implementation. COMESA has a dedicated resource person for management of this project.

• “Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency (CASSOA)”: In the EAC, a specific recommendation made in the 2004 review with respect to the air transport projects was that “A

pan-African, or at least an East African, competition body is needed”. This was against a background where there was poor co-ordination between stakeholders responsible for the implementation of regional infrastructure projects. Some of the major private airlines had signed exclusivity agreements with national governments on certain routes (resulting in blocking out of other competing players). In response to this recommendation, the Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency (CASSOA) has been established as a self-accounting institution of the East African Community. The protocol for the establishment of the agency was signed on 18th



April, 2007 by the civil aviation ministers of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. The main objectives of the CASSOA, which is transformed from the earlier Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP), are to ensure the co-ordinated development of an effective and sustainable civil aviation safety and security oversight infrastructure in the community. The institution in its current structure is as recommended by International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and is mainly involved in three major functions:

• Harmonising operating regulations to ensure that they meet international standards and recommended practices

• Developing standardized procedures for licensing, approving, certificating and supervising civil aviation activities

• Providing guidance and assistance to states, including putting in place measures for resource-sharing, particularly for the technical personnel

Overall, the 2004 recommendations with respect to capacity constraints have had a major impact on staffing resources in almost all RECs. The COMESA Secretariat now has a well-structured team of experts that is dedicated to the management of infrastructure projects in the region. This team is headed by the ‘Director of Infrastructure Development’ and comprises three experts who work on transport-related projects. At the ECCAS Secretariat, the 2009 review reports an increased level of resources with both human and technical capacity considerably improving since 2004. Similarly, in ECOWAS, each of the sectors covered under the NEPAD STAP Programme currently has a designated officer in charge of the projects being implemented in that sector. This review also indicates an improvement in the level of resources at the SADC Secretariat since 2004. A Project Co-ordination Unit consisting of an inter-disciplinary team of experts which has been established within the Directorate of Infrastructure and Services at the SADC Secretariat has contributed in accelerating the progress of regional infrastructure projects.

4.10.2 Selected Projects that did not benefit and why

While institutional support for implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision is indicated to have benefited from collaboration of the four RECs (COMESA, EAC, SADC and IGAD), and the co-ordination efforts of COMESA, the same cannot be said of the implementation of this project in AMU, ECCAS and ECOWAS. This is the result of different constraints in the respective RECs.

• “Implementation of the Yamoussoukro decision”: In AMU, it is indicated that the implementation of this project has been slowed down by a lack of national political support. The implementation of the Yamoussoukro decision in North Africa is monitored and organised by the African Civil Aviation Commission (AfCAC) and United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA). The AMU Secretariat does not seem to be involved at all in this project and it is not clear how it can provide institutional support to the implementation of the decision. For a large number of projects, the AMU Secretariat lacked ‘buy-in’ or ‘ownership.’ This was reportedly due to three reasons. Firstly, the lack of a frequent and open dialogue between AfDB, NEPAD and the Secretariat which alienated AMU from the overall STAP programme. Secondly, lack of clarity concerning roles and responsibilities for each project added to the Secretariat’s uncertainty about its role in the projects. Thirdly, AMU’s political orientation towards Europe and the subsequent importance of programmes initiated by the EU, compared to other infrastructure programmes, diverted attention from STAP.



• “Implementation of the Yamoussoukro decision (YD)”: In ECOWAS, the implementation of the Yamoussoukro decision is weak since aviation agreements are not in conformity with it. In addition, most of the ECOWAS countries are unable to undertake reforms in the sector because of lack of political goodwill and poor co-ordination amongst the stakeholders and failure of member-states to ratify and implement agreed protocols and conventions in a timely and efficient manner. In addition, it was observed in the 2004 review that there was no readily available dedicated project management team, suitably equipped with the right skill-sets to spearhead the implementation of NEPAD STAP projects including the YD. The major recommendation was to “create and recruit staff for the air transport team within the ECOWAS secretariat. This team was expected to prepare, co-ordinate and monitor sector programs and their execution.” Up to 2009, no such overall agency has been created and the Air Transport Unit of ECOWAS retains this mandate. However, this unit remains poorly staffed, with no capacity to monitor the progress in implementation, which has been delegated to the member-states. The member-states in turn continue to promote the sovereignty of the national airlines by adopting protectionist measures.


Table 47 lists many of the important challenges that face transport projects or impede their implementation and/or progress.

Table 47: Types of Challenges and their sources of conflict

TYPE OF ISSUE CHALLENGES / SOURCE OF CONFLICT

Political

• Lack of ownership for NEPAD STAP program

• Weak enforcement and follow-up mechanism

• Lack of communication between RECs and member-states

• Continuous political co-operation has not been assured to some projects

Institutional

• Unclear roles and responsibilities and lack of a well-defined project management framework

• Multitude and overlap of regional programs creating uncertainty

• Infrequent monitoring of project progress

• Lack of updated information by RECs

• Lack of a co-ordinate approach to the implementation of regional infrastructure projects

Technical

• Very few technical staff at the REC level

• Technical composition of the RECs cannot respond to all the three aspects of transport infrastructure (air, road and maritime)

• Weak technical capacity for project staff at REC level

• Inability of RECs staff to develop projects to bankable level, hence poor fundraising for transport projects

• Lack of ownership of the NEPAD STAP programme

• Infrequent monitoring of projects

Financial • Delay in obtaining funding from donor agency

• Increasing the financial capacity of authorities




• Co-ordination between multiple donors with different lending processes

• Lack of counterpart funding

• Poor project preparation

• Insufficient pipeline of bankable projects

Environmental • Lack of information on the environmental aspects of projects


4.11.1.1 Lack of political support

Lack of political goodwill on the part of member-states to make sacrifices in exchange of possible future benefits poses an obstacle to the effective implementation of NEPAD STAP. This lack of political will is further complicated by the possible existence of prior commitments that may conflict with NEPAD principles as well as weak institutions to undertake the available tasks for implementing STAP projects.

From this review, it’s clear that member-states have been reluctant to ratify the national laws that would enhance the implementation of the transport projects that are trans-boundary in nature. This had been reported for a number of projects in ECCAS, ECOWAS, COMESA, EAC and SADC. For instance, in COMESA, legal notice number 2 has not been incorporated into national legislations of member-states with a number of Bilateral Air Service Agreements (BASA) remaining as the means for exchange of traffic rights between member-states. In addition, there is weak enforcement and follow-up to facilitate and ensure implementation of Legal Notice No. 2. It is envisaged that this may get resolved after the operationalisation of the JCA.

In the ECCAS region, this review has reported that there is lack of communication between CEMAC and ECCAS, with a specific lack of clear assignment of responsibility for projects in the Central African region being cited as a key impediment to successful implementation of transport projects under the STAP. Throughout the 2009 review, it has been reported that continuous political co-operation has not been assured to ECCAS and a number of RECs as well. It is also clear that a number of RECs do not have significant political mandate to actually take up significant transport projects.

Lack of political goodwill has also complicated the ability of ECOWAS to expend considerable time and effort in getting regional infrastructure projects, mainly facilitation/capacity-building projects, to the stage of legal approvals/implementation. Once at the national implementation stage, these projects are often delayed or suspended due to slow adoption of regulating acts/MoUs by the member-states. In this regard, the RECs have to take effort and time to persuade the states to ratify the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). For the SADC, COMESA, EAC and IGAD, a number of member-states belong to multiple RECs or regional organizations which are at different stages of integration. This introduces some political challenges since some of the RECs have considerable differences in their goals, functioning and resources. This has resulted in a difference in the alignment of objectives and harmonization efforts of the different regional organizations in the RECs. Hence, member-states are not well-guided on how to modify their legislations.



For the AMU region, the review indicates a definite shift from the infrastructure initiatives made under NEPAD STAP to other programs, most notably the Euro-Mediterranean Programs (MEDA). While this does not imply a neglect of regional infrastructure by AMU, it seems to imply a re-orientation of focus by the region away from NEPAD STAP towards infrastructure financed and initiated by the EU.

4.11.2 Institutional challenges

4.11.2.1 Unclear roles and responsibilities of NEPAD and RECs

The unclear relationships among NEPAD STAP, individual countries and RECs make it difficult to implement the STAP projects. It should be emphasized that institutional issues are by far the most pressing challenges which continually affect the implementation of transport infrastructure projects in Africa. Institutional challenges affect the entire project cycle, including effective project preparation, resource mobilization, implementation, mobilization of political support and good will, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and reporting of the progress of the transport projects in the STAP. The 2009 review indicates that a number of RECs are constrained to effectively discharge a leadership role in the entire project cycle. For instance, in the IGAD region, the review reports that there is lack of a co-ordinated approach in the implementation of regional infrastructure projects. This is almost similar for all other RECs in Africa.

Perhaps, this fact emerges more markedly from the review of the NEPAD STAP projects in the AMU region, where it is reported that the AMU Secretariat is particularly unclear about the interaction of AfDB and NEPAD institutions for NEPAD STAP projects. In fact, the 2009 review reports that no contact between NEPAD and AMU exists. AMU’s main contact for NEPAD STAP projects is AfDB. This was a point already identified by the 2004 review and an ‘urgent dialogue’ between the three organizations was proposed. It seems that this is still a pressing issue for the general progress of the NEPAD STAP projects.

4.11.2.2 Lack of a well-defined project framework

In addition, the review points out the lack of a well-defined project framework; lack of communication between stakeholders and regional organizations; unclear roles and responsibilities; and lack of updated information as some of the institutional hindrances to the successful implementation of the transport NEPAD STAP projects. This brings to fore the question of roles and responsibilities of the RECs in the entire project cycle. It further presents an operational challenge which the NPCA should aggressively address. As a way forward on these issues, some RECs (ECCAS) proposed the formation of national NEPAD units as a lasting solution since it seems the RECs do not have the capacity to deal with these institutional challenges.

Another related challenge is the lack of information within the RECs on the progress in project implementation and the lack of a clear designated oversight responsibility within the RECs. This review reports that detailed information on project implementation is not available with a number of the REC Secretariats. For the Central Africa region, it has been reported that there is a lack of communication between CEMAC and ECCAS and lack of clear assignment of responsibility for the project in the region.

In addition, unclear roles and responsibilities and lack of a well-defined project management framework contribute to constrained financing for the projects which is the chief problem faced by projects across all the RECs. This can be attributed to the inability of the RECs to carry out good project preparation, resulting in an insufficient pipeline of bankable projects (as observed under the ongoing road sector



investment program). While funding is a commonly identified constraint, in many cases, this may be a symptom of poor bankability of the project or a lack of capacity.


4.11.3.1 Lack of technical capacity at RECs

The technical capacity of the officers charged with spearheading the implementation of the NEPAD STAP projects in the different regions has been reported in the 2009 review to be weak. In most cases, only one or two officials are expected to track the project implementation, identify the challenges, organize forums to address the challenges, mobilize political support and commission further short-term consultancies in support of the overall implementation of the transport projects.

In COMESA, only three officials are reported to be on hand. AMU is still contemplating the recruitment of three additional experts (energy and infrastructure). COMESA does not have an expert in maritime transport issues. For ECCAS, lack of capacity within DRC has been reported as a key challenge, since most of the projects here have a greater linkage to the DRC. IGAD only has three officials in charge of the transport projects which are really wide in scope.

As a result, project implementation and monitoring and evaluation are hampered. The over reliance on two to three staff members is risky and the NEPAD Planning and Co-ordinating Agency and AfDB have to assess and develop appropriate remedial measures. It has been reported that there is a risk of lack of continuity on projects in case a project officer happens to leave, since under the current staffing pattern, a single person oversees the activities for an infrastructure sector. Some RECs, including COMESA, have attempted to respond by recruiting some key staff to handle transport projects, but still the technical composition of the RECs cannot respond to all the four aspects of transport infrastructure (air, road, rail and maritime) effectively. ECOWAS is still reported to lack expertise in maritime transport; COMESA is reported to only have expertise in road transport. Moreover, SADC does not have a maritime expert which is needed to spearhead the implementation of maritime projects.

4.11.3.2 Capacity-Building Challenges

It seems the capacity within member-states/RECs to manage the project development process to the level of actual bankability and procurement stages of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) process is weak. Hence, projects fail to ensure adequate interest from most relevant developers. RECs should be empowered to focus on robust project preparation and bankability – this measure would expectedly alleviate some of the follow-up constraints in financing and low private sector interest. Collaboration with regional development banks like the East African Development Bank (EADB) and relevant donor agencies, earlier on in the project development cycle, can be very useful in this respect.

4.11.4 Financing Challenges

Financing for projects has been identified as a severe constraint for the progress of NEPAD STAP transport projects. This has been a particularly acute problem for not only investment projects but also capacity-building and facilitation projects.

Financing challenges include delay in obtaining funding from a donor agency for the commencement of studies required for the project; increasing the financial capacity of authorities benefiting from capacity-building and facilitation projects; co-ordinating with multiple donors with different lending processes; lack



of counterpart funding; etc. The reasons for lack of funding can also be lack of political support for the project, political unrest, poor project preparation, and insufficient pipeline of bankable projects. A lack of donor funding in one part of the project may seriously delay other parts of the project.

The 2009 review failed to get sufficient evidence of private sector engagement in the implementation of NEPAD STAP transport projects. Only a few projects (ECOMARINE Company in ECOWAS was cited as a best practice) reported efforts to engage the private sector, especially in providing local investment for some of these projects. Yet the private sector within the member-states would stand to benefit with the successful completion of some of the projects. In addition, PPP is now a preferred mode of implementation of projects; special emphasis should be laid on adopting practices that enable such projects to come to fruition.

This constraint can be overcome if there is good project preparation along with strong political commitment which would help in attracting private sector participation. Good project preparation is possible if there is a mechanism in place for detailed project scoping, adequate risk-sharing between the private operator and public enterprise, a robust procurement process, and capacity-building initiatives in the REC to manage the project development and procurement phase. Initiatives like ECOWAS Warning and Response Network (ECOWARN) should be adopted to improve political stability in the region. Private sector participation also hinges on improving the legal, policy, and regulatory environment. Projects in the region must seek a closer collaboration with regional development banks like ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development (EBID), Banque Ouest Africaine de Développement (BOAD), and Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) as these institutions have the necessary expertise in developing of the bankable projects. Another possible solution would be to diversify the universe of donor sources and look at newer options/less traditional options such as China, India, and Russia. This initiative would have to be undertaken by AfDB as the RECs would not have the requisite skills for this activity.

4.11.5 Environment challenges

During this review, little information has been provided by the RECs on taking into consideration environmental issues into the implementation of the projects. This is a cause of concern, since it is critical to ensure that the implementation of the projects does not affect the environment adversely. It is envisaged that within the project implementation processes, environmental impact assessments and environmental audits were conducted and approved by the relevant environmental monitoring agencies in the member-states. The assumption made is that this was done for all the projects, and that environmental challenges were adequately addressed.

This is however, an area that requires more targeted research. The NPCA and the AfDB can commission a specific analysis of the environmental aspects in the implementation of the NEPAD STAP transport project


This section aims at ranking the seven above identified key challenges by their severity of impact. It is difficult to do this ranking because of the inherent challenge of quantifying the impact of each constraint. The prioritisation presented in this section is therefore not based on a detailed analytical methodology but is informed by the findings obtained through the conducted interviews. Table 48 shows the ranking of the seven constraints and briefly highlights the key sources of the constraints



While the challenges in the above section outline many of the problems associated with transportation, the table below provides the constraints specifically identified for the NEPAD STAP transport projects.


SEVERITY

OF

IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS


POSSIBLE ACTION

Severe Difficulty in securing financing

Financial

� AfDB could support and co-ordinate regional financial institutions to ensure innovative funding mechanisms for projects

� AfDB or the NEPAD Secretariat could assist the RECs in preparation of Project Preparation and Development Unit (as in ECOWAS) to prepare a pipeline of bankable projects

� Private sector participation to be encouraged

� Increased budgetary commitments and support from governments involved in the project

Severe Lack of political support

Political

� Obtaining a buy-in from higher authorities in government and creating awareness about the NEPAD STAP among implementing government agencies

� Setting up of local NEPAD/REC offices to strengthen the relationship between national government sponsor agencies

� Ensure designation of national experts at the sponsor agencies to co-ordinate with the RECs on projects

� Standardization of the inter-state MoU which is pre-approved by all member-states (especially in the case of continental projects)

Severe Lack of technical capacity of RECs

Technical

� AfDB and RECs need to undertake capacity-building programme to increase their skill levels

� RECs could rely on external infrastructure consultants/agencies in areas where it does not have expertise.



SEVERITY

OF

IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS


POSSIBLE ACTION

Average Unclear roles and responsibilities of NEPAD and RECs

Institutional

� RECs to use a project database which has clearly articulated key milestones and project stages with clear roles and responsibilities. NEPAD/AfDB to take the lead to develop this database to ensure it is on a common platform across the RECs

� AfDB needs to designate one regional organization as the main point of contact for projects.

� RECs to frame clear milestones for projects with a definite timeframe and clear roles and responsibilities

� Formation of project co-ordination agencies for bigger projects in the region

Average Lack of a well-defined project framework

Institutional

� Stronger dialogue and increased co-ordination efforts between different institutions involved in the NEPAD STAP programme.

� All stakeholders (RECs, national sponsor agencies, AfDB, NEPAD, donor agencies etc.) in the project to have access to the database.

Average Capacity-Building Challenges

Technical

� AfDB, RECs and regional financial institutions must build investor confidence by ensuring a pipeline of viable projects.

� AfDB and RECs to hold workshops/forums to train sponsor agencies to manage project development and procurement process

� Development of a robust project structuring, development and procurement process.



SEVERITY

OF

IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS


POSSIBLE ACTION

Low Lack of information on environmental impacts

Environmental

� Uniform environmental protection legislation required.

� NPCA and the AfDB can commission a specific analysis of the environmental aspects in the implementation of the NEPAD STAP transport projects.

The above table shows that the lack of financing and political support is almost exclusively the most severe constraint in the progress of STAP transport projects.

4.13 Categorization of Transport Projects

Although this review shows that only a small number (nine) of the 47 STAP transport projects (in total 77 projects across the seven RECs if each continental project is individually considered in each REC) have been completed, it needs to be emphasized that going forward a substantial numbers of projects (22) appear to be on course to completion within the next two years and beyond. It needs to be noted that 16 projects were either defunct/suspended or not monitored by the REC anymore.

The projects can be broadly grouped into five categories: (i) projects completed, (ii) projects that are well underway and on course for completion within the next one to two years, (iii) projects depending on the completion of other projects or other external factors, (iv) projects where concerns about successful implementation persist, and (v) defunct projects that have been shelved. Continental projects have been considered in this list on the basis of their implementation across each REC.


PROJECT STATUS TRANSPORT PROJECT


� Agades-Zinder, 130 km upgrading (ECOWAS)

� Kante(Togo) – Burkina Faso Border, 194 km upgrading (ECOWAS)

� Transport Recovery Study in Angola and DRC (ECCAS)

� Implementation of Overload Control along Corridors (COMESA)

� Facilitation of Road Transit Transport Action Plan including (ECCAS)

� Implementation of Overload Control Along Road

Corridors

� Strengthening Stakeholders Associations for Trade

Facilitation

� Establishment of Common Border Posts




� Implementation of Overload Control Along Road Corridors (SADC)

� Feasibility Study of the Trans-Maghreb (high speed) Railway (AMU)

� Feasibility Study of the Trans-Maghreb Railway (AMU)

� Ecomarine (Coastal Shipping Company) (ECOWAS)

� Privatization of port of Djibouti (IGAD)

� Rehabilitation of Nacala Port (SADC)

(ii) Projects that are well

underway and on

course for completion

within the next one to

two years

� Institutional Support for the Yamoussoukro Decision (COMESA & IGAD, EAC, SADC)

� Establishment of East African Civil Safety and Security Oversight Agency (CASSOA) (EAC)

� Co-operative Development of Operation Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP) (SADC)

� Maghreb Highway Project (AMU)

� Establishment of One-Stop Border Posts (COMESA, EAC, SADC)

� Akatsi-Dzodze-Noepe, 31 km upgrading (ECOWAS)

� Boke-Quebo, 206 km upgrading (ECOWAS)

� Kati-Kita(Mali) – Saraya(Senegal), 345 km upgrading (ECOWAS)

� Feasibility Study of Road Doussala/Gabon Border – Brazzaville (ECCAS)

� Feasibility Study of Rail/Road Bridge Brazzaville-Kinshasa (ECCAS)

� Regional Customs Bond Guarantee Scheme (RCBG) (COMESA, SADC)

� Facilitation of Road Transit Transport Action Plan ( ECOWAS)

� Implementation of Overload Control along Corridors (ECOWAS)

� Feasibility Study Franceville-Lékéti (New) (ECCAS)

� Rail Inter-Connection Feasibility Study for ECOWAS Countries (ECOWAS)

� Feasibility study for Mayumba port (ECCAS)




� Safe Navigation on Lake Victoria (EAC)

(iii) Projects depending on

completion of other

projects or external

factors i.e. expected to

be completed beyond

two years

� Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) (EAC, ECOWAS)

� Sub-Regional Upper Airspace Control Centre (SRUACC) (EAC, SADC)

� Co-operative Development of Operation Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP) (ECCAS, ECOWAS)

� Institutional Support for the Yamoussoukro Decision (ECCAS, ECOWAS)

� Transit and Trade facilitation (COMESA)

� Strengthening of Stakeholders Associations for Trade Facilitation (EAC, ECOWAS, IGAD, SADC)

� Implementation of East Africa Road Network (EAC)

� Fougamou-Doussala Road Project (ECCAS)

� Road project Ouesso-Souanké-Sangmélima (New) (ECCAS)

� Mamfe-Efok(Cameroon) – Abakaliki(Enugu, Nigeria), 161 km upgrading in Cameroon and rehabilitation in Nigeria (ECOWAS)

� Djibouti – Addis Highway (Dobi-Galafi-Yakobi Road Upgrading) (IGAD)

� Mombasa – Nairobi – Addis Ababa Road Corridor Development (IGAD)

� Adoption of Spatial Development Initiative (SDI) Framework in COMESA Infrastructure Projects (COMESA)

� Dry Port at Addis Ababa (IGAD)

� Maritime Security and facilitation of Maritime Traffic (ECOWAS, SADC)

(iv) Projects where

concerns about

successful

implementation persist

� Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) Systems (COMESA)

� Road Safety (COMESA)

� Institutional Support for Concessioning of Railways (SADC)

� The Ethiopia – Djibouti Railway Development Project (IGAD)

� Feasibility study on railways inter-connection (ECCAS)




� Increasing the capacity and construction of a container terminal at the Port of Dakar (ECOWAS)

� Safe Navigation on the Tanganyika, Malawi/Nyasa lakes (COMESA, SADC)

� Maritime Pollution (ECOWAS)

(v) Defunct/Suspended

� Study on the upper space control centres (ECCAS, ECOWAS)

� Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) (ECCAS, SADC)

� Co-operative Development of Operation Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP) (COMESA & IGAD)

� Institutional Support for the Yamoussoukro Decision (AMU)

� Rehabilitation of selected East African and SADC railways (in support of concessioning) (EAC and SADC)

� Regional Strategy for Ship Waste Reception Facilities (ECOWAS)

� Zinder-Nigeria Border, 110 km rehabilitation (ECOWAS)

� Implementation of Overload Control along Road Corridors (IGAD)

� Regional strategy for Ship Waste Reception facilities (ECOWAS,SADC)

� Advisory Services for Maritime Affairs (SADC)

Projects in Category (i) are complete and therefore can be excluded from future reviews of NEPAD STAP. Evidently no recommendations apply to these projects. Similarly, projects in category (ii) i.e. projects that are moving forward well with only minimal constraints impeding their implementation.

The projects listed under Categories (iii) and (iv) are not moving forward due to constraints which have been identified in Section 4.11. The progress of such projects is contingent upon the close monitoring of these projects to eliminate any problems foreseen. In all, 24 STAP projects fall in category (iii) and nine STAP projects fall in category (iv). These projects are likely to extend beyond two years, and are expected to be embraced under PIDA.

Projects in Category (v) have for various reasons been overtaken by events and are no longer being or should be actively pursued by the RECs.



4.14 Way forward on STAP Transport Projects

In order to accelerate the implementation of transport sector NEPAD STAP projects there is a need to put structures in place that create confidence amongst stakeholders including member-states and the international community. This will include building such institutions and their capacity by strengthening the capabilities of the RECs, and better explaining NEPAD to member-states thereby increasing African ownership of NEPAD. If the implementation of NEPAD STAP is to be successful, it has to seriously address these constraints.

4.14.1 Bridging the Skills Gap

One way to fill the skill capacity gap in Africa for NEPAD STAP transport projects is for NEPAD to work out some technical assistance framework with its development partners. This will consist of teams/consultants with specific skills who will be assigned to NEPAD which will in turn allocate the teams either to RECs or individual member-states depending on the needs and type of skills available. These teams should include Africans, thus increasing the supply of experienced Africans who can conceive, formulate and implement policies. Perhaps an agreement with donors to fund this “domestic technical assistance” program should be part of any development assistance Africa receives from donors. Another way to deal with capacity limitation is to pool skilled personnel across member-states or at the continental level. For example, a pool of engineers from Ghana, Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire and Burkina Faso could be formed to work on projects in any of the ECOWAS countries. In the same way, a team of economists from SADC countries could evaluate development projects in Namibia, Botswana, South Africa or Lesotho. In this way Africa will share its skilled personnel in all countries.

At the continental level, the NEPAD Secretariat has financial and capacity constraints that prevent the Secretariat from expanding its staff and capacity. The commitment and support from member-states has not been enough causing it to be dependent on international organizations. It is therefore important to substantially increase the managerial, technical and support staff of the Secretariat. The technical teams suggested above could operate under the auspices of the NEPAD Secretariat.

4.14.2 Way forward for Continental Projects

In order to achieve progress on the continental projects, there is a need to focus on more specialization such that the continental projects are assigned to a single pan-African authority/agency with an adequate technical capacity and oversight to manage such projects. In the past, for example, the trans-African highway network project was managed by UNECA with a single office based out of Addis Ababa. In the late 1990s the United Nations Transport and Communications Decade in Africa (UNCTADA) implemented a study for the improvement of transport infrastructure in all of Africa. Therefore, in order to accelerate the implementation of NEPAD STAP, specialized bodies could be designated as the focal point for different transport sectors. For example, the continental air transport projects could be designated to ASECNA and PMAESA. Subsequently, the REC would not be required to handle these projects although they would be the main sponsors of the same.



4.14.3 PIDA intervention

Ensuring political support and consensus for projects along with secure funding will ensure the progress of transport sector projects in the future.

The objective of the PIDA is to establish a strategic framework for the development of regional and continental infrastructure (Energy, Transport, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Water) based on a development vision, strategic objectives and sector policies. PIDA is expected to draw from NEPAD STAP and the NEPAD Infrastructure Medium to Long Term Strategic Framework (MLTSF) launched in 2006. The STAP list of projects has the following themes across the four sectors:

• Air Transport: Focus on the full liberalization and development of competitive, safe and efficient air transport services across Africa

• Road Transport: Focus on facilitating measures to identify road network upgrade requirements based on the corridor approach and trade/transit facilitation through the development of one-stop border posts and harmonised transit facilitation

• Rail Transport: Focus on provision of institutional support to existing railways, rehabilitation of existing networks, and studies on interconnection feasibility for rail networks in different regions

• Maritime Transport: Focus on the development of key ports, particularly those offering corridor links through to landlocked countries, improvement in navigation on the Central African Lakes, and increased safety standards for ships and ports

In the recent past newer regional initiatives have been launched across the RECs to enable the development of regional infrastructure. For example, the Horn of Africa (HoA) initiative in IGAD and the Regional Integration Programme (RIP) in ECOWAS. Some of the projects identified in the STAP review have also been included under these programs. For example, the Mombasa – Nairobi – Addis Ababa Road Corridor Development is a part of the HoA. Since these projects are included under regional initiatives they are likely to get more attention at the regional level. Moreover, these are likely to be medium to long term initiatives. The progress of projects under STAP has been moderate. It is recommended that NEPAD only provides complementary support to such projects. In addition, it is recommended that for other projects identified in each sector and expected to be completed beyond two years be embraced by the PIDA initiative.



5 TRANS-BOUNDARY WATER SECTOR PROJECTS

This chapter covers the STAP trans-boundary water sector projects. The chapter initially outlines the implementation progress of the trans-boundary water sector projects by region and type and subsequently identifies the implementation challenges, ranks challenges by severity of impact and provides recommendations and the way forward on STAP trans-boundary water sector projects.

5.1 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Trans-boundary Water Portfolio

During the current review, 11 trans-boundary water STAP projects were reviewed, compared with nine projects reviewed in 2004. These include six facilitation projects, two capacity-building projects, two investment projects, and one study project. The Nile Basin Initiative (COMESA) project was listed in the 2004 NEPAD STAP review, but no longer listed as a STAP project in this review. Three new projects were identified in this review. However, one new project, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme in the Niger Basin (ECOWAS), has subsequently been abandoned. These have been indicated in Table 50.

No STAP trans-boundary water projects have been listed for AMU and EAC (although, during the 2004 STAP Review, a five-year Meteorology Development Plan and investment strategy was noted as an EAC water sector STAP project). No data sheets or information was available for the ECOWAS projects. Consequently, only eight STAP trans-boundary water projects were reported in the REC specific review covering SADC (6), ECCAS (1) and IGAD (1) RECs.

Table 50 below provides an overview of all NEPAD STAP projects reviewed, their costs, and their progress since the last review in 2004. The light grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress in 2004 and the dark grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed or in progress as of 2009.



Table 50: NEPAD STAP projects and progress


CAPACITY-BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

Development of a Programme Management Manual and Guidelines for Project Preparation and Financing for SADC Regional Strategic Water

SADC € 250 000




Infrastructure Development Programme (RSWIDP). (New project)

Strengthening of the Niger River Basin Authority Inter-State Forecast Centre (CIP) and support of other new and existing RBOs

ECOWAS US$ 10 million No Information available

INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

Rehabilitation of the Nordoewer Irrigation Scheme between Namibia and South Africa (New project)

SADC

€ 50 000

Assessment

Phase only

Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme in the Niger Basin (New project)

ECOWAS US$ 30 million New project (since 2004) but project abandoned

STUDY

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

Action Plan for Integrated Water Resources Management in West Africa

ECOWAS US$ 24 million No information

FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

Assessment of Surface Water Resources

SADC US$ 16 million

Expansion and Implementation of Hydrological Cycle Observation System (SADC Hydrological Cycle Observation System (HYCOS))

SADC € 5.6 million

Ground Water Management SADC Region





Guidelines and Support for National Water Sector Policy and Strategy Formulation or Review in member-states

SADC US$ 40 million

Completed in 2004

Water Resources Management Support for Central Africa


Implementation of IGAD Hydrological Cycle Observation System (HYCOS)


Nile Basin Initiative COMESA Listed in 2004 STAP Review

Not included in this review.

No information available.

Overall, the progress has generally been good in the SADC and ECCAS regions while the IGAD HYCOS project has witnessed slow progress due to lack of funding, regulatory issues and lack of technical capacity. Of the 11 trans-boundary projects reviewed, four facilitation projects and one project each of capacity-building and investment have progressed since the 2004 review. The only study project included in the review was under the purview of ECOWAS; in the absence of any information, it is difficult to comment on its progress. Only one project (facilitation) with SADC has got completed in the interim period, i.e., “Guidelines and Support for National Water Sector Policy and Strategy Formulation or Review in member-states.”

Table 51: Overview of progress of water projects by type

TYPE NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2004

NO. OF

PROJECTS IN

2009

NO. OF

PROGRESSED

PROJECTS

NO. OF

COMPLETED

PROJECTS

Capacity-Building 1 2 1* -

Investment 0 2 1† -

Studies 1 1 0 -

Facilitation Project 7 6** 4 1

Total 9 11 6 1

* Lack of information on some projects †

One project abandoned

** One project not included in 2009 STAP Review




Table 52 below summarises the progress made in the two capacity-building projects in the water sector. One is a new project; one has been ongoing since 2004. Detailed project constraints, and the status and success factors for each project in each REC are listed in the Project Implementation Status Reports.

Table 52: Progress of all STAP water capacity-building projects

CAPACITY BUILDING

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

INT

ER

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

FU

ND

ING

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

Development of a Programme Management Manual and Guidelines for Project Preparation and Financing for SADC Regional Strategic Water Infrastructure Development Programme (RSWIDP). (New project)

SADC € 250 000

Through the project a water infrastructure programme management manual, covering information management, marketing, monitoring and evaluation, will be developed. Additionally, guidelines for water infrastructure project preparation and financing will be developed.

Constraints:

Funding has not yet been secured.

Strengthening of the Niger River Basin Authority Inter-State Forecast Centre (CIP) and support of other new and existing RBOs

ECOWAS US$ 10 million No Information available

The Inter-state Forecasting Centre (IFC) was established in 1985 within the framework of the HYDRONIGER Project for the benefit of the nine Niger Basin Authority (NBA) member-countries namely; Benin, Burkina-Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Nigeria, with financial assistance from donor organisations such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), European Economic Community (EEC) and Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), while the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) was the supervising agent. The IFC under the NBA’s Centre Inter-Etats de Prévision (CIP), in Niamey (the Niger Republic), has its primary objective to assist the riparian countries in protecting the life and goods of their citizens, augmenting food security and hydro-power, and minimising the catastrophic effect of drought and flood. Its immediate objective was to establish a real-time hydrological forecasting system covering the river Niger and its major tributaries.

Once funding is secured, the SADC capacity-building project would be carried out by the SADC Secretariat under their Project Co-ordination Unit (PCU) as well as the Water Resources Technical Committee (WRTC) comprising the Directors of Water from the SADC member-states.

Although no project sheet was available for the ECOWAS project, it is known that the Federal Ministry of Water Resources carries out real-time hydro-meteorological data collection and forecasting through a



network of Argos satellite-based stations, installed in the framework of the NBA/Hydro-Niger project. These stations are now being phased out and replaced by the METEOSAT system under the framework of the Niger-HYCOS project implemented by Niger Basin Authority (NBA).


There are two new STAP investment projects in the water sector since the 2004 review as shown in Table 53. However, the ECOWAS project has since been abandoned.

Table 53: Progress of all STAP water investment projects

INVESTMENT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T

FE

AS

IBIL

ITY

FU

ND

ING

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OP

ER

AT

ION

Rehabilitation of the Nordoewer Irrigation Scheme between Namibia and South Africa (New project)

SADC

€ 50 000

Assessment

Phase only

The Nordoewer Irrigation Scheme was damaged by floods and needs major repairs. The Governments of Namibia and South Africa have allocated some funds for minor repair works to the canal and distribution networks. However, major repairs to the siphons under the Orange River still need to be carried out for the scheme to operate optimally and allow expansion.

Constraints:

Funding agreements not yet in place.

Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme in the Niger Basin

ECOWAS US$ 30 million New project (since 2004) but project abandoned


Only one water-related project is registered as a NEPAD STAP study project. The same has been show in Table 54

Table 54: Progress of all STAP water study projects

STUDY

CO

NC

EP

T

FU

ND

ING

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T

CO

NS

UL

TA

NT

AP

PR

OV

AL

Action Plan for integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in West Africa

ECOWAS US$ 24 million No information

In December 2001, the Heads of State and Governments of ECOWAS clearly supported the Regional Action Plan for IWRM and gave instructions for raising funds for its implementation.

The West African Water Partnership (under the Global Water Partnership) was established in March 2002 in Bamako, Mali. The challenges taken up by the partnership are numerous and include the



implementation of a platform for the effective promotion of the concept of IWRM in the country and regional water policies. It aims at supporting the creation of new water partnerships and ensures they function effectively. Further, the partnership ensures there is synergy of action with ongoing initiatives such as the African Ministerial Conference on Water (AMCOW), the Intergovernmental Water Association (IGWA) and NEPAD, and existing international conventions.


Seven facilitation projects are listed under the NEPAD STAP for the trans-boundary water sector. SADC has four projects, of which one was completed in 2004. One water project was listed for COMESA in the 2004 review but was not included in this review. ECCAS and IGAD RECs are each responsible for one project.

Table 55: Progress of all STAP water facilitation projects

FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

Assessment of Surface Water Resources

SADC US$ 16 million

The project has not been fully implemented in its original design due to budget and time required for implementation. Components of the project were implemented with the framework of basin-wide IWRM plans/strategies which included assessment of water resources in those river basins. These strategies have been formulated for the Zambezi basin, Pungwe Basin, Maputo Basin and are ongoing for the Orange-Senqu Basin, and Limpopo Basin. Preparations are underway to carry out Basin Monographs for the following river basins Buzi, Save, and Rovuma.

Constraints:

Funding.

Time required for completion

Expansion and Implementation of Hydrological Cycle Observation System (SADC HYCOS)


The project has now been completed with an optimum network of stations being equipped with the necessary instrumentation for collection and dissemination of Hydro-meteorological Data and information. About 50 stations located in strategic locations, especially on shared watercourses, have been identified and the old stations also rehabilitated and reprogrammed. Phase 3 of the project has been discussed with member-states and co-operating partners and resources have been secured for its implementation over the next four years.

Project Complete

Ground Water Management SADC Region


The project is 80 percent completed and is expected to end in 2010. Two components currently ongoing including Hydro-geological Mapping and the Ground Water Drought Management Project.

Constraints:

None



FACILITATION

OB

JE

CT

IVE

S

PO

LIC

Y

INT

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

S

LE

GA

L IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

FU

LL

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

Guidelines and Support for National Water Sector Policy and Strategy Formulation or Review in member-states

SADC US$ 40 million

Completed in 2004

Water Resources Management Support for Central Africa


The implementation plan for this project has been altered recently. At a conference in Kinshasa in October 2009, all heads of state of ECCAS agreed on (i) a common water resource management policy, and (ii) the necessary institutional framework supporting this policy, which is based on the structures of African Minister’s Council on Water (AMCOW)-Central Africa. The organisation/institution co-ordinating water policies and implementing the common policy will be the Centre régional de gestion des ressources en eau (CRGRE). Currently, three experts in water resource management are being recruited to set up this organisation. The implementation of the water resource policy is financed by AfDB and a total sum of 1.92 million Euros has been granted to initiate the common water policy.

Constraints:

None

Implementation of IGAD Hydrological Cycle Observation System (HYCOS)


The Project Document has been prepared and presented to project donors during the Pan African Conference on Water (Addis Ababa, December 2003). The European Union expressed interest in supporting the implementation phase and negotiations for procuring funding (EUR 4.8 million) under the EC Standard Contribution Agreement (SCA). On the recommendation of the European Union regional office the proposal envisages the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) as the executing agency for the project. In June 2006, WMO assisted the IGAD Secretariat to prepare a project proposal which was submitted to the European Commission’s Water Facility for consideration under the 9th European Development fund but the funding was not secured

Constraints:

Funding

Nile Basin Initiative COMESA Listed in 2004 STAP Review

Not included in this review.

No information available.

The Nile Basin States opened the Agreement on the Nile River Basin Co-operative Framework for signature on 14th of May 2010 for a period of one year until 13th May 2011. The event took place under the auspices of the Government of Uganda. The Co-operative Framework Agreement is a proposed international treaty negotiated among the countries which share the River Nile – Burundi, DR Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda (with Eritrea as an Observer). It lays down principles of co-operative water resources management. Once signed, the treaty will pave the way for the establishment of a permanent Nile River Basin Commission.



Progress on the facilitation projects has generally been quite favourable, with one SADC project being completed and another expected to be completed this year. Since 2004, progress on the IGAD HYCOS project has largely been hampered by lack of funding.


Table 56 lists many of the important challenges that face trans-boundary water projects or impede their implementation and/or progress.

Table 56: Types of Challenges and their sources of conflict


Political and Institutional

• Hydro-political vulnerability

• Lack of political will

• Strong competition and lack of co-operation o Interstate (power relations) o National, local (between sectors and communities) o Lack of stakeholder co-operation

• Conflicting trans-boundary regulatory issues

• Inadequate trans-boundary basin agreements

• Underdeveloped river basin organisations

• Latent political instability

• Higher competition between states, sectors and users

• Upstream vs. downstream tensions

• Border tensions / Territorial waters

• National sovereignty over common interests (infrastructure, unilateralism)

• Population disappointment

• Bad government of water

Financial

• Overly ambitious programming

• Poorly prepared and motivated submissions

• Diminishing confidence in the applicant’s abilities to implement and manage

Technical

• Regulatory issues

• Reduction of water availability (quantity and quality) o Lack of infrastructure o Lack of alert systems

• Lack of technical know-how

• Inadequate operation and maintenance of infrastructure

• Planning for climatic variability

• System losses

• Limited financial budgets

• Lack of information, data and databases

Socio-economic • Poverty

o Distribution and price (affordability)




o Rural migrations, uncontrolled urbanisation and slums

• Social discrimination (power relations, women, children, poor)

• Population growth.

• Food shortage

• Health and Sanitation crisis (HIV Aids, unsafe water quality, etc)

• General migration of people

• Overexploitation

Environmental

• Uneven rainfall and resource distribution

• Climatic variability and climate change

• Natural and geographical desertification

• Deforestation

• Increasing number, strength and frequency of natural disasters

• Recurrent risks of scarcity

• Pollution


5.2.1.1 Hydro-political vulnerability

All major rivers, freshwater lakes and aquifers on the African continent are shared by two or more, sometimes hostile, neighbours. This situation mostly leads to indiscriminate exploitation and degradation of the resource. Rising populations and increasing urbanization, industrialization, and environmental degradation, as well as the diversity of political, social, and economic structures and organizations, give rise to nations competing for the shared resources. In addition, climate variability and climate change exacerbate the delicate situation. This hydro-political vulnerability, has forced countries who share water resources to, often reluctantly, seek co-operative ways to use, develop and manage their shared water resources due to rising water scarcity. A lack of scientific assessment of the vulnerabilities, weaknesses in the governance structures, and absence of the required technical, human, and financial resources further exacerbate the vulnerabilities of these riparian states. With a few exceptions such as SADC, little attention has been paid to the development of legislative instruments and common vision for sharing water.

While this constraint is regarded to be of primary importance for trans-boundary water projects, it has not been flagged as a specific constraint to the NEPAD STAP trans-boundary water projects, although there are STAP trans-boundary water projects where interstate co-operation has been good and some projects where information has not been readily available. Indirectly, poor political commitment also manifests itself when it comes to seeking funding on projects as outlined below.


Lack of funding has been identified as a severe constraint in the progress of the NEPAD STAP trans-boundary water projects. The formation of the African Water Facility is an important development in assisting countries to obtain pooled financing for water projects. The larger river basins are, understandably, attracting larger investments. Smaller basins therefore need to seek assistance in



providing comprehensively well-motivated submissions to compete for financial aid. As outlined above, the challenges faced by River Basin Organisation (RBOs) is, inter-alia:

• Lack of strong, sustained political commitment from member-states, which contributed to diminishing confidence in the organizations’ abilities and effectiveness and to difficulties in mobilizing external resources and implementing programmes.

• Overly ambitious programming and lack of focus on priority areas. Many programmes were not perceived to correspond to the priorities of external support agencies.

• Administrative, managerial, technical, and financial problems, which led to internal and external pressures that forced a number of river basin organizations to change senior managers.

As a pre-requisite, funding as well as technical assistance for underdeveloped RBOs is vital to their efficient functioning. This would ensure they are adequately equipped to play an effective role in the planning, development and management of trans-boundary water resources.

This constraint can only be effectively overcome when there is both strong political commitment as well as sound technical feasibility. In many instances, it is important for sectoral stakeholders, heavily reliant on water resources, to form co-operative groups who can bring political pressure and often significant funding to such projects. Successful examples of these public, private partnerships exist in various countries.


5.2.3.1 Regulatory challenges

Investment in regional or trans-boundary water projects, whether through a state-owned utility or trans-boundary basin organisation, is often constrained by the risks associated with an uncertain operational and state or inter-state regulatory environment. This makes water projects problematic for potential financiers. In Africa, part of the rationale for the formation of trans-boundary water regulatory bodies is to provide:

� Co-ordinated operational frameworks for the planning, development, operation and maintenance of the trans-boundary water infrastructure;

� Certainty about equitable access to water resources -- when this is needed, how this will be operated and the associated costs; and

� Assurance about regulatory consistency – governance structures that preclude discretionary decisions being made.

The more successful river basin organizations such as the Senegal River Basin Organization, Gambia River Basin Organization, Mano River Union, Zambezi River Authority, and Komati Basin Water Authority could help less successful ones by providing technical assistance, possibly through exchange programmes.



5.2.3.2 Political, Institutional and Legal Heterogeneity of member-states

In Africa, regional infrastructure projects often involve countries with very different levels of development, availability of specialised skills, and access to technology. Not infrequently, countries have different legal systems which greatly complicate the drafting of the necessary contracts and legal agreements. These factors considerably increase the lead time for regional projects and, in particular, trans-boundary water projects.

Again, technical issues have not been specifically highlighted in the NEPAD STAP trans-boundary water projects as severe constraints, but again, indirectly, these constraints do lead to problems in the acquisition of project finance.

5.2.4 Socio-economic challenges

An assured availability of access to water remains a key requirement for the successful development of any country. It works as a catalyst for the alleviation of poverty and the upliftment of its people. In Africa, which has one of the lowest per capita water usages and where less than 58% of the continent’s population enjoy access to safe drinking water, this is of particular and utmost relevance. While rural populations suffer from lack of access to safe water for sustenance and sanitation, urban populations are more susceptible to pollution and water quantity and quality issues as a result of inadequate infrastructure, operation and maintenance. Inequity as a result of social discrimination, particularly of the poorer communities, also remains a challenge.

Affordability and consequent capital recovery for services remain a huge challenge for most countries. Competition for water resources and their overexploitation, particularly in the irrigation sector, remain a major challenge wherein the economic value of water vacillates between food production, industry and the sustainability of the environment.

Uncontrolled growing urbanisation as a result of migration from poorer rural areas also hinders effective technical planning. The impact of this constraint on NEPAD STAP trans-boundary water projects is regarded as average.

5.2.5 Environmental challenges

Many countries have begun to recognise the importance of the maintenance of natural eco-systems and have accorded the environment as a rightful user of water. For example, the South African Environmental Law defines an “Environmental Reserve” as an allocation of water reserved strictly for maintenance of the natural environment. The challenge, of course, is the implementation of these allocations in highly water-stressed catchments.

The distribution of water resources in Africa provides an additional challenge. Central Africa and parts of East and West Africa have abundant water resources, while North Africa, the Sudano-Sahelian region, and Southern Africa suffer chronic shortages, with very erratic rainfall. Climate change and consequent increase in high climatic variability provides a challenge to technical planning.

The rapid shrinking of Lake Songor in Ghana, partly as a result of intensive salt production, and the extraordinary changes in the Zambezi river system as a result of the building of the Cahora Basa Dam sit beside more familiar images of the 90 percent shrinkage of Lake Chad. Other impacts, some natural and some man-made and which can only be truly appreciated from space, include the extensive deforestation



around Lake Nakuru in Kenya. Satellite measurements detailing the falling water levels of Lake Victoria show that it is now about one metre lower than it was in the early 1990s.

Uncontrolled growing urbanisation has resulted in the development of large slum areas and consequent contribution to high water pollution levels.

While the impact of this constraint has not been highlighted in the NEPAD STAP trans-boundary water projects, it will certainly manifest itself as a major issue in the future and should be a significant consideration for projects that are a part of PIDA.


While the challenges in the above section outline many of the problems associated with effective integrated water resource management and planning, the table below provides the constraints specifically identified for the NEPAD STAP trans-boundary water projects.


SEVERITY

OF

IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS


POSSIBLE ACTION

Severe Difficulty in securing project financing

Financial

� Under-developed RBOs need to be assisted by successful RBOs to enhance their technical and financial credibility.

� More stakeholder involvement is required.

� Public-Private Partnerships should be encouraged.

� Greater involvement by African Water Facility needed.

� AfDB could support RECs in bridging a contact between RECs and regional development banks.

Average Hydro-political vulnerability

Political

� Greater political commitment by RECs to interstate co-operation is required.

� Uniformity in trans-boundary legal instruments and legislation is needed.

� Development of a common vision for sharing water needs to be encouraged.



SEVERITY

OF

IMPACT

CONSTRAINT TYPE OF

CONSTRAINTS


POSSIBLE ACTION

Average Regulatory risk Technical

� Underdeveloped RBOs need to be assisted by successful RBOs to enhance their technical and financial credibility.

� RECs, NEPAD Secretariat and AfDB could set up a project database that tracks project progress and is accessible by all stakeholders.

Average Affordability vs. Capital recovery

Socio-economic � Efficient planning of schemes

� Controlled urbanisation

Average Changing face of water resources

Environmental

� Good climate change forecasting is required at REC level.

� Co-ordinated basin transfers from water-rich to water-scarce areas are required.

� Uniform environmental protection legislation is required.

The above table shows that the lack of financing is almost exclusively the most severe constraint in the progress of STAP trans-boundary water projects.

5.4 Categorization of Trans-Boundary Water Projects

Although this review shows that only a small number (2) of the 11 STAP trans-boundary water projects have been completed, it needs to be emphasized that going forward a majority of the projects (8) appear to be on the course to completion within the next two years and beyond. It needs to be noted that one project has been abandoned while another is no longer listed as a STAP project.

The trans-boundary water projects can be broadly classified into four categories: (i) projects completed, (ii) projects underway, and to be completed within the next two years, (iii) projects underway and expected to be completed beyond two years and (iv) defunct projects.


PROJECT STATUS TRANS-BOUNDARY WATER PROJECTS


� Expansion and Implementation of Hydrological Cycle Observation System (SADC HYCOS) (SADC)

� Guidelines and Support for National Water Sector Policy and Strategy Formulation or



Review in member-states (SADC)

(ii) Projects underway end expected

to be completed in the next 2 years

� Development of a Programme Management Manual and Guidelines for Project Preparation and Financing for SADC Regional Strategic Water Infrastructure Development Programme (RSWIDP). (New project)

� Rehabilitation of the Nordoewer Irrigation Scheme between Namibia and South Africa (New project) (SADC)

� Ground Water Management (SADC)

(iii) Projects underway end expected

to be completed beyond the next 2

years

� Strengthening of the Niger River Basin Authority Inter-State Forecast Centre (CIP) and support of other new and existing RBOs (ECOWAS)

� Action Plan for integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in West Africa (ECOWAS)

� Assessment of Surface Water Resources (SADC)

� Water Resources Management Support for Central Africa (ECCAS)

� Implementation of IGAD Hydrological Cycle Observation System (HYCOS)

(iv) Defunct

� Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme in the Niger Basin

� Nile Basin Initiative (no longer a STAP project)

Projects in Category (i) are complete and therefore can be excluded from future reviews of NEPAD STAP and evidently no recommendations apply to these projects. Similarly projects in Category (iv) have for various reasons been overtaken by events and are no longer projects which are being or should be actively pursued by the RECs. Category (ii) projects are moving forward with only financial constraints possibly impeding the implementation and completion of those projects. Their progress does, however, warrant more careful monitoring, inter alia so as to anticipate any future problems which may need to be pre-empted.

In all, five STAP trans-boundary water projects are estimated to fall into category (iii). This category is for projects that are expected to extend the duration of the STAP and are likely to extend beyond the next two years, and are expected to be embraced under PIDA.



Probably the projects that have benefitted the most since the 2004 Review have been the Expansion and Implementation of the Hydrological Cycle Observation System (SADC HYCOS) and Ground Water Management. In fact, in terms of trans-boundary water projects, SADC has had the greatest success with the implementation of the projects. This is mainly due to a restructured and fairly well-organised Secretariat in the SADC region.

5.5 Way forward on STAP Trans-boundary Water Projects

5.5.1 Prioritizing options

Probably the most important focus for ensuring future sustainability within the trans-boundary water sector is the support of co-operative mechanisms for the management of shared resources. Momentum on the remaining STAP projects should not be lost and efforts should be renewed to assist RECs in facilitation of the projects going forward and, where appropriate, for a smooth transition into PIDA.

5.5.2 PIDA intervention

PIDA is preceded by the NEPAD Short-Term Action Plan. The STAP is a definitive list of ongoing and planned priority projects conceived and formulated by African stakeholders to fast-track meaningful development and integration of the continent through renewed partnership with Africa’s REC development partners. The STAP trans-boundary water sector projects address five themes: creating an enabling environment for regional co-operation; supporting the development of national IWRM policies; meeting urgent water needs; improving water wisdom and strengthening the financial base for the desired water future. A recognition of the inadequate knowledge and co-operation on shared water resources issues resulted in a strong recommendation to launch the Action Plan for “Trans-boundary Water Resources Management” (TWRM). The goal of the TWRM is to strengthen the environment to enable effective co-operative management and development of trans-boundary water resources. This is possible through the implementation of prioritized programmes targeting the goals of the TWRM. A portfolio of 24 projects resulted from the Action Plan, mainly focused on selected shared basins namely: Niger and Senegal in West Africa, Nile in Eastern Africa, Congo and Lake Chad in Central Africa, and Zambezi and Okavango in Southern Africa. Since these projects are likely to be medium to long-term projects, it is appropriate that they be embraced under PIDA. Current STAP trans-boundary water projects, as reported in this review, are largely aimed at support for river basin management as well as hydrological monitoring (HYCOS projects). These projects are likely to extend beyond 2012 and should therefore also be included under PIDA.



6 RECOMMENDATIONS

As detailed in the earlier chapters, the challenges/constraints identified in the implementation of sector-specific STAP regional projects are significant. Stakeholders are aware of these challenges/constraints and wherever possible, have taken necessary actions to resolve them. This chapter makes some additional recommendations which can be applied cross-sector, and would support stakeholders in fast-tracking the implementation of regional infrastructure projects and programmes. The recommendations have parallels in other countries and have been tailored for Africa.

6.1 General Recommendations

The third review of the NEPAD STAP programme revealed that the programme had been successful in giving the initial impetus to developing regional infrastructure projects in Africa. However, over time, most RECs have developed their own regional infrastructure programmes (e.g. the Horn of Africa initiative of IGAD) that are more aligned to their current regional priorities. Also, due to a lack of frameworks for regular monitoring, insufficient capacity and nebulous roles of various entities, the implementation of the programme has suffered. The current needs are to fast-track the implementation of STAP projects and steer the programme towards a firm closure. It is recommended that the STAP project be categorized into:

• Projects that need to be shelved,

• Projects that can be completed within a time horizon of two years, and

• Projects that can be completed beyond a time horizon of two years and are best handled through new initiatives like PIDA.

Our recommendations are therefore aligned to current ground reality. Also, these recommendations are such that all stakeholders (AU, AfDB, NPCA, RECs, UNECA, Regional Power Pools, River Basin Organizations, etc.) would be able to derive value out of them. It is observed that standalone recommendations that do not address the needs of all stakeholders are rarely workable. Since our recommendations pertain to a large set of stakeholders, their implementation in a collaborative manner would require that each stakeholder did their part effectively and efficiently.

If the guiding principles (mobilizing political will and resources, knowledge-sharing, etc.) of the NEPAD STAP programme were strengthened, the programme would be able to bring many projects to fast and successful fruition. It is desirable that the Infrastructure Division of the NEPAD Secretariat/NEPAD Planning and Co-ordination Agency (NPCA) play a decisive role in championing the way forward for the STAP programme and revisiting and redefining the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders. However, NPCA can successfully do this only if it gets a more substantive role in developing regional infrastructure in Africa. Considering the ground realities, it is therefore proposed that all stakeholders collaborate amongst themselves and nominate a potential lead agency for implementing and monitoring these recommendations.



The recommendations in this section are broadly categorized into those which could accelerate the progress of regional infrastructure projects; those which would enhance private sector participation; and those which would address institutional capacity gaps and resource mobilization.

6.1.1 Accelerate progress

The reasons for delay in the implementation of regional projects are varied and range from lack of political will and financial resources to capacity bottlenecks and lack of sufficient project monitoring, among others.

6.1.1.1 Project Database

The third review revealed that there is no single source or database of the STAP projects. The review was based on the list of STAP projects that were last collated in 2007 and available with AfDB. Since this list was not live or updated, some of the STAP projects that were on the list were not tracked by the corresponding RECs while some projects that were tracked by RECs as STAP projects were not in the 2007 list. There was also no clarity on how some projects at RECs got nominated as STAP projects. Also, there was no strong collaboration between the stakeholders to maintain or monitor the progress of the STAP programme.

To begin with, there is a need to develop and maintain a database of STAP projects that can be monitored at a continental level. The RECs would be the owners of their respective project database and would be required to update this information on a regular basis. COMESA has already developed such a database and the same could be used as a benchmark by the other RECs. The database should ideally reside on a common software platform which would be accessible to all stakeholders and provide a single source of information/updates required on STAP projects. The RECs should take the lead in developing their respective regional databases while a continental-level stakeholder (e.g., AfDB or NPCA) should take the initiative to link the database of all RECs at a continental level as a monitoring/communication tool.

6.1.1.2 Project Monitoring

It has been observed that the RECs do not have any standard frameworks or tools to monitor the progress of STAP projects. Particularly, monitoring or facilitation of capacity-building projects is severely constrained on account of their definition which tends to be all-encompassing. There is a need to break these projects into distinct and manageable sub-projects that have a definite start and an end.

A framework for monitoring the progress of STAP projects needs to be developed. This activity could be linked with the development of the project database at an REC level. To effectively and efficiently monitor the progress of STAP projects, this framework should be adopted uniformly by all RECs. Inputs and best practices from RECs should be captured while designing these frameworks. Capacity-building initiatives would need to be undertaken for all such stakeholders once these frameworks were finalized.

NPCA could play an effective role in ensuring that RECs kept their project databases up to date, and in finding/creating opportunities to communicate the benefits of regional approaches to regional development.



6.1.1.3 Communication Strategy

The progress of regional projects tends to slow down considerably if there is no prior buy-in from the eventual end-users. In many cases, national priorities take precedence over regional development priorities and end-users are likely to get swayed by the priorities of their constituencies. It is therefore very important that a strong communications strategy is put in place for the NEPAD STAP programme that would highlight the benefits of each project and the positive impact it would have on end-users. This strategy should ideally use all forms of media – print, television, etc. – to communicate its salient features. End user buy-in would then be easier and the impact of political will could be diluted (to some extent). Each REC should take up this task for the projects under their supervision.

6.1.1.4 Action Points for Accelerating Progress

In this section, the thrust is on mapping the action points discussed above with the potential lead agency that is best positioned to take them forward in a holistic manner. Also, a timeline for executing these action points is proposed.

Table 59: Timeline for Implementation of Action Points

NO. ACTION POINTS POTENTIAL LEAD AGENCY & TIMELINE

1 Creating Project Database for STAP projects

Potential Lead Agency: RECs to develop regional databases while other stakeholders (AfDB, NPCA) to integrate it at a continental level


2 Developing Project Monitoring Frameworks

Potential Lead Agency: Collaborative effort by all stakeholders. NPCA to ensure that RECs update databases frequently


3 Developing effective communications strategy for STAP projects

Potential Lead Agency: RECs


6.1.2 Enhance private sector participation

6.1.2.1 Developing Bankable Projects

The third review of the STAP programme revealed that both the RECs and the sub-sovereign contracting authorities within the member-states did not have the requisite skills to prepare infrastructure projects that would attract private investors/developers. The infrastructure projects that are developed therefore are rarely bankable. There is a need to assist RECs and the member-states in developing bankable infrastructure projects that are supported by adequate risk mitigation instruments.

Due to the absence of project structuring skills, preparing bankable infrastructure projects in Africa is costly. This issue can be addressed by tapping existing multilateral and bilateral institutions that provide assistance to governments in preparing projects for private sector participation. This support includes hiring of external advisors or consultants to prepare projects for bidding and negotiations. Many multi-donor facilities like the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) have offices in Africa; these



facilities assist the private sector in providing infrastructure services and improve the environment for private sector participation (PSP) in infrastructure services, by providing funding support for the preparation of specific infrastructure projects.

Since this support is on a case-to-case basis, there is a need to prioritize STAP investment projects that could be taken forward using the PPIAF or a similar route. The STAP programme should aim at building synergies with such existing facilities. This agenda would be best spearheaded by the RECs along with the NPCA.

Cross-border infrastructure projects can be made bankable if they are structured prudently with a fair distribution of risks across both the contracting authority and the concessionaire. The concerns of lenders in cross-border projects mainly stem from the fact that their investments are exposed to risks that are not adequately mitigated. Risk mitigation instruments such as a financial tool to transfer certain defined risks from project financers (equity and debt) to creditworthy third parties (guarantors and insurers) have been successfully used to make projects bankable.

Political risks in the form of expropriation, war and civil disturbance, etc. are being covered by Political Risk Guarantees (PRGs) that are provided by multilateral and bilateral institutions. Guarantees typically cover the timely repayment of debt service. Some of the projects (including one STAP) in Africa that successfully used PRGs to make the projects bankable are given below.

Table 60: Summary of Regional Infrastructure Projects that successfully used risk mitigation instruments

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

Project: West African Gas Pipeline Project (STAP), Sector: Energy, Financial Close : 2005

REC ECOWAS WAPCo, the project company implementing the STAP project had taken risk guarantee/insurance to cover payments owed by the Government of Ghana in case of termination. By covering termination payments, the project ensured the timely debt service of lenders. This was one of the main reasons why the project achieved financial closure.

Countries Benin, Ghana, Nigeria, Togo

Project Costs USD 590 million

PRG Providers International Development

Agency (IDA), Multi-lateral

Investment Guarantee

Agency (MIGA),

Zurich/Overseas Private

Investment Corporation

(OPIC)

Beneficiary WAPCo

PRG Amount USD 250 million

Project: Joint Kenya-Uganda Railway Concession, Sector: Transport, Financial Close: 2006

REC EAC The joint concession agreement is structured as two separate concession agreements for 25 years each, one with the Kenya Railways Corporation (KRC) and another with the Uganda Railways Corporation (URC). The PRG is triggered in the event of breach of concession agreement by either government. The PRG

Countries Kenya, Uganda

Project Costs USD 400 million

PRG Providers IDA

Beneficiary Rift Valley Railways

Consortium (RVRC)



SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

PRG Amount USD 45 million (for Kenya)

USD 10 million (for Uganda)

covers liquidating damages and payment obligations of KRC and URC, relating to conceded assets. These two PRGs played a significant role in assisting Rift Valley Railways consortium (RVRC) in mobilizing long-term debt for the project.

Project: Southern Africa Regional Gas Project, Sector: Energy, Financial Close: 2004

REC SADC The financing for this project was a mix of corporate financing and project financing. Most risks were covered under the project developer’s debt service support agreement. However, the political risk on account of breach of a certain specified obligation by the Mozambique government was covered under the PRG. This enabled the lenders to underwrite the project debt.

Countries Mozambique, South Africa

Project Costs R 3.69(debt)

PRG Providers International Bank for

Reconstruction and

Development (IBRD),Multi-

lateral Investment Guarantee

Agency (MIGA), Export Credit

Insurance Corporation of

South Africa (ECIC)

Beneficiary Lenders

PRG Amount R1.46

Source: The World Bank, PPIAF documents

Apart from political risks, the other risks that hamper infrastructure projects from being bankable are:

• Regulatory risk: due to adverse regulatory actions

• Devaluation risk: impact on revenues due to devaluation of local currency

• Sub-sovereign risk: payment risk of lower-level government entities (state, local, etc.)

In Africa, AfDB provides PRGs that cover risks such as expropriation and breach of contract. The need is to expand and cover other risks mentioned above. If required, a dedicated Regional Infrastructure Guarantee Fund (RIGF) should be established for African regional infrastructure projects under the aegis of AfDB. Such a fund has been recently set up in Indonesia. The RIGF in Indonesia is structured such that it guarantees project cash flows to the concessionaire on account of certain specified projects risks. It aims to cover the project cash flows until the time the contracting authority resumes its contractual obligations to the concessionaire. The RIGF’s ability to ring-fence the project cash flows of the concessionaire is intended to provide comfort to the lenders.

It is desirable that regional infrastructure projects that have been successful in achieving financial closure on account of proper risk mitigation strategies should be showcased so that all potential project developers learn from past experiences. These experiences can be applied across regions and sectors. The NPCA/RECs should develop a database of leading providers of risk mitigation instruments and share it with all potential developers/concessionaires. It should however be noted that if a project is not structured properly, no amount of PRGs or any other guarantee/insurance is going to make it bankable.



6.1.2.2 Viability Gap Funding

Private sector investment in infrastructure projects is a challenge since most projects have a high social but an unacceptable commercial rate of return. This challenge is compounded in the case of regional investment projects. Capital grant as an instrument of government support to turn socially viable projects into commercially viable projects are being used in countries such as India and Vietnam.

In India, Viability Grant Funding (VGF) was initiated in 2005; many of the transport projects have been successfully developed under this funding scheme. VGF provides grants (one time or deferred) for infrastructure projects developed in the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) format, to make them commercially viable. VGF of up to 20% of the project cost is given by the Department of Economic Affairs under the Ministry of Finance (Central Government of India) while a matching 20% could be availed of from sub-sovereign contracting authorities (state government or local Bodies). By meeting the funding gap, VGF makes these infrastructure projects commercially viable and thus enhances private sector participation in the sector.

Recognizing that developing project documents is a complex and time-consuming task, the Department of Economic Affairs has also developed model contracting documents (Request for Qualification, Request for Proposal, etc). It also uses risk frameworks in the form of standard models, which generate numbers such as Equity Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) and Project Internal Rate of Return (PIRR) once demand and cost data (available from feasibility reports) are inputted. Only projects that have EIRR and PIRR below a certain cut-off percentage are considered for VGF. Standard frameworks are used for project appraisal and monitoring.

VGF can be successfully adapted for making regional infrastructure projects in Africa attractive for private sector participation, especially in the transport sector. Donor funding could be channelled into a VGF mechanism that could be housed either with the NPCA or AfDB. Standard tools and frameworks such as model contracting documents, risk management frameworks, standard appraisals and monitoring templates could be developed and shared with all RECs. Initial screening of regional projects for VGF could be done by the RECs. At this stage, the RECs would also be required to develop various options on potential project structures. Since most of the RECs do not possess these skills internally, the option of accessing skills of specialized lending institutions in Africa such as regional development banks like the Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA) on a dedicated basis should be evaluated.

6.1.2.3 Action Points for Bankable Projects

In this section, the thrust is on mapping the action points discussed above with the potential lead agency that is best positioned to take them forward in a holistic manner. Also, a timeline for executing these action points is proposed.

Table 61: Timeline for action points of bankable projects


1 Use existing facilities in Africa (E.g., PPIAF) for hiring of external advisors or consultants to prepare STAP investment projects for bidding and






negotiations.

2 Develop risk assessment frameworks.



3 Increase the gamut of risks that can be mitigated prudently. If required, establish a dedicated RIGF for Africa.



4 Showcase financial closure of bankable regional infrastructure projects and prepare a database of leading providers of risk mitigation instruments.



5 Establish a VGF mechanism to make socially viable projects commercially viable.



6 Develop model contracting documents and legal documents.



7 Develop various options for project and financing structures for STAP along with leading development finance institutions in Africa.



6.1.3 Improve institutional capacity

The third review of the STAP programme revealed that all implementing agencies, viz., RECs, regional power pools, river basin organizations, etc. face capacity constraints, some being especially severe. We recommend a two-pronged approach to the development of regional infrastructure projects in Africa:

1. Provide short-term assistance in improving institutional capacity to fast-track STAP projects nearing completion or envisaged to be completed within the next two years. Onboard project management consultants/advisors could assist the implementing agencies in taking the projects towards closure.

2. It is envisaged that once PPP in regional infrastructure projects materialises, there would be a need to monitor their performance/contractual obligations on a regular basis. These skills are specialized and require a unique approach to institutional development. In India, PPP cells have been housed within sub-sovereign contracting agencies to support them in monitoring contractual



obligations of PPPs. We recommend that such dedicated PPP cells should be formed within all agencies, which implement regional infrastructure projects in Africa.

6.1.4 Resource Mobilization

Although NEPAD has done a good job in mobilizing external resources for NEPAD STAP projects, it has done relatively little to mobilize domestic resources. It appears that there is currently too much reliance on donor support for the projects to progress; if the support is not forthcoming, projects do not get implemented. While donor support is crucial for many transport projects, sustainability of these projects will only be possible if domestic resource mobilization is taken seriously. Moreover, as NEPAD depends on countries and RECs to implement NEPAD STAP, this means that RECs and member-states have to align their policies, budgets and development plans with those of NEPAD. However, member-states and NEPAD may have plans that may not be consistent with each other. As there is no mechanism to provide incentives for member-states and RECs to change their plans, this creates an incentive problem for the implementation of NEPAD STAP. This incentive problem is further complicated by the fact that most projects are financed by external donors whose priorities may differ from those of NEPAD STAP. In those instances, NEPAD STAP priorities are likely to take a back seat to those of the donors.

If the implementation of NEPAD STAP is to be accelerated there will be a need to diversify the donor sources and look at newer options/less traditional options such as China, India, and Russia. This initiative would have to be undertaken by the AfDB as the RECs would not have requisite skills for this activity.

A second area of concern that needs to be tackled is for donors to harmonize their support for the RECs so that they do not compete for resources. Although competition among RECs from the same donor is not likely to arise, competition among donors to support their interests will not necessarily end. NEPAD should therefore convince donors that it is more efficient to support the priorities of RECs than to compete among themselves to push their individual priorities.

6.2 Dovetail into PIDA

6.2.1 Evaluating Options to prioritise STAP projects

The STAP programme that was rolled out in 2002 has served its purpose of kick-starting regional infrastructure development in Africa. Most of the STAP projects should have got completed by now, but it has been observed that only a few projects have got completed while the majority of the projects are underway. Considering the STAP programme was a short-term initiative, there is a need to move forward and take this programme to its logical end. It is recommended that the STAP projects which have to be taken forward be categorised into:

• Projects underway and expected to be completed in the next two years; and

• Projects underway and expected to be completed beyond the next two years; these should be ideally taken forward by new initiatives such as PIDA.

Since the projects in the first category are nearing completion. It is envisaged that the same would happen over the next two years. However, many projects are facing challenges which could delay the implementation if not sorted out at the earliest. We recommend that such projects be rolled into/dovetailed into new initiatives like PIDA.



7 APPENDIX-1: TYPES OF PROJECTS

To clearly identify progress made by each STAP project since the last review, a framework of analysis needs to be defined. The review will use a different ‘project lifecycle’ for each project type, i.e. capacity- building projects, investment projects, studies and facilitation projects

7.1 Capacity-Building projects

Capacity-building projects will generally cover four stages of a project’s lifecycle: ’Objectives’, ‘Intergovernmental Approvals’, ‘Secure Financing,’ and ‘Implementation’. These stages and their brief explanations are outlined in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Project lifecycle of a typical capacity-building project

7.2 Investment projects

An investment project will typically go through four different stages until it is complete: ’Agreement’, ‘Project Preparation’ (which is made up of two sub-stages ‘Project Feasibility’ and ‘Secure Funding’), ‘Construction,’ and ‘Operations’. Figure 13 clarifies an investment project’s typical lifecycle and highlights the tasks that need to be completed at each stage

Figure 13: Project lifecycle of a typical investment project

Agreement on a set of objectives and targets that should be achieved

Governmental agreement on capacity-building Programme (if necessary)

Finalise funding proposals and negotiations

Implement the capacity-building programme by expanding individual capabilities, improve governance or the enabling environment

Agreement on memoranda of understanding to define the objectives of the project and agree on the level of co-operation between stakeholders

Project Preparation: Assessing the feasibility of the project and achieving financial closure. Key tasks include:

i) Pre-feasibility studies

ii) Inter-governmental negotiations

iii) Technical, economic and

Physical building of the project

Physical investment at this stage is complete and infrastructure is operated via an operational contract

Construction Secure Funding

Project Feasibility

Agreement

Operation

Inter Gov. Agreements

Objectives

Secure Funding

Implementation



7.3 Studies

The progress made by feasibility studies since the last review of project will be tracked via the project lifecycle detailed in Figure 14. A study project will typically go through five different stages: ‘Concept’, ‘Funding’, ‘Procurement’, ‘Consultant’, and ‘Approval’.

Figure 14: Project lifecycle of a typical Study project

7.4 Facilitation Projects

For facilitation projects, the review will identify the progress made with the help of the project lifecycle as detailed in Figure 15. It shows five typical stages of facilitation projects: ‘Objectives’, ‘Policy Determination’, ’Intergovernmental Agreements’, ‘Legal Implementation’, and ‘Full Implementation

Figure 15: Project lifecycle of a typical facilitation project

financial viability feasibility studies

iv) Environmental impact assessments

v) Detailed engineering design and costing studies

vi) Finalisation of funding negotiations/documentation

vii) Procurement process, including tendering and contractual negotiation

Initial identification of possible project and first draft of TOR for feasibility study

Finalising TOR and securing financing for the study

Selecting and hiring the consultant for the project

Implementation or completion of the project by the consultant or technical assistant

Study approved and maybe agreement on follow-on projects

Agreement on a set of objectives and targets

Formulation of regional policies and agreement on corresponding Programme planning

Governments agree on the previously set out sector policy

Governments implement the regional agreements by ratifying laws unilaterally.

The implementation of the programme ‘on the ground’ often requires financial investments by Member States

Consultant Procurement

Funding

Concept

Approval

Inter Gov. Agreements

Policy Determination

Objectives

Legal Implementation

Full Implementation



Disclaimer

CRISIL Risk and Infrastructure Solutions Limited (CRIS), a subsidiary of CRISIL Limited, has taken due care and caution in preparation of this Report. This Report is based on the information obtained by CRIS from sources, which it considers reliable. CRIS does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information contained in this Report and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of such information. This Report should be used in its entirety only and shall not be reproduced in any form without prior permission from CRIS.

Neither CRIS nor any of its directors, representatives, or employees of CRIS accepts any liability for any direct, consequential, or perceived loss arising from the use of this Report or its contents. CRIS specifically states that it has no financial liability whatsoever to the user/s of this Report

.

project implementation review of the nepad infrastructure short term action plan (stap)

Government & Nonprofit