Africa has rarely been higher on the international political agenda. Along with climate change, it was a central focus at the recent G8 Summit in Gleneagles. The campaigning efforts of the international civil society campaign, the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP), and of high- profile media events like Live 8, have helped to focus public and political attention on Africa. In March this year, the Commission for Africa – set up by Tony Blair in 2004 – published its excellent report, Our Common Future, providing a comprehensive analysis of the challenges facing the continent and of the policy responses that might help to tackle them. And the development
needs of the continent will feature prominently at the forthcoming UN Millennium Review Summit in September. But will any of this heightened international interest really lead to improvements in the lives of Africa’s people?
A lot depends on how Africans themselves respond to these new political opportunities. An important part of the explanation and
responsibility for the current condition of Africa rests with Africa’s elites and with the state of politics and
governance across the continent. This has too often been denied or
downplayed by progressives in rich countries, who have tended to depoliticise the development process or put exclusive emphasis on external economic relationships. But no amount of aid or debt relief will improve Africa’s circumstances if African states are grossly mismanaged, if Africa’s poor are denied a voice in the political systems of their countries, and if African governments don’t get serious about the threat posed by HIV/AIDS.
Over recent decades there have been many cases in which Africa’s elites have pursued ruinous economic and social policies that have impoverished their people, widened inequality and increased injustice and discrimination.
In some cases, these elites have been blatantly predatory, amassing enormous wealth for themselves and their associates through theft and corruption. And some of the worst human rights violations in Africa have been carried out by Africa’s rulers against a section of their own people.
These profound failings of governance and politics in many African states since independence – and the need to develop more accountable and capable states – are now openly acknowledged by reformers amongst African
governments, civil society, the private sector, and regional organisations. The formation of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in 2001 signalled a clear intention on the part of a group of African countries to break with the mistakes of the past.
The launch of the African Union (AU) in 2002 has been another positive development, with the AU making clear commitments to promote better governance across the continent. There is also evidence of improvements in governance in some African countries
A New Deal for Africa
David Mepham
A New Deal for Africa – David Mepham
in recent years. The 2004 Governance Report of the UN Economic
Commission for Africa, based on detailed studies in 28 countries,
suggests that there is more democracy across the continent, greater space for African civil society and better economic and financial management in many countries. The establishment of the NEPAD Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is another welcome initiative.
So far 24 African countries have signed up to the process. Under the APRM, countries are expected to subject themselves to the scrutiny of their peers through a process involving consultations with government, NGOs, and the private sector.
There is clearly much more still to do to improve governance across Africa, but the persistence of gross abuses in some countries, not least Sudan, Zimbabwe and the DRC, should not detract from these more positive developments elsewhere.
But if Africa’s governments and people
must take more responsibility for the state of their continent, so too must the governments of rich countries.
There are many areas in which action by them could enhance Africa’s development prospects. This article focuses on four: trade, aid and debt, conflict, and investment and corruption.
Fairer global rules of trade
While international trade has the potential to bring huge benefits to Africa, the existing international trade rules are heavily stacked against Africa’s interests. EU and US
agricultural subsidies and the dumping of surplus agricultural produce is destroying the livelihoods of large numbers of African farmers. Many African countries suffer the effects of tariff escalation, with countries like Ghana facing much higher tariffs on processed chocolate than on unprocessed cocoa beans when they try and export into developed country markets. African exporters are also hampered by ‘rules of origin’. These are intended to ensure that the goods imported under a particular trade agreement are genuinely produced in the country in question. However, when these rules are applied too restrictively they damage Africa’s trading opportunities. For example, Lesotho now exports 20 times less to the EU than to the US because rules of origin in the former are so much more onerous than in the latter. Another trade agreement, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), has the effect of pushing up the cost of technology and other essential goods, including the price of drugs for treating HIV/AIDS.
At the G8 summit in Gleneagles, world
No amount of aid or debt relief will
improve Africa’s circumstances if African states are grossly mismanaged, if Africa’s poor are denied a voice in the political systems of their countries and if African governments don’t get serious
about the threat
posed by HIV/AIDS.
meeting in Hong Kong in December, progressives should be looking for a clear and time-bound agreement to scrap these subsidies. They should be pressing for an end to tariff escalation and the introduction of more liberal
‘rules of origin’. They should also support reform to existing intellectual property rules and measures to ensure that product standards and regulations do not damage Africa’s opportunities to trade. And they should uphold the concept of Special and Differential Treatment for poor countries in Africa
and elsewhere, giving these countries greater space to determine their own trade and development strategies.
Special attention also needs to be given to the development problems posed for Africa by the growth of China and India. China, in particular, now dominates developing country exports of all types. The longer-term challenge for African economies is to diversify, boost productivity and break into new markets. In the short term, however, African countries are likely to need transitional financial support to cope with a changed international trading environment.
significant additional investment in Africa’s people, in their health, education and skills. Some of this should come from better use of domestic resources and from higher levels of economic growth. But many of the poorest African countries are going to remain dependent on aid flows in the short to medium term, not least to meet the huge additional costs posed by the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
HIV/AIDS constitutes not just an African health crisis, but a humanitarian, social, political and security one – cutting life expectancies in some countries by 50 per cent, reversing development gains built up over decades and weakening government systems. The World Health Organisation has suggested that an extra $7 billion a year is needed to provide life-sustaining anti-retroviral treatment to the millions of Africans living with HIV and AIDS. But $7 billion represents about half of what Africa currently receives in international aid.
International aid is also needed to assist African countries to tackle illiteracy and ill-health, and for improvements in agriculture, infrastructure and the provision of clean water and safe sanitation.
The G8 summit in Gleneagles made important commitments to increase aid volume and deepen debt relief.
On the basis of these commitments, there will be an increase in
development assistance to Africa of $25 billion by 2010, more than doubling aid to Africa compared to 2004. This follows an important commitment made earlier in the year by the EU. EU governments have now agreed to reach the UN aid target
The formation of the
New Partnership for
Africa’s Development
(NEPAD) in 2001
signalled a clear
intention on the part
of a group of African
countries to break
with the mistakes of
the past.
A New Deal for Africa – David Mepham
of 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2015. At Gleneagles, G8 leaders also agreed to cancel 100 per cent of the outstanding debts of eligible Heavily Indebted Poor Countries to the IMF, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank.
These commitments on aid and debt are very welcome, though additional resources will still be required to meet the G8’s new commitments fully, particularly on health. At the Summit, G8 leaders committed themselves to providing universal access to HIV prevention, treatment and care for all who need it by 2010, as well as making much greater progress against malaria.
G8 leaders made less progress on new forms of finance for development. For several years now, the UK Chancellor, Gordon Brown, has put forward the idea of an International Financing Facility (IFF). The essence of the IFF is that donors promise to frontload their aid flows and sustain these flows over a period of time. On the basis of this donor guarantee, bonds would be
issued on the international capital markets, raising new resources for development. Despite winning support for this innovative idea from some other European countries, the IFF was blocked by others, not least the US.
The French Government has also put
forward an interesting proposal for a voluntary levy on plane tickets, with the resources earmarked for development. But again, G8-wide agreement on this proposal was not secured.
Progressives should support these new initiatives for raising additional finance for development. They also need to ensure that the EU and Gleneagles pledges on aid volume and debt relief are met in full – and that those additional aid resources are well used. Too often in the past, and too frequently still, the impact of aid is much less than the potential. In some countries this is because aid has been misused by recipient governments, expropriated by Africa’s elites at the expense of Africa’s poor. But it is also because rich countries have often allocated aid in accordance with narrow strategic, commercial or political interests rather than focusing it on the goal of poverty reduction, or because aid has been spent in the wrong countries, on the wrong things and in the wrong ways.
Wherever possible, aid resources should be provided in support of African countries’ national
development strategies or poverty reduction plans. Donors also need to significantly improve the quality of their development assistance by ending tied aid, simplifying reporting requirements and implementing the Rome Declaration on good donor practice, including more predictable levels of aid funding.
Aid to African states with very poor human rights records or very poor standards of governance obviously raises more difficult issues. In general, it is important to stay engaged with such countries, to use whatever
While international trade has the
potential to bring
huge benefits to
Africa, the existing
international trade
rules are heavily
stacked against
Africa’s interests.
there will clearly be circumstances – Zimbabwe is a current example – in which it will not be appropriate to provide direct government-to- government aid, particularly if this might strengthen a repressive government or if the resources would be misused.
Tackling conflict
Despite recent, and welcome moves towards peace in countries such as Angola and Burundi, significant parts of Africa continue to be affected by war and violent conflict. Over the last couple of decades, Africa has been the most conflict-affected region of the world. Millions of Africans have been killed, injured or displaced as a consequence of this armed conflict.
Much of this violence has been deliberately targeted at civilians rather than armed groups. A clear example is the devastating situation in Darfur, where civilians have been the primary victims of the violence engulfing that region of Sudan. Several million people have also died in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The causes of conflict in Africa are complex. Many of these causes are rooted in national structures and political systems, including authoritarian rule, the exclusion of groups from the political process, socio-economic deprivation combined with inequity, and weak states that lack the institutional capacity to manage normal political and social conflict.
But rich countries also impact on Africa’s propensity towards conflict, not just through the colonial legacy
variety of sources – both licit and illicit – and through a wide variety of different means. But rich countries are an important part of this trade.
Many of the arms fuelling violence in Africa are transferred by arms brokers, traffickers and transport agents, many of which are based in rich countries.
Of the world’s seven largest direct exporters of small arms, four are members of the G8. In addition, G8 and other rich countries export heavier forms of arms and military equipment, such as tanks, aircraft and artillery to African governments. While some of these transfers are defensible, allowing legitimate governments to meet their legitimate security needs, other more questionable transfers have been approved.
While leaders at the Gleneagles Summit pledged to improve the effectiveness of controls over small arms and light weapons, they were less specific about how this would be done. Progressives should support an International Arms Trade Treaty, setting high common standards governing arms transfers to conflict-affected regions in Africa and elsewhere.
HIV/AIDS constitutes not just an African health crisis, but a humanitarian, social, political and security one – cutting life expectancies in some countries by 50 per cent, reversing
development gains built up
over decades and weakening
government systems.
And they should agree common extra territorial controls over arms brokers, traffickers and transport agents, paving the way for the establishment of an international, legally binding agreement on arms brokering at the crucial UN Small Arms Review Conference in 2006.
Rich countries should also help strengthen Africa’s own capacity to prevent, mediate and resolve violent conflicts on the continent.
The Gleneagles Summit reaffirmed previous G8 commitments to train and equip some 75,000 troops by 2010, with a sustained focus on Africa. And it made new commitments to provide technical assistance to the African Standby Force, and resources for the AU’s Continental Early Warning System and the AU Panel of the Wise. The last two bodies are intended to help address and mediate conflicts before they erupt into violence. It is critical that the G8 and other rich countries should honour these commitments in full. A particular priority for immediate support should be greater international assistance for the AU force in Darfur.
Promoting investment, curbing corruption
International companies have an important role to play in helping Africa to make greater progress in the reduction of poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Rich countries should work with African countries to reduce real or perceived barriers to investment in Africa. This should include support for better political and corporate governance, action against crime and lawlessness, investment in infrastructure and human capital, and a reduction in the costs of doing
business in Africa. Action in all these areas would not only generate increased economic activity and inward investment, it should also help
to counter the problem of capital flight.
It is estimated that the stock of capital flight from sub-Saharan Africa is
$148 billion and represents around 33 per cent of the private wealth of the continent. This compares with less than 10 per cent in Asia or Latin America.
But it is also important to recognise that poor governance of the international corporate sector can distort and damage Africa’s development prospects. Despite widespread bribery in Africa involving western companies, rich country governments have done far too little to implement their commitments under the OECD Convention against the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials.
Moreover, not a single G8 country has yet ratified the UN Convention against Corruption. Nor has enough been done to tackle the role of rich country
Over the last couple of decades, Africa has been the most conflict-affected region of the world.
Millions of Africans
have been killed,
injured or displaced
as a consequence of
this violence, much
of which has been
deliberately targeted
at civilians rather
than armed groups.
or coltan. And much of Africa’s stolen wealth is deposited in rich country banks or laundered through the international financial system.
G8 leaders at Gleneagles pledged to make progress on corruption but no timescales were set for the ratification or strengthening of key anti-corruption agreements and bodies. Progressives should press for an end to the loopholes in the OECD Convention on the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials, early ratification by governments of the UN Convention against Corruption and support additional resources to investigate and prosecute international companies that engage in corruption in Africa. They should press for tougher action against money laundering and the theft of African assets. They should also support a strengthening of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the Kimberley Process on conflict diamonds.
Delivering for Africa
At the Gleneagles Summit, at previous G8 meetings and in other international forums, the world’s rich countries have made a series of ambitious commitments to Africa. In the years to come, it is vital that they deliver on these commitments, as well as making further progress in other areas, particularly on trade, arms transfers and corruption. Continuing pressure from civil society organisations, and a regular published audit of rich countries policies towards Africa, could play an important role in holding governments to account for the promises they have made to Africa.
international community and, most of all, to their own people. That means accountable government, better economic management, respect for human rights, and greater honesty and openness about HIV/AIDS.
There has never been a better opportunity for making serious development progress in Africa. There is a clear moral obligation to address Africa’s poverty. But it is also in our common interest to do so. The consequences of Africa’s poverty will not remain confined within Africa’s borders. Poverty and underdevelopment create fertile conditions for a new set of security threats, including violent conflict, crime and terrorism, and the trafficking of people, arms and illicit drugs.
A more stable and prosperous Africa would also bring enormous benefits, opening up opportunities for mutually beneficial trade, investment and cultural exchange and the more
Africans and the wider international community need to rise to this challenge: to end those policies that stymie Africa’s development prospects and to build a deeper and more equitable partnership for development, democracy, human rights and peace.
David Mepham is the Head of the International Programme at the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr). He is co-author with James Lorge of a recent ippr report ‘Putting our house in order – recasting G8 policy towards Africa’, available from www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports
