Connect with us

Feature/OPED

How Africa Can Ensure Its Food Security

Published

on

Severe Food Insecurity

By Professor Maurice Okoli

At least, African leaders gradually recognise the need to work collectively to ensure food security. Food supply has seriously been exacerbated by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Africa’s persistent internal ethnic conflicts and a series of natural disasters. But more fascinating are the latest arguments over the interconnection between utilising resources for increasing and improving food production and taking adequate measures toward shedding import dependency.

The month of June 2023 was a busy month for African leaders. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa headed the Africa Peace Initiative to Kyiv and St. Petersburg, famous cities in Ukraine and Russia. Then later, he joined his colleagues at the New Global Financial Pact summit in Paris, France. While these trips could not be considered ordinary, the most controversial issues inseparably relate to Africa’s economic development, trade and investment, and sustainable welfare of the population.

As a development economist and researcher, scanning through several reports, Ramaphosa and his colleagues raised one significant question, among others, during their discussions in Paris. And that is the issue of ensuring food security. In practical terms, it has been part of government policy on improving food production and supply to the increasing population, especially in Africa, which stands at an estimated 1.4 billion. Of course, the world’s population is growing, but Africa’s exponential growth has acute challenges, including healthcare, employment and food security.

By halfway through this century, that is, 2050, Africa’s population is estimated to be 2.5 billion, and urban or megacities across Africa will continue experiencing enormous stress or pressure due to massive migration from under-developed parts of African countries. With Russia’s special operation in Ukraine and the sanctions in the history of mankind slammed on Russia by Western and European states, these have sufficiently been acknowledged as drivers of skyrocketing commodity prices and, ultimately, the cost of living. In effect, it’s described as a terrible global instability.

With all these trends even ceaselessly occurring now, Ramaphosa’s preferential steps toward food security, as described in his presentation, that the war has a ‘negative impact’ on the African continent and many other countries. It is, however, an acceptable fact that Africa, which generally depends on massive food imports, has suffered from all-year-round supply interruptions — diverse discussions ceaselessly awash the media landscape over these. For most African leaders, it is the question of food supply or how to sustain or preserve food import dependency. There is no alternative to reconnecting to regular supplies from Russia and Ukraine for these African countries.

During the New Global Financial Pact summit in Paris, African leaders expressed sceptical sentiments, as Ramaphosa and other leaders vehemently reiterated that external pledges and funding have unsuccessfully supported sustainable development goals, including food security in Africa.

Ramaphosa raised the structure of financial institutions, global currency, climate change and economic poverty, that there should be more cooperation and coordination, no fragmentation. There should be reforms in multinational institutions to address development issues, especially in the Global South. Africa should not be treated as beggars but as equals. It does not depend on donations and generosity. Africa should be allowed to be a key player on the global stage.

In stark reality, the global geopolitical processes are now offering the grounds to re-initiate and seek suitable alternatives that depend on century-old approaches and methods to solve national questions. Therefore, development critics may argue how the changes bring it closer to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and how it will simultaneously bolster Africa’s role in the multipolar world.

Factors Influencing Food Production

Interestingly factors negatively influencing local production, including the agricultural sector, are commonly listed and extensively discussed. Researchers, academics and politicians already recognize them as retarding expected progress and making headways in attaining that status of food self-sufficiency. Some of these factors are drought and climatic extremes, low budget allocation and inappropriate agricultural policies in Africa, poor storage and preservation facilities, poor land tenure system and reduced soil fertilities, inadequate irrigation facilities and poor methods of pest and disease control.

Some aspects of traditional African culture related to food production have become less practised in recent years. But state attitudes are not stimulating either in this direction. Across Africa, the consumption culture is tied to foreign imported products as it is widely interpreted as status-symbol, considered as belonging to a well-defined upper class in the society. Thus this consumer culture becomes a driving factor towards continuity in importing food that fills modern shopping malls in Africa.

The most popular rhetoric, more or less chorus, is that although it has abundant natural resources, Africa remains the world’s poorest and least-developed continent, resulting from various causes that may include deep-seated political corruption. According to the United Nations Human Development Report in 2003, the bottom 24 ranked nations (151st to 175th) were all African states.

Thambo Mbeki, former South African President, has argued these aspects in his reports on illicit capital flows abroad. In a recently published analysis, Mbeki underlined that loans obtained for undertaking development infrastructure, including agricultural and related industrial sectors, are siphoned back to foreign banks for politicians.

Basic geography teaches us that Africa has enormous resources, encompassing the vast landmass, vegetation, and water resources, including the lakes and rivers. The Congo, Nile, Zambezi, Niger and Lake Victoria are among its rivers. Yet the continent is the second driest in the world, with millions of Africans suffering yearly from water shortages. It requires mechanising agricultural practices, offering specialised short training and adequate support for local farmers as aspects of measures and steps toward import substitution.

Addressing food security challenges in Africa

Economists argue that possibly adopting, to some degree, import substitution policies are not directed at escaping international trade. It is an attempt to utilise, at the maximum, the untapped available resources in the production sector and, secondly, redirect budgetary finances into needy significant economic sectors. Understandably, Africa depends on food imports to feed its population. It has become a common rules-based practice across Africa.

On the other hand, potential exporting foreign states generate revenues for their budget. This is also an undeniable fact as many countries around the world make conscious efforts to increase the export of commodities to foreign markets. According to Agriculture Ministry’s AgroExport Center, Russia targets $33 billion per year (annually) as revenue through massive export of grains and meat poultry to Africa.

By increasing grain exports to African countries, Russia aims to enhance the competitiveness of Russian agricultural goods in the African market. On the contrary, several international organisations have also expressed that African leaders must adopt import substitution mechanisms and use their financial resources to strengthen agricultural production systems.

At the G7 Summit in June 2022, President Joe Biden and G7 leaders announced over $4.5 billion to address global food security, over half of which will come from the United States. This $2.76 billion in U.S. government funding will help protect the world’s most vulnerable populations and mitigate the impacts of growing food insecurity and malnutrition by building production capacity and more resilient agriculture and food systems worldwide and responding to immediate emergency food needs.

U.S. Congress allocated $336.5 million to bilateral programs for Sub-Saharan African countries, including Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe and regional programs in southern Africa, west Africa, and the Sahel.

Using Zimbabwe as a Classical Example

Compared to food-importing African countries, Zimbabwe has increased wheat production, especially during the current Russia-Ukraine crisis. This achievement was attributed to efforts in mobilising local scientists to improve the crop’s production. Zimbabwe is an African country under Western sanctions for 25 years, hindering imports of much-needed machinery and other inputs to drive agriculture.

At the African Green Revolution Forum (AGRF) summit held from September 5 to 9, 2022, in Rwanda, President Emmerson Mnangagwa told the gathering that “we used to depend on importation of wheat from Ukraine in the past, but now we have been able to produce our own. To a considerable extent, the crisis in that country has not affected us. There is an urgent need to adopt a progressive approach and re-purpose food policies to address the emerging challenges affecting our entire food systems in Africa.”

As much as there are classical admirable lessons to learn from Zimbabwe, African leaders ignore these. Zimbabwe shares the same negative consequences of colonialism with many African countries. But in an additional case, it has struggled with sanctions imposed on the land, making conditions harder. Zimbabwe has been looking for foreign partners from other countries to transfer technology and industrialise its ailing economy in the southern African region.

While several African countries largely depend on Russia and Ukraine for their regular supply of wheat and grains, even despite the persistent geopolitical warring situation, Zimbabwe has recorded its highest wheat harvest during the last agricultural production in 2022. It emerges as one of the few African countries with an import substitution agricultural policy and strategically working self-sufficiency. Worth suggesting that African leaders have to learn from Zimbabwe – a landlocked southern African country.

Looking for Inside Solutions

At least over the past few years, even long before the Russia-Ukraine crisis, there have been glowing signs from two African banks calling for increased food production. African Development Bank (AfDB) and the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) have gained increasing prominence for their work with the private sectors within Africa. These two banks support the agricultural sectors, but more is needed to meet the highest target.

At the Paris summit, AfDB President Akinwumi Adesina, African and European heads of government and representatives of development partners on the sidelines held discussions about the Alliance for Green Infrastructure in Africa. The key aim is accelerating the financing of transformational climate-resilient and greener infrastructure projects in Africa and attracting new partners and financiers. Adesina, formerly Nigeria’s Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, now the 8th President of the African Development Bank, has consistently been pushing for increased domestic agriculture to attain food self-sufficiency and ensure food security on the continent.

Of particular concern is that over 900 million people are still impoverished on the continent. Over 283 million Africans suffer from hunger, including over 216 million children who suffer from malnutrition. The situation is more serious due to climate change, including severe droughts, floods and cyclones that have devastated parts of Africa. Today, much of the Horn Africa and the Sahel last had rain several seasons ago. The resources Africa needs need to be there, explains AfDB President Akinwumi Adesina.

“I am excited about what the bank is doing to support farmers to adapt to climate change through our flagship program —Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation (TAAT). It is a platform implemented through partnerships with national and regional agricultural research institutions and the private sector. It is the largest ever effort to get technologies at scale to millions of farmers across Africa,” he wrote in his report.

Over the past three years, TAAT delivered climate-resilient agricultural technologies to 25 million farmers or 62% of the 40 million farmer target. The depth of consistent work of this bank is to enhance food processing, value addition and competitiveness of agricultural supply chains across Africa. The bank is committing resources for the establishment of Special Agro-Industrial Processing Zones. With its partners (including the Islamic Development Bank and International Fund for Agricultural Development), the bank has invested more than $1.5 billion to establish these zones in eleven countries.

Africa’s ability to feed nine billion people by 2050 is not a foregone conclusion; it is a call to action. We must harness our strengths, confront challenges, and work relentlessly towards our shared vision. Therefore, let us rise to this grand challenge. Let us forge ahead, knowing that our efforts today will determine the future of food in the world. It is necessary to unlock Africa’s potential in agriculture. Africa must feed itself.

The Wake-Up Bell for Action

It may take us by surprise when we know that 81% of the sub-Saharan African population lives on less than $2.50 (PPP) per day in 2023, compared with 86% for India. China and India are populous but are moving faster than Africa. China has a more substantial global economic influence than India, but Africa still needs to progress in various economic sectors.

The latest economic trend is that Africa is now at risk of being in debt once again, particularly in sub-Saharan African countries. It receives the most external funds for its development from Development funding sponsors such as the United States, Europe, China, France and Britain or multilateral blocs such as G7 states, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Other institutions and organisations, such as Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), also engage with Africa. In addition, the Asian and Arab Banks are showing practical actions. The cry for the National Development Bank of the BRICS has yet to think of Africa.

In this article, it is necessary in our discussions to appreciate the geographical facts that Africa is the world’s second-largest and second-most-populous continent, after Asia, in both aspects. Despite a wide range of natural resources, Africa is the least wealthy continent per capita and second-least wealthy by total wealth, behind Oceania. Scholars have attributed this to different factors, including geography, climate, tribalism, colonialism, neocolonialism, lack of democracy, and worse Africa-wide corruption. Despite this low concentration of wealth, recent economic expansion and the large and young population make Africa a crucial financial market in the broader global context.

In a nutshell, adopting measures for establishing food security is crucial to sustainable development. Addressing food security, therefore, is one of the keys for Africa in this 21st century. From the above perspectives, African leaders have to focus and redirect both human and financial resources toward increasing local production as the surest approach in ensuring sustainable food security for the estimated 1.4 billion population in Africa, and this most possibly falls within the framework of the Agenda 2063 of the African Union.

By Professor Maurice Okoli is a fellow at the Institute for African Studies and the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences. He is also a fellow at the North-Eastern Federal University of Russia

Dipo Olowookere is a journalist based in Nigeria that has passion for reporting business news stories. At his leisure time, he watches football and supports 3SC of Ibadan. Mr Olowookere can be reached via [email protected]

Feature/OPED

Dangote, Monopoly Power, and Political Economy of Failure

Published

on

Dangote monopoly Political Economy of Failure

By Blaise Udunze

Nigeria’s refining crisis is one of the country’s most enduring economic contradictions. Africa’s largest crude oil producer, strategically located on the Atlantic coast and home to over 200 million people, has for decades depended on imported refined petroleum products. This illogicality has drained foreign exchange, weakened the naira, distorted investment incentives, and hollowed out state institutions. Instead of catalysing industrialisation, Nigeria’s oil wealth became a mechanism for capital flight, rent-seeking, and institutional decay.

With the challenges surrounding the refining of crude oil, the establishment of Dangote Refinery signifies an important historic moment. The refinery promises to reduce fuel imports to a bare minimum, sustain foreign exchange growth, ensure there is constant fuel domestically, and strategically position Nigeria as a regional exporter of refined oil products if functioned at full capacity. Dangote Refinery symbolises what private capital, technology, and ambition can achieve in Africa following years of fuel queues, subsidy scandals, and global embarrassment.

Nigerians must have a rethink in the cause of celebration. Nigeria’s refining problem is not simply about capacity; it is about systems. Without addressing the policy failures and institutional weaknesses that made Dangote an exception rather than the rule, the country risks replacing one failure with another, this time cloaked in private-sector success.

For a fact, Nigeria desperately needs the emergence of Dangote refinery, and its success is in the national interest. Hence, this is not an argument against the Dangote Refinery. But history warns that structural failures are not solved by scale alone. Over the year, situations have shown that without competition and strong institutions, concentrated market power, whether public or private, can undermine price stability, energy security, and consumer welfare.

The Long Silence of Refinery Investments

Perhaps the most troubling question in Nigeria’s oil history is why none of the global oil majors like Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Total, or Agip has built a major refinery in Nigeria for over four decades. These companies operated profitably in Nigeria, extracted their crude, and sold refined products back to the country, yet never committed capital to domestic refining.

Over the period, it has been shown that policy incoherence has been the cause, not a matter of technical incapacity, such as price controls, resistant licensing processes, subsidy arrears, frequent regulatory changes, and political interference, which made refining an unattractive investment. Importation, by contrast, offered quick returns, lower political risk, and guaranteed margins, often backed by government subsidies.

Nigeria carelessly designed a system that rather rewarded importers and punished refiners. Dangote did not succeed because the system improved; he succeeded despite it. His refinery exists largely because of the concessions from the government, exceptional financial capacity, political access, and a willingness to absorb risks that institutions should ordinarily mitigate. This raises a deeper concern; when institutions fail, progress becomes dependent on extraordinary individuals rather than predictable systems.

The Tragedy of NNPC Refineries

If private investors stayed away, Nigeria’s state-owned refineries should have filled the gap. Instead, the Port Harcourt, Warri, and Kaduna refineries became monuments to mismanagement. Records have shown that between 2010 and 2025, Nigeria reportedly wasted between $18 billion and $25 billion, over N11 trillion, just for Turn Around Maintenance and rehabilitation. Kaduna Refinery alone is estimated to have consumed over N2.2 trillion in a decade.

Despite these expenditures, output remained negligible. This was not merely a technical failure but a governance one. Contracts were poorly monitored, accountability was absent, and consequences were nonexistent. In functional systems, such outcomes trigger investigations, sanctions, and reforms. In Nigeria, the cycle simply repeated itself, eroding public trust and deepening dependence on imports.

Where Is BUA?

Dangote is not the only Nigerian conglomerate to announce refinery ambitions. In 2020, BUA Group unveiled plans for a 200,000-barrels-per-day refinery. Years later, progress remains unclear, timelines have shifted, and execution appears stalled.

This pattern is revealing. When multiple large investors struggle to translate plans into reality, the issue is not ambition but environment. Refinery projects in Nigeria appear viable only at a massive scale and with extraordinary political leverage. Smaller or mid-sized players are effectively crowded out, not by market forces, but by systemic dysfunction.

Policy Failure and the Singapore Comparison

Nigeria often aspires to emulate Singapore’s refining and petrochemical success. The comparison is instructive. Singapore has no crude oil, yet built one of the world’s most sophisticated refining hubs through consistent policy, investor protection, infrastructure planning, and regulatory certainty.

Nigeria chose a different path: price controls, subsidies, weak contract enforcement, and politically motivated policy reversals. Refineries became tools of patronage rather than productivity. Capital exited, infrastructure decayed, and import dependence deepened. The outcome was predictable.

The Cost of Import Dependence

For years, Nigeria spent billions of dollars annually importing petrol, diesel, and aviation fuel. This placed constant pressure on foreign reserves and the naira. Petrol subsidies alone were estimated at N4-N6 trillion per year, often exceeding national spending on health, education, or infrastructure.

Even after subsidy removal, legacy costs remain: distorted consumption patterns, weakened public finances, and entrenched interests built around importation. These interests did not disappear quietly.

Who Really Benefited from the Subsidy?

Although framed as pro-poor, fuel subsidies disproportionately benefited importers, traders, shipping firms, depot owners, financiers, and politically connected intermediaries. Smuggling across borders meant Nigerians subsidised fuel consumption in neighbouring countries.

Ordinary citizens received marginal relief at the pump but paid far more through inflation, deteriorating infrastructure, and underfunded public services. The subsidy system functioned less as social protection and more as elite redistribution.

The Traders’ Dilemma

Why did major fuel marketers like Oando invest in refineries abroad but not in Nigeria? Again, incentives explain behaviour. Importation offered faster returns, lower capital requirements, and political insulation. Domestic refining demanded long-term investment under unstable rules.

In an irrational system, rational actors optimise accordingly. Importation thrived not because it was efficient, but because policy made it so.

FDI and the Confidence Problem

Sustainable Foreign Direct Investment follows domestic confidence. When local investors, who best understand political and regulatory risks, avoid long-term industrial projects, foreign investors take note. Capital flows to environments with predictable pricing, rule of law, and policy consistency.

Nigeria’s challenge is not attracting speculative capital, but building conditions for patient, productive investment.

Dangote and the Monopoly Question

Dangote Refinery deserves credit. But scale brings power, and power demands oversight. If importers exit and no competing refineries emerge, Dangote could dominate refining, pricing, and supply. Nigeria’s experience with cement, where domestic production rose but prices soared due to limited competition, offers a cautionary tale.

Markets function best with competition. Without it, price manipulation, supply risks, and weakened energy security become real dangers, especially in countries with fragile regulatory institutions.

The Way Forward: Competition, Not Replacement

Nigeria does not need to weaken Dangote; it needs to multiply Dangotes. The goal should be a competitive refining ecosystem, not a replacement of a public monopoly with a private monopoly.

This requires transparent crude allocation, open access to pipelines and storage, fair pricing mechanisms, and strong antitrust enforcement. State refineries must either be professionally concessional or decisively restructured. Stalled projects like BUA’s should be unblocked, and modular refineries should be supported.

The Litmus Test

Nigeria’s refining crisis was decades in the making and cannot be solved by one refinery, however large. Dangote Refinery is a turning point, but only if embedded within systemic reform. Otherwise, Nigeria risks trading one form of dependency for another.

The true test is not whether Nigeria can refine fuel, but whether it can build fair, open, and resilient institutions that serve the public interest. In refining, as in democracy, excessive concentration of power is dangerous. Competition remains the strongest safeguard.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

How AI Levels the Playing Field for SMEs

Published

on

A! in SMEs

By Linda Saunders

Intro: In many small businesses, the owner often starts out as the bookkeeper, the customer-service desk, the IT technician and the person who steps in when a delivery goes wrong. With so many balls up in the air – and such little room for error – one dropped ball can derail the entire day and trigger a chain of problems that’s hard to recover from. Unlike larger companies that have the luxury of spreading the load across dedicated teams and systems, SMEs carry it all on a few shoulders.

South Africa’s SME sector carries significant weight, contributing around 19% of GDP and a third of formal employment, according to the latest available Trade & Industrial Policy Strategies (TIPS) 2024 review. That is causing persistent constraints, including tight margins, erratic demand, high administrative load, and limited internal capacity.

This is not unique to South Africa. Many smaller businesses across the continent still rely on manual processes. It is common to find sales records kept separately from customer notes, or inventory data that is updated only occasionally. The result is slow turnaround times, duplicated effort and a lack of visibility across the business. Given that SMEs have such a huge influence on national economies, accounting for over 90% of all businesses, between 20-40% of GDP in some African countries, and a major source of employment, providing around 80% of jobs, these operational constraints have a broad impact on economies.

What has changed in recent years is that digital tools once seen as the preserve of larger companies have become more attainable for smaller operators. They do not remove the structural challenges SMEs face, but they can ease the load. Better systems do not replace judgement, experience or customer relationships; they simply give small companies more room to work with.

Cloud-based systems, automation and integrated customer-management tools have become more affordable and easier to deploy. They do not remove the structural pressures facing small businesses, but they can ease the operational load and create more space for productive work.

Doing more with the teams SMEs already have

Small teams often end up wearing several hats. One person might take customer calls, update stock records, handle service issues and manage follow-ups. When demand rises, these manual processes become harder to sustain. Local surveys regularly point to this strain, showing that smaller companies spend significant portions of the week on paperwork, compliance and routine administrative tasks – work that adds little value but cannot be ignored.

This is where automation is proving useful. Routine tasks such as onboarding new customers, checking documents, routing queries to the right person, logging interactions and sending follow-ups can now run quietly in the background. In larger companies, whole departments handle this work. In small businesses, the same burden has traditionally fallen on one or two people. When these processes run reliably without constant attention, a business with 10 employees can manage busier periods without rushed outsourcing or slipping service standards.

The point is not to replace staff, but to reduce the operational drag that limits what small teams can deliver. Structured workflows give SMEs a level of steadiness they have rarely had the time or money to build themselves.

Using better data to make better decisions

A second constraint facing SMEs is disorganised information. When customer details are lost in email, sales notes in chat groups, stock figures in spreadsheets and queries in separate systems, decisions depend on whatever information happens to be at hand. Forecasting becomes guesswork, and early warning signs are easy to miss.

Putting all this information in a single place changes the quality of decision-making. When sales, service and stock data can be viewed together, patterns become easier to spot: which products are moving, which customers are becoming less active, where delays tend to occur, and which periods consistently drive higher demand.

Importantly, SMEs do not need corporate analytics teams for this. Modern CRM platforms can organise information automatically and surface basic trends. For retailers preparing for 2026, this can help avoid over – or under – stocking. For service businesses, it can highlight customers who may be at risk of leaving, prompting earlier intervention. In competitive markets, having clearer information is a practical advantage.

Building a foundation before the pressure arrives

Rapid growth can be as destabilising for SMEs as an economic downturn. When orders increase, manual processes quickly reach their limit. Errors are more likely, staff become overwhelmed and the customer experience suffers. Many small businesses only upgrade their systems once these problems appear, by which time the cost, both financial and reputational, is already significant.

Putting basic workflow tools and a unified customer record in place early provides a useful buffer. Tasks follow the same steps every time, reducing inconsistency. Customers reach the right person more quickly. Staff spend less time checking or re-entering information and more time on work that matters. These small operational gains compound over time, especially during busy periods.

This is not about chasing every new technology. It is about avoiding a common pattern in the SME sector: when demand rises, systems buckle, and growth becomes more difficult.

Confidence matters as much as capability

Smaller companies understandably worry about risk when adopting new systems. Data protection, monitoring, and compliance can feel daunting without an IT department. The advantage of modern platforms is that many of these protections, like encryption, audit trails, and event monitoring, are built in. Transparent design also helps SMEs understand how automated decisions are made and how customer data is handled.

This reassurance is important because SMEs should not have to choose between improving their operations and protecting their customers’ information.

2026 will reward readiness

Technology will not replace the qualities that give SMEs their edge: personal service, flexibility, and the ability to respond quickly to customer needs. What it can do is relieve the administrative load that prevents those strengths from being fully used.

SMEs that invest in simple automation and better data practices now will enter 2026 with greater capacity and clearer insight. They won’t be competing with larger companies by matching their resources, but by removing the disadvantages that have traditionally held them back.

In the year ahead, the most competitive businesses will not be the biggest; they’ll be the ones that prepared early for the year ahead.

Linda Saunders is the Country Manager & Senior Director Solution Engineering for Africa at Salesforce

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Why Africa Requires Homegrown Trade Finance to Boost Economic Integration

Published

on

Cyprian Rono Ecobank Kenya

By Cyprian Rono

Africa’s quest to trade with itself has never been more urgent. With the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) gaining momentum, governments are working to deepen intra-African commerce. The idea of “One African Market” is no longer aspirational; it is emerging as a strategic pathway for economic growth, job creation, and industrial competitiveness. Yet even as infrastructure and regulatory reforms advance, one fundamental question remains; how will Africa finance its cross-border trade, across markets with diverse currencies, regulations, and standards?

Today, only 15 to 18 percent of Africa’s internal trade happens within the continent, compared to 68 percent in Europe and 59 percent in Asia. Closing this gap is essential if AfCFTA is to deliver prosperity to Africa’s 1.3 billion people.

A major constraint is the continent’s huge trade finance deficit, which exceeds USD 81 billion annually, according to the African Development Bank. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which provide more than 80 percent of the continent’s jobs, are the most affected. Many struggle with insufficient collateral, stringent risk profiling and compliance requirements that mirror international banking standards rather than the realities of African business.

To build integrated value chains, exporters and importers must operate within trusted, predictable, and interconnected financial systems. This requires strong pan-African financial institutions with both local knowledge and continental reach.

Homegrown trade finance is therefore indispensable. Pan-African banks combine deep domestic roots with extensive regional reach, making them the most credible engines for financing trade integration. By retaining financial activity within the continent, homegrown lenders reduce exposure to external shocks and keep liquidity circulating locally. They also strengthen existing regional payment infrastructure such as the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System (PAPSS), developed by the Africa Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) and backed by the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Secretariat, enabling faster, cheaper and seamless cross-border payments across the continent.

Digital transformation amplifies this advantage. Real-time payments, seamless Know-Your-Customer (KYC) verification, automated credit scoring and consistent service delivery across markets are essential for intra-African trade. Institutions such as Ecobank, operating in 34 African countries with integrated core banking systems, demonstrate how such digital ecosystems can enable continent-wide commerce.

Platforms such as Ecobank’s Omni, Rapidtransfer and RapidCollect, together with digital account-opening services, make it much easier for traders to operate across borders. Rapidtransfer enables instant, secure payments across Ecobank’s 34-country network, reducing delays in regional trade, while RapidCollect gives cross-border enterprises the ability to receive payments from multiple African countries into a single account with real-time confirmation and automated reconciliation. Together, these solutions create an integrated digital ecosystem that lowers friction, accelerates payments, and strengthens intra-African commerce.

Trust, however, remains a significant barrier. Cross-border commerce depends on the confidence that partners will honour contracts, deliver goods as promised, pay on time, and present authentic documentation. Traders often lack reliable information on potential partners, operate under different regulatory regimes, and exchange documents that are difficult to verify across borders. This heightens the risk of fraud, non-payment, and contractual disputes, discouraging businesss from expanding beyond familiar markets.

Technology is closing this trust gap. Artificial Intelligence enables lenders to assess risk using alternative data for SMEs without formal credit histories. Distributed ledger tools make shipping documents, certificates of origin, and inspection reports tamper-proof. In addition, supply-chain visibility platforms enable real-time tracking of goods and cross-border digital KYC ensures that both buyers and sellers are verified before any transaction occurs.

Ecobank’s Single Trade Hub embodies this trust infrastructure by offering a secure digital marketplace where buyers and sellers can trade with confidence, even in markets where no prior relationships exist. The platform’s Trade Intelligence suite provides customers instant access to market data from customs information and product classification tools across 133 countries.

Through its unique features such as the classification of best import/export markets, over 25,000 market and industry reports, customs duty calculators, and local and universal customs classification codes, businesses can accurately assess market opportunities, anticipate trends, reduce compliance risks, and optimise supply chains, ultimately helping them compete and grow in regional and global markets.

SMEs need more than financing. Many operate in cash-heavy cycles where suppliers and logistics providers require upfront payment. Lenders can support these businesses with advisory services, business intelligence, compliance guidance, and platforms for secure partner verification, contract negotiation, and secure settlement of payments. Trade fairs, industry forums, and partnerships with chambers of commerce further build the trust networks needed for cross-border trade.

Ultimately, Africa’s path toward meaningful trade integration begins with financial integration. AfCFTA’s promise will only be realised when enterprises can trade with confidence, knowing that payments will be honoured, partners verified, and disputes resolved. This requires collaboration between banks, regulators, and trade institutions, alongside harmonised financial regulations, interoperable payment systems, and continent-wide verification networks.

Africa can no longer rely on external actors to finance its trade. Its economic transformation depends on strong, trusted, and digitally enabled African financial institutions that understand Africa’s unique risks and opportunities. By building an African-led trade finance ecosystem, the continent can unlock liquidity, reduce dependence on external currencies, empower SMEs, and retain more value locally. Africa’s trade revolution will accelerate when its financing is driven by African institutions, African systems, and African ambition.

Cyprian Rono is the Director of Corporate and Investment Banking for Kenya and EAC at Ecobank Kenya

Continue Reading

Trending