Most African PPPs Don’t Survive the Feasibility Phase
Across Africa, governments and development finance institutions (DFIs) have turned to public-private partnerships (PPPs) to bridge critical infrastructure gaps. From power plants to transport corridors to digital infrastructure, PPPs promise efficiency, innovation, and private capital.
But there’s a stark reality that many policymakers and investors quietly acknowledge: most of these projects don’t make it past the drawing board.
A 2023 World Bank review of PPP pipelines in sub-Saharan Africa revealed a sobering statistic: only 20% of projects reached financial close. The rest stalled—or died—during preparation.
What makes this so costly is that many of these projects had already absorbed millions in feasibility funding—from DFIs, donors, or state budgets. Each failed project leaves behind a trail of unused studies, sunken consultant fees, and lost political capital.
As someone who has worked across multiple stages of PPP development—from internal government reviews to deal structuring and DFI coordination—I’ve seen the pattern repeat too many times. The core issue is not just poor studies—it’s how preparation is governed.
Three Flaws Beneath the Surface
So why do so many PPPs fall apart before reaching investors? The surface-level answer is weak feasibility. But when you dig deeper, three structural flaws emerge:
Prep Capital Goes to the Wrong Projects
Many feasibility budgets are allocated to projects that are politically exciting, but financially shaky.
I once reviewed the preparation history of a coastal toll road meant to link two West African capital cities. It had received over €4 million in pre-feasibility support from various donors. But from day one, the project had no revenue model, relied on traffic volumes that defied basic logic, and cut through disputed land. It never stood a chance,but the funding flowed anyway, because it was politically visible.
This isn’t rare. So-called “donor darlings” (airports, rail lines, or showcase smart cities, etc.) attract attention, but crowd out smaller, bankable PPPs: rural energy mini-grids, logistics hubs, district hospitals. These are projects that could realistically close if they had technical support.
Politics Captures Feasibility
Feasibility studies are supposed to answer a simple question: Is this project viable economically, technically, legally and financially ?
But in practice, they often serve another purpose: to validate what’s already been decided. In several countries, I’ve seen ministers hand over a project concept to an advisor with the instruction: “Find a way to make this work.” The feasibility study becomes a tool of affirmation, not analysis.
This dynamic distorts data, encourages consultants to understate risks, and results in unbankable projects reaching tender, only to be rejected by investors.
There’s No Unified Standard for Feasibility
Every DFI, donor, and PPP unit seems to have its own “feasibility framework.” Some prioritize environmental and social safeguards, others focus on cost-benefit ratios or legal structuring. The lack of common standards leads to fragmentation and inefficiency.
This was evident in a recent African airport concession where three different DFIs each funded separate parts of the feasibility. The result? Conflicting traffic forecasts, redundant legal reviews, and a fragmented financial model. The private sponsor eventually walked away, citing “uncoordinated project governance.”
Bridging the Gap: Why It’s Time for a New Approach
If we want more African PPPs to succeed, the question isn’t “How do we write better feasibility reports?” It’s: How do we create a smarter ecosystem for project preparation—one that prioritizes viability, filters out noise, and aligns everyone’s incentives?
Three Ideas That Could Change the Game
Introduce Independent Feasibility Panels
To de-politicize project selection, DFIs and governments should rely on neutral, third-party panels to vet feasibility studies before moving to procurement. These panels—composed of engineers, financiers, legal experts—would not execute the studies themselves, but would provide a structured review using standardized criteria.
One African country piloted this model in 2022 for a solar PPP program. The independent panel rejected three out of ten early-stage concepts as “non-viable”—saving months of lost effort. The remaining projects moved forward and are now in procurement with investor interest.
Tailor Feasibility to Sector Realities
Feasibility isn’t one-size-fits-all. A transport corridor, for instance, demands complex traffic forecasts, right-of-way assessments, and intermodal integration plans. In contrast, a health PPP hinges on defining service-level agreements, demand projections, and sustainable public subsidy models.
That’s why DFIs should move toward sector-specific feasibility blueprints—including standard risk matrices, revenue model templates, and legal checklists tailored to each sector. This approach not only streamlines preparation but also enhances the precision of risk assessments and financial structuring.
To scale this, DFIs could jointly co-create a digital hub for PPP preparation—housing vetted consultant pools, sector playbooks, model TORs, and case studies from real-world projects.
Think of it as a "GitHub for PPP prep": a collaborative, version-controlled repository that accelerates knowledge transfer and brings much-needed coherence to feasibility funding across Africa.
Make Feasibility Funding Contingent on Results
We need to stop treating feasibility studies as sunk costs. Instead, development finance institutions (DFIs) should adopt performance-linked preparation funds, i.e. mechanisms where consultants are paid progressively, but only if their work meets clear, independent quality benchmarks at each stage.
This approach is already delivering results in infrastructure markets like Colombia and Indonesia. It shifts incentives from volume to value by rewarding feasibility work that:
Flags showstoppers early during pre-feasibility,
Delivers rigorous, bankable analysis in full feasibility,
Attracts credible bids during procurement, and
Aligns with final deal terms at financial close.
Importantly, payments should continue even if a project is rightfully discontinued, as long as the analysis was sound. The goal isn’t to force every deal through, but to reward technical truth-telling and discourage political interference.
In other words, if the study is solid, the team gets paid, whether the project moves forward or not. That’s how we shift PPP preparation from a box-ticking exercise to a results-driven discipline.
A Model That Works: Lessons from NEPAD-IPPF
Fortunately, there’s already a working model we can learn from: the African Development Bank’s NEPAD Infrastructure Project Preparation Facility (NEPAD-IPPF).
Rather than funding any feasibility request, NEPAD-IPPF begins by helping governments prioritize pipelines based on readiness and potential for impact. It then co-finances feasibility with the public sector, creating shared accountability.
The result? Several successful transport and energy PPPs in East and Southern Africa have emerged from this approach—including cross-border transmission lines and port upgrades. Crucially, NEPAD-IPPF avoids political capture by keeping technical preparation arms-length from ministerial offices.
In many ways, it offers a replicable model: align interests early, co-fund preparation, and vet projects rigorously.
We Can’t Afford More Dead Projects
If we want African PPPs to scale, we need more than political will or capital—we need bankable pipelines. That means transforming the way feasibility is approached, funded, and governed.
As someone who has advised public authorities, structured PPPs, and worked closely with DFIs, I now help partners with:
Feasibility Audits: Reviewing technical, legal, and financial assumptions to catch red flags early.
Prep Fund Structuring: Designing blended-risk facilities that pay for results—not activity.
Political De-Risking: Crafting governance frameworks to reduce interference and safeguard investor trust.
The message to DFIs, sovereign partners, and investors is simple: let’s stop wasting money on doomed prep. Let’s build a smarter, fairer, results-driven pipeline.
By Arnold A. KAMANKE