FIRST moments of position taking in the African Heads of State energy summit in Dar es Salaam at the start of the week did not have many surprises, as the tone of discussions reflected wider trends in what is usually known as the development dialogue. For a number of years the theme of private sector-based sourcing of development financing has been taking root, and now it is approaching hegemonic status. The more valid line of discussion in the energy summit was public-private linkage in co-financing energy projects as that way funds will be disbursed, and repaid.

It was to an extent a little surprising to see the intensity of consensus on the matter as ministers from various African countries took the rostrum to contribute to the discussion, setting out national perspectives in the issues. There was scarcely a contribution that did not essentially focus in that direction, though an effort was still being made to distinguish between public finances and private sector sourcing. Still it was clear that agencies that are financed by the United Kingdom for instance wish to work with the private sector, which diminishes the scope for multilateral soft loans.

This expression of commitment to fostering public-private partnerships (PPPs) and embracing innovative financing models is not just applicable in seeking to expand clean or renewable energy access across the continent. It is also relevant for other areas of development financing. Evidently the discussion on energy access was likely to be pegged to a business deal seeking event, while a summit on food security wouldn’t be inclined to move in that direction, to start with. Yet this is precisely what is in the course of being changed, namely that all aspects of development activity are an aspect of business in one way or another, as it involves purchases.

There are two lines of contention in the changing atmosphere, one relating to national commitments to development financing, and then the way in which activity that comes under that brief is organised or managed. For instance the breadth of healthcare assistance in Tanzania was tied to US commitments, and to an extent by multilateral agencies, whose most vital financier has usually been the US. It is a sort of specialisation where the US has specific areas and other countries some other areas, in which case the major countries wish to do business in all these areas, not send in aid while other countries do business, as an aspect of global division of labour.

There are instances where the disconnection between financing and project procurement brings about no tensions, for instance in the building of the standard gauge railway (SGR), where the financing and the technological procurement followed different processes. The harmony there arises from the fact that the issuers of finance were largely satisfied with the business they have enacted, in which case the procurement of technology or tendering for construction was different matter. When the countries involved in the first stage are mindful of their business interests in relation to the second stage such arrangement becomes a hurdle to harmonised procurement tied to the sense of sovereignty, etc.

Even before the shift to a radically conservative Republican administration in the US, complaints were being heard from key US Embassy officials that the countrys businesses are overlooked in various engagements. What is now taking place is that development assistance takes business format, as when a US firm is involved it will be easier to obtain credit from its import-export guarantee funds, etc. The usual method of pooling funds for this or that need and then