Marrocos

Data cited at: The African Development Bank: National Infrastructure Database: https://www.infrastructureafrica.org/dataquery/ The Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic (AICD) was an unprecedented knowledge program on Africa’s infrastructure that grew out of the pledge by the G8 Summit of 2005 at Gleneagles to substantially increase ODA assistance to Africa, particularly to the infrastructure sector, and the subsequent formation of the Infrastructure Consortium for Africa (ICA). The AICD study was founded on the recognition that sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) suffers from a very weak infrastructural base, and that this is a key factor in the SSA region failing to realize its full potential for economic growth, international trade, and poverty reduction. The study broke new ground, with primary data collection efforts covering network service infrastructures (ICT, power, water & sanitation, road transport, rail transport, sea transport, and air transport) from 2001 to 2006 in 24 selected African countries. Between them, these countries account for 85 percent of the sub-Saharan Africa population, GDP, and infrastructure inflows. The countries included in the initial study were: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. The study also represents an unprecedented effort to collect detailed economic and technical data on African infrastructure in relation to the fiscal costs of each of the sectors, future sector investment needs, and sector performance indicators. As a result, it has been possible for the first time to portray the magnitude of the continent’s infrastructure challenges and to provide detailed and substantiated estimates on spending needs, funding gaps, and the potential efficiency dividends to be derived from policy reforms.

The lack of common definitions and practices to measure transport infrastructure spending hinders comparisons between countries and spending options. Data for road and rail infrastructure are the most comprehensive while data on sea port and airport spending are less detailed in coverage and definition. While our survey covers all sources of financing a number of countries exclude private spending, including Japan and India. Around 65% of countries report data on urban spending while for the remaining countries data on spending in this area are missing. Indicators such as the share of GDP needed for investment in transport infrastructure, depend on a number of factors, such as the quality and age of existing infrastructure, maturity of the transport system, geography of the country and transport-intensity of its productive sector. Caution is therefore required when comparing investment data between countries. However, data for individual countries and country groups are consistent over time and useful for identifying underlying trends and changes in levels of spending, especially for inland transport infrastructure. These issues of definitions and methods are addressed in a companion report Understanding the Value of Transport Infrastructure – Guidelines for macro-level measurement of spending and assets (ITF/OECD2013) that aims to improve the international collection of related statistics.