Pro rata is a Latin term that translates to “in proportion.” Put simply, it is used to describe a proportionate allocation. It’s a process in which an allocated asset is distributed in equal portions. An amount is assigned to one person according to their share of the whole if something is distributed to several people on a pro rata basis. A pro rata calculation is often used in business finance but can also determine the appropriate portions of any given whole.
From Relief to Readiness: How African Insurers Can Change the Way We Prepare for Disasters
By Sufian Ahmed
In 2015, Ethiopia experienced the worst drought in decades. It affected nearly 10 million people. It is sometimes called the forgotten crisis. But forgotten by whom? As the Finance Minister, I was forced to take funding from health and education and other projects that would have helped our country grow more prosperous and resilient. Finance ministers across Africa know the feeling well. A climate disaster that turns into a fiscal crisis can dismantle a country’s growth plans overnight. African insurers are uniquely placed to address that escalating risk and protect vulnerable populations and the continent’s growth trajectory. This is why the 51st African Insurance Organisation (AIO) General Assembly in Addis Ababa—my home city—lands at exactly the right moment.
Climate Risk Is Fiscal Risk
The AIO was set up over fifty years ago when most African markets were young. It became the natural platform for African insurers, brokers, reinsurers and regulators to speak with one voice. The newly independent countries could not have foreseen that half a century later, one of the biggest risks facing the continent would be related to climate. Africa has emitted less than four percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, yet climate-related shocks already cost us US$7-15 billion every year and could reach US $50 billion by 2040.
Treasuries pay twice for each drought, flood or cyclone: first through emergency expenditures and then through slower growth as budgets are raided to close the gap. Emerging data show how skewed the disaster financing model remains. In 2022, less than 2% of international crisis financing was agreed in advance—and only a tiny portion of that reached low-income countries. Pre-arranged financing accounted for only 0.4 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa —about US $65 million of US $14.7 billion of total international crisis financing.
How we pay for shocks shapes how we prepare for them. If funds appear only after a disaster, we build institutions of relief rather than protection. What we need instead is finance that has been arranged and agreed ahead of shocks, and that is able to flow predictably and quickly where it is needed most.
A Call to Africa’s Insurers: The Three P(iece)s
Although Africa did not create this crisis, African expertise and innovation hold the pieces to help solve it – and our insurance industry must lead the way.
I challenge every African insurer to step into the gap through the ‘three Ps’: parametric insurance, public-private partnerships and property-catastrophe insurance.
Parametric insurance: We don’t have to let the disaster run its course to tally the damage. Governments are looking for insurance that pays automatically when rainfall, wind speed or crop yields cross an agreed threshold. Last year, regional pools and development banks placed US $2.8 billion of such cover worldwide; cumulative payouts have surpassed US $800 million. No mechanism better illustrates continental momentum than the African Risk Capacity pool, which now protects fifteen countries across the continent. The African Development Bank has amplified that effort by mobilising donor money to subsidise premiums.
Public-private partnerships: We need better agricultural insurance. In Senegal and Kenya, the state splits the premium with the private sector so that smallholders can cover crops and livestock, unlock seasonal credit and invest with confidence even as weather patterns grow harsher. Those schemes are as much rural-development tools as they are safety nets.
Property-catastrophe insurance: We need protection for public assets. Most African roads, schools and power lines remain uninsured. Bringing them under domestic – or regional – markets would cap the sudden reconstruction bills that so often derail capital investment plans.
Through these ‘three Ps’, Africa’s insurers will not only play an important role in managing climate risk – they’ll help redefine fiscal resilience for the continent.
Bridging Insurance and Public Finance
The appetite is there. In Africa Insurance Pulse 2024, the AIO asked senior executives from 22 leading insurers, reinsurers and brokers about their role in resilience. Ninety-five percent said the industry should and can promote disaster risk reduction.
We need to build ‘bridges’ to build bridges. As someone who has sat on the other side of the table, I strongly encourage insurers and financial actors to work more closely with Ministries of Finance and other government departments. Together, we can integrate risk transfer and pre-arranged finance into national budgeting and public investment planning, particularly in high-risk, shock-prone sectors.
But, Africa’s actuarial, regulatory, and reinsurance capacity must continue to be strengthened and scaled to foster innovations that match the continent’s diverse risk profile.
Why the Addis Conference Matters
The AIO Conference and Annual General Assembly are where technical ideas can transform into resilience. The agenda already points the way: for example, the African Development Bank will present the Africa Climate Risk Insurance Facility for Adaptation, a test case for putting the ‘three Ps’ on a continental footing.
If insurers seize these opportunities, they will do more than protect budgets after a drought; they will tilt incentives toward risk reduction long before the rain fails. Pre-arranged finance cannot prevent the next disaster, but it can help prevent a drought from becoming a crisis. The drought will come; the question facing the AIO this week is whether it will take the lead.
Sufian Ahmed is former Minister of Finance of Ethiopia (1995-2015) and a Board Member of the Centre for Disaster Protection. This op-ed is based on a keynote speech delivered at the 51st AIO conference and AGM.
China’s Infrastructure Revolution: Why West Fears East
By Seringe S.T. Touray
The BRI symbolizes one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in our modern history, and, in my opinion, the most ambitious of all. Exactly how ambitious? Depends on who you ask, and what the angle is. Now, let’s take a closer, unfiltered look.
Launched in 2013 by China’s Head of State, Xi Jinping, the initiative plans a connection between Asia, Europe, and Africa through roads, railways, ports, and other infrastructure investments. Essentially, it aims at distributing trade and economic opportunities globally.
To many, this lays out a new world order guided by China, a communist region of Asia often seen as a rival of the West, thus welcoming a more cautionary rather than positive assessment of the BRI. But are there legitimate concerns about the project? Or are criticisms clouded by anxiety over what some economists, even in the West, describe as a future rapidly tilting in favor of Chinese world dominance?
With over 140 countries participating as of 2024, the BRI encompasses 75% of Earth’s population, and over half of global GDP. To quote a portion of the official descriptions of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), “The Belt and Road Initiative is a bid to enhance regional connectivity.”
When President Xi introduced the BRI in Kazakhstan in 2013, what started as an idea to revive the ancient Silk Road trading routes evolved into something far more ambitious, despite minimal coverage from the West. But back in East Asia, on this eastern side of the Eurasian continent, Xi’s vision to connect China with the rest of the world through land and sea routes quickly took root, drawing nourishment from its five-thousand-year history as it evolved into the modernized concept it is today.
For those unfamiliar with the original Silk Road, it was a sophisticated network of trade routes that connected China with parts of Asia, the Middle East, and Europe over 2,000 years ago. And it wasn’t just about silk—spices, tea, gold, and even ideas and cultures moved along these routes, shaping much of early global exchange.
Now, there’s just a little twist, if I may say. The “Belt” in Belt and Road isn’t really a belt, neither is the “Road” an actual road—not in a literal sense, or traditional sense for that matter. Whereas “Belt” refers to overland trade corridors that stretch through Central Asia to Europe, the “Road” is actually a series of maritime shipping lanes running through Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean, and on to Africa and Europe. But confusing names aside, the idea is bold, with China eager to knit together infrastructure, trade, and cooperation on a global scale.
Since its introduction, the Belt and Road has expanded to six major corridors. The most notable is the headline-grabbing $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, among others connecting Western China, Russia, Mongolia, Southeast Asia, and beyond.
Separately, ports are being constructed or upgraded from the South China Sea to the Mediterranean. That’s not all. China has also busied itself with what it calls the Digital Silk Road focused on building digital infrastructure and expanding technology cooperation among participating countries. This came side-by-side with the development of a Health Silk Road for health cooperation and medical infrastructure also among participating countries.
Additionally, the BRI rolled out the Ice Silk Road for Arctic shipping routes and cooperation in the polar regions, mainly with its longtime geopolitical ally, which, according to the world map, spans both Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. That’s right – Russia.
By 2017, the Communist Party under President Xi officially incorporated the BRI into its national policy, adding a target completion date of 2049. It’s worth mentioning that this would coincide with the 100th anniversary of modern China. This is also to say, the BRI isn’t just another infrastructure project; more than that, it’s become a central part of Xi’s long-term global strategy, strictly guided by his worldview.
Much of the misinformation, or perhaps innocent misconceptions, found in some mainstream coverage originates from widespread speculation. There appears to be increasing ambiguity regarding the sources of finance for this long-term megaproject, with unsubstantiated mainstream media-propelled rumors speculating about the drying out of funds, leading to project dead ends. In reality, funds for the extensive projects are funneled through a variety of institutions, namely the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank with over $100 billion in capital, the $40 billion Silk Road Fund, and China’s policy and commercial banks.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research projected that the BRI will boost world GDP by $7.1 trillion yearly by 2040, nine years before its scheduled completion. Even the World Bank estimates increased trade flows and reduced costs for member countries through the BRI.
China’s approach to global infrastructure development through the BRI stands in notable contrast to Western models, whose development aid often comes with stringent political and economic conditions. The Chinese have instead introduced a “non-interference” policy in domestic affairs and present the BRI as a mutually beneficial economic partnership – an approach which has proven particularly attractive to developing nations that have historically felt marginalized by Western-dominated international institutions.
Oftentimes, China’s distinctive governance model is misunderstood in the West. A clear example of this is the broad Western-driven perception of China as a one-party state, much like the perception many have of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin.
The truth is, the Chinese political system currently includes up to eight legally recognized non-Communist parties participating in the political process, alongside China’s ruling Communist Party. The huge difference? Rather than compete for power – a move that often leads to distortions of reality and manipulations in a battle of narratives to garner support – Chinese political parties participate in what’s called “multiparty cooperation and political consultation” under CCP leadership. In essence, they each provide input on policy decisions and serve specific social and professional constituencies, functioning more as advisory bodies than adversarial opposition parties in the Western sense.
Compare this with China’s approach, and you’ll notice a difference. Here in China, the media are largely state-directed in a way that promotes national unity, social harmony, and developmental achievements. Moreover, this direction aligns with the government’s own agenda. The West often dismisses this philosophy as propagandist in nature. Yet, for the overwhelming majority of Chinese people, this model plays an important role in fostering stability in China by reinforcing a shared national vision.
These differences do not end there. They extend to public attitudes towards leadership. I was struck by the widespread respect the Chinese express for President Xi during my visits to both Beijing and Anji. The first thought that sprang to my mind was the contrast between this and the polarized political climates seen in countries like the U.S. and U.K., where disrespect for leaders in many instances depends on party affiliation. Western media likes to portray Chinese citizens as resentful of a repressive government. However, my conversations with Chinese people from different walks of life reveal genuine pride, both in their leadership and national progress.
Personally, I find that these inconsistent portrayals stain the record of some Western media that have also frequently labelled the BRI as “failing,” “collapsing,” or a “debt trap.” This attitude can also be observed in a wide range of content disseminated across the internet, not the least of which is the widely viewed 2024 YouTube video titled ‘How China’s Belt and Road Initiative Collapsed.’ The video uses dramatic language and imagery, depicting “half-built ghost projects” especially across African nations, and other participating nations “drowning in debt.” They further claim that related protests are “exploding” on different continents.
These frame the BRI as a geopolitical strategy rather than a development effort. But the fact of the matter is, it’s not exactly a zero-sum-game. Both can be true regarding China’s aims, so long as it aims in good faith. Such negative coverage invokes phrases like “setting the stage for a new cold war,” casting China’s infrastructure investments as tools of control.
The report warns that the lack of transparency over this $240 billion bailout could have global ramifications.
Here’s what’s interesting: this Western portrayal clashes with research and perspectives within China. In my discussions with the Chinese – and this includes government officials, scholars, as well as locals in Beijing and Anji – the BRI is consistently seen as a means of sharing prosperity across the world, particularly with member countries. A means of fostering mutually beneficial development. Even scholars like Deborah Brautigam of Johns Hopkins University challenge the “debt trap” narrative. In Brautigam’s own findings, she notes that “Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country.”
Here’s the stranger bit. When countries fail to repay loans from Western nations or institutions, they sometimes do face debt restructuring, loss of economic sovereignty through imposed policy reforms, credit downgrades, and reduced access to future financing. In some cases, they are pressured into privatizing or relinquishing control of key national assets.
And even the Western borrowers are not immune. You might recall that during its debt crisis, Greece was compelled by the EU and IMF to privatize major assets, including handing over operations of 14 regional airports to Germany’s Fraport AG to secure bailout funds (Reuters, 2015).
Similar scenarios have affected some African nations. Let’s consider Tunisia, for instance. The North African country also faced demands to cut its subsidies and privatize some of its state-owned firms, sparking public backlash over fears of foreign control (Al Jazeera, 2023). The point of these examples is not whataboutism. The point is that the same mechanisms Western countries enforce when borrowers can’t repay loans are the very mechanisms they accuse China of enforcing, as if such enforcements are unheard of, when they’ve long been standard practice.
You might notice that mainstream media coverage frequently distorts the BRI’s scope through subtle framing. Reports describing the participation of “only” 140 countries obscure the fact that this represents about 75% of the world’s population—an extraordinary diplomatic feat. Criticism of the BRI’s “slow” progress ignores that it launched in 2013 with a 2049 target, making it a long-term vision. Yet it’s judged as though it should have revolutionized global infrastructure in just over a decade—an expectation not applied to Western-led efforts.
One might speculate that this pattern of negative framing reflects broader anxieties about China’s rise. Why? Let’s shift to Goldman Sachs – the global financial giant that projected China surpassing the U.S. as the largest economy by 2035-2040. And if that’s not enough reason for anxiety, President Xi himself has laid out China’s expectations, which see 2049, the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic and the completion date set for the BRI, as the year China fully emerges as a modernized and socialist superpower. All this, alongside China’s growing regional influence in the Indo-Pacific.
To squeeze in a final example, China’s rapidly-growing BYD provides yet another case study portraying some western media distortions of the economic achievements of the Asian country. While there’s a strong presence of global brands like Toyota, Mercedes, Volvo, BMW, Audi and the like, they’re hardly any match for the rapid growth of BYD electric vehicles marking their territory on Chinese streets.
2024 saw BYD capturing a whopping 34.1% of China’s new energy vehicle market. By comparison, Tesla held only 6%, which isn’t terrible considering Musk’s company shares the local market with other competing global car brands, but with Tesla declining to 5.6% by early 2025, there’s much concern for Elon Musk to ponder as his company strives to stay relevant in Asia. Yet, in spite of this, some Western narratives remain steadfast in continuously underestimating Chinese innovation.
You might recall that back in November 2011, Musk laughed dismissively when a Bloomberg reporter asked him questions about what could become a future tight race between Tesla and BYD, which was slowly taking off at the time. “I don’t think they have a great product. The technology is not very strong,” Musk said, further declaring that Chinese manufacturing couldn’t compete on price.
As time has taught us exactly fifteen years later, Musk’s claims couldn’t be further from the truth. Yet similar dismissive attitudes to this day continue to shape some Western coverage of Chinese economic advances.
So far, the BRI has attracted over $1 trillion in investments across more than 150 partner countries, and has delivered railways, ports, highways, and digital infrastructure at a scale unmatched by Western-led efforts (World Bank, 2023; Council on Foreign Relations, 2024).
To those raising concerns over the ecological impact of BRI projects, China has pretty much remained transparent regarding its renewable energy investments, with President Xi publicly pledging to end all overseas coal financing. In fact, during my visit to Beijing, I’ve seen firsthand China’s sustainable commitment. Its international training centers, strategic planning, and discussions tailored to partner countries were on display at the inauguration of the Anji International Media Training Base on May 15, which I attended at the invitation of the government. The emphasis? China’s globalist vision and ecological civilization.
Remember, even in the West, China is still widely considered to be the global leader in renewable and green energy. It’s also the largest producer of renewable energy capacity.
Seringe S.T. Touray is Editor-In-Chief, The Fatu Network
Africa’s new colonial chains
In the 21st century, the word “colonization” often conjures images of a bygone era—European flags planted in African soil, foreign rulers dictating the fate of millions, and the systematic extraction of people and resources. Yet, while the flags have been lowered and the colonial administrators have departed, Africa remains, in many ways, ensnared in new forms of colonization. Today’s chains are less visible, but their grip is just as tight. The West continues to exploit Africa’s people and resources, using economic, political, and financial tools to maintain dominance and extract profit, often with little regard for the continent’s future or its people’s well-being.
Africa is a continent blessed with immense natural wealth. From the gold mines of South Africa to the oil fields of Nigeria, the cobalt of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the rare earth minerals scattered across the continent, Africa’s resources are the envy of the world. Yet, paradoxically, this abundance has not translated into prosperity for most Africans. Instead, it has often resulted in what economists call the “resource curse”—a phenomenon where resource-rich countries experience less economic growth and worse development outcomes than those with fewer natural resources.
Why? Because the extraction of these resources is overwhelmingly controlled by multinational corporations headquartered in the West. These companies, often in collusion with local elites, extract minerals, oil, and agricultural products at bargain prices, export them for processing, and then sell finished goods back to Africa at a premium. The profits flow outward; the environmental destruction, social disruption, and poverty remain behind.
Take cobalt, for example—a mineral essential for the batteries powering smartphones and electric cars. Over 70% of the world’s cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, yet the country remains one of the poorest on earth. Western tech giants reap the rewards, while Congolese miners, including children, labor in dangerous conditions for a pittance. This is not development; it is exploitation, pure and simple.
If the old colonial powers used gunboats and armies to subjugate Africa, today’s empires use debt and financial institutions. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, institutions dominated by Western interests, have become the new enforcers of economic orthodoxy. They lend money to African nations—often for projects that serve Western business interests or to bail out economies destabilized by global market shocks. But these loans come with strings attached: austerity measures, privatization of public assets, deregulation, and trade liberalization.
The logic is always the same: open your markets, cut public spending, and prioritize debt repayment over social investment. The result? African countries are forced to slash health and education budgets, sell off state-owned enterprises to foreign investors, and open their doors to cheap imports that undermine local industries. The debt burden grows, and with it, dependency on Western creditors. In the end, the IMF and its partners become the de facto rulers, dictating policy from afar.
Western governments and NGOs love to tout their generosity toward Africa, pointing to billions in aid sent every year. But much of this aid is “tied”—it must be spent on goods and services from donor countries—or comes with policy conditions that benefit Western interests. Moreover, studies have shown that for every dollar of aid sent to Africa, far more leaves the continent in the form of illicit financial flows, profit repatriation, and debt service payments. In effect, aid becomes a smokescreen, masking the ongoing extraction of wealth from Africa to the West.
The consequences of this modern colonization are dire. Unemployment remains rampant, especially among Africa’s youth. Public services are underfunded, health systems are fragile, and educational opportunities are limited. The promise of independence has been betrayed by a system that keeps Africa at the bottom of the global hierarchy, a perpetual supplier of raw materials and cheap labor.
Africa’s future cannot be mortgaged to the interests of foreign powers. The continent’s leaders and citizens must demand a new relationship with the world—one based on fairness, mutual benefit, and respect for sovereignty. This means renegotiating exploitative contracts, investing in local value addition, and building regional supply chains that keep more wealth within Africa. It means reforming international institutions to give Africa a real voice and ending the cycle of debt dependency.
Most importantly, it means recognizing that Africa’s greatest resource is not its minerals or oil, but its people—their creativity, resilience, and potential. The time has come to break the new colonial chains and build a future where Africa’s wealth serves Africans first.
Colonialism may have changed its form, but its substance remains. Until Africa is free from the economic and political domination of the West, true independence will remain an illusion. The world must reckon with this reality—and Africans must continue the struggle for genuine liberation, this time not from foreign flags, but from the invisible hand that still guides their destinies.
