By PHILIP NJUNGIRI
AFRICA-BASED NON GOVernmental organisations (NGOs) are playing a bigger role in expanding and consolidating neoliberal hegemony in the global context, says a new book.
“It may not have been as direct or as underhand as some of the activities willingly undertaken by colonial missionary societies and voluntary organisations. However, that is not to say it is any less significant,” argues one of Africa’s most articulate critics of the destructive effects of neoliberal policies in Africa — Issa G Shivji — in his new book: Silences in NGO discourse: The role and future of NGOs in Africa.
The book is published by Fahamu — a publishing house that supports the struggle for human rights and social justice in Africa.
In two extensive essays, Shivji shows that the role of NGOs in Africa cannot be understood without placing them in their political and historical context.
Aid, in which NGOs play a significant role, is frequently portrayed as a form of altruism, a charitable act that enables the wealthy to help the poor.
The two essays have appeared in abridged form elsewhere. “But because of the importance of the subject and the richness of the arguments presented by Shivji need to be heard in full, we are pleased to be able to make them available to a wider audience,” notes the publisher in the forward.
The book examines the role and future of NGOs in Africa in the light of its self-perception as a non-governmental, non-political, non-partisan, non-ideological, non-academic, non-theoretical, non-profit association of well-intentioned individuals dedicated to turning the world into make it a better place for the poor, marginalised and downcast.
Faced with an avalanche of accusations over the “end of history,” the Tanzanian scholar says that he finds it necessary to emphasise the history of Africa’s enslavement, from the first contacts with the Europeans five centuries ago, through the slave trade, to colonialism, and now globalisation.
“The aim of this historical detour is to demonstrate the fundamental antithesis between the national and the imperial, so as to identify correctly the place and role of NGOs within them.
“I locate the rise, prominence and privileging of the NGO sector in the womb of the neoliberal offensive. Its aims are ideological, economic and political.”
He argues that NGO discourse, or more correctly, non-discourse, is predicated on the philosophical and political premises of the neoliberal or globalisation paradigm.
Shivji’s regular essays in the Tanzania press have been a beacon for those who grapple with understanding the post-independence onslaught on their countries that has led to a situation where it is accepted that social and economic policies should be determined, not by the electorate, but by a small elite that gets its legitimacy (and power) from London, Washington, Berlin and Paris.
Undoubtedly, Shivji’s book is highly critical and sometimes ruthlessly gets to the NGO world, but notable is the fact that the author has been involved in NGO activism for about some 15 years, mostly in his native Tanzania. However, he makes it clear that he does not doubt the noble motivations and good intentions of NGO leaders and activists.
“But we do not judge the outcome of a process by the intentions of its authors. We aim to analyse the objective effects of actions, regardless of their intentions.” Aid, in which NGOs play a significant role, is frequently portrayed as a form of altruism, a charitable act that enables wealth to flow from rich to poor, poverty reduced and the poor empowered.
“The market and voluntarism have a long association; the first and most celebrated period of ‘free trade,’ from the 1840s to the 1930s, was also a high point of charitable activity throughout the British empire,” he argues.
In Britain itself, the industrial revolution opened up a great gulf between the bourgeoisie and the swelling ranks of the urban proletariat. In the 1890s, when industrialists were amassing fortunes to rival those of the aristocracy, as much as a third of the population of London was living below the level of bare subsistence. Death from starvation was not uncommon.
At this time, private philanthropy was the preferred solution to social need, and private expenditure far outweighed public provision.
IT IS HARDLY SURPRISING THAT in the current era of neoliberalism we are seeing, once again, a burgeoning of NGOs: the new missionaries to Africa.
While such institutions had some presence in Africa in the post second world war period, it was really only in the 1980s and 1990s, as structural adjustment programmes were imposed across Africa by the international financial institutions and development agencies, that NGOs really flourished, gradually taking over the work of the retrenching state that had been persuaded to disengage from the provision of social services to its populations.
The bilateral and multilateral institutions set aside significant funds aimed at “mitigating” the “social dimensions of adjustment.” The purpose of such programmes was to be palliatives that would minimise the more glaring inequalities perpetuated by their policies.
Funds were made available to ensure that a so-called “safety net” of social services would be provided for the “vulnerable,” but this time not by the state (which had after all been forced to “retreat” from the social sector) but by the ever-willing NGO sector.
The possession of such funds was to have a profound impact on the very nature of the NGO sector.
This was a period in which the involvement of Northern NGOs in Africa grew dramatically. In the 10 years between 1984 and 1994, the British government increased its funding to NGOs by almost 400 per cent, to £68,700,000 ($137.4 million). NGOs in Australia, Finland, Norway and Sweden all saw similar increases in official funding from the early 1980s.
As a consequence of the increased levels of funding and increased attention, the number of development organisations in Western countries mushroomed, and many established NGOs experienced spectacular growth.
Over the past two decades, development NGOs have become an integral, and necessary, part of a system that sacrifices respect for justice and rights. They have taken what has been described elsewhere as the “missionary position”. This means — delivering services, running projects that are motivated by charity and pity, and doing things for people (who, implicitly, cannot do for themselves), albeit dressed up with the colours of participatory approaches.
It would be wrong to present the relationship between Western NGOs and official aid agencies in the 1980s as the product of some conscious conspiracy, as was clearly the case with colonial missionary organisations. The precondition for the co-option of NGOs into the neoliberal causes merely reflect a coincidence in ideologies, rather than a purposeful plan.
The proponents of neoliberalism saw in charitable development the possibility of enforcing the unjust social order they desired by consensual rather than coercive means
Showing posts with label AID. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AID. Show all posts
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Sunday, 14 October 2007
G8 firm on Africa development aid
By Hugh Williamson in Addis Ababa
Published: October 4 2007 02:37 | Last updated: October 4 2007 02:37
German chancellor Angela Merkel will tell the African Union in Ethiopia on Thursday that the G8 group of rich nations is committed to meeting its aid pledges to the continent. This will include an increase in development assistance by $25bn by 2010, German officials said.
Speaking on the first leg of a five-day trip to Africa that also includes South Africa and Liberia, the German chancellor will try to counter scepticism among some African governments that the G8 has in the past too frequently broken such promises.
ADVERTISEMENT
Germany has promoted Africa’s development as part of its G8 presidency this year but critics argue that promises at the summit in June in Heiligendamm, northern Germany, went little further than similar pledges – such as the $25bn aid goal – made at the Gleneagles G8 summit in 2005. Since then Western aid spending on Africa has stagnated.
In separate talks in Addis Ababa with Meles Zenawi, the Ethiopian prime minister, the chancellor will raise human rights concerns over the violent crackdown on opposition supporters following elections in 2005.
The sensitivity of the issue was highlighted on Tuesday when the US House of Representatives backed a bill that would force Ethiopia to improve its record on democracy and human rights or risk losing substantial US aid.
Under Angela Merkel’s leadership, the G8 at Heiligendamm
• repeated a pledge from 2005 to increase aid to Africa by $25bn but refused to give a timetable, despite pressure from African countries
• offered to work towards giving $60bn for Aids and other diseases in Africa and elsewhere, without specifying deadlines or funding promises
• committed to “fostering investment and sustainable economic growth” in Africa via for instance micro-finance support and oil industry transparency initiative
• promoted “peace and security” in Africa via support for the African Union and conflict prevention.
• Pledges to be reviewed at G8 summit in Japan next year.
Sources: German government
Diplomats said Ms Merkel would use her visit to South Africa on Friday to urge president Thabo Mbeki to intervene in a dispute over Robert Mugabe’s possible participation at a European Union-Africa summit in December. Germany saw as unhelpful the comments last month by Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, when he threatened to boycott the summit if Mr Mugabe attends.
An advisor said that Ms Merkel: “is convinced the summit must go ahead” in order to reinforce the EU’s relations with Africa at a time of major advances by China on the continent. The chancellor will ask Mr Mbeki, to work on a diplomatic solution to the dispute over the Zimbabwe president’s summit role.
The first major Africa visit by Ms Merkel’s predecessor Gerhard Schröder came after five years in office. Ms Merkel – who came to power in 2005 – wants to use the visit to add to her international reputation but also highlight Germany’s long-term and changing strategic interest in Africa.
Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, German development minister told the Financial Times: “The message [of the trip] is to make clear that Germany remains interested in Africa after Heiligendamm - we are interested in a sustainable partnership”.
Stefan Mair, Africa expert at Berlin’s SWP foreign affairs think-tank, says there is growing common ground between Germany’s approach to Africa, and those of Britain and France, countries with deeper historical and geo-political interests in the continent.
Berlin’s approach is still more based on an ethical commitment to supporting the world’s least developed continent via development projects, but the last five years have seen a “lessening of the differences”, he says.
External trends likely to be addressed by Ms Merkel – including concerns over terrorism, uncontrolled migration, energy security and climate change - have played a role in this shift, as has Berlin’s reach for more power on the world stage via a UN Security Council seat. “Germany cannot succeed without Africa’s political support in this process”, Mr Mair says.
A senior member of Ms Merkel’s government, who declined to be named, welcomed this change. “Africa has traditionally featured in Germany when catastrophes occur – unlike in Britain and France, where the continent is an ever-present [in foreign policy]”.
Despite differences over Zimbabwe, Ms Merkel has bonded quickly with Mr Brown on Africa - for instance working together on a new health aid initiative - but she is more circumspect towards Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, her aide argues, following the mixed messages emerging from his first few months in power.
The French president has promised to make Africa both a French foreign policy priority and an emblem of change from the era of his predecessor Jacques Chirac, but analysts question whether things are that different, noting that Mr Sarkozy’s first stop in Africa as president was to see Omar Bongo, the autocratic ruler of Gabon for the last 40 years.
Business leaders travelling with the chancellor hope the trip will advance Germany’s economic interests, which lag those of Britain and France. German trade with Africa grew by 18 per cent last year to a record €33bn, but this still only represents about two per cent of German trade worldwide. Several German carmakers produce vehicles in South Africa, while Germany imports around 15 per cent of its oil needs from Africa, mostly from Libya.
Additional reporting by Ben Hall in Paris.
Published: October 4 2007 02:37 | Last updated: October 4 2007 02:37
German chancellor Angela Merkel will tell the African Union in Ethiopia on Thursday that the G8 group of rich nations is committed to meeting its aid pledges to the continent. This will include an increase in development assistance by $25bn by 2010, German officials said.
Speaking on the first leg of a five-day trip to Africa that also includes South Africa and Liberia, the German chancellor will try to counter scepticism among some African governments that the G8 has in the past too frequently broken such promises.
ADVERTISEMENT
Germany has promoted Africa’s development as part of its G8 presidency this year but critics argue that promises at the summit in June in Heiligendamm, northern Germany, went little further than similar pledges – such as the $25bn aid goal – made at the Gleneagles G8 summit in 2005. Since then Western aid spending on Africa has stagnated.
In separate talks in Addis Ababa with Meles Zenawi, the Ethiopian prime minister, the chancellor will raise human rights concerns over the violent crackdown on opposition supporters following elections in 2005.
The sensitivity of the issue was highlighted on Tuesday when the US House of Representatives backed a bill that would force Ethiopia to improve its record on democracy and human rights or risk losing substantial US aid.
Under Angela Merkel’s leadership, the G8 at Heiligendamm
• repeated a pledge from 2005 to increase aid to Africa by $25bn but refused to give a timetable, despite pressure from African countries
• offered to work towards giving $60bn for Aids and other diseases in Africa and elsewhere, without specifying deadlines or funding promises
• committed to “fostering investment and sustainable economic growth” in Africa via for instance micro-finance support and oil industry transparency initiative
• promoted “peace and security” in Africa via support for the African Union and conflict prevention.
• Pledges to be reviewed at G8 summit in Japan next year.
Sources: German government
Diplomats said Ms Merkel would use her visit to South Africa on Friday to urge president Thabo Mbeki to intervene in a dispute over Robert Mugabe’s possible participation at a European Union-Africa summit in December. Germany saw as unhelpful the comments last month by Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, when he threatened to boycott the summit if Mr Mugabe attends.
An advisor said that Ms Merkel: “is convinced the summit must go ahead” in order to reinforce the EU’s relations with Africa at a time of major advances by China on the continent. The chancellor will ask Mr Mbeki, to work on a diplomatic solution to the dispute over the Zimbabwe president’s summit role.
The first major Africa visit by Ms Merkel’s predecessor Gerhard Schröder came after five years in office. Ms Merkel – who came to power in 2005 – wants to use the visit to add to her international reputation but also highlight Germany’s long-term and changing strategic interest in Africa.
Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, German development minister told the Financial Times: “The message [of the trip] is to make clear that Germany remains interested in Africa after Heiligendamm - we are interested in a sustainable partnership”.
Stefan Mair, Africa expert at Berlin’s SWP foreign affairs think-tank, says there is growing common ground between Germany’s approach to Africa, and those of Britain and France, countries with deeper historical and geo-political interests in the continent.
Berlin’s approach is still more based on an ethical commitment to supporting the world’s least developed continent via development projects, but the last five years have seen a “lessening of the differences”, he says.
External trends likely to be addressed by Ms Merkel – including concerns over terrorism, uncontrolled migration, energy security and climate change - have played a role in this shift, as has Berlin’s reach for more power on the world stage via a UN Security Council seat. “Germany cannot succeed without Africa’s political support in this process”, Mr Mair says.
A senior member of Ms Merkel’s government, who declined to be named, welcomed this change. “Africa has traditionally featured in Germany when catastrophes occur – unlike in Britain and France, where the continent is an ever-present [in foreign policy]”.
Despite differences over Zimbabwe, Ms Merkel has bonded quickly with Mr Brown on Africa - for instance working together on a new health aid initiative - but she is more circumspect towards Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, her aide argues, following the mixed messages emerging from his first few months in power.
The French president has promised to make Africa both a French foreign policy priority and an emblem of change from the era of his predecessor Jacques Chirac, but analysts question whether things are that different, noting that Mr Sarkozy’s first stop in Africa as president was to see Omar Bongo, the autocratic ruler of Gabon for the last 40 years.
Business leaders travelling with the chancellor hope the trip will advance Germany’s economic interests, which lag those of Britain and France. German trade with Africa grew by 18 per cent last year to a record €33bn, but this still only represents about two per cent of German trade worldwide. Several German carmakers produce vehicles in South Africa, while Germany imports around 15 per cent of its oil needs from Africa, mostly from Libya.
Additional reporting by Ben Hall in Paris.
Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Rwanda Govt breaks dependency syndrome
ROBERT MUKOMBOZI
KIGALI
RWANDA's attempts to break the dependence syndrome, which has hampered most African countries development, could have paid off.
Thirteen years after the 1994 genocide that devastated this tiny central African country, the Kigali leadership has pushed an economic, social and political growth that depends largely on home-made solutions.
Although the issue of borrowing continues to play a role, as the case is in all global markets, in Rwanda, it has become reasonably minimal.
The country is shifting towards utilizing all her resources, human and material to solve development chancellor. The government is working hard to involve every Rwandan in the reconstruction task without relying on foreign expertise.
Immediately after the ruling Rwanda Patriotic Front/Army had captured power in 1994, after the bush war struggle that put an end to the debacle in which over million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred, the most urgent task was to build trust among Rwandans, and reconcile them.
The RPF government bonded victims and culprits that had participated in genocide and encouraged them to live in harmony again. Among confidence building strategies was the institution of a National Unity and Reconciliation Commission. The commission has engaged Rwandans of all walks of life in the country and in the Diaspora on how to rebuild their own motherland.
Most of the Rwandan professionals had either died or fled the country, while those that were steering national policies were often inexperienced. Now the RPF-led government of President Paul Kagame has continued to reject the idea that, as a people emerging out of conflict, others should conceive and design systems, processes and strategies for Rwanda.
Mr Kagame has always made his view very clear on this matter that in any event, a development programme that is conceived and executed by external actors is unsustainable in the long run.
Gacaca system
A classical illustration of a home grown policy is the Gacaca court system which addressed genocide cases that would require a lot of time and resources to be resolved.
The Gacaca system is a centuries-old Rwandan community-based justice system in which the accused and the accuser meet in a village square, led by a council of elders, to settle cases.
In the history of this country, it was a tool for reconciliation since the penalties were mutually binding. In modern Rwanda, the Gacaca court system has been modernised to handle part of the bulk of genocide crimes -the less serious cases, while other categories of crimes against humanity are executed by the conventional western style courts.
However, the international community's view on this communal court system in Rwanda is indifferent.
Sometimes the West has reacted out rightly hostile to this initiative, arguing that Gacaca does not fit the principles of conventional court systems. But, in his address to the African Business Leaders Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa, recently, Mr Kagame challenged the critics to provide an alternative to Gacaca.
"We also point to the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The tribunal has since 1995 tried 31 people at a cost of over US$1 billion," he noted.
KIGALI
RWANDA's attempts to break the dependence syndrome, which has hampered most African countries development, could have paid off.
Thirteen years after the 1994 genocide that devastated this tiny central African country, the Kigali leadership has pushed an economic, social and political growth that depends largely on home-made solutions.
Although the issue of borrowing continues to play a role, as the case is in all global markets, in Rwanda, it has become reasonably minimal.
The country is shifting towards utilizing all her resources, human and material to solve development chancellor. The government is working hard to involve every Rwandan in the reconstruction task without relying on foreign expertise.
Immediately after the ruling Rwanda Patriotic Front/Army had captured power in 1994, after the bush war struggle that put an end to the debacle in which over million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred, the most urgent task was to build trust among Rwandans, and reconcile them.
The RPF government bonded victims and culprits that had participated in genocide and encouraged them to live in harmony again. Among confidence building strategies was the institution of a National Unity and Reconciliation Commission. The commission has engaged Rwandans of all walks of life in the country and in the Diaspora on how to rebuild their own motherland.
Most of the Rwandan professionals had either died or fled the country, while those that were steering national policies were often inexperienced. Now the RPF-led government of President Paul Kagame has continued to reject the idea that, as a people emerging out of conflict, others should conceive and design systems, processes and strategies for Rwanda.
Mr Kagame has always made his view very clear on this matter that in any event, a development programme that is conceived and executed by external actors is unsustainable in the long run.
Gacaca system
A classical illustration of a home grown policy is the Gacaca court system which addressed genocide cases that would require a lot of time and resources to be resolved.
The Gacaca system is a centuries-old Rwandan community-based justice system in which the accused and the accuser meet in a village square, led by a council of elders, to settle cases.
In the history of this country, it was a tool for reconciliation since the penalties were mutually binding. In modern Rwanda, the Gacaca court system has been modernised to handle part of the bulk of genocide crimes -the less serious cases, while other categories of crimes against humanity are executed by the conventional western style courts.
However, the international community's view on this communal court system in Rwanda is indifferent.
Sometimes the West has reacted out rightly hostile to this initiative, arguing that Gacaca does not fit the principles of conventional court systems. But, in his address to the African Business Leaders Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa, recently, Mr Kagame challenged the critics to provide an alternative to Gacaca.
"We also point to the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The tribunal has since 1995 tried 31 people at a cost of over US$1 billion," he noted.
Monday, 24 September 2007
G8 making wrong diagnosis for Africa
Moses Byaruhanga
I read in the media that the G8 countries concluded their meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany last Friday by pledging $60 billion to combat HIV/Aids, TB and malaria.
The G8 also renewed their commitment made two years ago to increase other aid to Africa by $50 billion a year by 2010. This was another lost opportunity by the developed countries to address the problems of Africa. Borrowing from Jeffrey Sachs in his book; The End of Poverty in the chapter “clinical economics,” he argues that the problem of the Breton Wood Institutions with Africa is that they make a poor diagnosis and as a result give wrong prescriptions.
The G8 countries continue to make a wrong diagnosis of the problems of Africa, hence prescribe a wrong medicine by increasing aid. The problem of Africa is not aid or the lack of it. If aid was a solution to Africa’s problem, with the amount of aid the developed nations have pumped in Africa (Africa receives an annual aid flow of $13 billion), African countries would be developed by now. When Europe was in an economic recess after the World War, it was not helped by mere aid but by the Marshall Plan which was a comprehensive economic development plan meant to ensure Europe’s economic stability and strategic security in the postwar era.
Before the plan was passed, Congress set up a bipartisan committee led by Christian Herter which made a crucial trip to Europe to study the problem on the round and report back to Congress. George Marshall under whom the plan was named was the United States Secretary for Finance during President Truman’s administration. What the US did through the Congressional committee above was to use Jeffrey Sachs’ clinical economic diagnosis of the economic problems of Europe at the time.
This is what the G8 leaders are lacking in trying to help Africa overcome its economic problems. With aid, unless that aid is targeted to promoting investment and trade, nothing will become of it. Africa will not develop because of aid. Instead Africa needs value addition to its raw materials and end the inequitable relationship with the West by selling raw materials.
Africa should stop selling coffee beans but sell roasted or instant coffee, stop selling lint but finished garments, stop selling tobacco leaves but cigarettes, stop selling cocoa but chocolate, stop selling crude oil but oil products, etc. For a long time the West took a protectionist approach by denying finished goods from Africa entry into their markets. A finished good from Africa would be charged a high tax compared to a raw material. The idea was to discourage finished goods from Africa and the third world at large.
When you add value to raw materials and sell them as finished goods, you gain two advantages. Firstly, a finished good fetches more value than a raw material.
President Museveni in his numerous speeches has always given an example of cotton where a kilo of lint cotton fetches one dollar while if you turn that same lint into a garment, you earn about $10. For every one kilo of lint exported from Africa, we lose nine dollars.
With increased earnings from finished goods, farmers would earn more and would be guaranteed a steady market. When farmers incomes increase, then they can spend more on social services like education, health, sanitation and consumption at large leading to industries selling more because of a high purchasing power.
Secondly, value addition creates employment in the local economy. On the other hand selling raw materials creates jobs in the countries that import our raw materials.
So if the G8 is to do anything to help Africa, it should be, among others, to encourage companies in the West to invest in Africa and in promotion of trade in finished goods between Africa and the West.
This point was well articulated by President Museveni during his address to the African Business Forum organised by the Commonwealth Business Council in London last Tuesday. A lady from Nigeria who was seated next to me at the forum listening to Museveni make his points congratulated Uganda for having Museveni as our leader.
A member of the House of Lords told one of the Ugandan ministers that he agreed with 75 per cent of what President Museveni said, but even with the 25 per cent which he disagreed with, he enjoyed the manner and logic in the way Museveni articulated his points to the audience. That is Museveni for you on African matters.
The writer is special presidential assistant on political affairs
Email: political@infocom.co.ug
I read in the media that the G8 countries concluded their meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany last Friday by pledging $60 billion to combat HIV/Aids, TB and malaria.
The G8 also renewed their commitment made two years ago to increase other aid to Africa by $50 billion a year by 2010. This was another lost opportunity by the developed countries to address the problems of Africa. Borrowing from Jeffrey Sachs in his book; The End of Poverty in the chapter “clinical economics,” he argues that the problem of the Breton Wood Institutions with Africa is that they make a poor diagnosis and as a result give wrong prescriptions.
The G8 countries continue to make a wrong diagnosis of the problems of Africa, hence prescribe a wrong medicine by increasing aid. The problem of Africa is not aid or the lack of it. If aid was a solution to Africa’s problem, with the amount of aid the developed nations have pumped in Africa (Africa receives an annual aid flow of $13 billion), African countries would be developed by now. When Europe was in an economic recess after the World War, it was not helped by mere aid but by the Marshall Plan which was a comprehensive economic development plan meant to ensure Europe’s economic stability and strategic security in the postwar era.
Before the plan was passed, Congress set up a bipartisan committee led by Christian Herter which made a crucial trip to Europe to study the problem on the round and report back to Congress. George Marshall under whom the plan was named was the United States Secretary for Finance during President Truman’s administration. What the US did through the Congressional committee above was to use Jeffrey Sachs’ clinical economic diagnosis of the economic problems of Europe at the time.
This is what the G8 leaders are lacking in trying to help Africa overcome its economic problems. With aid, unless that aid is targeted to promoting investment and trade, nothing will become of it. Africa will not develop because of aid. Instead Africa needs value addition to its raw materials and end the inequitable relationship with the West by selling raw materials.
Africa should stop selling coffee beans but sell roasted or instant coffee, stop selling lint but finished garments, stop selling tobacco leaves but cigarettes, stop selling cocoa but chocolate, stop selling crude oil but oil products, etc. For a long time the West took a protectionist approach by denying finished goods from Africa entry into their markets. A finished good from Africa would be charged a high tax compared to a raw material. The idea was to discourage finished goods from Africa and the third world at large.
When you add value to raw materials and sell them as finished goods, you gain two advantages. Firstly, a finished good fetches more value than a raw material.
President Museveni in his numerous speeches has always given an example of cotton where a kilo of lint cotton fetches one dollar while if you turn that same lint into a garment, you earn about $10. For every one kilo of lint exported from Africa, we lose nine dollars.
With increased earnings from finished goods, farmers would earn more and would be guaranteed a steady market. When farmers incomes increase, then they can spend more on social services like education, health, sanitation and consumption at large leading to industries selling more because of a high purchasing power.
Secondly, value addition creates employment in the local economy. On the other hand selling raw materials creates jobs in the countries that import our raw materials.
So if the G8 is to do anything to help Africa, it should be, among others, to encourage companies in the West to invest in Africa and in promotion of trade in finished goods between Africa and the West.
This point was well articulated by President Museveni during his address to the African Business Forum organised by the Commonwealth Business Council in London last Tuesday. A lady from Nigeria who was seated next to me at the forum listening to Museveni make his points congratulated Uganda for having Museveni as our leader.
A member of the House of Lords told one of the Ugandan ministers that he agreed with 75 per cent of what President Museveni said, but even with the 25 per cent which he disagreed with, he enjoyed the manner and logic in the way Museveni articulated his points to the audience. That is Museveni for you on African matters.
The writer is special presidential assistant on political affairs
Email: political@infocom.co.ug
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
World Bank project to help light up sub-Saharan Africa
By CATHERINE RIUNGU
Special Correspondent
Power to the people. This is the objective of a new initiative to provide modern lighting to the 250 million people in sub-Saharan Africa who have no access to electricity.
Jointly managed by the bank and its private sector lending arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), Lighting Africa aims to develop market conditions for the supply and distribution of new, non-fossil fuel lighting products such as fluorescent light bulbs and light emitting diodes in rural and urban areas that are not connected to the electricity grid.
The “energy poor” in Africa spend about $17 billion a year on fuel-based lighting sources such as kerosene lamps that are costly, inefficient, and provide poor quality light while causing pollution and posing fire hazards.
For these consumers, lighting accounts for 10 to 15 per cent of total household income. They offer a potentially huge market for modern lighting products that are safe and reliable, that provide higher-quality light, and that are cost-competitive with fuel-based lamps and powered by renewable energy or mechanical sources.
Lighting Africa, which is supported by a number of donors, including seed money from the Global Environment Facility, seeks to attract the international lighting industry, as well as local suppliers and service providers, to this market.
IFC executive vice president Lars Thunell said, “In partnership with the private sector, IFC will help develop sustainable business models to supply good quality lighting to the poorest of the poor in Africa. Our goal is to give families and small business owners clean, modern and affordable alternatives to fossil fuel lamps.”
S. Vijay Iyer, World Bank energy sector manager for Africa, said, “Modern lighting will mean improved air quality and safety for millions of people in Africa. It will mean longer reading hours for students and longer business hours for small shops. Lighting Africa will directly contribute to the Millennium Development Goals. It is a cornerstone of the World Bank’s Clean Energy and Development Investment Framework and the Africa Energy Access Scale-Up Plan.”
More than 350 companies have already expressed interest in the initiative.
Gerard Kleisterlee, president and CEO of Philips, said in a recent speech, “The rural lighting market, like many markets for low-income people in developing countries, is not well known or explored. It is essential that governments and international organisations such as the World Bank, NGOs and various companies get together in a network to work out the appropriate business models.”
The chairman of the Kenya Renewable Energy Association, Vincent Loh, said, “The Development Marketplace competition provides a unique opportunity for local African companies to participate in the development of lighting products and services tailored to local market needs and conditions.”
The World Bank’s Development Marketplace is a competitive grant programme that funds innovative, small-scale development projects. These projects not only deliver results, but also have the potential to be expanded or replicated elsewhere. Since its inception in 1998, the programme has awarded over $50 million to roughly 1,000 projects through global, regional and country-level Marketplaces.
The first phase of Lighting Africa, which started last week, will launch a competition for the design and delivery of innovative, low-cost, high-quality, non-fossil lighting products that target low-income consumers in sub-Saharan Africa. Ten to 20 winners will receive grants up to $200,000. The project will then initiate market research in Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania, and Zambia to better understand consumer demand, behaviour and preferences. The research will also look at local supply, marketing, and distribution channels. Initial results of this research are expected early next year and will be used to inaugurate a business-to-business Web portal where manufacturers, distributors, and marketers from all over the world can create partnerships, conduct business online and access the latest market information.
To kickstart the project, a competition for the design and delivery of innovative lighting products was also launched, dubbed “Innovations in Off-Grid Lighting Products and Services for Africa.” The competition will reward project ideas that address the various off-grid lighting needs of sub-Saharan Africa, including alternative distribution models, new clean lighting technology, stronger production chains, and improvement of the policy environment. Ten to 20 winners will receive grant funding up to $200,000.
The competition is open to a broad range of innovators around the world, including private businesses, non-governmental organisations, universities, government entities and individuals.
Lead sponsors include the Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme, the Global Environment Facility, and the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility. Other supporters include Good Energies Inc, the governments of Norway and Luxembourg, the European Commission and the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership. The deadline for submitting proposals is October 31, 2007.
Special Correspondent
Power to the people. This is the objective of a new initiative to provide modern lighting to the 250 million people in sub-Saharan Africa who have no access to electricity.
Jointly managed by the bank and its private sector lending arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), Lighting Africa aims to develop market conditions for the supply and distribution of new, non-fossil fuel lighting products such as fluorescent light bulbs and light emitting diodes in rural and urban areas that are not connected to the electricity grid.
The “energy poor” in Africa spend about $17 billion a year on fuel-based lighting sources such as kerosene lamps that are costly, inefficient, and provide poor quality light while causing pollution and posing fire hazards.
For these consumers, lighting accounts for 10 to 15 per cent of total household income. They offer a potentially huge market for modern lighting products that are safe and reliable, that provide higher-quality light, and that are cost-competitive with fuel-based lamps and powered by renewable energy or mechanical sources.
Lighting Africa, which is supported by a number of donors, including seed money from the Global Environment Facility, seeks to attract the international lighting industry, as well as local suppliers and service providers, to this market.
IFC executive vice president Lars Thunell said, “In partnership with the private sector, IFC will help develop sustainable business models to supply good quality lighting to the poorest of the poor in Africa. Our goal is to give families and small business owners clean, modern and affordable alternatives to fossil fuel lamps.”
S. Vijay Iyer, World Bank energy sector manager for Africa, said, “Modern lighting will mean improved air quality and safety for millions of people in Africa. It will mean longer reading hours for students and longer business hours for small shops. Lighting Africa will directly contribute to the Millennium Development Goals. It is a cornerstone of the World Bank’s Clean Energy and Development Investment Framework and the Africa Energy Access Scale-Up Plan.”
More than 350 companies have already expressed interest in the initiative.
Gerard Kleisterlee, president and CEO of Philips, said in a recent speech, “The rural lighting market, like many markets for low-income people in developing countries, is not well known or explored. It is essential that governments and international organisations such as the World Bank, NGOs and various companies get together in a network to work out the appropriate business models.”
The chairman of the Kenya Renewable Energy Association, Vincent Loh, said, “The Development Marketplace competition provides a unique opportunity for local African companies to participate in the development of lighting products and services tailored to local market needs and conditions.”
The World Bank’s Development Marketplace is a competitive grant programme that funds innovative, small-scale development projects. These projects not only deliver results, but also have the potential to be expanded or replicated elsewhere. Since its inception in 1998, the programme has awarded over $50 million to roughly 1,000 projects through global, regional and country-level Marketplaces.
The first phase of Lighting Africa, which started last week, will launch a competition for the design and delivery of innovative, low-cost, high-quality, non-fossil lighting products that target low-income consumers in sub-Saharan Africa. Ten to 20 winners will receive grants up to $200,000. The project will then initiate market research in Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania, and Zambia to better understand consumer demand, behaviour and preferences. The research will also look at local supply, marketing, and distribution channels. Initial results of this research are expected early next year and will be used to inaugurate a business-to-business Web portal where manufacturers, distributors, and marketers from all over the world can create partnerships, conduct business online and access the latest market information.
To kickstart the project, a competition for the design and delivery of innovative lighting products was also launched, dubbed “Innovations in Off-Grid Lighting Products and Services for Africa.” The competition will reward project ideas that address the various off-grid lighting needs of sub-Saharan Africa, including alternative distribution models, new clean lighting technology, stronger production chains, and improvement of the policy environment. Ten to 20 winners will receive grant funding up to $200,000.
The competition is open to a broad range of innovators around the world, including private businesses, non-governmental organisations, universities, government entities and individuals.
Lead sponsors include the Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme, the Global Environment Facility, and the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility. Other supporters include Good Energies Inc, the governments of Norway and Luxembourg, the European Commission and the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership. The deadline for submitting proposals is October 31, 2007.
Thursday, 6 September 2007
Care breaks ranks with NGOs, forgoes $45m in US food aid
By DAGI KIMANI
Special Correspondent
Care International — one of the largest humanitarian agencies in East Africa, with operations in all countries in the region — will not take direct US food aid grants from 2009 but will buy from the open market through funds from philanthropic organisations and other donors.
The decision in the outcome of an internal discussion that has been going on in the organisation for nearly half a decade about the impact of the grants on local agriculture and food markets. By turning down food aid, Care will essentially lose $45 million in aid a year.
Under the current system, the US government buys relief food from the American market and donates it to aid groups as an indirect form of financing. The groups are authorised to sell the food in the local markets and use the money for their programmes.
As a result of the system, it is not unusual to see adverts in the East African media by international NGOs advertising huge consignments of foodstuffs such as wheat, maize and oils for sale locally. The system is said to raise $180 million each year for relief agencies.
According to Care, the Kenyan market has seen major incidents of “dumping” by relief organisations in recent years. For example, in 2003, a private Kenyan company bought almost 9,000 metric tonnes of crude US soybean oil from an international NGO for use in its edible oil production facility, bypassing local sources.
The move by Care is significant because it has been the largest beneficiary of the system over the years followed by Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which also has significant operations regionally. Both organisations say they recover just 70 to 80 per cent of the money used to buy the food by the US government from their sales in beneficiary countries.
A more efficient transfer of aid, critics say, would be a simple transfer of cash through the conventional banking systems to enable relief organisations to buy what they need locally, supporting local agriculture.
CRS and Save the Children, however say that they will not stop converting the American donations into money unless another system of accessing American aid is put in place.
Some NGO beneficiaries of the US system say that the move by Care was unwarranted, and that it did not take into cognisance all the variables in the matter.
World Vision and 14 organisations under the Alliance for Food Aid (AFA) oppose Care’s move, arguing that the aid system helps to prevent food demand spikes in affected countries due to donor buying. However, critics say that the system was crafted to favour America’s highly subsidised farming sector without due consideration to the recipient country’s agricultural sector.
Special Correspondent
Care International — one of the largest humanitarian agencies in East Africa, with operations in all countries in the region — will not take direct US food aid grants from 2009 but will buy from the open market through funds from philanthropic organisations and other donors.
The decision in the outcome of an internal discussion that has been going on in the organisation for nearly half a decade about the impact of the grants on local agriculture and food markets. By turning down food aid, Care will essentially lose $45 million in aid a year.
Under the current system, the US government buys relief food from the American market and donates it to aid groups as an indirect form of financing. The groups are authorised to sell the food in the local markets and use the money for their programmes.
As a result of the system, it is not unusual to see adverts in the East African media by international NGOs advertising huge consignments of foodstuffs such as wheat, maize and oils for sale locally. The system is said to raise $180 million each year for relief agencies.
According to Care, the Kenyan market has seen major incidents of “dumping” by relief organisations in recent years. For example, in 2003, a private Kenyan company bought almost 9,000 metric tonnes of crude US soybean oil from an international NGO for use in its edible oil production facility, bypassing local sources.
The move by Care is significant because it has been the largest beneficiary of the system over the years followed by Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which also has significant operations regionally. Both organisations say they recover just 70 to 80 per cent of the money used to buy the food by the US government from their sales in beneficiary countries.
A more efficient transfer of aid, critics say, would be a simple transfer of cash through the conventional banking systems to enable relief organisations to buy what they need locally, supporting local agriculture.
CRS and Save the Children, however say that they will not stop converting the American donations into money unless another system of accessing American aid is put in place.
Some NGO beneficiaries of the US system say that the move by Care was unwarranted, and that it did not take into cognisance all the variables in the matter.
World Vision and 14 organisations under the Alliance for Food Aid (AFA) oppose Care’s move, arguing that the aid system helps to prevent food demand spikes in affected countries due to donor buying. However, critics say that the system was crafted to favour America’s highly subsidised farming sector without due consideration to the recipient country’s agricultural sector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
