CORRIDOR DOCTRINE · 06
Early in our work, we hired an operator to manage a processing trial. Good contract. Clear deliverables. Penalty clauses. The kind of agreement that looks airtight on paper. Within six months, the operator was optimising for throughput volume because that is what the contract incentivised. Quality suffered. Maintenance was deferred. The equipment degraded faster than projected.
That experience cost us time and money. It also gave us a principle we have not deviated from since.
An operator who is paid to run your asset will run it to the terms of the contract. An operator who owns equity in the asset will run it to protect the value of their stake. The difference between these two behaviours compounds over years, and in infrastructure with a 20 to 30 year operating horizon, the compounding is the difference between a functioning system and a depleted one.
This is not a philosophical preference. It is a structural design choice with specific financial consequences. When an operator holds equity in the Processing OpCo, their return is tied to EBITDA, not to a management fee. They do not benefit from deferring maintenance because deferred maintenance destroys their own asset value. They do not benefit from cutting corners on quality because quality failures reduce the offtake price that drives their dividend. Their economic incentive is aligned with the long-term performance of the facility, not with the short-term optimisation of their contract.
Our belief is that this alignment cannot be replicated through contractual mechanisms alone, no matter how sophisticated the drafting. We have reviewed operating agreements across agricultural processing, mining, and infrastructure projects in West Africa. The pattern is consistent. Contracted operators extract. Equity operators protect. The exceptions are rare enough to prove the rule.
The practical architecture is straightforward. In every node of the corridor, the Processing OpCo has three classes of equity. Class A commercial shares held by financial investors seeking returns. Class B governance shares held by APDC as the system architect, carrying disproportionate governance rights independent of economic percentage. And operator equity, held by the company that runs the plant, sized large enough that their return from equity meaningfully exceeds what they would earn from a management contract alone.
The entry condition is non-negotiable. An operator who wants to run the plant must co-invest. The co-investment and the operating agreement are linked transactions. You cannot sign one without the other. This filters for operators who have conviction in the asset and the model, and filters out operators who are looking for fee income with limited downside exposure.
From what I have seen across multiple operating environments, the second-order effect is equally important. When the operator has equity, the relationship between the project sponsor and the operator changes fundamentally. It moves from principal-agent, where monitoring and enforcement are constant overhead, to partnership, where both parties are solving the same problem because both parties lose if the problem is not solved. The monitoring cost drops. The decision-making speed increases. The conflict rate decreases. These are not soft benefits. They translate directly into operating margin.
There is a financing dimension that is often missed. DFI credit committees evaluating infrastructure projects in Africa ask a specific question: who operates, and what is their commitment? A contracted operator with a five-year management agreement and a termination clause is a risk factor. An equity-holding operator with capital at stake and a return profile tied to the asset’s performance is a credit positive. Operator equity does not just improve operations. It improves the bankability of the project at the point of financing.
We designed every node of the corridor around this principle. No contracted operators. No management-fee-only arrangements. Equity or nothing. The pool of eligible operators is smaller as a result. That is the point. The operators who clear this bar are the ones who have the balance sheet, the conviction, and the operating discipline to protect a 25-year asset. The ones who do not clear the bar are the ones who would have extracted value and moved on.
The corridor is designed to outlast any single operator, any single investor, and any single crop cycle. That durability starts with who is in the room and what they have at stake.
Corridor Doctrine is a periodic series on the design principles behind integrated agricultural corridors. Published on nadiazeine.com/insights.
Nadia Zeine is Managing Partner and CEO of Africa Private Development Corporation, ‘APDC’ Holdings.
Food Systems · Infrastructure · West Africa
Related reading: Farmers do, what Farmers are. Farming.