Power, politics and projects: Reshaping energy investment between France and Africa

Power, politics and projects now shape energy investment outcomes as much as regulation or technology. Across France and francophone Africa, energy projects increasingly operate within a single, interconnected ecosystem — one in which advisory work, capital allocation and geopolitical priorities travel quickly across borders.  

Decisions taken in Washington, Paris, Brussels or Beijing now have direct consequences for whether energy projects in many African countries are financed, delayed or restructured. 

Insights from energy lawyers advising on projects in Africa point to a market defined less by formal legal reform than by global volatility. Political uncertainty, shifting development priorities and competition for strategic resources are reshaping how energy projects are assessed, structured, and, in some cases, whether they proceed at all. 

Across the France–Africa energy corridor, geopolitical developments are having immediate consequences for project pipelines. Practitioners advising on cross-border energy projects consistently point to the war in Ukraine, tensions in the Middle East, and uncertainty surrounding US political leadership as materially affecting investment decisions, as these developments reshape energy security priorities, alter development-finance engagement, and increase caution among lenders and insurers. 

Because many African energy projects are financed and structured through European — often Paris-centred — advisory and financing frameworks, geopolitical shocks are transmitted quickly across borders. Large-scale energy developments have faced delays or reversals following shifts in overseas policy priorities, particularly where external government support or export credit has been reconsidered. 

As a result, geopolitical risk is being actively repriced across this transnational market. Banks are more cautious, project timelines are being reassessed, and advisers are increasingly focused on structures that can withstand sudden shifts in political or funding priorities originating outside the host state. Lawyers in France, and in many African markets, also highlight how closely project outcomes are now tied to external political decisions.  

One source spoken to during Chambers research noted that many energy projects in francophone Africa are structured through European advisory and financing frameworks, meaning that political or policy shifts in the US or Europe are now felt very quickly at project level, even where local fundamentals remain sound. 

Funding uncertainty has triggered a realignment in energy finance that cuts across jurisdictions, and which is clearly visible to France-based advisers working on African energy projects. Lawyers report a slowdown in certain categories of external financing for renewable energy, alongside a renewed interest in geothermal energy, gas and electrical transmission infrastructure. 

For African projects that had anticipated development finance support, this shift has created material challenges — particularly where projects are no longer viewed as geopolitical priorities. Alternative capital sources are therefore becoming more prominent. Sovereign wealth funds, multilateral development institutions, and Asian lenders continue to play a significant role in African energy and infrastructure projects, reshaping deal dynamics, risk allocation and negotiating leverage. 

Constraints on traditional funding have also driven innovation. Advisers are increasingly involved in developing sophisticated financing structures that move beyond standard development finance models, reflecting a growing need to diversify funding sources and preserve project momentum in an uncertain global environment. This growing selectivity in capital allocation is not limited to one region but is increasingly visible across different advisory and financing hubs. 

A comparable set of dynamics is also evident when viewed through a UK and London-based advisory lens. Lawyers advising on large-scale energy and infrastructure projects describe similar pressures around geopolitical risk, US policy uncertainty and shifting lender appetite. A current illustration of this is the Lobito Corridor — a major US- and EU-backed rail and logistics initiative connecting Angola’s Atlantic port to the mineral-rich copper belt of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia — which highlights how lender appetite has become more selective, favouring projects aligned with critical-mineral access, energy security and supply-chain diversification. 

By contrast, the Mozambique LNG project illustrates where appetite has weakened: despite its strategic importance, security concerns and the UK government’s withdrawal of export finance support have directly affected project timelines and risk allocation. Together, these examples show how political and policy choices taken in London and other capital centres now play a decisive role in determining which projects move forward, and on what terms. 

France remains a central node in this ecosystem — not as a project location, but as a source of legal structuring, advisory expertise and regulatory influence for energy investments across francophone Africa. Even where projects are physically located on the African continent, their trajectory is often shaped by decisions taken in Paris, including with regard to risk assessment, financing architecture and foreign investment considerations. 

Domestic political uncertainty in France has therefore had effects well beyond the republic’s borders. Parliamentary instability, public debt concerns and delays in adopting key energy planning instruments have influenced market sentiment and transaction timing, particularly for capital-intensive projects with an African dimension. 

Sectoral divergence in France is also reflected in African project pipelines. Strategic sectors such as nuclear energy continue to benefit from broad political consensus, reinforcing France’s international positioning, while other segments face financing and bankability challenges.

This contrast mirrors broader shifts in lender appetite, with capital gravitating toward projects backed by clear political support and strategic alignment, while other segments face more cautious financing conditions. At the same time, Paris continues to function as a convening hub for Africa-focused energy investment, underscoring the depth of the cross-continental relationship. 

Across France and Africa, energy projects are increasingly influenced by a combination of geopolitical alignment, capital availability and political risk that extends well beyond the host jurisdiction. Shifts in global priorities, funding strategies and state engagement now play a decisive role in how projects are structured, financed and timed. 

France and Africa are not separate energy stories, but two sides of the same coin — linked by advisory activity, capital flows and shared exposure to geopolitical risk, whether mediated through Paris or London. In this environment, energy law increasingly sits at the intersection of power, politics and projects, shaped by forces that operate across borders rather than within them. 

Visit the Global Guide 2026 for a look at key trends and developments affecting legal practice, then use our rankings to find the best lawyers and firms worldwide. 

View Global Guide