The challenges facing Equatorial Guinea's development projects are significant—but here's where it gets controversial: How effectively are international agencies like the African Development Bank really managing and supporting these initiatives?
Recently, the African Development Bank Group conducted a comprehensive joint review of its $167 million project portfolio within Equatorial Guinea, focusing on assessing progress, identifying obstacles, and planning for improvement. The review took place in Malabo from October 27 to 31, bringing together government officials, technical partners, and project management teams to evaluate how well these initiatives are performing and to chart future directions aligned with the country's national Vision 2035.
At the conclusion of this review, an action plan was approved to boost project outcomes. Key elements include establishing a coordinated system for overseeing project progress, implementing strict mechanisms to monitor contractual obligations, and ensuring full adherence to financial commitments. These measures aim to address long-standing issues such as project delays, slow startup phases, and the delayed issuance of necessary approvals by the Bank Group. Additionally, there's a recognition that teams often lack the necessary technical skills and familiarity with the Bank's procedures on procurement, disbursement, and financial management, which hampers efficiency.
"The Bank is intensifying its engagement with project management units, emphasizing capacity building through targeted training in fiduciary management and monitoring and evaluation," explained Mouhamed Gueye, the Bank's Divisional Manager for Social Development and Human Capital in Central and North Africa. He emphasized that close dialogue with partners is crucial to mobilize additional co-financing, not just for current projects but for future initiatives beyond 2026.
The review also served as a platform to discuss alignment with Equatorial Guinea's long-term development goals. Ladislao Ndong Ndong Bisó, representing the Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, highlighted that the process aimed to ensure that ongoing projects are on track, evaluate their implementation, and identify any shortcomings. The insights gained will inform future project planning, including investment strategies and financing terms.
Several follow-up activities were introduced following the workshop. For instance, a fiduciary clinic was organized to deepen project managers' understanding of the new accounting standards and the Bank's financial procedures. Moreover, a €58.61 million loan agreement was signed between the Bank and Equatorial Guinea to support the Project to Strengthen Human Capital in Line with Economic and Social Inclusion (PARCH). Additionally, a site visit to the PASPA project revealed substantial progress in building aquaculture infrastructure, which is expected to be completed by early 2026.
Equatorial Guinea has maintained a longstanding partnership with the African Development Bank since joining the institution in 1975. Initial funding efforts began in 1978 with a grant for a cocoa replanting project valued at nearly $9 million. Over the years, the country has benefited from a total of 53 operations, amounting to around $337.3 million in commitments.
Currently, the Bank's active portfolio in Equatorial Guinea includes six projects totaling roughly $167 million, strategically distributed across key sectors. The social sector receives the largest share (42.2%), followed by agriculture (38.6%), governance (18.5%), and a small portion dedicated to communications, ICT, and energy (0.7%).
But many question whether these investments are translating into meaningful progress for the country's population or if challenges such as project delays and capacity issues are undermining development efforts. The ongoing review underscores the importance of oversight, capacity development, and strategic alignment—but are these measures enough to spark real change? What do you think? Could the Bank's approach be both more effective and more transparent? Share your thoughts—this debate is far from over.
