Tag: finance

Using Africa’s black gold to fund a green future 

“Stabilizing the climate will require strong, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and reaching net-zero CO2 emissions.” highlights IPCC Working Group I Co-Chair Panmao Zhai.  

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report makes for sober reading. The climate crisis is unequivocally caused by human activities and is affecting every corner of the planet’s land, air, and sea already. The fact sheet on Africa does not make for pleasant reading we will experience more heatwaves, more floods, more unpredictable weather, and more extreme weather events. The whole continent is vulnerable, our largely rain-fed agriculture, underdeveloped infrastructure, existing inequalities, and poverty will all amplify the impacts of climate change that are now certain.  

In a previous article, I advocated that we use climate change as an opportunity to harness science and technology and equip our farmers with tools to feed the continent in an era of shifting weather patterns. To leapfrog fossil fuel energy and lay the foundation of Africa’s economic and social development on green sustainable energy. 

This is still the case; however, not only must Africa innovate to mitigate the impacts of Climate change on the continent, but we also must fund it. The global commitment to provide US$ 100 billion a year is falling woefully short. Furthermore, as the Coronavirus pandemic has shown, when crisis strikes, Africa is left to fend for itself. As the impacts of climate change become more pressing and deadly, the rich world will focus increasingly on solving their own problems just as they have done with Covid vaccines.  

Thus, Africa must develop a financing strategy not based on the generosity of the rich world, the philanthropy of global billionaires, the whims of development banks or the iniquity of global markets. To do that Africa will have to make use of its own resources, and, in a delicious irony, Africa’s black gold, the oil, gas and coal can be used for this purpose. Not by burning it or digging out of the ground and selling it. But, by leaving it where it is and selling it as a carbon offset.  

The Financing Dilemma  

Because developing countries would be hardest hit by climate change yet have the least resources to invest in mitigation measures or invest in clean energy and sustainable solutions to our development needs. The developed world committed to mobilizing the finance necessary to do this. As a result, at COP16 the developed world agreed to an Accord, that states that: “developed country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries”.  

This goal has never been met. And with the impacts of the Coronavirus pandemic and the resources devoted by the developed world to their own needs, I am not hopeful that funding will materialise. Furthermore, the financing solutions being proposed are the same old, same old of “mobilising external financing and private-sector solutions,” which can be translated as getting money from donors and banks. That’s a formula that has not worked for 70 years.  

Using our black gold 

Africa’s natural wealth, especially oil has often been more of a curse than a boon, added to that, it is humanity’s use of those hydrocarbons that are the cause of the problem we find ourselves in. Thus, Africa finds itself with an odd problem, it would be mad not to exploit these resources, they are a vital source of income. However, it is that very exploitation that will come back and bite us as a cause of climate change.  

It is estimated that Africa has: 

  • 499 billion MMBtu (Metric Million British Thermal Unit) of proven gas reserves (7.1% of global proven reserves), 
  • proven reserves of 125 billion barrels of oil.  
  • Proven reserves of 36.7 billion metric tonnes of coal  

At the time of writing, the price of oil is US$ 68 per barrel, US$ 3 per MMBtu of Gas and US$149 per tonne of coal. Meaning that Africa has about 8.5 trillion dollars’ worth of Oil, 1.4 trillion dollars’ worth of gas and 5.4 trillion dollars’ worth of coal. While that may be their value, to get their true value you would have to factor in a heavy discount for the cost of developing the fields/mines, the profits of the oil, gas and coal companies and the environmental degradation and impact of their extraction. Beyond that, as the world moves away from hydrocarbons, these assets will become increasingly stranded as the world strives to buy less of them.  

Selling the oil without burning it  

Increasingly companies and governments are investing in carbon offsets and offset credits. A carbon offset broadly refers to a reduction in Green House Gas (GHG) emissions – or an increase in carbon storage (e.g., through the planting of trees) – that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere. A carbon offset credit is a transferrable instrument certified by governments or independent certification bodies to represent an emission reduction of one metric tonne of CO2 or an equivalent amount of other GHGs.  

The oil, gas and coal under African soil have an approximate equivalent of 53.7 billion and 114 billion and 91 trillion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide respectively1. Currently, carbon offsets sell at $3-5 per tonne, using a conservative price of $3 Africa’s oil, gas and coal assets would be worth $275 trillion. That may seem low but the price of carbon offsets is expected to rise to between $20-$50 within the next 10 years bringing them in line with the oil prices which would more than double those estimates.2 

Thus, rather than developing these assets, Africa can sell the potential carbon emissions as carbon offsets. Africa would sell the potential emissions from all that oil, coal and gas to companies and governments that want to emit carbon. This would do three crucial things. First, it would lock that carbon in the ground, if we are ever going to solve the problem of climate change, we must stop burning fossil fuels. Even though Africa has contributed the least to the current problem we can make sure we never become part of the problem by leaving that carbon in the ground. Second, it would give Africa an income stream that is wholly owned by Africa. No oil companies, no production sharing contracts, no royalties, and no drilling and mining projects that destroy ecosystems. That money can be spent financing Africa’s own green and sustainable industrial revolution and mitigating the effects of the damage already done by investing in our agriculture and infrastructure to ensure that they can cope with a changing climate. Third, it would remove our dependence on the generosity of the rich world, debt, or capriciousness of the market, giving Africa true ownership of its climate response.  

To make this a reality much smarter people than I would need to figure out key elements of turning our hydrocarbons into carbon offsets.  

  1. A mechanism for certifying hydro-carbon reserves and quantifying the potential carbon emissions.  
  2. A pricing strategy that does not put too many offsets onto the market at the same time to ensure that viable prices are kept.  
  3. A verification and enforcement mechanism to ensure that any reserves sold as an offset are not exploited and sold by those looking to have their cake and eat it too.  

Keep it in the ground  

Africa has contributed the least to climate change, yet we will bear some of its worst consequences. We cannot rely on the rich world to live up to aid and financial mobilisation promises if Africa is to deal with the dual challenge of climate change. That dual challenge is to ensure that our own development does not contribute further to climate change and that we put in place measures to deal with the consequences of global warming. We are not responsible for the past of others, but we must seize responsibility for our future.  

Selling the potential carbon emissions from African hydrocarbon reserves can be a critical tool in meeting that dual mandate. It will keep the GHG in the ground and maximise Africa’s contribution to ensuring a net-zero world. And it would give us the revenues to fund sustainable development and climate mitigation, on our terms, designed by Africans for Africans rather than at the World Bank or the Gates foundation.  

It may seem crazy, but oil, gas and coal may be just what Africa needs to stop climate change.  

Core features for African Post-Covid-19 economic stimulus packages.

The global coronavirus pandemic has not only put public health and health systems under threat it has undermined livelihoods, businesses, and economies across the continent. As a result, many policymakers are turning their attention to how to get those economies started again, as they shift from the public health response. Some countries such as South Africa and Kenya have already released details on their stimulus packages. Each African country will need to come up with a package that works for them specifically. However, as diverse as these packages may be there are some core features and opportunities that I think apply to most if not all African states. That will not only aid in jumpstarting their economies but lay a foundation for long-term growth through tax reform, building social safety nets, and putting money in the right places. African states may not have the financial firepower that the developed world has deployed to keep their economies alive, but with some creative and bold policymaking African governments can not only jumpstart their economies out of the Coronavirus malaise but also lay the foundations for long term growth.

Investing in the right places

There are two sectors, agriculture, and the informal economy, that define sub-Saharan African economies, and will require specific focus in any form of stimulus.

Agriculture is the foundation of the African economy. At least 60% the population of sub-Saharan Africa are smallholder farmers, and about 23% of sub-Saharan Africa’s GDP comes from agriculture. Stimulus measures aimed at the agriculture sector are critical. This should include

  • Subsidies for inputs (fertiliser, seed, pesticides, etc.) for farmers, that will ease the cost of farming in a tough year.
  • Heavy investment in small farmer training and education that will enhance the skills and productivity of small farmers.
  • Investment in rural infrastructure such as warehouses and rural roads that improve farmer incomes cut the cost of storing and moving goods from farm to market, making those goods cheaper for consumers.
  • Facilitating through guarantees the provision of credit to businesses along the agricultural value chain that provides services to farmers, move agricultural goods or process agricultural goods.

Boosting agricultural incomes, productivity, and efficiency, will not only help drive growth out of the crisis but also help make food cheaper and more plentiful for consumers. In short, an agriculture targeted stimulus could be the foundation for long term food security

The second critical sector is the informal sector. The IMF has estimated that on average the informal sector contributes between 25% and 65% of GDP in Sub-Saharan Africa with Mauritius and South Africa at the low-end under 25% and Tanzania (over 50%) and Nigeria (over 60%) at the other end, and that the sector accounts for between 30% to 90% of non-agricultural employment.

For the informal sector, the key to a stimulus lies in cheap credit (or grants if the government can afford it). Many informal businesses have been subjected to weeks or months of low business volumes (or none at all) due to restrictions put in place to control the virus. This means they do not have working capital, to reopen and restart they will require this capital, and cheap credit is a quick and effective means of providing it. Governments can provide credit to Micro and small enterprises (as most informal businesses are) through existing channels that the informal sector already uses, such as mobile lending, cooperatives, savings groups, and microfinance institutions. Restarting the informal sector is critical to ensuring that people have jobs and incomes, livelihoods that do not just keep the economy turning but the food on tables and kids in school.

Combined the agriculture and the informal sector account for at least 40% of most African economies and are the primary providers of employment. The design of any African economic stimulus must have a significant focus on these two sectors if it is going to have any significant impact.

Tax reform

Some countries have introduced a set of tax cuts to ease consumer pain and help save businesses money. While tax relief will help a bit, outside of South Africa the tax base of most African countries is simply not big enough for tax cuts to have a big simulative effect.

However, taxes are a problem across the continent. African governments, do not collect enough taxes relying on a narrow base of taxpayers paying into a system riddled with tax loopholes, breaks and exemptions. Furthermore, the crisis will put millions out of work and cut the revenues of businesses significantly. However, as the American saying goes, never let a good crisis go to waste. This crisis presents a perfect opportunity for African governments to pursue genuine tax reform, that will help broaden the tax base and mobilize domestic funding for development rather than debt.

We can do this by reforming the tax system to make it, simpler. Make it easy to pay, easy to track and hard to confuse, this can be done through a combination of.

  • Removing existing individual and corporate tax breaks and exemptions while bringing down headline corporate tax rates.
  • Removing transfer pricing loopholes that allow large corporations to avoid paying local taxes.
  • Put in place new frameworks that will assess the proposed and existing tax breaks based on their verifiable impact. In other words, the impact of existing tax breaks should be clearly evident in the data and the justification for a new tax break should also include clear indicators on if it is working. This would prevent the myriad of loopholes creeping back into the system

Getting more companies in the tax net, on an evening playing field while doing away with all the complexity that enables the avoidance of taxes will broaden the tax base. This can be accompanied by a marginal lowering of headline rates as there will be more people and companies paying taxes. A smaller burden on more people will result in less stress on consumers and companies and higher tax revenue when the post-crisis recovery starts.

Safety Nets

One thing the crisis has done is put severe stress on the safety nets and support systems that most Africans rely on. Those with jobs, both formal and informal, often support their immediate and extended families. Foreign remittances (migrant workers sending money back home) has grown by ten times in the last 2 decades. This is a critical source of income and support for millions around the continent and in many countries is one of the largest sources of foreign currency and inward investment. Domestic and international transfers which essentially form our social safety nets are being ravaged. As the domestic economy sheds jobs and opportunities, incomes whether formal or informal will be cut or lost entirely. Internationally, as we have already seen job losses will be immense, and African migrants will be part of that and the World Bank expects international remittances to fall by 23%. Millions around the continent will be without vital support from struggling friends and families and governments must step in. This can take one of two forms:

  1. Give people money. Cash transfers (as I laid out in a previous post) are simple and effective and in a crisis potentially lifesaving. In Togo the government has deployed a cash transfer program called Novissi targeted at people whose daily income is no longer guaranteed due to disruptions caused by the Coronavirus crisis, using existing mobile money platforms. The cash transfer does not fully replace people’s incomes, but it does provide a lifeline, ensuring that people do fall into desperation. It also shows that a mass cash transfer program is possible and need not break the bank.

 

  1. The second option is to invest heavily and quickly in the provision and delivery of key services. Ensure that critical needs such as power, healthcare, sanitation are provided cheaply or free as widely as possible and that critical income-generating venues such as food markets can run with social distancing and sanitary measures in place, that would ensure income generation but also keep people safe.

Neither of these two solutions (or a combination of both) should be short term solutions. Building viable social safety nets is a key need across the continent and if included in a stimulus package, they could be the basis for long term remaking of the social contract across the continent. Without putting in place viable safety nets to replace the informal ones that are being worn thin by the pandemic we may see more people forced into desperate poverty, which would set endanger millions more lives and threaten social stability.

Speed is key

 

The primary goal of any stimulus plan is to move an economy out of a crisis or recession. To do so the stimulus must be deployed quickly before too many businesses and consumers go broke or permanently change how they do things. In deploying their stimulus programs, African governments must ensure that they are deployed quickly. Businesses need credit before they go bankrupt, farmers need inputs before the next planting season and people need to eat today not next quarter. Getting a stimulus package out of government treasuries and into the economy as quickly as possible will amplify its effectiveness.

The right type of stimulus

 

No two stimulus programs will be the same, African economies are diverse and the priorities of each government differ. However, there are common features across the continent that will need to be addressed. With limited resources, we must be smart and bold. That requires putting our resources where the majority of African’s earn their livelihoods in the agricultural sector and informal economy. Making sure that vulnerable communities whose livelihoods have been decimated or support systems undone, get adequate support. And it is an opportunity to reset a tax system that is not fit for purpose to one that can raise the resources we need to fund our long-term development.

African economies need a jumpstart out of what the IMF is calling “an unprecedented threat to development”. As we design our stimulus programs, we must do so in a way that does not just tick the boxes of orthodox economic thinking but addresses the realities of our economies and looks to the future.

 

 

Africanising credit – Financing SME’s

Agriculture and SME’s (small and medium enterprises) are the backbone of Africa’s economy and societies. SME’s make up to 90% of all businesses in sub-Saharan Africa[1]. In Ghana approximately 92% of all local businesses are SME’s, providing up to 85% of manufacturing jobs in the country and contributing about 70% to the country’s GDP. In Nigeria, 37 million SMEs employ about 60 million people and account for about 48% of the country’s GDP. In South Africa, there are more than 2.2 million SMEs, about 1.5 million of them in the informal sector. As much as governments around the continent are looking to industrialise through attracting investment in large scale manufacturing, we cannot develop without our SME’s. SME’s provide the livelihoods for a significant number African’s and if they succeed, African economies and development will succeed.

However, SME’s also face an incredibly tough time. In South Africa, the Department of Small Business Development estimates that between 70%-80% of SME’s do not make it past their first year. In Kenya, the National Bureau of statistics found that at least 46% of Micro Small and Medium enterprises do not make it past their first year. What is preventing them from succeeding? Among the multitude of factors (some covered previously on this blog), one of the biggest is credit. The London Stock Exchange estimates that African SME’s face a funding gap of at least $140 billion African businesses find it incredibly hard to access credit, and credit is the fuel of the modern economy. Without credit, there is no safety net for businesses and farmers when things get a little tough. Without credit, it’s hard to fund growth and innovation. Without credit most businesses and farmers are limited to subsistence, to just surviving, because to develop we need those businesses to thrive.

Thus, the policy question becomes what can be done to ensure more credit gets to the SME’s. If the financial sector is not fit for purpose, how do we move beyond traditional definitions of collateral and banking to kickstart credit to these key sectors? The answer for many governments around the continent and development finance institutions (DFI’s) has been to try some sort of SME financing scheme such as giving banks money or guarantees to lend money to SME’s. However, this hasn’t worked, thus what’s needed is a new approach, based on evidence that takes advantage of new trends and technologies and thinks beyond banks. If so, the continent may be able to turbocharge their economies by enabling businesses that actually exist rather than those they hope will be created.

Understanding SME’s financing needs

Knowing that there is a problem and understanding the nature of that problem are two different things. Judging by their rhetoric, African governments understand the importance of SME’s to their economies and are more than willing to make commitments to improve their lot. However, before making promises to SME’s and formulating policies on the basis of those promises it is necessary to understand SME’s needs.

Thus, the first thing that African governments must do as they attempt to unlock the financing problem that SME’s face is to talk to SME’s. Understand whether the majority SME’s need financing to fund their day to day operations (working capital financing), credit to invest and grow their businesses, or trade financing to help fulfil orders or ensure that they have sufficient levels of stock. Secondly, governments need to understand how much money different types of SME’s actually require. Understanding the financing needs of SME’s will enable governments to design or enable solutions that SME’s actually need. Third, is for governments to understand the participants in the SME sector. Such as the nature of formal and informal player, the challenges facing SME’s in different sectors such as manufacturing, agriculture or the arts, the region of the country they are in etc. If the rhetoric of African governments is to become reality and SME’s are really going to be empowered African governments would do well to make a good faith effort to understand them properly first.

Beyond banking

As stated earlier many of the efforts to jumpstart SME financing have involved banks, with governments and DFI’s providing lines of credit or guarantees specifically earmarked for onward lending to SME’s. Around the continent there exist a plethora of government-owned development banks, private banks, and funds whose sole purpose is to lend to SME’s and start-ups. What’s clear is that traditional funding models (a bank loan) are not necessarily meeting the needs of African SME’s a report by the London Stock Exchange Group has placed the funding gap for African SMEs at more than $140bn. The report goes on to point out that among the key hurdles to SME’s accessing finance are:

  • Onerous credit checks from banks (especially foreign banks) restrict SME participation as SMEs often lack the track record and meaningful data inputs required.
  • Credit Bureaus (where defaulters are blacklisted) have, rather than de-risking credit, turned into a negative reinforcement tool as smaller companies run the risk of being ‘blacklisted’ if a single loan repayment is delayed.
  • Prohibitive collateral requirements: lenders seek high levels of collateral to mitigate the high risk associated with lending to SMEs

It may be time to think beyond bank loans when we ask how we can provide African SME’s with viable sustainable credit options. Across the continent, digital and mobile-based lenders are helping to fill the credit gap with innovative and ever-changing credit risk models allows them to better understand credit risk. Allowing them to lend to small business owners, traders and farmers to access short term credit. Often referred to as short term credit, this type of lending allows businesses to meet short-term funding gaps. For example, if an agricultural produce trader wants to stock for the day or week, they are limited to buying only what they can afford at that particular moment in time. However, with access to short term credit they can borrow, buy more produce, sell more produce and at the end of the day after paying the loan back they have made more money. This is not an abstract example it happens every day, especially in Kenya where mobile lending is now common. If banks are not willing to fill this gap, what policymakers and regulatory bodies such as central banks need to do is think about how we can we enable digital lenders to better meet the needs of SME’s. What regulations, consumer protections and standards do we need to put in place that will allow this industry to grow sustainably? Not just lending small traders but also possibly to larger SME’s enabling them to meet their own short-term finance needs.

Secondly, governments should start thinking about investing rather than trying to push banks to give out loans. In a previous post urging a rethink of industrialisation policy on the continent, I talked about the U.S. Governments Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program to facilitate the flow of long-term capital to America’s small businesses. The SBIC either directly invests or facilitates private capital investment into Small businesses. Crucially these investments are long term giving small business the opportunity, capital and time to grow. Though it has lost money on some investments its investments in companies like Apple, FedEx, and Whole foods outweigh any losses made through the profits, jobs, Intellectual property and innovation that have brought trillions of dollars’ worth of wealth to the US economy. African governments must show the same willingness to invest in African businesses as the private sector (banks and investors) have not done so yet and we cannot sit around hoping it will. Public agencies with a clear mandate to invest or encourage investment in SME’s which show potential for growth will have hits and misses, not every investment is a success. But every investment like this is a positive bet in the future of your country and its citizens, it’s a sign to others that there is a path for them too, but most of all it puts public money where it could do real good not locked in a bank vault.

Making things just a little easier

Teddy Roosevelt once said that “Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty.” The same applies to running an SME in Africa. Business is not for the faint-hearted, nor should it be, but neither should it be filled with potentially moveable obstacles that make It nearly impossible to succeed. Africa’s SME sector is astounding. It has survived natural disasters and the disaster that has been government policy and ignorance of small businesses. If SME’s are to not just survive but thrive it will require governments to adopt policies that make things just a little easier for them outside of the easing of access to credit.

The first of those policies is a tax. Africa’s tax systems tend to be overly complex and burdensome. With businesses often having to pay multiple taxes, that they can ill afford. Simplifying tax systems to be coherent and so simple, so that they can be understood and paid easily should be a priority. If not, many SME’s will either avoid paying taxes or struggle under the burden of being law abiding citizens.

Second, trust. A public register where key information about companies is available to banks, lenders, governments, investors, customers, etc. to have some trust in the credibility and trustworthiness of these companies.

Third would by altering our laws, specifically our employment laws to fit the reality of SME’s and labour in Africa rather than acting as if all employers were large corporations. I have written more extensively on that here.

Finally, is training and networking. Facilitating the training around financing, marketing and tax/regulatory compliance could equip SME’s with tools they need to succeed and enable them to make better use of the funds they do manage to get. Networking is simple, merely using the government’s power to bring people together, to bring SME’s, investors, financiers and potential customers together, and letting them do their thing.

Creating the right environment need not be complex, a few concrete policy actions from the government would act as a stimulus to SME’s and those that may provide credit to them, making things just a little bit easier.

Conclusion

SME’s are the lifeblood of African economies. They provide livelihoods to hundreds of millions around the continent, and alongside agriculture, they are the key that will unlock Africa’s economic potential. To do that they will need access to credit. Thus far efforts to improve credit provision to SME’s on the continent have not been as successful as hoped. This calls for some new thinking; thinking based on a deeper understanding of the challenges facing SME’s. New thinking about how we can move beyond the limitations of banks to harness new technologies and approaches to provide credit to Africa’s SME’s. And to Identify and implement the key policy interventions that governments can make to provide the right environment in which SME’s can thrive.

If we get this right, if we can get SME’s to thrive, then Africa Rising won’t be an old meme but a future reality.

[1] https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/REGION__EXT_Content/Regions/Sub-Saharan+Africa/Advisory+Services/SustainableBusiness/SME_Initiatives/

Africa needs taxes not aid

Revenue collection is the one which can emancipate us from begging, from disturbing friends… if we can get about 22 percent of GDP we should not need to disturb anybody by asking for aid….instead of coming here to bother you, give me this, give me this, I shall come here to greet you, to trade with you. – Yoweri Museveni, President of Uganda

In 2014 Zambia exported 59% of its copper to Switzerland, yet a look at Switzerland’s import and export statistics shows that they barely imported any copper and barely anything from Zambia[1], it is likely that most of this copper ends up going to China or other markets. What’s happening is that mining companies operating in Zambia are taking advantage of transfer pricing. Transfer pricing is where a subsidiary of a multinational company from one jurisdiction sells goods or services to a subsidiary of the same multinational company in another jurisdiction. Multinationals will most often use transfer pricing to shift profits into tax havens and low tax countries such as Switzerland. In the case of Zambia’s copper, mining companies such as Glencore sells copper mined in Zambia by its Zambia based subsidiary to the company’s trading arm incorporated in Switzerland at lower than market prices. The Swiss based trading arm then sells on the copper to the world market at market prices. The results of the transaction will mean that Glencore’s Zambia subsidiary will generate lower profits, minimising the tax payable to the Zambian authorities, while Glencore’s Swiss trading arm will generate the majority of the profits from the sale of copper, making these profits taxable in Switzerland, which as stated earlier is a low tax country. This strategy isn’t illegal, but what it does is minimise the taxes that are paid to the Zambian government and maximise the profits that these companies can make.

What happens to copper profits and taxes in Zambia is neither new nor unique. The UN economic commission for Africa High Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows[2] estimates that “over the last 50 years, Africa is estimated to have lost over 1 trillion dollars in illicit financial flows, this is roughly equivalent to all of the official development assistance received by Africa over the same timeframe.”  Currently, they estimate Africa is losing more than $50 billion annually which is double the aid that Africa receives per year.

Across the continent African governments are once again getting caught in a debt trap (you can read a previous post on that here)  and are struggling to raise revenue and are having to increase taxes on the poor and working classes. In South Africa the latest budget included a 1% rise in VAT among others, Niger is currently experiencing mass protests against new tax raises on common goods, Kenya , Zambia and other nations across the continent are considering or implementing similar tax hikes. These measures will hit the poor hardest as they will raise the prices of the goods such as fuel, food and clothing that they need the most.

Not only is Africa getting bilked of its taxes, African governments are trying to make up the difference on the backs of the poor. This needs to change, multinational corporations and international investors will be a part of Africa’s growth story and they will (or already are) make fantastic profits from it, it is only fair that Africans get their fair share. And now is the perfect time to enact policies that would give Africa a fair share. Across the world tax evasion is key issue, Europe is cracking down on tech companies that use tax avoidance strategies, and three years ago the G20 vowed to fight tax avoidance[3]. Rather than swimming against the tide, Africa would likely have allies in a quest to implement fair taxes.

Tax revenues and profits where they are made

Recently the EU proposed a new technology tax. For several years EU countries have been trying to deal with a tax avoidance problem, like Zambian copper, big multinationals would base their intellectual property in tax havens and have their European subsidiaries pay “royalties” for use the of it, essentially transferring profits made in Europe to tax havens. The most prolific users of this strategy have been the technology companies and thus the EU has decided to propose a 3% tax on the revenue generated made by these companies in the EU as opposed to profits. The main idea behind this tax is that companies should be taxed in the country’s where revenues and profits are made and not in tax havens, providing a simple solution that African countries should adopt.

Make taxes simpler; the Norwegian example

In the 1970s Norway started exporting oil and gas, in the 40 years since this industry has added over 1.1 trillion dollars to the Norwegian economy, which is almost the size of the combined economies of Sub-Saharan Africa. In 1990 Norway established a sovereign wealth fund to invest its oil revenues today it is now worth over 1 trillion dollars. One of the key tools they have used to benefit from their natural resources is tax, in Norway, companies drilling for North Sea oil pay a 78% tax rate on income, though it includes deductions for losses and investment they are simple and easily implemented and assessed by the government. In addition, Norway taxes entities not specific assets, once again this simplifies the system considerably (you can read more about Norwegian petroleum taxes here).

By contrast if you looked at laws or production sharing contracts around Africa on mining or oil and gas, they are complex, and contain different types of taxes levied on the companies, the mineral, the license etc. This complexity allows these tax systems to be gamed and avoided. African policy makers would do well to look at how Norway taxes the companies that extract its oil and gas and consider a similar system. A system that is simple, easily enforced and taxes the extractives industry on our terms. If we did this Africa could finally be in a position to get significant taxes from the extractives industry and like Norway plough those profits back into the continent.

Expand expertise

This policy is simple, but its subject matter is not. The global tax system and strategies used by multinational corporations are incredibly complex. Companies employ armies of lawyers and accountants to look for loopholes and provisions that will allow them to lower their tax bill, and African countries cannot match up. Thus, on this issue African nations need to come together and the AU or Africa Development Bank (AfDB) provides the perfect venue for doing so, to create an African Tax Centre. This is not a new notion, the AfDB already has the African Natural Resources Center, which was created to help African countries build capacity in natural resource management.   The African Tax Centre could have a similar mission consisting of two goals, first to pool African expertise on taxes and assist national governments in identifying and stopping tax avoidance and second to help train and build the capacity of African revenue collection authorities. Over time as the capacity of African countries to administer and collect taxes increases they will be able to close off the avenues used by multinational corporations to avoid African taxes.

More Taxes less dependency

Taxes are a decidedly unsexy topic and bore most of us senseless. However, they are crucially important, the roads, schools, hospitals and police services that Africa needs must be funded somehow. For too long Africa has relied on aid and debt to provide a substantial portion of this funding, but aid comes with conditionalities set by foreign powers and can only be spent on things they deem important, and debt if not wisely used or with a bit of bad luck can be more burdensome than helpful. The only other option is taxes, but African governments must change their tax focus, today most African countries collect their revenues from those fortunate enough to have formal employment and Value Added Taxes, these taxes place their burden on those who can least afford it, meanwhile global corporations and investors are spiriting away over 50 billion dollars of prospective revenue. It is time for Africa to adopt policies that would end these practices, by taxing profits where they are made, reforming extractives taxes to be simpler and more effective and building the expertise needed to close the loopholes.

Africa is the final frontier of the commercial world. Over the last two decades big multinationals have sought to tap into the African market in technology, telecoms, mining, agriculture, healthcare (the list goes on), which are all very profitable now and will only get more so. The world both needs the resources under Africa’s soil and wants to take advantage of one of the world’s last untapped markets, thus the business case for doing business on the continent will not disappear as some people ominously warn whenever the prospect of higher and more efficient taxes are raised.

If Africa is ever to choose its own development path, if it is to decide its own destiny, it will not be done through depending on the generosity of others, it will be through its own money. If there is one policy Africa should be able to get behind it is that Africa needs taxes not aid.

[1]https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CHE/Year/2016/TradeFlow/EXPIMP/Partner/all/Product/72-83_Metals

[2] https://www.uneca.org/iff

[3] http://www.oecd.org/tax/g20-finance-ministers-endorse-reforms-to-the-international-tax-system-for-curbing-avoidance-by-multinational-enterprises.htm

Interest rate caps could work and be a good thing

Despite what the IMF, World Bank, Kenya Bankers Association and various private sector organisations say (as well as free market logic), interest caps can be a good thing, if done right they could actually give people access to affordable credit, but that can only happen if governments around Africa stop borrowing as much as they have been.

In August 2016 president Uhuru Kenyatta signed into law legislation that capped the interest rates charged by Kenyan banks to 4% above the Central Bank of Kenya’s (CBK) benchmark rate. This means that if you were to go to a bank in Kenya to apply for a loan today the interest rate charged would not be more than 14%, which is 4% above the CBK’s benchmark rate of 10%.

While it was a drastic step, it was a long one coming. Kenyans had long been frustrated by banks charging exorbitant interest rates often 10 or more percentage points above the CBK benchmark rate. The Donde Bill of 2000 similarly capped interest rates but was neutered by the courts, and another similar law was stopped in 2013 because of heavy lobbying by the banks in parliament. In 2016 the public had, had enough and MPs (with an election around the corner) were listening and the bill was passed, somewhat unexpectedly the president signed the law.

The consequences of the rate cap

The consequences of the law have been significant. First and most significant is that banks have severely cut lending to the private sector, with credit growth falling ominously (Figure 1) meaning that borrowers particularly small businesses have been unable to access credit, meaning that not only can they not invest in further growth they also cannot use credit to supplement working capital [1],  while ordinary households have been unable to get mortgages and car loans. This effect has been cited by people like the IMF, World Bank and the Kenya National Chamber of Commerce and industry as a cause of Kenya’s recent economic slowdown.

Figure 1 – growth of private sector growth in Kenya

Secondly, in response to falling profits from interest rates banks have cut costs, significantly. In 2016 banks in Kenya retrenched over 1000 workers (approx. 1.6% of the financial services workforce in the country), and aggressively pushed digital platforms in order to cut down on more expensive physical infrastructure (bank branches, ATM’s etc)

The third and most important thing is how banks have been making their profits. Instead of lending to people and businesses they have been lending to the government. Banks have shifted their money to buying treasury bills, which are short term loans the government takes to cover its expenses on an ongoing basis, and they are making a lot of money while doing it. The logic is simple, why lend to individuals and private businesses, where you have to spend time and money assessing each applicant for their risk and run the risk that they might not pay you back. Its much easier to lend money to the government and though the interest rates may be lower, the volumes are very large and the government will not default, essentially guaranteeing profit. This is all enabled by a government with a never-ending appetite for more and more money, the Kenya governments debts have soared over the last year and here lies the problem.  The rate cap will never achieve the goals it was meant to – making loans cheaper for ordinary Kenyan business and people – if banks can simply lend to the government and still make huge profits. On the back of this there are increasing calls on the government to repeal the rate capping laws to ‘restore’ private sector credit and boost the economy.

This would, in my view, be the wrong approach, it would simply take Kenya back to the position it was in before. Banks would be charging people and businesses blatantly usurious interest rates for loans while continuing to lend to a government with the financial appetite of a black hole, in the process making enormous profits.

Making rate caps work

Repealing the laws would be a step backwards. The focus should be on making the laws do what they were supposed to do, to which the key is stopping government borrowing so much money. The rate capping law has been a godsend for a government borrowing from every willing lender, the law made the banks much more willing to lend to the government and avoid the effects of the law.

If government appetites for borrowing money could be curbed, then the interest rate caps could work. Eventually the banks will run out of costs to cut, without treasury bills as a source of endless profits, they would have to do what banks are supposed to do, lend. Rather than caving to pressure from banks and international financial institutions (again) the top policy makers at the Kenyan treasury need to start thinking about the people the laws were meant to serve and not the accounting books in front of them.

Rate caps around the continent

Kenya is not the only country on the continent facing the problem of how to improve and increase private sector lending. Across the continent, access to credit is a major hurdle faced by businesses (figure 2)

Figure 2 Percentage of Firms Identifying Access to Finance as a Major Constraint[2]

Without credit small businesses are stuck as they cannot get the funds to operate and grow, Africa may talk glowingly about its entrepreneurial spirit but without a finance industry willing to lend to them the reality will never meet the high hopes. If rate caps can be made to work it would stand as a model that other African countries can follow, it will show that with a simple law you can fundamentally change the dynamic in the financial sector that will force banks to serve their customers, something that free market economics has been unable to do. Giving African households, businesses and entrepreneurs access to affordable could be truly game changing and contribute to solving a range of problems from housing shortages to unemployment to the high rate of failures among SME’s. However, for affordable credit to become available lawmakers and policy makers need to be bold and force the financial industry to serve Africans and that will require policy, regulation and law. For these types of laws to work it will require the government to curb its appetite to spend and borrow as much as it can get away with, something we haven’t yet quite figured out how to do.

 

[1] For many businesses flows of income do not exactly match their spending (e.g. salary must be paid monthly but clients have 60 days to pay you)

[2] https://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/afdb-calls-on-credit-providers-to-increase-lending-to-meet-demand-by-african-msmes-17138/