This chapter describes the general picture and distribution of financing for transport connectivity. It covers modes of transport, development partners, regions, income level groups, and recipient countries, by comparing official development finance and private investment. Specifically, while developing countries finance the majority of their transport connectivity, the private sector committed on average USD 52 billion per annum in 2014-2015. In comparison, development partners reporting to the Development Assistance Committee committed USD 15 billion. In general, development partners and the private sector appear to have different focus - the former are mainly Asia and Africa or low-income countries and lower middle-income countries while the latter are Latin America and Europe or upper middle-income countries. However, the amounts of private investment mobilised by development finance institutions and international finance institutions are relatively small and usually in countries that tend to have high private investment in transport connectivity, which raises the question of development additionality. As such, development partners could explore effective ways to help improve the enabling environment to attract private investment to fill the large financing gap for transport connectivity, particularly in low-income countries and lower middle‑income countries.
Enhancing Connectivity through Transport Infrastructure
Chapter 3. Finance for transport connectivity
Abstract
The total amounts of ODF and private investment for transport connectivity
In 2014-2015, development partners reporting to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC)’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) committed on average USD 15 billion per annum for transport connectivity projects in developing countries. This was equivalent to approximately 54% of official development finance (ODF) for transport in general.1 In comparison, the private sector invested on average USD 52 billion per annum, which includes domestic and foreign investment (See Annex A. Technical notes). In other words, the private sector spent more than triple the amount of development partners on transport connectivity (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1. Total ODF commitment and private investment for transport connectivity
Note: 2014-2015 annual average, USD billions in current prices.
Source: WBG (2017a), Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) database, https://ppi.worldbank.org/; Dealogic Projectware database; OECD (2017), Aid Activities - Creditor Reporting System, http://stats.oecd.org/BrandedView.aspx?oecd_bv_id=dev-data-en&doi=data-00061-en.
Distribution by transport mode
With respect to modes of transport connectivity (i.e. road, railway, airport, and port), both ODF and private investment was directed significantly towards roads (see Figure 3.2), probably since there are more roads than other modes of transport in general, which offers abundant opportunities for spending and investment. In particular, as far as the private sector is concerned, roads can generate revenues through collecting toll fees, notably under public-private partnerships (PPPs), even though they require significant upfront investments and maintenance. This may at first appear as if development partners would crowd out the private sector in roads; however, by examining the recipient countries, it becomes clear that they financed mostly low‑income countries (LICs) and lower middle‑income countries (LMICs) in Africa and Asia, while the private sector invested in roads mostly in upper middle‑income countries (UMICs) and Latin America.
Figure 3.2. ODF commitment and private investment for transport connectivity by transport mode
Note: 2014-2015 annual average; current prices.
Source: See Figure 3.1.
For the other modes of transport, development partners focused more on ports and railways - where private investment was small - and less on airports. In particular, they allocated a higher proportion of ODF to railway than the private sector, which made very little investment due to its low profit margins and large operating costs (AfDB, 2015). On the contrary, the private sector invested heavily in airports in 2014-15. This could be due to the relatively high profitability of airports with passenger and landing charges as well as non-aeronautical sources such as retail and rental car concessions, car parking, and real estate income (ACI, 2015).
The different preferences of ODF and private investment with respect to transport mode is further shown in Figure 3.3, as i.e., the vast majority of financing to airport was private investment, while most of the financing for railway in 2014-2015 was ODF. However, only a few bilateral development partners among the DAC financed long-distance railways, while the World Bank Group (WBG) and the Asian Development Bank (AsDB) notably accounted for roughly 85% of all railway projects.
Figure 3.3. The share of ODF commitment and private investment in each transport mode
Note: 2014-2015 annual average, USD billions in current prices.
Source: See Figure 3.1.
At the same time, media and other sources report that numerous Chinese state‑owned enterprises are taking the lead in financing major railway projects, particularly in Africa, as part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) launched in 2013. For example, China, together with other development partners such as the African Development Bank (AfDB), supports the modernisation of railways in Nigeria and Lagos, the construction of the Mombasa–Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway, and establishment of a new rail line in Tanzania (Brookings, 2017; New York Times, 2017; Reuters, 2017). Although data and official information on China’s finance to other developing countries is difficult to obtain, it appears that China generally funds long distance railway projects where traditional bilateral development partners and the private sector do not invest in heavily.
Top development partners
As mentioned above, ODF for transport connectivity amounted to an annual average of USD 15 billion in 2014-2015 by 33 development partners reporting to the DAC. Of this amount, 75% was financed by multilateral development banks and other international organisations,2 while 25% was by bilaterals. As transport connectivity projects often involve large scale construction across long distances, multilateral development banks tend to be better placed than bilaterals to finance and co-ordinate these projects, owing to their sizable loans and multi‑country presence. As such, the top development partners were mostly multilateral development banks except for Japan and Korea, as shown in Figure 3.4. The WBG was the largest, with commitments amounting to USD 4.5 billion. In fact, WBG and AsDB together financed almost half of all transport connectivity projects. In terms of flow type, 48% of the total amount was concessional (i.e. official development assistance, ODA) and 52% non-concessional (i.e. other official flows, OOF), with some development partners committing exclusively the former or the latter and others financing a mixture of the two.
Figure 3.4. Top 10 development partners of ODF commitment for transport connectivity
Note: 2014-2015 annual average, USD billions in current prices.
Source: OECD (2017), Aid Activities - Creditor Reporting System, http://stats.oecd.org/BrandedView.aspx?oecd_bv_id=dev-data-en&doi=data-00061-en.
In addition to the development partners that report to the DAC, it is estimated that China committed approximately USD 8 billion a year on average to transport connectivity projects in 2014-2015 (see China’s profile in Chapter 4). However, most of these financing could be preferential export buyer’s credits, even though some recipient countries treat them as ODA (JICA-Research Institute, 2017). Thus, it is not appropriate to compare this amount with the ODF by other development partners, which excludes officially supported export credits.
Recipients: Regions, income level and countries
With respect to the regional distribution of transport connectivity, Figure 3.5 shows that development partners committed ODF mostly in Asia and Africa and much less in Latin America and Europe in 2014-15. However, the proportions of ODF allocated were more or less similar to the shares of developing country population. On the contrary, the private sector invested mostly in Latin America and Europe while almost none in Africa. This may appear as if development partners were compensating for the relatively small private investments in Asia and Africa. Conversely, others view that it could actually be the result of development partners having crowded out private investments in the poorer regions.
Figure 3.5. ODF commitment and private investment for transport connectivity by region
Note: 2014-2015 annual average; current prices. Population only includes data of ODA recipient countries. Data for projects in Oceania and Caribbean are included in Asia and Latin America respectively.
Source: See Figure 3.1; UN (2017), World Population Prospects – The 2017 Revision: Key findings & advance tables, United Nations, New York, https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf.
Disaggregating by income level of recipient countries, Figure 3.6 shows that development partners allocated higher shares of ODF to LICs and LMICs than the private sector. On the other hand, the vast majority of private investments for transport connectivity were made in UMICs and very little in LMICs and LICs. This is also consistent with Figure 3.5 which showed that most private investments were directed to the Americas and Europe and none to Africa. In fact, the share of development partner allocation towards LICs - a third of ODF - is higher than its share of population among developing countries which is 10%. In this respect, development partners may be compensating for the lack of private investment in LICs by financing transport connectivity projects in countries that are perceived as too risky by the private sector, although some may argue that ODF could also be crowding out private investment in LMICs and LICs.
Figure 3.6. ODF commitment and private investment for transport connectivity by income level
Note: 2014-2015 annual average; current prices. Only allocable ODF is included (i.e. excluding ODF for regions instead of a specific country).
Source: See Figure 3.5.
The difference in the focus between ODF and private investment is further evidenced in Figure 3.7, which shows that ODF was significant in LICs, but private investment accounted for only 6%; conversely, in UMICs, ODF accounted for only 6% while the majority was private investment. However, the total amount of ODF and private investment to UMICs for transport connectivity dwarfed that of other income groups, as it was equivalent to 5 and 10 times the total financing to LMICs and LICs respectively.
Figure 3.7. The share of ODF commitment and private investment in each income group
Note: 2014-2015 annual average, USD billions in current prices.
Source: See Figure 3.1.
The top countries with the highest amounts of ODF and private investment for transport connectivity (Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9) broadly corroborates the distribution by income group mentioned above. For example, for ODF, three were LICs and six were LMICs, all in Africa and Asia, except Ukraine and Bolivia. Here, India was by far the largest ODF recipient. In general, ODF to LMICs and UMICs such as India, China, Egypt, Ukraine, and Morocco was mostly non-concessional, while for LICs such as Kenya and Ethiopia, it was mostly concessional. On the other hand, for private investment, eight were UMICs and two were LMICs, mostly in the Americas. In particular, Turkey received the highest amount of private investment of more than USD 20 billion a year.
Figure 3.8. Top 10 recipients of ODF commitment for transport connectivity
Note: 2014-2015 annual average, USD billions in current prices.
Source: See Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.9. Top 10 countries with the most private investment for transport connectivity
Note: 2014-2015 annual average, USD billions in current prices.
Source: WBG (2017), Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) database, https://ppi.worldbank.org/; Dealogic Projectware database.
In sum, development partners and the private sector generally have different preferences in financing transport connectivity projects. While development partners finance railways and ports, especially in LMICs and LICs in Asia and Africa, the private sector invest mostly in airports and roads in UMICs in the Americas and Europe where the investment climates are perceived as less risky. Development partners also provide significant support to roads, but mostly in countries with little private investment in that subsector.
Rio-marked ODF projects for transport connectivity for climate mitigation and adaptation
Of the transport connectivity projects in 2014-2015, only a third of the USD 15 billion for transport connectivity or half the projects were Rio-marked for climate objectives, which points to issues of imperfect reporting. Among the Rio-marked projects, only 21% of the amount or USD 1 billion was marked as targeting climate change, with the remaining 79% marked as not incorporating any climate objectives. Of the amount that was Rio-marked as climate mitigation or adaptation, 59% was financed by Japan and 28% by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). As these two are not the largest development partners in transport connectivity, this may further indicate the incomplete reporting of the Rio Markers by some development partners.
Of the Rio-marked projects, 16% was for adaptation and 5% for mitigation—unlike the energy sector, which is mostly marked for mitigation. However, there are differences according to the transport mode, as adaptation is mostly carried out in port and road while mitigation is in airport and railway (see Figure 3.10). The projects that were marked for adaptation is generally aimed at strengthening the resilience against the effects of climate change, including natural disasters, notably in the Pacific Island Countries. For instance, New Zealand and AsDB supported the construction of a new inter-island shipping terminal in Vanuatu, which was resilient to cyclones and earthquakes (AsDB, 2015). The United Kingdom and the AsDB, on the other hand, committed to finance the construction and upgrading of motorways in Pakistan to minimise erosion and planting shrubs to stabilise the soil (DFID, 2017). Other projects by various development partners involved improving soft aspects, such as operating practices and standards relating to climate adaptation.
Figure 3.10. ODF commitment for transport connectivity projects targeting climate mitigation or adaptation
Note: 2014-2015 annual average, USD billions in current prices.
Source: See Figure 3.4.
In contrast, most climate mitigation projects were in airport and railway projects. An example of the former is JICA’s introduction of energy-saving air conditioning and water systems in the construction of a new terminal in Nadzab Airport of Papua New Guinea (JICA, 2015). Similarly, Germany supported ASEAN member states to establish measurement, indicators, as well as reporting and verification systems to monitor greenhouse gas emissions in land transport sectors, especially for regional and national road freight transportation and logistics (GIZ, 2018).
ODF using private sector instruments and mobilisation
Aside from providing sovereign loans, development partners - mainly development finance institutions (DFIs) and international finance institutions (IFIs) - use private sector instruments (PSI) such as loans, equity, and guarantees to de-risk private investments for transport connectivity. The objective is to mobilise financial resources from the private sector to fill the gap in financing for development. In 2014-2015, annual average ODF through PSI for transport connectivity by DFIs and IFIs that reported to the DAC amounted to USD 770 million3, which was equivalent to 5% of total ODF for this area.
As an example of loans, the OPEC Fund for International Development provided USD 6 billion to the Pakistan International Bulk Terminal Limited to support the design, construction and management of a multi-purpose terminal for bulk cargo handling and storage at Port Qasim (OECD, 2017). As for equity, Norfund provided USD 8 million to a multinational supply chain logistics company based in East Africa (see Box 3.1). Norfund priorities equity investment as the agency considers it the scarcest type of capital in most developing countries, especially for local small and medium sized enterprises.
Box 3.1. Norfund’s Investment in Freight in Time Co., Ltd. in Kenya
Freight in Time (FiT) is a family-run supply chain logistics company, founded in 1998, that provides distribution and services in sea and air transport, import brokerage, project cargo, express and courier, and warehousing. Headquartered in Nairobi, it has established presence in eight East African countries. In this context, Norfund provided FiT with approximately USD 8 million of equity and loans to facilitate the expansion of the company’s supply chain logistics and distribution. In particular, Norfund will support the company in building new warehousing facilities to meet increased demand from new major clients, such as the American logistics giant, United Parcel Service. In particular, FiT’s plan on increasing the availability and capacity of temperature-controlled warehousing facilities responds to one of Norfund’s objectives of investing in the region’s agribusiness value chains through efficient logistic solutions in the agriculture sector.
Beyond financial support, Norfund also provides guidance for the long-term as a board member with a significant minority stake through the equity investment. In particular, it will help promote good corporate governance standards to this family business, transforming it into a professionally run enterprise.
Source: Norfund (2017), Investment details: Freight in Tim, https://www.norfund.no/investment etails/freight-in-time-article10638-1042.html.
In terms of guarantees, many DFIs and IFIs provide credit guarantees that cover project investments regardless of the reasons for the borrowers’ default. In particular, MDBs are able to offer long-term guarantees, which is especially important for complex projects that may not generate returns for several years. For example, AsDB, alongside the state-run company India Infrastructure Finance, guaranteed the repayment of 24% of a 12-year bond of US 59 million from a toll-road project in Andhra Pradesh (IFRAsia, 2013). Some other guarantees are provided to cover project investments against political risks, typically by the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). For instance, it covered USD 145 million for the PPP construction project of the 1.5 km Henri Konan Bedié toll bridge in Côte d’Ivoire for a period of 15 years. In general, MIGA covers investments against political risks of transfer restriction, expropriation, war and conflict disturbances, and so on (WBG, 2015).
In addition to the above PSIs, MDBs try to mobilise private sector resources through innovative financing mechanisms, such as Islamic finance, debt conversion, lines of credits and so on (World Bank et al, 2015). For instance, according to AsDB, its financial intermediary lending modality for infrastructure investments - a type of blended finance mechanism—has helped catalyse substantial private sector investments in PPP projects. Specifically, its support of USD 2 billion to the India Infrastructure Finance Company Limited has funded over 60 PPP interventions and mobilised over USD 24 billion from the private sector, notably involving projects in Delhi and Mumbai Airports. Furthermore, DFIs and IFIs support green bonds in the transport sector; however, they are often issued for urban transport, which is less risky compared to large-scale regional transport projects and easier to measure the environmental impact.
In this context, several surveys and studies have been conducted to better capture the amounts of private investment mobilised by development partners. For example, a joint report by MDBs (World Bank et al., 2017) showed that USD 7 billion was directly mobilised for infrastructure projects in general in 2016. More specifically, calculation from a DAC survey4 (Benn et al, 2017) on mobilisation estimates that on average approximately USD 820 million per annum was mobilised from the private sector in 2014 and 2015 for transport connectivity. Of this amount, the majority was mobilised through syndicated loans and guarantees—roughly half each. Specifically, most of the mobilisation through guarantees was by MIGA, while most through syndicated loans was by Overseas Private Investment Corporation of the United States, EBRD and Inter-American Development Bank (IADB).
In terms of distribution in modes of transport, a high share of mobilisation took place in roads, similar to the distribution of ODF and overall private investment (Figure 3.11). On the other hand, a significant proportion was mobilised for ports, where overall private investment was relatively low. As for regions and income level, mobilisation was highest in the Americas and in UMICs, akin to the distribution of private investment. Further breakdown shows that Mexico, Turkey, Colombia and Peru were among the top 10 countries of mobilisation while also being the top 10 recipient countries of private investment for transport connectivity. However, the amounts mobilised from the private sector to transport connectivity by DFIs or IFIs are generally small—specifically, in Turkey, Colombia and Peru, they were equivalent to 0.3%, 0.4% and 5% of the total private investment for transport connectivity, respectively.
Figure 3.11. Private investment mobilised through PSI by transport mode, region, and income level
Note: 2014-2015 annual average; current prices.
Source: Benn et al, (2017), “Amounts Mobilised from the Private Sector by Official Development Finance Interventions: Guarantees, syndicated loans, shares in collective investment vehicles, direct investment in companies, credit lines”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 36, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/8135abde-en.n
The above implies that, firstly, DFIs/IFIs mobilise finance from the private sector for transport connectivity in countries that tend to have relatively high private investment in this area, namely UMICs and in the Americas. Secondly, the mobilised amounts are generally a fraction of the amount of private investment for transport connectivity. However, it is possible that, within the same countries, the institutions could be mobilising private investment in the poorer geographical areas where the private sector will not invest without the intervention. Nevertheless, it raises the question of how to mobilise private investment in LMICs or LICs where there could be foregone opportunities for profit. This issue of development additionally and effectiveness deserves further examination.
As mentioned above, the estimated amount of PSI committed by development partners totalled USD 770 million per year for transport connectivity projects in 2014-2015. Although the amount does not include guarantees as they are not flows and the data sources are different, if one compares this amount with the approximately USD 820 million mobilised from the private sector for transport connectivity by ODF interventions, leveraging may not be very high. Assuming that this is the case, it would be necessary to explore ways to enhance the effectiveness of mobilisation as a more general issue of development finance. In this context, the current effort to modernise the DAC’s statistical collection by, inter alia, better capturing PSI and mobilised flows from the private sector would be an essential basis for further analysis and discussion.
Filling the financing gap for transport connectivity
Based on estimates by Brookings et al (2015), the authors of this report calculated the current amount of annual spending for transport connectivity, which totalled roughly USD 315 billion. Of this amount, developing country governments financed around 80%, the private sector around 15% and development partners reporting to the DAC around 5% through ODF (see Figure 3.12). If the repayments of ODF loans for transport connectivity projects are subtracted from the commitments by these development partners, their share would be reduced to 3%.
Furthermore, members of the OECD Export Credit Group also financed on average USD 940 million per year for transport connectivity in developing countries, in the form of direct credit, guarantee or insurance. Of this amount, around 70% was allocated to railway projects in LICs and UMICs, followed by ports at 18% in UMICs and LMICs, and airports at 13% mostly in LICs. Although export credits may indirectly contribute to development, they are provided for commercial purposes in order to promote national exports. As such, export credits are not part of ODF.
Figure 3.12. Estimates on current annual spending for transport connectivity by different financiers and the annual investment gap
Note: In USD. See further details on calculation and estimates in Annex A Technical Notes.
Source: Estimates based on Brookings et al (2015), Driving Sustainable Development through Better Infrastructure: Key Elements of a Transformation Program, The Brookings Institution, the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, the New Climate Economy and the Grantham Research Institute, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/07-sustainable-development-infrastructure-v2.pdf.
In addition to those that report to the DAC, it is estimated that China committed on average approximately USD 8 billion a year to transport connectivity projects in 2014-2015, which included preferential export buyer’s credits, loans and grants (See Chapter 4 on China’s profile). However, this amount should be interpreted with caution since it is constrained by data-related gaps and challenges. More in general, further work to verify and collect financial statistics by other development partners, private investors, and developing country governments for transport connectivity infrastructure would be necessary for more accuracy.
Within these limitations, the authors estimate that there remains an annual financing gap of approximately USD 440 billion for transport connectivity infrastructure to meet the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 (Figure 3.12). Here, as stipulated in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), developing country governments bear the primary responsibility for their own economic and social development. Therefore, in order to fill this gap, developing country governments can first and foremost strengthen their tax system and financial management capacity to mobilise more domestic resources. This endeavour is especially important for African countries since they generally receive relatively low external private finance such as foreign direct investment (FDI)—the continent received around only 5% of total annual FDI in the world in the past five years (UNCTAD, 2017). In this respect, development partners could provide capacity building for developing countries in revenue collection and public financial management in general.
In addition, development partners could assist developing countries in managing resources specifically in the transport sector or maximise value for money. For example, they could encourage adequate maintenance of the existing infrastructure, so as to ensure the efficiency of operations and to minimise the need to replace it with new construction, especially in African LDCs. This is because regular maintenance is crucial for service delivery in the short term and for cost reduction in the long run. In this respect, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has helped the Afghan Ministry of Public Works establish a governmental road authority and a fund by implementing road-user fees to fund operations and maintenance (USAID, 2016).
Moreover, development partners can increase the financing for transport connectivity through helping improve the enabling environment for private investment more generally. While much emphasis has been placed in the AAAA on mobilising private finance, the amount and share that has actually been mobilised by DFIs/IFIs for transport connectivity remains relatively small - equivalent to 2% of the total private investment, as shown above. In particular, mobilisation is minimal in LICs, owing to higher risks and uncertainties.
In fact, the WBG’s Cascade Approach, which is a systematic method to leverage private finance in a cost-effective manner, indicates that, when there is inadequate commercial finance, the priority for support should be in helping improve the enabling environment by enacting upstream reforms and tackling market failures. However, if this support is not effective, with risks remaining high, guarantees and risk-sharing instruments should be deployed. Finally, in the case when market solutions are not possible through sector reforms and risk-mitigation, official and public resources should be provided (WBG, 2017b).
In this context, development partners committed on average USD 95 billion in 2014-2015 to help enhance private investment and private sector development, on top of transport connectivity (see Figure 3.13). Of this amount, USD 38 billion was allocated to other infrastructure areas such as urban transport, communication, energy and water supply. The remaining USD 57 billion funded general policy areas related to the enabling environment or investment climate, such as dispute resolution, anti-corruption, taxation, land rights and labour rights, as well as productive capacity building in agriculture, fisheries and manufacturing. The support also targeted financial and business intermediary services which are necessary for companies to boost production and distribution of goods and services. For instance, AsDB has been focusing on the development of the financial sector - especially debt and equity capital markets - by leveraging the substantial savings in Asia.
Figure 3.13. ODF commitment for private sector development
Note: 2014-2015 annual average, USD billions in current prices.
Source: See Figure 3.4.
Finally, it is important to determine what kind of reforms and projects work best in addressing the enabling environment to attract private investment in different situations. For example, for airport and port sectors, regulatory reforms and appropriate price setting that would provide greater certainty for costs could help increase private participation since their end-users are mainly corporates or commercial clients (OECD, 2016). In addition, when there is strong commitment by the host government to attract private investment or to a particular transport connectivity project, providing capacity building to meet the government’s specific needs could be effective. Therefore, development co-operation in helping improve the enabling environment to enhance private participation for transport connectivity projects should be tailored to specific contexts. Nevertheless, assisting in reforms and building capacities is a long-term endeavour that requires strong collaboration and patience on the part of development partners, developing country governments, the private sector, civil society, and other stakeholders.
References
ACI (2015), 2015 ACI Airport Economics Report: A Comprehensive View of the Industry's 2014 Financial Performance - Preview Edition, Airports Council International, http://www.aci.aero/media/40668803-c552-4df1-a6aa-896de03ce933/mZG4Hg/Publications/Preview%20Editions%20and%20TOC/2015%20ACI%20Airport%20Economics%20Report_Preview_FINAL_WEB.pdf.
AfDB (2015), Rail Infrastructure in Africa: Financing Policy Options, Transport, Urban Development & ICT Department, African Development Bank, https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Events/ATFforum/Rail_Infrastructure_in_Africa_-_Financing_Policy_Options_-_AfDB.pdf.
AsDB (2015), Project Administration Manual, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/154870/42392-014-pam.pdf.
Benn, J., C. Sangaré and T. Hos (2017), “Amounts Mobilised from the Private Sector by Official Development Finance Interventions: Guarantees, syndicated loans, shares in collective investment vehicles, direct investment in companies, credit lines”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 36, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/8135abde-en.
Brookings (2017), China and the East Africa railways: Beyond full industry chain export, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2017/07/06/china-and-the-east-africa-railways-beyond-full-industry-chain-export/.
Brookings et al (2015), Driving Sustainable Development through Better Infrastructure: Key Elements of a Transformation Program, The Brookings Institution, the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, the New Climate Economy and the Grantham Research Institute, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/07-sustainable-development-infrastructure-v2.pdf.
DFID (2017), Annual review (3) 204358, Summar Sheet, Pakistan Economic Corridors Programme, Department for International Development, http://iati.dfid.gov.uk/iati_documents/5698343.odt
EBRD (2014), Project Finance: PSDs - Olimpex Dry Port, http://www.ebrd.com/work-with-us/projects/psd/olimpex-dry-port.html.
GIZ (2018), Energy efficiency and climate change mitigation in the land transport sector in the ASEAN region, GIZ official website, https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/30711.html
IFRAsia (2013), Joint venture to boost infrastructure bonds, IFR Asia - Asian Development Bank, By Manju Dalal, http://www.ifrasia.com/joint-venture-to-boost-infrastructure-bonds/21081282.fullarticle
JICA (2015), Signing of Japanese ODA Loan Agreement with the Independent State of Papua New Guinea: Strengthening the capacity of Nadzab Airport at the country’s second largest city, supporting further regional economic activities, https://www.jica.go.jp/english/news/press/2015/151014_02.html.
JICA-Research Institute (2017), A Note on Estimating China’s Foreign Aid Using New Data: 2015 Preliminary Figures, Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute, https://www.jica.go.jp/jica-ri/publication/other/l75nbg000008yara-att/note_20170601.pdf.
New York Times (2017), Joyous Africans Take to the Rails, With China’s Help, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/world/africa/africa-china-train.html?mcubz=0.
Norfund (2017), Investment details: Freight in Tim, https://www.norfund.no/investmentdetails/freight-in-time-article10638-1042.html.
OECD (2017), Aid Activities - Creditor Reporting System, http://stats.oecd.org/BrandedView.aspx?oecd_bv_id=dev-data-en&doi=data-00061-en.
OECD (2016), Importance of Infrastructure Connectivity for Participation in Regional & Global Value Chains: Mobilising Private and Foreign Investments, Conference Proceeding.
Reuters (2017), Tanzania signs $1.2 bln deal for new railway line, https://www.reuters.com/article/tanzania-railways/tanzania-signs-1-2-bln-deal-for-new-railway-line-idUSL5N1FO5TD.
UN (2017), World Population Prospects - The 2017 Revision: Key findings & advance tables, United Nations, https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf.
UNCTAD (2017), UNCTADstat (Database) - Merchandise: Intra-trade and extra-trade of country groups by product, http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx.
USAID (2016), USAID: Afghanistan, https://scms.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1871/06%20FINAL%20Sector%20Fact%20Sheet%20OI%20July%202016.pdf.
WBG (2017a), Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) database, https://ppi.worldbank.org/.
WBG (2017b), Forward Look: A Vision for the World Bank Group in 2030 - Progress and Challenges, World Bank Group, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVCOMMINT/Documentation/23745169/DC2017-0002.pdf.
WBG (2015), Public-Private Partnership Briefs—Côte d’Ivoire: Toll Bridge, The World Bank Group: The World Bank, IFC, MIGA, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/309721468190135440/pdf/96885-P3Briefs-IFC-00008527-CotedIvoireTollBridge-Box391454B-PULBIC-Colltitle-PPP-BRIEF.pdf.
World Bank et al. (2017), Mobilization of Private Finance by Multilateral Development Banks: 2016 Joint Report, AfDB, AsDB, AIIB, EBRD, EIB, IADB, Inter-American Investment Corporation, Islamic Corporation for the Development of the Private Sector, IsDB, IFC, MIGA, NDB, and World Bank, http://www.eib.org/attachments/mdb_joint_report_mobilization_2016_en.pdf.
World Bank et al (2015), From Billions to Trillions: Transforming Development Finance - Post-2015 Financing for Development: Multilateral Development Finance, AfDB, AsDB, EBRD, EIB, IADB, IMF, and WBG, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVCOMMINT/Documentation/23659446/DC2015-0002(E)FinancingforDevelopment.pdf.
Notes
← 1. The remaining 46% was allocated to urban and rural projects that are not considered as transport connectivity in this study.
← 2. Multilateral development partners include the EU, a DAC member with its own sources of financing and budgetary authority, although it has a sui generis legal nature.
← 3. This amount does not include guarantees as they are not flows and are thus not captured in the CRS.
← 4. This survey captured the amounts mobilised through guarantees, syndicated loans, shares in Collective Investment Vehicles, direct investment in companies and credit lines. Ninety percent of the 80 DFIs and IFIs responded. See Annex A Technical Notes.