Multiple corridors provide critical redundancy in the event of failure, if they are inter-linked. But their economic efficiency needs to be looked at in more practical than academic terms because the economies are racking up huge debt to build these projects.

For instance, the Lapsset Corridor aims to link Lamu, South Sudan and Ethiopia along a logistics umbilical cord comprising rail, an oil pipeline, electric power and roads.

At the same time, if at all the Kenya standard gauge railway eventually makes its way to Malaba, Uganda is also planning to extend a limb to its border with South Sudan.

From there, an 80-kilometre link would take te SGR line to Juba. It is in doubt that South Sudan will in the medium term have the economic velocity to support two SGR links. As a result, it has become a question of who between Kenya and Uganda gets to Juba first.

Does it need to be this way? Probably not, because a shorter inland SGR leg would probably be better for South Sudan at this point in time since it commits less capital.

Kenya also plans to build an oil refinery at Lamu just as Kampala wants one at its Hoima oil hub in western Uganda. A single refinery jointly-owned by Uganda, South Sudan and Kenya would probably make more economic sense but this was put paid when the Uganda crude oil export pipeline went south to Tanzania.

Given the congestion around Dar es Salaam, a new port and industrial complex in Bagamoyo might be necessary. What is distorting the rational view of these projects is that they are being approached from the spirit of competition rather than complementarity. This exposes the region to expensive infrastructure that it may never afford or sustain.

All the countries in the region from Djibouti to Tanzania are already saddled with worrying current account deficits thanks to a recent surge in debt-financed infrastructure projects. The downside is that export revenues are not keeping pace, leading the borrowers into a sure debt trap.

Source: The East African