TICGL

| Economic Consulting Group

TICGL | Economic Consulting Group
Gold Dependence and Tanzania's Economic Future: Can Gold Deliver a US$118–120bn Economy? | TICGL/TERI
TICGL Home/ Economic Insights/ Gold Dependence & Tanzania's Economic Future
TICGL/TERI — Economic policy analysis, data as at 28 September 2026
TICGL/TERI Policy Analysis Gold & Mining Export Diversification Windfall Rule FYDP IV to 2030/31

Gold Dependence and Tanzania's Economic Future: Can Gold Deliver a US$118–120 Billion Economy and 10% Growth?

Gold exports reached US$5.67 billion in the 12 months to July 2026 — 47.4% of goods exports — while the gold price swung from a record above US$5,500 to below US$4,000 in six months. Yet even a US$5,400 gold price would close only 11–17% of the US$20–30 billion gap between today's economy and the 2030/31 target. This report sets out how large the dependence really is, why the boom is a price boom rather than a production boom, the risks to 2030/31, what gold can and cannot do for growth, and the policy steps that should be taken now while the window is open.

📅 Data as at: 28 September 2026 📍 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 🏛️ Prepared by: TICGL / TERI 📖 Basis: Business Report Sep 2026, Policy Reform Agenda 2026–2031, BoT data
Gold Exports, 12m to Jul 2026
$5.67bn +37.4% y/y
Gold Share of Goods Exports
47.4% ≈28% of goods + services
Gold Price, Jan → Jun 2026
−27% >$5,500 → <$4,000
Gap Closed by a $5,400 Gold Price
11–17% of a $20–30bn gap

Source: TICGL/TERI, Tanzania Gold Dependence report (September 2026), drawing on BoT Monthly Economic Reviews, the Tanzania Business Report (Sep 2026) and the Tanzania Policy Reform Agenda 2026–2031. Percentages labelled "TERI calculation" are simple arithmetic on cited data, not forecasts. See the full breakdown and sources.

Disclaimer & scope

This report is prepared by TERI for research and strategic-information purposes only. It is not investment, tax, legal or financial advice and does not state the position of the Government of Tanzania. Figures marked "TERI calculation" are illustrative arithmetic on the cited data. Gold-price and bank-forecast figures come from secondary market sources and should be checked against LBMA or the World Gold Council before external use. Reform references R1–R25 point to the Tanzania Policy Reform Agenda 2026–2031 register.

01 — OverviewExecutive Summary

Tanzania's gold story is a real success in foreign-exchange earnings: gold exports rose from US$3.77 billion in the year to March 2025 to US$5.67 billion in the year to July 2026, and mining's share of GDP climbed from 7.2% in 2021 to about 11.9% in early 2025. But the same figures describe a growing concentration. The report answers three questions directly.

Question 1

How risky is the dependence?

Large and rising — but the risk comes from price, concentration and how revenue is used, not from having gold. Gold was 47.4% of goods exports and about 28% of all goods-and-services exports; the price fell about 27% between January and June 2026, showing how fast a shock can arrive.

Question 2

Can gold deliver a US$118–120bn economy and 10% growth?

No, not on its own. A higher gold price raises nominal income, not real output growth. Even at US$5,400 per ounce the extra value closes only 11–17% of the gap. Ten percent growth needs non-mining sectors growing 9–11% a year.

Question 3

What should be done?

Five immediate steps: a windfall rule, one audited local-content number, a value-addition baseline and roadmap tied to power, a non-mining PPP project-preparation fund, and a services and manufactured-export strategy.

The central finding

Gold can be a source of foreign exchange, tax and investable capital, but it is not the engine of 10% growth. The target is reachable only if today's gold income is converted into productive capacity — power, irrigation, ports, rail, skills and commercial projects outside mining. Otherwise Tanzania will record strong export figures without structural transformation. The measure of success is not how many dollars of gold are sold, but how much value stays in Tanzania.

Key numbers

IndicatorValueSource / status
Mineral exports, 2025US$5.401bn (+31.1%)Business Report Sep 2026; 52.6% of exports
Gold exports, 2025US$4.754bn (+39%)Business Report; BoT
Gold, 12 months to July 2026US$5.671bn (+37.4%)BoT Monthly Economic Review, Aug 2026
Gold share of goods exports47.4%BoT; year to July 2026
Gold share of goods + services exports≈ 28%TERI calculation: 5.67 / 19.99
Manufactured goods exportsUS$2.16bn (+46.3%)BoT; year to June 2026. Gold ≈ 2.6× manufactured exports
Services receiptsUS$8.14bn (≈ 41% of exports)BoT; year to June 2026
Real GDP growth5.8–6.3% (2026)Fitch / BoT; FYDP IV: 10.5% by 2030/31
Foreign-exchange reservesUS$6.20bn (4.8 months of imports)BoT; end-July 2026
📌

Read this alongside TICGL/TERI's investment climate analysis

Commodity concentration is one of the central themes in TICGL/TERI's broader assessment of the opportunities and risks shaping investment decisions in Tanzania in 2026 — this report develops the gold dimension in depth.

Read: Opportunities & Risks in Tanzania, 2026 →
Companion analysis: how this report differs

Gold Without Growth? The Economic Policy Gaps Behind Tanzania's Deepening Dependence on Gold Exports diagnoses why the dependence persists: the policy gaps, the local-content measurement problem and international comparators. This report asks a forward-looking question — what gold can and cannot deliver by 2030/31: the price-shock arithmetic, the US$118–120bn and 10% growth test, the value-addition facts, and a sequenced action plan with a windfall rule and scorecard. Read the first for the diagnosis, this one for the arithmetic and the agenda.

1. The Scale of the Dependence

Rising on every measure

Mineral exports reached US$5.401 billion in 2025, up 31.1% from US$4.119 billion in 2024, with gold alone at US$4.754 billion. Mining's contribution to GDP rose from 7.2% (2021) to 10.1% (2024) and averaged about 11.9% in January–September 2025. The mining share of the FDI stock was US$9.79 billion in 2024 — roughly three-quarters of all FDI stock — and new inflows of US$442.2 million were larger than in any other sector.

Newer BoT data show the trend continuing: gold exports were US$3.77 billion in the year to March 2025, US$5.2 billion to March 2026, US$5.53 billion to May 2026 and US$5.67 billion to July 2026 — a rise of about 50% in sixteen months (TERI calculation).

Gold Exports: Rolling 12-Month Trend

US$ billion, BoT (12 months to the month shown)

Mining's Share of GDP

% of GDP

1.1 Reading "half of exports" correctly

The share of gold in exports depends on the denominator. The report insists that every statement name the measure used.

MeasureGold / mineral shareNote
All minerals / exports (Business Report, 2025)52.6%Goods-export view; 45.2% in 2024
Gold / goods exports (BoT, year to July 2026)47.4%Was 45.7% in 2025
Gold / goods and services exports (TERI calculation)≈ 28%Services (tourism, transport) ≈ 41% of exports
Gold / foreign exchange (The Citizen, citing BoT)30–40%Media estimate

Mineral and Gold Exports

US$ billion

Gold Share Depends on the Denominator

% share

Export Composition: Gold vs Manufactured Goods vs Services

US$ billion; total exports of goods and services ≈ US$19.99bn (BoT, periods to June/July 2026; "other goods" is a TERI residual)
A positive signal that should not be ignored

Manufactured goods exports rose 46.3% to US$2.16 billion in the year to June 2026 (steel, glass, textiles). Diversification has begun, from a small base. The question is whether this pace can be sustained without support from the gold price — gold is still about 2.6 times manufactured exports.

02 — DriversA Price Boom, Not a Production Boom

The rise in export value comes mainly from price rather than from higher output or more value added at home. The average gold price rose 70.3% year on year in the quarter to March 2026, and the Mining Commission's reference price reached US$4,161.89 per troy ounce on 7 July 2026. BoT also reports that higher domestic output supported exports, so a volume contribution exists — but price is the main driver.

2.1 2026 has shown how volatile the price is

  • Gold hit a record above US$5,500 per ounce in early January 2026.
  • It fell below US$4,000 by end-June 2026 as expectations of US rate cuts faded and Middle East tension eased; market reports describe June as the worst month since October 2008.
  • That is roughly −27% in six months (TERI calculation). BoT's 12-month totals still rise because they add up a long period — the June shock is not yet fully visible in them. Watch monthly data, not annual totals.
  • Bank forecasts are split: about US$4,300–6,300 for 2026 and US$5,000–5,600 for 2027 (JP Morgan and UBS near US$5,400; Goldman Sachs US$5,400 for end-2027). Nobody can promise the price will keep rising.

Gold Price Markers and Forecasts

US$ per troy ounce (secondary market sources; verify with LBMA/WGC)
Price markerUS$ / ozComment
Record high, early Jan 2026> 5,500Peak of the 2026 cycle
End-June 2026< 4,000≈ −27% from peak (TERI calculation)
Mining Commission reference, 7 Jul 20264,161.89Used as the base in the gap arithmetic
JP Morgan / UBS forecast≈ 5,400High-end bank forecast
Goldman Sachs, end-20275,400Forecast
Bank forecast range 20264,300–6,300Highly dispersed
Bank forecast range 20275,000–5,600Narrower but still uncertain
Policy implication

A national strategy cannot be built on the assumption that today's price is permanent. High-price receipts should be treated as temporary windfall income until proven otherwise.

03 — RiskThe Five-Year Risk Map to 2030/31

The Business Report (Section 8) rates "gold / commodity export concentration" a high-level, rising-trend risk. The table breaks that single risk into the channels through which it spreads across the economy.

RiskLevelHow it spreadsIndicator to watch
Price riskHighIf the price falls, exports, reserves, tax and import capacity fall together. Mine profits fall faster than sales because costs are relatively fixed.LBMA price; Mining Commission reference price; BoT monthly exports
ConcentrationVery highMore than half of goods exports; exports to South Africa are close to 97% gold. Market and route concentration add to the risk.Concentration index; share of top five products
Low value additionHighExport receipts arrive but quality jobs, technology and local suppliers gain little. A mining contract can send much of the value abroad.Share of gold refined in Tanzania; local procurement
Public-finance riskMedium–highHigh-price revenue turned into recurrent spending (wages, subsidies) is pro-cyclical: spending rises in the boom and is cut when the price falls. The 2026/27 budget has only TZS 2.33 trillion of new capital.Allocation of mining revenue; stabilisation reserve
Dutch disease / crowding-outMediumAn over-strong shilling, higher imports, and credit and FDI flowing to mining; agriculture and manufacturing lose competitiveness. Mining is capital-intensive with few jobs.Real effective exchange rate; credit share to mining
Data and verificationHighLocal content: CAG 33% vs Ministry over 90%; only 24 of 1,736 plans audited. Policy cannot be managed without one audited figure.Audit coverage
Energy and processing costMedium–highDomestic processing needs reliable power; only 52.1% of households are connected and 44.9% of electricity comes from one dam (JNHPP).Industrial power tariff; outage days
Policy predictabilityMediumTax changes every budget, VAT refunds of TZS 1.4–1.5 trillion outstanding and tax disputes of TZS 4.86 trillion raise the risk premium investors price in.Progress on R3, R4, R25

3.1 Sensitivity: how much can a price shock cost?

The table assumes constant volume and a US$5.67 billion export base. It is an illustration of the size of the foreign-exchange shock, not a forecast; the actual loss of domestic value is smaller to the extent that inputs are imported.

Price changeExport change (US$bn)% of GDP (US$94bn)% of total exports (US$19.99bn)% of reserves (US$6.20bn)
−10%−0.570.6%2.8%9.1%
−20%−1.131.2%5.7%18.3%
−30%−1.701.8%8.5%27.4%
+30% (high forecast)+1.701.8%8.5%27.4%

TERI calculation. Mid-point GDP of US$90–98bn (TERI 2026 estimate). Tax and dividend receipts can fall faster than exports, because royalty is a share of sales while income tax and dividends depend on profit.

Size of a Gold Price Shock Relative to the Economy

% of GDP and % of foreign-exchange reserves, by price change (TERI calculation)
What the sensitivity shows

The direct shock (1–2% of GDP) can be absorbed by current reserves. The real danger is the knock-on cycle: budgets set at high prices, domestic borrowing, exchange-rate pressure and capital projects that depend on mining revenue. Botswana shows how this plays out (Section 7).

4. Can Gold Deliver US$118–120 Billion and 10% Growth?

Not on its own

4.1 First, the target itself needs reconciling

The Policy Reform Agenda (Section 1.4) shows that a GDP of US$118.1 billion by 2030/31, against a 2026 estimate of US$90–98 billion, implies nominal dollar growth of only 3.8–5.6% a year. That does not match real growth of 7–10% a year. Also, 10.5% is the final-year (2030/31) target, not an annual average; the plan's range is 7–10% a year. The differences stem from the base year, GDP rebasing and exchange-rate assumptions. Before asking "can gold do it?", the country needs a single reference target.

4.2 A higher price is not real growth

Real GDP measures volume, not price. When gold rises in price, national income and nominal GDP increase and import capacity improves, but growth in mining volume depends on reserves, new investment and mine capacity. Mining's contribution to real growth is its GDP share times its volume growth, so the other 88% of the economy must carry most of the load.

Even if mining grew 15% a year in real terms (an unusual pace for extraction), other sectors would still need about 9.3% growth for the economy to grow 10%. For a 7% target, other sectors need 5.9–7.3%. That is close to today's aggregate growth of about 6%, but it requires every sector to accelerate.

Non-Mining Growth Required vs Today's Aggregate Growth

% per year (TERI calculation; mining assumed to grow 15% in real terms)

4.3 The dollar gap

MeasureValue (TERI calculation)
Nominal GDP gap: US$118–120bn vs US$90–98bnUS$20–30 billion
Value added by mining ≈ 11.9% × US$94bn≈ US$11.2 billion
Price rising from US$4,162 to US$5,400 (+29.7%), constant volume≈ US$3.3 billion more (illustrative)
Share of the gap closed by that increase11–17%
Price needed to double mining value added≈ US$8,300 per ounce at constant volume — above any forecast

The estimate assumes value added moves in proportion to price. Profits could rise by more, but most mine profit goes to foreign shareholders and does not remain as national income (GNI).

The Gap vs What a Higher Gold Price Can Fill

US$ billion (TERI calculation)
Conclusion of Section 4

Gold can be a source of foreign exchange, tax revenue and capital to invest — but it is not the engine of 10% growth. The target is achievable only if gold income is transformed into productive capacity: power, irrigation, ports, rail, skills and commercial projects outside mining. Otherwise Tanzania will have fine export numbers without structural change (growth without structural transformation).

04 — Value ChainValue Addition: The Facts on Gold

5.1 Correcting the premise

The claim that Tanzania exports raw ore, that value addition is about 15%, and that extraction is over 90% of the chain, is widely repeated but needs correcting so policy is not built on an unverified measure.

  • Commercially exported gold is mostly dore or not-fully-refined bullion, not ore. Ore is more relevant for minerals such as nickel and graphite.
  • The "15%" and "over 90%" figures could not be verified in the Business Report, the Policy Reform Agenda or BoT sources reviewed. The Agenda itself calls the share of minerals processed domestically a "baseline to be published". The first step is to publish an official baseline.
  • Refining alone is not enough. If refined gold is exported through the same channels, jobs and local suppliers do not grow much. Most of the value lies across the whole chain.

5.2 Where the value in gold sits

Chain stageOpportunities for Tanzanian firmsMain constraint
Geology and drilling servicesGeological surveys, drilling, laboratories, fuel and explosivesCapital, international standards, technical skills
Equipment and maintenancePlant repair, PPE, chemicals, spare parts, softwareQuality, credit guarantees, procurement that favours large suppliers
Refining and assayingAccredited refineries, assay laboratories, storageInternational accreditation (e.g. LBMA), reliable power, production scale
Trading and financeBullion trading, insurance, guarantees, hedgingDepth of the financial market; foreign-exchange rules
Jewellery and end productsJewellery, electronics, mintingMarket, technology, skills; usually a later stage, not the first
Mine closure and environmentRehabilitation and closure servicesStandards; financing of closure bonds

5.3 Existing policy and its gaps

  • Section 59 of the Mining Act requires 20% of gold production to be offered domestically; BoT buys through designated refineries, and VAT is zero-rated on sales to BoT and refineries.
  • Critical minerals (Kabanga nickel, Lindi Jumbo graphite) have no processing framework yet, and gold has no rule for saving high-price revenue (R16).
  • The Agenda recommends processing milestones instead of sudden bans, sequenced with power availability (R18). Forcing processing before power and scale exist raises costs and discourages investors.
Six questions to answer before tightening processing requirements
  • Do refineries hold international accreditation?
  • Is refinery capacity enough for current and future output?
  • Do miners have an incentive to sell domestically?
  • Does processing create jobs, technology and local suppliers?
  • Does Tanzania capture the trading, insurance and finance parts of the chain?
  • Do power, transport and tax costs make domestic processing competitive?

05 — DiversificationIs the Services Economy the Foundation?

Yes, with conditions. Services are already a large share of exports (US$8.14 billion, about 41%), with tourism at US$4.4 billion. Services can employ more young people than mining, be sold across the EAC and SADC, and raise productivity in agriculture, manufacturing and mining itself. But it must not be "services only". Tourism is also sensitive: tourism receipts reportedly grew only 1.6% in the year to July 2026 (to be confirmed with BoT) while energy prices rose on the Middle East crisis. Low-productivity services — informal retail and low-value personal services — cannot carry a high-income economy.

Services sectorWhy it has potentialWhat works / caution
High-value tourism and conferencesUS$4.41bn (2025); target of 8 million visitors by 2030Depends on flights, energy prices and VAT refund arrears
Transport, ports and logisticsSea route for six landlocked countries; DP World / Adani Dar es Salaam portPort efficiency; non-tax barriers
Finance, insurance and capital marketsDSE market capitalisation +79.1% (Q2 2026); first shilling bond listed in LondonThin liquidity; two banks lead trading
Digital, fintech and BPO87 million mobile-money accounts; 6.31 billion transactions (2025)Service reliability and data-law clarity
Engineering, laboratories, environmental servicesLink services to the mining value chainTVET skills and quality standards
Education and healthLarge employment; UHI investmentFinancing and quality

Economic Structure: South Africa vs Tanzania

% of GDP (South Africa figures from TICGL drafts — verify with Stats SA before external use; Tanzania financial-services share not available in this report)

The South Africa example: according to TICGL's earlier drafts, mining is about 8.3% of GDP, while finance, real estate and business services are 21.6% and manufacturing 13.9%. South African firms (Stanbic, Absa/NBC, Vodacom) built their positions in Tanzania on those service strengths, not on mining alone. The lesson: mining can be a platform for building industrial and service capability, not an enclave.

06 — ComparatorsInternational Lessons

CountryInstrument / situationLesson for TanzaniaCaution
Ghana (gold)2025 exports US$31.1bn, gold ≈ US$20bn (≈ 64%). GoldBod buys small-scale miners' gold; mandatory local refining from 1 Sep 2026; large miners' sales to the central bank raised from 20% to 30% (May 2026).A state body can raise transparency and capture sales that were outside the formal system.Gold reserves fell to 24.4 tonnes (June 2026); GoldBod has paused sales since August. Execution and financing are hard.
Botswana (diamonds)Pula Fund (1994), 50:50 Debswana partnership, diversified fund. Diamond-market downturn; AfDB (Aug 2026) reports a large deficit, falling reserves and rising debt.A fund alone is not enough; it needs a budget rule, reserve discipline and real diversification.Non-mining sectors still grow slowly.
Norway (oil)Government Pension Fund Global and a fiscal rule that separates oil revenue from the budget.Save most revenue; spend only part of expected returns.Needed strong institutions and decades.
Chile (copper)Structural fiscal balance rule and stabilisation funds with a long-run reference price.Budget on the long-term price, not the one-year price.The reference-price rule must be politically independent.
Indonesia (nickel)Ban on raw-ore exports and mandatory smelters; processed exports rose from near zero to over US$10bn (2021).A processing requirement can change the export structure quickly.WTO disputes, environmental cost, heavy energy use, foreign capital dominance.
South AfricaDeep capital markets (JSE), banks, telecoms and manufacturing.Mining can build industrial capacity without dominating GDP.Weak growth and high unemployment.
AustraliaSkills institutions, capital markets and property rights built over decades.Mining is one contributor, not the only pillar.Institutions cannot be copied quickly.

Sources: Ghana Gold Board, MyJoyOnline, CNBC Africa / Mining Weekly (Sep 2026), MINING.COM (Jul 2026), AfDB Botswana Country Focus Report 2026. Details for Norway, Chile, Indonesia, South Africa and Australia come from earlier TICGL drafts and general knowledge and should be verified before external citation.

Ghana's Gold Dependence in Context

Gold as % of goods exports — Ghana 2025 (≈ US$20bn of US$31.1bn) vs Tanzania (year to July 2026)

Main lessons for Tanzania

Ghana

State control lifts official exports — with execution risk

Tanzania should measure the results of its 20% BoT programme before expanding it. Buying gold needs cash and correct pricing.

Botswana

A fund needs a budget rule

Even a country with strong institutions and a savings fund can suffer badly when diversification is late.

Indonesia

Processing rules work — and cost

Set processing milestones tied to power, capital and market, rather than an abrupt ban.

Norway & Chile

A windfall rule is institutional design

An independent reference price, a legal basis and parliamentary oversight are what make it work.

07 — RecommendationsPolicy Recommendations

The recommendations link to the reform items in the Policy Reform Agenda (R1–R25). Most are already in the Agenda; this report places them in the context of gold dependence.

8.1 Immediate actions (0–12 months, to September 2027)

#ActionAgenda linkSuccess indicator (KPI)
1Windfall rule for gold. A reference price announced by an independent committee; revenue above it goes to a stabilisation and investment fund.R16Rule in Finance Bill 2027 (June 2027); reference price published annually
2One local-content figure with an independent annual audit; a public dashboard per licence.R9Audit coverage from 1.4% (24/1,736) to 40% by 2028; one reconciled figure
3Value-addition baseline: how much gold is refined domestically, sold as dore, and refinery LBMA status.R16Baseline report from the Mining Commission and BoT
4Pay VAT refunds (30-day rule) so non-mining exporters are not penalised.R4Arrears from TZS 1.4–1.5tn to below TZS 0.3tn by 2027/28
5National Project Preparation Fund for non-mining PPPs (agro-industry, energy, logistics).R11At least TZS 100bn a year; financially closed PPPs 9 → 15 by 2028
6Post-AGOA plan (AGOA ends 31 Dec 2026) and market diversification.R19US export roadmap; alternative-market plan

8.2 Medium-term actions (12–36 months, to 2029)

#ActionAgenda linkSuccess indicator (KPI)
7Value-addition roadmap for gold, nickel and graphite with milestones tied to power, water, skills and markets; incentives paid for measurable outcomes.R16, R18Share of minerals processed (baseline, then target); Kabanga investment decision
8Local-supplier development window linked to credit guarantees for SMEs.R9, R13Accredited local suppliers; audited local procurement
9Change SEZs from tax holidays to services (power, water, surveyed land, skills).R15Manufacturing 8% → 10% by 2028; real investment, not registration
10Power system: cost-reflective tariffs, grids, private PPAs and less dependence on one dam.R18Household connections 52.1% → 62% (2028)
11Employer-led skills and TVET for engineering, manufacturing, energy and logistics.R20TVET enrolment 4.2% → 6% (2028)
12Tax predictability: tax policy, an independent appeals system, advance-notice protocol for changes.R3, R5Tax disputes TZS 4.86tn → half by 2029
13Strategy for services and manufactured exports: non-mining export targets, number of exporting firms, concentration indicator.R15, R23Gold share of goods exports below 40% by 2030 (TERI proposal)

8.3 Long-term actions (2029–2031)

  • Expand shilling capital-market instruments (infrastructure, municipal, green bonds) to reduce reliance on foreign-currency loans (R14).
  • Reach 1.2 million hectares of irrigation and link schemes to processing and markets (R17).
  • Review the stabilisation fund and the spending rule after one full price cycle.

08 — Fiscal DesignThe Proposed Windfall Rule

TERI's proposed structure, offered for public debate, has five elements.

1Reference price

  • An independent expert committee (BoT, Ministry of Finance, Mining Commission, independent experts) announces a medium-term reference price each year — not a one-year price.
  • Model: Chile.

2Allocation

  • Mining revenue above the reference price goes into a stabilisation and investment fund.
  • A starting rate (for example 50% of the excess) is set by Parliament and reviewed after three years.

3Use of funds

  • A stage-gated investment window (feasibility, land, environment, financing plan) for power, irrigation, TVET and PPP preparation.
  • No recurrent spending (wages, subsidies) from the excess.

4Governance

  • Legal basis (Finance Act or public-finance law), annual report to Parliament, CAG audit and published fund reports.
  • Botswana's lesson: a fund without budget discipline does not protect the economy.
5. Withdrawal limit

A rule to draw from the fund (for example, a share of expected returns) instead of spending the capital, following the Norwegian model.

09 — CautionsWhat Should Not Be Done

  • A sudden ban on raw gold exports without power, capital and a reliable market — it raises costs and discourages investors.
  • Using high-price revenue as ordinary budget income or committing capital projects on the assumption that the price will last.
  • Adding new taxes or fees without removing old ones and without advance notice — predictability of the law matters more than the rate.
  • A general cut in corporate tax as a first move — the Agenda's diagnosis is that the problem is not the rate (30%, equal to Kenya and Uganda) but VAT refunds, disputes and employment costs.
  • Expanding government gold purchases without a fund and clear pricing — Ghana shows the risk to reserves and to sales stopping.
  • Measuring success by total exports — measure non-mining, manufactured and service exports, job quality, and the value retained in the country.

10 — MonitoringScorecard for Tracking Progress

IndicatorCurrent2028 marker2030/31
Gold share of goods exports47.4% (Jul 2026)≤ 45%≤ 40% (TERI proposal)
Manufactured goods exportsUS$2.16bn≥ US$3.0bnSteady increase
Services exportsUS$8.14bnSteady increaseSteady increase
Windfall rule in lawNoneIn law, fund startedFund operating
Local-content audit coverage1.4%≥ 40%≥ 80%
Gold refined in Tanzania (baseline)Not publishedBaseline + targetTarget reached
Manufacturing / GDP≈ 8%10%12–15%
FDI / GDP (BoP)2.2% (2024)≥ 4%10% (2030)
Households connected to electricity52.1%62%75% (2030)
Foreign-exchange reserves (months of imports)4.8≥ 4≥ 4

The 2028 markers are TERI-proposed straight-line steps toward 2030/31 and should be replaced with official FYDP IV Annex targets once confirmed.

Proposed Pathway: Key Indicators, Now → 2028 → 2030/31

% (manufacturing shown at the low end of the 12–15% range; FDI/GDP baseline is 2024)

11 — Data QualityWhere the Numbers Disagree

A policy-grade analysis has to say where its inputs conflict. These are the open reconciliation items and the recommended treatment.

IssueConflicting figuresRecommended action
Gold share of exports52.6% (minerals/exports); 47.4% (gold/goods); ≈ 28% (gold/goods + services)State the measure and base everywhere
Gold exports 2025US$4.754bn (Business Report); US$4.7bn +37.4% (The Citizen, citing BoT, Jan 2026)Use official BoT figures
Mining local content33% (CAG, 2020–2024); over 90% (Ministry, Jul 2025–Mar 2026); 97% (Geita, H1 2026)Independent audit and a single definition of "local"
Value addition "≈ 15%", extraction "> 90%"Not found in official sourcesPublish a baseline
Nominal GDP 2030/31US$118–121bn vs US$90–98bn estimate for 2026Adopt one reference target
The 10.5% targetFinal-year (2030/31) figure; plan range 7–10% a yearCorrect the wording
Gold price and forecastsUS$4,000–5,500 (2026); forecasts US$4,300–6,300Verify with LBMA / WGC
Botswana GDP contractionEarlier drafts: −3.1% (2024), −5.4% (Q4 2025); AfDB confirms the trend without these numbersVerify with Statistics Botswana / AfDB

"Gold dependence is not a geological misfortune; it is the result of policy gaps — data verification, a value-addition roadmap, tax predictability, skills, power and project preparation. Gold can be a platform for structural change, not an enclave. Tanzania has a window of a few years, while prices are still high and foreign-exchange inflows are strong, to lay the foundations of a services and industrial economy that does not need the gold price to keep rising."

— TICGL / Tanzania Economic Research Institute (TERI)

12 — SourcesMethod & Source Note

Basis

This page is built directly from TERI's report on gold dependence (September 2026), which integrates the Tanzania Business Report (September 2026) and the Tanzania Policy Reform Agenda 2026–2031 (information to 20 September 2026) with new BoT data, gold-market data and international comparators. Figures marked "TERI calculation" are arithmetic on cited data.

  • TICGL/TERI, Tanzania Business Report, September 2026.
  • TICGL/TERI, Tanzania Policy Reform Agenda 2026–2031 (information to 20 September 2026).
  • TanzaniaInvest, summaries of BoT Monthly Economic Reviews (March–July 2026).
  • The Citizen: "Gold boom boosts exports amidst mounting calls for diversification" (14 Jul 2026); "Tanzania's gold exports cushion economy as oil shocks continue…" (12 May 2026); "Gold powers Tanzania's export growth as earnings hit $17.6 billion" (20 Feb 2026).
  • Ghana Gold Board, "Ghana Records US$20bn in Gold Export Earnings in 2025" (28 Jan 2026); MyJoyOnline (Sep 2026); CNBC Africa / Mining Weekly (23 Sep 2026); MINING.COM (14 Jul 2026).
  • African Development Bank, Country Focus Report 2026: Botswana (August 2026).
  • Gold price forecasts: London Gold Exchange blog, BullionStar, goldsilver.com, Just2Trade and Discovery Alert (July–September 2026) — secondary sources; verify with LBMA / World Gold Council.
📨

Request the Full Report or a Briefing

This page summarises TICGL/TERI's gold dependence report. Institutions, investors, government agencies and development partners may request the full report or a tailored briefing — including windfall-rule design options and value-addition roadmaps — directly from TERI.

✉️ Request via economist@ticgl.com →

13 — Quick AnswersFrequently Asked Questions

How dependent is Tanzania on gold exports?

Gold exports were US$5.671 billion in the 12 months to July 2026 (+37.4%), equal to 47.4% of goods exports and about 28% of total goods-and-services exports. Mineral exports were 52.6% of exports in 2025 (45.2% in 2024), and mining's share of GDP rose from 7.2% in 2021 to 10.1% in 2024 and about 11.9% in January–September 2025. The share depends on the measure used, so each statement should name it.

Can gold alone deliver a US$118–120 billion economy and 10% growth?

No. A higher gold price raises nominal income but not real growth. Rising from US$4,162 to US$5,400 per ounce (+29.7%) at constant volume adds about US$3.3 billion, closing only 11–17% of the US$20–30 billion gap. For 10% growth, non-mining sectors must grow about 9.3% a year even if mining grows 15% in real terms.

How exposed is Tanzania to a fall in the gold price?

Gold fell about 27% between January and June 2026. A 30% price fall on the US$5.67bn export base would cut exports by about US$1.70bn — roughly 1.8% of GDP, 8.5% of total exports and 27.4% of reserves of US$6.20bn. The direct shock is manageable; the larger danger is pro-cyclical budgets and borrowing built on high prices.

What should Tanzania do with windfall gold revenue?

TERI proposes a windfall rule: an independent reference price; revenue above it saved in a stabilisation and investment fund (initially about 50% of the excess, to be set by Parliament); stage-gated investment in power, irrigation, TVET and PPP preparation rather than recurrent spending; legal backing, annual reporting to Parliament and CAG audit; and drawing only a share of expected returns, following Norway.

Is it true that Tanzania adds only about 15% value to its gold?

That figure could not be verified. TERI found no support for the "about 15% value addition" or "over 90% extraction" claims in the Business Report, the Policy Reform Agenda or BoT sources. The Agenda lists the share of minerals processed domestically as a baseline still to be published. Exported gold is mostly dore or unrefined bullion, not ore, so the first step is an official baseline.

Muhtasari

Muhtasari kwa Kiswahili

Utegemezi wa Dhahabu na Mustakabali wa Uchumi wa Tanzania — Je, Dhahabu Inaweza Kufikisha Uchumi wa USD 118–120 Bilioni na Ukuaji wa 10%? — Mauzo ya dhahabu yalifikia USD 5.67 bilioni katika miezi 12 hadi Julai 2026 (+37.4%), sawa na 47.4% ya mauzo ya bidhaa na takribani 28% ya mauzo yote ya bidhaa na huduma. Bei ya dhahabu ilishuka takribani 27% kutoka kilele cha zaidi ya USD 5,500 (Januari 2026) hadi chini ya USD 4,000 (mwishoni mwa Juni 2026).

Utegemezi una hatari kiasi gani? Hatari ni kubwa na inaongezeka, lakini chanzo chake ni bei, mkusanyiko wa mauzo na jinsi mapato yanavyotumika — si kuwepo kwa dhahabu yenyewe. Ongezeko la mauzo linatokana zaidi na bei kuliko kuongezeka kwa uzalishaji au thamani inayoongezwa nchini. Mshtuko wa bei wa -30% ungepunguza mauzo kwa takribani USD 1.70 bilioni (1.8% ya GDP, 27.4% ya akiba ya fedha za kigeni); hatari halisi ni bajeti na mikopo iliyojengwa juu ya bei ya juu.

Je, dhahabu inaweza kufikisha USD 118–120 bilioni na ukuaji wa 10%? Hapana, si peke yake. Bei ya juu huongeza mapato ya nominal, si ukuaji halisi wa uzalishaji. Hata bei ikifikia USD 5,400, inaziba takribani 11–17% tu ya pengo la USD 20–30 bilioni. Ukuaji wa 10% unahitaji sekta zisizo za madini kukua takribani 9.3% kwa mwaka hata madini yakikua 15%. Pia lengo lenyewe linahitaji kupatanishwa: 10.5% ni lengo la mwaka wa mwisho (2030/31), wigo wa mpango ni 7–10% kwa mwaka.

Value addition: Dhahabu inayosafirishwa ni hasa doré au bullion isiyosafishwa kikamilifu, si ore. Takwimu za “karibu 15% value addition” na “zaidi ya 90% extraction” hazikuthibitishwa kwenye vyanzo rasmi; hatua ya kwanza ni kuchapisha baseline rasmi. Mapendekezo ni kutumia hatua za usindikaji (milestones) zilizounganishwa na umeme, si marufuku ya ghafla.

Uchumi wa huduma: Huduma ni USD 8.14 bilioni (≈ 41% ya mauzo), na utalii USD 4.4 bilioni. Ni msingi mzuri kwa sharti — huduma zenye tija na zinazouzwa nje, zikiunganishwa na uzalishaji. Mauzo ya bidhaa za viwandani yamepanda 46.3% hadi USD 2.16 bilioni, ishara chanya kutoka msingi mdogo.

Mapendekezo ya TICGL/TERI (hatua tano za haraka): (i) kanuni ya windfall kwa mapato ya dhahabu — bei ya kumbukumbu huru, mapato ya ziada kwenda mfuko wa utulivu na uwekezaji; (ii) takwimu moja iliyokaguliwa ya local content (ukaguzi kutoka 1.4% hadi 40% ifikapo 2028); (iii) baseline na roadmap ya value addition iliyounganishwa na umeme; (iv) Mfuko wa Taifa wa Kuandaa Miradi ya PPP nje ya madini (angalau TZS 100 bilioni kwa mwaka); (v) mkakati wa mauzo ya huduma na bidhaa za viwandani, ukilenga sehemu ya dhahabu chini ya 40% ya mauzo ya bidhaa ifikapo 2030.

Mifano ya kimataifa: Ghana inaonyesha nguvu na hatari ya udhibiti wa serikali (GoldBod); Botswana inaonyesha mfuko bila nidhamu ya bajeti haulindi uchumi; Norway na Chile zinaonyesha kanuni ya windfall ni suala la muundo wa kitaasisi; Indonesia inaonyesha nguvu na gharama za sharti la usindikaji.

Hitimisho: Utegemezi wa dhahabu si janga la kijiolojia; ni matokeo ya mapengo ya sera. Dhahabu inaweza kuwa jukwaa la mabadiliko ya kimuundo, si enclave. Kipimo cha mafanikio hakitakuwa dola ngapi za dhahabu zimeuzwa, bali kiasi gani cha thamani kinabaki Tanzania.

  • Dhahabu: USD 5.67 bn (miezi 12 hadi Julai 2026), 47.4% ya mauzo ya bidhaa
  • Bei: -27% kutoka Januari hadi Juni 2026
  • Pengo la USD 20–30 bn: bei ya USD 5,400 inaziba 11–17% tu
  • Ukaguzi wa local content: 1.4% (24 kati ya 1,736)

Chanzo: TICGL/TERI, ripoti ya Utegemezi wa Dhahabu na Mustakabali wa Uchumi wa Tanzania, Septemba 2026. Kwa maelezo zaidi wasiliana na: economist@ticgl.com.

Why Did FDI Fall 58.4% in Tanzania's General Investment Scheme? Q4 2025/26 Explained | TICGL/TERI
TICGL Home/ Economic Insights/ Why Did FDI Fall 58.4%?
TICGL/TERI — Reading TISEZA's Quarterly Investment Bulletin, April–June 2026
TICGL/TERI Investment Analysis FDI & Domestic Investment TISEZA Q4 2025/26 EPZ / SEZ

Why Did FDI Fall 58.4% in Tanzania's General Investment Scheme? Reading the Q4 2025/26 Numbers

TISEZA's latest Quarterly Investment Bulletin shows Foreign Direct Investment registered under the General Investment Scheme fell from USD 2.54 billion in Q4 2024/25 to USD 1.06 billion in Q4 2025/26 — a 58.4% drop. Read alone, the headline looks alarming. Read alongside the rest of the bulletin, a more complete picture emerges: Domestic Investment rose 21%, project numbers fell only marginally while average deal size roughly halved, and capital registered under the EPZ/SEZ schemes rose nearly thirty-fold. TICGL/TERI ranks five explanations for the General Scheme number and shows what the combined picture actually looks like.

📅 Reporting period: April–June 2026 (Q4, FY2025/26) 📍 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 🏛️ Prepared by: TICGL / TERI 📖 Primary source: TISEZA Quarterly Investment Bulletin
FDI, General Scheme
–58.4% $2.54bn → $1.06bn
DI, General Scheme
+21.0% $681.5M → $824.6M
EPZ/SEZ Capital
+2,834% $115.2M → $3,378.5M
GIS + EPZ/SEZ Combined
+57.7% $3.34bn → $5.26bn

Source: TICGL/TERI, computed from Tanzania Investment & Special Economic Zones Authority (TISEZA), Quarterly Investment Bulletin, April–June 2026. See the full breakdown and sources.

Disclaimer & scope

This note is prepared by TERI for research and strategic-information purposes only. It does not constitute investment, legal, tax or financial advice, and it does not state the position of the Government of Tanzania or TISEZA. All Q4 2025/26 and Q4 2024/25 figures for the General Investment Scheme and the EPZ/SEZ schemes are drawn directly from TISEZA's own Quarterly Investment Bulletin (April–June 2026); combined totals, ratios and averages are TICGL/TERI's own calculations from those published figures. Regional and global comparator figures use UNCTAD's annual, balance-of-payments FDI series, which is methodologically different from TISEZA's quarterly registered-capital series and is shown for context, not for direct like-for-like comparison.

01 — OverviewExecutive Summary

A single number is doing a lot of work in Tanzania's investment conversation this quarter: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) registered under the General Investment Scheme (GIS) — the scheme most people simply call the "General Scheme" — fell 58.4% between Q4 2024/25 (April–June 2025) and Q4 2025/26 (April–June 2026), from USD 2,538.86 million to USD 1,055.47 million. Total GIS investment, FDI and Domestic Investment (DI) combined, fell 41.6%, from USD 3,220.33 million to USD 1,880.05 million.

Two things sit alongside that headline and change how it should be read. First, DI within the GIS rose 21.0% over the same period, from USD 681.47 million to USD 824.58 million, and now accounts for close to 44% of GIS capital, up from about 21% a year earlier. Second, capital registered under Tanzania's EPZ and SEZ schemes — reported separately by TISEZA — rose from USD 115.16 million to USD 3,378.5 million, an increase of roughly 29 times, driven substantially by a small number of very large agriculture and forestry projects.

The central claim

A 58.4% fall in one scheme's FDI line is a real number and deserves a real explanation — this report ranks five candidate explanations against the evidence TISEZA itself publishes. But it is not, on its own, evidence that Tanzania's investment climate deteriorated. When General Scheme and EPZ/SEZ capital are added together, total investment registered by TISEZA rose by roughly 57.7% year-on-year. The more accurate description of Q4 2025/26 is reallocation, not retreat.

This note works from TISEZA's Quarterly Investment Bulletin for April–June 2026 (Section Four: Investment Performance), cross-checked against UNCTAD's regional and global FDI series and contemporaneous reporting on Tanzania's October 2025 general election, to give TICGL/TERI's reading of what is — and is not — happening to foreign investment in Tanzania.

1. What Actually Happened in Q4 2025/26

A scheme-level FDI drop, not an economy-wide one

1.1 FDI vs. Domestic Investment, General Investment Scheme

TISEZA's comparison of approved investment capital between Q4 2025/26 and the corresponding quarter of FY2024/25 shows total GIS investment falling from USD 3,220.33 million to USD 1,880.05 million, a decrease of 41.6%. This decline was driven almost entirely by FDI, which fell 58.4%, from USD 2,538.86 million to USD 1,055.47 million. DI moved the opposite direction, rising 21.0% to USD 824.58 million. The practical effect: DI's share of GIS capital nearly doubled, from roughly 21% to roughly 44%, in a single year.

Indicator (General Investment Scheme)Q4 2024/25Q4 2025/26Change
Total approved capital$3,220.33M$1,880.05M−41.6%
FDI$2,538.86M$1,055.47M−58.4%
Domestic Investment (DI)$681.47M$824.58M+21.0%
FDI share of GIS capital≈78.8%≈56.1%−22.7 pts
DI share of GIS capital≈21.2%≈43.9%+22.7 pts
Registered projects250243−2.8%
Average capital per project≈$12.88M≈$7.74M≈−40%

General Investment Scheme: FDI vs. Domestic Investment

USD Million, TISEZA registered capital
The number underneath the number

Project count barely moved — down just 2.8%, from 250 to 243. What moved was deal size: average capital per project fell from roughly USD 12.9 million to roughly USD 7.7 million. Tanzania is not seeing meaningfully fewer investors register projects in the General Scheme; it is seeing a much smaller number of exceptionally large projects than it saw a year earlier.

1.2 Where the capital went: registered investment by sector

Manufacturing remained the leading destination in Q4 2025/26, with 139 projects, USD 764.07 million in capital and 17,875 projected jobs. The commercial building, construction and economic infrastructure group ranked second (13 projects, USD 387.22 million, 7,343 jobs), followed by tourism (23 projects, USD 361.36 million, 2,397 jobs — about 90.6% of it foreign-financed) and agriculture (23 projects, USD 69.27 million). Transportation, services, energy, and mining and petroleum made up the remainder.

Sector (GIS, Q4 2025/26)ProjectsCapitalJobs
Manufacturing139$764.07M17,875
Commercial Building / Construction / Econ. Infrastructure13$387.22M7,343
Tourism23$361.36M2,397
Agriculture23$69.27Mn/a in bulletin narrative
Transportation, Services, Energy, Mining & Petroleum (combined)45≈$298.13M≈6,190*
Total, General Investment Scheme243$1,880.05M33,805

*Residual sectors' project count, capital and jobs are TICGL/TERI calculations (total minus the four named sectors above); the bulletin does not break these out individually in its narrative text. A separate ownership-source view in the same bulletin (Section 4.5.1.2) splits infrastructure and commercial-building capital slightly differently (Economic Infrastructure $215.19M; Commercial Building/Construction $154.63M, entirely local-financed) — both views are TISEZA's own, shown here as published.

General Investment Scheme Capital by Sector, Q4 2025/26

USD Million

1.3 Ownership structure and regional distribution

Foreign-majority projects fell from 130 to 124, joint ventures fell from 50 to 46, while locally-owned projects rose from 70 to 73 — a small but consistent shift toward local ownership across all three categories. Regionally, Dar es Salaam (77 projects, USD 946.41 million, 11,243 jobs) and Pwani (54 projects, USD 264.18 million, 10,694 jobs) together accounted for more than half of all registered GIS projects and the large majority of GIS capital in the quarter, followed by Arusha, Mwanza, Geita, Dodoma and Morogoro.

Eleven expansion projects

Alongside new registrations, TISEZA recorded 11 expansion projects by existing investors during the quarter, worth a combined USD 380.79 million and projected to create 1,780 jobs — a signal that at least some already-established investors are deepening their Tanzania exposure even as new large-ticket FDI registrations slowed.

02 — DiagnosisFive Possible Explanations, Ranked

TICGL/TERI ranks five candidate explanations for the General Scheme FDI decline by how well each is supported by the bulletin's own data and by outside evidence, not by any single confirmed cause. As with most quarter-on-quarter shifts in investment data, more than one factor is very likely at work simultaneously.

1
Likelihood: Very High

Base effect — one-off large projects registered a year earlier

Q4 2024/25's USD 2.54 billion in GIS FDI was most likely lifted by a small number of unusually large infrastructure or energy projects registering in that specific quarter; Q4 2025/26 shows no comparable "mega project" cohort in the General Scheme. This is the explanation best supported by TISEZA's own numbers: project count fell only 2.8% while average capital per project fell by roughly 40%, meaning the drop is concentrated in deal size, not in the number of investors coming forward.

2
Likelihood: High

Global capital is becoming more selective

UNCTAD's most recent Global Investment Trends data shows global FDI flows rising in 2025, but almost entirely toward developed economies (+43%) while flows to developing economies declined (−2%) and became more concentrated in a limited number of host economies and in capital- and technology-intensive sectors. Higher-for-longer global interest rates and continued geopolitical uncertainty are part of the same story. Tanzania is competing for a shrinking, more selective slice of global FDI aimed at developing markets generally — not losing ground because of anything specific to the General Scheme.

3
Likelihood: Moderate–High

Domestic crowding-in

DI within the GIS rose 21.0% in the same quarter that FDI fell 58.4%. This is not automatically a bad sign — a rising DI share (from ≈21% to ≈44% of GIS capital) can reflect growing confidence among Tanzanian investors and a genuine broadening of the domestic capital base, which several TICGL/TERI reports have flagged as a longstanding structural need. It does mean, however, that at least part of the "FDI gap" this quarter has been filled by local capital rather than replaced.

4
Likelihood: Moderate

Election / political-cycle effect

Tanzania held its general election on 29 October 2025 — inside the twelve months separating the two quarters compared in this bulletin. International investment-risk commentary published in the following months flagged a period of heightened political tension and social unrest around the vote, and noted that this combination of factors typically increases short-term caution among internationally mobile capital, even where a country's underlying economic fundamentals are largely unaffected. Election-adjacent dips in FDI registration are a documented, recurring pattern across emerging markets generally, and are typically followed by normalisation once the political calendar clears. TICGL/TERI treats this as a real but partial contributor rather than the primary explanation, particularly since DI — which is far more sensitive to purely domestic political sentiment — rose rather than fell over the same period.

5
Likelihood: Moderate

Rising competition from neighbouring countries

On UNCTAD's 2024 annual figures (the latest full comparable year), Ethiopia (USD 3.98bn) and Uganda (USD 3.31bn) both attracted substantially more FDI than Tanzania (USD 1.72bn), and East Africa's 2025 regional total rose 12% with growth led by Ethiopia and Uganda specifically. Kenya, meanwhile, posted its strongest-ever FDI year in 2025 on the strength of digital-economy investment. Some internationally mobile capital that might otherwise have flowed to Tanzania's General Scheme in Q4 2025/26 may simply have been directed toward these more aggressively promoted regional destinations instead — though Tanzania's own FDI growth rate has, in other recent years, outpaced the regional average, so this is best read as a contributing rather than a decisive factor. See Section 4 for the full comparison.

TICGL/TERI's reading

The evidence most strongly favours explanations 1 and 2 acting together: a high statistical base from a small number of large projects a year ago, combined with a genuinely more selective global FDI environment for developing economies broadly. Explanations 3, 4 and 5 are real and worth monitoring, but none of them alone is large enough to explain a 58.4% single-quarter move in a series this volatile.

3. The Fuller Picture: EPZ/SEZ Capital Rose Nearly 30-Fold

Reallocation, not retreat

TISEZA reports EPZ and SEZ scheme investment separately from the General Scheme. In Q4 2025/26, the Authority registered 7 EPZ/SEZ projects worth USD 3,378.5 million, projected to create 30,235 jobs and generate USD 517.8 million in turnover — up from USD 115.16 million in capital, 1,155 jobs and USD 73.15 million in turnover in Q4 2024/25. Ownership of the seven Q4 2025/26 projects comprised four foreign-owned, two locally-owned and one joint venture.

EPZ/SEZ indicatorQ4 2024/25Q4 2025/26Change
Capital$115.16M$3,378.5M≈+2,834%
Jobs1,15530,235≈+2,518%
Turnover$73.15M$517.8M≈+608%
FDI within EPZ/SEZ$97.62M$3,147.8M≈+3,124%
DI within EPZ/SEZ$38.04M$230.7M≈+506%

Source: TISEZA, Quarterly Investment Bulletin, April–June 2026, Section 4.6. Percentage changes rounded; base-period values are small, so percentage changes should be read alongside the absolute figures.

One region, and effectively one source country, drove most of it

Ruvuma Region alone accounted for USD 2,600 million of the USD 3,378.5 million in EPZ/SEZ capital (about 77%) and 18,050 of the 30,235 projected jobs (about 60%), concentrated in a single large agriculture project. China was overwhelmingly the leading FDI source within EPZ/SEZ, contributing USD 3,143.8 million in capital and 19,027 of the scheme's jobs — Kenya and the UAE followed a distant second and third. This is close to a textbook example of the "one-off large project" pattern flagged as explanation #1 above, just operating in the EPZ/SEZ scheme rather than the General Scheme.

3.1 The combined picture

Adding General Scheme capital to EPZ/SEZ capital gives the clearest single measure of TISEZA's total quarterly investment performance. On that combined basis, total registered capital rose from approximately USD 3,335.49 million in Q4 2024/25 to approximately USD 5,258.55 million in Q4 2025/26 — an increase of roughly 57.7%.

General Scheme vs. EPZ/SEZ vs. Combined Total

USD Million, capital registered by TISEZA
Why this matters for how the 58.4% figure should be read

A single scheme's FDI line falling 58.4% is a genuine, worthwhile signal — it should prompt exactly the kind of diagnostic exercise this report carries out. But treated in isolation, it overstates the story. Capital did not leave Tanzania; a large share of it appears to have shifted toward the EPZ/SEZ schemes, which the Government has been actively building out — including the launch of Special Economic Zones on 12 August 2025 and the allocation of more than 40 land parcels across the Bagamoyo, Ruvuma, Kwala and Nala SEZs — precisely because these zones offer stronger incentive packages, serviced land and streamlined regulatory processes than the General Scheme.

04 — ContextRegional and Global Context

Tanzania's quarter did not happen in isolation. Two broader trends help calibrate how much of the General Scheme's FDI drop is Tanzania-specific versus part of a wider pattern affecting developing economies and East Africa as a region.

4.1 East Africa: a more competitive field

On UNCTAD's 2024 annual FDI figures — the latest full comparable year across the region — Ethiopia led East Africa with USD 3.98 billion (+21.9% year-on-year), followed by Uganda at USD 3.31 billion (+10.4%), Tanzania at USD 1.72 billion (+28.3%, the fastest growth rate in the group that year), Kenya at USD 1.50 billion (roughly flat), Rwanda at USD 819 million (+14.4%) and Somalia at USD 765 million (+13%). East Africa's regional FDI total rose 12% in 2025 to roughly USD 15 billion, with growth concentrated in Ethiopia and Uganda; Kenya separately reported its strongest-ever FDI year in 2025, driven by digital-economy and renewable-energy investment.

East African FDI Inflows, UNCTAD Annual Basis (2024, latest comparable year)

USD Million — balance-of-payments basis, not directly comparable to TISEZA's quarterly registered-capital figures above
Reading this chart correctly

These are UNCTAD's annual, balance-of-payments FDI figures for calendar 2024 — a different measure, on a different basis and timeframe, from the TISEZA quarterly registered-capital figures used throughout the rest of this report. They are shown to illustrate relative scale and regional competitive positioning, not as a direct comparison to the 58.4% General Scheme figure.

4.2 A more selective global environment

UNCTAD's Global Investment Trends Monitor for 2025 recorded a 14% rise in global FDI to an estimated USD 1.6 trillion — but more than USD 140 billion of that increase came from flows through global financial conduit economies rather than new productive investment, and flows to developed economies rose 43% while flows to developing economies declined 2%. Greenfield project announcements — the category most relevant to a scheme like Tanzania's General Scheme — fell 16% globally despite high headline values driven by a small number of megaprojects, and international project finance declined for a fourth consecutive year. This is the global backdrop explanation #2 in Section 2 draws on: developing economies broadly are seeing a smaller, more concentrated share of global capital, independent of anything specific to Tanzania.

4.3 Tanzania's institutional response

The same bulletin that reports the General Scheme's FDI decline also documents active institutional expansion: the formal launch of Special Economic Zones on 12 August 2025; more than 40 land parcels allocated across the Bagamoyo (≈524.89 hectares, 5 projects), Ruvuma (≈375.59 hectares), Kwala (≈3.20 hectares) and Nala (≈2.02 hectares) SEZs; continued implementation of the MKUMBI II regulatory-reform blueprint; a National Investment Database System that has already captured over 1,000 projects; and One-Stop Facilitation Centre services that processed 1,275 work permits and 2,702 residence permits during the quarter. None of this offsets the General Scheme FDI number directly, but it is the institutional context in which that number sits.

05 — ImplicationsWhat This Means

For different audiences, the same set of numbers points to different, practical takeaways.

1For policymakers

  • Treat the General Scheme FDI figure as a genuine signal worth investigating quarter-by-quarter, not a one-off to dismiss — but publish the combined GIS + EPZ/SEZ figure alongside it so the headline is not read in isolation.
  • Continue building the EPZ/SEZ pipeline deliberately, since it is now attracting the scale of FDI the General Scheme used to.
  • Monitor project-size concentration risk: a handful of very large projects (Ruvuma, China-linked) now account for the majority of new-scheme capital growth.

2For investors and market entrants

  • Manufacturing, tourism and infrastructure remain the deepest, most active General Scheme sectors by project count and capital in Q4 2025/26.
  • EPZ/SEZ zones (Bagamoyo, Ruvuma, Kwala, Nala) now offer materially larger co-investment and supply-chain opportunities than a year ago, particularly around the large anchor projects already registered there.
  • Rising DI (+21%) signals growing local co-investment appetite — a relevant consideration for structuring joint ventures.

3For researchers and analysts

  • Any year-on-year FDI comparison for Tanzania should specify which TISEZA scheme it refers to — General Scheme and EPZ/SEZ moved in opposite directions by an order of magnitude this quarter.
  • Project-count and average-deal-size data are as informative as the headline capital figure for diagnosing whether a decline reflects fewer investors or fewer mega-projects.

4For the wider public conversation

  • "FDI fell 58.4%" and "Tanzania attracted more total investment than a year ago" are both accurate statements about the same quarter — they describe different schemes and different aggregation levels, not contradictory realities.

"A single scheme's FDI line falling 58.4% deserves a real explanation, not a shrug — and this report has tried to give it one. But the more complete picture for Q4 2025/26 is not an investor retreat from Tanzania. It is a reallocation: fewer mega-projects landing in the General Scheme against an unusually high base, a genuinely more selective global FDI environment for developing economies, and a rapidly scaling EPZ/SEZ programme absorbing exactly the kind of large-ticket foreign capital the General Scheme lost. Read the two schemes together, and total investment registered by TISEZA this quarter rose by more than half."

— TICGL / Tanzania Economic Research Institute (TERI)

06 — SourcesMethod & Source Note

Basis

All Q4 2025/26 and Q4 2024/25 figures for the General Investment Scheme and the EPZ/SEZ schemes are drawn from the Tanzania Investment & Special Economic Zones Authority (TISEZA), Quarterly Investment Bulletin, April–June 2026 (Section Four: Investment Performance). Combined totals, percentage-point shares, average-deal-size and multi-year growth-rate calculations are TICGL/TERI's own, computed from those published figures. Regional and global comparator data draw on UNCTAD's World Investment Report 2025 and Global Investment Trends Monitor #50 (January 2026), together with contemporaneous reporting on Tanzania's October 2025 general election and its investment-climate implications.

The full TISEZA Quarterly Investment Bulletin, including regional maps, sectoral detail and investment-promotion activity for the quarter, is available on request; see below.

📨

Request TICGL/TERI's Full Investment Climate Briefing

This page summarises TICGL/TERI's reading of TISEZA's Q4 2025/26 Quarterly Investment Bulletin. Institutions, investors and development partners may request a fuller briefing — including sector-by-sector detail, regional maps and investment-promotion activity for the quarter — directly from TERI.

✉️ Request via economist@ticgl.com →

07 — Quick AnswersFrequently Asked Questions

Why did FDI in Tanzania's General Investment Scheme fall 58.4% in Q4 2025/26?

TISEZA's Quarterly Investment Bulletin shows FDI in the General Investment Scheme fell from USD 2,538.86 million in Q4 2024/25 to USD 1,055.47 million in Q4 2025/26, a 58.4% drop. TICGL/TERI ranks five contributing factors: a high base from one-off large projects registered a year earlier, more selective global capital allocation, domestic crowding-in, the 29 October 2025 election cycle, and rising regional competition for FDI. Project-count data show the number of projects fell only marginally while average deal size roughly halved, pointing most strongly to the base-effect explanation.

Did Domestic Investment also fall in Q4 2025/26?

No. Domestic Investment (DI) in the General Investment Scheme rose 21.0%, from USD 681.47 million to USD 824.58 million, and its share of GIS capital nearly doubled, from about 21% to about 44%.

Is Tanzania's total investment actually falling?

Not when both TISEZA schemes are combined. General Scheme plus EPZ/SEZ capital rose from about USD 3.34 billion to about USD 5.26 billion — an increase of roughly 58%. EPZ/SEZ capital alone rose from USD 115.16 million to USD 3,378.5 million, driven substantially by large agriculture and forestry projects concentrated in Ruvuma Region. TICGL/TERI reads this as a reallocation of capital, not an overall retreat.

What role did Tanzania's October 2025 general election play?

Tanzania held its general election on 29 October 2025, inside the period this bulletin compares. International investment-risk commentary flagged heightened political tension around the vote as a factor that typically increases short-term investor caution. TICGL/TERI ranks this as a moderate-likelihood contributor alongside four others, not the primary explanation.

How does Tanzania's FDI compare with its East African neighbours?

On UNCTAD's 2024 annual figures, Ethiopia led with USD 3.98 billion, followed by Uganda (USD 3.31bn), Tanzania (USD 1.72bn), Kenya (USD 1.50bn), Rwanda (USD 819M) and Somalia (USD 765M). Tanzania's 28.3% growth that year was the fastest in the group. Globally, 2025 FDI flows to developing economies declined 2% while flows to developed economies rose 43% — relevant context for any single quarter's dip.

Muhtasari

Muhtasari kwa Kiswahili

Kwa Nini FDI Ilishuka kwa 58.4% kwenye General Scheme? Uchambuzi wa Robo ya Nne 2025/26. — Uwekezaji wa moja kwa moja kutoka nje (FDI) kwenye Mpango Mkuu wa Uwekezaji (General Investment Scheme) ulishuka kutoka Dola za Marekani bilioni 2.54 (Robo ya Nne 2024/25) hadi Dola bilioni 1.06 (Robo ya Nne 2025/26) — punguzo la asilimia 58.4, kulingana na Ripoti ya Robo ya Uwekezaji ya TISEZA.

Lakini si sehemu nzima ya taswira: Uwekezaji wa ndani (DI) kwenye General Scheme uliongezeka kwa asilimia 21.0 (kutoka Dola milioni 681.5 hadi milioni 824.6), na mtaji uliosajiliwa kwenye mipango ya EPZ/SEZ uliongezeka mara karibu 30 (kutoka Dola milioni 115.2 hadi Dola milioni 3,378.5), hasa kutokana na miradi mikubwa ya kilimo na misitu, hususan mkoani Ruvuma inayohusishwa na uwekezaji kutoka China. Idadi ya miradi kwenye General Scheme haikushuka sana (kutoka 250 hadi 243) — kilichoshuka ni ukubwa wa wastani wa mradi mmoja mmoja, ambao ulipungua kwa karibu nusu.

Sababu tano zinazowezekana (kwa mpangilio wa uwezekano): (1) Base effect — miradi mikubwa ya mwaka jana isiyo na mfano mwaka huu (uwezekano: juu sana); (2) Mtaji wa dunia kuwa selective zaidi kuelekea nchi zilizoendelea (UNCTAD inaonesha FDI kwa nchi zinazoendelea ilishuka asilimia 2 mwaka 2025 wakati za nchi zilizoendelea ziliongezeka asilimia 43) (uwezekano: juu); (3) Domestic crowding-in — DI imeongezeka (uwezekano: wastani-juu); (4) Kipindi cha Uchaguzi Mkuu wa Oktoba 29, 2025 (uwezekano: wastani); (5) Ushindani kutoka nchi jirani kama Ethiopia na Uganda ambazo zilivutia FDI kubwa zaidi mwaka 2024 (uwezekano: wastani).

Taswira kamili: Ukijumlisha General Scheme na EPZ/SEZ, jumla ya mtaji uliosajiliwa na TISEZA uliongezeka kutoka Dola bilioni 3.34 hadi Dola bilioni 5.26 — ongezeko la takriban asilimia 57.7. Kwa hiyo, hata FDI ikishuka kwenye General Scheme, siyo dalili ya jumla ya uwekezaji kupungua Tanzania — ni reallocation ya mtaji kuelekea maeneo yenye vivutio bora zaidi.

  • FDI, General Scheme: –58.4% (Dola bilioni 2.54 → 1.06)
  • DI, General Scheme: +21.0% (Dola milioni 681.5 → 824.6)
  • Mtaji wa EPZ/SEZ: +2,834% (Dola milioni 115.2 → 3,378.5)
  • Jumla (General Scheme + EPZ/SEZ): +57.7% (Dola bilioni 3.34 → 5.26)

Chanzo: TISEZA, Ripoti ya Robo ya Uwekezaji, Aprili–Juni 2026; UNCTAD. Uchambuzi kamili unapatikana kwa ombi: economist@ticgl.com.

Tanzania External Debt 2026: Borrower, Use of Funds & Currency Analysis | TICGL
Bank of Tanzania · Monthly Economic Review · April 2026 · Section 2.7 External Debt

Tanzania External Debt:
USD 35.5 Billion Unpacked

A forensic breakdown of Tanzania's external debt stock as of March 2026 — covering who owes (borrower composition), what it was spent on (use of funds), and which currencies carry the exposure (currency composition). Every percentage point visualised. Every trend mapped.

📅 March 2026 data 🏦 Source: Bank of Tanzania 💱 Rate: TZS 2,577.4 / USD ✍️ TICGL Economic Research 📋 Tables 2.7.1 · 2.7.3 · 2.7.4 · A10
Total External Debt
USD 35,540M
TZS ≈ 91.6 Trillion
▲ +6.8% y/y
Central Govt Share
82.7%
USD 29,398.5M
▲ Dominant borrower
Private Sector Share
17.3%
USD 6,141.7M
▼ -5.4% y/y
Top Use of Funds
BoP + Transport
44.5% combined
◆ Infrastructure focus
USD Exposure
66.7%
≈ TZS 61.1T
▲ Currency risk
Monthly Debt Service
USD 103.7M
TZS 267.3B (Mar-26)
Net outflow month
👤

External Debt Stock by Borrower

Who is responsible for Tanzania's external debt — central government, private sector, and public corporations

Borrower Structure at a Glance March 2026

Tanzania's external debt of USD 35,540.2 million is predominantly owed by the central government (82.7%). The private sector accounts for 17.3%, while public corporations have completely eliminated their external debt obligations.

Central Government
USD 29,399M
82.7% of total external debt
▲ +9.7% from Mar-25
Private Sector
USD 6,142M
17.3% of total external debt
▼ -5.4% from Mar-25
Public Corporations
USD 0
0.0% — fully cleared
✓ Reduced from USD 3.8M (Mar-25)
Debt Composition — March 2026
Govt 82.7%
Private 17.3%

Source: Bank of Tanzania, Table 2.7.1. All figures in USD millions.

External Debt by Borrower — Three-Period Comparison Mar-25 · Feb-26 · Mar-26

Full breakdown of disbursed outstanding debt (DOD), interest arrears, and total stock across all borrower categories over the three most recent reporting periods.

Borrower / ComponentMar-25 (USD M)Share %Feb-26 (USD M)Share %Mar-26 (USD M)Share %12-Month Δ
🏛️ Central Government — TOTAL26,789.580.5%29,684.882.9%29,398.582.7%▲ +9.7%
— Disbursed Outstanding (DOD)26,712.080.3%29,604.682.6%29,318.682.5%▲ +9.7%
— Interest Arrears77.50.2%80.20.2%80.00.2%▲ Slight increase
🏢 Private Sector — TOTAL6,491.019.5%6,139.917.1%6,141.717.3%▼ -5.4%
— Disbursed Outstanding (DOD)5,912.117.8%5,738.416.0%5,723.016.1%▼ -3.2%
— Interest Arrears578.91.7%401.51.1%418.71.2%▼ Improving
🏗️ Public Corporations — TOTAL3.80.0%0.00.0%0.00.0%✓ Cleared
— Disbursed Outstanding (DOD)3.80.0%0.00.0%0.00.0%✓ Cleared
🇹🇿 TOTAL EXTERNAL DEBT STOCK33,284.3100.0%35,824.7100.0%35,540.2100.0%▲ +6.8%

Source: Bank of Tanzania, Table 2.7.1 External Debt Stock by Borrower. DOD = Disbursed Outstanding Debt. r = revised; p = provisional.

March 2025
USD 33,284M
Govt: 80.5% · Private: 19.5%
February 2026
USD 35,825M
Govt: 82.9% · Private: 17.1%
March 2026 — Latest
USD 35,540M
Govt: 82.7% · Private: 17.3%
Borrower Composition — Visual Comparison Across Three Periods
Mar-25 USD 33.3B
Govt 80.5% · Private 19.5%
Feb-26 USD 35.8B
Govt 82.9% · Private 17.1%
LATEST Mar-26 USD 35.5B
Govt 82.7% · Private 17.3%
Central Government
Private Sector
Public Corporations (cleared)
Structural Shift: The central government's share of external debt has risen from 80.5% (March 2025) to 82.7% (March 2026), while the private sector share has correspondingly declined from 19.5% to 17.3%. This shift partly reflects the government's active borrowing programme for infrastructure projects (SGR, Julius Nyerere Hydropower, roads), while private sector external borrowing has moderated as international credit conditions tightened in 2025. The elimination of public corporation external debt is a positive development in the debt portfolio.

External Debt Stock — Monthly Trend Mar 2025 – Mar 2026

Total external debt stock rose from USD 33.3 billion in March 2025, peaked at USD 35.8 billion in February 2026, then eased slightly to USD 35.5 billion in March 2026 — reflecting repayments outpacing new disbursements in the month.

38,000 36,250 34,500 32,750 31,000M Peak: 36,034M 35,540M ★ 33,284M Mar-25 May-25 Jul-25 Sep-25 Nov-25 Jan-26 Mar-26
Total External Debt Stock (USD Millions)

Source: Bank of Tanzania, Table A10 National Debt Developments.


📦

Disbursed Outstanding Debt by Use of Funds

Percentage share of external debt by sector/purpose — what Tanzania's borrowed money has been deployed for

Sector Allocation Overview March 2026 — % Share

Tanzania's disbursed outstanding external debt is allocated across ten functional categories. Balance of payments & budget support and transport & telecommunications together account for 44.5% of all disbursed debt, followed by social welfare & education at 19.2%.

💰 BoP & Budget Support
22.5%
≈ USD 7,996M
🚢 Transport & Telecommunications
22.0%
≈ USD 7,819M
🎓 Social Welfare & Education
19.2%
≈ USD 6,824M
⚡ Energy & Mining
12.0%
≈ USD 4,265M
🏗️ Real Estate & Construction
5.1%
≈ USD 1,813M
🌾 Agriculture
5.3%
≈ USD 1,884M
🏭 Industries
3.7%
≈ USD 1,315M
💼 Finance & Insurance
3.6%
≈ USD 1,279M
🌴 Tourism
1.8%
≈ USD 640M
📦 Other Uses
4.8%
≈ USD 1,706M
Full Portfolio Stacked — March 2026
BoP 22.5
Trans 22.0
Social 19.2
Enrgy 12.0
Agri
Real
Oth
Ind
Fin
T

USD equivalents estimated as % × USD 35,540.2M DOD. Source: Bank of Tanzania, Table 2.7.3, March 2026.

Use of Funds — Three-Period Comparison Mar-25 · Feb-26 · Mar-26

Percentage share of disbursed outstanding debt allocated to each sector across three consecutive reporting periods, revealing how the portfolio allocation has evolved.

Sector / PurposeMar-25 (%)Feb-26 (%)Mar-26 (%)Mar-26 (USD M est.)Shift Mar25→Mar26
💰 Balance of Payments & Budget Support20.7%22.5%22.5%≈ 7,996M▲ +1.8pp
🚢 Transport & Telecommunications21.4%22.0%22.0%≈ 7,819M▲ +0.6pp
🎓 Social Welfare & Education20.0%19.4%19.2%≈ 6,824M▼ -0.8pp
⚡ Energy & Mining13.1%12.0%12.0%≈ 4,265M▼ -1.1pp
🌾 Agriculture4.9%5.3%5.3%≈ 1,884M▲ +0.4pp
🏗️ Real Estate & Construction4.7%4.9%5.1%≈ 1,813M▲ +0.4pp
📦 Other5.5%4.8%4.8%≈ 1,706M▼ -0.7pp
🏭 Industries3.6%3.7%3.7%≈ 1,315M▲ +0.1pp
💼 Finance & Insurance4.4%3.6%3.6%≈ 1,279M▼ -0.8pp
🌴 Tourism1.8%1.8%1.8%≈ 640M◆ Stable
TOTAL (All Uses)100.0%100.0%100.0%USD 35,540M—

Source: Bank of Tanzania, Table 2.7.3 Disbursed Outstanding Debt by Use of Funds, Percentage Share. Estimates in USD M = % × USD 35,540.2M (Mar-26 DOD).

Mar-26 USD 35.5B DOD by Use
BoP & Budget Support — 22.5%
Transport & Telecommunications — 22.0%
Social Welfare & Education — 19.2%
Energy & Mining — 12.0%
Agriculture — 5.3%
Real Estate & Construction — 5.1%
Other — 4.8%
Industries — 3.7%
Finance & Insurance — 3.6%
Tourism — 1.8%
Portfolio Interpretation: The top three use categories — BoP & budget support (22.5%), transport & telecommunications (22.0%), and social welfare & education (19.2%) — collectively account for 63.7% of all disbursed outstanding debt. The BoP & budget support category has grown the most (+1.8 percentage points since March 2025), reflecting increased general budget support drawdowns to finance the fiscal deficit. The energy & mining share declined from 13.1% to 12.0%, while real estate & construction edged up — consistent with active infrastructure investment in roads, housing, and water supply.

Top Sector Allocation Trends Mar-25 → Mar-26

Tracking how the four largest use-of-funds categories have shifted as a share of disbursed outstanding debt over the review period.

25% 22% 19% 16% 13% 22.5% 22.0% 19.2% 12.0% Mar-2025 Feb-2026 Mar-2026
BoP & Budget Support
Transport & Telecom
Social Welfare & Education
Energy & Mining

Source: Bank of Tanzania, Table 2.7.3.


💱

Disbursed Outstanding Debt by Currency Composition

Which currencies Tanzania's external debt is denominated in — and the foreign exchange risk this creates

Currency Exposure — March 2026 % Share of DOD

Tanzania's external debt is dominated by the US dollar (66.7%), followed by the Euro (17.7%), Chinese Yuan (6.6%), and other currencies (9.0%). This concentration creates significant foreign exchange risk — shilling depreciation automatically inflates the TZS-equivalent debt burden.

🇺🇸 US Dollar (USD)
66.7%
≈ USD 23,705M · TZS 61.1T
◆ Slightly up from 67.3% (Mar-25)
🇪🇺 Euro (EUR)
17.7%
≈ USD 6,291M · TZS 16.2T
▲ Rising from 16.9%
🇨🇳 Chinese Yuan (CNY)
6.6%
≈ USD 2,346M · TZS 6.0T
▲ Growing share
🌐 Other Currencies
9.0%
≈ USD 3,199M · TZS 8.2T
▼ Declining from 9.5%
Currency Portfolio — March 2026
🇺🇸 USD 66.7%
🇪🇺 EUR 17.7%
🇨🇳 CNY 6.6%
🌐 Other 9.0%

Source: Bank of Tanzania, Table 2.7.4.

TZS-Equivalent Exposure by Currency (at TZS 2,577.4/USD — March 2026)
🇺🇸 USD Exposure
66.7%
TZS ≈ 61.1 Trillion
🇪🇺 EUR Exposure
17.7%
TZS ≈ 16.2 Trillion
🇨🇳 CNY Exposure
6.6%
TZS ≈ 6.0 Trillion
🌐 Other Currencies
9.0%
TZS ≈ 8.2 Trillion

Currency Composition — Three-Period Comparison Mar-25 · Feb-26 · Mar-26

How the currency mix of Tanzania's external debt has evolved across three reporting periods, and the direction of each currency's share.

CurrencyMar-25 (%)Feb-26 (%)Mar-26 (%)Mar-26 Amt (USD M est.)Mar-26 TZS Equiv.Trend (12M)
🇺🇸 United States Dollar (USD)67.3%66.0%66.7%≈ 23,705M≈ TZS 61.1T▼ -0.6pp
🇪🇺 Euro (EUR)16.9%17.7%17.7%≈ 6,291M≈ TZS 16.2T▲ +0.8pp
🇨🇳 Chinese Yuan (CNY)6.3%6.5%6.6%≈ 2,346M≈ TZS 6.0T▲ +0.3pp
🌐 Other (SDR, JPY, GBP, etc.)9.5%9.7%9.0%≈ 3,199M≈ TZS 8.2T▼ -0.5pp
TOTAL100.0%100.0%100.0%USD 35,540M≈ TZS 91.6T—

Source: Bank of Tanzania, Table 2.7.4 Disbursed Outstanding Debt by Currency Composition, Percentage Share. TZS estimates = % × USD 35,540.2M × 2,577.4.

Currency Mix — Visual Comparison
Mar-25 USD 67.3%
USD 33.3B
Feb-26 USD 66.0%
USD 35.8B
LATEST Mar-26 USD 66.7%
USD 35.5B
Legend
USD — 66.7%
EUR — 17.7%
CNY — 6.6%
Other — 9.0%
USD SENSITIVITY
Per 100 TZS depreciation:
+TZS 2.37T added to debt
Foreign Exchange Risk: The concentration of 66.7% in USD and 17.7% in EUR means that 84.4% of Tanzania's external debt is denominated in G7 hard currencies — subject to international market fluctuations. The rising Yuan share (6.6%, up from 6.3% in March 2025) reflects increasing Chinese project financing, particularly in infrastructure. With the shilling currently appreciating (+2.52% y/y), Tanzania is enjoying a favourable window; however, if the Strait of Hormuz oil crisis reverses this through a heavier import bill, each 100 TZS depreciation against the USD alone would add approximately TZS 2.37 trillion to the TZS-equivalent external debt burden without any new borrowing.

Currency Share Trend Mar-25 → Mar-26

Tracking the slow but meaningful shift in currency composition — USD slightly declining, EUR and CNY growing, reflecting Tanzania's diversification of creditor relationships.

70% 55% 40% 25% 10% 66.7% 17.7% 6.6% 9.0% March 2025 February 2026 March 2026
US Dollar (USD)
Euro (EUR)
Chinese Yuan (CNY)
Other Currencies

Source: Bank of Tanzania, Table 2.7.4 Disbursed Outstanding Debt by Currency Composition.

Exchange Rate Sensitivity — TZS Equivalent Debt Change
ScenarioTZS/USD RateUSD-Debt TZS Equiv.EUR-Debt TZS Equiv.Total Ext. Debt (TZS T)Change vs Baseline
🟢 Appreciation +5% (TZS Stronger)2,448≈ TZS 58.0T≈ TZS 15.4T≈ TZS 86.9T▼ TZS -4.7T
◆ Baseline (March 2026)2,577≈ TZS 61.1T≈ TZS 16.2T≈ TZS 91.6T◆ Reference
🔴 Depreciation -5% (TZS Weaker)2,706≈ TZS 64.2T≈ TZS 17.0T≈ TZS 96.1T▲ TZS +4.5T
🔴🔴 Depreciation -10% (Stress)2,835≈ TZS 67.3T≈ TZS 17.9T≈ TZS 100.7T▲ TZS +9.1T

Illustrative sensitivity analysis. USD and EUR debt assumed at 66.7% and 17.7% of DOD USD 35,540M respectively. Other currencies excluded for simplicity. For indicative purposes only.


🔍

TICGL Synthesis — Three Structural Insights

Key takeaways from Tanzania's external debt composition for investors and policymakers

👤 Borrower Risk

Central government's rising share (82.7%) signals growing sovereign debt concentration. Private sector contraction (-5.4% y/y) may reflect tighter international credit conditions. The elimination of public corporation debt (USD 0) is a positive development in portfolio quality.

Watch: Government borrowing pace relative to domestic revenue growth. Debt service-to-revenue ratio approaching pressure zone.

📦 Allocation Quality

The top three uses — BoP & budget support (22.5%), transport (22%), and social welfare (19.2%) — reflect a blend of productive infrastructure investment and consumption-smoothing. The declining energy & mining share (12%, down from 13.1%) may reflect project completion cycles.

Positive: Transport infrastructure dominance supports long-term growth potential (SGR, roads, ports).

💱 Currency Resilience

USD dominance at 66.7% is the single largest structural risk in Tanzania's external debt portfolio. However, the current 2.52% annual appreciation of the shilling provides a favourable window. Rising CNY share (6.6%) reflects deepening China-Tanzania economic ties through Belt & Road financing.

Risk: Middle East oil shock could trigger TZS depreciation, automatically inflating debt by TZS 2–9 trillion depending on severity.
Data Sources, Methodology & Attribution
All data is sourced from the Bank of Tanzania Monthly Economic Review, April 2026, covering data as at March 2026. Specific tables referenced: Table 2.7.1 (External Debt Stock by Borrower), Table 2.7.3 (Disbursed Outstanding Debt by Use of Funds, Percentage Share), Table 2.7.4 (Disbursed Outstanding Debt by Currency Composition, Percentage Share), and Table A10 (National Debt Developments, monthly series). USD-to-TZS conversions use the end-of-period March 2026 exchange rate of TZS 2,577.4 per USD (from Table A10). Estimated USD amounts by sector/currency are calculated as percentage × total DOD of USD 35,540.2 million. Exchange rate sensitivity analysis is illustrative only. Analysis and editorial commentary by TICGL Economic Research, May 2026. This page is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice.
crossmenu linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram