Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action Plan (STAP)

Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action Plan - 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... X
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................... XIII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1
Key Concerns in the Implementation of STAP projects ......................................................................... 2
Energy Sector Projects ............................................................................................................................... 3
ICT Sector Projects ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Transport Sector Projects .......................................................................................................................... 7
Trans-boundary Water Sector Projects .................................................................................................... 9
Dovetail into PIDA ..................................................................................................................................... 13
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 14
1 CURRENT OVERVIEW OF STAP .......................................................................... 15
1.1 History of STAP ............................................................................................................................ 15
1.2 Current NEPAD STAP Project Portfolio ..................................................................................... 16
1.3 Key Concerns in the Implementation of STAP projects .......................................................... 18
1.4 Recommendations of the 2004 Implementation Review .......................................................... 19
1.5 Greater Support for Infrastructure Development in Africa ...................................................... 20
1.6 Continent-wide Infrastructure Initiatives ................................................................................... 22
2 ENERGY SECTOR PROJECTS ............................................................................. 24
2.1 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Energy Portfolio ............................................................................. 24
2.2 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Energy Portfolio .................................................. 26
2.3 Identification and categorization of challenges ........................................................................ 42
2.4 Ranking challenges by severity of impact ................................................................................ 47
2.5 Recommendations and the Way Forward for STAP Energy projects .................................... 48
3 ICT SECTOR PROJECTS ...................................................................................... 53
Draft Final Report i

3.1 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP ICT Portfolio ................................................................................... 53
3.2 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP ICT Portfolio ........................................................ 53
3.3 Identification and categorization of challenges ........................................................................ 68
3.4 Ranking challenges by severity of impact ................................................................................ 71
3.5 Categorization of ICT Projects .................................................................................................... 72
3.6 Way forward on STAP ICT Projects ........................................................................................... 74
4 TRANSPORT SECTOR PROJECTS ...................................................................... 76
4.1 Overall Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Transport Portfolio ........................................................... 76
4.2 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Air Transport Portfolio .................................................................. 77
4.3 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Air Transport Portfolio ....................................... 78
4.4 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Road Transport Portfolio .............................................................. 89
4.5 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Road Transport Portfolio ................................... 89
4.6 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Rail Transport Portfolio ............................................................... 104
4.7 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Rail Transport Portfolio .................................... 104
4.8 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Maritime Transport Portfolio ...................................................... 109
4.9 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Maritime Transport Portfolio ........................... 109
4.10 Impact of 2004 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 117
4.11 Identification and categorization of challenges ...................................................................... 119
4.12 Ranking challenges by severity of impact .............................................................................. 123
4.13 Categorization of Transport Projects ....................................................................................... 126
4.14 Way forward on STAP Transport Projects .............................................................................. 130
5 TRANS-BOUNDARY WATER SECTOR PROJECTS .......................................... 132
5.1 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Trans-boundary Water Portfolio................................................. 132
5.2 Identification and categorization of challenges ...................................................................... 139
5.3 Ranking challenges by severity of impact .............................................................................. 143
5.4 Categorization of Trans-Boundary Water Projects ................................................................ 144
5.5 Way forward on STAP Trans-boundary Water Projects ......................................................... 146
6 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 147
Draft Final Report ii

6.1 General Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 147
6.2 Dovetail into PIDA ...................................................................................................................... 154
7 APPENDIX-1: TYPES OF PROJECTS ................................................................. 155
7.1 Capacity-Building projects........................................................................................................ 155
7.2 Investment projects ................................................................................................................... 155
7.3 Studies ........................................................................................................................................ 156
7.4 Facilitation Projects ................................................................................................................... 156
Draft Final Report iii

GLOSSARY
AAP Africa Action Plan
ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
AfCAC African Civil Aviation Commission
AfDB African Development Bank
AfREC African Energy Commission
AICD Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic
AMCOW African Ministerial Conference on Water
AMU Arab Maghreb Union
ASECNA L'Agence pour la Sécurité de la Navigation aérienne en Afrique et à Madagascar
ASYCUDA Automated Systems for Customs Data ++
ATM Air Traffic Management
ATU African Telecommunications Union
AU African Union
AWF African Water Facility
BAG Banjul Accord Group
BASA Bilateral Air Service Agreements
BOAD Banque Ouest Africaine de Développement
BOOT Build Operate Own Transfer
BPL Broadband over Power Line
CAB Central African Backbone Programme
CAPP Central African Power Pool
CASSOA Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency
CCC Community Computer Centre
CDN Corredor de Desenvolvimento do Norte
CEMAC Communauté Économique et Monétaire de l'Afrique Centrale
CIP Centre Inter-Etats de Prévision
Draft Final Report iv

CNS Communication, Navigation, Surveillance
COMELEC Comité Maghrébin de l'Electricité
COMESA Common Market for East and Southern Africa
COSCAP Co-operative Development of Operation Safety and Continuing Airworthiness
Programme
CRGRE Centre régional de gestion des ressources en eau
CRIS CRISIL Risk and Infrastructure Solutions Limited
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DBSA Development Bank of Southern Africa
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
EAC East African Community
EADB East African Development Bank
EAPP East African Power Pool
EARNP East Africa Road Network Programme
EASSy East African Submarine System
EBID ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development
ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States
ECIC Export Credit Insurance Corporation of South Africa
ECOWAN ECOWAS Wide Area Network
ECOWARN ECOWAS Warning and Response Network
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
EDF European Development Fund
EDM Electricidade de Moçambique
EEC European Economic Community
EIB European Investment Bank
EIRR Equity Internal Rate of Return
ERERA ECOWAS Regional Regulatory Authority
EU European Union
FIR Flight Information Region
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
Draft Final Report v

HoA Horn of Africa
HVDC High-voltage direct current
HIPSSA Support for Harmonization of the ICT Policies in Sub-Sahara Africa
HYCOS Hydrological Cycle Observation System
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
ICA Infrastructure Consortium for Africa
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation
ICC Information & Co-ordination Centre
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IDA International Development Agency
IDB Islamic Development Bank
IFC Inter-state Forecasting Centre
IGAD Inter-Governmental Authority on Development
IGWA Intergovernmental Water Association
IPPF Infrastructure Project Preparation Facility
ISPS International Shipping and Port Facilities Security
ITU International Telecommunication Union
IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management
JCA Joint Competition Authority
JICA Japan International Co-operation Agency
KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
KRC Kenya Railways Corporation
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MEDA Euro-Mediterranean Programme
MIGA Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
MLTSF Medium Long-Term Strategic Framework
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NBA Niger Basin Authority
NCB National Consulting Bureau
Draft Final Report vi

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development
NPCA NEPAD Planning and Co-ordinating Agency
OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
OPIC Overseas Private Investment Corporation
OSBP One-Stop Border Posts
PAD Port Autonome de Dakar
PCU Project Co-ordination Unit
PDIUs Project Development and Implementation Units
PIDA Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa
PIRR Project Internal Rate of Return
PISRs Project Implementation Status Reports
PMAESA Ports Management Association of East and Southern Africa
PPIAF Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility
PPP Public Private Partnership
PRG Political Risk Guarantees
PSP Private Sector Participation
RAERESA Regional Association of Energy Regulators for the Eastern and Southern Africa
RASCOM Regional African Satellite Communication Organisation
RBO River Basin Organisation
RCA Regional Competition Authority
RCBG Regional Customs Bond Guarantee Scheme
REC Regional Economic Community
RERA Regional Electricity Regulator Association
RIGF Regional Infrastructure Guarantee Fund
RIP Regional Integration Programme
RIPD Regional Infrastructure Project Database
RMC Regional Member Country
RRDO Regional Regulation Development Organization
RSWIDP Regional Strategic Water Infrastructure Development Programme
Draft Final Report vii

RTIS Regional Trade Information System
RVRC Rift Valley Railways Consortium
SADC Southern African Development Community
SAPEI Sardinia and Peninsular Italy
SAPP Southern African Power Pool
SASO System Approach to Safety Oversight
SBAS Satellite Based Augmentation System
SCA Standard Contribution Agreement
SCO-BAG Air Security Organisation
SDI Spatial Development Initiative
SIS Sector Informative System
SRII SADC Regional Information Infrastructure
SRUACC Sub-Regional Upper Airspace Control Centre
STAP Short Term Action Plan
STEM Short-Term Energy Market
TWRM Trans-boundary Water Resources Management
UACC Upper Air Space Control Centre
UNCTADA United Nations Transport and Communications Decade in Africa
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
URC Uganda Railways Corporation
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USCC United Space Control Centre
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USTDA United States Trade Development Agency
VGF Viability Grant Funding
WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union
WAGP West African Gas Pipeline
WAPP West African Power Pool
Draft Final Report viii

WATRA West African Telecommunications Regulatory Assembly
WMO World Meteorological Organization
WRTC Water Resources Technical Committee
YD Yamoussoukro Decision
Draft Final Report ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Constraints affecting STAP energy projects ................................................................................... 3
Table 2: Constraints affecting STAP ICT projects ........................................................................................ 5
Table 3: Constraints affecting STAP transport projects ................................................................................ 7
Table 4: Constraints affecting STAP water projects ..................................................................................... 9
Table 5: Action points for implementation of STAP recommendations ...................................................... 11
Table 6: NEPAD STAP energy projects and progress ............................................................................... 26
Table 7: Overview of progress of energy projects by type .......................................................................... 28
Table 8: Progress of all STAP energy capacity-building projects ............................................................... 29
Table 9: Progress of all STAP electricity investment projects .................................................................... 31
Table 10: Progress of all STAP pipeline investment projects ..................................................................... 33
Table 11: Progress of all STAP energy study projects ............................................................................... 35
Table 12: Progress of all STAP energy facilitation projects ........................................................................ 37
Table 13: Current constraints and their source ........................................................................................... 47
Table 14: Projects and progress categories ............................................................................................... 48
Table 15: Current constraints and responsibility ......................................................................................... 50
Table 16 : NEPAD STAP ICT projects and progress .................................................................................. 54
Table 17: Overview of progress of ICT projects by type ............................................................................. 57
Table 18: Progress of all STAP ICT capacity-building projects .................................................................. 58
Table 19: Progress of all STAP ICT investment projects ............................................................................ 60
Table 20: Progress of all STAP ICT facilitation projects ............................................................................. 64
Table 21: Progress of all STAP ICT study projects .................................................................................... 68
Table 22: Current constraints and their source ........................................................................................... 71
Table 23: Projects and progress categories ............................................................................................... 72
Table 24: Overview of progress of transport projects by type .................................................................... 77
Table 25: NEPAD STAP air transport projects and progress ..................................................................... 78
Table 26: Overview of progress of air transport projects by type ............................................................... 80
Table 27: Progress of all STAP air transport investment projects .............................................................. 81
Draft Final Report x

Table 28: Progress of all STAP air transport study projects ....................................................................... 82
Table 29: Progress of all STAP air transport facilitation projects ................................................................ 83
Table 30: NEPAD STAP road transport projects and progress .................................................................. 90
Table 31: Overview of progress of road transport projects by type ............................................................ 93
Table 32: Progress of all STAP road transport capacity-building projects ................................................. 93
Table 33: Progress of all STAP road transport investment projects ........................................................... 94
Table 34: Progress of all STAP road transport study projects .................................................................. 100
Table 35: Progress of all STAP road transport facilitation projects .......................................................... 101
Table 36: NEPAD STAP rail transport projects and progress .................................................................. 104
Table 37: Overview of progress of rail transport projects by type ............................................................ 106
Table 38: Progress of all STAP rail transport capacity-building projects .................................................. 106
Table 39: Progress of all STAP rail transport investment projects ........................................................... 107
Table 40: Progress of all STAP rail transport study projects .................................................................... 107
Table 41: NEPAD STAP maritime transport projects and progress ......................................................... 109
Table 42: Overview of progress of maritime transport projects by type ................................................... 111
Table 43: Progress of all STAP maritime transport capacity-building projects ......................................... 112
Table 44: Progress of all STAP maritime investment projects .................................................................. 112
Table 45: Progress of all STAP maritime transport study projects ........................................................... 114
Table 46: Progress of all STAP maritime transport facilitation projects .................................................... 114
Table 47: Types of Challenges and their sources of conflict .................................................................... 119
Table 48: Current constraints and responsibility ....................................................................................... 124
Table 49: Projects and progress categories ............................................................................................. 126
Table 50: NEPAD STAP projects and progress........................................................................................ 132
Table 51: Overview of progress of water projects by type ........................................................................ 134
Table 52: Progress of all STAP water capacity-building projects ............................................................. 135
Table 53: Progress of all STAP water investment projects ....................................................................... 136
Table 54: Progress of all STAP water study projects ............................................................................... 136
Table 55: Progress of all STAP water facilitation projects ........................................................................ 137
Table 56: Types of Challenges and their sources of conflict .................................................................... 139
Draft Final Report xi

Table 57: Current constraints and responsibility ....................................................................................... 143
Table 58: Projects and progress categories ............................................................................................. 144
Table 59: Timeline for Implementation of Action Points ........................................................................... 149
Table 60: Summary of Regional Infrastructure Projects that successfully used risk mitigation instruments
........................................................................................................................................................... 150
Table 61: Timeline for action points of bankable projects ......................................................................... 152
Draft Final Report xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Total number of NEPAD STAP projects ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Total number of NEPAD STAP energy projects ............................................................................ 3
Figure 3: Total number of NEPAD STAP ICT projects ................................................................................. 5
Figure 4: Total number of NEPAD STAP transport projects ......................................................................... 7
Figure 5: Total number of NEPAD STAP water projects .............................................................................. 9
Figure 6: NEPAD STAP projects by sector ................................................................................................. 16
Figure 7: NEPAD STAP projects by type .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 8: NEPAD STAP projects by REC ................................................................................................... 18
Figure 9: No. of STAP Projects in 2009 review........................................................................................... 18
Figure 10: Location of STAP Energy projects ............................................................................................. 25
Figure 11: Power Pools and their member countries .................................................................................. 40
Figure 12: Project lifecycle of a typical capacity-building project .............................................................. 155
Figure 13: Project lifecycle of a typical investment project ....................................................................... 155
Figure 14: Project lifecycle of a typical Study project ............................................................................... 156
Figure 15: Project lifecycle of a typical facilitation project ......................................................................... 156
Draft Final Report xiii

Third Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure STAP - 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an overview of the findings of the third review of the progress made in the
implementation of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Short Term Action Plan
(STAP). This report is drawn from the findings detailed in the Project Implementation Status Reports
(PISRs) which were prepared following visits to the seven Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to
ascertain the current status of the implementation of the STAP projects under their purview.
This report has reviewed the STAP programme by each sector, namely Energy, Information and
Communication Technology (ICT), Transport and Trans-boundary Water. In each sector the progress of
the four types of projects i.e. capacity-building, facilitation, investment and study projects have been
analyzed and the key challenges affecting projects in these sectors have been derived. A detailed
explanation of the stages of each of these types of projects has been provided in the Annexure. Each of
these challenges has been subsequently analyzed and ranked in terms of the severity with which it
affects the progress of the NEPAD STAP projects. Possible solutions and institutions for addressing
these challenges have also been identified. Lastly, each of the STAP projects has been categorized in
order to suggest a way forward and recommendations have been made accordingly.
This review also makes some additional recommendations which can be applied cross sector, and would
support stakeholders in fast-tracking the implementation of regional infrastructure projects and
programmes. The recommendations have parallels in other countries and have been tailored for Africa.
Draft Final Report 1

Key Concerns in the Implementation of STAP projects
The main intention of the third review of the STAP is to assess where the programme stands today in
relation to its status at the time of the last review that was held in 2004. The third review reveals that the
implementation progress of the STAP programme has been below expectations. In all, 103 STAP projects
were reviewed; of these 16 projects reached completion. Approximately 70% of the STAP projects have
progressed in some form or another. Among the STAP projects, 89% of study projects progressed
followed by 80% of investment projects, 65% of facilitation projects and 36% of capacity-building projects.
A similar ranking is also observed among the STAP completed projects - 33% of studies were completed
followed by 20% of investment projects, 6% of facilitation projects and 0% of capacity-building projects.
The same has been presented in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Total number of NEPAD STAP projects
The numbers from left to right in Figure 1 under each section in the graph indicate the number of projects
in the 2009 review, number of progressed projects followed by the number of completed projects
The progress has been particularly slow in the case of capacity-building and facilitation projects due to
various reasons such as financing constraints, inadequate mechanisms of project monitoring, unclear
definitions of projects, etc. The progress has been good in the case of study projects and moderate in the
case of investment projects. In the case of studies, the ownership/control of the STAP projects rests with
the RECs; hence their progress is better than that of any other project type. In the case of investment
projects, externalities dominate the progress of projects, namely financing, political and capacity
constraints.
The most glaring observation of the third review was that the majority of the RECs did not have up-to-date
information on many of the STAP projects. This was once again mostly observed for capacity-building
and facilitation projects. Most RECs were unsure of the progress made by such projects and had very
little information to share on their progress.

Energy Sector Projects
In all, 27 STAP energy sector projects were reviewed. These can be grouped into four capacity-building
projects, five facilitation projects, six studies and twelve investment projects. In the energy sector,
approximately 80% of the projects have progressed since 2004 while five projects have been completed.
Once again implementation progress was best observed in study projects and investment projects with all
of them showing good progress. Among the completed STAP energy projects, three were of the nature of
studies while two were investment projects. The other energy projects have not progressed as
satisfactorily – only 75% of capacity-building projects and 40% of facilitation projects have progressed.
The same has been presented in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Total number of NEPAD STAP energy projects
in the 2009 review, number of progressed projects followed by the number of completed projects.
Key Challenges in the Implementation of STAP Energy sector projects
In the third review, seven key constraints which have impacted the implementation progress of STAP
energy sector projects were identified. These constraints were then ranked by their severity of impact so
that stakeholders could take cognizance of the same while addressing them. The same have been
presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Constraints affecting STAP energy projects
SEVERITY
OF IMPACT
CONSTRAINTS TYPE OF
CONSTRAINTS
Severe
High degree of political risk for regional energy
projects
Political
Severe No regular monitoring of projects Project Management
Severe Lack of project management framework Project Management

SEVERITY
OF IMPACT
CONSTRAINTS TYPE OF
CONSTRAINTS
Severe Difficulty in securing project financing Financial
Average High degree of regulatory risk Technical
Average Private sector participation not exploited Financial
Average
Limited political mandate of power pools and regional
regulatory bodies
Political
Key Recommendations for STAP Energy sector projects
• African Union (AU), African Development Bank (AfDB), United National Economic Commission for
Africa (UNECA) or the NEPAD Secretariat must hold regular forums for national governments to foster
co-operation between the countries
• RECs must encourage the formation of a regional electricity regulator’s association
• RECs, NEPAD Secretariat and AfDB could set up a Regional Infrastructure Project Database (RIPD)
that tracks project progress and is accessible by all stakeholders.
• AfDB could support the RECs in bridging a contact between the RECs and the regional development
banks
• National governments need to cede power to power pools and need to set up an
organization/association that acts as a promoter of regional integration

ICT Sector Projects
In all, 18 NEPAD STAP ICT sector projects were reviewed. These are subdivided into four capacity-building
projects, five facilitation projects, eight investment projects, and one study project. In the ICT
sector, approximately 50% of the projects have progressed since 2004 and two projects have been
completed. Investment projects and facilitation projects formed the majority of the ICT projects and the
progress in these projects was fair. There was only one study project and it progressed but there was
absolutely no progress in the four capacity-building projects. The same has been presented in Figure 3
below.
Figure 3: Total number of NEPAD STAP ICT projects
in the 2009 review, number of progressed projects followed by the number of completed projects
Key Constraints in the Implementation of STAP ICT sector projects
In the third review, six key constraints which have impacted the implementation progress of STAP ICT
sector projects were identified. These constraints were then ranked by their severity of impact so that
stakeholders could take cognizance of the same while addressing them. The same have been presented
in Table 2.
Table 2: Constraints affecting STAP ICT projects
SEVERITY OF
IMPACT
CONSTRAINT TYPE OF
CONSTRAINTS
Severe Uncertainty of project financing Financial
Severe Inadequate project management and monitoring Institutional
Severe
Lack of technical capacity and ICT infrastructure in
REC secretariats and implementation agencies
Technical

SEVERITY OF
IMPACT
CONSTRAINT TYPE OF
CONSTRAINTS
Average Lack of political will in RECs to support projects. Political
Average Lack of ownership of projects by RECs Institutional
Average
Slow adoption of regulating acts and common
standards
Technical
Key Recommendations for STAP ICT sector projects
• Additional investment is required in technical, human and financial resources
• Provide clarity to stakeholders on project objectives, roles and responsibilities
• Improve the adoption of latest ICT technologies to leapfrog progress
• Improve regulatory systems and capacities
• A common policy and standards for streamlining regional implementation of ICT reforms and
initiatives are needed

Transport Sector Projects
In all, 47 NEPAD STAP transport sector were reviewed across four sub-sectors namely air transport, road
transport, rail transport and maritime transport. These were grouped into four capacity-building projects,
15 facilitation projects, 10 studies and 18 investment projects. In the transport sector, approximately 74%
of the projects have progressed since 2004 and eight projects got completed. Once again implementation
progress was best observed in the case of study projects and investment projects with 90% of study
projects and 83% of the investment projects progressing well. The implementation of other projects in the
transport sector has not been as satisfactory – only 67% of facilitation projects and 25% of capacity-building
projects have progressed. The same has been presented in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Total number of NEPAD STAP transport projects
Key Constraints in the Implementation of STAP Transport sector projects
In the third review, seven key constraints which have impacted the implementation progress of STAP
transport sector projects were identified. These constraints were then ranked by the severity of their
impact so that stakeholders could take cognizance of the same while addressing them. The same has
been presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Constraints affecting STAP transport projects
SEVERITY
OF IMPACT
CONSTRAINT
TYPE OF
CONSTRAINTS
Severe Difficulty in securing financing Financial
Severe Lack of political support Political
Severe Lack of technical capacity of RECs Technical

SEVERITY
OF IMPACT
CONSTRAINT
TYPE OF
CONSTRAINTS
Average Unclear roles and responsibilities of NEPAD and RECs Institutional
Average Lack of a well-defined project framework Institutional
Average Capacity-building challenges Technical
Low Lack of information on environmental impacts Environmental
Key Recommendations for STAP Transport sector projects
• Setting up of local NEPAD/REC offices to strengthen the relationship between national government
sponsor agencies.
• Standardization of the inter-state Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which is pre-approved by all
member-states (especially in the case of continental projects).
• RECs undertaking capacity-building programmes to raise their skill levels.
• Designating one regional organization as the main point of contact for continental projects.
• RECs to frame clear milestones for projects with a definite timeframe and define clear roles and
responsibilities.
• Enacting uniform environmental protection legislation.
• Commission a specific analysis of the environmental aspects in the implementation of the NEPAD
STAP transport projects.

Trans-boundary Water Sector Projects
In all, 11 STAP trans-boundary water sector projects were reviewed out of which there was progress in
only six projects i.e. 67% of the trans-boundary water sector projects progressed. Unlike in the case of
other sectors, facilitation projects have progressed more than other projects. 67% of facilitation projects
progressed while only 50% of capacity-building and investment projects progressed. There was only one
study project and strangely there has been no progress on it. Of 11 trans-boundary water sector projects,
only one project (facilitation project) got completed. The same has been presented in Figure 5 below
Figure 5: Total number of NEPAD STAP water projects
Key Challenges in the Implementation of STAP Trans-boundary Water sector projects
In the third review, five key constraints which have impacted the implementation progress of STAP trans-boundary
water sector projects were identified. These constraints were then ranked by the severity of
their impact so that stakeholders could take cognizance of the same while addressing them. The same
have presented in Table 4 below
Table 4: Constraints affecting STAP water projects
SEVERITY
OF IMPACT
CONSTRAINT TYPE OF
CONSTRAINTS
Severe Difficulty in securing project financing Financial
Average Hydro-political vulnerability Political
Average Regulatory risk Technical
Average Affordability vs. Capital recovery Socio-economic

SEVERITY
OF IMPACT
CONSTRAINT TYPE OF
CONSTRAINTS
Average Changing face of water resources Environmental
Key Recommendations for STAP Trans-boundary Water sector projects
• Underdeveloped River Basin Organisations (RBOs) need to be assisted by successful RBOs to
enhance their technical and financial credibility.
• Greater involvement by African Water Facility (AWF) is needed.
• Uniformity in trans-boundary legal instruments and legislation is needed.
• Development of a common vision for sharing water needs to be encouraged.
• Good climate change forecasting is required at the REC level.
• Co-ordinated basin transfers from water-rich to water-scarce areas are required
• Uniform environmental protection legislation is required.

Overall Recommendations
The third review of the NEPAD STAP programme revealed that the programme had been successful in
providing an initial impetus to the development of regional infrastructure projects in Africa. However, over
time, most RECs have developed their own regional infrastructure programmes (e.g. Horn of Africa
initiative of Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)) that are more aligned to their current
regional priorities. Also, due to the lack of frameworks for regular monitoring, insufficient capacity and
nebulous roles of various entities, the implementation of the programme has suffered. The current needs
are to fast-track the implementation of STAP projects and steer the programme towards a firm closure. It
is recommended that the STAP projects be categorized into three distinct categories:
• Projects that need to be shelved,
• Projects that can be completed within a time horizon of two years, and
• Projects that can be completed beyond a time horizon of two years and are best handled through new
initiatives like Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA).
The overall recommendations can be applied cross-sector, and would support stakeholders in fast
tracking the implementation of regional infrastructure projects and programmes. The recommendations
have parallels in other countries and have been tailored for Africa. The recommendations are broadly
categorized into those which could accelerate the progress of regional infrastructure projects, those which
would enhance private sector participation, and those which would address institutional capacity gaps. A
potential timeline for achieving these recommendations has also been suggested. This timeline has been
indicated in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Action points for implementation of STAP recommendations
ACTION POINTS POTENTIAL LEAD AGENCY & TIMELINE
Accelerate Progress
Creating Project Database for
STAP projects
Potential Lead Agency: RECs to develop regional
databases while other stakeholders (AfDB, NEPAD Co-ordination
and Planning Agency (NPCA)) to integrate these at
a continental level
Timeline: By April 2011
Developing Project Monitoring
Frameworks
Potential Lead Agency: Collaborative effort by all
stakeholders. NPCA to ensure that RECs update the
databases frequently
Timeline: By July 2011
Developing effective
communications strategy for STAP
projects
Potential Lead Agency: RECs
Enhance Private Sector Participation
Use existing facilities in Africa (For
Example, Public-Private
Infrastructure Advisory Facility
(PPIAF)) for hiring of external
Potential Lead Agency: RECs & NPCA

ACTION POINTS POTENTIAL LEAD AGENCY & TIMELINE
advisors or consultants to prepare
STAP investment projects for
bidding and negotiations
Develop risk assessment
frameworks
Potential Lead Agency: AfDB
Increase the gamut of risks that
can be mitigated prudently. If
required, establish a dedicated
Regional Infrastructure Guarantee
Fund (RIGF) for Africa
Timeline: By September 2011
Showcase financial closure of
bankable regional infrastructure
projects and prepare a database of
leading providers of risk mitigation
instruments
Potential Lead Agency: NPCA
Establish Viability Gap Funding
(VGF) mechanism to make socially
viable projects commercially viable
Timeline: By September 2011
Develop model contracting
documents and legal documents
Potential Lead Agency: NPCA
Develop various options for project
and financing structures for STAP
along with leading development
finance institutions in Africa
Potential Lead Agency: RECs & NPCA
The third review of the STAP programme revealed that all the implementing agencies viz. RECs,
Regional Power Pools, River Basin Organizations etc were facing capacity constraints (severe in some
cases) at. We recommend a two pronged approach for the development of regional infrastructure projects
in Africa
1. NEPAD and AfDB must provide short-term assistance in improving the institutional capacity to
fast track STAP projects nearing completion or envisaged to be completed within the next two
years. This could be done by taking onboard project management consultants/advisors that
would assist the implementing agencies in taking the projects towards closure.
2. It is envisaged that once PPP in regional infrastructure projects materialises, there would be a
need to monitor their performance/contractual obligations on a regular basis. These are
specialized skills which require a unique approach in institutional development. In India, PPP
cells have been housed within sub-sovereign contracting agencies to support them in monitoring
the contractual obligations of PPPs. We recommend that such dedicated PPP cells should be
formed within all agencies which implement regional infrastructure projects in Africa.

Dovetail into PIDA
The STAP programme that was rolled out in 2002 has served its purpose of kick starting regional
infrastructure development in Africa. Most of the STAP projects should have been completed by now but
it has been observed that only a few projects are completed while the majority of these projects are still
underway. Considering the STAP programme was a short-term initiative there is a need to move forward
and bring this programme to its logical end. It is recommended that the STAP projects which have to be
taken forward be categorised into two i.e. one, those:
• Projects which are underway and expected to be completed in the next two years;
• Projects which are underway and expected to be completed beyond the next two years and
should be ideally taken forward by new initiatives such as PIDA
Since projects in the first category are nearing completion. It is envisaged that the same would happen
over a period of two years. However, many projects are facing challenges which could delay their
implementation if not sorted out at the earliest. We recommend that such projects be rolled
into/dovetailed into new initiatives like PIDA.

INTRODUCTION
The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) had launched the Short-Term Action Plan
(STAP) in 2002 to kick-start the process of developing regional infrastructure in Africa. STAP consisted of
approximately 120 regional infrastructure projects spread across the continent, covering four sectors –
Energy, ICT, Transport and Trans-boundary Water.
The Third Review of the Implementation Progress of the NEPAD STAP was undertaken by the African
Development Bank (AfDB). The previous two reviews of NEPAD STAP were undertaken in 2003 and
2004. The third review primarily focuses on conducting an analysis of the implementation progress of the
STAP projects since the last review held in 2004, identifies the major challenges that are affecting
implementation and provides recommendations on the way forward. The information for the third review
has been collected from AfDB, Regional Economic Communities (RECs), and secondary sources.
The third review of STAP commenced in the last week of September 2009 with an initial set of meetings
with AfDB. The diagnostic meetings with seven of the identified RECs were conducted over a period of
four months, starting mid-October 2009. Since the RECs are responsible for the STAP projects in their
geographies, it was crucial to meet the Secretariats to collect the latest implementation progress. To
make the diagnostic process more efficient, information templates were sent to all RECs to enable them
to collect the progress data prior to the visits.
This report is organized into six chapters with the following objectives:
Chapter 1 – Current Overview of STAP: It provides a brief history of STAP and the recommendations
made in the 2004 review along with a snapshot of the current STAP project portfolio and the latest
infrastructure initiatives in Africa.
Chapter 2 – Energy Sector Projects: This chapter details the implementation progress of the STAP
projects in the energy sector, identifies challenges, prioritizes projects and makes recommendations on
the way forward for energy projects.
Chapter 3 – ICT Sector Projects: It details the implementation progress of the STAP projects in the ICT
sector, identifies challenges, prioritizes projects and makes recommendations on the way forward for ICT
projects.
Chapter 4 – Transport Sector Projects: This chapter details the implementation progress of the STAP
projects in the transport sector, identifies challenges, prioritizes projects and makes recommendations on
the way forward for transport projects.
Chapter 5 – Trans-boundary Water Sector Projects: This chapter details the implementation progress
of the STAP projects in the trans-boundary water sector, identifies challenges, prioritizes projects and
makes recommendations on way forward for trans-boundary water projects.
Chapter 6 – Recommendations: This chapter highlights initiatives and solutions that could improve the
implementation of STAP and the way forward.

1 CURRENT OVERVIEW OF STAP
This chapter provides a historical background of STAP, recommendations made during the 2004 review,
and a snapshot of the current status of STAP projects. It also outlines current initiatives for developing
infrastructure in Africa. The purpose is to provide a backdrop for the third STAP review and establish the
base for reviewing the implementation progress of STAP projects across all sectors and geographies.
1.1 History of STAP
In 2001, NEPAD was launched with the objective of eradicating poverty, promoting sustainable
development and arresting the marginalization of Africa in the global context. The NEPAD Secretariat is
based in Midrand, South Africa and focuses on eight sectors, including the infrastructure sector. Recently,
as part of the process to integrate NEPAD into the African Union (AU) structures and processes, the
NEPAD Secretariat was transformed into the NEPAD Planning and Co-ordinating Agency (NPCA).
African economies are typically too small and fragmented to generate the economies of scale required to
significantly foster trade and contribute towards poverty reduction. Hence, the development of regional
infrastructure is seen as an essential building block for accelerating economic growth. In order to be
effective in this endeavour, reforms necessary for harmonization of policies and legal and regulatory
frameworks become an important priority for the continent. The NEPAD Short-Term Action Plan (STAP)
for infrastructure was launched in 2002 to assist in the implementation of necessary policy reforms in
RECs and Regional Member Countries (RMCs) and also to facilitate and support the implementation of
short-term regional infrastructure, leading to increased investment in four infrastructure sectors, viz.,
Energy, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Transport and Trans-boundary Water
Resources Management.
STAP identified approximately 120 regional infrastructure projects in conjunction with RECs and broadly
classified them into four types of projects:
• Facilitation – Establishing policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks to create a suitable
environment for investment and efficient operations;
• Capacity-building – Launching initiatives to empower the implementing institutions to perform
their mandates;
• Investment – Investing in physical and capital projects; and
• Studies – Preparing future projects.
NEPAD’s role in ensuring the successful implementation of the STAP was seen as:
• Mobilizing political will and actions to implement policy and institutional reforms, including
harmonizing regulatory systems and ratifying agreements;
• Facilitating the mobilization of resources for regional projects; and
• Facilitating knowledge-sharing, networking and dissemination of best practices among countries,
RECs and technical agencies.

1.2 Current NEPAD STAP Project Portfolio
The third review of the NEPAD Infrastructure STAP has been conducted using the second STAP review
as the starting point for information on STAP projects. The STAP project list, prepared for the Medium
Long-Term Strategic Framework (MLTSF) 2007, was provided by AfDB and was used as the preliminary
list of projects to be covered under the current review. This list and approach were agreed upon by AfDB.
The 2009 review of the NEPAD STAP projects includes 103 projects spread across seven RECs. The
STAP project portfolio consisted of four types of projects: capacity-building projects, investment projects,
studies, and facilitation projects. A summary of NEPAD STAP projects across Africa is presented in
Figure 6.
The STAP project portfolio consisted of projects from four sectors -- Energy (26%), ICT (17%), Transport
(46%) and Water (11%). The REC capacity-building project is an overarching project which is not
classified as per any sector.
Figure 6: NEPAD STAP projects by sector
The STAP project portfolio consisted of four types of projects -- capacity-building projects (14%),
investment projects (39%), studies (14%) and facilitation projects (17%). These have been shown in
Figure 7. The REC capacity-building project has not shown any progress across almost all of the RECs
and has hence been left out of the purview of this review

Figure 7: NEPAD STAP projects by type
The projects have also been classified across the RECs. Arab Maghreb Union (AMU) and Common
Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) supervised 14 and 11 projects respectively. East African
Community (EAC) and Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) were co-ordinating 13
and 31 STAP projects respectively. Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and Inter-governmental
Authority on Development (IGAD) monitored 42 and 13 projects respectively while
Southern African Development Community (SADC) was in charge of 30 projects. This has been
represented in Figure 8.

Figure 8: NEPAD STAP projects by REC
This list is higher than the actual number because continental projects which have been spread across
the RECs have been counted individually for each REC.
1.3 Key Concerns in the Implementation of STAP projects
The main intention of the third review of the STAP is to assess where the programme is in relation to its
status at the last review that was held in 2004. The third review reveals that the implementation progress
of the STAP programme has been below expectations. A total of 103 STAP projects were reviewed out of
which 16 projects got completed. Approximately 70% of the STAP projects progressed in some form or
other. Among the STAP projects, 89% of all study projects progressed followed by 80% of investment
projects, 65% of facilitation projects and 36% of capacity-building projects. A similar ranking is also
observed in the STAP completed projects, namely 33% of studies were completed followed by 21% of
investment projects, 6% of facilitation projects and 0% of capacity-building projects.
Figure 9: No. of STAP projects in 2009 review

The progress has been particularly slow in the case of capacity-building and facilitation projects due to
various reasons such as financing constraints, inadequate mechanisms in project monitoring, projects not
being sharply defined, etc. The progress has been good in the case of study projects and moderate in the
case of investment projects. In the case of studies, the ownership/control of the STAP projects vests with
the RECs and hence progress is better than any other project type. In the case of investment projects, the
externalities dominate the progress of projects namely financing, political and capacity constraints.
The most glaring observation in the third review was that majority of the RECs did not have up-to-date
information on many of the STAP projects. This was once again mostly observed for capacity-building
and facilitation projects. Most RECs were unsure of the progress made by such projects and had very
little information to share on their progress.
1.4 Recommendations of the 2004 Implementation Review
In this section, the key recommendations made during the second review of STAP in 2004 are
highlighted.
• Streamline REC Decision-Making Processes
REC decision-making processes and mechanisms could be made efficient and effective by streamlining
them to meet the requirements of their current NEPAD mandate without compromising transparency and
accountability.
• Consistently and Effectively Implement Regional Decisions
The translation of political will into concrete actions in countries could be facilitated by certain regional
decisions automatically binding on member countries and by improving the capacity of countries to
undertake the necessary actions to ensure compliance with agreed regional decisions and protocols.
• Strengthen the Capacity of RECs
There should be an augmentation of the capacity and resources of RECs to enable them to provide
technical assistance to countries, especially in their efforts to comply with sectoral harmonization
programmes, and to monitor compliance therewith. In this respect, an expansion of NEPAD Infrastructure
Project Preparation Facility (IPPF) to encompass facilitation projects should be considered.
• Create Project Development and Implementation Units (PDIUs) for Each Region
The preparation of bankable cross-border infrastructure projects could be accelerated through the
creation of regional PDIUs, suitably equipped with the right skills-set and appropriate grant funding such
as that being considered by ECOWAS.
• Increase Financial Funding for RECs from Member/Partner States
Countries should be encouraged to provide the Secretariat of their respective RECs with regular funding
that is sufficient to not only support, at the minimum, each RECs basic functions/activities, but also, to
make a meaningful contribution towards improvements in capacity, in order to advance the NEPAD
programme.

• Scaling-Up Private Sector Participation (PSP) in the Implementation of STAP
A coherent package of policies needs to be devised and implemented at the continental, regional and
country level, to support and encourage private sector investment in STAP. This should include policies
designed to enhance the capacity of the African private sector to effectively participate at all levels in the
development of infrastructure projects throughout the continent.
• Improve Communication and Co-ordination between the Key Stakeholders
Institutional relationships between the key stakeholders could be strengthened through the creation of a
co-ordination framework, as recommended and agreed to by the stakeholders at the NEPAD workshop in
Abuja in March 2005. Further to this, it is recommended that dedicated project-specific secretariats be
established as soon as countries agree to collaborate on particular cross-border investment projects.
• Review, Improve and Expand the Capacity of the AfDB NEPAD Unit and the NEPAD Secretariat
The growing demand for their services with relation to the STAP agenda will necessitate an expansion of
the capacity (financial, human, technical) of both the AfDB NEPAD Unit and the NEPAD Secretariat. In
this regard, an urgent review should be undertaken with a view to ensuring their continued effective
contribution in the implementation of STAP. Further to this, it is recommended that the AFDB act on the
following:
1. Adopt a more proactive approach to bring to the market innovative financing and risk mitigation
instruments that will catalyze a scale-up of private sector participation. Examples of such an
approach are: the Asian Infrastructure Development Company, the Private Sector Infrastructure
Facility, which were both established by the Asian Development Bank.
2. Taking cognizance of the outcomes of the 2005 G8 Summit, AfDB should develop policies,
structures and facilities in order that it may be able to take a leadership role in mobilizing funds
from within and outside the continent and effectively channelling those funds for infrastructure
development.
• Improve Donor Co-ordination and Alignment with NEPAD priorities
Development partners should be encouraged to collaborate more effectively and to adapt their internal
systems and practices to the priorities of NEPAD, so as to be able to better contribute to the acceleration
of the implementation of STAP. The creation of a pooled development fund in each region would address
poorly focused or skewed programmes and obviate the need for separate funding applications for each
project component.
1.5 Greater Support for Infrastructure Development in Africa
In the past few years, there has been a greater focus on infrastructure development in Africa. This section
highlights some of the important initiatives in this area.
1.5.1 Infrastructure Consortium for Africa
The Infrastructure Consortium for Africa (ICA) was launched in 2005 with the objective of acting as a
catalyst for enhancing, accelerating and precipitating the development of Africa’s infrastructure. The ICA
covers the four sectors that are part of the STAP programme. ICA is not a financing agency but a platform
to catalyse donor and private sector financing of infrastructure projects and programmes in Africa. ICA

members include the G8 countries, the World Bank Group, the AfDB Group, the European Commission,
European Investment Bank and the Development Bank of South Africa.
The ICA is supported by a small secretariat which is hosted by AfDB. The secretariat is funded by
voluntary contributions from some ICA members and is staffed by a combination of permanent staff from
AfDB and experts on secondment from ICA member countries.
ICA commitments were approximately US$ 12.4 billion in 2007. This includes US$ 8.8 billion from
multilateral commitments and US$ 3.6 billion from bilateral commitments (from G8 countries). Some of
the important infrastructure projects that have benefited from ICA commitments include the Communauté
Économique et Monétaire de l'Afrique Centrale (CEMAC) Trade Corridor Project, Bujagali Hydro-power
project and the East African Submarine System (EASSy).
1.5.2 European Union (EU) Africa Partnership on Infrastructure
The EU Africa Partnership on Infrastructure was established in 2005 as an overall integrated and long
term framework for interaction between the whole of Europe and Africa at all levels, namely the pan-
African institutions such as the AU, regional organizations and national authorities. The partnership is
based on the EU strategy for Africa and on objectives defined by STAP. The partnership supports
physical infrastructure investments, institutional development measures and capacity-building, as well as
measures for the political and regulatory framework at the national level.
The funding of operations under the partnership is based on several instruments:
• Regional and national allocations under the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) amounting
to €5.6 billion;
• Intra-African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) resources, including those allocated
through the energy and water facilities; and
• The new fiduciary fund set up by the EU and the European Investment Bank (EIB), aimed at
cross-border infrastructure investments in particular. This fund is co-financed by the Commission,
the concerned member-states, European and African financial development institutions. During
the initial phase (2006-2007), the fund was credited with €87 million, which was allocated in the
form of grants from the community and the member–states; another €260 million would be
allocated in the form of loans by the EIB.
Some of the important STAP projects that have benefited from the EU Africa Partnership on Infrastructure
include the implementation of the Yamoussoukro decision, the INGA Hydro-power study, and the
feasibility study for EASSy, capacity-building for power pools, and trans-boundary river basins.
1.5.3 Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic
The Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic (AICD) is an innovative knowledge program to improve
public understanding of what network infrastructure does to promote economic growth in Africa. It
provides a baseline against which future improvements in infrastructure services can be measured,
making it possible to monitor the results achieved from donor support. It also provides a more solid
empirical foundation for prioritizing investments and designing policy reforms in the infrastructure sectors
in Africa.
AICD has undertaken unprecedented data collection (covers the years 2001 to 2006, report completed in
2009) and analysis on the status of the main network infrastructures, including energy, information and

communication technologies, irrigation, transport, and water and sanitation. The analysis encompasses
public expenditure trends, future investment needs and sector performance reviews.
AICD is being implemented by the World Bank on behalf of a steering committee comprising the African
Union Commission, NEPAD, AfDB, Africa’s regional economic communities, and donors investing in
African infrastructure. It was commissioned by the ICA; the main contributors financing the AICD are the
UK Department for International Development, the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF),
Agence Française de Développement, the European Commission, and the World Bank.
1.6 Continent-wide Infrastructure Initiatives
This section covers the continent-wide initiatives in the infrastructure sector.
1.6.1 Africa Action Plan
The AU/NEPAD Africa Action Plan (AAP) is the defining statement of Africa’s current priority programmes
and projects related to the promotion of regional and continental integration anchored in NEPAD’s guiding
principles. The AU/NEPAD African Action Plan (AAP) was originally conceived and developed in
2005/2006, in the drive to fast track the implementation of Africa’s development and initiatives, including
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It consists, primarily, of the current priority programmes and
projects with high potential impact on regional integration in Africa and requiring co-ordination at the
continental level.
Specifically, the AAP aims at:
• Mobilising sufficient resources for the implementation of Africa’s priority programmes/projects;
• Harmonising and synchronising AU/NEPAD programmes/projects for effective and efficient
implementation;
• Preparing a platform for programme/project collaboration and partnership; and
• Facilitating the monitoring and evaluation of the priority programmes/projects at national, sub-regional
and continental levels with the AU/NEPAD, RECs and other African institutions as part of
fast-tracking implementation.
1.6.2 Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA)
The PIDA is a continent-wide infrastructure programme that is currently in the initial stages of
development. The overall objective of PIDA is to optimise the efforts and use of resources in order to
enable African stakeholders to have one voice based on a common agenda and propose a common
vision for infrastructure development.
The objectives of PIDA are to enable African stakeholders to:
• Establish a strategic framework for the development of regional and continental infrastructure (Energy,
Transport, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Water) based on a development
vision, strategic objectives and sector policies;
• Establish an infrastructure development programme articulated around priorities and phases; and

• Prepare an implementation strategy and process including, in particular, a priority action plan.
The PIDA sector studies will assist in developing a vision on Africa’s infrastructure based on strategic
objectives and sector polices. The PIDA studies will also prioritize regional and continental infrastructure
investment programs (Energy, Transport, Information and Communication Technologies and Trans-boundary
Water Resources) over the short, medium, and long term, up to the year 2030. In addition, the
studies will recommend the required institutional arrangements, legal frameworks, and financing
mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring of the programs.
PIDA would draw inputs from the STAP, AU Master Plans and Continental Policies initiative launched in
2005 and the NEPAD Infrastructure Medium to Long-Term Strategic Framework (MLTSF) launched in
2006.

2 ENERGY SECTOR PROJECTS
This chapter covers the STAP energy sector projects. This chapter initially outlines the implementation
progress of the energy projects by region and type and subsequently discusses the impact of the STAP
programme on Power Pools, identifies implementation challenges, ranks the challenges by the severity of
their impact and provides recommendations to take the STAP energy projects forward.
2.1 Snapshot of NEPAD STAP Energy Portfolio
For this review, the status of 27 NEPAD STAP energy projects has been analysed. These have been
divided into four capacity-building projects, five facilitation projects, six studies and twelve investment
projects. The investment projects can further be split into eight electricity projects and four gas or
petroleum pipeline projects. In the 2004 review, there were only 24 energy projects, meaning that three
new projects have been added. They are:
Uganda-Rwanda-Burundi Oil Products Pipeline (investment project in the EAC region);
Djibouti-Ethiopia interconnector (investment project in the IGAD region); and
Sudan-Ethiopia interconnector (investment project in the IGAD region).
The inclusion of new projects in the NEPAD STAP programme does not follow a rigid and well defined
procedure. It is not even clear whether the NEPAD Secretariat is informed by the RECs about the
inclusion of new projects. The map in Figure 10 lists all NEPAD STAP projects and shows their
geographic location.

Figure 10: Location of STAP Energy projects
Algeria-Spain
interconnection (AMU)
Algeria-Morocco-Spain
interconnection (AMU)
Trans Saharan Gas
Pipeline Study
(ECOWAS,AMU)
Master Plan regional
interconnection (ECOWAS)
Energy Observatory
(ECOWAS)
West African Gas Pipeline
(ECOWAS)
Regulation Development in
ECOWAS
Facilitation project for
Energy (ECOWAS)
West African power Pool
(ECOWAS)
Study on Interconnectivity
of Electricity Networks
(ECCAS)
Facilitation project in
Energy (ECCAS)
Institutional Support to
Central African Power Pool
(ECCAS)
Capacity Buidling Investment projects Studies Facilitation
Tunisia-Italy
interconnection project
(AMU)
Algeria-Sardinia (Italy)
Interconnection Project
(AMU)
Tunisia-Libya Gas Pipeline
(AMU)
Djibouti-Ethiopia
Interconnector (IGAD)
Sudan-Ethiopia
Interconnector (IGAD)
Kenya-Uganda Oil Pipeline
(EAC)
Uganda-Rwanda-Burundi
Oil Products Pipeline
(EAC)
Tanzania-Kenya-Uganda
Gas Pipeline (EAC)
East African power Master
plan (EAC)
Mozambique-Malawi
Interconnection (SADC)
Mepanda Uncua
Hydropower project
(SADC)
Continental: Capacity
Building projects in Energy
sector
Westcor Interconnection
project (SADC)
Grand Inga Interconnector
project (ECCAS, SADC)
SAPP Generation capacity
and transmission
expansion (SADC)
The regional economic communities of AMU, SADC and ECOWAS are responsible for most of the energy
projects (all have seven projects) followed by ECCAS (5), EAC (3) and IGAD (2). The total is more than
27 because three projects are jointly executed by two or more RECs. These are:
The Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline Study which is under the responsibility of both ECOWAS and
AMU. Since the pipeline would connect Nigeria and Algeria, both RECs have a regional interest in
this project.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Grand Inga Interconnector study for which both SADC
and ECCAS Secretariats have responsibility, since DRC is a member of both the RECs. Given the
important scale of the INGA project and the considerable regional impact it would have on the region
and the continent, it is not surprising that a number of regional organisations should be actively
involved in the project.

The continentally rolled out capacity-building project is nominally part of several of the RECs’
NEPAD STAP portfolio. However, this project is hardly being pursued by any of the RECs. It seems
that most RECs are uncertain about the implementation of this project. As outlined in Table 8 this is
mainly due to a lack of proper project management and ownership of the project.
2.2 Implementation Progress of NEPAD STAP Energy Portfolio
Table 6 provides an overview of all NEPAD STAP energy projects reviewed, their costs and their
progress since the last review in 2004. The light grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages
completed or in progress in 2004 and the dark grey-coloured boxes denote the project stages completed
or in progress as of 2009.
= Project stages completed as of 2004
= Project stages completed as of 2009
Table 6: NEPAD STAP energy projects and progress
NAME OF PROJECT REC COST PROGRESS
CAPACITY-BUILDING
OBJECTIVES
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL
APPROVALS
FUNDING
IMPLEMENTATION
Capacity-Building Project in Energy Sector All RECs n.a. No progress reported by most RECs
because the project was not defined,
or was transferred as a part of the
power pool capacity-building project
Institutional Support for Central African Power Pool
(CAPP)
ECCAS US$ 2 million
Energy Observatory ECOWAS n.a.
Regional Regulation Development Project for
Electricity Sector
ECOWAS n.a.
INVESTMENT-ELECTRICITY
AGREEMENT
FEASIBILITY
FUNDING
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATION
Algeria-Morocco-Spain interconnection AMU US$ 430
million
Algeria-Sardinia (Italy) Interconnection AMU US$ 260-690
million

Algerian Gas Fired Power station and Algeria-Spain
interconnection
AMU US$ 382 mill.
Tunisia-Italy Interconnection AMU US$ 490-530
million
Sudan Ethiopia Inter Connector (New) IGAD US$ 71 million
Djibouti Ethiopia Inter Connector (New) IGAD US$ 121
million
Mepanda Uncua Hydropower Project SADC US$ 2 billion
Mozambique – Malawi Interconnection SADC US$ 85 million
INVESTMENT-OIL AND GAS PIPELINES
AGREEMENT
FEASIBILITY
FUNDING
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATION
Tunisia-Libya Gas Pipeline Project AMU n.a.
Kenya-Uganda Oil Pipeline EAC US$ 110
million
Uganda-Rwanda-Burundi Oil Products Pipeline EAC n.a.
West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP) ECOWAS US$ 380
million
STUDIES
CONCEPT
FUNDING
PROCUREMENT
CONSULTANT
APPROVAL
East African Power Master Plan EAC n.a.
Gas Pipeline Tanzania-Kenya-Uganda EAC US$ 0.5
million
Interconnectivity of Electricity Networks ECCAS US$ 4.5
million
Master Plan for Sub-regional Interconnection. ECOWAS US$ 9 billion Converted to investment
DRC-Grand INGA Integrator Study (incl. investment
costs)
ECCAS, SADC US$ 520
million
Trans Saharan Gas Pipeline Study AMU, ECOWAS US$ 2.5

million
FACILITATION
OBJECTIVES
POLICY
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
APPROVALS
LEGAL IMPLEMENTATION
FULL IMPLEMENTATION
Facilitation Project in the Energy Sector ECCAS n.a. No update, no project defined
Facilitation project for Energy ECOWAS n.a No update, no project defined
West African Power Pool (WAPP) ECOWAS US$ 9 billion
(WESTCOR) Interconnection Project SADC US$ 10 million Project
shelved
Southern African Power Pool (SAPP) Generation
Capacity and Transmission Expansion
SADC n.a.
Overall, projects in the energy sector have seen good improvement across all RECs, sectors and types of
projects. Of the 27 reviewed projects, 23 have progressed, but of those only 51 have been completed, as
shown in Table 7. Capacity-building and facilitation projects have been the slowest to progress, while
studies and investment projects have seen the best improvement.
Table 7: Overview of progress of energy projects by type
TYPE NO. OF
PROJECTS IN
2004
NO. OF
PROJECTS IN
2009
NO. OF
PROGRESSED
PROJECTS
NO. OF
COMPLETED
PROJECTS
Capacity-building 4 4 3 -
Investment 9 12 12 2
Studies 6 6 6 3
Facilitation Project 5 5 2 -
Total 24 27 23 5
1 This included the AMU investment project ‘Algerian Gas Fired Power station and Algeria-Spain interconnection’ which is partially
complete as the Power Station has been constructed but not yet the interconnection

2.2.1 Progress of Capacity-Building Projects
Table 8 summarises the progress of the four capacity-building projects in the energy sector. One is a new
project, one has been ongoing since 2004 and one is a near-continental project. Detailed project
constraints, status and success factors for each project in each REC are listed in the Project
Implementation Status Reports.
Table 8: Progress of all STAP energy capacity-building projects
CAPACITY-BUILDING
OBJECTIVES
INTER-GOVERNMENT AL
APPROVALS
FUNDING
IMPLEMENTATION
Capacity-Building Project in Energy Sector (New) All RECs n.a. Varies across RECs
No specific capacity-building project is recognised by most secretariats
and this project has not been pursued in a formally defined framework.
However, personnel changes have been made across RECs and
capacity has been built up, but not through a formal project definition.
Constraints
Other:
Not embracing STAP Capacity-Building Programme
Lack of well-defined project milestones and objectives
Lack of project monitoring
Institutional Support for CAPP ECCAS US$ 2 million
ECCAS aims to build up capacity for the CAPP and this project is
therefore included in the project for Institutional Support for CAPP. The
capacity at CAPP has not improved since 2004 and it is still lacking in
qualified personnel and basic equipment. Technical capabilities at the
ECCAS Secretariat have improved. However, as a new energy expert
has been hired since 2004.
Constraints
Financial: Lack of financing
Political: Political mandate of CAPP not strong enough
Other:
Lack of well defined project management framework
Lack of monitoring
Energy Observatory ECOWAS n.a.
The WAPP Information Co-ordination Centre (ICC) has now replaced
the Energy Observatory initiative under WAPP. The ICC has a focal
point in all member-states to co-ordinate the collection of data. This
Constraints
Political: Lack of co-ordination between member-states

CAPACITY-BUILDING
OBJECTIVES
INTER-GOVERNMENT AL
APPROVALS
FUNDING
IMPLEMENTATION
project is a part of the WAPP facilitation project.
Regional Regulation development Project for
Electricity Sector2
ECOWAS n.a.
This project has now been included as a part of the WAPP facilitation
project. The Proposal of Missions and Powers of the ECOWAS Regional
Regulatory Authority (ERERA) and definition of the legal instrument to
create ERERA was created in November 2006. The ERERA was set up
in Accra, Ghana in January 2008.
Constraints
Institutional: Continuation of the regulatory actions
initiated by the Regional Regulation Development
Organization (RRDO)
Financing: Financing is a key constraint for progress of
the project
Others: Lack of clear project management framework
Apart from the energy observatory at ECOWAS, which has been integrated with the WAPP facilitation
project, capacity-building projects in the energy sector have registered limited advancements – see box
on CAPP.
Case Note: Institutional Support for CAPP
The key problem with this project is that it does not have clearly defined objectives and a project management
framework. This is a recurring problem with capacity-building and facilitation projects. Consequently, this project
is not defined at ECCAS and the REC does not treat it as a short-term project, but as an ongoing task. Without a
clearly set out final objective and interim targets, such projects will go on indefinetly and ownership of such
projects will be weak.
It is of crucial importance to clearly spell out objectives and decide interim targets and time-lines, while launching
capacity-building projects. This would raise ownership of the project and force initiators of a programme to assess
the realisability of the project. Further, the institution monitoring the programme of which the project is a part has
to regularly supervise (at least every six months) the progress and status of the project. This would avoid the
project being shelved and neglected by the Secretariat.
To facilitate the flow of information between the monitoring agency and REC, a regional online database could be
set up that would be accessible to and updated by all stakeholders. This would add transparency to the progress
and process of infrastructure programmes. This has to be initiated by the organisation that plans and monitors the
NEPAD STAP programme, Hence, the onus falls on NEPAD Secretariat.
2 Project is treated as capacity-building and not facilitation project in this report, because REC classifies it as capacity-building
project

Capacity at a number of RECs has however been built up and developed over the last few years, albeit
without a clearly defined project management framework. It is nonetheless important while integrating
capacity-building projects with a new infrastructure programme that a clear set of targets, milestones and
responsibilities be defined to maintain ownership and momentum of the projects.
2.2.2 Progress of Investment Projects - Electricity
Eight NEPAD STAP investment projects in the electricity sector are included in the current review. Four of
the electricity investment projects are North Africa interconnector projects with Europe (AMU region).
These projects have largely been promoted in the framework of the EU-sponsored Euro-Mediterranean
Programme (MEDA). Of the other four electricity investment projects, two are under the supervision of
IGAD and two are under the supervision of SADC. The former are new STAP projects and did not feature
in the 2004 review. Table 9 summarises the progress made in each project and highlights the key
constraints.
Table 9: Progress of all STAP electricity investment projects
AGREEMENT
FEASIBILITY
FUNDING
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATION
Algeria-Morocco-Spain interconnection AMU US$ 430
million
Prymsian (Italy) and Nexans (France) were contracted to build the Spain
Morocco connection and in 2006 the second submarine cable (31 km)
between Morocco and Spain was completed. Concerning the connection
between Algeria and Morocco, a third 400 kV double circuit line was
constructed in 2006 and initially operated at 220 kV.
Constraints
None
Algeria-Sardinia (Italy) Interconnection AMU US$ 260-690
million
Cost estimates for the connection are of the order of US$ 260-690
million, which was established in the feasibility study completed in June
2004. The construction of this line is however under question as its
financial feasibility is uncertain and the project is strictly tied to the entry
in service of the Sardinia and Peninsular Italy (SAPEI) project (High
Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable between Sardinia and mainland
Italy), which is currently under construction. This project is therefore on
hold due to technical difficulties and financial uncertainty.
Constraints
Financial: Insecurity concerning exact costs of project
Technical: Only sensible project if SAPEI connection is
operational
Algerian Gas Fired Power station and Algeria-Spain
interconnection
AMU US$ 382
million
This project has two components: (i) the building of a gas-fired power
plant in Algeria and (ii) an interconnection between Algeria and Spain.
The gas-fired power station became fully operational in 2006 and this
part of the project is therefore completed.
The feasibility study for a sub-sea interconnection cable was finished in
2003. The study proposes a 2000 MW, 400 kV DC connection between
Terga (Algeria) and the Litoral de Almeria (Spain). Currently the project
is on hold due to a lack of financing and technical difficulties (depth of
sea at deepest point 1,900 m).
Constraints
Financial: Lack of financing for interconnection
Technical: Depth of sea at chosen point particularly
deep
Tunisia-Italy Interconnection AMU US$ 490-530

AGREEMENT
FEASIBILITY
FUNDING
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATION
million
Feasibility is complete and construction is expected to start in 2010. Constraints
None
Sudan Ethiopia Interconnector (New) IGAD US$ 71 million
The project has been included as a part of the East African Power Pool
Constraints
and the Nile Basin Initiative. The study for the interconnection has been
None
completed and the works have been contracted. The funding agents for
the project are the World Bank and India. The fee for conducting a
feasibility study for this project was US$ 1 million. The estimated project
cost is US$ 71 million.
Djibouti Ethiopia Inter Connector (New) IGAD US$ 121
million
The project has been included as a part of the East African Power Pool.
The study for the interconnection has been completed and the works
have been contracted. The funding agents for the project are the
Governments of Ethiopia and Djibouti and the AfDB. The fee for
conducting a study for this project is US$ 3.3 million. The estimated
project cost is US$ 121 million
Constraints
None
Mepanda Uncua Hydropower Project SADC US$ 2 billion
A consortium constituting Electricidade de Moçambique (EDM),
Constraints
Camargo Correia, and Energia Capital is developing this project. The
None
project has recently achieved financial closure.
Mozambique – Malawi Interconnection SADC US$ 85 million
Construction is scheduled to start soon on the Mozambique side. The
Malawi side is still awaiting Parliamentary approval of the World Bank
loan to begin construction.
Constraints
Financial: Delay in obtaining loan approval
The progress of electricity investment projects since 2004 has been good. The majority of the projects
have passed the feasibility stage and are now either in the construction stage or already in operation.
This is a considerable improvement compared to 2004, when only one project was in the construction
phase while most other projects were either in the agreement or feasibility stages. The box describes one
of the successful regional energy projects studied.

Case Note: Algeria-Morrocco-Spain Interconnection
Like most electricity investment projects, the interconnection has seen very good progress. The transmission line
construction was completed in 2006 and the interconnectors are now fully operational.
Several success factors contributing to the advancement of this project can be identified. Firstly, very good
political co-operation between the three countries and the realisation of the mutual economic gains from the
project were at the heart of the project. This co-operation was facilitated by the various forums and platforms of
exchange between Mediterranean electricity regulators, utilities and politicians organised through the European-
Mediterranean Co-operation (MEDA) framework. Secondly, the Maghreb electricity markets use the same
voltage, grid codes and technical arrangements as the liberalised European electricity markets. This meant that
no other regulatory and political costs had to be incurred for the construction of the interconnection. Thirdly, the
active involvement of the state utilities that financed the project and assessed its feasibility and profitability
ensured ownership of this project.
When setting up regional electricity investment projects, it is important that the regulatory and technical
requirements needed for the successful completion and operations of the projects are put in place in advance of
project completion. This means that it is not enough to finance and implement investment projects but the
necessary regulatory and facilitation reforms need to be included in the programme as well. Regionally developed
electricity infrastructure investments require regulatory and operational frameworks to be harmonised. Also,
political support by the member-states involved needs to be ensured for the successful completion of electricity
investment projects. Creating and managing forums of exchange and discussions among the key stakeholders is
the best way to achieve political consensus.
2.2.3 Progress of Investment Projects - Pipelines
Four energy investment projects in the current NEPAD STAP review are gas and petroleum products
pipeline projects. Table 10 shows the progress of all STAP pipeline investment projects
Table 10: Progress of all STAP pipeline investment projects
INVESTMENT-OIL AND GAS PIPELINE
AGREEMENT
FEASIBILITY
FUNDING
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATION
Tunisia-Libya Gas Pipeline Project AMU n.a.
A detailed pipeline Route Survey was initiated in 2004 under a contract
signed with National Consulting Bureau, NCB (Libya) which was
completed in 2007. Tunisia has submitted a funding request for AfDB’s
consideration.
Constraints
Technical: Insecurity of Libyan gas supply
Financial: No funding for project secured
Kenya-Uganda Oil Pipeline EAC US$ 110
million
Tamoil East Africa Limited has been selected as a Build-Own-Operate- Constraints

INVESTMENT-OIL AND GAS PIPELINE
AGREEMENT
FEASIBILITY
FUNDING
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATION
Transfer ( BOOT) developer for the pipeline project. (Structure: 49 % will
be owned by the governments of Kenya and Uganda, and the balance
by the private sector company Tamoil, based in Libya). A 25-year
concession has been granted to the concessionaire. Commencement of
construction works is awaited.
Technical: Possible re-orientation of the flow of oil
products would allow exports to pass through the port of
Mombasa to feed into refinery.
Other: Delay in start of construction;
The procurement process for selection of the appointed
developer was challenged by one of the competing
bidders.
Uganda-Rwanda-Burundi Oil products pipeline (New) EAC n.a.
This petroleum products pipeline project will be an extension of the
Kenya - Uganda oil pipeline (therefore accessing the port of Mombasa).
Request for funding of feasibility study for the project has been made to
the AfDB – Project Implementation Manual submitted by EAC in April
2008. Key objective of the study will be to carry out a detailed
assessment of the overall feasibility of the extension of oil products
pipeline from Kampala to Kigali and Bujumbura.
Constraints
Technical: The proposed plan for setting up a refinery in
Uganda may impact the configuration of the project
Financial: Funding due to be tied up to carry out
feasibility study
West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP) ECOWAS US$ 380
million
Currently, work is progressing on the remaining onshore portions of the
WAGP (Compressor Station at Lagos Beach, RM Stations in Cotonou,
Lome and Tema, onshore pipelines) to deliver compressed gas.
Compressed gas deliveries from the pipeline are expected by Q2 2010.
Constraints
Political: The full operation of the pipeline is delayed
due to growing political instability in regions through
which the pipeline passes
While progress in pipeline investment projects has not been as good as that of electricity investment
projects, progress has nevertheless been very satisfactory. WAGP has been completed and is now ready
for operation; its full operation is still constrained due to security issues and technical problems – see box.
All other projects are either in the definition or funding stages, which is a reasonable improvement
compared to 2004. None of the pipeline projects are currently being constructed.

Case Note: West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP)
The West African Gas Pipeline has seen very good progress at its inception and thanks to strong political support
and the involvement of the private sector early on in the project stages, the WAGP was constructed and
completed by 2008. However, as of today, the pipeline is not fully operational due to some technical problems,
but more fundamentally due to security threats and political instability. The failure of Nigeria to supply gas via the
WAGP has undermined several gas-to-electricity projects which had been planned in neighbouring countries.
Proposing a solution for security in West Africa is clearly beyond the scope of this report, but this project
highlights two key factors that need to be considered when setting up new infrastructure projects. Firstly, the risk
of projects needs to be thoroughly assessed. For projects with a risk level that can be contained, appropriate risk
mitigation measures need to be developed. If the risk of a project is deemed to be too high, it might be best to
exclude the project from the programme. It is up to the organisation initiating the programme to assess the risk
and find possible risk mitigation measures. Secondly, it is dangerous to set up projects on the premise that
another project will be completed. This can lead to a number of projects stalling even though only that project is
severely constrained. If the progress of one project depends on the progress of another, these projects must be
closely monitored.
2.2.4 Progress of Studies
The six reviewed study projects are two electricity master plan studies (i.e., long-term least cost power
development plans carried out by power pools), three inter-connector studies, and one feasibility study.
Table 11 lists all energy study projects and briefly highlights their development since 2004.
Table 11: Progress of all STAP energy study projects
STUDIES
CONCEPT
FUNDING
PROCUREMENT
CONSULTANT
APPROVAL
Gas Pipeline Tanzania-Kenya-Uganda (New) EAC US$ 0.5 million
The main objective of the project is to develop a pipeline from Dar-es-
Constraints
Salaam to Tanga (Tanzania) and Mombasa (Kenya) for the export of
gas from Tanzania to Kenya for the purpose of power generation and
None
other uses.
Status: Funding has been tied up for conducting a feasibility study for
the project. Consultants have been short-listed and a proposal
evaluation is underway – targeted appointment is November 2009.
East African Power Master Plan EAC n.a.
The power master planning exercise was concluded in March 2005 and
therefore is not covered in this review. While this project for the
preparation of the master plan can be deemed completed, it is
understood that an update to the plan may be needed to include
analysis for Rwanda and Burundi that had joined the EAC after the
development of this master plan.
Constraints
Financial: Financing needs to be arranged for various
initiatives recommended as per the master plan
Other: Update to the plan may be needed to include
analysis for Rwanda Burundi that had joined the EAC
after the development of this master plan
Interconnectivity of Electricity Networks ECCAS US$ 4.5 mill

Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action Plan (STAP)

Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action Plan (STAP)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action Plan (STAP)

Similar a Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action Plan (STAP) (20)

Último

Último (20)

Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action Plan (STAP)