The rise in armed violence, coups d’état and political tensions in West Africa is leading many economic actors to ask whether it is still worthwhile investing in the region despite the insecurity. The answer is neither a categorical “yes” nor a categorical “no”. It depends on the sector, the country, the time horizon and the level of risk tolerance.
The issue is less whether to invest than to understand how, where and under what conditions of strategic prudence to invest in an unstable environment.
A real risk, but very uneven across countries and areas
The first common mistake is to speak of “West Africa” as a homogeneous bloc. Security and political risks there are in reality highly contrasted.
Hotspots of severe insecurity are currently concentrated:
- in the central Sahel (Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger), marked by the activity of jihadist groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda and Islamic State, intercommunal violence and an increased presence of foreign military actors and private military companies;
- in certain border areas of northern Benin, Togo and Ghana, affected by the spread of violence from the Sahel;
- in north-eastern Nigeria and the Lake Chad Basin, as a result of Boko Haram and its factions.
Conversely, countries such as Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire (outside sensitive border areas), and certain large cities (Abidjan, Dakar, Lomé, Cotonou) still offer relatively more stable environments, even if political, social or criminal risks persist.
For an investor, the question is therefore not “should one invest in West Africa?”, but rather: in which countries, in which specific territories and with what exposure to security risk.
Economic fundamentals that remain supportive
Despite the instability, several structural factors continue to underpin the region’s attractiveness:
- dynamic demographics and rapid urbanisation, generating growing demand for housing, energy, transport, digital services, health and education;
- significant natural resources (gold, manganese, bauxite, hydrocarbons, agricultural land) which remain drivers of investment, including in countries in crisis;
- gradual regional integration (ECOWAS, WAEMU, AfCFTA) which, despite political tensions, favours trade and regional value chains in the medium term;
- strong demand for infrastructure (roads, ports, power grids, digital) where needs still far exceed current supply.
These fundamentals explain why, even in fragile contexts, investment flows do not stop entirely. Rather, they are redirected towards certain sectors, geographical areas or types of actors deemed more resilient.
Multiple risks, beyond physical insecurity alone
Armed violence is often at the centre of concerns, but it is only part of the overall risk. For an economic actor, several dimensions need to be taken into account.
Security risk
This covers threats linked to armed groups, banditry, kidnappings, and attacks on convoys or industrial sites. This risk is particularly high in certain rural, mining or border areas. It is often combined with intercommunal tensions, land conflicts or rivalries over resources.
Political and institutional risk
The recent coups d’état in Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea and Niger illustrate the fragility of certain regimes. Changes of power can lead to:
- contracts or regulatory frameworks being called into question;
- regional or international sanctions affecting financial and trade flows;
- internal polarisation that weakens the business environment.
Regulatory and legal risk
In several countries, the legal framework is unstable, sometimes unpredictable, and the independence of the judiciary is limited. This can translate into:
- rapid changes to taxation or to mining, land or investment codes;
- difficulties in enforcing contracts or resolving disputes;
- corruption and patronage practices that increase costs and uncertainty.
Social and reputational risk
Economic projects, particularly in the extractive or land sectors, may be contested by local communities, trade unions or civil society organisations. Issues of access to land, benefit sharing and environmental impact are central. A project perceived as unfair or opaque can quickly become a point of tension, or even a symbolic target, with repercussions for its international reputation.
Some sectors more resilient than others
Not all sectors react to insecurity in the same way. Some prove more resilient, or are even boosted by crisis-related demand.
- Agri-food and the agricultural value chain: despite disruptions, demand for food products remains structurally strong. Investment in local processing, storage, logistics or irrigation can prove worthwhile, provided that land tensions and climate risks are taken into account.
- Energy and infrastructure: access to electricity, roads and digital services is a major issue. Projects may be exposed to security risks (sabotage, attacks), but they often benefit from political support and international funding.
- Urban services and the digital economy: in relatively stable large cities, digital financial services, e-commerce, urban logistics and private healthcare services continue to develop, sometimes on the margins of the areas most affected by insecurity.
- Mining sector: it remains attractive, but is highly exposed to the risks of capture by armed groups, unregulated artisanal gold mining and tensions with communities. Managing social and environmental impacts is particularly sensitive in this sector.
Investing despite insecurity: a matter of strategy, not a gamble
Investing in a fragile context is not a “roll of the dice”, but a deliberate risk management strategy. Several elements are decisive.
Differentiating geographical scales
Some countries in crisis have relatively stable areas (the capital, secure logistics corridors, specific economic hubs), while broadly stable states may contain very high-risk border areas. Detailed analysis by region, or even by district, is essential to avoid generalisations.
Taking local dynamics into account
Violence is not solely the work of jihadist groups. It is often rooted in long-standing local conflicts (access to land, political rivalries, tensions between farmers and herders, etc.). An economic project that ignores these dynamics may unintentionally fuel tensions, and thus increase its own risk.
Working with legitimate actors
The quality of relations with local communities, customary and religious authorities, local governments and civil society organisations is a central factor of resilience. Mechanisms for dialogue, consultation and benefit sharing help to reduce the risk of local hostility, even in an unstable national environment.
Anticipating political and regional developments
Political transitions, regional sanctions and diplomatic repositioning (for example in relation to former colonial powers or new partners such as Russia, China, Turkey and the Gulf states) can change the business environment. Regular monitoring of regional dynamics and shifting alliances is necessary to anticipate changes in the framework.
Which investor profiles can still position themselves?
In this context, some types of actors are better equipped to invest than others.
- Long-term investors (infrastructure, energy, agro-industry) able to absorb periods of instability and to negotiate with successive governments.
- Regional actors (West African banks, industrial or service groups) with detailed knowledge of local contexts and extensive networks of relationships.
- Companies able to integrate high ESG standards (environmental, social, governance), engage in dialogue with communities and work with credible local partners.
- Actors specialising in fragile contexts, whether investment funds, service companies or public-private consortia, accustomed to operating in high-risk environments.
Conversely, actors seeking a quick return, with little appetite for political and security risk, are more exposed to setbacks if they lack in-depth analysis and solid local partners.
Trends and signals to watch
To assess the relevance of an investment in the region, several trends deserve particular attention:
- Developments in the political transitions in Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea and Niger, and their relations with regional organisations (ECOWAS, WAEMU);
- Adaptation of armed groups to military counter-offensives, and possible shifts of the hotspots of violence to new areas;
- Reforms of legal and tax frameworks in the extractive, land and investment sectors;
- Social pressures linked to the cost of living, youth unemployment and inequality, which may generate protest movements;
- Reshaping of international partnerships (diversification of alliances, new donors, withdrawal or return of certain actors) which may affect project financing.
To invest or not? A decision based on clear-sightedness, not reflex
Insecurity in West Africa is a serious factor, which should neither be minimised nor serve as a pretext for sweeping judgements. The risks are very real, but they are territorial, sector-specific and evolving. They coexist with economic opportunities linked to basic needs that are still largely unmet.
Investing in the region remains feasible for actors able to:
- differentiate finely between countries and areas;
- integrate political, social and local dimensions into their analysis;
- commit to a long-term strategy with rigorous risk management;
- maintain genuine dialogue with local societies and institutions.
The question is therefore not only “should one still invest despite the insecurity?”, but: how to turn a superficial approach to risk into a detailed understanding of local dynamics, an indispensable condition for any sustainable investment in West Africa.