Solar and Energy Transition: Good policy intentions but less progress: Assessing Tanzania and EAC’s Utility scale solar energy potential and policy gaps to fix

Governments are struggling with little success to attract and retain utility scale solar projects and many have died in their nascent stages. Yet utility scale solar projects could be a significant contributor to resolving the regions power shortages and increased energy access by sizeable proportions. So, what is holding back utility scale solar projects and how can governments maneuver to attract and retain more investors. 

By Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Centre

@energypolicy @cleanenergy @solarafrica @energytransition

Multiple studies have concluded that the Eastern Africa region has the highest technical potential for solar power technologies, with estimates of 175 PWh and 220 PWh annually for Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and Photovoltaics (PV) respectively. African countries with the highest CSP and PV potentials are Algeria, Egypt, Namibia, South Africa, Sudan, and Tanzania.  The annual technical solar power potential in Tanzania is estimated to be 31,482 TWh for CSP technology and 38,804 TWh for PV technology. Despite this potential, Tanzania and EAC lags behind its peers such as South Africa, Algeria and Egypt. Besides the technical aspects as earlier discussed, the policy terrain in East Africa has been largely zig zag and therefore not coherent enough to support investment.

In this second part of our analytical series on solar as a clean energy source, we attempt to shade some light on the policy terrain in Tanzania and East Africa generally and how this is contributing towards holding back large-scale investment and utility scale solar penetration.

Policy and investment terrain

Generally, the policy and investment landscape in East Africa has been evolving at a snail pace. Both Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda have renewable energy policies in place however these are not backed up by adequate promotion, implementation and funding. The regulatory terrain has also been discordant.  For the region to benefit, the policy and investment trajectory will have to align and move faster, catching up with the global trends and the drive to clean energy.

Tanzania’s policy terrain.

The government passed a National Energy Policy (NEP) in 2015 with a commitment to increase the share of renewables in its energy mix. The NEP 2015 seeks to facilitate improvement of investment environment to promote and support private sector participation. The policy further commits to scaling up utilization of renewable energy source by among others introducing a.. feed-in-tariffs for renewable energy technologies and structure power purchase agreements for renewable energy.  

It further commits to facilitate integration of renewable energy technologies in buildings and industrial designs and establish frameworks for renewable energy integration into the national and isolated grids; an Promote sustainable biofuel production and usage.

However, actualization of this has been slow. To date contribution of renewables to Tanzania’s energy mix remains low at 1.2 %. By 2021 Tanzania’s electricity generation came mostly from natural gas (48%), followed by hydro (31%), petrol (18%) with solar and biofuels contributing a mere 1% each. The National energy consumption balance is still dominated with biomas (charcoal and firewood) use at around 85%.

Tanzania government admits that that solar utilization is constrained by high initial costs, poor after sales services, insufficient awareness on its potential and economic benefits offered by solar technologies plus inappropriate credit financing mechanisms.

Previous policies, particularly the 2003 was successful in the establishment and operationalization of Energy and Water utilities regulatory authorities, the Rural Energy Agency (REA) and the Rural Energy Fund, However, it fell short of making advancements on the renewable energy, particularly by not creating a designated and operational Renewable Energy Fund. By design it is implied that funding of the renewable sector would come directly from the consolidated Energy Fund. However, with conflicting priorities and government’s focus on increasing energy access to hydro and gas fired electricity, much of the available funding was channeled towards rural electrification.

In 2012 Tanzania was one of the pilot countries selected to prepare the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program (SREP). The chief objective of this plan was to transform the energy sector of Tanzania from one that is more dependent on fossil fuels to one that is more diversified with a greater share of renewable sources contributing to the energy mix through catalyzing the large–scale development of renewable energy.

The SREP–Tanzania Investment Plan was prepared by the Government of Tanzania, through a National Task Force led by the Ministry of Energy and Minerals (MEM) with support from the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). However much of this plan is yet to fully takeoff and its translation into actual deliverables yet to materialise

Cognizant of the significant gaps that exist, in 2023 the Minister of energy at time, Hon January Makamba revealed that the government was developing a new Renewable Energy Policy to further enhance investments in renewable energy. This policy would capitalize on the substantial financial resources, capital markets, and advancements in new technologies dedicated to renewable energy globally. He also announced ongoing efforts to identify areas with renewable energy resources and prioritize native investments in wind and solar projects. The government would provide support in this regard and establish guidelines for project implementation.

In 2023 Tanzania entered into an agreement to construct the Country’s first-ever solar photovoltaic power station to feed into the national electricity grid. According to the Ministry of Energy, the project is part of a larger initiative of installing 150 MW of solar energy in the Kishapu district of the Shinyanga region. The first phase of the project to be constructed by Sinohydro Corporation from China was estimated at TZS 109 billion and was scheduled for completion before end of 2024.

According to the Minister, the implementation of the solar project reflected the government’s commitment to establishing a diverse mix of electricity sources in the national grid, incorporating water, gas, wind, and solar power. This approach aims to ensure a continuous supply of electricity, even in the event of a failure in one source.

There are also several large-scale solar power projects under development, including the 30 MW Singida project and the 50 MW Nyumba ya Mungu project. In addition to government efforts, there are also private companies and organizations working to develop renewable energy projects in Tanzania.

Similarly, Zanzibar, the semi-autonomous Island of Tanzania, also signed in 2023 an agreement with a Mauritius-based Generation Capital Ltd and Tanzania’s Taifa Energy to build its first large-scale 30MW solar PV power plant, as it seeks to become energy independent. The plant will cost $140 million. The Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between the state-owned Zanzibar Electricity Corporation (Zeco) and the two companies to develop the 180 megawatts plant will be implemented in phases, according to Zanzibar’s Ministry of Energy and Minerals.

Kenya’s solar terrain

Garissa Solar Farm

So far, Kenya is leading in large solar projects.  There are at least 10 large solar farms in Kenya. The Garisa solar farm, is the largest in East and Central Africa, with 55 MW generation capacity. The solar farm sits on85 hectares (210 acres) and consists of 206,272 265Wp solar panels and 1,172 42kW inverters owned and operated by Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy Corporation. Others already operational or proposed include; Malindi Solar (52MW), Alten Kasses (52 MW), Kopere Solar Project (50MW), Eldosol Solar Project (48MW), Radiant (50MW), Rumuruti (40 MW), Nakuru Solar project (40MW), Witu (40MW) and Makindu (40MW).

Kenya has buttressed its renewable energy credentials with a new Energy Transition and Investment Plan (ETIP) launched in 2023. The ETIP spells out Kenya’s road map to delivering a 100% clean energy driven economy by 2050. The country is however yet to figure out how it will fund this ambitious plan. Over the past recent years Kenya has been facing significant budgetary constraints affecting funding of its major national development plans. Even when the government has committed to achieving 100% clean energy by 2030, it bets heavily on funding from external donors. With the recent trend in aid inflows and if they remain unchanged in the short and medium term, it will be a tall order Kenya to meet this target.

Uganda’s solar uptake

Uganda has been slowly catching up with its peers. Uganda’s policy commits to make modern renewable energy a substantial part of the national energy consumption. To increase the use of modern renewable energy, from the current 4% to 61% of the total energy consumption by the year 2017[i].

The policy terrain has been zigzagging and investment in renewables is still low but the government has blended its focus on hydropower generation with small investments in solar projects as back up for its hydropower. There was a big growth in 2021, reaching 92 MW, followed by a significant increase of around 6.9 MW, reaching a total of 98.9 MW Uganda’s installed solar energy capacity in 2022.

Some of the projects contributing to this growth include Kabulasoke Solar PV Park is a 20MW solar PV power project, located in Central, Uganda, Bufulubi solar project in Tororo and Access solar plants in Soroti.  New pipeline projects include the Amea West Nile Solar PV Park, a ground-mounted solar project, whose construction was expected to commence from 2024 and subsequently enter into commercial operation in 2025. The power generated from the project will be sold to Uganda Electricity Transmission under a power purchase agreement. 

This however falls short of achieving the targets as stipulated in Uganda’s Renewable Energy policy. Uganda’s renewable energy policy commits to establish and maintain a responsive legislative, appropriate financing and fiscal policy framework for investments in renewable energy technologies. It mentions forms of financing such as strengthening the Credit Support Facility and Smart Subsidies which are intended to scale up investments in renewable energy and rural electrification.

Moreover, a special financial mechanism, a credit support facility known as the Uganda Energy Capitalisation Trust, was instituted to help realise the policy but this expired in 2012 and had never been renewed[ii]. Uganda lags in meeting its policy targets as only 10 solar projects had been completed by 2022[iii].

What is the current market and investment size?

According to global energy reports, there is a substantive market size of solar photovoltaic (PV) in East Africa and Africa generally. The Middle East & Africa solar photovoltaic (PV) market size was valued at USD 5.00 billion in 2022. The market was projected to grow from USD 6.93 billion in 2023 to USD 37.71 billion by 2030, exhibiting a cumulative Average growth rate (CAGR) of 27.4% during the forecast period.

Despite its immense solar power potential, East Africa and Africa generally continues to lag behind other continents when it comes to building up utility scale grid and off-grid solar capacity, in part due to a stagnant policy regime, overlapping institutional roles, limited research, technical capacity and lack of appropriate financing facilities for investment.  Some proposed projects have failed to take off.  As a consequence, the total investment share of utility scale projects into East Africa remains comparable low.  

So, what can EAC governments do to make utility scale solar markets attractive?

Recommendations

# Governments must make policy switches from paper to aggressive attracting of investment into the solar PV East African markets. The policies may exist but the implementation gap is too big. Policy interventions and a national course-correction is urgently needed to effectively overcome structural barriers and create local value in the emerging solar market many of which is still left behind in this progress.

# Decentralization of energy generation away from vertically integrated power monopolies such as TANESCO and Kenya power could be a game changer.  De regulation and introduction of net metering by independent Solar PV power producers to directly generate and sell to customers could improve profitability of solar projects and attract new investments.

# Financing institutions must scale up project financing of renewable energy projects.  Solar projects are still expensive and funding is difficult to come by. Kenya’s Garisa solar project required an investment of KSh13. 7 billion ($135.7 million) and was funded by the Exim Bank of China. Other projects have required substantive investment with funds generated from private developers and energy venture capitalists. The existing financial institutions are yet to master tailing project financing to utility scale solar projects.

# Addressing land rights and underlying injustices. Large solar farms require large tracts of land and these can be a source of land grabbing, land deprivation and injustice, generating conflicts and endless litigation between potential investors and the communities. The renewable policies and investments have to sit well with land rights, guaranteeing free prior informed consent, fair compensation and equity,

# Socio-economic: Identifying and prioritizing suitable areas for building large-scale solar power plants is a complex problem. In contrast with the simplistic view, identifying appropriate geographical areas for solar power installation is not only linked with the amount of received solar radiation, but there are many other technical, economic, environmental, and social factors that should be considered like: alternative land uses, topographical characteristics of the land, conserving protected areas, potential environmental impacts, water availability, potential urban expansion, proximity to demand centers, roads proximity, and potential for grid connectivity.

# Solar technology firms must address intermittence and storage of renewable energy. Solar power is generally reliant on the availability of sunshine. Depending on the weather and hours of the day and night. Unfortunately, the technology has not advanced far enough and made cheaply available to East for storage of solar power. For solar power users the days are hot and the nights are cold.

# Government leaders must have a unified political will to support renewables as part of the master energy mix and regional energy power pool. So far there is a divided political opinion on what solar power can do in helping the governments to meet their national energy demands. While Kenya is a front runner, other countries are still focused on hydro and gas. The future of distributed solar therefore depends largely on good political will driving favorable polices and changing mindset to embrace solar power as a new source of energy. This could be reflected in new generation policy drivers such as requirement for solar considerations in building designs and integrated power systems.

[i] Renewable Policy for Uganda; https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3.sourceafrica.net/documents/118159/Uganda-Renewable-Energy-Policy.pdf

 

[ii]

[iii]

The Petals of Blood: Dissecting the contagion effect of Sudan war on South Sudan and EAC with lessons on governance and state failure

The Sudan war has been raging for almost a year, with catastrophic effects now spreading beyond Sudan’s borders, affecting its neighboring South Sudan and the East Africa Community (EAC) in many ways.

By Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Centre & James Boboya, Institute of Social Policy and Research (ISCPR), South Sudan

According to the United Nations, since it started, the war has now destabilized the entire region, leading to the deaths of more than 5,000 Sudanese and displacing millions both within the African nation and across seven national borders.[1]  Sudan is now home to the highest number of internally displaced anywhere in the world, with at least 7.1 million uprooted.[2] More than 6 million Sudanese are suffering from famine, and these numbers are growing every day.  The health system has broken down, and more than 1,200 children have died from malnutrition and lack of essential care. [3]The UN now describes the Sudan conflict as a forgotten humanitarian disaster, while the International Crisis Group has warned that Sudan’s future, and much else, is at stake.

Lest we forget, within a short period, the third largest nation in Africa, with a size of more than 1.8886 million square kilometers and at least 46 million people, has no properly functioning government, and all state institutions have collapsed with the effects of its meltdown spilling over to its neighbors, particularly South Sudan.

South Sudan is host to thousands of Sudanese refugees forced across the border into South Sudan, exerting social and economic pressure on an already fragile state that was already sinking under the burden of its own civil war and internal conflicts.

The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) reports that more than 500,000 people have now fled from the war in Sudan to South Sudan. [1]This means that over 30 percent of all the refugees, asylum seekers, and ethnic South Sudanese were forced to flee Sudan since the war exploded in April 2023 for protection in one of the poorest places on earth. “South Sudan, that has itself recently come out of decades of war, was facing a dire humanitarian situation before the war in Sudan erupted. It already had nine million people in need of humanitarian aid, and almost 60 per cent of the population facing high levels of food insecurity.

As of 28 January 2024, more than 528,000 ethnic South Sudanese, Sudanese refugees, and other third-country nationals had crossed at entry points along the South Sudan border into Abyei Administrative Area, Upper Nile, Unity, Northern, and Western Bahr El Ghazal. The majority, 81 percent, entered at Jodrah before making their way to the transit center in Renk. Ethnic South Sudanese who have crossed the border from Sudan are commonly referred to as “returnees.” Still, in reality, many of them were born in Sudan and have never been in South Sudan, and therefore have no kinship connection in host communities.

The conflict has spilled deeper into other East African countries, with thousands seeking refuge and safety from it. The education system collapsed, sending thousands of learners back home and hundreds who could afford to flee exile to continue their studies. Some of these were admitted to Rwandan and Tanzanian Universities.

The Sudan and South Sudan experiment was a governance disaster in the waiting and perhaps serves as a lesson of how a firm grip on power, corruption, and misgovernance can ultimately lead to catastrophic state failure and collapse.

Donald Kasongi, Executive Director of Governance Links and a former senior officer with the Accord, a regional conflict organization, describes the post-Garang South Sudan and post-Bashir Sudan as a protracted governance failure. The diverse strategic roles of Khartoum, Beijing, and Washington in the Sweet South Sudanese oil are now evident.  So far, none is a victor.

The role of external interests in shaping national discourse has been at play. Sudan is caught between the interests of the West and the Middle East and China, with both interested in controlling access to Sudan’s resources, cultural wealth, and strategic positioning as a buffer between the North and South. Before the war, Sudan identified itself with the Islamic world and pronounced itself as an Islamic state. Despite this alignment, the OIC and the larger Islamic world has not come to its help. Sudan remains an isolated state left to collapse at its fate.

In South Sudan, the Garang vision of a strong independent nation was lost. After his demise most of the post Garang political elites or military war generals became pre-occupied on restoring the lost years at war by amassing wealth through corruption and sharing out of the limited resources from the oil resources. As a consequence, a strong nation is yet to be built. They had won the war but lost their country. The same mistake plays out in Sudan. Perhaps the conflict is a lesson on what it means to lose what is so dear to one- A country.

In short, the transition in both countries (Sudan and South Sudan) were not well managed and what we see are petals of blood from toxic flowers of bad governance which have flourished like a forest planted along the banks of the river Nile.

According to James Boboya, the Executive Director of the South worrisome. The raging war has made South Sudan’s oil exports via Port Sudan difficult. Oil exports have collapsed by more than half from 160,000 barrels per day in 2022 to 140,000 barrels per day in 2023. This was more than half of the previous peak of 350,000 barrels per day before civil war broke out in 2013.[2] The South Sudanese dollar collapsed in value. There is a financial crunch and the South Sudanese government has not paid its public and civil servants for months. There is a risk of insurrection and demonstrations by public servants that will be likely joined by the military. This would plunge South Sudan into chaos and total collapse just like its Northern neighbor.

Moreover, this conflict and its associated effects comes in an election year for South Sudan.  The general elections are viewed as a watershed moment which may see a transition from President Salva Keir to a new cadre of leadership. With the economic crunch, South Sudan may not be able to organize and fund a credible general election. This will be not good for South Sudan’s democracy and desired future.

With the world’s media focused on the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Gaza wars, little is covered about the Sudan conflicts nor the total economic catastrophe that South Sudan faces.

If not addressed, the Sudan war will be soon inside the borders of the EAC. Can the EAC afford to stand by and watch longer as its member state, collapses.  Mediation efforts led by Kenya and Djbouti were postponed last year. Direct talks between Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Sudan’s army chief and de facto head of state, and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, head of the RSF paramilitaries remain futile.  What can South Sudan and the EAC do now to avert further catastrophe?

During a joint webinar organized by the Governance and Economic Policy Center (GEPC) and the Institute of Social Policy and Research (ISCR) in South Sudan in April, a distinguished panel of experts discussed and enabled us to understand the contradictions and magnitude of this war with implications and lessons on extractive governance, and state collapse drawn for East Africa and Africa generally, can be taken to avert the situation and its contagion effect on the EAC and Africa generally. The panelists and participants highlighted some key lessons and takeaways that can be drawn from the conflict.

Key lessons and takeaways

Ethnicization of politics and governance can lead to a spiral of violence and catastrophic state collapse, especially when the strong ruling elite and regime finally lose control of power.

A previously united Sudan started getting balkanized when the ruling elites started practicing the politics of ethnicity and religion pitting the largely Muslims in the northern and western parts of the country against their Christian southerners.  The Christians were portrayed as slightly inferior, denied political and economic opportunity, and subjected to forced Islamisation, and inhumane conditions such as slavery. Faced with what was considered unbecoming conditions the Southerners opted for a rebellion and demand for independence. The first and second Sudanese civil war (including the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement (SPLM/A) were born and the political dynamics in Sudan changed for decades after. New factions such as the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice Equality Movement (JEM) emerged and Sudan never remained the same.  Sentiments for cessation and independence in Darfur flared and faced with an insurgency, President Omar enlisted militias including the Janjaweed to quell the rebellions. Around 10,000 were killed and over 2.5 million displaced. The balkanisation of Sudan was continuing to play out.

Militarisation of politics erodes democratic values and principles which can take decades to rebuild.

Omar Bashir came to power in 1989 when, as a brigadier general in the Sudanese Army, he led a group of officers in a military coup that ousted the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi after it began negotiations with rebels in the south. Omar Bashir subsequently replaced President Ahmed al-Mirghani as head of state and ruled with the military closely fused into the politics and governance of Sudan.

The military elites elevated to power during President Omar Bashir’s government enjoyed privileged positions.  Even with his overthrow in 2019, these generals maintained a firm grip on the Transition Military Council and the Civil-Military Sovereignty Council.  These are less likely to accept any position below total control of the central authority. The net effect is that the return to full civilian and democratic rule of state governance in an entrenched militarized political environment such as Sudan can or may take decades to be rebuilt.

Vulnerability to geopolitical manipulation and fiddle diddle can be a driver to political instability and eventual weak governance

Both Sudan and South Sudan have been victims of well-orchestrated geopolitical game plans from external powers interested in taking control of the rich natural resources wealth that these countries possess. Sudan and South Sudan have vast oil deposits and forestry products.  With eyes focused on these resources external powers succeeded in playing one community against another and one country against the other and successfully throwing the region into an abyss of endless crisis. Religion was used as a tool to play the North against the South and continues to be used in some segments of the Sudanese and South Sudanese communities.

Key Takeaways

  1. The East African Community (EAC) governments cannot afford to take a wait-and-see attitude. The problems facing Sudan and South Sudan are latently present in several other EAC countries. For this reason, therefore without taking lessons from Sudan and South Sudan other countries can also easily erupt in the future, bringing down the entire EAC. The EAC has therefore an obligation to ramp up support for the resumption of the peace process and finding lasting solutions for peace and tranquility in the two countries. For this to happen there has to be trust and objectivity of the actors to the crisis and the EAC mediators. 
  1. Stop ethnicization and militarization of politics and state governance: The Sudan experience demonstrates this, whereby the collapse of President Omar Bashir’s strong grip on power let loose the lid off a can of worms that had eaten the state to its collapse. Similar conditions of ethnic rivalry in state governance have created uncertainty about guaranteed stability in South Sudan. In some other EAC member states there have been attempts to elevate dominant ethnic groups to power and military influence in state politics built around one strong leader. The Sudan experience demonstrates that the absence of such a strong leader holding the center together can lead to a lacuna, leading to a trail of conflict and instability leading governance to fall apart and eventual state collapse.
  1. The EAC countries must stop viewing at South Sudan as merely a market but as an independent viable state whose stability is good for the entire region. According to the EAC trade statistics, South Sudan was the leading market for goods from Uganda and Kenya. With a total population of 11 million and a collapsed agricultural and industrial base, South Sudan has provided a ready market for agricultural goods and manufactured goods from Uganda and Kenya. According to UN Comtrade Data Uganda exported goods worth USD483.9Mln and Kenya’s exports to South Sudan were worth USD170Mln. Uganda’s exports to Sudan also increased by 154% from around USD48Mln in 2016 to USD123Mln in 2022.  With the eyes largely focused on trade opportunities, there can be a tendency to lose track of the human suffering that the people in these countries face. Also, the jostle for geopolitical control over trade deals can overwhelm the genuine solidarity intentions of good neighbors. The EAC members should focus on the stability of these countries. 
  1. The International Community Must not give up on Sudan and South Sudan. Despite the donor fatigue and reports of corruption, the international community has a moral obligation to continue engaging with the protagonists in the war, facilitating the avenues for a peaceful resolution of the conflict and providing humanitarian aid to the suffering people. The Sudan and South Sudan conflict must be treated with equal measure with the Ukraine-Russia, Israel, and Gaza conflicts. The EAC must scale up diplomatic efforts and be an Anchor in Chief in this process, coordinating and connecting Sudan, South Sudan to the world. 
  1. The EAC media and Civil society must continue highlighting the suffering in Sudan and South Sudan. With the Israel and Gaza war ongoing, the Sudan and South Sudan stories that were largely covered by the Western media have since died out.  There has been little coverage given within the EAC of the recent developments in this war and how it is affecting its neighbors. Moreover, with limited internet connectivity and restrictive conditions, communication advocacy from inside Sudan and South Sudan is quite difficult.  The media and civil society in the EAC therefore must speak loud on behalf of their Sudanese counterparts

 

[1] War in Sudan displaces over 500,000 to South Sudanhttps://www.nrc.no/news/2024/january/sudan-refugees-to-south-sudan/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CMore%20than%20500%2C000%20people%20have,the%20poorest%20places%20on%20earth.

[2] The East African Business Khartoum unable to ensure smooth export of South Sudan oil https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/business/khartoum-unable-to-ensure-smooth-export-of-south-sudanese-oil-4564064

[1] Sudan conflict: ‘Our lives have become a piece of hell’ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-67438018

[2] War in Sudan: more than 7 million displaced – UNhttps://www.africanews.com/2023/12/22/war-in-sudan-more-than-7-million-displaced-un//

[3] More than 1,200 children have died in the past 5 months in conflict-wrecked Sudan, the UN sayshttps://apnews.com/article/sudan-conflict-military-rsf-children-measles-malnutrition-ec7bb2a1f49d74e7b5f01afa12f16d99

Oil and Energy Transition: Why Sudan conflict provides new hope for EACOP

The Sudan conflict is a catastrophe that must be stopped but its unintended consequences provide new optimism for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

By Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Center

With the constant fighting and insecurity along the pipeline and its pumping stations, the South Sudanese government is now open to exploring new opportunities via EACOP to guarantee its future oil exports.

On March 16th the government of Sudan admitted that it cannot guarantee the smooth export of oil from South Sudan, as a year of war has made it difficult to maintain or even protect the pipeline to Port Sudan.

In a letter to major oil companies involved in the oil production and export, Sudan’s Minister of Energy and Petroleum Dr Mohieldin Nam Mohamed Said admitted that the war had made it difficult to provide any guarantees for safety.

He acknowledged that the conflict was hampering the flow of oil to Port Sudan, as it took time to repair pipelines ruptured during the fighting. In addition, there was a telecommunications breakdown between the pumping stations (PS4) and PS5 in Sudan, which were shut down in the midst of heavy fighting. The area was an active military zone and access for repairs was not guaranteed.

As a response the South Sudanese government had declared a force majeure, making production and export impossible and thereby revamping suggestions to explore new possible safer routes for South Sudan’s oil.

The war in Sudan added to the challenges South Sudan faces in maximizing its only major resource – oil – to fund a financially constrained government and other operations.  As a consequence of the war, South Sudan’s oil production fell from 160,000 barrels per day in 2022 to 140,000 barrels per day in 2023. This is was more than half of the previous peak of 350,000 barrels per day before civil war broke out in 2013.

Talks to have South Sudan pump its oil south wards had all along been explored and presented as part of Uganda’s grand plan to make the EACOP an East African project by connecting and supplying all the EAC member states with oil and gas.

Under this grand plan and initial drawings, the Oil pipeline would radiate from its nerve center in Hoima with an artery of pipelines running northwards to South Sudan, westwards to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), eastwards to connect Kenya’s oil from Turkana and southwards with an arm extended to Rwanda and long route via Tanzania to Tanga port.

Map showing initially considered alternative EACOP routes

But the progress of this was partly hampered by Uganda’s fall out with the Kenyan route and the existing agreements signed between Khartoum and Juba during the independence talks. Provisions in these required among others a concession that Sudan will retain territorial control of some oil rich territories and that South Sudan would continue exporting its oil via Port Sudan. By doing this, the government in Khartoum would maintain some revenues from the oil sector that had been largely lost with South Sudan’s cessation and independence.

I remember in a private conversation with a friend from Sudan some years ago he confided that during one meeting with   Sudanese youth and young professionals, President Omar Bashir, before his overthrow, had admitted that he was not sure about the economic future of Sudan without South Sudan. He clearly predicted a catastrophic economic meltdown leading to chaos and that was why Sudan had to maintain a grip on South Sudan. The oil pipeline was a win-win infrastructure politically and economically anchoring the two countries as good neighbors.

By Sudan admitting that the safety cannot be guaranteed and reconstruction of the damaged infrastructure will take longer than usual provides South Sudan with a legitimate cause to start exploring new safe routes for its oil.

An oil route from Juba southward would be beneficial to South Sudan, the EACOP but also good for the East African Community as a region. South Sudan derives 90% of its revenues from oil exports and would like to have a constant flow of this oil to sustain its economy. EACOP would guarantee that flow. South Sudan would also have access to other EACOP related infrastructure such as the refinery and international airport for other logistical needs.

An extended pipeline from Hoima northwards to connect with the oil from South Sudan would increase volumes of oil pumped out of EACOP by at least 150,000 to 200,000 barrels per day, increasing EACOP’s profitability and attractiveness to investors.

Moreover, with its oil, South Sudan would become a major regional player with a stronger voice in EAC matters perhaps more than it is today. The pipeline would bring Sudan in the north closer to the EAC, increasing its prospects for joining the EAC and thus facilitating the region’s expansion ambitions.

There could be some differences in the chemical composition and technical aspects of the two oils (Uganda and South Sudan) with perhaps one being waxier than the other but these complexities can be handled through technical re-engineering and design of the oil pipeline.

The EACOP has always been a controversial project with environmental activists and anti-oil crusaders campaigning against its construction.  Environmentalists argued that the world’s longest heated pipeline will have serious environmental impacts and contribute to global warming. The future profitability of the pipeline was also questioned given the global push towards a transition away from fossil-based system and uncertainty about the future of oil as an energy source.

None the less, plans for construction of the pipeline are ongoing.  Land compensations in Uganda and Tanzania was completed. An advance consignment of pipes was delivered and a coating and insulating plant for the pipelines was commissioned and already operational in Tanzania, paving way for the pipeline construction and ground laying to commence before end of 2024.

The conflict in Sudan therefore provides more impetus to the project as it opens a new door for possible access and increased volumes from South Sudan’s oil and taping into already existing markets can be guaranteed.

The future of oil as a dominant fuel in the global energy system is a controversial subject and a debate exists whether it makes sense to construct new oil pipelines and infrastructure.  

However, the crisis and the significance of oil in driving South Sudan’s economy comes at a time when there are all indications that major global super powers such as the United States and United Kingdom are backtracking on their commitments to end and move away from fossil or oil as source of energy.

Despite the announcements made at the COP27 and 28, in his maiden speech to Parliament, King Charles in November 2023 announced that the UK government will issue new licensing rounds for exploration and drilling of oil and gas in the North Sea. The rounds will go ahead each year so long as the UK remains a net importer of oil and gas and if emissions from UK-based production remain lower than those associated with imports.

In the US, Republicans have maintained a firm support for oil and Donald Trump, the most preferred Republican nominee for President has vowed to overturn any existing legislation and commitments made by the Democrats against the fossil energy sector, by signing an executive order to issue new rounds oil and gas drilling.  According to Trump this would be his first executive order immediately signed, if he was elected to power in November of 2024. Clearly, the US political will is divided and the future US policy terrain on oil and gas cannot be guaranteed.

Quietly, the leading oil producers are strongly supporting continued pumping of oil. Despite global campaigns, large oil producers are still skeptical that renewables can replace oil in the medium term and by 2050. They believe that the focus should be on decarbonizing oil and not ending its supply and use all together. Ending use of oil would be returning the world to stone age error, one Middle East leader remarked at COP28 before backtracking after coming under intense criticism. The approved language at COP28 was phase down and not phaseout. Oil therefore may have a longer lifetime than earlier anticipated.

Despite the catastrophe that the war has caused, that we all condemn, Uganda and Tanzania should exploit the opportunity it provides to ramp up and conclude talks with South Sudan on the viability of exporting its oil via EACOP.

How EAC can benefit from its Critical or Transitional Minerals

The EAC has vast deposits of minerals critical to driving technology to support the green industrial revolution and yet the region lacks a proper framework to govern and maximize benefit from this mineral potential.  Our analysis shows that all is not lost. There is still an opportunity for the EAC to reorganize and take a share from the increasing critical or transitional minerals demand.

By Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Center

@critical minerals @mineralsgovernance @eac 

What is the EAC’s regional problem?

Critical or transitional minerals are loosely defined as mineral commodities that have important uses to industrial technology to support the transition to a clean energy future, have no viable substitutes, yet face potential disruption in supply. These minerals include (but limited to); Graphite, Coltan, Nickel, Tungsten, Tantalum, Tin, Lithium, Manganese, Magnesium, palladium, Platinum, Beryllium, copper, fluorspar, Holmium Niobium, Rhodium, Titanium, Zinc etc. The EAC has vast deposits of some these and yet the region lacks a proper framework to govern and maximize benefit from this mineral potential.

Minerals as a national resource vs regional resource

The issue of mineral is politically sensitive. It lies at the intersection of national pride and sovereignty. Minerals are considered as a national resource whose value cannot be discussed or shared at regional level. Most countries have chosen to address mineral issues at a national level, carefully safeguarding what they consider their national interests.

Unfortunately, by taking this route, EAC mineral rich countries have exposed themselves to weaker negotiation power, and fallen easy prey to the divide and rule game played by some quick profit accumulation seeking multinational mining companies.  These mining companies take on each country as an independent jurisdiction, setting each up for competition against the other and demanding exorbitant favorable terms to invest.  The net effect is that EAC mineral rich countries have weaker negotiating powers and signed off bad deals. It is perhaps for this reasons that the EAC has selected to focus on protecting aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems such as forests and mountains in shared areas.

Raging political instability and counter accusations for harboring insurgents.  East Africa’s mineral rich regions face raging political instability, with each member states accusing the other of supporting and harboring hostile insurgent’s, violation territorial sovereignty and plundering of the abundant mineral resources.  For example, the DRC accuses Rwanda of supporting the M23 in Eastern Congo while Rwanda has constantly accused the DRC of harboring the FDRL. Similarly, Uganda’s Ailed Democratic Forces (ADF) rebels have found refuge in the DRC.  Burundi accuses Rwanda of supporting hostile rebel groups against the Burundi government. As a consequence, EAC’s mineral rich regions have failed to secure maximum economic benefits from its mineral wealth. Efforts to jointly pacify the region through a military intervention by the East Africa Regional Standby Force failed miserably with the force withdrawn at the end of 2023.

Failure to curb cross border smuggling and illicit minerals trade.  The UNCTAD data from COMTRADE and other online sources show a big difference between reported mineral exports and imports data from receiving countries. For example, in 2021 the DRC reported exporting a net weight of cobalt of 898,869 kg valued at USD 3,277,615 while China reported importing a net weight of 190032 kg valued at valued at USD92,065, 332 in the same period. The difference between the reported export value by the DRC and the reported import value by China was a whooping USD 88,784,717. There are large disparities between the DRC’s minerals trade data with Dubai and similarly Kenya’s mineral trade data with Dubai.

Yet, the vice has continued unabated. The recent arrests of fake gold traders in Nairobi’s upscale Kileleshwa suburb confirms that illicit mineral business is rife in the region. Illicit minerals are crossing borders undocumented, with cartels exploiting the weaknesses in the border control mechanisms to make shoddy deals worth millions of dollars. The arrested illegal mineral traders had fake Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) documents and stamps showing that Uganda was the source country. There are reports that DRC’s gold and coltan is smuggled through Rwanda and Uganda. Rwanda , a fairly none rich mineral country is a large mineral exporter. According to government reports, Rwanda’s annual mineral export earnings in 2023 was USD1.1billion reflecting a 43% increase from USD772bln in 2022. Clearly illegal trade is denying the EAC millions of dollars in economic benefits.

Lack of regional harmonization of the extractive sector regulatory framework. There were attempts to develop a model minerals legislation but all these efforts suffered a silent death. As expressed by one of the EAC members of parliament, Arusha has become a cemetery of good policy intentions. Good at expressing desire and slow at action and implementation.

Poor geological survey data, compared to superior data sets in possession of mineral companies. This has often tilted the negotiation power balance in favor of the companies, leading to signing off poor deals by mineral rich host countries.

What opportunities exist?

 Maximizing on current EAC partners trade in minerals and mineral based products.

According to EAC regional statistics, the trade by EAC partner states in minerals fuels, mineral oils, products of their distillation, bituminous substances and mineral waxes were the most traded with a value of USD810.7million dollars in 2022. This was followed by trade in natural or cultural pearls, precious or semi-precious stones, precious metals valued at USD588.3million. Trade in nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and mechanical appliances thereof ranked third with a value of USD238million[1]

This therefore shows there are a raw material and there is a market for mineral based products even within the EAC.  Scaled value addition and intra trade in minerals and mineral based products to serve the existing demand can significantly boost internal regional industrialization, create jobs and economic growth

Leveraging on current and future global critical/transitional minerals demand

With a regional approach, the EAC could benefit from the rapidly expanding demand and prices for green transitional minerals. Since 2020 the global commodity prices for Nickel, Cobalt, Coltan, Lithium and Copper has been on the rise. According industry experts, such as Equity Group’s CEO, Dr James Mwangi, the demand for these minerals can only go up, and prices can only go up because of their limited supply versus the global targets to reduce emissions by 2030. It is for this reason that global consumers such as China, Australia are in the rush to secure supply chains all over the World.  Tech players such as Tesla’s Boss, Elon Musk have equally explored possibilities to establish plants in the DRC and Tanzania so as to secure the raw materials and add value at source. So far, neither the EAC nor its member states have capitalized on these interests to develop a regional road map for investments into the green or transitional minerals subsector. Elon Musk’s investment plans have not materialized.

Use critical/transitional minerals demand to forge new strategic economic relationship

According to the Carnegie foundation, the combination of key mineral endowments in African countries and U.S. objectives to reorient clean energy supply chains away from competitors like China can serve as the foundation for a new economic and strategic relationship. In 2022 the US announced its desire to re-establish a new relationship with Africa driven by trade and investment. The EAC can use its abundant critical or transitional minerals potential to negotiate new long-term relationships based on mutual economic benefits away from the traditional donor recipient approach.

Attracting investments in Energy Sector

The EAC has large opportunity for investment into its renewable energy sector. Uranium, a key fuel in nuclear plants and nuclear fission, is found in eight locations in the South Kivu and Katanga provinces in the south of DRC. Tanzania and Uganda have large deposits of Uranium. These clean energy minerals are also backed with hydropower potential of the giant inga dam and Kenya’s geothermal potential.

The EAC commits to development of the energy sector covering both renewable and non-renewable energy sources. This is aimed at facilitating the broader EAC objectives of attracting investments, competitiveness and trade for mutual benefit. Despite this, there has not been joint EAC investment attraction drive purposed towards its regional power potential.  The regional plans to develop the giant inga dam as a flagship Agenda 2023 project contributing to the towards East Africa’s power pool have remained stagnant.

What EAC member states can do

  • Abandon limited nationalistic views and pursue large economic interests, from a regional lens
  • Conduct regional mapping and improve mineral geodata sets
  • Rekindle and accomplish plans to develop regional frameworks for mineral governance
  • Facilitate regional investment campaigns profiling critical minerals and clean energy sources as tier one commodities available for investment for the EAC
  • Stop the guns and think development

What would be the benefits of acting as an EAC region

  1. Joint investment promotions and attraction of the best investors
  2. Increased negotiation power and leverage for better deals
  3. Expanded regional value additional chains and industrial projects driven by large economies of scale. According to global statistics the DRC was the largest cobalt reserve (about 3.6million metric tons yet China was the largest processor(85Mt)
  4. Increased cooperation and opportunities for lasting peace
  5. Expanded economic opportunity and benefit for citizens.

 

[1] https://eac.opendataforafrica.org/

Critical Minerals: EAC destined large critical minerals block, yet benefits remain elusive

With the DRC and Somalia on board and new coltan discoveries made in Kenya, the East Africa Community (EAC) is now destined to become one of the largest critical minerals deposits rich and source region in the world, yet maximizing value and benefits as region remains elusive.

By Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Center

@criticalminerals @energytransition

On the 15th December 2023, the Federal Republic of Somalia became a full member of the EAC becoming the 8th country to join this economic block. With its admission following closely on the DRC in 2022, the EAC has a total population of 320 million people with a geographical size of about 5.4million sqkm straddling from the Indian Ocean coastline to the Atlantic coastline.

The EAC now boasts as one of the largest single economic block with large deposits of minerals critical for mitigating climate change by driving the green industrial revolution and transition to clean energy. There are already prospects that Ethiopia and Djibouti will be joining the EAC. If this happens the EAC’s geographical size, population and mineral wealth will expand to rival or overtake other economic regions such as the European Union.

The size of Mineral Deposits combined

According to the EAC reports, the region is endowed with a variety of minerals, including fluorspar, titanium and zirconium, gold, oil, gas, cobalt and nickel, diamonds, copper, coal and iron ore. Such mineral resources present an opportunity for development of the mining industry, which is currently underdeveloped.

Mineral Resources in EAC

Country Precious metal, Gemstones & Semi-Precious Metal Metallic Minerals Industrial minerals
Burundi Gold Tin, Nickel, copper, cobalt, niobium, coltan, vanadium, tungsten Phosphate, Peat
Kenya Gemstones, gold Lead, zircon, iron, titanium Soda ash, flour spar, salt, mica, chaum, oil, coal, diatomite, gypsum, meers, kaolin, rear earth
Rwanda Gold, gemstones Tin, tungsten, tantalum, niobium, columbium pozzolana
Tanzania Gold, diamond, gemstones, silver, PGMs Nickel, bauxite, copper, cobalt, uranium Coal, phosphate, gypsum, pozzolana, soda ash, gas
Uganda Gold, diamond Copper, tin, lead, nickel, cobalt, tungsten, uranium, niobium, tantalum, iron Gypsum, kaolin, salt, vermiculite, pozzolana, marble, soapstone, rear earth, oil
South Sudan Gold, silver Iron, copper, tungsten, zinc, chromium Oil, mica

Source: EAC Vision 2050 and South Sudan Development Strategy

With the pressure of climate change and the 4th industrial revolution driven by a few green minerals, the EAC hosts vast deposits of minerals such as coltan, nickel, tantalum, copper and others vital in driving the green technological revolution to a cleaner energy future.

The admission of the DRC to the EAC was a game changer to the region’s positioning as a global player in the critical and strategic mineral’s space.  According to multiple sources the DRC is the world’s leading producer of cobalt, used in the manufacture of batteries. It is also the world’s fourth-largest producer of copper, used in the assembly of electric cars and the infrastructure of most renewable energy sources. Lithium deposits, estimated at over 130 million tones, are also present in the southeast.

The DRC has most of the mineral ores that produce key components in making computer chips and electric vehicles, technologies that are powering the drive to the future. In a typical computer, copper and gold are key components used in making the monitor, printed circuit boards and chips. Cobalt constitutes 6.45 percent of the materials that make electric vehicle batteries while copper constitutes 25.8 percent. Jointly, copper and cobalt constitute more than a third of EV batteries.

DRC is rich in these minerals, producing 68 percent of the world’s cobalt — the largest globally — and over 1.8 million tons of copper annually. Copper is estimated to gain and maintain more value on longterm compared to other minerals.

Before the DRC and Somalia’s membership, the EAC was already a major player. According to Geological Survey of Tanzania, Tanzania has close to 24 documented critical minerals such as Nickel, Tantalum and sits on the 4th largest premium grade graphite deposits in the world. Between 2005 and 2020, there was an exploration boom relative to other minerals for Tanzania’s Critical Minerals.

Uganda has vast deposits of copper and tungsten in its south western border areas while Rwanda is one of the world’s largest producers of tin, tantalum, and tungsten (3Ts) and coltan. Burundi has copper, cobalt and nickel in 2019, Burundi produced about 2% of the world’s production of tantalum.  Kenya has vast deposits of titanium, a mineral used in the manufacturing of aircraft transportation and solar panel parts. The new discoveries of coltan announced in Embu County in 2024 adds to Kenya’s list of valuable minerals. Although the commercial volumes of the new discoveries are yet to be determined, Kenya’s announcement expands the EAC’s critical or green mineral deposit map and its role in the green energy transition. Somalia, the EAC’s new entrant has some deposits of tantalum, tin and uranium.

These minerals lie along a common geological mineral belt running from Ethiopia and South Sudan downwards across the DRC, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania into Mozambique. The combined volume of these green minerals’ deposits competitively will rival other countries like China, Australia and regions such as the Lithium triangle in Latin America.

Given the global challenges related to climate change and the potential transition to a clean future. Energy Security and Energy transition are among the hottest areas of investment. The dash to secure deposits and supply chains of minerals critical to the development of green technology is on. Many countries endowed with these minerals are seeking to create wealth based on this transition.

Despite this critical mineral resources’ wealth, the EAC has failed so far to leverage and maximize economic benefits as a single region remains elusive. The EAC’s share of global investment in this lucrative extractive sector remains small. The EAC is riddled with extractive policy fragmentation, overriding nationalistic political desires and catastrophic death of joint extractive policy and governance actions.

According to the EAC treaty, the EAC partner states have agreed to take concerted measures to foster co-operation in the joint and efficient management and sustainable utilization of natural resources within the Community. Yet the EAC has no publicly available documented comprehensive regional plan on governing or managing mineral resources. The EAC has focused on management of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Minerals are categorized as other natural resources.

By treating Minerals as a somewhat lesser regional priority, the EAC is missing out on a huge current and future economic opportunity internally and externally to drive the region to prosperity. We will discuss more about what these opportunities are and how the EAC can benefit in a separate article. Keep reading.

 

Energy Transition: Why Africa must focus on Energy Aggregation and Consolidation

Historically, energy transitions have never meant one energy system completely replacing another rather one system reducing quantitatively amount of use in favour of another. The rise of coal ,the steam engine and petroleum did not end the use of traditional sources of energy such as firewood and horsepower.

By Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Center

Delivering Charcoal in Uganda (Rod Waddington/CC BY-SA 2.0)

Globally, there is an increasing focus on climate change and energy transition. There is debate on the risks that these portend and an emerging view/ consensus that energy systems must transit gradually to achieve a net zero carbon emission   by 2050. Africa is at a dilemma, caught up in its realities and a myriad of contesting advice on which policy direction it should take.

This article attempts to deconstruct this increasing popular narrative on climate change and energy transition by arguing that it is unrealistic to achieve net zero by 2050 and a complete energy transition for Africa is impossible. Climate change may be real but achieving total decarbornisation by 2050 may be farfetched. I take this posture by looking historically at how previous changes in energy systems happened and Africa’s realities.

Chronologically, energy transitions are not new. They have happened before. Perhaps what make this possible transition quite significant is that it has been linked with the catastrophic climate change and global warming. This transition therefore is viewed as one of the remaining silver bullet to save the planet.  However, an analysis of historical trends and the manner in which the road to decarbonisation is framed and the narrative/view that energy systems must transit by 2050 is therefore problematic.

Historically, energy transitions have never meant one energy system completely replacing another but rather one system reducing quantitatively amount of use in favour of another. The rise of coal and the steam engine did not end the use of traditional sources of energy such as firewood and horsepower.

Between 1780’s to 1860’s whale sperm oil was a dominant source of energy for lighting before being replaced with the discovery of petroleum. This can be considered as the first energy transition after man discovered fire.  However, the two energy sources co-existed into the next century before petroleum became the dominant source. Whale oil did not disappear but retained value as a resource after the discovery of petroleum. In the 20th Century, Whale sperm oil was used for new purposes, including margarine, lubricants soaps, detergents, vitamins D and nitroglycerine, which is still in use today. 

According to Yale Professor, Paul Sabin, the discovery of petroleum is often cited as an example of an energy transition, where one fuel completely displaced another.  Yet this argument is totally flawed because the discovery of petroleum actually made it possible to hunt whales at a massive scale. The fossil driven ships could travel and conquer deep seas than before and stay their longer as merchant anglers trapped, caught and killed and stored whales in their thousands.[1]  There could not have been modern whaling before fossil fuels were readily available.

While the demand for whale oil declined after the discovery of petroleum, its demand continued to rise. By the 20th Century, sperm whale catch peaked in the 1960s to over 250,000 tones before declining in the 1970s and 1980s. Numerically, it took almost over 100 years between 1850 and 1980 for this gradual decline to happen.

Indeed, recognizing the pace at which the whales were fished for their sperms and other products to near extinction, in 1986, the International Whaling Commission (IWC), established in the 1940s,  banned commercial whaling because of the extreme depletion of most of the whale stocks. Even with the IWC ban in place, to date whales are still-hunted and killed for their sperms and other products, as was the practice during those mediaeval times. Japan left the IWC in 2019 and now hunts whales without any international restriction.

Moreover, historical data shows that the advent of both coal and petroleum as new energy sources  did not take animal powered energy systems out of the market. When goods carried by the coal fired steam engine train locomotive at the station, one needed horses to haul it to the final destination.  In the United States animal power increased with the number of horses and mules rising from 4.3 mln in 1840 to 27.3mln in 1920.

To date animal power continues to exist and still forms a major source of motorization in many parts of the world. Even with the advent of the advanced petroleum, based engines, in some parts of Africa, when goods arrive by bus, truck or lorry at the nearby road terminal one requires animal power (cow, horses, mules or camels to carry them the next mile to next village destination.

This suggests that different forms of energy systems are complementary to each other rather than antagonistic. One fuel has always added to another expanding both the energy supply and energy mix. The fossil-based systems will therefore continue to serve side by side with the clean energy systems.

In my Country, the two-wheeler petroleum powered motor cycle (Boda Boda) is slowly replacing the cow and donkey horsepower as major form of transportation linking the main road to the rural interior.  However, the cow, donkey and horse power are not going away too soon. In some areas the human power is still largely used with people carrying their heavy loads on their head or pulled carts.  The electric car is yet to arrive and will take long to dominate our major roads in the city and perhaps another 100 years to make it to the final mile into our villages. For Africa, therefore energy shift from animal and human-based power to fossil-based energy is just midway. It will therefore take many decades to leapfrog to a total clean energy system.

 Since the Paris Declaration, there has been an upscale in clean energy sources compared to the previous years. However, the pace at which clean energy is being deployed is too low to overtake fossil-based sources by 2050.There is evidence that not only Africa is doing badly on this front.

In its 2023 report, the IPPC experts warned that we have already reached the catastrophic point of no return (keeping global temperatures under 1.5 degrees and on a clear path to miss the net zero target by 2050. Green House gas emissions continued to increase. Policies and laws addressing mitigation have consistently expanded since  the Paris declaration but theses are yet to cause a dent in global carbon emissions . Global GHG emissions in 2030 implied by Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) announced by October 2021 make it likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century and make it harder to limit warming below 2°C. There are gaps between projected emissions from implemented policies and those from NDCs and finance flows fall short of the levels needed to meet climate goals across all sectors and regions, the IPCC report states.

Since the climate problem is defined as too much greenhouse gas emissions, rather than too little energy, this historically suggests that only a solution that actually limits carbon dioxide emissions will work. However, when the climate problem and decarbonisation is defined with targets this way, there is a serious problem.

Factually, Africa is energy poor. The IEA World Energy Outlook, however, shows that close to 600 million people remain without access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa. Over 80% of Africa’s population depends on biomass as a source of fuel.  The electrification stands at around 40% and use of clean sources such as solar stands at a mere 4%. The net zero is barely 30 years from now and how Africa can turn these statistics around is quite impossible.

With the current statistics and demographics, decarborization (or net zero) is in many ways unprecedented as it means or suggests eliminating the use of a currently viable and profitable fuels and replacing this with another.

Globally, fossils are too dominant and producing countries are too reluctant to let them go without proper substitutes to replace them.  Yet dominant fuels have major characteristics that make them difficult to be easily replaced. These include; having large market share, economic dominance/ascendance, political dominance, established institutional structures to support and cultural influence on the users.  All these take time to be built and embedded into the energy system. Yet an energy transition reflects a change in the balance between fuels and a shift in their characteristics.  That clean energy system will take over the characteristics of the current fossil-based systems in the next 27 years is quite an uphill task.

The recent global events have shown that the world can reach a net zero emission in 2050 is over exaggerated and practically impossible to achieve. The simple disruption in petroleum supply chains by the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022 showed us this realty. Barely two months into the war, had developed countries such as German turn around on fossils to fire up their coal-based plants to generate energy.

Indeed, one EU leader remarked that all along Europe was wrong on coal as source of energy and that European economies could survive without fossil-based energy. German, Austria, France, and the Netherlands fired up their coal plants to save gas. Coal exports from Africa to Europe boomed and new coal investments in the US increased. The energy transition even in developed countries is happening but not without significant setbacks.

Since the 2015 Paris agreement, the 2050 net zero deadline has been a moving target.  India has said it would turn net zero only by 2070, while China has set a target of 2060. Russia and Saudi Arabia amongst major economies, have also set 2060 as their net zero targets. Some African governments such as Ghana have suggested 2060 as their deadline. The reality is that this net zero target, where the world is so clean and devoid of any carbon emissions may never be reached.

For Africa, therefore the answer to this conundrum of what direction the continent should take lies in energy aggregation and consolidation. This is where by new energy systems are layered on to existing systems and gradually scaled up as, they become technologically advanced, cheaply available and affordable,  to meet the continent’s sustainable energy needs. There has to be no rush for Africa to transit by 2050! Africa does not have to pay heavily to secure a net zero and a just transition by 2050.

 Africa’s future  is safe by developing hybrid energy systems that can at the same time sustain the fossil based systems, while clean energy systems are aggregated and consolidated on an incremental basis for the next long-term future.  What is required for now therefore is;

  1. Research and developing technologies that can reduce the toxic levels and carbon intensity in the petroleum based sources of energy so they can continue to be used in a clean future.
  1. Developing alternative products that could continue to be useful in support of the fossil industry, even with its diminished existence in the next 100 years. As earlier mentioned, while whale sperm oil stopped its usefulness as a dominant source for lighting, it continues as a key ingredient used to produce other high valued products.
  1. Developed countries appreciate that the journey will be a long one before our energy systems can significantly decarbonize. Even with the increased uptake in solarisation and other cleaner systems, biomass will continue to play a dominant portion as a source of energy to the bigger population in Africa.
  1. Our policies have to be pragmatic but less ambitious to avoid pitfalls in implementation and application, achievement of their intended objectives. Africa is not devoid of policies. It is a graveyard of policy implementation.
  1. Africa has to define its own energy transition pathway that is aligned to its practical realities and deficiencies. It is likely that fossils will continue driving Africa’s energy system past 2050.

In the climate justice space, perhaps Africa should be advocating for a Just Energy Aggregation and not a mere Just Energy Transition!

[1] Richard York: Why Petroleum did not save the whale; socus sociological research for a dynamic world , December 2017

 Disclaimer: This blog article is produced as part of our ongoing policy discussion series on climate change political economics and energy transition.  The discussions and briefs  therefrom are intended to share dissenting views and provoke intelligent debates ahead of major climate spaces such as COP28. The views contained herein may not necessarily fully represent those of the Governance and Economic Policy Centre (GEPC) but aired in support of intellectual democracy and geared towards securing a continental consensus.

Securing Tanzania’s clean energy future: How Tanzania can harness its renewable energy opportunities

With a high wind potential that covers more than 10% of its land and a solar power potential estimated to be 31,482 TWh for CSP technology and 38,804 TWh for PV technology and a global horizontal radiation of 4–7 kWh/m2/day , Tanzania is a step away from becoming a reckonable power giant in clean renewable future

By Moses Kulaba, Governance  and Economic Analysis Centre

@climate change, energy transition series

Tanzania, like other developing countries,  has perennial energy shortages and striving to find different ways of ensuring affordable and accessible energy supply to its citizens and economic development needs.

In order to secure affordable and accessible energy in the country, renewable energy is viewed as a viable alternative energy source. It is readily available,  environmentally friendly and if harvested,  produced and utilized in a modern and sustainable manner, it can help to eliminate Tanzania’s energy problems.

Tanzania’s power sector is dominated by state-owned TANESCO (Tanzania Electricity Supply Company Limited). TANESCO owns most of the country’s transmission and distribution network, and more than half of its generating capacity. The grid faces acute shortages and power outages due to excessive demand and a dilapidated infrastructure, making reliance on the current fossil and hydro based energy generation systems impossible to cope with the country’s energy demand.

Tanzania’s electricity generation comes mostly from natural gas (48%), followed by hydro (31%), petrol (18%) with solar (1%), and biofuels (1%). The traditional dependence on hydropower combined with the droughts that are affecting the country, often result in power supply shortages[2].

According to reports, Tanzania has a lot of renewable energy sources such as biomass, solar, hydropower, geothermal, biogas, wind, tidal, and waves. These sources are important for decentralized renewable energy technologies, which are ideal for the isolated nature of the settlements and are environmentally friendly. Despite their necessity, renewable energy sources are given low priority by both government and Households[1].

The World Economic Forum (WEF) reported the total sum of global investment into renewable energy has increased. This was supported by a 28% annual increase in investment from the United States (U.S), in 2019 totaling $54.6 billion[3]. Renewables cannot totally replace fossils such as oil, but increased investment shows increased potential contribution in the energy mix.  The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates annual clean energy investments will more than triple by 2030.

With its vast resources and location, there are opportunities for Tanzania to investment in its abundant solar and wind energy potentials. Perhaps, it is argued, the country can leverage its strategic position to scale up investment to generate more and at the same time position as a major supplier and user of renewable energy sources. So far, in Tanzania, solar energy is used as a source of power by 24.7% of the households with access to electricity.

Tanzania’s Solar Energy potential

A study by Ahmed et al in 2017 suggested that Tanzania has an annual technical solar power potential in Tanzania was estimated to be 31,482 TWh for CSP technology and 38,804 TWh for PV technology. Potential solar energy resources are found in the central parts of the country[10] [1]. There are high solar energy levels ranging from 2800 to 3500 h of sunshine per year and a global horizontal radiation of 4–7 kWh/m2/day [1,70].  

According to the World Bank, Tanzania has a solar energy potential greater than that of Spain and wind energy potential greater than that of the US State of California. With such great potential for solar energy resources, Tanzania is naturally appropriate for producing solar energy as a feasible alternative source for modern energy supply and rural electrification.

The solar energy market in Tanzania has drastically grown and increased over the last few years. Currently, the potential solar energy resources in Tanzania are used in different parts such as solar thermal for heating and drying and photovoltaic for lighting, water pumps, refrigeration purposes, and telecommunication. Solar energy is used mostly in rural areas with about 64.8% compared to urban areas with only 3.4%. The regions of Lindi, Njombe, Mtwara, Katavi, and Ruvuma lead in the use of solar power electricity in Tanzania[11]. Despite the increasing market for solar energy applications, there are fewer signs that the government is expecting to include solar PV in the national electricity mix in any substantial way in the future.

Tanzania’s Onshore Wind energy potential 

Tanzania has areas of high onshore wind potential that cover more than 10% of its land[5]. This is equivalent in size to Malawi and has greater potential than the US state of California, as reported by the World Bank report. There are areas with annual average wind speeds of 5–8 m/s[6] . These exist along a coastline of about 800 km with predominant surface winds, moving from south-east to northeast.

Based on the current research works, Tanzania has a lot of wind energy resources in the areas of Great Lakes, the plains, and the highland plateau regions of the Rift Valley. Wind energy evaluation indicates that areas such as Makambako (Njombe) and Kititimo (Singida) have sufficient wind speed for grid-scale electricity generation, with average of wind speeds 8.9 m/s and 9.9 m/s at the height of 30 m, respectively[7]. Small-scale off-grid wind turbines along the coastline and in the islands also possess great potential in Tanzania.

By 2017, at least four companies had expressed interest in investing in wind energy in Tanzania to build wind plants with a capacity of more than 50 MW. These companies included Geo-Wind Tanzania Ltd in Dar es Salaam,  Wind East Africa in Singida, and Sino Tan Renewable Energy Ltd. and Wind Energy Tanzania Ltd in Makambako.

It was further reported that wind farms with capacities of 100 MW in Singida would be constructed under the corporation of the Six Telecoms Company in Singida, financed by the International Finance Corporation and Aldwych International in London, the United Kingdom. The project would cost US$286 million[8].

But generally, the uptake of investments in wind energy is still low. Compared to other renewable energy resources that attract investment, most  projects have tried with little success to produce utility scale electricity from the wind energy. Tanzania’s renewable energy sector remains dormant with potential.

Recently, the government has indicated plans to review its national energy master plan with a view of integrating its energy mix with  renewable sources. This provides an opportunity for government to be intentional and focused on scaling its renewable sources from solar and wind.

What is stopping Tanzania’s renewable energy sector 

There are efforts and greenfield wind projects such as  the Mwenga project , the first wind farm to ever be built in Tanzania was completed in 2020. According to the project directors, Camco Clean Energy, the 2.4MW project – which received a $1.2m loan from the UK Government-funded Renewable Energy Performance Platform (REPP) – was supposed to be connected to an existing grid network, providing energy security to communities across the country. However, there are gaps such as financing, infrastructure, storage, and government facilitation which potentially limit investment, scale up, use and benefiting from this potential.

  • High investment costs: The cost for initial investment is high and the returns on investment are slow. With the dominance of TANESCO as a monopoly and absence of readily available Power Purchase Agreements for independent producers, project financing for renewable energies is still difficult.
  • Misaligned government priorities; Government efforts have largely emphasized hydropower projects. Other renewable energy sources such as solar, thermal, wind, biomass, and biogas are under-prioritized so far due to different socioeconomic and political reasons
  • Institutional and regulatory barriers; These are one of the main difficulties of developing renewable energy projects in the country, stakeholders say. According to Camco managing director Geoff Sinclair  “It’s very difficult to get a bankable PPA signed, offtaker creditworthiness remains an issue, and tariffs are regularly and somewhat randomly reduced to levels that undermine commercial viability.
  • Unmatched political will : The political will and support towards renewable energy over the past ten years has been on and off. After a major push in 2013 , the momentum appears to have dwindled.  Many projects stalled and such as the 150 MW Singida Wind Power project are yet to be fully delivered. In 2013, the Vice-President of China Daliang International Group, Mr Xu Youliang, told  Tanzania’s Prime Minister, Hon Mizengo Pinda,  that this project would be ready and start generating power by 2015. To date this has not materialized. Similar projects such as the Same Wind projects are still on their drawing boards and political support has been waning. Despite the energy resources available in the country and the government’s pledge to invest in renewable energy, foreign investors feel discouraged from  scaling up investments in  Tanzania’s renewable sector.
  • Overriding dissenting views on power of renewables in Africa: Further, this lukewarm and unpredictable stance towards renewable energy such as wind and solar seems to be a general  attitude  across the African continent. African governments have been slow to take on largescale renewable projects.  Some of African political leaders, such as Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, have argued that renewable energy is not sustainable to meet the future global population energy demands. It cannot even meet or drive Africa’s development agenda. 
  • Unreliability and lack of technology for storage: Renewable energies such as solar and wind are largely dependent on whether and climatic factors and therefore unreliable as a source of power. The technology for storage has not advanced enough to guarantee continuous supply whenever needed 
  • Potential of land grabing and conflicts: Moreover a solar farm requires huge tracts of land, and this can or may potentially spark off a new wave of land grabbing by solar energy investors, triggering land conflicts across the continent. Africa could is a bystander in renewable energy technology. For Africa to benefit, investment in technologies and production of equipment, such as solar panels and wind turbines must be on the continent.

CSOs such as power shift Africa , Anti Coal Coalition[4] and others however argue that investment in renewable energy is economically viable, and can  create jobs and increase access to energy to the poor and rural areas where access to the national grid is difficult. Significantly, investment in renewables will help Tanzania achieve its domestic transition and unlocking the country from a fossil future.

What can be done?

  • Moving forward, therefore the mysteries surrounding renewable energy and Tanzania’s potential must be unlocked 
  • Government, along with other renewable energy stakeholders, should complement existing policies and strategies to address issues related to renewable energy development to ensure timely and sustainable utilization of the available resources.
  • There is the need to provide a sound business and investment environment to local and foreign people who can provide capital towards renewable energy technologies and development.
  • There should be more training and awareness made available to the public about how to invest and use renewable energy.

Tanzania can and must benefit from the energy transition by upscaling its potential by starting to roll out implementation. Stalled renewable projects should be implemented.

[1] Obadia Kyetuza Bishoge: The Potential Renewable Energy for Sustainable

Development in Tanzania: A Review, 2018 accessed at : https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/1/1/6/pdf#:~:text=Tanzania%20has%20a%20lot%20of,are%20environmental%20friendly%20%5B1%5D.

[2] https://www.trade.gov/energy-resource-guide-tanzania-renewable-energy

[3] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/global-clean-energy-investment-research/

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/01/african-nations-set-to-make-the-case-for-big-rise-in-fossil-fuel-output#:~:text=African%20nations%20expected%20to%20make%20case%20for%20big%20rise%20in%20fossil%20fuel%20output,-Exclusive%3A%20leaders%20expected&text=Leaders%20of%20African%20countries%20are,documents%20seen%20by%20the%20Guardian.

[5] Tanzania Invest. Tanzania Has High Potential For Renewable Energy Projects, US Consulting Firm Indicates. TanzaniaInvest. 2015. Available online: https://www.tanzaniainvest.com/energy/tanzaniahas-high-potential-for-renewable-energy-re-projects (accessed on 15 April 2018).

[6] Kasasi, A.; Kainkwa, R. Assessment of wind energy potential for electricity generation in Setchet, Hanang, Tanzania. Tanz. J. Sci. 2002, 28, 1–7.

[7] Energy Charter Secretariat. Tanzanian Energy Sector under the Universal Principles of the Energy Charter. 2015. Available online: https://energycharter.org/fileadmin/DocumentsMedia/CONEXO/20150827- Tanzania_Pre-Assessment_Report.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2018)

[8] The Minister of Energy. The Speech of the Ministry of Energy and Minerals on the Estimates of the Revenue and Expenditure for Financial Year 2018/2019. 2018. Available online: https://www.nishati.go.tz/hotubaya-bajeti-ya-wizara-ya-nishati-kwa-mwaka-2018-19/ (accessed on 15 January 2018)

[9] The Economist. A World Turned Upside Down—Renewable Energy. 2017. Available online: https://www. economist.com/briefing/2017/02/25/a-world-turned-upside-down (accessed on 4 May 2018).

[10] Sarakikya, H. Renewable energy policies and practice in Tanzania: Their contribution to Tanzania economy and poverty alleviation. Int. J. Energy Power Eng. 2015, 4, 333. [CrossRef]

[11] https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/News/33pc-of-Tanzanians-have-access-to-electricity–report/1840340-3900298-9elccaz/index.html

Financing of the Green Economy and prospects for Africa-Can Green Banks offer a viable alternative?

Achieving Green Economies and a just energy transition for Africa cannot be achieved without financing. It is said there is sufficient liquidity and capital to finance climate change and green economic revolution in Africa. Unfortunately, much is not reaching the African continent. In East Africa, access to financing of clean renewable energy such as solar is limited and expensive for many rural communities and poor households. There is potential for solar energy but the existing government policy, legal and financing have gaps limiting cheap financing and solar uptake for rural communities.

The US experience show successful green and clean energy financing models through Green Banks which can be adopted and replicated in East Africa.  Large and small financial institutions on the African continent have leveraged instruments and facilities towards financing the green economy, but these are largely unknown. Governments such as Tanzania are considering carbon trading mechanisms while others look towards imposing carbon taxes to raise the necessary financing for the next green economy. What are the viable options?

The problem

African countries still face significant challenges in financing their climate transition. While investment needs resulting from NDCs are estimated at $2.8 trillion by 2030, funds invested on the continent still represent a limited share of global green finance flows, and the share covered by the private sector remains limited[1] Governments, local financial institutions and communities find it difficult to mobilise or access financing. Large private sector players are reluctant to invest due to the high cost of capital, small scale of projects and inhibiting policy terrains that make it difficult to attract capital and financing into the green economies. Much of the available financing is not yet reaching the communities and thus scantly creating lasting change.

Viable options?

Green banks have been so far lauded as one of the most innovative policy developments that can be used to support and deployment of clean energy[2]. Green banks are financial institutions established primarily to use innovative financing to accelerate the transition to clean energy and fight climate change[3]. They mix commercial, public, and philanthropic approach to capital making it cheaper to finance new clean energy projects that otherwise couldn’t be built. They are a good vehicle for leveraging finance and directing investment to areas which are needed to scale up the green economy.  They are good tools for driving or achieving public policy with a social enterprise angle[4].

An assessment by the African Development Bank and the Climate Investment Funds revealed the potential of Green Banks in six African countries, namely Benin, Ghana, Mozambique, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zambia.

“The assessment revealed that green banks have significant potential for attracting new sources of catalytic funds when supporting low-carbon, climate-resilient development through blending capital and mobilising local private investment for green investments in Africa,” the AfDB reported.

Multilateral development banks and international financial institutions had a crucial role in enabling local financial institutions to develop a green pipeline of projects and ease their access to resources. It is for this reason that the AfDB has established the Africa Green Bank Initiative (ABI).

The AfDB’s Green Bank Initiative (AGBI) is described as a powerful tool for reducing financing costs and mobilising private sector investments in climate action in Africa. The African Green Bank Initiative will be backed up next year by a $1.5 billion trust fund due to close in 2025. The initiative will bolster the capacity of local financial institutions to build a robust pipeline of bankable green projects, while de-risking investments and entrenching long-term investor confidence toward climate-resilient and low-carbon projects in Africa.  “It will do so through investing in sectors such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, climate-smart agriculture, resilient infrastructure, and nature-based solutions, AfDB states.

According to Akinwumi Adesina, the AfDB President, the establishment of a green finance ecosystem could generate $3 trillion in climate finance opportunities on the continent, while over the period 2020-2030, the financing gap to address climate change is estimated at between $100 billion and $130 billion per year.

Moreover, there are other financing options that are or can be pursued. These include green bonds, green loans, and carbon trading mechanisms.

Coincidentally, all these financing mechanisms have upsides and downsides, which  upon evaluation climate financing justice advocates such as  the CSO network, Pan African Climate Justice Association (PACJA) and government officials like Ms Isatou  Camara of the Gambia are now calling out financial institutions  for a total re-engineering and redesign  of climate financing to ensure that more is structured in the form of grants than loans and that at least 70% of this funding reaches the communities. The loans are expensive, Africa is over indebted and yet investment in renewable energy is an expensive affair for African governments to pursue alone[5]

At national level access to green finance should be relatively cheap, driven by a combination of less profit maximisation goals and more social enterprise imperatives and back by enabling legislative and regulatory framework.

Purpose of the webinar

This webinar is the second in a series of the different webinars that GEPC plans to conduct this year on the different elements on economic governance and climate economics, with anticipation that we can contribute towards expanding knowledge, public discussion, and engagement in these spaces.

But more significantly creating opportunities for business economic opportunity in country, including space for youth and women led young businesses to benefit from the emerging context.

Our distinguished speakers will dissect this subject and help us understand Financing of Green Economy in the context of climate change and transition to clean energy: Prospects for Green banks and other financing mechanisms in East Africa with a view of

Objectives

  1. Increase awareness and knowledge about the current Climate Economics and Financing the Green Economy in Africa
  2. Provide an opportunity for stakeholders to interrogate financing structures, national policy terrains, initiative potential opportunities and inhibitors to success.
  3. Influence key stakeholders such finance institutions and potentially state parties to hasten reforms for success.
  4. Generate a potential opportunity for non-state actors, communities, and small entrepreneurs to benefit from existing financing plans.

Our distinguished speakers will be:

1. Ms Isatou F. Camara, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, The Gambia, Least Developed Countries Group Climate Finance coordinator:  Restructuring of the global financing architecture for green economies-what financial institutions must do.

2. Ms Audrey Cynthia Yamadjako, Africa Green Banks Cordinator, African Development Bank (AfDB)

3.Ms Grace Mdemu, Capital Markets FSD Africa, former Business Development Officer at Africa Guarantee Fund (AGF): Leveraging of capital and opportunities to finance Green Economies in East Africa

4.    Dr Elifuraha Laltaika, Senior Lecturer of Natural Resources Law, Faculty of Law, Tumaini University Makumira, Tanzania:   Leveraging financing to poor and indigenous communities in Tanzania

5. Ms Cynthia Opakas,  Senior Legal Counsel, Green Max Capital , Kenya: Practical experiences on financing the green economy in Kenya and global best practices

6. Moses Kulaba, Convenor

Date and Time:  Wednesday, June 14, 2023 12:00 PM Nairobi , 11 AM CET and 9AM ACCRA Time

Pass Code:059752

Registration Link:  https://zoom.us/j/94532314396 

[1] https://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/african-development-bank-launches-model-deploying-green-financing-across-continent-56903

[2] Richard Kauffman, Yale School of Management, Financing Clean Energy Technology

[3] http://coalitionforgreencapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GreenBanksintheUS-2018AnnualIndustryReport.pdf

[4]https://gepc.or.tz/make-it-happen-how-green-banks-acceleration-can-light-up-rural-hamlets-in-uganda/

[5] Her Excellence Dr Samia Suluhu Hassan, President of United Republic of Tanzania during her address to African leaders at a side event on the Southern Africa Power Pool (SAPP) organised during the CoP27 in Egypt

End to false promises: Why COP27 must be a true African COP

 

Climate Change and Energy Transition negotiations should be about people.  A just transition cannot be achieved if the majority already affected by climate change and are likely to be affected by the energy transition as a mitigation measure are not heard on the negotiation table

By Moses Kulaba

The 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference, more commonly referred to as Conference of Parties (COP), was held from 6 -18 November 2022 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. This year’s COP was branded as the African COP since it  happened on the African continent.

Interestingly, this was not be the first COP on the African continent (Africa has hosted other COPs before in Morocco, Durban and Nairobi) and if going by the precedent set by past COPs, climate change commitments and targets were never honored especially by the world leading countries in terms of carbon emissions even after the Paris Agreement. The COP26 promised funds which never came.

In most cases the African political leadership was often disjointed in terms of a common position grounded on the realities of the continent’s people, livelihoods, and economies as the least contributors to the climate crisis.  Furthermore, the people’s voices and grievances are often excluded in the negotiations and processes thereafter. The net result has been a technical process which has led to a potentially slow but catastrophic climatic journey to oblivion, with Africa bearing the brunt of climate shocks and stress.

Despite being the least polluter, Africa faces the worst vagaries of climate change and energy transition risks. Previous IPCC reports indicate that Africa is experiencing more rises in temperatures and sea levels than anywhere else in the world. In the next decade, Africa will experience intense heat waves of up to 5 times more than ever recorded, more uncertain rainfall, droughts etc. Africa is facing significant total disruptions and mitigation and adaptation is required to reduce overall risks of climate change.

Currently, East and Horn of Africa is experiencing the worst drought in over 40 years, with between 22 million to 50 million facing starvation and over 3.4 million children already malnourished. The March to May rains were the lowest in 70 years which has resulted in multiple cycles of crop failure and loss of millions of livestock which are essential sources of livelihood.

For Africa, the potential risks of global warming and climate change are everywhere and daily risk that we face. With a total Forest cover of about 7,13,789 sq km which is 21.71% -24.6% of the geographical area of the country, Tanzania is one of the largest remaining carbon sink. Tanzania’s forests contain more than 2,019 million metric tons of carbon in living forest biomass. Yet, it is estimated that between 1990 and 2010, Tanzania lost 19.4% of its forest cover, or around 8,067,000 ha. At this rate, we could lose half of our forest cover by 2030.

A sudden rise in the Ocean Sea levels by around 3 feet is enough to partially submerge Zanzibar. National Geographic scientists estimate that the islands of Zanzibar and Mafia are likely to disappear under water by 2100 due to a rise in sea level triggered by global warming. Globally, sea level has risen about eight inches since the beginning of the 20th century and more than two inches in the last 20 years alone. Every year, the sea rises another .13 inches (3.2 mm.) New research published on February 15, 2022, shows that sea level rise is accelerating and projected to rise by a foot by 2050.

It was this reason that I argued for CoP27 and any future negotiations on Climate Change and Energy Transition negotiations to be meaningful, they should be about people.  A just transition cannot be achieved if the majority already affected by climate change and are likely to be affected by the energy transition as a mitigation measure are not heard on the negotiation table.  Tangible results for Africa can only be achieved by;

Making climate change technology available

Make climate change technology available and cheap on the African continent. The unit cost of several low emission technologies has fallen since 2010 and innovation policy packages have also enabled the costs to go down. Both innovation systems and policy packages have helped to overcome the distributional, environmental, and social impacts potentially associated with global diffusion of low technology. Unfortunately, this investment and technological advancement are not evenly distributed. They are scantier in less developed countries and Africa in general.

As that transition is happening, Africa is being left behind, but it is rushed and expected to catch up at a similar pace like its developed counter parts. Therefore, a just transition in real sense is required that allows or enables Africa to benefit in the ongoing climate change technological advancement.

Africa should not only be a market but also a producer of climate change mitigation technology. As a matter of essence and fairness, let production of these be based on the African continent to make use of existing technology input resources, adding values, and creating jobs.

Harnessing Africa’s Oil Gas and Coal, without locking into a fossil future

Allow Africa to exploit its fossil resources in the short term as it gradually transits. Africa has vast deposits of coal and is largely an emerging producer of oil and gas. There are different views on the continent on the future of gas as a source of energy. The question that is often asked is whether gas can be described as ‘a clean’ fossil. But based on its energy poverty status, growing population and sustainable development goals. It is evident that Africa will continue to rely on oil as a source of energy for a longer foreseeable future than its developed counterparts.

The emerging African political leadership consensus appears to support the continued investment and use of gas as a transitional source of energy to bolster their energy mix plans to meet increasing energy demand required to propel Africa into the future. It is true that statistical data shows investment and deployment of clean and renewable energy has been increasing globally however the pace has not yet reached a tipping point to overtake fossil based sources on the African continent.  It is therefore imperative to have a balance that allows Africa to use its gas for development but is careful not to lock itself into a non-sustainable gas or fossil future.

Africa has vast deposits of coal. The recent Russia Ukraine war showed that despite earlier predictions, the use of coal as a source of energy may now have a longer lifetime than earlier predicted, as European Countries such as Germany planed to re-fire their coal plants as a way of diversifying away from reliance on Russian gas, meeting current energy demand and securing their future energy security. This therefore meant that perhaps this can allow Africa to exploit and benefit in the short-term demand, with or without totally losing out and locking itself in a coal carbon future. This could be a risky bet but worth trying as strategies are developed for a gradual phaseout.

Leveraging Africa’s transition minerals

There is need to leverage Africa’s transition minerals to drive economic prosperity and smooth domestic transition. Africa is endowed with vast deposits of minerals which are critical to the clean energy technology required in support of the energy transition and road to net zero. Africa produces less oil but more minerals. According to statistical data between 48% to 70% of cobalt (which is used in the manufacture of batteries for electric car vehicles and phones) and 4% of copper and 1% of lithium is found in the DRC. Tanzania, and Mozambique account for 45% of global graphite, with Tanzania ranked alone ranked to have around the 5th largest global reserve.

Historically, Africa has been a source of materials for global progress.  Unfortunately, minerals in Africa have been largely a source of misery and death.  The heart wrenching stories of mineral driven conflicts in Eastern DRC is well documented. A just transition, therefore,  cannot be achieved if Africa’s minerals are exploited to serve the technological advancement and energy security elsewhere. Africa’s resource rich countries should not be bystanders in this potential energy revolution. This time around Africa must be thinking about how to position itself, so it doesn’t find itself riddled with the resource curse which has bedeviled the continent for so long.

Pegging  Africa’s development on Africa Agenda 2063

Capping global warming at 1.5°C requires a transition to clean energy by 2030 and that global emissions reach net zero by 2050. This is barely less than eight years from now and many African Countries will not beat this deadline. Africa  can not be rushed into an energy transition. To have a just transition in Africa, governments and Africa people’s participation is critical in setting the agenda for the COP negotiations and securing targets that are feasible.

Africa needs to develop or redefine its vision and mission on climate change and energy transition. This redefined vision may be slightly different from the global vision but aligned to Africa’s vision, needs and development determinant factors or drivers of development. For example, setting Africa’s energy transition targets to Agenda 2063 could plausible idea.

Implementing NDCs and NAPs at government level

At government level, implementation of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans is critical At the previous COPs, the NDCs were lauded as a major breakthrough demonstrating global political commitment by member states towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. Unfortunately, in many African countries these plans have largely remained unimplemented. Leveraging financing of the NDCs will be an essential game changer in turning the tide against climate Change.

Financing Climate Change and the transition

One of the major obstacles holding back efforts to combat climate change is finance  and finance!. A just energy transition for Africa cannot be achieved without financing. Globally, there is sufficient liquidity and capital to finance climate change. In 2010 developed countries committed provide USD100 billion annually towards climate change. Unfortunately, this promise has not been honored. Much  of what is available is not reaching the African continent.

Africa requires and faces acute shortage in access to energy. Around 759 Mln people in Africa still lack access to electricity. According to the UN Road Map to 2030, it requires only 35bln annually to bring electricity to the 759 million who lack it in Sub Saharan Africa. Indeed, with as low as USD 25 bln annually spent, can raise all 2.6bln people who have no access to electricity, yet Africa seems not to get this money. CoP27 should be where this stain of shame in the fight against climate change is put to an end.

Financing Africa’s climate change and energy transition pathways is mutually beneficial to both Africa and the developed world. By virtue of its location and current low levels of emission, Africa so far is the largest existing carbon sink and buffer that so far can help save the globe.

Africa is not ready to finance a just transition because governments have a limited fiscal space to finance it due to debt servicing pressures and competing priorities for social expenditures. Developed countries must provide financing which was committed and follow by curbing illicit capital and financial out flows from Africa to enable the continent to use it to finance the transition.

Curb illicit financial flows from the continent.

For Africa to be ready for climate change and energy transition, there’s need to seal the existing  loopholes that are facilitating Illicit Financial Flows from Africa to the tune of U$ 89 billion annually (according to the 2020 United Nations Conference Trade and Development report). Much of these outflows trace their destination to developed countries and tax havens whose headquarters are located in developed countries. They are facilitated by weak governance structures, tax avoidance and white collar corruption. If these loopholes are closed, Africa could effectively meet and exceed its financing gap of U$ 70 billion for renewable energy.

In a nutshell, give Africa the financial means to deliver on climate change. Provide cheap technology for Africa to deliver on renewable energy. Facilitate Africa to add value to its green minerals so countries such as Tanzania, DRC and Zambia can share the benefits from their mining resources. Provide Africa with adequate timelines to catch up with  its developed counterparts and most importantly listen to our voices at the COPs if we are to collectively deliver on climate change and targets to net zero.

**A modified version of this article also appeared in the Citizen Newspaper of 10th November 2023 to coincide with the COP27

The Future is Green: How Can Tanzania Harness its Renewable Energy-Opportunities and Gaps

With high winds potential that cover more than 10% of its land and solar energy levels ranging from 2800 to 3500 h of sunshine per year and a global horizontal radiation of 4–7 kWh/m2/day, Tanzania is just a step away from becoming a reckonable giant of renewable energy and leap jumping into a clean future

By Moses Kulaba, Governance Analysis Centre

Tanzania, like other developing countries, is striving to adopt different ways of ensuring affordable and accessible energy supply to its socioeconomic and political sectors to achieve renewable energy development. To secure affordable and accessible energy in the country, renewable energy is termed as an alternative energy source because of it is environmentally friendly. If renewable energy is produced and utilized in a modern and sustainable manner, it will help to eliminate energy problems in Tanzania

According to reports, Tanzania has a lot of renewable energy sources such as biomass, solar, hydropower, geothermal, biogas, wind, tidal, and waves. These sources are important for decentralized renewable energy technologies, which nurture the isolated nature of the settlements and are environmentally friendly. Despite their necessity, renewable energy sources are given low priority by both government and Households[1].

Tanzania’s power sector is dominated by state-owned TANESCO (Tanzania Electricity Supply Company Limited). TANESCO owns most of the country’s transmission and distribution network, and more than half of its generating capacity. Tanzania’s electricity generation comes mostly from natural gas (48%), followed by hydro (31%), petrol (18%) with solar (1%), and biofuels (1%). The traditional dependence on hydropower combined with the droughts that are affecting the country, often result in power supply shortages[2].

The World Economic Forum (WEF) reported the total sum of global investment into renewable energy has increased. This was supported by a 28% annual increase in investment from the United States (U.S), in 2019 totalling $54.6 billion[3]. Renewables cannot totally replace fossils such as oil, but increased investment shows increased potential contribution in the energy mix.  The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates annual clean energy investments will more than triple by 2030.

With its vast resources and location, there are opportunities for investment in its abundant solar and wind potentials. Perhaps, it is argued, the country can leverage its strategic position to scale up investment to generate more and at the same time position as a major supplier and user of renewable energy sources.

However, there are gaps such as financing, infrastructure, storage, and government facilitation which potentially limit investment, scale up, use and benefiting from this potential. The cost for initial investment is high and the returns on investment could be slow. Exploration efforts have largely emphasized hydropower projects, and other renewable energy such as solar, thermal, wind, biomass, and biogas are under-utilized due to different socioeconomic and political reasons

Further, some of African political leaders, such as expressed by Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, have argued that renewable energy is not sustainable to meet the future global population energy demands. It cannot even meet or drive Africa’s development agenda.  Renewable energies such as solar and wind are largely dependent on whether and climatic factors. A solar farm requires huge tracts of land, and this can or may potentially spark off a new wave of land grabbing by solar energy investors and land conflict across the continent. Africa could also be a bystander in renewable energy technology. For Africa to benefit, investment in technologies and production of equipment, such as solar panels and wind turbines must be on the continent.

But CSOs such as power shift Africa and Anti Coal Coalition[4] argue that investment in renewable energy is economically viable, will create jobs and increase access to energy to the poor and rural areas where access to the national could be difficult. Significantly, it will help Tanzania achieve its domestic transition and unlocking the country from a fossil future.

The government, along with other renewable energy stakeholders, should complement existing policies and strategies to address issues related to renewable energy development to ensure timely and sustainable utilization of the available resources. Also, there is the need to provide a sound business and investment environment to local and foreign people who can provide capital towards renewable energy technologies and development. There should be more training and awareness made available to the public about how to invest and use renewable energy. Tanzania can and must benefit from the transition by upscaling its potential and starting to roll out implementation. Stalled projects should be implemented.

Tanzania’s potential in Wind and Solar Energy

Wind energy

Tanzania has areas of high wind potential that cover more than 10% of its land[5]. This is equivalent in size to Malawi and has greater potential than the US state of California, as reported by the World Bank report. There are areas with annual average wind speeds of 5–8 m/s[6] . These exist along a coastline of about 800 km with predominant surface winds, moving from south-east to northeast. Based on the current research works, Tanzania has a lot of wind energy resources in the areas of Great Lakes, the plains, and the highland plateau regions of the Rift Valley. Wind energy evaluation indicates that areas such as Makambako (Njombe) and Kititimo (Singida) have sufficient wind speed for grid-scale electricity generation, with average of wind speeds 8.9 m/s and 9.9 m/s at the height of 30 m, respectively[7]. Small-scale off-grid wind turbines along the coastline and in the islands also possess great potential in Tanzania.

By 2017, at least four companies had expressed interest in investing in wind energy in Tanzania to build wind plants with a capacity of more than 50 MW. These companies include Geo-Wind Tanzania Ltd in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Wind East Africa in Singida, Tanzania; and Sino Tan Renewable Energy Ltd. and Wind Energy Tanzania Ltd. in Makambako, Tanzania. Wind farms with capacities of 100 MW in Singida would be constructed under the corporation of the Six Telecoms Company in Singida, Tanzania; International Finance Corporation in Washington DC, The United States of America; and Aldwych International in London, the United Kingdom. The project would cost US$286 million[8]. Compared to other renewable energy resources that attract investment, most of the people have been trying without success to produce electricity from the wind energy. Thus, only the government and private companies are the ones who are involved in power generation assessments from wind energy resources[9] [66]

Solar Energy

In Tanzania, solar energy is used as a source of power by 24.7% of the households with access to electricity. Potential solar energy resources are found in the central parts of the country[10] [1]. There are high solar energy levels ranging from 2800 to 3500 h of sunshine per year and a global horizontal radiation of 4–7 kWh/m2/day [1,70]. According to the World Bank, Tanzania has a solar energy potential greater than that of Spain and wind energy potential greater than that of the US State of California. With such great potential for solar energy resources, Tanzania is naturally appropriate for producing solar energy as a feasible alternative source for modern energy supply and rural electrification.

The solar energy market in Tanzania has drastically grown and increased over the last few years. Currently, the potential solar energy resources in Tanzania are used in different parts such as solar thermal for heating and drying and photovoltaic for lighting, water pumps, refrigeration purposes, and telecommunication. Solar energy is used mostly in rural areas with about 64.8% compared to urban areas with only 3.4%. The regions of Lindi, Njombe, Mtwara, Katavi, and Ruvuma lead in the use of solar power electricity in Tanzania[11]. Despite the increasing market for solar energy applications, there are fewer signs that the government is expecting to include solar PV in the national electricity mix in any substantial way in the future

[1] Obadia Kyetuza Bishoge: The Potential Renewable Energy for Sustainable

Development in Tanzania: A Review, 2018 accessed at : https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/1/1/6/pdf#:~:text=Tanzania%20has%20a%20lot%20of,are%20environmental%20friendly%20%5B1%5D.

[2] https://www.trade.gov/energy-resource-guide-tanzania-renewable-energy

[3] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/global-clean-energy-investment-research/

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/01/african-nations-set-to-make-the-case-for-big-rise-in-fossil-fuel-output#:~:text=African%20nations%20expected%20to%20make%20case%20for%20big%20rise%20in%20fossil%20fuel%20output,-Exclusive%3A%20leaders%20expected&text=Leaders%20of%20African%20countries%20are,documents%20seen%20by%20the%20Guardian.

[5] Tanzania Invest. Tanzania Has High Potential For Renewable Energy Projects, US Consulting Firm Indicates. TanzaniaInvest. 2015. Available online: https://www.tanzaniainvest.com/energy/tanzaniahas-high-potential-for-renewable-energy-re-projects (accessed on 15 April 2018).

[6] Kasasi, A.; Kainkwa, R. Assessment of wind energy potential for electricity generation in Setchet, Hanang, Tanzania. Tanz. J. Sci. 2002, 28, 1–7.

[7] Energy Charter Secretariat. Tanzanian Energy Sector under the Universal Principles of the Energy Charter. 2015. Available online: https://energycharter.org/fileadmin/DocumentsMedia/CONEXO/20150827- Tanzania_Pre-Assessment_Report.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2018)

[8] The Minister of Energy. The Speech of the Ministry of Energy and Minerals on the Estimates of the Revenue and Expenditure for Financial Year 2018/2019. 2018. Available online: https://www.nishati.go.tz/hotubaya-bajeti-ya-wizara-ya-nishati-kwa-mwaka-2018-19/ (accessed on 15 January 2018)

[9] The Economist. A World Turned Upside Down—Renewable Energy. 2017. Available online: https://www. economist.com/briefing/2017/02/25/a-world-turned-upside-down (accessed on 4 May 2018).

[10] Sarakikya, H. Renewable energy policies and practice in Tanzania: Their contribution to Tanzania economy and poverty alleviation. Int. J. Energy Power Eng. 2015, 4, 333. [CrossRef]

[11] https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/News/33pc-of-Tanzanians-have-access-to-electricity–report/1840340-3900298-9elccaz/index.html