This chapter identifies policies that can accelerate and scale up the development of infrastructure projects in African countries. It analyses how regional, national and subnational infrastructure policies can increase productive transformation. The chapter also addresses how effective infrastructure governance can accelerate project implementation and sustainability. It examines strategies and planning related to development corridors, cost recovery, maintenance and quality certifications.
Africa's Development Dynamics 2025
Infrastructure, Growth and Transformation
Abstract
The development of infrastructure in African countries faces major strategic challenges, in particular population growth, low-productivity urbanisation and fragmented cross-border infrastructure networks. To turn these challenges into opportunities, infrastructure development in African countries requires credible evidence-based policies and the careful prioritisation of projects that advance the continent’s productive transformation.
Regional, national and subnational policies that strategically prioritise infrastructure projects can contribute towards Africa’s productive transformation, and effective governance can serve to implement the projects efficiently and sustainably with the resources available:
Strategic prioritisation: The second phase of the Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA) can even more rigorously prioritise projects that focus on productive transformation than the first phase. Policymakers can also give greater priority to development corridors and urban infrastructure development that align with PIDA priorities and facilitate highly productive sectors and regional value chains. Further data on achieving productive transformation, job creation targets, infrastructure development and its financing would help policymakers monitor progress. Policies need to be co-ordinated and planned across geographic levels (e.g. through master plans). Once selected, infrastructure projects require strong institutional backing at all levels, especially at the national level, where political and budget decisions have the most direct impact on project implementation.
Effective governance: Selected infrastructure projects require governance structures that emphasise efficient decision-making by the most relevant stakeholders and that acknowledge diverging interests and limited capacities. Public-private partnership units and project preparation facilities can be better equipped to support large and complex projects throughout their duration, reducing costs and waste during later project stages. Improved cost recovery and better planning for maintenance costs are essential for operational project sustainability. African-led infrastructure quality labels can be expanded to facilitate the allocation of additional project support resources, promote the communication of implementation standards to investors and set minimum standards for quality infrastructure.
Infrastructure development in African countries faces strategic challenges, such as population growth, low-productivity urbanisation, fragmented cross-border infrastructure networks and stagnating international financing. Population growth is causing growing pressures on the development of infrastructure in African countries. Between 2024 and 2050, Africa’s population will grow by 63%, from about 1.50 billion to 2.45 billion inhabitants (UN DESA, 2025[1]). Around 80% of this demographic growth is happening in urban areas: by 2050, two out of three Africans will live in an urban agglomeration, and the total urban land area will more than double (OECD et al., 2025[2]). Unlike in other world regions, urbanisation in African countries is not directly associated with increasing productivity (Castells-Quintana, 2017[3]). Furthermore, the rural population will continue to grow in absolute terms (AUC/OECD, 2018[4]). Beyond national borders, Africa’s continental infrastructure is not well-integrated, in large part as a result of the legacies of colonialism and raw resource extraction (Bersaglio and Enns, 2019[5]; Graff, 2024[6]). Many African governments’ ability to finance infrastructure is constrained by their growing sovereign debt. In addition, financing from international private investors and development for infrastructure have stagnated or even been reduced, in part due to changing geopolitical considerations and sustained risk perceptions (see Chapter 1 for details on the financing challenge) (AUC/OECD, 2023[7]).
The megatrends of climate change and the rise of artificial intelligence create further demands on, and uncertainty for, infrastructure development in African countries. Africa’s infrastructure faces climate risks twice as high as that of Latin America and five times higher than that of Europe (OECD, 2024[8]). Climate-related events already result in global economic losses averaging 2-5% of gross domestic product (GDP) annually across the African continent (WMO, 2024[9]). Extreme weather events have wide-ranging negative effects on infrastructure; for instance, losses of hydropower revenues are estimated to lie between 5% and 60% for affected African countries (Cervigni et al., 2015[10]). While many African countries have made major progress in digitalising their economies (AUC/OECD, 2021[11]), rapidly increasing demand for artificial intelligence services poses new challenges. Africa currently accounts for fewer than 2% of all data centres worldwide (Data Center Map, n.d.[12]). While the number of data centres is growing rapidly – at least 110 currently exist, and 56 are being built – significant upgrades to energy grids will be required to enable their further expansion across African countries (BusinessWire, 2025[13]; BusinessWire, 2025[14]). Strategic investments in climate resilience and in digital and energy infrastructure will certainly grow in importance, but the fast pace of change also creates uncertainty about where specifically they should focus.
Turning these challenges into opportunities requires evidence-based policy choices and careful prioritisation. Among the African priorities encapsulated by PIDA, three are likely to generate high multiplier effects for economic development: specific infrastructure types, regional integration and urban infrastructure (Chapter 1). Nevertheless, prioritising infrastructure projects entails a further careful assessment of policy trade-offs. For example, while cross-border infrastructure and urban agglomeration drive productivity and growth, they may result in the exclusion of large rural populations (Dorosh and Thurlow, 2014[15]; Krantz, 2024[16]). The time needed to carefully plan for quality assurance and environmental sustainability may exceed the cost of inaction when, in at least 7 African countries, populations are doubling every 25 years (Gil, Stafford and Musonda, 2019[17]). The guiding principles are thus prioritisation, local ownership, transparency and accountability, and resource efficiency.
Achieving productive transformation can guide the prioritisation of infrastructure projects. Productive transformation refers to the process of accumulating and diffusing organisational, production and technological capabilities, including reallocating capital and labour towards the more productive segments of an economy (AUC/OECD, 2019[18]). Investing in infrastructure that targets productive transformation can help address strategic challenges like population growth, urbanisation and regional fragmentation. For instance, well-planned urban infrastructure can help translate urbanisation into sustained economic growth (AfDB/OECD/UNDP, 2016[19]). Specific investments in transport and energy infrastructure can drive transformation by developing rural-urban linkages such as giving farm workers access to the service sector (Castells-Quintana, 2017[3]; Moneke, 2020[20]; UNECA, 2017[21]).
Regional infrastructure projects are also critical for productive transformation. They can complement the reduction of tariffs through the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), thereby enabling trade and the development of regional value chains (UNECA, 2022[22]; AUC/OECD, 2022[23]).
This chapter provides policymakers insights on how to prioritise infrastructure projects towards productive transformation and implement them efficiently and rapidly through effective governance, given available resources:
Strategic prioritisation: The prioritisation of projects under PIDA Priority Action Plan 2 (PAP2) was a necessary step in the right direction. PIDA’s First 10-Year Implementation Report showed that progress was not advancing fast enough to meet the programme’s objectives by 2030 (AUDA-NEPAD, 2023[24]). The more rigorous prioritisation of projects under PIDA PAP2 compared to PIDA PAP1 reduced the number of priority projects from some 433 for the period 2012‑20 to 69 for 2021‑30. Development corridors and urban infrastructure development that align with continental, regional and national productive transformation strategies (including priority sectors and regional value chains) could be given further priority to accelerate progress. More data on the achievement of productive transformation, job creation targets, infrastructure development and its financing would help policymakers better monitor development progress. Policies require co-ordination and planning across geographic levels (e.g. through master plans). Selected projects must have ample institutional backing at all levels, but especially at the national level, where political and budget decisions have the most direct impact on project implementation. Strengthening institutional capacity and skills is a prerequisite for implementation.
Effective governance: Once selected, infrastructure projects require governance structures that emphasise efficient decision-making by the most relevant stakeholders and acknowledge diverging interests and limited capacities. Public-private partnership units and project preparation facilities can be better equipped to support large and complex projects throughout their duration, reducing cost and waste during later project stages. Improved cost recovery and better planning for maintenance costs are essential for project sustainability. African-led infrastructure quality labels can be expanded to enable not just allocating additional project support resources but also communicating quality standards to investors and ensuring minimum sustainability standards.
Africa’s agenda to achieve productive transformation can more directly guide policymakers in prioritising infrastructure projects at the regional, national and subnational levels. Agenda 2063 aspires to an “integrative infrastructure that criss-crosses the continent […] to support Africa’s accelerated integration and growth, technological transformation, trade and development” (AUC, 2015[25]). Africa’s productive transformation agenda is further codified in continental policies (like the Accelerated Industrial Development for Africa Strategy and the AfCFTA) and national plans (see OECD (2023[26]). Many experiences, including from the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”), Europe, Korea, Mexico and the Republic of Türkiye, highlight the importance of planning infrastructure investments in alignment with sectoral and industrial needs to achieve better productive transformation outcomes (UNCTAD, 2018[27]). In each of these countries, infrastructure development relied on a clear strategy, followed by an assessment of infrastructure needs, which informed government planning and financial requirements from public and private sources. At least 40 African countries have published national development plans that cover infrastructure needs, but too few of them include priority project lists, discuss infrastructure complementarities at different geographic levels, allocate multi-year budgets and identify clear links to productive transformation objectives (IMF, 2025[28]; InfraCompass, 2020[29]; UNCTAD, 2018[27]).
Development corridor projects can be prioritised in support of regional integration and productive transformation
Development corridors have become a flagship policy instrument to achieve regional integration and productive transformation. As of 2025, at least 80 development corridors either have been planned, are under construction or are fully operational across Africa. Thorn et al. (2022[30]) state that “infrastructure corridors generally deliver services such as energy, water, waste management, transport, and telecommunications; and [they] often lead to spatial development between rural peripheries and urban growth poles […] [while] development corridors are larger, often transnational, geographical areas targeted for domestic and international investment". Development corridors in Africa also often involve the promotion of economic sectors that target strategic value chains through the development of industrial parks, special economic zones, resort cities or dry ports:
The West Africa Growth Ring Corridor encompasses four major corridors that span Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Togo. The Corridor Development Master Plan, developed between 2015 and 2018, outlines infrastructure projects aimed at bolstering regional integration and connectivity, including the Abidjan-Lagos Motorway. Beyond regional infrastructure, it also integrates the development of strategic regional value chains, such as meat value chains, by including national-level projects, including loading and off-loading facilities for cattle at railway stations, cattle markets, and slaughterhouse complexes (UEMOA/JICA, 2018[31]).
In East Africa, the Northern Corridor links Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda to the port of Mombasa in Kenya. Full implementation would contribute to reducing transport costs, especially for landlocked countries, which can account for up to 75% of the value of their exports (EAC, 2012[32]). The corridor also presents opportunities to boost the agri-food value chains in the region and ties with Southern Africa (CBC, 2019[33]). In 2025, member states approved the development of a regional logistics hub within the Naivasha Special Economic Zone, which would further contribute to reducing trade costs (NCTCA, 2025[34]).
PIDA provides a continental framework to prioritise development corridor projects. PIDA is a continent-wide initiative aimed at accelerating cross-border infrastructure development. It aligns with pan-African initiatives, such as the Trans-African Highway network, the Single African Air Transport Market and the Continental High-Speed Rail Project. PIDA Priority Action Plan 1 (PIDA PAP1), which ran from 2012 to 2020, identified 51 cross-border infrastructure programmes, composed of 409 individual projects. Despite the progress achieved – including the development of over 16 000 kilometres (km) of roads, 4 000 km of railways and 3 500 km of transmission lines – only 18% of the targeted projects were operational by 2025 (Figure 2.1). Building on lessons from the first phase, PIDA PAP2 (2021-30) prioritises 69 projects that consider national and regional priorities and cross-border relevance (except for island countries) as the main eligibility criteria. The criteria for the initial project selection include i) synergies with existing infrastructure; ii) job creation; iii) rural-urban connectivity; iv) youth and gender mainstreaming; v) climate resilience; and vi) financial viability and readiness for private sector investment (AU, 2020[35]; AUDA-NEPAD, 2023[24]). PIDA PAP2 relies on diverse instruments, often developed together with international partners, to facilitate project preparation and implementation, such as the PIDA Service Delivery Mechanism or the PIDA Job Creation Toolkit (Traoré et al., 2024[36]) (Box 2.1).
Note: PIDA PAP1 = Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa Priority Action Plan. RHS = right-hand side. Data retrieved in April 2025.
Source: AUDA-NEPAD (2025[37]), PIDA Projects Dashboard (database), https://www.au-pida.org/pida-projects/.
The PIDA Job Creation Toolkit (AUDA-NEPAD, n.d.[38]) helps policymakers and infrastructure developers to assess and maximise the potential job creation of an infrastructure project. The toolkit uses an elaborate model based on country- and sector-specific input-output tables to assess the economy-wide effects of large infrastructure projects. The model was derived by drawing on existing impact evaluations, extensive expert interviews and a literature review, and the methodology is updated regularly.
As of 2023, PIDA projects had generated about 162 000 jobs (AUDA-NEPAD, 2023[24]). Employment estimates from 94 PIDA projects across 34 countries suggest that up to 15 million additional jobs could be created through the construction, operation and maintenance of these projects. For instance, the North-South Corridor, which comprises 16 projects spanning 8 countries, is expected to create 4.5 million jobs throughout the project’s entire duration. In addition, about 130 000 jobs could be created in other sectors including agri-food, mining and trade. Employment estimates can enable co-ordinating countries to plan government interventions in response to labour demand (AUDA-NEPAD, 2020[39]).
Source: Authors’ compilation based on inputs from AUDA-NEPAD and GIZ.
Strong political and fiscal commitment at the national level is instrumental in implementing regional and cross-border projects. Several regional economic communities, such as the Southern African Development Community and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, published regional infrastructure development strategies in recent years (SADC, 2012[40]; IGAD, 2022[41]). However, the integration of such strategies at the national level remains limited, slowing down the implementation of PIDA projects. Indeed, reviews of institutional arrangements across five development corridors reveal the limited interface between the governance structures of cross-border infrastructure programmes and regional and national strategies. Continued political endorsement at the national level is important, as countries’ interests in investing in regional infrastructure vary. Countries involved in more than one regional economic community, such as Angola, Burundi and Rwanda, tend to give priority to regional projects with countries with which they have the strongest trade ties, indicating the importance of regional value chains for project selection (Lisinge and van Dijk, 2021[42]). However, fiscal limitations may sometimes prompt countries to limit their involvement in regional initiatives that rely on the actions of third countries and that do not appear to offer immediate benefits (Medinilla, Byiers and Karaki, 2019[43]).
Planning and monitoring, including through digital innovations, are required to generate reliable impact data and improve the economic and social outcomes of development corridors. Global experience suggests that the inadvertent negative development outcomes of corridors require careful management: while the average impact of development corridors on economic welfare tends to be positive, the economic and social outcomes differ greatly between subnational locations or population groups (Roberts et al., 2018[44]). The impact of corridors on development in African countries has not yet been comprehensively assessed for several reasons: development corridors are relatively recent and slow to implement, reliable data are lacking, and there are overall methodological challenges to isolating their effects. In one survey of core stakeholders of corridors,1 about 40% of respondents stated they believe that adequate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are lacking (Lisinge and van Dijk, 2021[42]). Implementing development corridors can improve if policy and planning consider such concerns at an early stage (Table 2.1). Using digital innovations and big data can further assist in monitoring and managing corridors.
Corridor transport observatories, as implemented in the Northern and Central Corridors in East Africa, collect near real-time data, which provide insights into the extent of delays experienced along a corridor across 51 borders in 15 countries. The data feed into the corridor management’s decision-making to improve its performance (World Bank, 2024[45]).
Source: Authors’ compilation based on Hobbs and Juffe Bignoli (2022[49]), Impact Assessment for Corridors: From Infrastructure to Development Corridors and G20 et al. (2024[50]), Delivering Cross-Border Infrastructure: Conceptual Framework and Illustrative Case Studies.
Strengthening the capacity of regional institutions to manage projects, in alignment with national governments, can enhance the effectiveness of implementation. Institutional arrangements to implement cross-border and regional infrastructure projects are often hindered by the limited capacity of regional economic communities to manage them. Less than 40% of the surveyed stakeholders2 involved in implementing development corridors consider institutional arrangements to be effective. While regional economic communities are well-positioned to develop frameworks for co-ordination and to negotiate with external partners (e.g. development banks and the private sector), they often lack the capacity and legitimacy to implement regional projects independently. Hence, establishing dedicated focal points at the country level (e.g. dedicated implementation units) could help increase national ownership and ensure initial funding, ultimately accelerating the implementation of regional projects (Lisinge and van Dijk, 2021[42]). Development partners can also provide financial and tailored technical assistance to regional economic communities and institutional bodies managing corridors to strengthen their capacity to oversee and co-ordinate regional projects (Box 2.2).
In 2020, the PIDA Service Delivery Mechanism Experts Service Pool became fully operational, supporting 10 out of 89 PIDA projects with early-stage advisory services. It relies on a competitively contracted pool of experts that assists regional and national infrastructure project owners (member states, regional economic communities, river basin authorities, etc.) with advisory services to accelerate project processing times from the concept stage to the financial close (AUDA-NEPAD, 2023[24]).
Development partners typically align with African priorities by offering support to corridors sponsored by the African Union and regional economic communities, selecting those corridors that meet their own strategic objectives. From the 55 corridors listed in official documents of the African Union and regional economic communities (i.e. PIDA PAP; Tripartite Transport and Transit Facilitation Programme, etc.), the European Union (EU) and its member states identified 12 priority corridors as part of the EU Global Gateway strategy that would contribute to i) Europe-Africa connectivity; ii) peace and security; iii) green and resilient mobility; and iv) employment creation. Four corridors are located in West Africa, three in Central Africa, two in East Africa, two in Southern Africa and one in North and East Africa (EU, 2022[51]). Similarly, Japan assists in the implementation of ten development corridors. As of 2025, Japanese co-operation has been most active in three priority corridors selected based on i) alignment with regional development initiatives; ii) trade and economic potential; iii) infrastructure gaps; and iv) Japan’s existing interventions and strategic interests (JICA, 2022[52]).
For priority projects, development partners can help mobilise finance, including private investments. By 2021, commitments to PIDA priority projects had reached USD 82 billion (falling short of the USD 229 billion target), with 42% coming from African governments, 55% from bilateral and multilateral partners (including 24% from China) and only 3% from the private sector (AUDA-NEPAD, 2023[24]). The participation of development finance institutions alongside that of international partners can support African institutions in mobilising private investments tailored to local contexts. The G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) and the EU are working together with the African Finance Corporation and the African Development Bank (AfDB) to mobilise investments for connectivity and clean energy supply chains within the Lobito Corridor (AFC, 2023[53]; AfDB, 2023[54]). Similarly, the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus financing tool, linked to the Global Gateway, provides risk-sharing instruments of up to EUR 40 billion, which are expected to mobilise up to EUR 135 billion of public and private financing via blending facilities and guarantees.
In addition to mobilising financial support, development partners offer substantial technical assistance for corridors. At the planning stage, bilateral partners, such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), provide technical support to governments and regional economic communities in formulating corridor development master plans that cover 20-30-year time periods (JICA, 2018[55]). Technical assistance can also take the form of tools and policy platforms which co‑ordinate stakeholders and facilitate implementation. For example, Germany (through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit [GIZ]) made major contributions to the development of tools within PIDA, including the PIDA Job Creation Toolkit, the Service Delivery Mechanism and its PIDA Quality Label and the Expert Service Pool, as well as networks such as the Continental Business Network and the African Network of Women in Infrastructure. Development partners can also collaborate with regional economic communities on regulatory issues related to the corridors. The EU, for instance, is currently assisting the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in developing a new co-ordination mechanism and governance structure to address trade barriers across the four priority corridors in West Africa.
Source: Authors’ compilation.
Regional institutions can improve their impact by facilitating the joint rollout of hard and soft infrastructure through harmonised regulations. Hard infrastructure includes roads, rail or ports, while soft infrastructure encompasses legislative frameworks such as customs regulations or investment promotion initiatives. Upgrading road sections (i.e. increasing the number of lanes, improving road quality and removing obstacles) of the Dakar-Lagos development corridor brought significant economic benefits relative to investment costs. These benefits were doubled and more widely spread when combined with measures to reduce border delays, such as the operationalisation of one-stop-border posts (OSBPs) (Lebrand and Sylvie, 2021[56]). Implementing OSBPs is one of PIDA’s priorities to support such combined efforts. In East Africa, a survey of eight OSBPs showed an average 42% reduction in dwell times since their operationalisation. These results were in part due to the implementation of customs procedures that were harmonised through the East African Community (EAC) OSBP Act (2016) and EAC OSBP regulations (2017), serving to ensure consistency and efficiency in clearing goods (AUDA-NEPAD/JICA, 2024[57]).
Comprehensive guidelines for gender mainstreaming in PIDA projects exist, but monitoring their progress can be improved. The African Network of Women in Infrastructure (ANWIN), launched during PIDA Week in Cairo in 2019, is a platform that offers advisory services, knowledge sharing and capacity-building to PIDA projects and beyond to improve gender-responsiveness across the infrastructure life cycle (AUDA-NEPAD, 2025[58]). As one of its first actions, ANWIN proposed a comprehensive set of guidelines for Gender Responsive Infrastructure Development. Notably, the guidelines suggest tracking any gender-sensitive procurement-related actions (e.g. training female business owners to obtain necessary certifications or requiring a track record of gender-inclusive activities from bidders) when selecting PIDA PAP2 projects; they also promote the gender-specific monitoring and evaluation of projects (e.g. disaggregation of impact data by sex) (PIDA, 2020[59]). Beyond early high-level commitments (PIDA, 2020[60]), putting the guidelines into action and monitoring progress towards their goals remain ongoing tasks.
Aligning subnational infrastructure planning with national development plans can extend productive transformation beyond large urban areas
Responding to the speed and scale of Africa’s urban expansion requires careful multi-level infrastructure planning. Urbanisation is happening at a faster pace than in other world regions, driven by rapid demographic growth and the expansion of urban land areas. By 2050, two-thirds of the African population, or 1.4 billion people, will live in an urban agglomeration. Large agglomerations, merging entire urban networks, are set to emerge, as exemplified by Burundi, where urban expansion is projected to cover almost the entire country by mid-century (OECD et al., 2025[2]). While urbanisation can support productive transformation (Chapter 1), adequate planning is essential at all levels, including subnational, national and regional:
Within cities, urban planning should provide basic infrastructure for all inhabitants, thereby reducing congestion and fragmentation that undermine agglomeration economies (AfDB/OECD/UNDP, 2016[19]). Adequate infrastructure will also be key to support the development of productive activities, including local processing, storage and distribution necessary for the development of value chains.
At the subnational, national and regional levels, co-ordinated infrastructure investments can connect intermediary cities, small towns and rural areas with large economic hubs like capital cities. Experience from Ghana and Kenya shows how development corridors – namely the Abidjan-Lagos and LAPSSETT corridors – can catalyse the proliferation of new urban spaces around the corridors, which, without adequate planning, do not stand to benefit from the transformative effects (Gillespie and Mwau, 2024[61]).
Co-ordinating investments across different types of infrastructure, while considering existing informal service providers, can improve urban development. Urban planning can increase the efficiency of infrastructure investments by ensuring integrated development across sectors (OECD et al., 2025[2]). For instance, in the water sector, one-third of 36 surveyed African cities implemented cross-sectoral co-ordination tools, including joint planning or programmes, partnerships, a dialogue platform, or co-ordination groups. Among them, 80% reported that these initiatives helped overcome the silos that are often at the root of poor planning, of a lack of policy coherence and of misaligned incentives (OECD, 2021[62]). Interviews conducted for this report also revealed the need to consider interactions with existing infrastructure networks and systems. For example, urban planners can adapt urban development to the local context by accounting for informal transportation when assessing the viability of introducing bus rapid transit (BRT) systems.
Urban expansion in Ghana is increasing the need for reliable and accessible transport networks. Currently, 28% and 35% of Accra’s and Kumasi’s population live at a distance beyond a 30-minute walk of any market, school or healthcare facility. While setting up an efficient BRT system represents a priority, expanding the existing network of trotros (i.e. minibuses for 14 to 24 passengers) could also represent a promising avenue to tackle the challenge (Anderson, B. et al., 2024[63]).
Aligning subnational planning with productive transformation objectives will help extend economic effects beyond large urban centres. Despite the rapid growth of large urban agglomerations, 62% of Africa’s population – or 1.3 billion people – is projected to continue to live in intermediary cities, small towns and rural areas by 2050 (OECD et al., 2025[2]). Yet, currently, most urban plans stop at the administrative city boundaries regardless of whether they mirror functional urban areas (like metropolitan areas), and they neglect linkages between urban and rural areas. An integrated approach between subnational and national planning can help connect productive transformation objectives with urban and rural planning, thereby increasing coherence in infrastructure development. In 2021, some 38 African countries were identified as having a national urban strategy. The strategies of Eswatini, Morocco, Senegal, Seychelles and South Africa had implementation plans and sufficient institutional, financial and human capacities (UCLG/Cities Alliance, 2021[64]). Accounting for the social and environmental returns of infrastructure projects, especially in rural areas, can help governments assess the need for public sector financing and improve prioritisation.
In Ethiopia, the National Urban Development Spatial Plan 2035 (NUDSP) focuses on strengthening linkages between spatial planning, economic development and urbanisation. It highlights the importance of i) development corridors within the country; ii) transport connectivity between intermediary cities and rural hinterlands; iii) the transformation of existing large rural settlements into towns; and iv) the formation of new urban settlements associated with projects in the industrial, agriculture, mining and energy generation sectors (AUC/UNECA/UN-HABITAT, 2020[65]; Monkhouse, 2018[66]).
The Uganda Digital Acceleration Project (UDAP) was created to overcome significant bottlenecks to private participation in last-mile connectivity projects. They include the high costs of connecting rural and peri-urban households, local populations’ limited willingness to pay and the lack of appropriate incentives. To overcome these challenges, the Ugandan government has prioritised public investments in optical fibre cable to cover an additional 63 districts, build 21 transmission sites and extend last-mile connectivity to 2 800 sites across the country under UDAP (Parliament of Uganda, 2024[67]).
Financial transfers and government capacity are important to enable subnational institutions to implement policies and plan infrastructure investments (Table 2.2). According to the City Enabling Environment Ratings, a comprehensive evaluation of subnational government capacity, 42 out of 53 African countries made progress in improving their institutional environments between 2012 and 2021, with notable advances in financial transfers, transparency and citizen participation. However, many African cities grapple with unpredictable financial transfers, capacity shortages and fragmented governance structures, hindering their ability to implement urban policies effectively and plan long-term infrastructure investments. Only a few countries – such as South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe – provided municipalities autonomy over revenue collection (i.e. tax base, rates and fees) and access to financial markets (UCLG/Cities Alliance, 2021[64]). In Revenue Statistics in Africa, a mere seven African countries reported collecting subnational revenues (OECD/AUC/ATAF, 2024[68]).3 Similarly, most cities lack skilled urban planners, with only 0.4 managerial and technical staff per 1 000 people in Ghana, Mozambique and Uganda, compared 8 to 1 000 in India and 36 in high-income countries.
The Urban Resilience Fund (TURF), launched by the investment management firm Meridiam in partnership with The Rockefeller Foundation and the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), offers financial and technical resources to African cities to implement sustainable infrastructure projects, for instance, for urban mobility, the energy transition or social infrastructure. The fund has closed a first round of investments of USD 290 million (Löffler and Haas, 2023[69]).
Since 2019, the AfDB has operated a dedicated Urban and Municipal Development Fund that offers funding and assistance to national and local governments seeking to improve cities’ resilience, liveability and productivity. The fund’s Oversight Committee has selected six large African cities where it will identify transformative infrastructure projects able to attract public and private sector investments, targeting the inclusion of up to 35 cities by 2027 (AfDB, 2024[70]; Swiss Development Cooperation, 2024[71]).
Since 2022, the European Commission and the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) have been collaborating on a EUR 30 million guarantee programme called Cityiriz. The initiative aims to support the development of domestic banking markets to decrease local public debt, particularly in intermediary cities, by reducing the risk of lending for private and public African banks through the provision of guarantees and technical assistance (EU, n.d.[72]; AFD, n.d.[73]).
Note: 1. Multi-level governance refers to “the relationship between elected governments situated at different administrative levels. It concerns layers of actors who interact with each other across levels of government (vertically), among relevant actors at the same level (horizontally), or in a network” (OECD, 2022[74]).
Source: Authors’ compilation based on OECD et al. (2025[2]) Africa's Urbanisation Dynamics 2025: Planning for Urban Expansion; AfDB/OECD/UNDP (2016[19]) African Economic Outlook 2016: Sustainable Cities and Structural Transformation and UCLG/Cities Alliance (2021[64]). Assessing the Institutional Environment of Cities and Subnational Governments in Africa.
Better infrastructure governance and sustained institutional support can make infrastructure projects more efficient
With improved infrastructure governance, countries in Africa – especially low-income countries – could achieve far better outcomes with the same resources. Infrastructure governance refers to “the policies, frameworks, norms, processes and tools, used by public bodies to plan, make decisions, implement and monitor the entire life cycle of public infrastructure” (OECD, 2022[74]). The primary governance issues for African infrastructure projects have historically included cost overruns, delays, missing managerial capacities (especially in planning), state capture and insufficient stakeholder engagement (Sekasi et al., 2024[75]). Recent evidence from 37 low-income countries suggests that up to 53% of investment resources may be wasted as a result of inefficient management of public investments (including in infrastructure), resulting mainly from shortcomings in monitoring, maintenance funding, project selection and appraisal, and multi-year budgeting (Eltokhy et al., 2024[76]).
Limited capacities can prevent project implementation from adhering to elaborate top-down plans and international governance standards. International governance standards for infrastructure projects prescribe best practices such as strategic plans and decision-making with broad-based stakeholder participation, the establishment of separate governance bodies, and ample financing and management capacities for the duration of a project (GIH, n.d.[77]; OECD, 2020[78]; OECD, 2024[79]). However, in African countries, top-down governance structures – even if they meet institutional requirements on paper – have often failed to factor in local and national agendas and limited available finance, leading to an implementation gap (AfDB/OECD/UNDP, 2016[19]; Gil, Stafford and Musonda, 2019[17]; Thusi, Qwabe and Ojogiwa, 2024[80]). For example, despite the progress achieved in the first ten years of PIDA (PIDA PAP1), the preparation and implementation of projects fell behind the initial schedule (Signé, 2017[81]). Around 25% of the over 400 projects selected for PIDA PAP1 did not reach the feasibility stage due to a lack of maturity (AUDA-NEPAD, 2023[24]).
Localised, context-specific governance of infrastructure projects can be effective, even in challenging settings. In practice, pragmatic and context-specific governance models which acknowledge capacity constraints, adverse incentives and power imbalances can be effective in African contexts. For instance, cross-border projects can benefit from a local understanding of which contributions from different states are essential to arrive at a collective advantage, allowing stakeholders to address bottlenecks (Byiers et al., 2021[82]; Lisinge and van Dijk, 2021[42]). Especially in low-income countries, a thorough understanding of local project stakeholders (including their interests and capacities) and implementation conditions can facilitate effective project governance and allow the formation of stakeholder coalitions that support projects throughout their duration (OECD/ACET/AUDA-NEPAD, forthcoming[83]).
Viewing infrastructure as a “club good” can help clarify stakeholder incentives and effective structures for collaboration. In economics, club goods refer to goods that are non-rivalrous but exclusive in consumption. In a “club” approach, infrastructure project owners voluntarily invite a limited set of engaged stakeholders to actively participate in project governance. This approach can be both more effective and efficient than the mandatory, broad-based consultation of all project stakeholders, as it involves a few relevant stakeholders more directly in project implementation while reducing the risk of lengthy negotiations and legal disputes with peripheral and opportunistic stakeholders (Gil and Beckman, 2025[84]). Understanding African cross-border infrastructure projects as club goods can also show how national contributions combine in different ways to create shared value for participating countries. For example, a transport corridor will only be as useful for any participating country as the contribution by the “weakest link”, while in a mobile roaming network, all countries may equally benefit from the best national provider’s offering (Byiers et al., 2021[82]). Outside of Africa, development corporations – organisational structures that govern club goods – have successfully been implemented to manage infrastructure holistically for neighbourhoods or points of interest within cities, with some positive results, for instance in the Caribbean (Dodman, 2008[85]).
Project preparation facilities (PPFs) for infrastructure are numerous in Africa but often lack sufficient funding and co-ordination. Governance challenges are often heightened for large and complex infrastructure projects, as they require implementation capacities that are limited in African countries (Gregory, 2020[86]). The purpose of PPFs is to add capacity in such situations. According to a global stocktaking of infrastructure PPFs in 2021, 44% of all PPFs are in Africa. However, PPFs in Africa on average support fewer projects with lower financial value than in other world regions (GIH, 2021[87]). Similar to public-private partnership (PPP) units, PPFs in Africa often lack the resources necessary to offer sustained, detailed technical and operational support, and they struggle to prioritise projects and collaborate with each other (AfDB/ICA, 2019[88]; CCFLA, 2024[89]).
In 2021, Senegal reformed its regulatory framework regarding infrastructure projects' preparation, procurement and contract management. These reforms included the implementation of a support fund for project preparation and an expansion of the required pre-feasibility studies to assess the financial and operational viability of projects. Fiscal affordability, including the identification of the required long-term public commitments and bankability assessments, is mandatory prior to launching the procurement procedure. Senegal plans to improve information disclosure by publishing tender documents and the terms of PPP contracts on the regulator’s website (World Bank, 2023[90]).
With the right reforms, PPP units can expand their offering of governance tools that mitigate fiscal risks and contractual challenges for large and complex projects. PPP units are specialised government entities designed to facilitate the development of PPP programmes and provide administrative and technical support. Estimates show that institutional reforms improving, for example, controls on corruption, rule of law, quality of regulations and accountability of public organisations could unlock at least USD 20 billion in infrastructure investments from the private sector in four years (Chinzara, Dessus and Dreyhaupt, 2023[91]), as such reforms enable the private sector to take increasing risks (Kouton, Sanogo and Djomgoue, 2023[92]). While 42 African countries have enacted PPP legislation, only a few attract private investments, which suggests room for other reforms (ALSF, 2024[93]). Similarly, while 36 African governments (67%) have designated PPP units, only the units of 7 countries (13%) revise the fiscal risk of projects, 5 (9%) conduct post-project appraisals and auditing, and none consult with affected communities about the impact of PPP projects.4 Limited institutional support can be a particular concern in African countries with low human development levels. While these countries are on average as likely to have a PPP unit as other African countries, they are significantly less likely to offer risk mitigation, contract management and personnel training (Figure 2.2).
Note: HDI = Human Development Index. PPP = public-private partnership. The selected entries showed the most significant institutional bottlenecks in low-development countries.
Source: Authors’ calculation based on World Bank (2025[94]), Benchmarking Infrastructure Development (BID) (database), https://bpp.worldbank.org/en/global.
The development of technical, advisory and business skills in public administrations, especially in PPP units, can mitigate project risks. PPP projects are often legally and technically complex. Technical skills are required in public agencies involved in the prioritisation and planning stages. These are needed for rigorous ex ante evaluations such as value-for-money analyses and for contract design skills that ensure proper risk transfer and avoid concession contract renegotiations. Furthermore, expertise in regulatory reforms, concessional arrangements, procurement processes and negotiating with external actors is critical to reducing execution bottlenecks and later project risks for governments (OECD/ACET, 2020[95]). Least-developed countries in particular require skills development to allow officials to structure projects for climate resilience (OECD, 2024[79]). The OECD and Africa Infrastructure Development Association (AfIDA) expert meeting and survey conducted in preparation for this report5 showed similar insights: while technical qualifications such as engineering and urban planning can be found in government agencies, business development and commercial skills are often lacking, which hinders PPPs. Policy training and communities of practice can support skills development for PPP units and other entities.
The ALSF Academy helps build capacity via a three-level certification programme. The web-based repository contains e-learning courses and other support material to help stakeholders improve knowledge and skills in, among other things, infrastructure and PPPs, mining, oil and gas, power, sovereign debt, and dispute resolution.
Since 2023, the Accelerating and Scaling-up Quality Infrastructure Investment in Africa (ASQIIA) project, jointly implemented by the African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET), the African Union Development Agency – New Partnership for Africa’s Development (AUDA-NEPAD) and the OECD Development Centre, enables managers from African PPP units, line ministries and dedicated agencies to learn from each other’s experiences through interactive peer-learning workshops in areas such as project design, project preparation and implementation. Dedicated training modules and interactive discussions with practitioners from leading regional financial institutions and the private sector allow them to share up-to-date information on countries’ priority project pipelines and related opportunities for investment.
Gender-sensitive skills development could increase the skill supply for infrastructure-related jobs. Using the construction sector to approximate the infrastructure sector, women comprise only 4% of workers in Africa, compared to 8% in developing Asia and 11% in high-income countries. The low share of female workers can be partially explained by restrictive social norms and perceptions associated with manual jobs (OECD, 2021[96]). In a global survey of experts working in renewable energy, over 60% of African respondents identified social norms and 50% a lack of relevant skills as major barriers preventing women from accessing jobs in the sector. More than 80% of African survey participants emphasised that skills development and training for women should be the top policy priority to enhance their labour market opportunities (IRENA, 2019[97]). Gender-sensitive initiatives are emerging.
Since 2017, an EU-funded project in the Gambia has sought to rehabilitate over 100 km of feeder roads, by employing women in construction work for the first time; the women represent 60% of the team (UNOPS, 2019[98]). The project aims to improve the country’s food security by connecting small-scale farmers with major motorways.
Improving cost recovery and advance planning of maintenance can ensure operational sustainability
Various pathways for generating revenues from infrastructure projects can be explored, but the financial burden on poorer users is an important trade-off. Charging infrastructure users direct fees can be less viable and less socially desirable in Africa compared to other world regions. In Africa, only 15% of PPP projects rely on user fees (such as tolls), while the main revenue source of 40% of the continent’s PPP projects are payments from public purchase agreements (i.e. contractual arrangements in which governments agree to make regular payments to the private partner). In Latin America and the Caribbean, the corresponding figures are 29% and 24%, respectively.6 For PPPs in particular, governments must carefully justify the dual financial burden on citizens – through both taxes and direct fees – by realistically assessing revenue potential, fiscal risks tied to long-term public purchase agreements, and the cost of managing complex partnerships versus direct public provision. Public consultations with future paying users and discounts to commuters and local residents are important levers to increase public acceptance (Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2015[99]). In addition to direct user fees, mechanisms to monetise the indirect value creation of infrastructure projects (like land and commercial value or carbon credits) and to make user fee collection more efficient (like smart meters and e-tolls) can be explored to improve cost recovery (Table 2.3).
In the case of the Lekki Toll Road in Lagos, Nigeria, initially high toll fees led to public outcry, prompting the government to subsidise the fees. In the end, this created a potentially higher burden for public budgets than direct public financing of the road might have caused (Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2015[99]).
Source: Authors’ compilation.
Energy and water utilities can improve their pricing and billing to reduce strain on government budgets. In the energy and water sectors, only one in three utilities recovers its operating, maintenance and debt service costs (World Bank, 2024[104]; GSMA, 2022[102]). In Kenya, fiscal injections to state-owned enterprises in infrastructure sectors account for 0.26% of GDP, a size comparable to other developing countries, with equity injections ranging from 1.6% to 4% of the government budget (World Bank, 2023[105]). Estimates from 2016 show that the median hidden cost incurred by energy utilities across 39 African countries range from 0.42% of GDP from under-pricing, 0.31% from technical losses, 0.22% from over-staffing to 0.15% from foregone bill collection (Trimble et al., 2016[106]). Digital technologies, including smart meters, can assist with billing and the tracking of technical issues, provided they are adapted to the local context. Their successful implementation relies on technology development strategies (e.g. whether the technologies are developed in-house or acquired), adequate training and reskilling of the workforce to use new systems, and a supportive regulatory framework (ESMAP, 2024[107]).
African countries allocate too few funds to maintenance. Across 46 developing countries, estimates show that governments typically allocate only about 14% of the capital expenditure for roads to maintenance (Gorgulu, Foster and Rana, 2022[108]). Yet, the estimated share of funding that should be dedicated to maintenance to achieve policy goals stands at 31% in the transport sector, 37% in water and sanitation and 23% in energy and electricity in African countries – excluding those in North Africa (Rozenberg and Fay, 2019[109]).
Advance planning for maintenance hinges on standardised and transparent approaches to assess maintenance needs and on establishing clear funding mechanisms. Across 31 African countries, maintenance ranks the lowest among the International Monetary Fund’s infrastructure governance project scores (Figure 2.3). Institutional design – for the maintenance category, this is the ability of countries to apply consistent methodologies to estimate and plan for both routine and capital-intensive maintenance – scores low at 1.53 points. As a comparison, for European countries, the score is 1.93 points. Africa’s low score is partly due to the absence of regional and international harmonised standards. For instance, some regional economic communities like the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) and the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) have issued methodological directives on public investment, but these do not cover maintenance (Eltokhy et al., 2024[76]). In the 31 countries, the effectiveness score, i.e. the implementation capacity, is also low, largely due to the limited inclusion of maintenance in public budgets (Blazey, Gonguet and Stokoe, 2020[110]). If maintenance is included at all, it is often confined to roads and remains vulnerable to annual budget decisions and competing spending priorities. Addressing these bottlenecks requires at least two key improvements:
1. adopting standardised and transparent approaches for evaluating infrastructure maintenance needs across all infrastructure sectors
2. establishing clear funding mechanisms, both within annual budgets and through dedicated earmarked funds and user fees.
South Africa’s National Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy requires every sector and institution (from municipalities to state-owned enterprises) to develop infrastructure asset management plans that inventory assets, assess their condition, and forecast maintenance and rehabilitation needs over time (Department of Public Works, 2007[111]).
The Uganda Road Fund (URF) is mandated to finance routine and periodic maintenance of public roads across the country. URF exclusively secures its finances from road user charges, including fuel levies, vehicle transit fees, road licenses, axle load fines, toll fees and other related charges (Uganda Road Fund, n.d.[112]).
Note: Scores are ranked as: 1) not met, 2) partially met and 3) fully met. Data do not cover North African countries.
Quality certifications that support African priorities and are fit for local conditions can help accelerate and scale up infrastructure development
Infrastructure developers must quickly provide a large stock of quality infrastructure for Africa’s development and productive transformation. Project certification is useful to ensure projects meet quality standards, which remains key to attract funding. Nevertheless, quality certification can take time and hamper project implementation. Infrastructure projects in African countries encounter barriers to receiving certifications that entail administrative and training efforts, disclosure and data requirements, and costs, all of which may not be fit for purpose given Africa’s high demand for infrastructure (Gil, Stafford and Musonda, 2019[17]). Hence, many global certifications for quality infrastructure are not widely used in Africa and are too specific for mobilising investors for African Union priorities. Overcoming these challenges requires prioritising projects in line with Africa’s development plans, by and large, identified under the PIDA programme.
The PIDA Quality Label (PQL) is a useful tool to attract funding for bankable PIDA infrastructure projects at the preparation stage. The PQL is a certification for early-stage PIDA projects (concept proposal, feasibility and structuring – leading up to financial close) (Box 2.3). It aims to improve the quality and bankability of the PIDA pipeline. Assigned by the AUDA-NEPAD Service Delivery Mechanism, the PQL represents an African recognition of quality for prioritised PIDA projects, reflecting their adherence to international best practices in project preparation and structuring (AUDA-NEPAD, 2023[24]). About 12‑15 projects are reported to have been certified with the PQL as of 2025 (PIDA, 2025[113]). This scope could be much expanded since the PIDA PAP2 includes some 69 projects, most of them at the preparation stage. The PQL can become a more widely established quality seal, assuring minimum standards for government-funded infrastructure projects and serving as a marker for bankability and eligibility for funding from development finance institutions (OECD/ACET, 2020[95]; Dash et al., 2021[114]).
The PIDA Quality Label (PQL) is a project preparation tool offered to selected PIDA projects as part of the Service Delivery Mechanism, established by AUDA-NEPAD in 2014 with backing from GIZ. As part of the Service Delivery Mechanism, the PQL unit is located within AUDA-NEPAD’s Directorate for Programme Delivery and Co-ordination. The PQL comprises three stages, with an award being given at the successful completion of each stage.
1. In the Project Definition stage, the PQL deploys a Quick Check Methodology based on a set of criteria that streamlines the assessment to be conducted in 30 days. The criteria are clustered into two lenses and five dimensions: under the strategic context lens are regional priority, sector readiness and private sector interest; and under the project lens are project readiness and public-private partnership attractiveness. The Quick Check Methodology is used for both project eligibility and appraisal, to verify compliance with basic entry criteria and to examine early-stage weaknesses and strengths. The findings are summarised, and a roadmap for accessing project preparation facilities (PPFs) is prepared; these are included in a Project Concept Memorandum, which constitutes the PQL1 Award.
2. The Pre-feasibility stage entails two activities. The first involves identifying potential PPFs to finance feasibility studies and ensuring that the project meets their eligibility criteria. The second entails assessing the project’s soundness, maturity and viability. Accordingly, the PQL2 Award – which takes six to nine months to secure – is completed with a certification to show a project’s readiness to enter a PPF’s portfolio and a Project Information Memorandum for project financing.
3. Finally, in the Feasibility and Bankability stage, the PQL focuses on carrying out feasibility studies with PPF funding, project structuring and bankability and on finding project financing options based on its commercial and non-commercial components. The PQL3 Award consists of the project’s financial agreement, which must be reached within two years.
Source: OECD/ACET/AUDA-NEPAD (2021[115]), “High Level Implementation Plan for “Accelerating and Scaling Up Quality Infrastructure Investment for in Africa”.
International quality infrastructure certifications can be expanded to project implementation stages. International certifications represent broad quality principles (Box 2.4) in concrete terms by requiring a project’s adherence to specific technical standards. Since certifications typically entail in-depth external verification and accountability after the feasibility stage, they can serve as a dependable and reliable signal for investors, communicating financial viability and alignment with goals of sustainability. Many certification tools exist, but they are applied to too few projects:
The Blue Dot Network, launched in April 2024, synthesises existing standards derived from the G20’s Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment. It complements certifications that focus on either technical project quality or environmental sustainability. Participating projects fulfil key international standards for quality infrastructure investment, across ten Blue Dot Network elements (Blue Dot Network, 2024[116]). The Network’s elements are now being applied to PQL projects, extending the certification for these projects from the preparation to the implementation stage.
The FAST-Infra Sustainable Infrastructure Label seeks to designate bankable projects to promote local involvement, including development finance institutions. It uses 14 criteria measuring sustainability’s environmental, social, governance, and adaptation and resilience dimensions. The label draws from more than 25 international regulatory frameworks, guidelines and taxonomies. Eighteen projects in 16 countries have been certified, including 8 in Africa: in Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gabon, Kenya, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda. In South Africa, project developer Mzansi Clean Energy Capital earned the label for its solar-hybrid mini-grid pilot. Mzansi’s pilot aims to serve 725 households, prevent 5 kilotons of carbon dioxide emissions annually and deliver 12 megawatts of solar energy, through a USD 35 million fund (Fast-Infra SI Label, 2021[117]).
ISO 14001 of the International Organization for Standardization provides a framework to implement an environmental management system. Its cost ranges between USD 3 000 and USD 10 000 every three years. This ISO has been used for over 300 000 certifications and 500 000 sites, including more than 4 000 certificates and 6 000 projects in Africa, such as Water Senegal, which provides drinking water with a potability level of 99.1% to 5 million people (ISO, 2023[118]).
The Green Terminal Label aims to reduce the carbon footprint of port activities, by providing a label across 8 pillars. Each annual cycle includes a self-assessment and a labelling audit by a third party. Ten out of 11 projects certified with the Green Label are in Africa: 3 in Côte d’Ivoire, and 1 each in Benin, Cameroon, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Senegal and Sierra Leone. For example, Sierra Leone’s port of Freetown obtained the Green Terminal Label in 2022 based on a reduction of its environmental impact by almost 30% since 2019, including through the installation of a 100% LED lighting system and a 1 200 square metre reforestation project along the port’s terminal wall (Africa Global Logistics, 2021[119]).
EDGE (Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies) provides a green building certification created by the International Finance Corporation to recognise building projects that use less energy, less water and greener materials. To be certified, projects must reduce their use of energy, water and carbon from building materials to less than 20% of the amounts required by local standards; EDGE measures the projects’ improvements. The cost for registration is USD 350 and for certification between USD 2 900 and USD 7 250, depending on the project’s size. It is used in more than 100 countries, including 15 countries in Africa for a total of 69 projects. For example, in Madagascar, as of 2019, the Antananarivo International Airport had made savings of 33% in energy, 49% in water and 37% in carbon embodied in materials. It did so while employing a 95% Malagasy workforce and implementing other measures to protect the environment (EDGE, n.d[120]).
“Quality infrastructure” is an established concept to emphasise the quality of execution and wider impacts of infrastructure projects. While initially focusing narrowly on a project’s technical standards and performance, the G7’s agreement on the Ise-Shima Principles for Promoting Quality Infrastructure Investment marked the inclusion of environmental and social impacts.
To steer infrastructure investments towards sustainable growth, the G20 introduced the Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment at the 2019 G20 Osaka Summit:
1. maximise the positive impact of infrastructure to achieve sustainable growth and development
2. raise economic efficiency in view of life-cycle cost
3. integrate environmental considerations in infrastructure investments
4. build resilience against natural disasters and other risks
5. integrate social considerations in infrastructure investments
6. strengthen infrastructure governance.
These principles capture cross-cutting dimensions of quality including climate change, gender equality, debt sustainability and governance – factors that are also essential for mobilising capital and narrowing the infrastructure financing gap. Through the principles, countries can align their development goals with international standards and track progress through a common set of indicators (Table 2.4) while creating favourable investment opportunities.
Source: G20 (2022[121]), Compendium of Quality Infrastructure Investment Indicators, https://cdn.gihub.org/umbraco/media/4761/compendium-of-qii-indicators.pdf.
Source: Japan MILT (2021[122]), Japan’s “Quality Infrastructure” Around the World: Compendium of Good Practices; G20 (2022[121]), Compendium of Quality Infrastructure Investment Indicators, https://cdn.gihub.org/umbraco/media/4761/compendium-of-qii-indicators.pdf.
Accelerating and scaling up infrastructure projects requires developing African expertise to implement them, particularly the priority projects identified by PIDA PAP2 (2021-30) (OECD/ACET, 2020[95]). Currently, many of the skills needed are lacking in African labour markets, and data on skill gaps are limited (AUC/OECD, 2024[123]). However, many promising skills development initiatives already exist, offering an opportunity that private firms, policymakers and international partners can collaboratively build on, in order to deliver Africa’s priority infrastructure projects.
Gaps in managerial skills are among the most salient across the life cycle of infrastructure projects. They cut across project prioritisation and definition; funding and financing; pre-feasibility and design; procurement, contracting and licensing; construction and implementation; operations and maintenance; monitoring and evaluation; and decommissioning. Project managers are at the core of effective project governance, managing a project’s complexity and technical requirements while engaging with stakeholders. Sekasi et al. (2024[75]) identified lack of managerial skills as one of the significant challenges in African transport infrastructure megaprojects, leading to poor project planning, execution and oversight.
Infrastructure development by sub-national governments faces a pronounced project management skill gap. Administrators in cities often lack the required management and technical skills to seek financing for infrastructure projects, requiring them to recruit costly outside advisers (Löffler and Haas, 2023[69]). A study of local government capacity in 16 African cities measured the difference between actual staffing numbers per 1 000 population and a benchmark for cities in developing countries with comparable populations and areas. The measured cities in Ghana, Mozambique and Uganda showed a ratio of 0.4 managerial and technical staff per 1 000 population, while the cities in Ethiopia had around 1.4 per 1 000.7 In contrast, this ratio was 8 to 1 000 in India and 36 to 1 000 in high-income countries (Cities Alliance, 2017[124]). Training for local governments can help, like the MILE project in South Africa. Another example is the Local Government Service Commission (LGSC) of Mauritius, established in 1976, which supports skills development by enabling federated states to recruit management staff from local governments (UCLG/Cities Alliance, 2021[64]).
The high demand for managerial skills will continue in the future. PMI (2021[125]) estimates that Nigeria and South Africa need 87 000 new project management positions per year on average between 2019 and 2030. The construction sector drives 25% of this demand.8 Managers who can navigate local, cross-border and global frameworks will be in high demand (OECD/AfIDA, 2025[126]).
Skill shortages are most often reported in the early phases of the infrastructure life cycle, hindering project preparation, making projects less bankable and increasing their costs. Project preparation requires a wide range of skills and expertise – spanning technical, social, environmental and financial areas. According to the OECD/AfIDA survey, skill shortages are most prevalent in the early project phases: financing, pre-feasibility, and construction and implementation (before operation, maintenance and de-commissioning).9 Leigland and Roberts (2007[127]) estimate that this skills gap has led to increased project preparation expenditures of nearly 10% of a project’s investment cost in Africa – higher than the standard 5% cost.
In the construction sector, high-skill occupations (managers, professionals and technicians) seem less represented in Africa. While data on skills in infrastructure are lacking, occupational data exist for a sector like construction for 35 African countries. African construction employs mostly medium-skilled professionals, nearly 70% of the total. Relative to other world regions, the share of managers, clerical support workers, plant and machine operators and assemblers, professionals, and technicians is lower in Africa than in high-income countries. In contrast, the proportion of craft and related trades workers is much higher in Africa, also compared to Latin America and the Caribbean (Annex Figure 2.A.1).
Note: LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean. The breakdown of occupations is based on the four-level ISCO-08 job and skill level classification, where a skill is defined as the ability to carry out the tasks and duties of a job. Skill level 1 (low-skill): Elementary occupations; Skill levels 2 and 3 (medium-skill): Plant and machine operators and assemblers, Craft and related trade workers and Clerical support workers; Skills level 4 (high-skill): Technicians and associate professionals, Professionals and Managers. Data are based on Labour Force Statistics (LFS) - Labour Force Sample Survey, Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (HIES) - Living Standards Survey and Population Censuses (PC).
Source: ILOSTAT (2023[128]), Labour Force Statistics (LFS) Employment by economic activity and occupation (thousands) (database), https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/ (accessed November 2024).
Training and education providers can give higher priority to skill gaps in the project management, negotiation and business development of infrastructure. National skill providers focus mainly on responding to technical needs, while project management, negotiating and business skills are typically supported through time-bound funding from international partners and facilities (PPIAF/ICA, 2006[129]). Skill providers – including community education and training colleges, the continental network of Centres of Excellence, technical and vocational education and training institutions, and National Construction Authorities (e.g. in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa) – could integrate more studies to develop managerial and business skills into their training curricula, data collection and policy dialogue, with the aim building long-term capacity (Annex Table 2.A.1).
Source: Authors’ compilation.
On-the-job training, combined with new training tools such as micro-credentials, can help African countries respond to continuous demand for infrastructure skills, including skills needed beyond project feasibility phases. Practical training is favoured by employers seeking to reskill or upskill when infrastructure skill needs shift rapidly. For example, in a 2016-17 survey of around 1 000 Chinese companies in 8 African countries, 53% of firms in the construction sector said they provided apprenticeship training (Sun, Jayaram and Kassiri, 2017[130]). TVET training and micro-credentials, obtained in a short time span, offer complementary opportunities for skill enhancement, like crafting training modules on skills in maintenance for road transport and electricity supply. Collaboration among international partners and commensurate financial resources are key. However, less than 1% of official development finance disbursed in each of the areas of water and sanitation, information and communications technology, transport and energy was allocated to education and training in 2023 (OECD, 2024[131]).
Using its “school site” approach, the International Labour Organization had trained 900 youth in 10 career sectors in Mauritania’s building and public works sector and provided access to 12 villages as of 2017. This training approach covers both theoretical and practical in professions related to construction and maintenance (ILO, 2018[132]).
The Build4Skills programme – in collaboration with multilateral development banks such as the African Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank – advocates for traineeships as a requirement in infrastructure public tenders. Bidders must demonstrate how they will use the “TVET by default” in their projects while generating wider societal benefits aimed at the youth, disadvantaged groups and women. It is active in Kenya, Senegal and South Africa (ADB, 2024[133]).
As solutions-oriented platforms, communities of practice (CoPs) offer valuable access to policy lessons at the project level, including those related to skills. CoPs are distributed networks that can fulfil three key functions in infrastructure: i) materialising investments in infrastructure; ii) influencing changes to the policy enabling environment; and iii) improving public sector capacity. These communities often collaborate with national skill providers, enhancing curricula and widening the reach of training. A handful are active in Africa’s infrastructure development (see the ASQIIA example above and Annex Box 2.A.1).
The Scaling CoP covers not only infrastructure but also transversal issues such as climate change, education, gender equality and youth employment. It seeks to identify sustainable development drivers and pathways whose proven efficiency is scalable (Scaling, 2025[134]).
The Catapult Accelerator programme, organised by the Africa Infrastructure Development Association (AfIDA), aims to create an ecosystem of skills and expertise, to fast-track the development of innovative infrastructure projects. One of its initiatives is a collaboration with the Minerals Council of South Africa (MCSA), where AfIDA and the MCSA organise pitch sessions for financiers, experts and government representatives. Between 2023-25, 30 projects from 18 countries have been presented at 9 pitch sessions. The programme seeks to raise a combined USD 20 billion for projects covering energy, digital-ICT, water, irrigation, rail, airport, special economic zones and new cities. A noteworthy project by the Lebalelo Water User Association (LWUA) serves mines, industry, small businesses and a community of 490 000 residents in South Africa, with mines accounting for 80% of the utilities for the LWUA.
Source: AfIDA contribution.
References
[133] ADB (2024), Build4Skills: Integrating Traineeships into ADB-Supported Infrastructure Projects – A Handbook for Project Processing Teams and Project Implementation Units, Mandaluyong, https://doi.org/10.22617/TIM240449-2.
[53] AFC (2023), “Africa Finance Corporation to lead US-backed development of the Lobito Corridor and Zambia-Lobito Rail Line”, African Finance Corporation (website), https://www.africafc.org/fr/actualites-et-perspectives/actualit%C3%A9s/africa-finance-corporation-to-lead-us-backed-development-of-the-lobito-corridor-and-zambia-lobito-rail-line (accessed on 30 March 2025).
[73] AFD (n.d.), “The CITYRIZ Guarantee”, AFD (website), https://www.afd.fr/en/cityriz-guarantee (accessed on 1 April 2025).
[70] AfDB (2024), “The expansion, approved by the Fund’s 13th Oversight Committee, will help bolster urban development and address critical challenges faced by rapidly growing African cities”, The African Development Bank Group (website), https://afdb.africa-newsroom.com/press/le-fonds-de-developpement-urbain-et-municipal-de-la-banque-africaine-de-developpement-integre-six-nouvelles-villes-a-son-programme-daccompagnement-en-planification-urbaine?lang=en (accessed on 4 March 2025).
[54] AfDB (2023), “African Development Bank joins global partners to raise financing for $1.6 bn multinational Lobito Transportation Corridor programme”, African Development Bank (website), https://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/press-releases/african-development-bank-joins-global-partners-raise-financing-16-bn-multinational-lobito-transportation-corridor-programme-65357 (accessed on 1 April 2025).
[88] AfDB/ICA (2019), Assessment of “African Infrastructure Project Preparation Facilities – Lessons Learned and Best Practices“, Infrastructure Consortium for Africa, African Development Bank, https://www.icafrica.org/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Report_on_Assessment_of_IPPFs.pdf.
[19] AfDB/OECD/UNDP (2016), African Economic Outlook 2016: Sustainable Cities and Structural Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aeo-2016-en.
[119] Africa Global Logistics (2021), Green Terminal Label, https://www.aglgroup.com/app/uploads/2023/12/11.23-AGL-Green-Terminal-brochure-A3.pdf.
[100] African Union (2024), African Cities at a Crossroads: Closing the Urban Infrastructure Investment Gap, Addis Ababa, https://au.int/sites/default/files/newsevents/workingdocuments/43851-wd-Executive_Summary_Draft_-_30Aug_19.pdf.
[93] ALSF (2024), Public Private Partnerships (PPP): Public Private Partnerships (PPP) Country Profile Brochure – A comparative analysis, Abidjan, https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sites/default/files/2024-03/2024-02-20%20-%20Survey%20PPP%20Legal%20%26%20Institutional%20Frameworks%20in%20Africa%20%28EN%29.pdf.
[63] Anderson, B. et al. (2024), “Shaping expanding cities for accessible transport: Proximity and road networks. The case of Accra and Kumasi in Ghana”, Sahel and West Africa Club (OECD/SWAC), West African Papers, No. 47, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c4884034-en.
[35] AU (2020), Elaboration of the 2021-2030 Priority Action Plan for the AU Program for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA): The Integrated Corridor Approach – “A Holistic Infrastructure Planning Framework to Establish PIDA-PAP 2”, African Union, Addis Ababa, https://pp2.au-pida.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/English-Analytical-Report-Integrated-Corridor-Approach-and-Selection-Criteria.pdf.
[25] AUC (2015), Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want, African Union Commission, Addis Ababa, http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Policy-Documents/Agenda2063_Popular_Version_English.pdf.
[123] AUC/OECD (2024), Africa’s Development Dynamics 2024: Skills, Jobs and Productivity, African Union Commission, Addis Ababa/OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/df06c7a4-en.
[7] AUC/OECD (2023), Africa’s Development Dynamics 2023: Investing in Sustainable Development, African Union Commission, Addis Ababa/OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3269532b-en.
[23] AUC/OECD (2022), Africa’s Development Dynamics 2022: Regional Value Chains for a Sustainable Recovery, African Union Commission, Addis Ababa/OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2e3b97fd-en.
[11] AUC/OECD (2021), AUC/OECD (2021), Africa’s Development Dynamics 2021: Digital Transformation for Quality Jobs, African Union Commission, Addis Ababa/OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0a5c9314-en.
[18] AUC/OECD (2019), Africa’s Development Dynamics 2019: Achieving Productive Transformation, African Union Commission, Addis Ababa/OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c1cd7de0-en.
[4] AUC/OECD (2018), Africa’s Development Dynamics 2018: Growth, Jobs and Inequalities, African Union Commission, Addis Ababa/OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264302501-en.
[65] AUC/UNECA/UN-HABITAT (2020), A Harmonized Implementation Framework for the New Urban Agenda in Africa, African Union Commission, United Nations, Addis Ababa, https://au.int/sites/default/files/newsevents/workingdocuments/43851-wd-A_Harmonized_Implementation_Framework_for_the_New_Urban_Agenda_in_Africa.pdf.
[58] AUDA-NEPAD (2025), “African Network for Women in Infrastructure (ANWIN)”, au-pida (website), https://www.au-pida.org/african-network-for-women-in-infrastructure-anwin/ (accessed on 10 March 2025).
[37] AUDA-NEPAD (2025), PIDA Projects Dashboard (database), https://www.au-pida.org/pida-projects/ (accessed on April 2025).
[24] AUDA-NEPAD (2023), Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA): First 10-Year Implementation Report, Johannesburg, https://www.au-pida.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/PIDA-Progress-Report_WEB.pdf.
[39] AUDA-NEPAD (2020), Guidelines to Fill the PIDA-PAP 2 Submission Form, African Union Development Agency, Johannesburg, https://pp2.au-pida.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/English-Guidelines-to-fill-the-PIDA-PAP-2-Project-Submission.pdf.
[38] AUDA-NEPAD (n.d.), “The PIDA Job Creation Toolkit”, https://jobs.au-pida.org/index.html#/studies (accessed on 17 November 2024).
[57] AUDA-NEPAD/JICA (2024), One-Stop Border Post (OSBP): Status Report, https://www.nepad.org/publication/one-stop-border-post-osbp-status-report.
[5] Bersaglio, B. and C. Enns (2019), “On the Coloniality of “New” Mega-Infrastructure Projects in East Africa”, Antipode, Vol. 52/1, pp. 101-123, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/anti.12582.
[47] Bignoli, D. (2024), “Towards more sustainable and inclusive development corridors in Africa”, Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, Vol. 4/3, p. 035012, https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/30549/Bignoli_2024_Environ._Res._Infrastruct._Sustain._4_035012.pdf;jsessionid=07B46A0B4D141D18BCA563AE787F8320?sequence=1.
[110] Blazey, A., F. Gonguet and P. Stokoe (2020), “Maintaining and Managing Public Infrastructure Assets”, in Schwartz, G. (ed.), Well Spent: How Strong Infrastructure Governance Can End Waste in Public Investment, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781513511818/ch014.xml.
[116] Blue Dot Network (2024), Blue Dot Network Certification Framework, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/65fd77fec4ad696366329acd/t/6639dfc746f3b664a741cc2e/1715068873022/Blue+Dot+Network+certification+framework.pdf.
[103] Business Daily (2014), “Nairobi Water targets big consumers with smart meters”, Business Daily Africa (website), https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/bd/corporate/companies/nairobi-water-targets-big-consumers-with-smart-meters-2055106 (accessed on 4 April 2025).
[14] BusinessWire (2025), “Africa Data Center Construction Market 2025-2030: Modular Data Centers Are on the Rise, Offering Scalable, Energy-efficient Solutions for Gradual Expansion as Demand Increases - ResearchAndMarkets.com”, BusinessWire (website), https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250220160575/en/Africa-Data-Center-Construction-Market-2025-2030-Modular-Data-Centers-are-on-the-Rise-Offering-Scalable-Energy-efficient-Solutions-for-Gradual-Expansion-As-Demand-Increases---ResearchAndMarkets.com (accessed on 29 March 2025).
[13] BusinessWire (2025), “Africa Data Center Portfolio Database 2025: Morocco Leads Africa’s Data Center Expansion with 35% Market Share in Upcoming Power Capacity - ResearchAndMarkets.com”, BusinessWire (website), https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250327317136/en/Africa-Data-Center-Portfolio-Database-2025-Morocco-Leads-Africas-Data-Center-Expansion-with-35-Market-Share-in-Upcoming-Power-Capacity---ResearchAndMarkets.com (accessed on 29 March 2025).
[82] Byiers, B. et al. (2021), “African regional integration: A problem-driven approach to delivering regional public goods”, FERDI Working Papers No. 290, https://hal.science/hal-03247039/.
[3] Castells-Quintana, D. (2017), “Malthus living in slum: Urban concentration, infrastructure and economic growth”, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 98, pp. 158-173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2016.02.003.
[33] CBC (2019), Promoting Agro-Industry Supply Chains along the Transport Corridors of Eastern & Southern Africa, COMESA Business Council, Zambia, https://comesabusinesscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/AFDB-KOAFEC-STUDY-AGRO-SUPPLY-CHAINS-CORRIDORS_compressed.pdf.
[89] CCFLA (2024), The Landscape of Project Preparation 2024, Cities Climate Finance Leadership Alliance, https://citiesclimatefinance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2024-PPF-Landscape-Analysis_Final-1.pdf.
[10] Cervigni, R. et al. (eds.) (2015), Enhancing the climate resilience of Africa’s infrastructure: The power and water sectors, Africa Developmet Forum, World Bank, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/21875.
[91] Chinzara, Z., S. Dessus and S. Dreyhaupt (2023), “Infrastructure in Africa: How Institutional Reforms Can Attract More Private Investment”, International Finance Corporation World Bank Group Working Paper, https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2023/working-paper-infrastructure-in-africa.pdf.
[124] Cities Alliance (2017), Human Resources Capacity Benchmarking: A Preliminary Toolkit for Planning and Management in Africa, Cities Alliance, Brussels, https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/Final%20Report%20on%20Municipal%20Staffing%20Toolkit_0.pdf.
[114] Dash, P. et al. (2021), “G20 Support for Improved Infrastructure Project Cycles in Africa”, Task Force 7 Policy Brief, https://www.t20italy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/TF7_PB13_LM02.pdf.
[12] Data Center Map (n.d.), “Data Centers”, Data Center Map (website), https://www.datacentermap.com/datacenters/ (accessed on 25 March 2025).
[111] Department of Public Works (2007), The National Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy in Support of ASGISA and Government Growth Objectives, Department of Public Works, South Africa, https://www.foresightfordevelopment.org/library/55/1328-the-national-infrastructure-maintenance-strategy-in-support-of-asgisa-and-government-growth-objectives#:~:text=The%20National%20Infrastructure%20Maintenance%20Strategy,a%20process%20of%20continuous%2.
[85] Dodman, D. (2008), “Developers in the public interest? The role of urban development corporations in the Anglophone Caribbean”, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 174/1, pp. 30-44, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008.00267.x.
[15] Dorosh, P. and J. Thurlow (2014), “Can Cities or Towns Drive African Development? Economywide Analysis for Ethiopia and Uganda”, World Development, Vol. 63, pp. 113-123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.10.014.
[32] EAC (2012), East African Community Industrialisation Policy 2012-2032: Structural Transformation of the Manufacturing Sector through High Value Addition and Product Diversification based on Comparative and Competitive Advantages of the Region, East African Community, https://www.eac.int/index.php?option=com_documentmananger&task=download.document&file=bWFpbl9kb2N1bWVudHNfcGRmX1V4Tk5ZUmFBVHlSZll4VXhOZnpWVkRNRmluYWwgRUFDIEluZHVzdHJpYWxpemF0aW9uIFBvbGljeV9lZGl0ZWQgRmluYWwgKDIp&counter=886.
[120] EDGE (n.d), “EDGE”, edge.gbci (website), https://edge.gbci.org/ (accessed on 5 February 2025).
[76] Eltokhy, K. et al. (2024), “Public Investment Management Bottlenecks in Low-income Countries”, IMF Working Papers 2024, No. 232, https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400289231.001.
[107] ESMAP (2024), “Utility Digitalization and Performance Improvement in Africa”, 12-14 February 2024, ESMAP Workshop, https://www.esmap.org/Utility_Digitalization_Performance_Improvement_Africa_Workshop.
[51] EU (2022), “Strategic corridors to improve Europe – Africa Connectivity”, JRC Digital Media Hub European Commission (website), https://visitors-centre.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/media/leaflets/strategic-corridors-improve-europe-africa-connectivity (accessed on 1 March 2025).
[72] EU (n.d.), “CITYRIZ”, European Commission International Partnership (website), https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-technical-assistance/funding-instruments/european-fund-sustainable-development-plus/cityriz_en#:~:text=Description,objectives%20such%20as%20poverty%20reduction. (accessed on 1 April 2025).
[117] Fast-Infra SI Label (2021), “Fast Infra Label ”, ISO (website), https://www.iso.org/committee/54998.html?t=KomURwikWDLiuB1P1c7SjLMLEAgXOA7emZHKGWyn8f3KQUTU3m287NxnpA3DIuxm&view=documents#section-isodocuments-top (accessed on 10 February 2025).
[46] Flyvbjerg, B. and D. Gardner (2023), “How big things get done: The surprising factors that determine the fate of every project, from home renovations to space exploration and everything in between”, Signal.
[121] G20 (2022), Compendium of Quality Infrastructure Investment Indicators, https://cdn.gihub.org/umbraco/media/4761/compendium-of-qii-indicators.pdf.
[50] G2O et al. (2024), Delivering Cross-Border Infrastructure: Conceptual Framework and Illustrative Case Studies, https://g20.gov.br/pt-br/trilhas/trilha-de-financas/infraestrutura/4-g20-aiib-ebrd-idb-report-on-delivering-cross-border-infrastructure-conceptual-framework-and-case-studies.pdf/@@download/file.
[87] GIH (2021), Infrastructure Monitor 2021, Global Infrastructure Hub, https://cdn.gihub.org/umbraco/media/4306/gihub_infrastructuremonitor2021.pdf.
[77] GIH (n.d.), Establishing Effective Governance Structures, Global Infrastructure Hub, https://cdn.gihub.org/umbraco/media/3562/44-establishing-effective-governance-structures.pdf.
[61] Gillespie, T. and B. Mwau (2024), “Road Corridors as Real Estate Frontiers: The New Urban Geographies of Rentier Capitalism in Africa”, Antipode, Vol. 56/6, pp. 2136-2156, https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.13080.
[84] Gil, N. and S. Beckman (2025), “Escaping the Governance Trap: Insights from New Infrastructure Development ‘Megaprojects’”, California Management Review, https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/publications/escaping-the-governance-trap-insights-from-new-infrastructure-dev.
[17] Gil, N., A. Stafford and I. Musonda (2019), “Duality by Design: The Global Race to Build Africa’s Infrastructure”, in Duality by Design: The Global Race to Build Africa’s Infrastructure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-30, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/duality-by-design/duality-by-design-the-global-race-to-build-africas-infrastructure/83274BBED7311127851885E2752B5809.
[108] Gorgulu, N., V. Foster and A. Rana (2022), “Understanding Public Spending Trends for Infrastructure in Developing Countries”, World Bank Group Policy Research Working Paper, No. 9903, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/36849.
[6] Graff, T. (2024), “Spatial inefficiencies in Africa’s trade network”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 171, p. 103319, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387824000683.
[86] Gregory, J. (2020), “Governance, scale, scope: A review of six South African electricity generation infrastructure megaprojects”, Utilities Policy, Vol. 66, p. 101103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2020.101103.
[102] GSMA (2022), Water Utility Digitalisation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Experiences from the Kenyan Water Sector, https://www.gsma.com/solutions-and-impact/connectivity-for-good/mobile-for-development/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Digital-Utilities-Water-Utility-Digitalisation-in-Low-and-Middle-income-Countries_SPREAD.pdf.
[49] Hobbs, J. and D. Juffe Bignoli (eds.) (2022), Impact Assessment for Corridors: From Infrastrucure to Development Corridors, Cambridge: The Development Corridors Partnership, https://developmentcorridors.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/development-coridors-final-v4-1371-1-3_compressed-1_compressed.pdf.
[41] IGAD (2022), IGAD Regional Infrastructure Master Plan: Final IRIMP Report, Intergovernmental Authority on Development, https://igad.int/download/igad-regional-infrastructure-master-plan-final-irimp-report/.
[132] ILO (2018), Guide de réalisation d’infrastructures rurales avec la méthodologie du Chantier d’école, Geneva, https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@africa/@ro-abidjan/@ilo-algiers/documents/publication/wcms_645578.pdf.
[128] ILOSTAT (2023), “Labour Force Statistics (LFS) Employment by economic activity and occupation (thousands)”, ILOSTAT (database), https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/# (accessed on 25 November 2024).
[28] IMF (2025), “Public Investment Management assessment (PIMA)”, (database), https://infrastructuregovern.imf.org/content/PIMA/Home/PimaTool/What-is-PIMA.html (accessed on 1 March 2025).
[29] InfraCompass (2020), “A G20 Initiative: InfraCompass”, InfraCompass (website), https://infracompass.gihub.org/ (accessed on 1 April 2025).
[97] IRENA (2019), Renewable Energy: A Gender Perspective, IRENA, Abu Dhabi, https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Jan/IRENA_Gender_perspective_2019.pdf.
[118] ISO (2023), ISO survey 2023 results - number of certificates and sites per country and the number of sectors overall (database), https://www.iso.org/committee/54998.html?t=KomURwikWDLiuB1P1c7SjLMLEAgXOA7emZHKGWyn8f3KQUTU3m287NxnpA3DIuxm&view=documents#section-isodocuments-top (accessed on 5 February 2025).
[122] Japan MLIT (2021), Japan’s “Quality Infrastructure” Around the World: Compendium of Good Practices, Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, https://www.mlit.go.jp/kokusai/content/001397311.pdf.
[52] JICA (2022), Data Collection Survey on Corridor Development in Africa Final Report, https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12342838.pdf.
[55] JICA (2018), Corridor Development Approach: Revitalize the Region Inclusively and Bring Strong Sustainable Economic Growth for the People, https://www.jica.go.jp/Resource/english/publications/brochures/c8h0vm0000avs7w2-att/japan_brand_07.pdf.
[101] KenGen (2021), “KenGen Receives Two Million Additional Carbon Credits for Its Olkaria Geothermal Projects”, KenGen (website), https://www.kengen.co.ke/index.php/information-center/news-and-events-3/kengen-receives-two-million-additional-carbon-credits-for-its-olkaria-geothermal-projects.html (accessed on 15 February 2025).
[92] Kouton, J., W. Sanogo and N. Djomgoue (2023), “Risk allocation in energy infrastructure PPPs projects in selected African countries: Does institutional quality, PPPs experience and income level make a difference?”, Economic Change and Restructuring, Vol. 56, pp. 537-580, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-022-09433-0.
[16] Krantz, S. (2024), “Optimal Investments in Africa’s Road Network”, World Bank Group Policy Research Working Paper, Washington, DC, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099223509042435445.
[48] Laurance, W. et al. (2015), “Estimating the Environmental Costs of Africa’s Massive ’Development Corridors’”, Current Biology, Vol. 25/24, pp. 3202-3208, https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01309-3?mc_cid=ebd99f033d&mc_eid=abc5417b82.
[56] Lebrand, M. and M. Sylvie (2021), “Corridors without Borders in West Africa”, World Bank Group Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 9855, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/585581637328017410.
[127] Leigland, J. and A. Roberts (2007), The African project preparation gap: Africans address a critical limiting factor in infrastructure investment, World Bank, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/c85c5880-26f6-5627-8989-67011f2e7a95.
[42] Lisinge, R. and M. van Dijk (2021), “Regional transport infrastructure programmes in Africa: What factors influence their performance?”, Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue Canadienne Des Études Africaines, Vol. 56/1, pp. 99-121.
[69] Löffler, G. and A. Haas (2023), “Bridging Africa’s Urban Infrastructure Gap: Financial Intermediaries for Facilitating Cities’ Access to Debt Finance in Africa”, ODI Working Paper, http://www.odi.org/en/publications/bridging-africas-urban-infrastructure-gap-financial-intermediariesfor-facilitating-cities-access-to-debt-finance-in-africa.
[43] Medinilla, A., B. Byiers and K. Karaki (2019), “African power pools regional energy, national power”, ECDPM Discussion Paper No 244, pp. 1-30, https://ecdpm.org/application/files/1816/6074/5141/DP-244-African-Power-Pools-1.pdf.
[20] Moneke, N. (2020), “Infrastructure and structural transformation: evidence from Ethiopia”, (PhD thesis), London School of Economics and Political Science, https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/4187/.
[66] Monkhouse, C. (2018), “Promoting green urban industrialisation in Ethiopia”, CDKN Policy Brief, https://cdkn.org/sites/default/files/files/Green_Industrialisation_Web-final.pdf.
[34] NCTCA (2025), “Northern Corridor Member States to Establish a Regional Logistics Hub within Naivasha Special Economic Zone”, Northern Corridor and Transport Coordination Authority (website), https://ttcanc.org/northern-corridor-member-states-establish-regional-logistics-hub-within-naivasha-special-economic (accessed on 1 April 2025).
[79] OECD (2024), Compendium of Good Practices on Quality Infrastructure 2024: Building Resilience to Natural Disasters, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/54d26e88-en.
[8] OECD (2024), Infrastructure for a Climate-Resilient Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a74a45b0-en.
[131] OECD (2024), Official Development Assistance (database), OECD Data Explorer, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/?fs[0]=Topic%2C1%7CDevelopment%23DEV%23%7COfficial%20Development%20Assistance%20%28ODA%29%23DEV_ODA%23&pg=0&fc=Topic&bp=true&snb=27 (accessed on 3 February 2025).
[26] OECD (2023), Production Transformation Policy Review of Egypt: Spotlight on the AfCFTA and Industrialisation, OECD Development Pathways, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3ac95e0c-en.
[74] OECD (2022), “2022 OECD Survey on the Governance of Infrastructure”, OECD (Glossary), https://webfs.oecd.org/governmentataglance/Governance%20of%20infrastructure/2022%20OECD%20Survey%20on%20the%20Governance%20of%20Infrastructure_Glossary.pdf.
[96] OECD (2021), SIGI 2021 Regional Report for Africa, Social Institutions and Gender Index, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a6d95d90-en.
[62] OECD (2021), Water Governance in African Cities, OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19effb77-en.
[78] OECD (2020), “Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Infrastructure”, OECD Legal Instruments (website), https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0460/ (accessed on 15 March 2025).
[2] OECD et al. (2025), Africa’s Urbanisation Dynamics 2025: Planning for Urban Expansion, West African Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2a47845c-en.
[95] OECD/ACET (2020), Quality Infrastructure in 21st Century Africa: Prioritising, accelerating, and scaling up in the context of PIDA (2021-30), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/83f17831-en.
[115] OECD/ACET/AUDA-NEPAD (2021), “High Level Implementation Plan for “Accelerating and Scaling Up Quality Infrastructure Investment for in Africa“”, Program document drafted by Bakary Traoré and Mondher Khanfir, March 2021.
[83] OECD/ACET/AUDA-NEPAD (forthcoming), Africa’s infrastructure ecosystems, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[126] OECD/AfIDA (2025), “Workshop on Skills Development”, 23 January 2025.
[68] OECD/AUC/ATAF (2024), Revenue Statistics in Africa 2024: Facilitation and Trust as Drivers of Voluntary Tax Compliance in Selected African Tax Administrations, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/78e9af3a-en.
[99] Osei-Kyei, R. and A. Chan (2015), “Developing Transport Infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa through Public–Private Partnerships: Policy Practice and Implications”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 36/2, pp. 170-186, https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1077288.
[67] Parliament of Uganda (2024), “Gov’t to extend high-speed internet to all sub-counties”, Parliament of Uganda (website), https://www.parliament.go.ug/news/3448/govt-extend-high-speed-internet-all-sub-counties (accessed on 24 March 2025).
[113] PIDA (2025), “The PIDA Artificial Intelligent Service”, AU PIDA (website), https://www.au-pida.org/pida-ai-tool/ (accessed on 15 March 2025).
[60] PIDA (2020), African Union Infrastructure and Energy Commissioner calls for proactive gender-responsive infrastructure development in Africa, https://www.au-pida.org/news/african-union-infrastructure-and-energy-commissioner-calls-for-proactive-gender-responsive-infrastructure-development-in-africa/ (accessed on 3 April 2025).
[59] PIDA (2020), “Gender Responsive Infrastructure Development”, AU PIDA (website), https://pp2.au-pida.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Gender-guidelines-and-policy-brief.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2025).
[125] PMI (2021), Talent Gap: Ten-Year Employment Trends, Costs, and Global Implications, https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/career-central/talent-gap-report-2021-finalfinal.pdf.
[129] PPIAF/ICA (2006), Infrastructure Project Preparation Facilities: User Guide Africa (English), Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF), World Bank, Washington, DC, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/869891468203693357.
[44] Roberts, M. et al. (2018), “Transport Corridors and Their Wider Economic Benefits: A Critical Review of the Literature”, SS No. 8302, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/29212.
[109] Rozenberg, J. and M. Fay (2019), Beyond the Gap: How Countries Can Afford the Infrastructure They Need while Protecting the Planet, World Bank, Sustainable Infrastructure Series, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31291.
[40] SADC (2012), Regional Infrastructure Development Master Plan: Executive Summary, Southern African Development Community, https://www.sadc.int/sites/default/files/2021-08/Regional_Infrastructure_Development_Master_Plan_Executive_Summary.pdf.
[134] Scaling (2025), “Global Community of Practice on Scaling Development Outcomes”, scalingcommunityofpractice (website), https://scalingcommunityofpractice.com/ (accessed on 10 March 2025).
[75] Sekasi, J. et al. (2024), “Performance controls and accountability in African transport infrastructure megaprojects: A systematic literature review”, Project Leadership and Society, Vol. 5, p. 100123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2024.100123.
[81] Signé, L. (2017), “The road ahead for fixing Africa’s infrastructure deficit”, Brookings, No. 16, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-road-ahead-for-fixing-africas-infrastructure-deficit/.
[130] Sun, I., K. Jayaram and O. Kassiri (2017), Dance of the lions and dragons: How are Africa and China engaging, and how will the partnership evolve?, McKinsey & Company, https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/middle%20east%20and%20africa/the%20closest%20look%20yet%20at%20chinese%20economic%20engagement%20in%20africa/dance-of-the-lions-and-dragons.pdf.
[71] Swiss Development Cooperation (2024), “Urban and Municipal Development Fund (UMDF) Phase II”, eda.admin (website), https://www.eda.admin.ch/deza/en/home/countries/north-africa.html/content/dezaprojects/SECO/en/2022/UR01096/phase2?oldPagePath=/content/deza/en/home/laender/nordafrika.html (accessed on 25 February 2025).
[30] Thorn, J. et al. (2022), “The African Development Corridors Database: A new tool to assess the impacts of infrastructure investments”, Scientific Data, Vol. 9, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01771-y.
[80] Thusi, S., B. Qwabe and O. Ojogiwa (2024), “Stakeholder engagement and project governance in local government: An empirical perspective of eThekwini Municipality Water and Sanitation Unit, South Africa”, The Journal of Rural and Community Development, Vol. 19/4, pp. 45-61, https://journals.brandonu.ca/jrcd/article/view/2399/665.
[36] Traoré, B. et al. (2024), “Scaling-up Financing for Infrastructure in Developing Countries: What Can the G7 Do”, T7 Policy Brief for Italy 2024 Presidency of the G7, TF3 -Future of the Global Economy, https://archive.think7.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/T7it_tf3_pb05.pdf.
[106] Trimble, C. et al. (2016), “Financial Viability of Electricity Sectors in Sub-Saharan Africa”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 7788, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/182071470748085038/pdf/WPS7788.pdf.
[64] UCLG/Cities Alliance (2021), Assessing the Institutional Environment of Cities and Subnational Governments in Africa, UCLG Africa, Rabat, Cities Alliance, Brussels, https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/CitiesAlliance_Assessing%20Inst.%20Environment%20of%20Cities%20and%20Subnal.%20Govs%20in%20Africa_EN.pdf.
[31] UEMOA/JICA (2018), The Project on the Corridor Development for West Africa Growth Ring Master Plan: Final Report Summary, Japan international Cooperation Agency, https://ndpc.gov.gh/media/WAGRIC-CACAO_Summary_Report_2018.pdf.
[112] Uganda Road Fund (n.d.), “About us”, roadfund.ug (website), https://roadfund.ug/about/ (accessed on 5 February 2025).
[1] UN DESA (2025), “World Population Prospects 2024”, The 2024 Revision of World Population Prospects (database), https://population.un.org/wpp/ (accessed on 20 December 2024).
[27] UNCTAD (2018), Trade and Development Report 2018: Power, Platforms and the Free Trade Delusion, United Nations, New York, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tdr2018_en.pdf.
[22] UNECA (2022), The African Continental Free Trade Area and Demand for Transport Infrastructure and Services?, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa, https://repository.uneca.org/handle/10855/47596.
[21] UNECA (2017), Leveraging urbanization for Africa’s structural transformation: ECA’S Contribution, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa, https://repository.uneca.org/handle/10855/24092.
[98] UNOPS (2019), Only by bringing everyone to the table can we address everyone’s needs, Copenhagen, https://content.unops.org/publications/Sustainability-reports/UNOPS-sustainability-report-2019-EN.pdf.
[9] WMO (2024), “Africa faces disproportionate burden from climate change and adaptation costs”, World Meteorological Organization (website), https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/africa-faces-disproportionate-burden-from-climate-change-and-adaptation-costs (accessed on 1 April 2025).
[135] World Bank (2025), Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) (database), https://ppi.worldbank.org/en/ppi (accessed on 14 March 2025).
[94] World Bank (2025), The World Bank Benchmarking Infrastructure Development (BID) (database), https://bpp.worldbank.org/en/global (accessed on 6 March 2025).
[104] World Bank (2024), The Critical Link: Empowering Utilities for the Energy Transition, World Bank, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/41618.
[45] World Bank (2024), “Toward a Data-driven Understanding of Trade and Transport Corridors - An Assessment of the Potential of the Existing Transport Corridor Monitoring Systems to Foster Policy Dialogue and to Strengthen Corridor Management Institutions in Africa”, World Bank Group Sub-Saharan Africa Transport Policy Program (SSATP) Working Paper Series, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099062624065590055.
[90] World Bank (2023), PPP Regulatory Reforms Case Studies, World Bank, Washington DC, https://bpp.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/data/bpp/documents/PPP-Regulatory-Reforms-Case-Studies.pdf.
[105] World Bank (2023), Understanding and Mitigating the Fiscal Risks of Infrastructure, Washington, DC, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099042023121523507/pdf/P172275-b5130fd8-f0b3-41a6-91dd-a41bf9fd7656.pdf.
← 1. The survey included 51 experts and senior officials of member states, regional economic communities and other inter-governmental organisations, and AfDB. All experts were involved in at least one of three corridors: the Abidjan-Lagos Corridor, the North-South Corridor and the Central African Transport Master Plan.
← 2. The survey included 51 experts and senior officials of member states, regional economic communities and other inter-governmental organisations, and AfDB. All experts were involved in at least one of three corridors: the Abidjan-Lagos Corridor, the North-South Corridor and the Central African Transport Master Plan.
← 3. Eswatini, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Somalia and South Africa reported subnational tax revenues; Eswatini, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria and Somalia reported subnational non-tax revenues (OECD/AUC/ATAF, 2024[68]).
← 4. Authors’ calculations based on (World Bank, 2025[94]).
← 5. Twenty-eight responses were received by February 2025 from the OECD/AfIDA survey administered to a network of infrastructure developers, investors and experts. Findings were corroborated through an expert workshop with 40 participants on 23 January 2025.
← 6. Authors’ calculations based on World Bank (2025[135]).
← 7. Cities covered in the study were Dire Dawa and Mekelle (Ethiopia); Kumasi, Tamale, Bolga and Sunyani (Ghana); Tete, Nacala and Nampula (Mozambique); and Entebbe, Fort Portal, Tororo, Jinja, Gulu, Arua and Hoima (Uganda). Staff data were collected on managerial and technical functions in finance, revenue, planning, public works, environmental health and solid waste management.
← 8. By comparison, the estimate for the same time period is 132 000 in Germany and the United Kingdom and 128 000 in Canada and the United States (PMI, 2021[125]).
← 9. The OECD/AfIDA survey was administered from December 2024 to March 2025 to a network of infrastructure developers, investors and experts.