This paper explores various challenges and opportunities of AUDA-NEPAD in working with international organizations to implement structural transformation in Africa.
Multilateral bureaucracies operating in Africa—such as the African Union (AU) and its implementing agency, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), Regional Economic Communities (RECs), UN agencies, and development finance institutions—play an outsized role in shaping policy, distributing aid, and coordinating transnational governance.
They are at the centre of African states’ interactions with the global order and are instrumental in delivering on agendas such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), Agenda 2063, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Conceptually, these bureaucracies operate at the confluence of sovereignty politics, donor influence, and pan-African aspirations—contexts that deviate sharply from the technocratic, rule-bound ideal often associated with multilateral governance. As African countries pursue ambitious goals for just and sustainable development, African bureaucracies must navigate both the vertical expectations of external funders and the horizontal demands of politically diverse member states, often without the legal authority or resourcing to mediate either effectively. Many function in hybrid institutional environments, where informal norms, personalistic networks, and political bargaining are central to how decisions are made and executed.
Yet, how these bureaucracies actually function—internally and in relation to member states, donors, and implementation partners—remains poorly understood. Available research tends not to focus on the everyday bureaucratic work of coordination, agenda-setting, and performance management. This has left critical questions unanswered: How do Africa’s multilateral bureaucracies like AU–NEPAD balance continental ambitions with national sovereignty? What explains the persistent disconnect between policy design and execution? What are the incentive structures and internal power dynamics shaping programme execution?
The African Union Development Agency-New Partnership for Africa’s Development (AUDA-NEPAD) has been at the forefront of the continent’s efforts to promote trade integration and industrialization as core drivers of Africa’s structural transformation. Conceived as a homegrown strategy for sustainable development, AUDA-NEPAD emerged with the mandate to facilitate policy harmonization, build infrastructure, and foster regional collaboration across diverse economic sectors. Its flagship initiatives, such as Programme for Infrastructure Development Africa (PIDA), Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and sectoral value chains, reflect a bold ambition to shift Africa from reliance on commodity exports to a future anchored in inclusive, value-added industrial growth.
Despite measurable progress in developing continent-wide frameworks and facilitating high-level partnerships, AUDA-NEPAD’s approach has faced persistent challenges. Implementation barriers, resource constraints, institutional overlaps, and limited private sector engagement have all slowed the translation of policy ideals into widespread economic transformation. As detailed by academics and policy experts, realizing the agency’s transformative potential requires not only strong continental vision but also pragmatic, country-level action and enhanced stakeholder ownership that responds to Africa’s diverse developmental realities. Consequently, this paper situates trade and industrialization as central pivots for Africa’s development, rooted in the continent’s historical need for structural transformation. It critically assesses African Union Development Agency – New Partnership for Africa’s Development (AUDA-NEPAD)’s efforts including its engagements with bilateral donors, multilateral institutions, and African governments to mobilize the resources and expertise necessary for advancing Africa’s trade and industrial ambitions. AUDA-NEPAD’s ability to form working partnerships, particularly with organizations such as the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), World Bank and the European Union (EU) has supported the alignment of its priorities with Africa’s Agenda 2063, emphasizing sectors like manufacturing, infrastructure, agriculture, renewable energy, and the digital economy.
The African Union Development Agency-New Partnership for Africa’s Development (AUDA-NEPAD) was established to provide the technical leadership and coordination necessary for Africa’s economic transformation under the African Union (AU). The core premise underpinning AUDA-NEPAD’s mission is developmental regionalism, which holds that Africa’s growth depends on shifting from commodity exports toward value-added production, and on regional market integration as a basis for both trade and industrial advancement (Taylor, 2016; Signe, 2022). Agenda 2063, the Africa Mining Vision (AMV) and the newly approved Africa Green Mineral Strategy (AGMS) form guiding blueprints . All prioritize industrial policy, trade integration, and resource-based value addition as pillars for advancing Africa’s role in global value chains. These priorities shape AUDA-NEPAD’s core programmes: the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), the Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA), and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
Its approach to Trade and Industrial Growth focuses on accelerating trade integration and industrialization as essential vectors for structural transformation, poverty reduction, and inclusive, sustainable growth (UNECA, 2016; AfDB, 2019).
Within the area of policy harmonization and AfCFTA, AUDA-NEPAD has made substantial strides in supporting the rollout of AfCFTA, assisting with technical policy harmonization and building the capacity of member states under voluntary AfCFTA & AIDA Impact Assessment Study using the assessment guide, and trade facilitation (AUDA-NEPAD, 2021; Balchin et al., 2021). This has contributed to measurable but incremental gains: intra-African trade rose from around 10% in 2012 to about 15% by 2022, according to UNECA (2020). When it comes to value chain promotion, it has supported regional value chains, particularly in agriculture, light manufacturing, and services, and has become a signature theme. Targeted interventions through CAADP, PIDA and AfCFTA are designed to boost productivity and integrate African producers into richer markets (World Bank, 2020).
Despite these advances, persistent non-tariff barriers (NTBs), customs inefficiencies, incomplete regulatory harmonization, and weak logistics limit the full realization of trade gains (World Bank, 2020; AfDB, 2020). Coordination problems between AUDA-NEPAD, AU Commission, and the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) often result in fragmented responsibilities, duplication, or policy paralysis (Taylor, 2019). AUDA-NEPAD’s engagement with the private sector remains largely consultative, with insufficient focus on addressing practical business environment obstacles for MSMEs and local manufacturers (UNCTAD, 2021; AfDB, 2020).
In the area of industrialisation, AUDA-NEPAD has led capacity-building initiatives supporting national industrial policies, investment frameworks, and entrepreneurship (Signe, 2022). Programs like the Skills Initiative for Africa target skills gaps in the industrial labour force. Additionally, through PIDA, AUDA-NEPAD has catalysed significant investments in regional energy, transport, transboundary water and digital infrastructure (AfDB, 2020), considered essential to regional competitiveness and industrial clustering. In the area of promoting Green Industrialisation, More recently, AUDA-NEPAD has integrated environmental sustainability into its industrial agenda, leveraging support from global partners for green minerals, clean energy, and circular economy value chains (African Union, 2024). The impact of those strong policy frameworks remains negligible. Africa’s share of global manufacturing value-added remains stagnant, typically below 2% (UNIDO, 2021). Structural bottlenecks such as unreliable power supply, costly logistics, and skills mismatches are prevalent (UNECA, 2020). Many projects depend on external financing, with investment gaps regularly cited by the AfDB and others as a major limitation on scaling local industries (AfDB, 2020).
Additionally, in most African economies, over-reliance on commodity exports continues and the shift toward meaningfully diversified value-added products remains limited (IMF, 2021). Some critics contend that AUDA-NEPAD’s frameworks can feel externally imposed or donor-driven, risking a mismatch with diverse national contexts and undercutting local policy ownership (Taylor, 2016; UNCTAD, 2021).
Green industrialization, defined as the adoption of environmentally-friendly and sustainable practices, including clean technologies, renewable energy, and resource-efficient production, offers a transformative pathway for Africa’s development. The Africa Green Minerals Strategy (AGMS) recognizes this potential, highlighting Africa’s wealth of green minerals and renewable resources as a foundation for equitable industrialization and electrification, in line with the African Mining Vision and Agenda 2063.
While AUDA-NEPAD has succeeded in shaping Africa’s trade and industrialization landscape at the policy level and despite AUDA-NEPAD’s alignment with these ambitions and a clear policy commitment to green industrialization, the agency’s actions and outcomes have failed to deliver the necessary transformation. The AGMS itself, in assessing the continent’s progress, points to several persistent failures and structural weaknesses that have limited AUDA-NEPAD’s effectiveness. It faces persistent implementation barriers rooted in institutional complexity, limited institutional/data capacity at regional and national levels, insufficient domestic funding for project execution and monitoring and a lack of robust, independent evaluation systems, with a tendency to rely on self-reporting (AfDB, 2019; UNIDO, 2021). Many frameworks, strategies, and action plans exist, but follow-through is weak due to aforementioned factors coupled with Political instability, policy reversals, and in some cases, elite capture/corruption further undermine momentum and result in uneven progress between countries (AfDB, 2020; Taylor, 2019). These are explained in detail below.
While AUDA-NEPAD has articulated strategies that echo the AGMS by promoting the beneficiation of green minerals, regional value chain development, and clean energy infrastructure, its ability to translate these frameworks into real, continent-wide action has been sorely lacking.
Another critical shortcoming identified and confirmed across the literature is AUDA-NEPAD’s inability to mobilize adequate resources for green industrialization.
Most of the normative frameworks stress the critical need for deepening continental integration through the AfCFTA, harmonized tariffs, and a common market for green mineral value chains. AUDA-NEPAD’s inability to expedite the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers, reduce intra-African logistics cost, and create a genuinely single market has meant missed opportunities for scaling green manufacturing and distribution across national borders.
Finally, most African policies and strategies set high standards for environmental and social stewardship in mining, beneficiation, and manufacturing. In reality, AUDA-NEPAD’s approach often lacks sufficient monitoring and enforcement capacity. Mining and industrial projects in many countries still proceed with inadequate community benefit, poor transparency, and limited environmental due diligence.
The foundational vision behind NEPAD was to establish a genuinely collaborative platform that would secure shared prosperity and meaningful development for Africa through expanded trade and accelerated industrialization. Although this vision was comprehensively articulated in the foundational documents most notably the so-called "Yellow Book" these ambitious goals have often remained unfulfilled in practice. The continent has yet to realize the scale of transformation initially envisioned by NEPAD’s architects.
AUDA-NEPAD’s stakeholder landscape is highly diverse, involving bilateral and multilateral donors, public institutions, and private sector actors (Ramlogan, 2004; Olivier, 2006; OECD, 2010). While African heads of state conceived NEPAD as a homegrown, inclusive framework to drive sustainable continental development, the engagement of foreign donors and institutions such as the World Bank, European Union, and various bilateral agencies has increasingly shaped its priorities and operational agenda. This external involvement, though sometimes beneficial in mobilizing resources and expertise, has also introduced significant tensions. As highlighted by Kanbur (2004) and Akokpari (2007), donor-driven programmes and the influence of international financial institutions have, at times, diluted NEPAD’s original vision and led to a divergence between foundational principles and actual implementation.
Bilateral donors such as GIZ (Germany), the UK’s Department for International Development, and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) have played influential roles by providing financial and technical support. However, this support often comes with their own policy agendas, which do not always fully align with African needs and aspirations (Akokpari, 2007; Harrison, 2010). While the resources and guidance offered by these partners have enabled AUDA-NEPAD to pursue a breadth of initiatives, they have also created conditions where external priorities can overshadow or complicate the pursuit of African-driven solutions (Landsberg, 2012; Olivier, 2006). Navigating these complex and sometimes conflicting stakeholder interests has proven to be a persistent challenge for AUDA-NEPAD. Achieving genuine African ownership of the development agenda and ensuring that local priorities take precedence over donor interests remains a difficult balancing act.
At the member states level, within Africa, the public sector, comprising national governments and various ministries, has been crucial for advancing NEPAD’s agenda and aligning it with domestic priorities (OECD, 2010; Landsberg, 2012). However, significant disparities in capacity, resources, and strategic interests among member states hamper coordinated action and consistent implementation of NEPAD’s initiatives across the continent. Relatedly, the private sector, including multinational firms, local businesses, and civil society organizations, has become increasingly important in NEPAD’s collaborative approach. Their involvement brings investment, technical know-how, and partnerships but is also shaped by commercial motivations and diverse ideological stances, further complicating the landscape of effective delivery.
AUDA-NEPAD has prioritized stakeholder engagement and partnership-building, particularly with key actors in Germany and the European Union. These relationships have yielded substantial financial and technical assistance, enabling the rollout of initiatives such as the Skill for Africa Programme , CAADP and PIDA. The transfer of knowledge and best practices has undoubtedly strengthened AUDA-NEPAD in various sectors; for example, partnerships with the EU have facilitated increased investment, market access, and the adoption of sustainable technologies in agriculture and manufacturing, supporting Africa’s gradual shift towards green industrialization.
Despite these efforts, the outcomes have often fallen short of expectations. Gains in trade between Africa and partners like Europe and Asia remain limited, and progress in technology transfer essential for large scale industrialization has been modest at best. The persistent gap between partnership rhetoric and transformative results underscores deeper issues of policy alignment, capacity, and ownership.
In sum, while AUDA-NEPAD engages in continuous dialogue, emphasizes transparency, and upholds mutual accountability with its diverse stakeholders, systemic challenges remain unresolved. The complex interplay of donor priorities and African ambitions has, in part, constrained the scaling up of effective trade, industrialization, and technological adoption across the continent. Ensuring that Africa’s interests and long-term development goals stay at the forefront continues to be an ongoing and often precarious process for AUDA-NEPAD.
Realising the promise of Africa’s structural transformation requires a hard shift from frameworks and ambitions toward practical, inclusive, and locally adaptive action. The following opportunities and lessons are instructive
Realising the promise of Africa’s structural transformation requires a hard shift from frameworks and ambitions toward practical, inclusive, and locally adaptive action. The following are recommended in order to achieve this
This essay demonstrated that multilateral bureaucracies in Africa—particularly within the AU–NEPAD architecture, are pivotal actors in the continent’s development landscape. Through the lens of the AU’s trade and industrialisation agenda, it became evident that these institutions operate within a uniquely complex policy and political economy context: one shaped by ambitious continental frameworks, funding gaps, fragmented and diverse stakeholder interests, donor dependency, and evolving regional integration. While AUDA-NEPAD has succeeded in shaping Africa’s trade and industrialisation landscape at the policy level despite these tensions, these complexities, coupled with additional barriers such as persistent implementation barriers rooted in institutional complexity, funding gaps, and uneven capacity undermine their coherence, authority, and delivery capacity.
The effectiveness of multilateral bureaucracies shapes policy outcomes and commitments. This is particularly urgent given the continent’s concurrent commitments to green industrialisation, sustainable economic development, and regional integration—all of which require robust, adaptive bureaucratic systems. The stakes are high. As such, policy and reform efforts must move beyond surface-level capacity building to engage the deeper political and institutional logic of Africa’s multilateral statecraft to fix the challenges outlined in this paper.
Unless these challenges are directly addressed, AUDA-NEPAD’s vision for broad-based, sustainable economic growth in Africa will remain only partially fulfilled. AUDA-NEPAD must maintain focus on its mandate of promoting trade and industrialization in Africa, instead of being overly influenced by the interests of other international stakeholders. The organization should prioritize strengthening collaboration with African governments, the private sector, and local communities to ensure its initiatives are aligned with the continent's needs and development priorities
African Development Bank (AfDB). (2019, 2020). Africa Industrialization Report, African Economic Outlook.
AUDA-NEPAD. (2019, 2020, 2021). Annual Reports and Strategy Papers.
Balchin, N., et al. (2021). “The Potential of AfCFTA for Industrialization in Africa.” ODI Policy Brief.
Signe, L. (2018, 2022). “Africa’s Path to Industrialization and Economic Diversification: Challenges and Prospects in the AfCFTA Era.” Brookings Institution.
Taylor, I. (2016, 2019). "NEPAD and the African Union: Challenges to Continental Development Collaboration."
UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA). (2019, 2020). Reports on Trade and Industrialization.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2021). Economic Development in Africa Report.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2021). Africa Industrialization Day: Facts and Figures.
World Bank. (2020). “African Continental Free Trade Area: Economic and Distributional Effects.”
International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2021). African Regional Economic Outlook.
Abrahamsen, R. (2000). The European Union and Africa: The Politics of Engagement. Journal of African Studies, 27(1), 1-20.
Akokpari, J. (2007). The New Partnership for Africa's Development: The Politics of Implementation. African Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 1-16.
Alden, C., & Soko, M. (2005). The Role of China in Africa's Development. Journal of International Affairs, 58(2), 93-110.
Asche, H., & Schüller, M. (2008). Evaluation of AUDA-NEPAD Initiatives. Development Studies Research, 2(3), 125-140.
Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2020). The Political and Economic Situation in Africa. Transformation Index BTI 2020.
Chang, H., et al. (2016). The Role of Industrial Policy in Africa’s Economic Transformation. African Development Review, 28(1), 1-22.
Gitau, M., & Mwangi, E. (2020). Assessing AUDA-NEPAD's Impact on Trade and Industrialization in Africa. African Economic Policy Review, 12(2), 45-67.
Harrison, G. (2010). The World Bank and Africa: A Review of the Literature. African Affairs, 109(437), 251-272.
Landsberg, C. (2012). NEPAD: A New Era of African Development? African Security Studies, 21(2), 101-113.
Makokera, S. (2015). AUDA-NEPAD and the Role of Regional Integration. African Journal of Public Administration, 12(4), 12-29.
Moono, P. (2021). Financing Green Industrialization in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283, 124-135.
Nnonyelu, M. (2018). Green Industrialization in Africa: Policy Challenges and Perspectives. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 12(3), 45-58.
OECD. (2010). Development Co-operation Report 2010: Focus on the Global Partnership for Development. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2018). Development Co-operation Report 2018: Joining Forces to Leave No One Behind. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Olivier, J. (2006). The Role of Private Sector in NEPAD. South African Journal of International Affairs, 13(1), 73-88.
Ohiorhenuan, J. (2003). NEPAD: The Role of the Private Sector. African Development Review, 15(1), 1-20.
Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. London: Bogle-L'Ouverture Publications.
Reinman, A. (2015). The Green Industrialization Agenda in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of African Business, 16(3), 236-256.
Rogerson, C. M. (2004). The Role of Tourism in the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Tourism Review, 59(2), 10-22.
Rogerson, C. M. (2014). The Impact of Industrial Policy on Economic Development in Africa. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 5(1), 56-74.
Tralac. (2019). Trade Policy Review: The Role of the African Union. Tralac Trade Law Centre.
UN Economic Commission for Africa. (2017). Economic Report on Africa 2017: Urbanization and Industrialization for Africa’s Transformation. Addis Ababa: UNECA.
UNECA. (2016). Industrialization in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. Addis Ababa: United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
World Bank. (2019). World Development Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
Mr. Kossi Toulassi is a recognised financial strategist and economic analyst with 20 plus years of experience in driving complex financial operations, investment strategies, and sustainable growth.
