Migrant workers on the continent are concentrated in agriculture and manufacturing, which together absorb roughly a fifth of migrant labour. Most hold medium-skilled jobs, alongside high- and low-skilled occupations. This reality must inform how we think about skills and mobility.
Global skills partnerships are meant to link skills creation with skills mobility in a mutually beneficial way. Workers are trained for jobs that both origin and destination countries need, and are helped to migrate legally. Destination countries fill labour shortages. Origin countries gain skills, investment, and remittances. Migrants get safer, more predictable pathways.
In theory, this works. In practice, most partnerships involving African countries and destinations outside the continent are limited and poorly attuned to African realities.
Why? Because Africa’s labour markets are different. The industries most reliant on migrant labour here are regional and largely informal. They are not the high-income international corridors that most existing global skills partnerships are designed for.
While there are skills partnerships for IT workers between Nigeria and Lithuania, most African migrants moving within the continent work in farms and factories, not software firms.
Today’s model is mostly bilateral: one African country and one high-income destination, often in Europe. These agreements focus on healthcare, construction, and IT, with the expectation that some trainees migrate and others stay. They achieve some results, but they have four critical flaws.
80% of African migration happens within the continent. Movement between Burkina Faso and Côte d’Ivoire, or Uganda and Kenya, is common and economically vital. Bilateral deals with distant partners do nothing to support or formalize these flows.
One track for domestic skills. Another track for migration to a specific country. This overlooks the 22% of Africans, according to Afrobarometer, who say they want to move to another country within their region or on the continent. We are building pathways out, while ignoring pathways across.
Each agreement is resource-intensive and tailored to two countries. That makes it hard to respond quickly to changing labour demands. Development partners themselves admit it is difficult to scale these initiatives.
Without regional coordination, multiple bilateral deals lead to different qualifications, certifications, and rules. That creates administrative inefficiencies and leaves workers vulnerable.
Informal migration already exposes too many workers to exploitation, poor conditions, and no legal recourse. A structured regional pathway would protect labour standards, social protection, and basic rights.
Many African economies face similar skills gaps in healthcare, construction, and technical trades. A regional track would allow countries to share human capital more efficiently, matching supply with demand within Africa.
Imagine aligned training and certification systems. A nurse trained in Ghana could fill a gap in Gabon. A welder from Senegal could meet demand in South Africa. That is not a loss for the origin country. It is circulation of skills that raises standards everywhere.
Destination countries in Africa would fill real shortages. Origin countries would retain talent, gain remittances, and build expertise. And migrants would move through legal, safe channels closer to home.
The African Continental Free Trade Area and the Protocol on Free Movement provide the policy foundation. What is missing is the practical mechanism: regional skills partnerships that mirror the reality of African mobility.
A Guest Editorial