By the Witness Radio team.
Civil society organizations warn that the African Development Bank’s (AfDB) newly launched New African Financial Architecture for Development (NAFAD) may reinforce existing challenges in African food systems and investment priorities.
The concerns follow the AfDB Annual Meetings in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, from 25–29 May 2026, during which the Bank and its partners endorsed NAFAD as a framework for mobilizing large-scale development financing across Africa.
The meetings produced three outcomes: AfDB Board of Governors’ endorsement of NAFAD and its Four Cardinal Points; the launch of the African Economic Outlook 2026, estimating a $400 billion annual financing gap; and the Brazzaville Appeal, inviting civil society, diaspora, and philanthropists to support the initiative’s vision and objectives.
Meanwhile, civil society organizations such as the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) and Stop Financing Factory Farming (S3F) have issued a joint statement expressing reservations about the initiative’s direction, particularly its implications for African food systems. The groups argue that Africa’s problem is not capital shortage but governance and investment decisions.
“Africa does not have a capital shortage. It lacks democratic control over capital allocation. NAFAD addresses capital, but not governance,” the statement says.
The statement notes that Africa holds about $4 trillion in domestic savings—much of it invested outside the continent—including pension, sovereign wealth, and insurance funds. It also highlights the decline in global aid levels. These factors underscore the need to mobilize African capital for development.
However, the organizations caution that, without safeguards, the initiative may replicate existing industrial, input-intensive investment models in agriculture.
They state NAFAD lacks a clear definition of “productive investment” and specific commitments to agroecology, smallholder systems, or land rights.
It further argues that without a binding investment framework, the initiative may simply follow AfDB’s agricultural priorities.
NAFAD does not propose a new architecture. It aims to capitalize on the existing one by leveraging African savings, possibly shifting power centers while retaining the extractivist structure.
The statement also references a 2025 AFSA assessment of 20 AfDB agricultural projects using an agroecology evaluation tool, which reportedly found low alignment with agroecological principles across all projects reviewed, including flagship programs such as the Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation (TAAT) and Special Agro-Industrial Processing Zones (SAPZ).
Civil society groups also voice concern about rising private-sector agribusiness investments in African agriculture by firms such as ETG, Zambeef, and DAL Group.
Another concern is what organizations call “natural capital financialization,” including carbon markets and biodiversity financing. They argue that such methods could risk land dispossession unless strong community protections are in place.
“All NAFAD-funded carbon, biodiversity, and ecosystem service programs must require binding FPIC, protect land rights, and have independent oversight with community-defined benefit sharing.”
Furthermore, the statement questions NAFAD’s governance, arguing that key stakeholder groups, such as farmer organizations and land rights movements, were not adequately represented in its design.
African pension funds, sovereign wealth, and diaspora capital could finance a large-scale agroecological transition—supporting farmer-managed seeds, territorial markets, community land tenure, and biodiverse food systems. This is the financial architecture Africa’s producers need. It requires political will to define African financial sovereignty by including the people whose labor secures Africa’s food supply, the organizations add.
The groups note that, while the Brazzaville Appeal invites civil society to “embrace the vision” of NAFAD, this should also mean greater participation in shaping its design, not just its implementation.
Despite concerns, AFSA and S3F remain open to engaging with AfDB and partners. They will independently monitor NAFAD’s impact on communities, land, and biodiversity.
They also called for reforms: a binding investment mandate with agroecological requirements, independent audits of AfDB agricultural programs, stronger protections for community land rights, and greater transparency across all NAFAD investments.
AfDB has not yet publicly responded to the specific concerns in the statement.
