By the numbers
What the eight targets could cost, who would pay, and what happens when money arrives late, costs rise, a funder pulls back or the kwacha moves. A what-if model contributed to this project, run here on the site's own baselines. Constant 2026 US dollars, 2027 to 2031.
Working numbers. Costs, funding shares and build times are unverified scenario inputs. The results illustrate these assumptions; they do not establish project feasibility or committed funding.
- Scenario cost
- US$50.5bn US$10.1bn a year on average
- Money available
- US$50.5bn over 2027 to 2031
- Unfunded
- US$0 fully funded
- Gaps closed by 2031
- 56% average across the eight targets; 100% once funded projects finish
Model and cost scenario: Campbell Lumbila, Organizational Development Consultant and principal at Luangwa Advisory, who contributed the model and consented to this credit. Levels and targets: this site's audited baselines. Build times, knock-on effects and kwacha shares: his illustrative settings, which every lever below lets you change. Arithmetic on a scenario, not a forecast and never a probability.
Where the US$50.5bn would go
- Copper US$22.0bn
- Electricity US$9.0bn
- Maize US$3.3bn
- Soya beans US$3.1bn
- Wheat US$2.7bn
- Beef exports US$2.6bn
- Tourism US$2.8bn
- Sugar US$2.0bn
- Shared infrastructure US$3.0bn
Costs are the contributed scenario (constant 2026 US dollars), kept as working numbers in the research record. Shared infrastructure (roads, rail, digital, delivery capacity) has no output target of its own.
Start with a what-if
Pick one, then fine-tune it with the levers. Every number on the page updates as you go; the strip at the top of the page follows.
Scenario outcome in each area
Each bar runs from the selected, dated baseline to the 2031 target. Open an area to see its year-by-year path. The chip says how much of the gap the scenario closes by 2031; it is the model's arithmetic, not a verdict.
- Solid: working by 2031
- Faded: funded, finished after 2031
- Base case by 2031
What the kwacha does to the numbers
Money needed and money put to work, by year
The outlined bar is what the scenario needs that year. The coloured stack is the money put to work, split by area. Money arriving but left unspent is shown separately in the table.
What moves the result most
Each bar shows how the average share of the gaps closed by 2031 would change if that one thing happened on top of the current settings.
- Lowers delivery
- Raises delivery
Reality checks
Small calculators for the questions the headline targets leave open. Change any number. Defaults are the contributor's illustrative inputs unless a source is named.
Tourism: volume or value?
Beef: how much meat is US$1 billion?
Power: capacity is not energy
Wheat: how much land?
Irrigation: what does the budget buy?
How big is this for Zambia?
GDP: US$28.88bn, 2025 (World Bank). This compares constant-2026-dollar costs with historical nominal GDP: a rough scale comparison, not a forecast of the future GDP share. Population is the contributor's rounded input, not an evidence record.
Read before you quote a number
How the model works
- Each area has a cost and a gap between its selected baseline and its 2031 target. Funding a share of the cost closes the same share of the gap.
- Money only counts toward 2031 if it is spent early enough for the project to be finished. The build times are illustrative and adjustable.
- When a year falls short, unfunded work rolls into the next year and competes for that year's money.
- Areas marked paid first are funded in full before the rest share what is left.
- With knock-on effects on, an area loses part of its output when electricity or shared infrastructure is underfunded. The strengths are illustrative.
- Each area raises part of its money in kwacha and pays part of its bills in kwacha. When the kwacha falls, kwacha budgets buy fewer dollars and kwacha bills cost fewer dollars. If local prices rise to match, the effect fades. The shares are illustrative.
- Where this site has no usable baseline (sugar, beef exports), the area shows the share of its gap closed rather than a level.
| Area | Build time | Relies on power | Relies on shared transport | Money raised in kwacha | Bills paid in kwacha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Copper | 3 yr | 40% | 25% | 10% | 25% |
| Electricity | 2 yr | none | 10% | 30% | 20% |
| Maize | 1 yr | 10% | 30% | 60% | 35% |
| Soya beans | 1 yr | 15% | 30% | 55% | 35% |
| Wheat | 1 yr | 25% | 20% | 55% | 35% |
| Beef exports | 2 yr | 10% | 25% | 55% | 45% |
| Tourism | 2 yr | 10% | 20% | 45% | 45% |
| Sugar | 2 yr | 20% | 20% | 40% | 35% |
| Shared infrastructure | 2 yr | none | none | 60% | 40% |
What the cost estimate leaves out
- Only the eight production targets and their shared infrastructure. Universities, healthcare, housing and social protection need separate estimates.
- Capital investment only. Running costs such as fertiliser, fuel, salaries, maintenance and freight are not included.
- Money already spent or committed on existing projects is not separated out, so the total is a planning envelope and not a verified funding gap.
- Interest and general inflation. Figures are in 2026 US dollars. The kwacha lever tests exchange-rate moves, not their effect on dollar debt, export earnings or imported farm inputs.
- The funder split is one possible structure, not signed commitments.
- Funding is translated linearly into output, without project-level calibration. Power and transport penalties use funding across the whole period, not the year those assets become operational.
- Where funded work falls short of the target, no completion date is shown. Closing the remaining gap would need additional funding or changed assumptions.
Five questions to put to decision-makers
- Where is the fully costed programme, with projects, financing source, completion date and expected output for each target?
- Which investments are signed and financed, and which are announcements?
- What are the output milestones for 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030?
- What guarantees, partnership obligations and state-enterprise exposures does the public carry?
- What is the return for households in jobs, incomes, poverty reduction and tax revenue?
- Status
- Contributed what-if model; illustrative settings, not evidence; not ratified. Received 2026-10-10; site figures as of 9 October 2026.
- Confidence
- Arithmetic can be checked. Confidence in a national cost requirement is low until project scope, price basis, overlaps and remaining expenditure are reconciled.
- What would change it
- A project-by-project reconciliation, a changed target definition, or a scope/cost revision that changes the total or allocation.
- Competing explanation
- Shared assets and expenditure already incurred could reduce the new requirement; firm power, operating inputs, delays and wider infrastructure scope could raise it.