Content uploaded by Vivien Foster
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vivien Foster on Aug 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
P R W P 5602
e Democratic Republic of Congo’s
Infrastructure
A Continental Perspective
Vivien Foster
Daniel Alberto Benitez
e World Bank
Africa Region
Sustainable Development Department
March 2011
WPS5602
Public Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure Authorized
Produced by the Research Support Team
Abstract
e Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the ndings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development
issues. An objective of the series is to get the ndings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. e papers carry the
names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. e ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those
of the authors. ey do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and
its aliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
P R W P 5602
e Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) faces possibly
the most daunting infrastructure challenge on the
African continent. Conict has seriously damaged most
infrastructure networks. Vast geography, low population
density, extensive forestlands, and criss-crossing rivers
complicate the development of new networks.
Progress has been made since the return of peace
in 2003. A privately funded GSM network now
provides mobile telephone signals to two-thirds of the
population. External funding has been secured to rebuild
the country’s road network, and domestic air trac
has grown. Modest investments could harness inland
waterways for low-cost transport. Much more substantial
investments in hydropower would enable the DRC to
meet its own energy demands cheaply while exporting
vast quantities of power.
is paper is a product of the Sustainable Development Department, Africa Region. It is part of a larger eort by the World
Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world.
Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. e author may be contacted
at vfoster@worldbank.org and/or cbricenogarmendi@worldbank.org.
One of the country’s most immediate infrastructure
challenges is to reform the national power utility and
increase power generation and delivery. Capacity must
increase by 35 percent over the period 2006–15 to meet
domestic demand. e dilapidated condition of both
road and rail infrastructure presents another challenge.
To meet the target dened in the report, investment
in the country’s infrastructure must increase from $700
million to $5.3 billion per year over the next decade, a
staggering 75 percent of 2006 GDP. New infrastructure
technologies, the elimination of ineciencies, and cross-
border nance (for hydropower development) could cut
the annual funding gap in half. Recently, the country
secured $4 billion in external nance commitments for
infrastructure, enabling increases in budget allocations for
public investment.
The Democratic Republic of
Congo’s Infrastructure:
A Continental Perspective
Vivien Foster and Daniel Alberto Benitez
Acknowledgments
This paper draws upon a wide range of contributions from sector specialists from the Africa
Infrastructure Country Diagnostic Team; notably, Dick Bullock on railways, Mike Mundy on ports,
Heinrich Bofinger on air transport, Maria Shkaratan on power, Elvira Morella on water and sanitation,
Michael Minges on information and communication technologies, Nataliya Pushak on public expenditure,
and Alvaro Federico Barra on spatial analysis.
The paper is based on data collected by local consultants and benefited greatly from feedback
provided by colleagues in the relevant World Bank country teams; notably Marie Françoise Marie-Nelly
(country director), Franck Bousquet (sector leader), Alexandre Dossou (roads), Pierre Pozzo di Borgo
(railways), Michel Layec (power), Franck Bousquet (water and sanitation), Jerome Bezzina (ICT), and
Johannes Herderschee (macro).
iii
Contents
The continental perspective 2
Why infrastructure matters 2
The state of the DRC’s infrastructure 4
Power 6
Roads 10
Rail 12
Ports 13
Air transport 16
Information and communication technology 16
Water supply and sanitation 19
Irrigation 22
Financing the DRC’s infrastructure 23
How much more can be done within the existing resource envelope? 26
What else can be done to close the funding gap? 30
Bibliography 32
General 32
Growth 32
Financing 32
Information and communication technologies 33
Irrigation 33
Power 33
Transport 33
Water supply and sanitation 34
About AICD and its country reports 35
he Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) faces what is probably the most daunting infrastructure
challenge on the African continent. As a result of conflict, networks have been seriously damaged
or left to deteriorate. Today, about half of existing infrastructure assets are in need of
rehabilitation. Even before the conflict, the lack of basic infrastructure made it difficult to knit together
the country’s disparate economic and population centers. The country’s vast geography, low population
density, extensive forests, and criss-crossing rivers further complicate the development of infrastructure
networks.
Since the return of peace in 2003, there have been promising signs. Notably, a privately funded GSM
telephone network now provides a signal to two-thirds of the population at a reasonable cost. Significant
external funding has been captured to rebuild the country’s road network. There has also been an increase
in domestic air routes served, as well as a renewal of the aircraft fleet. The country is endowed with the
largest economically exploitable hydropower resources in Africa, giving it the potential to meet its own
energy demands and become the continent’s largest power exporter. Inland waterways can provide low-
cost surface transport, with only relatively modest investments needed to improve navigability.
One of the DRC’s most urgent infrastructure challenges is to increase the generation of power and
deliver it in a more cost-effective manner. Close to half the existing plants require refurbishment.
Capacity must increase by 35 percent over the period 2006–15 to meet domestic demand. Providing
reliable public supplies could reduce the (weighted average) price of power to the urban private sector
from 23 cents to 4 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and would bring rates of return in excess of 100 percent.
Another important part of the solution is to undertake operational and institutional reforms of the national
power utility.
Road and rail infrastructure are in dilapidated condition, and the rail network has fallen into disuse.
As the country embarks on a massive road investment program, it will be essential to ensure that funds
are made available to maintain the network.
To rebuild the country and catch up with the rest of the developing world, the DRC needs to spend
$5.3 billion a year over the next decade, a sum equivalent to 75 percent of its 2006 GDP. Of this total, as
much as $1.1 billion a year needs to be devoted to maintenance alone. The DRC’s recent infrastructure
spending of $700 million a year falls far below the level needed to make an impact over the next decade.
Significant inefficiencies waste at least $430 million each year, but even if these problems were corrected,
an infrastructure funding gap of the order of $4 billion a year would remain.
Judicious choice of infrastructure technologies and creative use of cross-border finance could reduce
the funding gap to $2 billion a year. In addition, the country has recently secured more than $4 billion in
external finance commitments for infrastructure, and plans are underway to increase both central and
provincial budget allocations for public investment. By combining new resources with an improved
policy and institutional environment, it should be possible to make substantial progress in funding the
infrastructure deficit. Business as usual is not a viable option. Unless spending is increased and efficiency
improved, it will take more than a century to redress the country’s infrastructure deficit. This is clearly an
unacceptable outcome, one that underscores the urgency of action.
T
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
2
The continental perspective
The Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic (AICD) has gathered and analyzed extensive data on
infrastructure in around 40 Sub-Saharan countries, including the DRC. The results have been presented in
reports covering different areas of infrastructure—ICT, irrigation, power, transport, water and
sanitation—and different policy areas, including investment needs, fiscal costs, and sector performance.
This report presents the key AICD findings for the DRC, allowing the country’s infrastructure
situation to be benchmarked against that of its African peers. Given that the DRC is a fragile state trying
to catch up with other low-income countries (LICs) in the region, both fragile-state and LIC African
benchmarks will be used to evaluate the DRC’s situation. Detailed comparisons will also be made with
immediate regional neighbors in Central Africa.
Several methodological issues should be borne in mind. First, because of the cross-country nature of
data collection, a time lag is inevitable. The period covered by the AICD runs from 2001 to 2006. Most
technical data presented are for 2006 (or the most recent year available), while financial data are typically
averaged over the available period to smooth out the effect of short-term fluctuations. Second, in order to
make comparisons across countries, indicators had to be standardized to place the analysis on a consistent
basis. This means that some of the indicators presented here may be slightly different from those that are
routinely reported and discussed at the country level.
Why infrastructure matters
During the period from 2001 to 2005, per capita economic growth in DRC was on average 2.1 percent
higher than during the period from 1991 to 1995. Despite this improvement, growth levels, which
oscillated between 4 and 8 percent in the early 2000s, still fell short of the sustained 7 percent per year
needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Improved telecommunications
infrastructure has been the main driver of this change, contributing 1.1 percentage points to the country’s
per capita growth rate. Deficiencies in power infrastructure, on the other hand, held back per capita
growth by 0.25 percentage point over this period. Simulations suggest that if Central Africa’s
infrastructure platform could be improved to the level of the African leader, Mauritius, per capita growth
rates could increase by as much as 5 percent per year. Almost half of this impact would come from
improvements in the power sector alone (figures 1 and 2).
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
3
Figure 1. Historic and potential future links between infrastructure and growth
a. Historic changes in growth per capita
b. Potential improvements in growth per capita
Evidence from enterprise surveys suggests that infrastructure constraints throughout the region are
responsible for about 40 percent of the productivity handicap faced by Sub-Saharan firms, with the
remainder being due to poor governance, bureaucratic red tape, and financing constraints. In many
countries, lack of affordable power is the infrastructure constraint that weighs most heavily on firms.
While detailed enterprise survey evidence is not available for the DRC, power would likely emerge as a
major concern here as well.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
4
The state of the DRC’s infrastructure
The DRC’s population and economic activity is concentrated in three distinct centers that form a
triangle—Kinshasa in the southwest, Lubumbashi in the southeast, and Kisangani in the northeast
(figure 3). As illustrated clearly in the maps, there is a marked absence of well-developed infrastructure
linking these three cities, particularly with respect to road and rail. Power and ICT infrastructure is
somewhat developed along the Kinshasa-Lubumbashi axis, although there is no fiber optic network to
speak of and the main power transmission line is in need of major rehabilitation. The rest of the country is
almost entirely devoid of power and ICT coverage, although GSM coverage has been recently expanded
in the east. With respect to transport infrastructure, many regions of the DRC (notably the southeast and
northeast) are better connected with neighboring countries’ infrastructure corridors than they are with
domestic ones.
This report begins by reviewing the main achievements and challenges in each of the DRC’s major
infrastructure sectors, with the key findings summarized in table 1. The problem of how to finance the
DRC’s outstanding infrastructure needs will also be addressed.
Table 1. Overview of achievements and challenges in the DRC’s infrastructure sectors
Achievements Challenges
Air transport Increased domestic connectivity and renewal of
aircraft fleet
Strengthen regulation to improve dismal air transport
safety record
ICT High level of GSM signal coverage at
reasonable cost
Increase mobile phone penetration
Develop links to submarine cables
Ports Port of Matadi available to service Kinshasa
area
In short run, improve service at Matadi
In long run, secure access to deepwater port
Power Vast low-cost hydropower resources and
potential to become major exporter
Invest heavily in power generation
Improve performance of utility
Railways Strategic networks available to support timber
and mineral exports
Improve infrastructure and quality of service to regain
market share from road transport
Roads Progress in mobilizing external finance for
network reconstruction
Provide for road network maintenance
Modernize regulatory framework for trucking
Give due attention to river navigation
Water and sanitation Rapidly expanding access to unimproved
latrines
Accelerate access to improved water and sanitation
Improve performance of utility
Source: Authors’ elaboration based on findings of this report.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
5
Figure 2. The DRC’s infrastructure backbones have yet to form a national network
a. Transport b. Power
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
6
(c) ICT (d) Water
Source: AICD Interactive Infrastructure Atlas for Democratic Republic of Congo downloadable from
http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/aicd/system/files/drc_new_ALL.pdf
Power
Achievements
The DRC boasts the largest and most cost-effective hydropower potential on the continent. Due to the
immense hydropower resources associated with the Inga Falls on the Congo River, the DRC could
potentially produce an estimated 100,000 megawatts (MW) of power. (As a point of comparison, the
entire installed capacity of Sub-Saharan Africa today is only 48,000 MW.) Moreover, these hydro
resources are likely the most cost-effective on the continent, with the long-run marginal cost of power
generation estimated at 1.4 cents per kWh. (By contrast, the long-run marginal costs of hydropower
generation are 6.9 cents per kWh in Ethiopia and 5.8 cents per kWh in Guinea.)
The country has the potential to become Africa’s largest power exporter. The DRC already exports a
modest amount of power to Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. But if the country’s hydro resources
were fully developed, it could become Africa’s largest power exporter (table 2). Assuming that power
were able to flow freely around the Southern African Power Pool (SAPP), it would be economically
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
7
optimal for the DRC to export 51.9 terrawatt-hours (TWh) of power, thereby supplying more than 15
percent of total consumption in the SAPP area. This power would flow along three different routes
southward toward South Africa (through Angola, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique), making a net
contribution to the power consumption of most of the countries along the way before eventually meeting
10 percent of the needs of the largest regional market: South Africa (figure 3). Assuming a (purely
illustrative) profit margin of 1 cent per kWh, power exports would contribute in excess of 5 percent of the
DRC’s GDP.
Table 2. Profile of top six potential power-exporting countries
Country
Potential net
exports
(TWh per year)
Net revenues Required investment
(millions / year) (% GDP) (millions / year) (% GDP)
Congo, Dem. Rep. of 51.9 519 6.1 749 8.8
Ethiopia 26.3 263 2.0 1,003 7.5
Guinea 17.4 174 5.2 786 23.7
Sudan 13.1 131 0.3 1,032 2.7
Cameroon 6.8 68 0.4 267 1.5
Mozambique 5.9 59 0.8 216 2.8
Source: Rosnes and Vennemo 2008.
Figure 3. Fiscally optimal power trade pattern, the SAPP
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
8
Challenges
Only a tiny fraction of the DRC’s hydropower potential is developed, and much of that has fallen into
disrepair. Only 2,540 MW of the 100,000 MW potential has actually been developed as installed
capacity, and only 1,100 MW of this meager capacity is actually in functioning order. There are two
interconnected power systems in the country. This first connects the Inga site in Bas Congo to Kinshasa
and Brazzaville, as well as to Katanga and on to Zambia. The second interconnects the two Kivu
Provinces with Rwanda and Burundi. Both systems are dilapidated and need extensive rehabilitation.
As a result, power supply is heavily constrained and subject to blackouts, placing major limitations on
private sector activity. About 40 percent of firms in the DRC own and operate their own backstop
generator to shield themselves from frequent power interruptions, which cause significant production
losses. This is one of the higher percentages of generator ownership in Africa (although the ratio exceeds
80 percent in Nigeria). The Platt’s power generation database indicates that almost half of the installed
generation capacity in the DRC is owned and operated by private companies for the purpose of self-
supply—one of the highest ratios anywhere in Africa. Timber mills in the Kinshasa area spend up to 63
cents per kWh to run diesel-powered backup generators when needed. This represents a major constraint
in the conversion of logs to higher-value timber products for export. In the Katanga region, mining
companies depend primarily on power from the Inga hydro plant, but due to dilapidated infrastructure,
supplies are highly unreliable, with 19 interruptions reported on average per month. Overall, the Katanga
region is estimated to have a power supply deficit of 900 MW. Due to these deficiencies, mining
companies have developed their own local hydroelectric schemes at a cost of around of 10 cents per kWh,
compared with an estimated long-run marginal cost for grid electricity of less than 4 cents per kWh.
To turn this situation around, huge investments in new generation and transmission capacity are
needed. Just meeting the country’s domestic power demands for the coming decade calls for the
refurbishment of the entire existing generation stock, plus a 35 percent expansion of installed generation
capacity, to reach about 3,000 MW overall. Developing the DRC’s export potential would call for the
installation of a further 7,600 MW. As shown in table 2, just to develop its potential as a power exporter,
the DRC would need to invest some $750 million per year over the next decade, tying up 8.8 percent of
GDP—a formidable proposition.
Furthermore, the weak financial performance of the power utility SNEL has led to a hemorrhage of
resources in the sector. Compared with other African power utilities, SNEL displays very high levels of
inefficiency (table 3), though its performance is typical for fragile states. Distribution losses are 40
percent compared with a best-practice benchmark of 12 percent. At the same time, only 40 percent of
revenues billed are collected by the utility, and government institutions are particularly guilty of
nonpayment. As a result, SNEL faces exceptionally high hidden costs of 595 percent of revenues,
meaning that the utility has at its disposal barely 20 percent of the revenues that it should. Due to the
relatively low cost of power production, cost-recovery does not appear to be a major issue for the utility,
even though DRC’s tariffs are among the lowest in Africa. But the fact that the leading institution in the
sector is in such a weak financial condition is evidently holding back the implementation of urgently
needed investments in power generation capacity and the realization of the country’s potential as a power
exporter.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
9
Table 3. Benchmarking power indicators
Unit Low-income countries
DRC Fragile states
Installed power-generation capacity MW/mil. people 20.2
41.6
45.7
Power consumption kWh/capita 107.4
122.5
165.3
Power outages Day/year 10.4
213.5
11.1
Firms’ reliance on own generator % consumption 21.2
17.1
16.2
Firms’ value lost due to power outages % sales 6.5
5.6
5.4
Access to electricity % population 15.0
6
49.7
Urban access to electricity % population 57.6
30
89.7
Rural access to electricity % population 3.9
1
26.6
Growth access to electricity % population/year 0.8
–
3.3
Revenue collection % billings 93.1
41.8
33.6
Distribution losses % production 23.7
40.0
40.0
Cost recovery % total cost 84.4
100.0
100.0
Total hidden costs % of revenue 68.8
595.3
442.5
U.S. cents DRC
Predominantly
hydrogeneration Other developing regions
Power tariff (residential at 75 kWh) 4.0 10.27 5.0–10.0
Power tariff (commercial at 900 kWh) 11.0 11.73
Power tariff (industrial at 50,000 kWh) 14.6 11.39
Source: Eberhard and others 2009, derived from AICD electricity database downloadable from
http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/aicd/tools/data.
— = data not available.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
10
Figure 4. Hidden costs of power utilities
Source: Eberhard and others 2009
Roads
Achievements
The DRC has made significant progress in mobilizing external resources to support the reconstruction
of the road network. Following years of armed conflict, the DRC’s road network fell into disrepair, and
road connectivity between the country’s economic and demographic centers was seriously compromised.
In the years since the conflict’s end, reconstructing the road network has been a top priority, and to this
end the country has secured major financial commitments from multilateral and bilateral donors, as well
as from China. These funds cover many of the country’s major road corridors linking Kinshasa and
Lubumbashi, as well as roads along the eastern side of the country. As a result, recent road quality
indicators suggest that the state of the country’s limited paved network (fewer than 3,000 km) has
improved considerably and is now comparable with those of other LICs in the region. Nevertheless, the
unpaved roads—which at more than 30,000 km still represent the vast majority of the network—are in
serious disrepair, with only 42 percent in good or fair condition.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
11
Table 4. Benchmarking road indicators
Unit LIC DRC Fragile
states
Paved road density km/1,000 km2
of land
16 1 21
Unpaved road density km/1,000 km2
of land
68 14 75
Geographic information system
(GIS) rural accessibility
% of rural population within 2 km of all-
season road
21.7 29.3 —
Paved road traffic Average annual
daily traffic
1,027 257 843
Unpaved road traffic Average annual
daily traffic
55 20 55
Paved network condition % in good or fair condition 75 70 69
Unpaved network condition % in good or fair condition 58 42 55
Perceived transport quality % firms identifying as major business
constraint
23 30 —
Source: Gwillliam and others 2009, derived from AICD national database downloadable from http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/aicd/tools/data.
— = data not available.
Challenges
The DRC’s vast landmass (equivalent to the size of Western Europe), low population density, and
extensive river network makes road development particularly challenging. A large share of the land area
is covered by dense tropical forest and crisscrossed by rivers that complicate road construction and
maintenance due to the numerous bridges needed. For all these reasons, it is not entirely surprising that
the DRC should have such a low road network density compared with other LICs in Africa (table 4).
A key issue going forward will be not only to reconstruct the road network but to create a sustainable
basis for funding road maintenance. The DRC’s immediate focus has been to reconstruct roads that had
fallen into disrepair and disuse during the conflict period, with a view to reestablishing connectivity. Once
this is accomplished, something must be done to ensure that the reconstructed roads are adequately
maintained. Given the vast geographical expanse of the network, the DRC needs to spend almost $400
million a year just to keep its transport infrastructure in usable condition. Not only does this represent
more than 5 percent of GDP, but it is also several times higher than the entire public investment budget of
the country over the past few years. Securing resources for maintenance clearly represents a huge
challenge, as does spending those funds effectively. As of 2010, an important step toward the
sustainability of the road network has been taken with the creation of a road fund.
Beyond road infrastructure itself, the cost of road freight transportation is very high by African
standards. From a broader economic perspective, the key transport variable is the price of surface freight
haulage. While a detailed study of road freight tariffs in the DRC has not yet been undertaken, the
available anecdotal evidence indicates that these costs are very high (even by African standards) and can
easily amount to 15 cents per tonne-kilometer (tonne-km), compared to 5 cents per tonne-km in southern
Africa. In theory, improvements in road infrastructure should reduce road haulage costs and lead to lower
tariffs, but in much of Central Africa the presence of trucking cartels and tour-de-role regulations
(whereby government allocates freight to companies based on a queuing system) lead to major profit
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
12
markups and prevent the benefits of improved infrastructure from being passed on to businesses in the
form of lower freight tariffs. This underscores the importance of addressing not only the physical
infrastructure constraints of the road network but also the regulatory framework governing the trucking
industry.
Rail
Achievements
The DRC has two separate rail systems of strategic significance for the country: Chemin de Fer
Matadi-Kinshasa (CFMK) and the Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer du Congo (SNCC). CFMK
operates the 366-km rail link from Kinshasa to the port of Matadi. This is a single-track route with road
access at four major junctions. This rail link is the natural transport mode for timber exports and other
bulk traffic that is not time sensitive, including imports to the city of Kinshasa. The current track is only
30 years old and is in reasonable condition. SNCC operates an extensive network centered in the
southeast of the country. The most important branch of this network connects Kolwezi to Sakania on the
Zambian border, and westward to Ilebo. The SNCC network is the natural transport mode for copper
exports leaving the DRC for the port of Durban, and will eventually also offer the opportunity to export
copper through Lobito in Angola via the Benguela Railway, which is currently under reconstruction.
Although the CFMK and SNCC networks are not interconnected, through-transport from Kinshasa to
Lubumbashi has historically been achieved using the river link from Kinshasa to Ilebo, where the SNCC
network begins.
Challenges
Both Congolese rail networks have seen their traffic decline sharply due to deficient service and
strong intermodal competition, so neither is playing its historic role. Despite the relatively good condition
of CFMK’s track, its rolling stock has deteriorated and its quality of service has declined. The recent
rehabilitation of the road corridor parallel to the track has led many businesses to send their bulk freight
by road rather than rail. The SNCC network is in poor condition, with commercial speed limits of as low
as 10km per hour. Deficiencies in rail service (as well as discriminatory pricing toward Congolese copper
by the Zambian rail operator) have meant that the bulk of copper traffic is currently traveling by road. As
a result, neither railway is playing its natural role in the Congolese economy, and rail traffic levels have
declined to a fraction of those found on neighboring (and already lightly used) Central African rail
networks (table 5).
In addition, the networks suffer from very poor efficiency and relatively high tariffs (table 5).
Efficiency parameters are only a fraction of those found on neighboring systems in Angola, Cameroon,
Congo, and Gabon. Freight tariffs at $0.15–$0.20 per tonne-km are almost three times the rates found
elsewhere in southern Africa. For all these reasons, traffic densities on Congolese railways are very low:
less than half of those found in neighboring countries.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
13
Table 5. Benchmarking railway indicators, 2000–05
CFMK
(DRC)
SNCC
(DRC)
CFCO (Congo)
SETRAG (Gabon)
CFM (Angola)
CAMRAIL
(Cameroon)
South Africa
(SPOORNET)
Concessioned (1)/ State run (0) 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Traffic density, freight, 1,000 tonne-
km/km
172 214 428 504 469 1,092 5,319
Efficiency
Staff: 1,000 unit tariff (UT) per staff 18 38 221 1,778 580 603 3,037
Coaches: 1,000 passenger-km per
coach
64 275 3,212 1,891 4,045 4,738 596
Cars: 1,000 tonne-km per wagon 257 317 300 902 950 868 925
Locomotive availability in % 10 4 27 39 30 26 —
Tariffs
Average UT, passenger, U.S.
cents/passenger-km
4.2 3.1 5.6 8.6 — 2.2 —
Average UT, freight, U.S. cents/tonne-
km
13.7 12.5 10.7 2.5 — 5.2 —
— = data not available.
River
Achievements
While it is important to reconstruct the road and rail networks, the very valuable role that can be
played by river transportation should not be overlooked. The vast Congo River traverses the DRC, linking
two of its main cities (Kinshasa and Kisangani), while its innumerable tributaries crisscross much of the
country.
Challenges
About 15,000 km of the Congo River and its tributaries are navigable, or potentially so with a certain
amount of regular dredging and relatively modest investments in quays and signaling. The capital and
maintenance costs per kilometer of navigable waterway are a fraction of those per kilometer of road. Even
under today’s less than ideal navigation conditions, the cost of moving freight along the Congo River—
around 5 cents per tonne-km—is only a third of the cost of moving freight by road or rail. Although the
river network does not cover all routes of interest, and river transport is comparatively slow, it has clear
economic advantages and the potential to recover its historically large role in the DRC’s transport
network.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
14
Ports
Achievements
The Port of Matadi plays a critical role in the national economy. Matadi is a feeder port servicing
Kinshasa and the southwest area of the country. It has a capacity of 2.5 million tonnes per year but
operates at only 2 million tonnes per year at present. The Port of Matadi is physically constrained by its
overall cargo-handling capacity and by the depth of the river, which has a draught of only 6.5 meters.
Matadi therefore cannot take direct calls from major international shipping lines; instead, it relies on
transshipment from Pointe Noire using smaller vessels. Other ports on the estuary of the Congo River are
Boma (farther inland) and Banana (closer to the mouth of the river). But these ports are presently less
significant than Matadi and face the same problem of limited draught.
The rest of the DRC relies on other regional ports as far afield as Durban, Dar es Salaam, and
Mombasa. The Port of Matadi is important to only the southwest part of the country. Because of the high
internal transport costs and large distances involved, trade from southeast DRC is channeled mainly
through Durban and to a lesser extent through Dar es Salaam. Even with improvements to the
infrastructure corridors across the south of the country and the potential reopening of the Benguela
Railway into Angola, it would be difficult for ports on the western side of the continent to compete with
the transport system in southern Africa. Accordingly, this pattern of trade is unlikely to change in the
foreseeable future. Mombasa remains the key port for Kisangani and the northeast part of the country. But
improvements in the navigability of the Congo River corridor could potentially serve to deflect some of
this trade toward ports on the western side of the continent.
Challenges
Port services at Matadi are costly and inefficient by regional and global standards (table 6). Compared
to neighboring Central African ports, the Port of Matadi’s performance is very poor, and it appears even
worse next to leading African ports such as Durban. Container dwell times average 25 days, or more than
five times the regional best practice. Truck cycle times average 18 hours, or more than three times the
regional best practice. Crane productivity is also only a fraction of that found elsewhere. Not only is the
quality of service poor, but port-handling charges for general cargo, at $10 per tonne, are significantly
higher than they are elsewhere. In addition, river sedimentation is further reducing the draught of the port,
so routine dredging is needed to maintain navigability.
Improving port performance will require concerted institutional and management reform. Globally,
the traditional service port model, in which the state owns and operates all services, has been giving way
to a landlord model, in which the state owns the port and operates the large-scale civil infrastructure while
the private sector provides superstructure (such as terminals and cranes) as well as port services. Within
Africa, only Ghana and Nigeria have so far adopted the landlord approach, but more than 20 ports have
already incorporated private sector participation, generally into container terminal operations, with
discernible favorable effects on performance. This experience may be of interest to the DRC as it
considers institutional options that could help to improve the performance of the Port of Matadi.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
15
Table 6. Benchmarking port indicators
Matadi
(DRC)
Boma
(DRC)
Luanda
(Angola)
Douala
(Cameroon
)
Pointe
Noire
(Congo)
Apapa
(Nigeria)
Durban
(South
Africa)
Traffic
Container cargo throughput (TEU/year) — 10,000 377,208 190,700 — 336,308 1,899,065
Container-handling capacity (TEU/year) 200,000 — 400,000 270,000 150,000 500,000 1,450,000
General cargo throughput (tonnes/year) — — 4,000,000 3,800,000 3,300,000 3,400,000 —
General cargo-handling capacity
(tonnes/year) 1,700,000 500,000 4,000,000 6,500,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 7,900,000
Efficiency
Average container dwell time in terminal
(days) 25.0
—
12.0 11.5 18.0 42.0 4.0
Average truck-processing time for receipt
and delivery of cargo (hours) 18.0
—
14.0 12.0 12.0 6.0 5.0
Average container crane productivity
(containers loaded-unloaded per crane
hour) 6.5 — 6.5 18.5 6.5 12.0 15.0
Average general cargo crane productivity
(tonnes loaded-unloaded per crane
working hour) 6.0 5.0 16.0 12.0 7.5 9.0 25.0
Tariffs
Container-handling charge, ship to gate
($/TEU) 120 — 320 220 140 155 258
Average general cargo-handling charge,
ship to gate ($/tonne) 10.0 10.0 8.5 6.5 5.5 8.0 8.4
Source: Mundy and Penfold 2008.
— = data not available.
In the longer term, the DRC will need to secure access to a deep-sea port. While an improved Port of
Matadi will be able to service the southwest DRC for some years to come, in the longer term additional
capacity will need to be found. The DRC would probably also benefit from having direct land access to a
deepwater port that receives direct calls from major international shipping lines. To achieve this goal, the
DRC faces two strategic options.
One option is to further develop the Port of Banana and (by means of major dredging works) convert
it into a deep-sea port. The establishment of such a port, however, would cost around $2 billion and take
10 years to complete. Even once established, it is not clear whether the port would handle the kind of
traffic volumes needed to attract direct calls from major shipping lines, or whether it would continue to
rely on transshipment services from Pointe Noire.
The other option involves strengthening land links with the Republic of Congo to facilitate access to
the Port of Pointe Noire. The poor quality of service provided by the Congolese rail operator Chemin de
Fer Congo-Ocean (CFCO) and the total deterioration of the road corridor from Brazzaville to Pointe
Noire have essentially ruled out this option at present. But there are efforts underway in the Republic of
Congo to rebuild the road corridor and concession both the railway and container port terminal. Once
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
16
these improvements are made, the Kinshasa–Pointe Noire route may become economically attractive for
Congolese trade, particularly if a road and rail bridge were built to connect Brazzaville and Kinshasa. The
main concern about this option relates to issues of sovereignty, but these are not insuperable: some West
African countries have developed shared sovereignty agreements that reserve quays and terminal capacity
for stakeholder countries, for example.
Air transport
Achievements
Since 2000 the number of domestic air transport routes served has dramatically increased, and the
aircraft fleet has undergone renewal. Given the vast size of the DRC, its disparate population centers, and
the deficiencies of the surface transport network, the air transportation system has an important role to
play in passenger travel. Overall air transport capacity in the country was static over the period 2001–07,
at around 1 million seats. But connectivity has grown sharply over the same period, with the number of
city pairs served rising from 13 in 2001 to 24 in 2007. Eight airports and 14 airlines now have scheduled,
advertised services. There has also been a substantial renewal of the aircraft fleet over this same period,
with the percentage of seat-kilometers flown in aircraft of recent vintage rising from 40 percent in 2001 to
74 percent in 2007. By far the largest airline serving the country is Hewa Bora, which has 42 percent of
market share.
Challenges
The DRC’s domestic air transport services have a worrisome safety record, one that urgently needs to
be addressed. Given the recent renewal of the fleet, this poor record has as much to do with lax oversight
of airline companies and human error as with aging aircraft. One of the consequences of the problem has
been to divert a significant volume of domestic air transport outside of the country to avoid using
domestic air services, meaning that domestic trips are often undertaken via an outside transit country.
Thus, the most urgent issue facing the air transport sector is to strengthen regulatory oversight in order to
improve the safety of domestic flights.
Information and communication technology
Achievements
Despite difficult economic conditions, the DRC has reached a relatively high level of GSM signal
coverage at prices comparable to those elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa (table 7). By 2006, 65 percent of
the population lived within range of a GSM signal, which is substantially higher than the average for
LICs in Africa. As illustrated above, all the major population centers have essentially been covered
(figure 2c). Moreover, prices for mobile services are on par with those found in other parts of Africa and
the developing world. This has been achieved thanks to a relatively buoyant competitive market with four
active operators. Moreover, with sales in the sector second only to those of the mining sector, and with a
13 percent value added tax (VAT) charged on mobile telephone calls, ICT tax revenues now account for
one-third of budget revenues. But although GSM coverage is high, subscriber penetration remains low by
African standards.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
17
Table 7. Benchmarking ICT indicators
Unit Low-income countries DRC Fragile states
GSM coverage % population 42.42 65.00 62.55
International bandwidth Mbps/capita 3.01 0.19 0.88
Internet subscribers/100 people 0.13 0.03 0.07
Landline subscribers/100 people 7.47 3.90 8.99
Mobile phone subscribers/100 people 6.44 3.88 8.01
US$ DRC Without submarine cable Other developing regions
Price of monthly mobile basket 11.0 11.12 9.9
Price of monthly fixed-line basket 28.17 13.58 —
Price of monthly 20-hour Internet package 74.00 67.95 11.0
Price of international call to U.S., per minute 0.33 0.86 0.67
Price of inter-Africa calls per minute, mean 0.52 0.72 —
Source: Minges and others 2009, derived from AICD national database downloadable from http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/aicd/tools/data.
Note: Mbps = megabits per second; — = data not available.
Challenges
Completing the expansion of GSM network coverage is particularly challenging because of the spatial
characteristics of the country. Analysis done around 2006 suggested that up to 80 percent of the
population could be reached on a commercially viable basis, but the remaining 20 percent are dispersed
across remote areas that cannot be covered without some degree of public subsidy. This “coverage gap” is
among the largest found for any country in Africa (figure 5). As of 2010, a number of further
developments are jeopardizing the further expansion of mobile coverage. A vigorous price war between
mobile operators had pushed prices below economic levels to under US$0.04 per minute. In order to stem
losses, operators have stopped coverage rollout and indeed reduced are coverage in some cases.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
18
Figure 5. Relatively good progress in expanding GSM coverage
Source: Mayer and others 2008.
The DRC lags far behind in Internet usage, and would benefit from access to submarine cables.
Internet penetration is extremely low in the DRC (even by African standards), and available bandwidth is
a fraction of what is found elsewhere in Africa. This is partly explained by the very high cost of Internet
access—$74 per month, which is typical for a country lacking access to submarine cables. This situation
is unlikely to improve significantly until the country develops links to the submarine cables along the
West African coast. As the experience of other countries has shown, once such links are made, it is
essential that this infrastructure be competitively provided; otherwise, consumers will not benefit from
lower prices (table 8). Recent estimates suggest that the benefits of broadband expansion in DRC could be
considerable on both economic growth and employment.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
19
Table 8. High international call charges, driven by technology and market power
$ % cases Call within
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Call to the
United States
Internet dial-up Internet
ADSL
Without submarine cable 67 1.34 0.86 68 283
With submarine cable 33 0.57 0.48 47 111
Monopoly on international gateway 16 0.70 0.72 37 120
Competitive international gateway 16 0.48 0.23 37 98
Source: Minges and others 2009.
Note: ADSL = asymmetric digital subscriber line.
Water supply and sanitation
Achievements
Access to improved water and sanitation in the DRC is comparable to that of similar countries. In
particular, about 30 percent of the DRC’s population has access to piped water or standposts. Coverage of
traditional latrines is also relatively high.
Challenges
Nevertheless, trends in water access rates are extremely worrisome, with a fast-growing dependency
on surface water (figure 6). Access to piped water in the DRC is either steady or in slight decline, while
there has been a marked fall in the usage of wells and boreholes. The only encouraging sign is the
relatively strong expansion of public standposts, with just over 1 percent of the population gaining access
each year. But the most striking trend is the rapid acceleration of reliance on surface water, which is
affecting an additional 7.5 percent of the population each year, in particular in rural areas, where the
number is as high as 10 percent of the population each year.
Access trends for sanitation are more encouraging, even if the share of the population practicing open
defecation is still on the rise (figure 7). Although access to improved sanitation modes is expanding only
very slowly, there is a very rapid expansion of traditional latrines underway. These are generally built by
households, with about 3.6 percent of the population gaining access each year, well above the regional
average. Nevertheless, reliance on open defecation continues to increase by 0.5 percent of the population
each year.
Finally, the deficient operation of the water utility, Régie de distribution d’eau (REGIDESO), creates
major financial losses in the sector. REGIDESO performs far less efficiently than its African peers.
Revenue collection stands at only 70 percent, compared to over 95 percent elsewhere, with nonpayment
by government institutions being an important contributor. Annual revenues cover only 64.4 percent of
operating costs, much below the operating cost coverage ratio of fragile states, which is 82.3. Distribution
losses stand at 41 percent, about double the best-practice level of 20 percent. Tariff levels are about a
tenth of those found in other African countries, and nonresidential tariffs are particularly low. Overall, the
hidden costs of inefficiency amount to a large share of sector revenues. While this is by no means the
worst case in Africa (figure 8), the sector is capturing only half of the revenues that it should. This kind of
financial hemorrhage limits the funds available for investment and slows the rate of access expansion.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
20
REGIDESO is currently in the process of implementing a management contract that aims to improve
operational performance.
Table 9. Benchmarking water and sanitation indicators
Unit Low-income countries
DRC Fragile states
Access to piped water % pop 8.4 21.0 27.0
Access to standposts % pop 13.1 7.1 17.5
Access to wells/boreholes % pop 34.4 49.0 61.5
Access to surface water % pop 51.4 22.4 30.8
Access to flush toilets % pop 2.7 1.6 7.1
Access to improved latrines % pop 5.3 10.8 20.3
Access to traditional latrines % pop 44.5 71.2 56.9
Open defecation % pop 58.4 16.4 51.6
Domestic water consumption liter/capita served/day
76.3 51.3 53.5
Urban water assets in need of rehabilitation % 36.1 42.0 36.7
Revenue collection % sales 97.2 70.0 100.2
Distribution losses % production 33.8 40.8 32.8
Cost recovery
% operating expenses
covered by revenues
107.3 64.4 82.3
Total hidden costs % of revenue 112.9 202.3
U.S. cents per m3 at 10 m3 DRC Fragile states Other developing regions
Residential tariff 4.6 42.0
3.0–60.0
Nonresidential tariff 0.6 150.0
Source: Banerjee and others 2009; Morella and others 2009, derived from AICD water and sanitation utilities database downloadable from
http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/aicd/tools/data.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
21
Figure 6. Access trends for different modalities of water supply
Source: Banerjee and others 2009.
Note: SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa.
Figure 7. Access trends for different modalities of sanitation
Source: Morella and others 2009
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
22
Figure 8. Hidden costs of water utilities
Source: Banerjee and others 2009.
Irrigation
Irrigation is almost nonexistent in the DRC today (figure 2d). Currently, the DRC irrigates only
73,000 hectares of its agricultural land, or 0.1 percent of cultivated land—well below the African average
of 5 percent. The country’s water withdrawals are negligible relative to the total amount of renewable
water available. Although the DRC has a water policy, none of the other components of the institutional
framework for irrigation are in place.
There seems to be substantial potential to expand small-scale irrigation, particularly in the east and
southeast (figure 9). A simulation exercise conducted as part of the AICD considered both agroecological
and economic factors to determine areas viable for large- and small-scale irrigation development. While a
few potential large-scale irrigation schemes were identified, the associated returns were typically quite
low (less than 6 percent). A much greater potential was found for small-scale irrigation, with 138,000
hectares capable of yielding rates of more than 12 percent, and a much larger area yielding positive
returns. The most promising areas are located in the east and southeast regions of the country.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
23
Figure 9. The DRC’s irrigation development potential
Source: You and others 2009.
Financing the DRC’s infrastructure
The DRC needs to implement an ambitious infrastructure investment agenda. In order to meet its
most pressing infrastructure needs and to catch up with developing countries in other parts of the world,
the DRC needs to expand its infrastructure assets in a number of key areas. The targets outlined in table
10 are purely illustrative in nature, but they represent reasonable aspirations. They have been developed
in a way that is standardized across African countries and thus allows for a cross-country comparison of
their affordability. Ultimately, the targets can be modified or delayed as financially necessary. In some
cases (such as the development of the Inga site) the targets identified may not be technically feasible,
even if they are economically desirable.
Meeting these illustrative infrastructure targets for the DRC would cost close to $5.2 billion per year
for the next decade, including over $1 billion for maintenance. Capital expenditure would account for 80
percent of this overall requirement. The power, transport, and water supply and sanitation (WSS) sectors
would each demand sustained spending of $1.5 billion per year; needs for the ICT sector are substantially
lower (table 11). What is particularly striking is that, going forward, the DRC needs to allocate over $1
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
24
billion a year to preventive maintenance of its network infrastructures in order to ensure their long-term
sustainability.
Table 10. Illustrative investment targets for infrastructure in the DRC
Economic target Social target
ICT Fiber-optic links to neighboring capitals and submarine
cable
Universal access to GSM signal and public broadband
facilities
Power Develop 8,400 MW of new generation capacity (800 MW
domestic, 7,600 MW for export), 6,000 MW of
interconnectors
Raise electrification to 19%
(38% urban and 8% rural)
Transport Achieve regional (national) connectivity with good quality
2-lane (1-lane) paved road
Provide rural road access to 80% highest-value
agricultural land, and urban road access within 500 m
WSS Achieve MDGs
Sources: Mayer and others 2008; Rosnes and Vennemo 2009; Carruthers and others 2009; You and others 2009.
Table 11. Indicative infrastructure spending needs in the DRC, 2006–15
$ million per year
Sector
CAPEX O&M Total needs
ICT 246 242 487
Power (trade) 1,424 49 1,473
Transport (basic) 1,082 391 1,474
WSS 1,278 431 1,709
Total 4,045 1,112 5,157
Sources: Mayer and others 2008; Rosnes and Vennemo 2009; Carruthers and others 2009; You and others 2009.
Note: Figures refer to investments (except those in the public sector) that also include recurrent spending. Public sector covers general
government and nonfinancial enterprises.
O&M = operations and maintenance; CAPEX = capital expenditure
This total spending requirement is high in absolute terms and even more so relative to GDP (figure
10). At close to $5.2 billion, in absolute terms, the spending need for infrastructure is among the highest
in Africa. Relative to the size of the DRC’s economy, the spending amounts to a staggering 75 percent of
2006 GDP. This is by far the highest burden of infrastructure spending for any African country, and is
substantially higher than the average of low-income, fragile states. Investment alone would absorb around
57 percent of GDP. To put this in perspective, one of the highest levels of infrastructure investment
observed in recent economic history has been in China which dedicated 15 percent of GDP to
infrastructure investment during the mid-2000s.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
25
Figure 10. The burden of infrastructure needs by country type
Source: Foster and Briceño-Garmendia 2009.
Given such large spending needs, a key question is how much the country is already spending on
infrastructure. For the baseline period leading up to 2006, it was not possible to obtain a detailed
breakdown of government spending on infrastructure. But some information was available regarding off-
budget spending on power, transport, and water, as well as investment financed through official
development assistance (ODA), as well as from countries outside the Organisation of Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) and private sector sources. In addition, the total amount of public
investment undertaken across all (infrastructure and noninfrastructure) sectors in 2006 was also available,
and provided an upper limit to the potential level of public investment in infrastructure.
Notwithstanding the incomplete data, it is clear that as of 2006 the DRC’s spending on infrastructure
covered little more than 10 percent of its needs. In the period leading up to 2006, the DRC’s infrastructure
spending from all sources appears to have been very low—likely no more than $700 million per year, or a
small fraction of the amount needed to reach the illustrative infrastructure targets given earlier. Moreover,
a significant share of this total—as much as $188 million per year—came from outside the public sector,
including significant investments by private telecommunications companies in the rollout of mobile
telephone networks and by households in developing on-site sanitation facilities. On the other hand,
official external finance for infrastructure—whether from OECD or non-OECD sources—amounted to no
more than $62 million per year over this period. Overall public investment for all (infrastructure and
noninfrastructure) sectors was no more than $100 million in 2006 and increased only modestly in 2007
and 2008.
The relatively modest figure of $700 million a year nonetheless represents a substantial 10 percent
share of the country’s 2006 GDP. Although spending looks small relative to the country’s infrastructure
needs, when expressed as a percentage of GDP it is actually close to the average spending on
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
26
infrastructure that is observed across Sub-Saharan Africa. The problem, however, is that the DRC’s
infrastructure needs are substantially greater than those of other African countries.
Table 12. Incomplete overview of spending on infrastructure in the DRC
Sector $m per year, average 2001–06
O&M Capital expenditure
Total
spending
Public sector Public sector ODA
Non-OECD
financiers
PPI /
household
self-finance Total CAPEX
ICT 0 — 0 1 127 128 128
Power (trade) ≈50 — 4 0 0 4 54
Transport (basic) 300 — 55 2 0 57 357
WSS — — 0 0 62 >62 >62
Total ≈350 <100* 60 2 188 ≈350 ≈700
Source: Derived from Foster and Briceño-Garmendia 2009 and additional data supplied by World Bank, 2010.
Note: *A detailed breakdown of public investment in infrastructure for the period 2001–06 by sector is not available. The number given is the
estimated total public investment for all sectors in 2006.
PPI = private participation in infrastructure; — = data not available.
Since 2006, there has been a large upswing in external financing commitments from OECD and non-
OECD partners, with commitments of around $4.1 billion secured. As the DRC has emerged from the
immediate aftermath of conflict, the country has been able to capture an increasing amount of external
finance for infrastructure—for example, ODA from multilateral and bilateral sources reached $1.6 billion
by 2009. About half of this total was for the transport sector—mainly roads—and the other half for
energy, including major rehabilitation efforts at the Inga power plant and associated high-voltage
transmission line to the southeast. In addition, a major new financing agreement signed with the People’s
Republic of China promises $3 billion, primarily for road and urban infrastructure projects (plus other
funds for projects outside the infrastructure sectors).
Overall, public investment (including infrastructure and other areas) is projected to jump to a much higher
level from 2010 onwards. From a base of around $200 million a year in 2007 and 2008, public investment
is projected to reach and sustain much higher levels over the medium term, . This would be primarily
attributable to the surge in external finance, though parallel increases in domestically funded national and
provincial public investment budgets are also anticipated. While not all of these resources will be
allocated to infrastructure, future public investment promises to move closer to requisite levels. Much less
clear, however, is where DRC will find the $1 billion needed annually to sustain maintenance of
infrastructure networks.
How much more can be done within the existing resource envelope?
There is evidence that additional resources worth at least $430 million could be recovered each year
by improving efficiency (table 13), in particular by increasing revenue collection and reducing
distribution losses. The power sector has the highest operational inefficiencies.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
27
Table 13. Potential gains from greater operational efficiency
ICT Power Transport WSS Total
Underrecovery of costs — 0 — 26 26
Overmanning — — — — —
Distribution losses — 92 — 39 131
Undercollection — 243 — 31 274
Undermaintenance — — — — —
Low budget execution — — — — >0*
Total — 335 — 96 >431
Source: Derived from Foster and Briceño-Garmendia 2009.
Note: *Although an exact estimate for low budget execution is not available, there is evidence of major underexecution of public investment
budgets particularly at the provincial level.
— = data not available.
Operational inefficiencies of power and water utilities are costing the country a staggering $405
million a year, or as much as 5.7 percent of GDP (figure 11). As noted above, both SNEL and
REGIDESO present serious operational deficiencies, including high distribution losses of power and
water (both technical and nontechnical in nature) and missed revenue due to undercollection from their
customer base. For the power sector missed revenue is the more serious of the two issues, whereas for the
water sector distribution losses represent a larger financial drain. Although the magnitude of the
operational inefficiencies is similar across power and water, the larger financial scale of the power sector
means that these inefficiencies are almost five times as large in financial terms. On this scale, the
operational inefficiency of the utilities (and of SNEL in particular) becomes more than just a sectoral
concern but a significant macroeconomic issue. While the operating inefficiencies of utilities are a
significant problem across Africa, the benchmarking exercise indicates that they are substantially worse in
the DRC than elsewhere.
Figure 11. Hidden costs of the power and water sectors due to inefficiencies
a. Power b. Water
Source: Derived from Briceño-Garmendia and others 2009.
Undercharging for water services is costing the DRC about $26 million per year, or 0.4 percent of
GDP (but does not appear to be an issue in the power sector). In GDP terms this is substantially higher
than what is found in other African countries (figure 12). The loss of $26 million per year is equivalent to
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
28
an ongoing capital subsidy to the sector, and the main beneficiaries of this subsidy are those with private
piped-water connections.
Figure 12. Underpricing in the power and water sectors
Source: Derived from Briceño-Garmendia and others 2009
The DRC’s inequitable access to piped water (and power) makes any sector subsidies highly
regressive. In the water sector, 90 percent of those with access to piped water belong to the wealthiest
quintile of the population and are the main beneficiaries of any subsidy to private piped-water supply
(figure 13). In the power sector, access is somewhat more broadly distributed, but even so 60 percent of
customers belong to the top two budget quintiles. As a result, any capital subsidies to these sectors are
highly regressive in distributional incidence.
Figure 13. Access to infrastructure services by budget quintile
a. Water supply b. Power
Legend: Q1 – first budget quintile, Q2 – second budget quintile, etc.
Source: Banerjee and others 2009.
Owing to the very limited means of the population, affordability of utility bills is substantially lower
in the DRC than in other LICs in Africa. To evaluate the social feasibility of raising tariffs toward cost-
recovery levels, an affordability threshold of 5 percent of the household budget is used. On this basis, and
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
29
using data on the magnitude of family budgets, figure 14 illustrates the percentage of Congolese
households that would be able to afford monthly utility bills of different amounts. Note that for any
particular monthly utility bill, affordability rates are substantially lower in the DRC than in Africa’s LICs
on average. For example, a utility bill of $6 per month would be affordable for 70 percent of households
in Africa’s LICs, but for only 20 percent of Congolese households. This finding illustrates that the
purchasing power of Congolese households is very low, even by African standards, raising significant
social concerns about utility pricing.
Cost-recovery bills may just be affordable for existing (relatively affluent customers) but would not
be affordable for the vast majority of the population. With existing tariffs of around $0.65 per cubic meter
(m3), an absolute subsistence consumption of 4 m3 per month would cost $2.60 per month. Bills at this
level are affordable for around 80 percent of Congolese households. A cost-recovery tariff of closer to $1
per m3 would lead to a utility bill of $4 per month, affordable for 50 percent of Congolese households. But
given that as of today only the wealthiest 20 percent of the population has access to piped water, utility
bills that cover the costs of basic consumption are unlikely to be affordable for the majority of the
population.
Figure 14. Affordability of utility bills
Source: AICD.
Furthermore, there is evidence that low rates of execution of the capital budget will be a growing
source of inefficiency. Budget execution ratios in the central government’s public investment program
have fluctuated in recent years, from a high of 169 percent in 2006 to a low of 48 percent in 2007. In
addition, there is evidence that public investments at the provincial level have a particularly low budget
execution ratio, ranging from 12 percent to 169 percent across provinces and averaging 21 percent
overall. At today’s relatively low levels of public investment, this may not seem to be an important issue.
But as public investment—both at the central and provincial levels—increases in coming years, low
capital budget execution could become a major bottleneck in the country’s infrastructure investment
program, leading to substantial inefficiencies and unused resources. Moreover, whatever institutional
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
30
issues are holding back the implementation of today’s relatively small investment programs will likely
only be exacerbated as investment volumes increase.
What else can be done to close the funding gap?
As of 2006, the DRC faced an infrastructure funding gap of $4 billion, or 60 percent of GDP (table
14). Of total spending needs—estimated at $5 billion—around $700 million was already spent as of 2006,
and at least $400 million more was being wasted through various inefficiencies. The aggregate value of
these inefficiencies is large in relation to historic spending, suggesting that the spending envelope would
increase substantially if these resources could be recaptured. Nevertheless, the value of both historic
spending and the inefficiencies is small in relation to the country’s overall spending needs. Hence, even if
all the inefficiencies could be captured overnight, a substantial funding gap would remain. Estimating the
funding gap by sector is much more difficult, given the data available. Nevertheless, it appears likely that
the largest funding gap is for WSS infrastructure, followed by transport, then power, then ICT. In any
case, the funding gaps for power, transport, and WSS each appear to be in excess of $1 billion.
Table 14. Funding gaps by sector
ICT Power Transport WSS Total
Spending needs (487) (1,437) (1,474) (1,709) (5,157)
Existing spending — — — — ≈700
Efficiency gains — 335 — 96 431
Funding gap — — — — ≈(4,026)
— = data not available.
The funding gap could be cut by a further $1.4 billion per year if lower-cost technologies were
adopted to meet the policy goals for transport and WSS. The cost of meeting a given policy goal for
infrastructure is highly sensitive to technology. Given the DRC’s large infrastructure funding gap, it will
be important to make smart technology choices in order to contain costs. In the case of the WSS sector,
for example, $830 million could be shaved off spending needs each year if the MDG targets were met
entirely by using low-cost service options—such as standposts, boreholes, and improved latrines—instead
of following the same technology mix that the DRC has chosen for WSS provision in the past. In the case
of the transport sector, close to $600 million a year could be saved by adopting a more pragmatic set of
road construction standards to meet connectivity goal—for example, by using single-surface treatments
instead of asphalt, and maintaining the network in fair rather than good condition. While these examples
are purely illustrative, they demonstrate the extent of the savings available from optimizing technology
choice.
The funding gap could be reduced by a further $750 million annually if cross-border financing
mechanisms could be found to develop the DRC’s power export potential. As noted above, about half of
the DRC’s power sector spending needs are associated with the development of infrastructure intended
purely for export. In such a case, the DRC has the option of developing the generation capacity itself and
then selling the power at a full-cost recovery price, or inviting others to make up-front capital
contributions to fund capacity development, and then discounting these contributions in the power export
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
31
price. Given the country’s large infrastructure funding gap, it will be important to explore the potential for
cross-border finance arrangements that could potentially cover these costs. If such arrangements could be
implemented, the infrastructure funding gap would narrow by a further $750 million.
While the DRC’s infrastructure challenge appears daunting today, there are reasons for hope. True,
the analysis has shown that the DRC faces one of the most formidable infrastructure challenges in Africa.
The financing needed to rebuild the country’s basic infrastructure to a level consistent with the rest of the
developing world is very large both in absolute ($5.3 billion) and in relative terms (75 percent of GDP).
Moreover, the DRC’s recent infrastructure spending—though significant relative to GDP—is little more
than 10 percent of that needed to make an impact over the next decade. Even if the country could address
the significant inefficiencies that are currently wasting at least $430 million each year, an infrastructure
funding gap of about $4 billion would remain. Nevertheless, intelligent technology choices and creative
use of cross-border finance could squeeze the funding gap to $2 billion a year. Furthermore, the public
resource envelope is projected to grow significantly in the medium term. Therefore, by combining new
resources with an improved policy and institutional environment, it should be possible to make substantial
progress toward redressing and reversing the DRC’s serious infrastructure deficits.
In any case, given the magnitude of the challenges and the difficulties of completely closing the
funding gap, DRC will need to have a clear basis for prioritizing infrastructure spending over the coming
years. A recent World Bank 2009 study provided a framework for this prioritization based on a spatial
analysis of the impacts of infrastructure investments on the broader economy, including the mining,
forestry, agriculture and manufacturing sectors. The study found that by far the single highest impact
infrastructure investments for DRC relate to rehabilitating and expanding power infrastructure so as to
increase the availability and reduce the price of power on the domestic market; bringing an internal rate of
return of some 120 percent. In the transport sector, the highest impact single intervention is the
rehabilitation of the CFMK rail link; with an internal rate of return of 80 percent. More generally, returns
to transport investments are highest when these are packaged together in such a way as to promote
mobility along key economic corridors in the country.
Business as usual is certainly not a tenable option. Simulations indicate that if the DRC were to
maintain recent infrastructure spending levels and not improve its policy environment, the country would
take more than a century to meet the infrastructure policy goals identified here. This is clearly an
unacceptable outcome and underscores the urgency of action in this area.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
32
Bibliography
This country report draws upon a wide range of papers, databases, models, and maps that were
created as part of the Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic. All of these can be downloaded from the
project website: www.infrastructureafrica.org. For papers go to the document page
(http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/aicd/documents), for databases to the data page
(http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/aicd/tools/data), for models go to the models page
(http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/aicd/tools/models) and for maps to the map page
(http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/aicd/tools/maps ). The references for the papers that were used to
compile this country report are provided in the table below.
General
Africa’s Infrastructure: A Time for Transformation (AICD Web site), http://www.infrastructureafrica.org
Foster, Vivien, and Cecilia Briceño-Garmendia, eds. 2009. Africa’s Infrastructure: A Time for
Transformation. Paris and Washington, DC: Agence Française de Développement and World
Bank.
World Bank 2009 Democratic Republic of Congo: Prioritizing Infrastructure Investments – A Spatial
Approach, Report Number 52431,World Bank, Washington DC
Growth
Calderón, César. 2009. “Infrastructure and Growth in Africa,” Policy Research Working Paper 4914,
World Bank, Washington, DC.
Escribano, Alvaro, J. Luis Guasch, and Jorge Pena. 2010. “Assessing the Impact of Infrastructure Quality
on Firm Productivity in Africa.” Policy Research Working Paper 5191, World Bank, Washington,
DC.
Yepes, Tito, Justin Pierce, and Vivien Foster. 2009. “Making Sense of Africa’s Infrastructure
Endowment: A Benchmarking Approach.” Policy Research Working Paper 4912, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Financing
Briceño-Garmendia, Cecilia, Karlis Smits, and Vivien Foster. 2009. “Financing Public Infrastructure in
Sub-Saharan Africa: Patterns and Emerging Issues.” AICD Background Paper 15, Africa Region,
World Bank, Washington, DC.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
33
Information and communication technologies
Ampah, Mavis, Daniel Camos, Cecilia Briceño-Garmendia, Michael Minges, Maria Shkratan, and Mark
Williams. 2009. “Information and Communications Technology in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Sector
Review.” AICD Background Paper 10, Africa Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Mayer, Rebecca, Ken Figueredo, Mike Jensen, Tim Kelly, Richard Green, and Alvaro Federico Barra.
2009. “Connecting the Continent: Costing the Needs for Spending on ICT Infrastructure in
Africa.” AICD Background Paper 3, Africa Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Irrigation
Svendsen, Mark, Mandy Ewing, and Siwa Msangi. 2008. “Watermarks: Indicators of Irrigation Sector
Performance in Africa.” AICD Background Paper 4, Africa Region, World Bank, Washington,
DC.
You, L., C. Ringler, G. Nelson, U. Wood-Sichra, R. Robertson, S. Wood, G. Zhe, T. Zhu, and Y. Sun.
2009. “Torrents and Trickles: Irrigation Spending Needs in Africa.” AICD Background Paper 9,
Africa Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Power
Eberhard, Anton, Vivien Foster, Cecilia Briceño-Garmendia, Fatimata Ouedraogo, Daniel Camos, and
Maria Shkaratan. 2008. “Underpowered: The State of the Power Sector in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
AICD Background Paper 6, Africa Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Foster, Vivien, and Jevgenijs Steinbuks. 2009. “Paying the Price for Unreliable Power Supplies: In-House
Generation of Electricity by Firms in Africa.” Policy Research Working Paper 4913, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Rosnes, Orvika, and Haakon Vennemo. 2009. “Powering Up: Costing Power Infrastructure Spending
Needs in Sub-Saharan Africa.” AICD Background Paper 5, Africa Region, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Transport
Bullock, Richard. 2009. “Off Track: Sub-Saharan African Railways.” AICD Background Paper 17, Africa
Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Carruthers, Robin, Ranga Rajan Krishnamani, and Siobhan Murray. 2009. “Improving Connectivity:
Investing in Transport Infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa.” AICD Background Paper 7, Africa
Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Gwilliam, Ken, Vivien Foster, Rodrigo Archondo-Callao, Cecilia Briceño-Garmendia, Alberto Nogales,
and Kavita Sethi. 2008. “The Burden of Maintenance: Roads in Sub-Saharan Africa.” AICD
Background Paper 14, Africa Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
34
Heinrich C. Bofinger. 2009. “An Unsteady Course: Growth and Challenges in Africa’s Air Transport
Industry.” AICD Background Paper 16, Africa Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Kumar, Ajay, and Fanny Barrett. 2008. “Stuck in Traffic: Urban Transport in Africa.” AICD Background
Paper 1, Africa Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Ocean Shipping Consultants, Inc. 2009. “Beyond the Bottlenecks: Ports in Africa.” AICD Background
Paper 8, Africa Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Water supply and sanitation
Banerjee, Sudeshna, Vivien Foster, Yvonne Ying, Heather Skilling, and Quentin Wodon. “Cost
Recovery, Equity, and Efficiency in Water Tariffs: Evidence from African Utilities.” AICD
Working Paper 7, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Banerjee, Sudeshna, Heather Skilling, Vivien Foster, Cecilia Briceño-Garmendia, Elvira Morella, and
Tarik Chfadi. 2008. “Ebbing Water, Surging Deficits: Urban Water Supply in Sub-Saharan
Africa.” AICD Background Paper 12, Africa Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Gulyani, Sumila, Debabrata Talukdar, and Darby Jack. 2009. “Poverty, Living Conditions, and
Infrastructure Access: A Comparison of Slums in Dakar, Johannesburg, and Nairobi.” AICD
Working Paper 10, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Keener, Sarah, Manuel Luengo, and Sudeshna Banerjee. 2009. “Provision of Water to the Poor in Africa:
Experience with Water Standposts and the Informal Water Sector.” AICD Working Paper 13,
World Bank, Washington, DC.
Morella, Elvira, Vivien Foster, and Sudeshna Ghosh Banerjee. 2008. “Climbing the Ladder: The State of
Sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa.” AICD Background Paper 13, Africa Region, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
About AICD and its country reports
This study is a product of the Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic (AICD), a project designed to
expand the world’s knowledge of physical infrastructure in Africa. The AICD provides a baseline against
which future improvements in infrastructure services can be measured, making it possible to monitor the
results achieved from donor support. It also offers a solid empirical foundation for prioritizing
investments and designing policy reforms in Africa’s infrastructure sectors.
The AICD is based on an unprecedented effort to collect detailed economic and technical data on African
infrastructure. The project has produced a series of original reports on public expenditure, spending
needs, and sector performance in each of the main infrastructure sectors, including energy, information
and communication technologies, irrigation, transport, and water and sanitation. Africa’s Infrastructure—
A Time for Transformation, published by the World Bank and the Agence Française de Développement in
November 2009, synthesized the most significant findings of those reports.
The focus of the AICD country reports is on benchmarking sector performance and quantifying the main
financing and efficiency gaps at the country level. These reports are particularly relevant to national
policy makers and development partners working on specific countries.
The AICD was commissioned by the Infrastructure Consortium for Africa following the 2005 G8 (Group
of Eight) summit at Gleneagles, Scotland, which flagged the importance of scaling up donor finance for
infrastructure in support of Africa’s development.
The first phase of the AICD focused on 24 countries that together account for 85 percent of the gross
domestic product, population, and infrastructure aid flows of Sub-Saharan Africa. The countries are:
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda,
Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. Under a second phase of the project,
coverage was expanded to include as many as possible of the additional African countries.
Consistent with the genesis of the project, the main focus is on the 48 countries south of the Sahara that
face the most severe infrastructure challenges. Some components of the study also cover North African
countries so as to provide a broader point of reference. Unless otherwise stated, therefore, the term
“Africa” is used throughout this report as a shorthand for “Sub-Saharan Africa.”
The World Bank has implemented the AICD with the guidance of a steering committee that represents the
African Union, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), Africa’s regional economic
communities, the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Development Bank of Southern Africa
(DBSA), and major infrastructure donors.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVE
36
Financing for the AICD is provided by a multidonor trust fund to which the main contributors are the
United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID), the Public Private Infrastructure
Advisory Facility (PPIAF), Agence Française de Développement (AFD), the European Commission, and
Germany’s Entwicklungsbank (KfW). A group of distinguished peer reviewers from policy-making and
academic circles in Africa and beyond reviewed all of the major outputs of the study to ensure the
technical quality of the work. The Sub-Saharan Africa Transport Policy Program and the Water and
Sanitation Program provided technical support on data collection and analysis pertaining to their
respective sectors.
The data underlying AICD’s reports, as well as the reports themselves, are available to the public through
an interactive Web site, www.infrastructureafrica.org, that allows users to download customized data
reports and perform various simulations. Many AICD outputs will appear in the World Bank’s Policy
Research Working Papers series.
Inquiries concerning the availability of data sets should be directed to the volume editors at the World
Bank in Washington, DC.
