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

Energy transition risks. Can Tanzania’s Gas and Coal remain stranded assets?

 

Tanzania has vast deposits of natural gas and coal. The looming energy transition will potentially have significant economic impacts on fossil rich countries and potential new producers such as Tanzania.

By Moses Kulaba, Governance Analysis Centre

The urge to curb Climate Change is here, and energy transition to cleaner energy is coming. These will affect countries differently. Fossil rich countries stand to lose most as countries transit from fossil fuels to clean energy. With the Russia-Ukraine war, current oil producers may enjoy a windfall benefit in the short term, but long-term demand cannot be guaranteed.  Fossils such as new oil and coal could remain stranded, as investments cut back. Yet, the energy transition also provides a potential opportunity for countries with viable deposits and potential suppliers of natural gas, if gas will be considered a clean source of energy, relevant for driving countries energy mix in the midterm and longer term.

With vast deposits of Natural Gas, so far discovered along its shores, Tanzania could benefit from the energy transition. At about 57 trillion cubic feet (tcf) Tanzania’s deposits are massive and considered of high quality, with low carbon.  However, this will be dependent on whether the global energy trends and discourse on energy transition can generally reach a consensus that gas is a clean source of energy, investment can be attracted, infrastructure can be developed and both domestic and international markets can be assured. Determining the potential for use of natural gas in achieving the country’s energy mix targets and securing its energy security will be key. Defeating international competition from established players such as Qatar and Algeria and new potential large producers such as Mozambique will equally be essential. If the global climate change movement reaches consensus and declares gas as a fossil fuel and polluting source, this will render Tanzania’s gas reserves to remain stranded.

The International Oil Companies (IOCs) interested in Tanzania’s gas are still optimistic that the project will take off. Although the over the past year’s negotiations were slow, the IOCs have not left, and this gives some hope that the Country could somehow navigate around the sensitive climate agenda and deliver its gas before 2030. The risks are there, and the negotiations for the development of the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project in Mtwara must move faster before the gas is locked underground.

Tanzania’s coal as a stranded asset?’

Tanzania has vast deposits of coal. Tanzania’s coal is considered one of the best grades in the world. With the war raging in Ukraine over the past months, Tanzania has experienced a record boom in its exports to Europe since March 2022.

Globally, there has been an upsurge in the demand and prices for thermal coal reached above $400 per tonne up from $176 per tonne last year and around $75 in 2020. Europe is willing to pay more than twice the price for coal last year. This therefore gives Tanzania the opportunity to exploit its coal and benefit in the short-term demand, with or without totally losing out before a coal carbon future.

According to Mr Rizwan Ahmed, the managing director of Tanzania based coal miner Bluesky Minings and Jan Dieleman, President of Cargill Ocean transportation division, as European countries look everywhere, including far places for thermal coal. They are willing to pay twice the price and the Tanzanian suppliers plan to ramp up its production and double its exportation during this window.

According to the Mining commission and reported by Reuters and the Citizen Newsapers, Tanzania expects to double its coal exports this year to around 696,773 tonnes while production is expected to increase by 50% to about 1,364,707 tonnes.  Tanzania-based miner Ruvuma Coal had so far, exported at least 400,000 tonnes of coal via a trader to countries including the Netherlands, France, and India since November 2021, as per trade data reviewed by Reuters. Since November 2021 when Mtwara launched its first ever coal shipment, up to 13 vessels of coal had been loaded up by September 2022.

Tanzania has hinged its development pathway to an industrialised nation on harnessing its coal and gas potential. The two consecutive Five Year National Development Plans (2015-2020 and 2021-2026) identified the Natural Gas and Coal projects as strategic projects to deliver the country onto its development goals and to a Middle-Income Country. The project revenues and increasing access and supply of energy through to gas to electricity.

The government is considering building a railway that would link the coal-producing Ruvuma region to Mtwara, according to the acting executive secretary of the Mining Commission, Yahya Semamba.

Mitigating climate change concerns and the steadily moving trajectory towards energy transition away from fossil-based energy sources however offers a dilemma whether the government can achieve these objectives.

Tanzania’s development dilemma in the context of energy transition

In the wake of the looming energy transition to clean energy, the rekindled interest in coal because of the Russia-Ukraine war may not be guaranteed in the longterm. The war has accelerated interests in Africa’s thermal coal and gas but at the same time it may accelerate the energy transition in Europe as governments look for other cleaner alternatives including heavily investing in renewables to secure their cleaner future.

The government therefore needs to balance its excitement over bumper coal exports and use the extra revenues from the booming coal exports to invest in a cleaner energy system which will guarantee its country a place a clean energy future.

Securing financial investment in coal mining, and the market demand for coal, will be challenging in the future, as most (financial) institutions are now advocating for clean energy and sustainable finance. Indeed, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) petroleum companies are the current leading investors in research and development for clean energy.  They don’t want to be locked out of the future and are spending their revenues carefully and locking into future energy markets with diligence.

Therefore, if the government of Tanzania still wants to benefit from its coal resources, it will need to take swift action to allow its extraction. Or, if it wants to participate in the energy transition, it will be compelled to leave its coal as a fossil fuel stranded in the ground. A tight policy choice that government may find difficult to partake. A divesture in investment from coal by large investors could cause potential disruptions in investment flows to Tanzania as a new producer, disrupt development projections.

Moreover, Tanzania is a signatory to international climate change obligations such as the UNFCC (1996) and Paris Agreement on climate change (2018), whose it must oblige.  According to the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) Tanzania has committed to reduce green gas emissions economy wide between 30%-35% relative to the business As Usual (BAU) Scenario by 2030[1]. Tanzania has committed to promoting climate resilient energy systems and exploring options for energy diversification. By doing so, Tanzania must balance its development imperative and climate change obligations. These will require political will, resources, and preparation. The government will also need to harmonise its NDC targets with the targets of its National Energy Systems Master plan which seek to increase the off take of gas to generate power into the national grid as part of the National energy mix.

Further, Tanzania is facing several challenges related to weak institutional, financial; poor access to appropriate technologies; weak climate knowledge management, inadequate participation of key stakeholders, and low public awareness which have significantly affected effective implementation of various strategies, programs, and plans[2].  The opposing voice against gas and coal is getting louder and this may have an impetus on whether these g projects move on. Government will have to address these moving forward

The energy transition debate therefore offers a potential dilemma for Tanzania. As alluded above, Tanzania is a potential supplier of critical minerals needed for the clean energy transition at the global level.  But also, a significant new producer of natural gas and fossils such as coal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] URT: Nationally Determined Contribution, pg

[2] URT: Nationally Determined Contribution, pg3

Tanzania’s Transition Minerals potential opportunities, risks, and dilemma in context of Climate Change and Energy Transition

 

While critical minerals offer potential opportunities, there are also latent risks for countries such as Tanzania. These risks range from policy gaps, supply chain governance risks, geopolitics of consumer nations, investment and revenue management risks

By Moses Kulaba, Governance Analysis Centre

Critical Minerals and Energy Transition: Tanzania’s potential

Globally, the zeal to mitigate climate change and keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius by reducing net carbon emissions from fossils by 2030 and transition clean energy by 2050, has picked momentum. According to scoping study report by the Natural Resources Governance Institute (NRGI)[1] , based on data from various geological surveys and government reports show that Tanzania has a wide variety of critical or transition minerals deposits relevant to the future technological transition to clean energy.  Critical mineral deposits found in Tanzania include Graphite, Rare Earth, Cobalt, Copper, Iron, Nobium, Lead, Lithium, Manganese, Diamond, Nickel, Titanium, Uranium, Vanadium, Tungstein, Lead, Bauxite and other gaseous minerals such as helium. Over 18 million tons of graphite reserves (estimated to be the 5th largest reserve in the world) are present in mostly in Lindi, Morogoro and Tanga Regions. An estimated 1.52 million tons of nickel deposits have been discovered in Kagera region and about 138 billion cubic feet of helium is present at Lake Rukwa Basin. This is said to be the second largest helium deposit in the world.

The discussion on energy transition and its implications to the Country has not picked momentum within Tanzania. The potential contribution that these minerals could make to Tanzania’s economic development in the context of energy transition may be known in some circles but not widely discussed.

There has not yet been a specific categorisation of these minerals as critical or strategic. To date minerals in Tanzania are still largely classified as metallic minerals, industrial minerals, and energy minerals. Perhaps, this is due to the limited public understanding of the strategic and critical nature and role some of these minerals will play in defining the global future.

Energy Transition Opportunities for Critical Minerals

Globally, there is a surge in interest in critical or transitional minerals as a pathway to meeting Net zero targets The World Bank estimates that overall demand for at least some critical minerals vital for industrial energy transition will increase significantly over the next 30 years (by 2050).  For instance, copper and aluminum are cornerstone minerals for all electricity-related technologies, since electrical equipment such as motors, transformers and cables use copper to conduct electricity and heat.  Copper, nickel, lithium and cobalt are key elements for batteries used in many of the new technologies. An electric vehicle, for instance, typically contains lithium-ion batteries, which requires lithium, nickel, manganese and cobalt-bearing minerals. Solar panels and wind turbines are made with nickel, graphite and copper. Telecommunication devices we use, such as phones and laptops, require a wealth of minerals, including tantalite, wolframite, graphite, bauxite, etc.

World economic powers and foreign companies have already picked interest and acquired stakes in Tanzania’s Critical Minerals, significantly highlighting what may potentially be a race to control the supply chain into future. So far companies from Australia, China, Canada, Europe and US are known to have interests in Tanzania’s critical minerals. This provides Tanzania with a potential opportunity to leverage its extractive sector (particularly critical Minerals) to benefit from the forthcoming energy transition. With deposits of critical minerals, such as graphite and Helium, Tanzania’s critical minerals subsector could be a game changer.

Energy transition risks in critical minerals

While critical minerals offer potential opportunities, there are also latent risks for countries such as Tanzania. These risks range from policy gaps, supply chain governance risks, geopolitics of consumer nations, investment and revenue management risks

The future of Foreign Direct Investment in mining risks

The investment boom in critical minerals will affect the future of foreign direct investment in Tanzania’ s other major mineral resources such as gold and gemstones. This is already felt in the type of mineral licenses that are being granted. According to NRGI critical mineral scoping study report, 90% of the total exploration licenses in 2005 were granted for gold. By 2020, 70% of exploration licenses granted were for critical minerals. Clearly, investors’ interest for critical minerals is currently surpassing that for gold and other major minerals.

Tax and revenue risks

 Over the past years Tanzania has tried to increase its domestic revenue mobilisation efforts from the mining sector. Tanzania’s DRM efforts, among others, focused on tax reforms to curb tax evasion and maximising benefits from the minerals sector through value addition.  Currently, the mining sector contributes 547 trillion[2] to the total government revenue collections. Between 2018/19 mining companies contributed around 421 trillion TZS (183 billion U.S. dollars) to the revenue collected by the government, while oil and gas companies contributed approximately 177 trillion TZS (77 billion U.S. dollars)[3].

However, the NRGI scoping study found there are gaps in the current Tanzania Development Strategies and Mineral Policies. An independent or separate policy on critical or strategic minerals may not be necessary but aligning the current framework to tap in the energy transition opportunities is essential. Government can benefit more from encouraging/investing in processing of the critical minerals at home, thus capturing and retaining high values from the resource extraction of the value chain. Where the local volumes cannot economic viably support, Tanzania can explore partnering with other Countries in the region. The potential revenue contribution from the critical mineral’s subsector is largely unknown. Critical Minerals are just minerals. If the government doesn’t strategize, the windfall benefits from the energy transition could be missed. There are also significant governance (corruption) risks in critical minerals supply chain which could undermine government’s efforts to maximise revenues[4].

To realize the opportunities offered by this resource wealth, Tanzania needs to take a deeper look at its policy and legal frameworks to ensure proper governance of the sector and a clear identification of its position through a well-tailored strategy on critical minerals. If not well managed, the interest in controlling the critical mineral’s supply chain could benefit more the developed (user) Countries than the supplier countries such as Tanzania.  The new search for critical minerals could also mean more new marginal lands opened up for exploration and mining (large scale and artisanal), sparking off a new wave of land-based conflicts. The boom could also be short lived new alternatives to critical minerals emerge to support clean energy technologies emerge.

 

[1] NRGI: Critical Minerals and Energy Transition: Findings from Tanzania’s Scoping Study of Critical Minerals Potential and implications for Tanzania, 2021

[2] https://allafrica.com/stories/202104300627.html

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1272116/contribution-of-mining-oil-and-gas-to-government-revenue-in-tanzania/

[4] https://eiti.org/events/critical-raw-materials-times-uncertainty-why-good-governance-matters-energy-security

Tanzania proposes radical amendments to Mining and EITI Laws

The government of Tanzania has proposed radical amendments to its current Mining and Extractive Transparency Initiative (EITI) laws, sending harrowing concerns amongst civil society actors.

According to the proposed Written Laws Miscellaneous (Amendments (No 4) Act of 2021 the government plans to amend sections of Mining Act (CAP 123) by adding a definition of gross value to mean the market value of Minerals or minerals at a point of refining or sale or, in the case of consumption within Tanzania, at the point of delivery in Tanzania

The amendment also seeks to add a section on compounding of offences (under a section 132A) relating to penalties, where a person admits in writing that he has committed an offence under the Mining Act.

Significantly, the government proposes for establishment of a special arrangement that allows effective government participation in a mining or special mining license. The proposed section reads “Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1), the Government and a holder of a mining license or special mining license may, for the purposes of ensuring Government’s effective participation in the mining operations as contemplated in this section, establish a special arrangement in a manner prescribed in the regulations”

According to civil society actors, the government could be seeking to extend its negotiation framework with Barrick to other Mining operations. A special arrangement which is not defined could also be dangerous and subject to abusive practices which may not be beneficial to citizens, civil society actors argue.

The government proposes to amend the Transparency Extractive Industries Transparency and Accountability) Act 2015 (CAP 447) by reconstituting the number of the members constituting the Multi-stake Holders Group (MSG) from a maximum of 15 to nine (including the Chair). The radical amendment the government representation from 5 to 4 and Civil Society and Company representatives from 5 to 2 each.

If passed, this government representatives an absolute majority and effectively tilt the balance of decision making in favour of government. There can never be fairness and independence a setting as proposed, argues civil society

The MSG composition and power of each of the three constituencies (Government, Civil society, and Companies) is protected by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) standard, which is a global transparency norm the government signed up to and upon whose spirit the government enacted the TEITA Act in 2015

According to the EITI standard 2019, the MSG is an independent body comprising of representatives from the government, civil society, and companies, tasked with the oversight of the implementation of the EITI process in the implementing Country. The EITI requires effective multi‑stakeholder oversight, including a functioning multi‑stakeholder group that involves the government, companies, and the full, independent, active, and effective participation of civil society.

The government is obliged under the EITI standard to ensure there is no that there are no obstacles to company or civil society participation in the EITI process. Civil society have an elaborate Civil society protocol, guaranteeing their unfettered participation. The EITI 2019 standard is however silent on the minimum or maximum number of members of the MSG.

Adversaries and proponents alike believe, the biggest anomaly in the TEITA Act was that the MSG was defined as a government body’ and therefore technically putting it under the ambits of government’s control and subject to government operational procedures and standards. The government wants to expand it sphere of control over the MSG, they argue.

In the past, interference with the MSG was considered as a breach of the EITI standards and governments found to be in breach were sanctioned. This was the case with Azerbaijan and Myanmar.  It is not clear what position the international board will take. However, the government while determining on the nature of amendments it wants to make, may have to consider whether the independence of the MSG in performing its oversight task will be compromised. The rationale for the amendment will need to be elaborate and robust enough to stand public and international scrutiny.

Tanzania’s removal of penalties on transfer pricing: What did government seek to achieve?
Tanzania Finance Hon Mwigulu Nchemba

In this year’s (2021/22) budget speech Tanzania’s Minister for Finance, Mr Mwigulu Nchemba, made a surprising announcement that government would/had scrapped the 100% penalty for transfer pricing. The announcement was surprising as transfer pricing or mispricing in international transactions and currently a point of discussion globally as one of the leading enablers of illicit financial out flows and capital flight from developing and extractive rich countries.  From a Tax justice perspective, the government’s decision was received as a slight slip in the gains scored over the past 10 years.

According to Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Mbeki High-Level Panel Report on IFFs latest reports, shows that IFF’s from the African continent have been increasing with losses estimated between USD50 Million and USD 80 Million over the past years. Corruption and the extractive sector has constantly provided a major conduit for tax avoidance and illicit resource outflow from Africa

Transfer pricing is an accounting practice that represents the price that one branch, subsidiary or division in a company charges another branch, subsidiary or division for goods and services provided. Transfer pricing allows for the establishment of prices for the goods and services exchanged between a subsidiary, an affiliate or commonly controlled companies that are part of the same larger enterprise.

A transfer price is based on market prices in charging another division, subsidiary, or holding company for services rendered. Transfer pricing can lead to tax savings for corporations.  However, companies have used inter-company transfer pricing to reduce the tax burden of the parent company. Companies charge a higher price to divisions in high-tax countries (reducing profit) while charging a lower price (increasing profits) for divisions in low-tax countries.  This is what is also often referred to as transfer mispricing which is problematic for tax collection purposes. We have discussed this concept in detail via another publication via: https://gepc.or.tz/how-to-curb-transfer-pricing-tax-dodging-and-illicit-financial-flows-in-extractive-sector/

Why were heavy penalties imposed in Tanzania’s statutes?

Heavy penalties were imposed for transfer pricing  in Tanzania’s tax statutes because many companies dodged taxes through complex structures and subsidiaries in foreign jurisdictions which made it difficult or impossible for government to track transactions for tax purposes.

According to Financial Secrecy Index (2018) reported that Tanzania lost billions of shillings through potential transfer arrangements between mining companies.

The government was not explicit why it had taken this dramatic decision and therefore left experts and civil society actors bewildered and speculating. The reasons given were pointing towards improving Tanzania’s investment climate. The investment motive was more than the tax revenue imperative.

The potential hefty penalty for transfer mispricing was an inhibiting factor for attracting foreign investments as companies feared or found it difficult to structure their businesses with an international network of subsidiaries and branches anchored to Tanzania making sourcing for foreign financing and sourcing or procurement difficult.

The difficulties in determining market price or an arms price in transactions between related parties and establishing without any iota of doubt whether a given transaction was a mispricing arrangement and illicit in the face of Tanzania’s statute may have been another factor.

The Minister made another drastic announcement.  Effective 2021/22 the Minister responsible for finance was empowered to grant tax exemptions on specific projects without full cabinet approval.

The Minister proposes to restore the power of the Minister to grant income tax exemption on projects funded by the government on specific projects, grants and concessional loans if there is an agreement between the donor or lender with the government providing for such exemption. The measure would streamline and make it efficient for such exemptions to be provided as it has been a pain sticking point for many projects.

The government was attempting to address bureaucracy in approving exemptions and waivers which was a major stumbling blocks to investment and vitality to the success of some strategic projects. This was certainly a welcomed change for players in the construction and large-scale investment projects. At the time of presenting the budget some big and strategic projects were in offing. These included the OreCorp Nyazanga Gold Mine project in Mwanza, Kabanga Nickel project, the ongoing Standard Gauge Railway project and the East African Oil Company project (EACOP). The government announced a specific exemption of VAT on imported and local purchases of goods and services for East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). The government aimed to ensure the costs of EACOP are minimised.

However, by doing this, the government is walking a very tight rope and contentious terrain with a significant risk of returning to bedeviled fiscal policy regime era which dogged its tax revenue collection efforts in the early 2000s.  Hon Jerry Slaa, Member for Parliament for Ukonga Constituency in Dar es Salaam posted a passionate that perhaps the Minister may have been deceived or even this dangerous paragraph may have been smuggled into the Minister’s Speech. He passionately appealed to the Minister does not sign off this years financial appropriation bill which this provision. It is a dangerous route to take with potential risks.

In our opinion, for these latest decisions to be effective government will have to

  1. Strengthen its monitoring and surveillance capacity to ensure the international companies do not structure their operations and tax arrangements in a manner that facilitates tax avoidance and evasion.
  2. Strengthen its (TRA’s) International Tax department to detect in advance and reverse any transactions of a potential transfer pricing arrangement before they happen.
  3. Improving data collection capabilities to establish the true arm’s length price for potentially contentious transactions, such e-commerce, services, and intellectual property.
  1. Increase transparency around exemption by perhaps requesting the Minister to publish the list of all exempted projects and values within a short period of 30-90 days after approval, clearly stating the purpose and rationalisation for the exemption.
  2. Retain some mechanism for punishment for noncompliance to the commensurate level deterrent enough to the induce compliance.

Highlights of Tanzania’s Budget 2021/22

Projected Total Budget 36.6% Trln (3.2% increase) Domestic 26.0 Trln (72%)
Expected GDP Growth 5.6% Grants 2.9 Trln (8%)
Inflation forecast 3.3% Development 13.3 Trln
Tax to GDP ratio 13.5% from 12.9% (2020/21 Recurrent 23.0 Trln
Debt to GDP ratio projections 37.3% Domestic Loans 5.0 Trln (14%)
Projected Budget Outturn 2020/21 86% – 95% External Loans 2.4 Trln (6%)

** The key challenge to government will be to raise domestic revenues in the face of shrinking grants and concessional loans and the COVID 19 pandemic which is stiff affecting key sectors such as tourism.

Uganda signals new impetus to Mining with a bill in offing

The Uganda government has signaled a new impetus in the mining sector with multiple reforms and political weight over the next five years yielded to transform, its previously dormant mining sector. The government plans to scale up its work in the Mining sector. As part of improving its geological data, the government recently announced commencement of aerial surveillance of Karamoja, which is one of the areas highly believed to be mineral rich. This will improve the quality of real time Mineral and geological data.

The Ministry plans to table the new Mining Bill in Parliament soon. Civil society organisations such as the Natural Resources Governance Institute (NRGI) have worked with the Ministry experts on this, and will be monitoring the developments, debate, and the outcome from this bill.

Civil Society and expert advice to government has been that Uganda needs to have a legislative environment which attracts large investments into its mining sector but also ensures citizens benefit from extractive resources. NRGI will be engaging with new Parliament, by providing some capacity building support and making technical presentations on the extractive sector governance during Uganda’s new journey.

On the12th of May, President Yoweri Museveni was sworn into office after a tenacious election period. Despite the violence and contestation, President Museveni was declared winner for a sixth term. Since 2006, the President has constantly anchored his economic development cards on the Country’s oil wealth as a conduit to pursue his long-term development agenda and pathway to a middle-income status. The tilt towards developing the country’s mining sector expands this vision further.

Under a new mining policy passed in 2018 Uganda proposed to maximse gains from its mining sector by automatically making value addition mandatory and owning shares in every mining company granted a mining lease. This policy was a major shift from the previous policy framework where the mining companies owned 100% of ownership with government being relegated to a  spectator.

The old policy regime was characterized by abuse, land conflicts, speculation and nuisance business practices which denied government maximum economic benefits. According to the Uganda Chamber of Mines and Petroleum (UCMP) there are over 800 mineral licenses, with over half held small companies and speculators. Uganda’s Mineral rich areas such as Karamoja are awash with prospective mineral license holders and artisanal miners. The current policy framework was not backed by commensurate enabling law.

With a comfortable majority in parliament, the President has lee way to use the advantage of numbers to push through policies that favour his vision. While  changes among the ministers are expected,  there is no expected much change regarding technical staff in the key government ministries, agencies, and departments. This may be of advantage as these technocrats can now focus on achieving this new ambition. Can Uganda pull it off?  As extractive sector stakeholders will be following the developments with keenest and wishing Uganda success.

 

Uganda-Tanzania East Africa Oil Pipeline: signed deal yes, but hurdles lie ahead.

Samia, Museveni witness pipeline project final actsThe East African Oil Pipeline project received significant boots in April 2021 with Uganda with a series of key oil infrastructure related agreements signed between the government of Uganda and Tanzania and the oil companies for the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project to transport crude from Uganda to the Tanzania port of Tanga.

According to the government communications, these agreements signal Final Investment Decision (FID) which could be announced soon with production, expected around 2025. There has been already significant work going on at the oil sites in Hoima and as one of the Company officials remarked, work has started. The project is very important to the East Africa region as it promises great economic benefits to the governments and their citizens in the form of jobs, revenues, and other associated economic linkages.

Despite this rekindled hope, shortly after the signing of these agreements, it was evident that multiple uncertainties still lie ahead.

The details of the signed agreements remained undisclosed and technical experts involved in the negotiations remained secret on essential information on key fiscal terms surrounding the tariffs.

The project financing arrangement remains a quagmire.  Few days after signing of the agreements, several banks in France where the lead investor Total is based announced that they were staying away from the financing of the pipeline. The French banks included, BNP Paribas, Société’ Générale and Credit Agricole, Credit Suisse of Switzerland, ANZ of Australia and New Zealand and Barclays.

According to earlier government reports, The Standard Bank of South Africa, China’s ICBC and SMBC of Japan are lead advisors of the EACOP financing. These were under immense pressure from their counterparts Bank Track, Reclaim Finance and Energy Voice for what they described as pushing responsible financing of projects worldwide. According to these banks and activists EACOP’s environmental credentials were failing.

The Uganda government announced that it was not bothered by announcement, describing it as not new. However, the announcement by the banks signalled that the project could be still facing serious negative diplomacy from environmental activists and other political interested actors regionally and globally.

President Museveni described the project and the agreement signing occasion as an act economic liberation. This followed the political liberation which in his view happened some decades ago when Tanzania helped exiled Uganda political groups to take power in Uganda and change the course of history. With the hurdles still to overcome, it was evident that perhaps the financial, environmental, and political woes were not over, and the project was yet to fully get on track.

Tanzania political transition: new era, new opportunity

In March, East Africa was gripped with shock upon the sudden death of Tanzania’s President John Pombe Magufuli. Over the past five years, President Magufuli towered like a political colossus, led with a nationalistic approach, and pursued reforms which sent zillion sentiments across many frontiers. He threw out Accacia, Barrick’s Mining subsidiary in Tanzania, for tax evasion and dubious practices that he descried as stealing against Tanzanians. Enacted new mining laws and renegotiated a 50/50 sharing deal with Barrick which has since been mirrored as a template in other Countries far away such as Papua New Guinea. However, his style was considered as a possible deterrent to potential investors and perhaps disruptive to the extractive sector.

The transition to the new President Ms Suluhu Samia Hassan was peaceful and lauded as a new era for a new opportunity. President Samia has promised to set Tanzania to a new path. Few days into office, President Samia observed that all was not very well as earlier perceived. New investments in the sector were low. The volume of Mineral exports had fallen. Despite the Mererani wall, Tanzanite, the precious gemstone from Mererani, was still being stolen. Negotiations for conclusion of the lucrative LNG project had stalled. The tax laws were impeding and the enforcement style by the Tax Authorities had seen many companies’ close shop. The President has since called a truce with the private sector and declared Tanzania is fully open to investment.

Despite her aspirations, President Samia has insurmountable hurdles to climb. The mining reforms were passed in law and therefore amending or uprooting these will require parliamentary approval. The amendments were so popular with the Tanzanian public and this could be touch political gamble to make.

Nonetheless, Tanzania still has an opportunity to excel. The Country’s extractive wealth lies in Minerals such as gold.  The Country has vast deposits of what are considered critical minerals such as rare-earth, lithium etc which are vital to industrial use during the energy transition. With a revived and careful political navigation Tanzania could still attract potential investors and comfortably reap more benefits from its extractive wealth.

How to curb transfer pricing , tax dodging and illicit financial flows in extractive sector

Tackling tax dodging and illicit capital flight in the extractive sector can be a challenge for tax officials and policymakers in new extractive resource-rich Countries such as Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya, whose tax and extractive governance regime is just in its formative stages and local expertise in its pupilage stage

Tax and development:  How to curb transfer pricing and illicit financial flows in the extractive sector

By Moses Kulaba, Governance and economic analysis centre, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania 

This brief highlights some of the basic strategies that can be used by tax authorities and governments to tackle aggressive tax planning and dodging in the extractive sector.  It touches on basics such as understanding corporate and financing structures synonymous with extractive MNE’s and how these are used as conduits for base erosion, tax-avoiding and illicit financial outflow. We conclude with a case scenario to facilitate discussion. The brief is in response to feedback from our readers reacting to our previous posted online article and in which we touched on the basics of understanding illicit capital flight in the extractive sector. After highlighting the problem, our readers have challenged us to also share some solutions.  The brief targets sector practitioners, policymakers and leaders, professionals, students and other stakeholders.

In recent years there have been legislative and policy reforms in Countries to ensure that governments have a firm grip and maximize their take from their extractive wealth. However, as governments celebrate these attempts, experience and practice suggest lacunas still exits and the current reforms maybe not enough in curbing the tax avoidance and illicit capital flight menace.

According to Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Mbeki High-Level Panel Report on IFFs latest reports, shows that IFF’s from the African continent have been increasing with losses estimated between USD50 Million and USD 80 Million over the past years. Corruption and the extractive sector has constantly provided a major conduit for tax avoidance and illicit resource outflow from Africa. Alarming evidence from leaked documents such as the Panama papers now shows, Multinational companies, have taken advantage of their titular counterparts in government to structure complex aggressive tax planning arrangements used to evade, avoid and ship out potentially taxable income, denying government and local billions of dollars in revenue and development. The arrangements can be so complex and entwined, making it a nightmare for tax authorities and governments to crack.

Even with the new negotiations and deals signed between governments and extractive MNEs, governments have to constantly up their game and mantra to ensure that the old normal does not evolve into just the new normal as the old saying goes “monkeys do not change. They only change their forests’.

So what are some of the basic measures which can be taken

The debunking of Corporate Structures

Governments can tackle tax dodging and illicit flight by debunking and constantly monitoring the corporate structure of the extractive MNE’s.  The corporate structure can determine whether an entity is a resident or non-resident entity for tax purposes. The rules applied for taxing resident and non-resident entities are different and the status of the MNE may be favourable depending on its resident status and the corporate vehicle and form that it chooses to take.

Extractive MNEs have corporate structures with their parent companies located in one Country as Headquarters and subsidiaries located in more than one country or tax jurisdictions, depending on the interests of the company and its shareholders.

The MNE’s headquarters or major subsidiary may be located in low or non-tax jurisdictions, such as Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Mauritius and in recent years Middle East Countries and Cities such as Bahrain, Dubai have been added on the infamous list of tax havens.  As these Middle East countries compete to economically diverse from Oil and develop themselves as a global investment and financial centres, they have created low or non-tax regimes as incentives for attracting foreign investment.

MNE’s whose corporate structures have footprints in these Countries need to be subjected to extra scrutiny and background checks to determine whether they are not used for aggressive tax planning measures.

Corporate restructuring, takeovers through mergers or acquisitions or buying shares or stakes in other companies (also known in the petroleum industry as farming in or farming out). Quite often this may be used to ensure that the company diversifies its investment portfolio and minimizes its risks by spreads its operations and ownership in other profit-making business. However, this presence in multiple companies creates a spaghetti of ownership structures which may be difficult for the tax authorities to trace and effectively control for tax purposes. Imagine, a nonresident entity operating in your country but with stakes in more than 20 companies and over 300 projects.

Debunking Management structures

Extractive MNE’s also structure the management in a manner which can likely reduce their tax and labour related obligations.

Governments, therefore, need to examine and understand, where the extractive MNE’s key decision is taken and how staff are recruited.  An extractive MNE with operations in Tanzania but whose majority board members are nonresident and board meetings take place outside Tanzania, would easily pass for a non-resident entity.  The income tax rules treatment and obligations for such a company would obviously be different from a fully registered resident entity.

As a channel for reducing employment tax and labour law obligations, extractive MNEs can outsource Human Resource and Employment related services to management companies. The outsourced Management companies handled staff contracts on behalf of the extractive company in return for a management fee.

Here two things can happen.

The Management Services can be handled by the company’s subsidiary located outside the Country, either at the Company’s headquarters located in low or non-tax jurisdiction or another subsidiary, whose majority shareholders could be domiciled in a low or non-tax jurisdiction.  The fees charged by the subsidiary or parent company can be overinflated to reduce the profit and tax burden in the country of operation and channelled out of the country to low tax jurisdiction.

Secondly, the Management Company can be a local entity paid to handle all Management and Human Resource services on behalf of the MNE.

The Management Company reduces the MNE’s employment tax obligations by directly recruiting and providing short term contracts or jobs to staff which are paid below the labour market in the extractive sector.  The MNE pays the Management Company a fee for this service and has no overall tax obligations thereafter on the staff it receives supplied by the Management Company.  The staff are literary employees of the management company and not the extractive MNE. Therefore, any tax obligations such as employment taxes or income taxes on services including labour rights issues such as negotiations, compensations for damage or loss are handled by the Management company. The MNE, therefore, reduces its employment tax obligation by minimizing the amount it pays to the staff through the management company.

A debunking of Financing Arrangements

Multinational Extractive Companies finance their operations through arrangements structured across multiple financial institutions.  These financing arrangements can be structured in a manner which ensures that payment of interests on the loan is too high and leaves the company with a very little taxable income. In most countries, interest payments on loans are nontaxable.  Although governments have been tightening their tax laws on thin capitalization rules by ensuring that the debt to equity ratios are within the limits, companies may also restructure the financing through a complex web of financing institutions that make ultimate taxable income in the extractive resource-rich countries is left low. Debts may be sold and restructured to take longer than earlier conceived and therefore prolong the period for the company starting to pay taxes.

Remedy for adjusted tax assessments

An adjusted assessment basically refers to a notice to reduce or increase the amount of tax imposed on an entity by the tax body. The government has the power to conduct an adjusted assessment based on new or additional information which may come in the public knowledge or purview of the tax authority, even after the Company’s accounts have been implemented. The adjustments, however, need to be fair, transparent and based on solid evidence of aggressive tax planning and evasion.

Use advance tax rulings

The tax authority can issue advance tax ruling specifying how specific extractive transactions will be treated for tax purposes. Current income tax statutes and practice notes provide for this. However, the existing rulings have been too general and subject to abuse. These ruling should clear and time-bound, to ensure that the extractive MNE does not abuse them.  The government also needs to increase surveillance during this period to ensure that the MNE is not using this period to circumvent the law by either over importation or exportation, dumping overstocking or mis-invoicing aimed to reduce either current or future tax liabilities or achieving a predetermined tax benefit.

For example, if a Company receives an advance tax ruling on the importation of certain capital goods such as heavy-duty Caterpillar tires or heavy-duty mining machinery, surveillance should be put in place to ensure that the company imports and pays an amount which commensurately matches its required operation. 

Implementation of legislative reform to curb potential lacunas

There is a need for an evaluation of the legislative and fiscal reforms so far passed to seal lacunas in the Country’s fiscal and policy regimes governing the extractive sector. 

Despite being passed over the years, have remained largely unimplemented.  The Resource Governance Index released by the Natural Resources Governance Institute (NRGI) shows that Tanzania lagged behind by 26 points in the implementation of its extractive policies and legislation. Transparency and potentially tax avoidance curbing measures such as   Contract disclosure and Beneficial ownership has remained unimplemented. Smooth exchange of information for tax purposes between less developed countries where mining operations take place and the OECD countries where the Companies are headquartered has remained poor and curtailed by ridiculous international law and treaty restrictions.

Tax incentives need to be properly awarded and managed. The government has to ensure that jobs will be created and revenue will be collected from these jobs. Fiscal, legislative and policy reforms have to be predictable and applied in a non-arbitrary way to avoid uncertainty and shocks in the extractive sector. Companies have to know in advance the consequences of flouting the rules and the burden for actions such as tax avoidance, evasion and illicit outflow.

Review of Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs)

Double Tax Agreements are treaties signed between two contracting states ensuring that nationals and residents of the two states are not taxed twice. They are primarily supposed to facilitate the international flow of capital, technology, services by eliminating taxation of income and other taxes through a bilateral arrangement and occasional resolution of income. DTAs prescribe whether the income will have taxed at the source where the income is made or where the taxable entity resides (resident principle) or a combination of both. They also provide for exchange of information for tax purposes

Despite their underlying intentions, DTAs are used as conduits for tax evasion as they facilitate income to flows from less developed countries where MNEs derive it to developed countries where MNEs are resident. Since less developed countries are resource-rich and not capital-rich, essentially, income flows substantively from one directions from developing countries as a source to the developed countries as a residency country.

DTAs allows aggressive tax planning schemes such as ‘treaty shopping’ where a Company registers a subsidiary in a country with a wide treaty network and invests through it to enjoy treaty benefits. Round tripping where investments, capital, income and profits obtained in one Country are re-routed back into the Country through low tax havens as investment from abroad to enjoy tax treaty protection.

A study by the Tanzania Tax Justice Coalition in 2016[1] revealed that the current DTAs are old and contain taxation regimes that surrender Tanzania’s treaty powers in favour of economically developed partners. DTAs have capped withholding tax rates that can be levied on interests, dividends and royalties Although the current DTAs have rated higher than 10% set in Tanzania’s income tax statutes, there are potential risks for tax loss in the future.

Establish transfer pricing methods to be used in determining the arm’s length price of transactions between related extractive MNEs and training tax officials to master them.

Tax avoidance and illicit financial outflows in the extractive sector largely take place through transfer mispricing arrangements. In principle, transfer pricing is not bad in business, however, when it is used as an aggressive tax planning measure by manipulating the transfer price (mis-pricing) to achieve a tax benefit, it becomes problematic.

Transfer pricing is an accounting practice that represents the price that one division in a company charges another division for goods and services provided. Transfer pricing allows for the establishment of prices for the goods and services exchanged between a subsidiary, an affiliate, or commonly controlled companies that are part of the same larger enterprise. Transfer pricing can lead to tax savings for corporations. A transfer price is based on market prices in charging another division, subsidiary, or holding company for services rendered.

However, companies have used inter-company transfer pricing to reduce the tax burden of the parent company. Companies charge a higher price to divisions in high-tax countries (reducing profit) while charging a lower price (increasing profits) for divisions in low-tax countries.

Transfer prices that differ from market value will be advantageous for one entity while lowering the profits of the other entity. Multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices in order to shift profits to low tax regions.

To remedy this, regulations enforce an arm’s length transaction rule that requires pricing to be based on similar transactions done between unrelated parties. Several methods can be used by MNEs and tax authorities to determine the accurate arm’s length pricing for transactions between related MNEs.  The OECD has outlined five major methods which can be used these include; The Comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP), the resale price method, the Cost plus method, Transactional net margin method (TNMM) and the transactional profit split method. According to the OECD, the option that an organization chooses to use depends on the particular situation. It should take into account the amount of relevant comparable data that is available, the level of comparability of the uncontrolled and controlled transactions in question, and whether a method is appropriate for the nature of a particular transaction (determined through a functional analysis). We will discuss this subject in detail in another tax and development bulletin which will be released soon.

In recent years there have been legislative and policy reforms in Countries to ensure that governments have a firm grip and maximize their take from their extractive wealth. However, as governments celebrate these attempts, experience and practice suggest lacunas still exits and the current reforms maybe not enough in curbing the tax avoidance and illicit capital flight menace.

According to Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Mbeki High-Level Panel Report on IFFs latest reports, shows that IFF’s from the African continent have been increasing with losses estimated between USD50 Million and USD 80 Million over the past years. Corruption and the extractive sector has constantly provided a major conduit for tax avoidance and illicit resource outflow from Africa.

Even with the new negotiations and deals signed between governments and extractive MNEs, governments have to constantly up their game and mantra to ensure that the old normal does not evolve into just the new normal as the old saying goes “monkeys do not change. They only change their forests’.

We conclude with a fictitious case scenario which can be read for further discussion and reflection on the subject.

Extractive Company Corporate Structure and Tax Case Scenario

 

Indemen Resources Plc is a large mining company with interests in Mining and Petroleum.  The Company was registered with its Headquarters in Jugoland but has subsidiaries in Temboland, Caconia, Alsania and Mende Islands. One of these, Mende Islands is renowned for its secret laws to protect the identity of investors, it provides a litany of investment facilitation incentives, including o% tax on corporate income. In Mende Islands, an investor does not have to be physically present to establish a company.

In 2017, Indemen Resources acquired Mining Interests in Temboland where it started operations. It established   Shamudulio Energy Plc as a subsidiary in this country to take care of the Mining and Oil & Gas fields which been operational for the past 5 years. The Company’s subsidiary, Matecash Intl located in Mende Islands manages its accounts, banking and legal affairs on behalf of the other subsidiaries.

Most of its operations have declared losses for the past ten years.  However, the books of accounts of its subsidiary, Matecash in Mende Islands have continuously improved with large volumes of transaction emanating from engaging in business with its other related subsidiaries.

In the Year 2018 the company Shamudulilo Energy Plc in Temboland farmed into Calabash resources located in Alsania where it acquired 30% of its shares and therefore becoming the second-biggest shareholder.  Comodore Oil is a majority shareholder in Calabash resources and its Headquartered in Conundrum Iand which is also a renowned tax haven.  Comodore Oil owns 20 per cent in Conglomerate LLC which is located in Caconia.  Shamudulilo also owns 10% of Conglomerate LLC. Metcash, Idemen’s subsidiary in Mende Island owns 70% of Commodore Oil.

The board of Indemen Resources only sits and makes decisions in Jugoland and has only 1 of its directors from each of its subsidiaries sitting on the board as a non-executive board director.

Recently, it outsourced Labour Management to contract to Luguburious Consulting. Luguburious Consulting is registered and located in Conudrum Islands and has shares in Metcash Intl and Commodore Oil.

Luguburious Consulting is responsible for the recruitment and placement of staff in all Indemene’s subsidiaries. The staff are recruited on a 6 months’ contract, only renewable upon satisfactory assessment and passing of a regular test. Luguburious also provides copyrighted hi-tech technology to Indemene’s subsidiaries, including Shumudulilo Energy Plc in return for a fee. It also sells water purification equipment to conglomerate LLC.

Jugoland, where Indemene Resources comes from, has a Double Taxation Agreement with Temboland and under which Income taxation on dividends, interests, royalties are capped. Management or expert director fees from these Countries are exempt. Also, 100% of income repatriation from these Countries is allowed and exempt from Taxation.

In 2011, Jugoland, as a sign of reassurance of the bilateral cooperation between the two countries and has committed 100 bln dollars to support the Country’s fiscal reforms for the next five years.

Indemene Resources has been declaring losses in your Country, Temboland and in Jugoland. But recently, you have heard that Conglomerate LLC has intentions to buy Indemene Resources through either a Merger or Acquisition which will make it the biggest Company in the region. The deal valued at 890 billion dollars is the largest ever recorded in recent history.

As a Tax justice campaigner, a Tax Administration Officer or Policymaker, you have been asked to examine and brief the President on this entire scenario

What are the key issues would you bring to the attention of the President? What are the potential legal and taxation issues do you see?  What would be the appropriate transfer pricing methods you could apply in determining the arm’s length price of transactions between these companies. What policy, legislative and actions would you recommend for the government to take without necessarily being exposed to litigation and sparking of accusations of the government as being against foreign investors?

 

 

[1] Moses Kulaba:  Double Taxation Agreements: Gain or Loss to Tanzania? A study by Tanzania Tax Justice Coalition, May 2016

 

Elation as Kenya exports Oil; what does it mean for Oil rush in East African region

On 1st of August 2019, President Uhuru Kenyatta announced that Kenya had joined the list of world oil exporting Countries by selling its first crude oil at a cost of 12 Million United States dollars.

While the news reverberated across the Country and the region with elation, it is also possible that Kenya’s announcement could trigger a contagious rush to the bottom with East African Countries jostling to outcompete each other by signing off deals and agreements locking off future markets with potential buyers. Some of these deals may not be necessarily good.

By Moses Kulaba; Governance and Economic Analysis Center

Addressing the cabinet and media in Nairobi, President Kenyatta said Kenya had sold its barrels of crude oil to a buyer whose identity still remained a secret.

“We are now an Oil exporter. Our first deal was concluded this afternoon with 200,000 barrels at a price of USD 12 Million.  So I think we have started the journey and it is up to us to ensure that those resources are put to the best use to make our Country and to ensure we eliminate poverty, said Kenyatta.

The news reverberated in the region and globally with a new player on the market. Obviously there was more excitement and elation in the Lokichar Oil fields where Tullow Oil and its joint partners continue to explore more blocks with more vigour and determination.

Kenya discovered its first Oil in 2012 and since then, explorations have continued in the Lake Turkana basin region with deposits being reported and more projections made to increase. In its previous reports Tullow estimated some 560 Mln Barrels in possible reserves and these are now projected to increase as prospects for more discoveries are higher than before.

This would translate into 60,000 to 10,000 barrels per day of gross production, which is said to be insufficient to warrant the construction of a refinery locally hence the export plans

The sold consignment was delivered by truckers at the Kenya Petroleum Refineries facilities in Changamwe, Mombasa since July last year, under what the government described under the early oil project

What does this mean for Kenya and the East African region?

The deal concludes that Kenya once ruled off as an oil novice in the region, with the lowest volumes of discovered oil is running a head of its East African neighbors in reaching exporting oil country status many months before any of its East African neighbors can sell a drop of oil.

For Kenya, this is game changer in regional geopolitics as not only does the oil revenue bring a new line of foreign exchange earnings into its economy and thus consolidating its position as the regional economic superpower.

Galvanizing on its early market entry status, Kenya could tap the available markets and seal off any available contracts beating off any potential competition from its neighboring countries.

The oil revenues could also breathe some life into its Lamu Port South Sudan Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor development plan which has stalled for among others lack of partners. With oil revenues flowing, Kenya can go alone developing the ambitious infrastructure projects along the corridor all the way to the Ethiopian boarder.

Contrary to nay Sayers, the oil export could be a window to emboldened security in the Turkana area as the government seeks to protect vital oil installations and export routes to the coast.  For many years, Lake Turkana basin has been one of the most volatile and insecure areas in Kenya as marauding armed warriors move from one village to another raiding for cattle. Civilians and military installations have been attacked and people killed.

In June, 2018 Turkana residents stopped five trucks from ferrying crude oil to Mombasa over rising insecurity along the border with Baringo. The resident complained of insecurity in the area but also complained of what they call consider unresolved issues on oil sharing benefits between the National governments, County governments and local communities over the 5% share which they wanted channeled to their bank accounts rather than for development as rallied by a section of leaders.

There is no way we can be a security threat to the oil we have protected and guarded for years. So the specialized and additional security personnel (protecting oil) should head to Kapedo and secure people.

Kenya’s oil export announcement could trigger a contagious rush for oil in the East African region, with each country racing to drill to bottom in search for oil. In an effort to outcompete each other, those already with oil discoveries such as Uganda and South Sudan could race to the market sealing off deals and contracts with potential buyers and agreements for future markets. Some of these deals maybe bad.

 Uganda was the first to strike oil around its Albertine graben in 2005. According to Uganda’s Ministry of energy the petroleum deposit discovered so far were estimated at 6.5barrels of which 1.5bln are considered as recoverable.

The Ugandan oil is supposed to be exported to the global market through a 1,443 electric heated East African Oil Pipeline (EACOP) via Tanzania. The East African Crude oil pipeline is expected to unlock East Africa Oil potential by attracting invest and companies to explore the potential in the region.

According to the project schedule available on the EACOP website the detailed engineering and procurement and early works were supposed to have been made in 2018 and construction started in 2019. The first oil exports were expected in 2020. But it appears all these are behind schedule.

According to Ministry of Uganda expected to conclude its financial deal for its joint pipeline with Tanzania by June, 2019, opening for the way for its construction. According to the information provided by then, Stanbic Bank Uganda, was supposed to be the lead arranger for USD2.5billion funding for the 1,455 km (EACOP) project. The deal was expected to have been concluded in June, 2019.

Kampala was also expecting that the Final Investment Decisions (FID) between the government and the oil partners to determine when funds for the project will be made available, the terms of the financing and when the project execution will commence with a projected timeline between 20 and 36 months

The pipeline was expected to jointly develop the USD 3.5 billion pipeline, described as the longest electrically heated crude oil pipeline in the world. The balance of USD 1billion is expected to come from shareholders in equity

However, by the time Kenya announced its export deal in July, the earth breaking ceremony commencing the start of the EACOP pipeline construction had not started. Negotiations were reported as ongoing. In June 2017, the Daily Business Newspaper carried an article with a headline ‘Uganda’s Oil may not flow by 2020’ as the required infrastructure may not be complete  by then[i]

What this means for Uganda is that time is of essence and the sooner the EACOP project construction takes off the better for its potential oil market.

Figure 3: The Government of Tanzania and Uganda sign the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP)  in May, 2017

 

So why do some oil projects like take long to materialize?

Lack of astute leadership, effective institutions and canning ambition to drive the projects to fruition. In some countries the political leadership and responsible institutions can be weak, whereby the essential operational process surrounding the oil projects can be clogged in political rhetoric and undertones which make decision making quite cumbersome, inefficiently slow and less assuring to the investors

Technical aspects such as Quality of crude oil discovered

High Sulphur crude oil can such as the Ugandan and Kenyan crude oil can be waxy and costly to transport via pipeline as it requires constant heating along the route.  This explains why the 1,433 km EACOP is described as the longest electric heated pipeline in the world. This adds to complexity in technology and costs on heating required to operationalize the project. Investors may

Oil reservoir behaviors and recoverable volumes – The discovered oil reserves are not always the same as the recoverable volumes. In some projects the reserves can be large yet due to geological and technological factors the recoverable volumes are low.  The behavior of the oil reservoirs is therefore a significant factor in determining whether the recoverable volumes will be consistent with the early projections and economic models over the plateau period. A change in the recoverable volumes can trigger massive losses and may lead to complete closure of the oil project. Investors are happy to rush projects where recoverable volumes will be sustained

Financing aspects such as financing structure -Lack of financing for some reasons or high interests on the investment loans secured from investment-lending institutions can be a delaying factor.  The decision to invest may therefore take long as the investors or partners to the oil project juggle and weigh the available financial options viz a vis the current and future costs of the project on the country and the investors

Economic metric considerations such as the Net Present Value (NPV), Rate of Return (RoR) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of the project.

These are calculations undertaken to determine the economic and financial viability of the project. They are used to determine how much return and how long it will take to recoup the initial investment and starting generating profit.

According to online sources such as Investopedia, the Net present value (NPV) is the difference between the present value of cash inflows and the present value of cash outflows over a period of time. NPV is used in capital budgeting and investment planning to analyze the profitability of a projected investment or project.

The Rate of Return (RoR) is the net gain or loss on an investment over a specified time period, expressed as a percentage of the investment’s initial cost. This simple rate of return is sometimes called the basic growth rate, or alternatively, return on investment, or ROI. If you also consider the effect of the time value of money and inflation, the real rate of return can also be defined as the net amount of discounted cash flows received on an investment after adjusting for inflation.

The rate of return is used to measure growth between two periods, rather than over several periods. The RoR can be used for many purposes, from evaluating investment growth to year-over-year changes in company revenues. Its calculation does not consider the effects of inflation.

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a measure used in capital budgeting to estimate the profitability of potential investments. The internal rate of return is a discount rate that makes the Net Present Value (NPV) that makes the Net Present Value (NPV) of all cash flows from a particular project equal to zero.  It is mathematically calculated as IRR=NPV=t=1∑T (1+r)t −C0 =0)

IRR is the rate of growth a project is expected to generate. The IRR is used in capital budgeting to decide which projects or investments to undertake and which to forgo.

Generally speaking, the higher a project’s internal rate of return, the more desirable it is to undertake. Assuming the costs of investment are equal among the various projects, the project with the highest IRR would probably be considered the best and be undertaken first. IRR is sometimes referred to as “economic rate of return” or “discounted cash flow rate of return.”

Social factors such as land acquisition and due diligence for compensation– The nebulous and intricate balancing act between the local laws and the international standards as guided by the International Finance Corporation can be a hindrance. Quite often the local standards for compensation can be law, corrupt unfair yet the IFC standards requires fair and equity

Negative diplomacy: The oil projects could delay or fail to take off all together due to negative diplomacy. Whereby disgruntled actors such as activists, companies, politicians who may not be excited or about the project may quietly lobby, urge, convince or cajole the financing institutions not to finance the project.

Security Risk:  Oil projects cost lots of money in investment and thus require assurances that financial investments and their installations will be guaranteed.  Oil projects can stall as investors and their partners gauge the security risks

Some or all of these factors could be now at play in the East African region and could be explanatory factors as to why some petroleum projects are progressing at a snail’s pace or stalled all together. Perhaps Kenya’s early oil export could be trigger for its neighbors to start thinking ahead.

 

 

 

[i] https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/economy/Uganda—oil—2020-Standard–Poors-Tanzania/3946234-3982464-j7rbsq/index.html