New Partnership for African Development
In light of 11th September and in a week when the Prime Minister visitsAfrica this is I hope a timely debate on the "New Partnership for AfricanDevelopment" (NePAD), formerly the "New African Initiative".
I welcome the Prime Minister's visit to Africa.
However, one man on one visit will not solve Africa's chronic crises.
To succeed NePAD will need the collective support of wealthier countries.
This is clearly recognised by the UK Government.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister at the LabourParty conference following 11th September that the state of Africa is a scaron the conscience of the world. If the world as a community focused on it,we can heal the scar. And if we don't, the scar will become deeper andangrier."
The principle of coalition against Africa's poverty is crucial.
It is no good if the UK Government performs well on debt relief if it ispart of a G8 coalition which includes under performers.
A coalition means collective responsibility.
NePAD can only succeed if the coalition - the foundation - on which it isbuilt is firm.
The United States is the first part of this foundation and friends ofAmerica has to observe that so far it is failing to deliver.
The United States is failing in what it says.
President Bush's state-of-the-union speech mentioned "evil" five times, butpoverty not once. Of course it is right that we have to fight terrorismthroughout the world but we also have to fight poverty. Colin Powell incontrast to the Prime Minister is on the record for asserting - quote -"while Africa may be important, it doesn't fit into the national strategicinterests, as far as I can see them".
The United States is failing in what it is doing.
The US claims that it is the largest development donor in the world; thatdoes not change the fact that it also has the most parsimonious percentageof development assistance: just 0.1 per cent of GNI. I understandfurthermore that President Bush will be attending the forthcoming financialsummit in Monterrey with no intention of raising ODA; instead he will offerpoor countries a change in the way IDA operates which in the short term maylook attractive but in the longer term will be unsustainable.
This is not what Africa needs; what all countries, most particularly thosecountries in sub-Saharan Africa, now is for all OECD countries to meet the0.7 per cent target of GNI for ODA.
The second part of the foundation necessary for NePAD to succeed is theEuropean Union.
Its communiqué following the first Africa-Europe Ministerial Meeting latelast year trumpeted how "the European Union welcomes the New AfricanInitiative which reflects many of the essential elements of the EU's ownexternal relations policy".
No doubt that is why in reality the seven of the top ten recipients of EUexternal assistance will soon be joining the EU. Poland last year receivedmore than three times aid from the EU than Uganda which is the only Africancountry in the top ten of EU recipients.
Frustratingly as we heard from the SOS yesterday the amount of EUdevelopment aid given to poor countries is actually dropping so that it isnow less than 40 per cent.
Without more money the talk of new morality will mean little.
Funds have to be a high priority of there is to be real change in Africa.
This is why I note with some caution DfID's assertion that its bilateralprogrammes to Africa have almost doubled in size since 1997. Yes; butcountries such as Angola and Burundi are receiving a lot less bilateral aidthan last year and indeed than in 1997.
This can only suggest that within Africa there is a danger that some "failedstates" might still remain forgotten states.
Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia; no less than sixcountries have been involved in a civil war which since 1998 hasdestabilised the whole of central sub-Saharan Africa.
African's themselves have not forgotten the community consequences ofconflict within their continent.
This brings me to the third foundation for NePAD; African countriesthemselves.
Nigeria's President Olwsegun Obasanjo was accurate to assert that theresolution of conflict will be central to NePAD's success. Whether or notAfrican leaders like President Objasnjo will these statements into action isa point to which I will return.
For African countries the rhetoric of partnership features prominently. Asa press release by the South African Department of Foreign Affairssuccinctly notes, NePAD will be "a common vision and a firm and sharedconviction... to eradicate poverty and to place their countries... on a pathof sustainable growth and development, and at the same time to participateactively in the world economy and body politic".
These are not new commitments.
These are the conditions on which the World Bank and IMF have laid aid foryears.
But importantly these are now clearly stated African commitments.
This is the essence of NePAD; for wealthier countries help with funding isfundamental but African countries themselves must not forget the need forconflict resolution and good governance.
Let us turn then to what I believe is the first crucial building block ofNePAD; Africa's health and education.
HIV/AIDS infects another person in Africa every 25 seconds.
Even those better off countries such as South Africa and Botswana aresuffering catastrophic levels of HIV infection that may kill off a quarterof young men and women in the next few years.
Yet in many ways the foundations for NePAD are failing.
Wealthier countries are clearly failing to deliver more directly for tworeasons.
Firstly, the Global Health Fund has only revived a fraction of the $10billion it needs to combat the pandemic, it receives no new money fromDfID's own budget and all the money then dedicated is equivalent to justfive weeks of debt repayment to sub-Saharan Africa.
AIDS is fuelled by poverty.
I firmly believe that it would be far better to channel existing aid tocommunity-based organisations - such as AMO Congo which is successful butcash-starved - and strengthen the national health and education systems inAfrican countries.
Secondly, wealthier countries are partially failing on drug patents. To anextent I welcome the declaration signed at Doha on TRIPS; but it has stillleft undecided whether developing countries can import cheap copies ofpatented drugs from third countries. It can only currently benefitcountries with their own manufacturing capacity.
African countries this is not.
And indeed the drugs problem is exacerbated when it comes to Africangovernments which are clearly failing to build the foundation of NePAD.
Only four African countries have taken up the offer made over a year ago bydrug companies to cut prices of HIV medicines by up to 90 per cent.
Equally important is education.
According to UNICEF infants born to mothers with no formal education aretwice as likely to die before their first birthday as those born to motherswith post-primary school education.
No more apparent is this than in Africa.
And no more apparent is the fundamental failure of funding to Africa thanhere.
Most culpable is the EU which allocates only 3 per cent of aid to basiceducation trough EDF and the gap between disbursements and commitments meanas much as 40 per cent of aid has been returned to member states.
This must change to meet Africa's needs.
Furthermore lack of public funds now means basic education in Tanzania,Ghana and Zambia is unaffordable for many poor people. In Zambia as much asthree-quarters of basic education spending must be met directly by poorparents.
For me health and education also underscore the importance of the linkbetween NePAD's building blocks.
Poor countries are sick because they are poor, but they are also poorbecause they are sick.
Sickness reduces the ability for communities to sustain themselves as muchas insufficient education increases the "knowledge gap".
The recent Commission on Macroeconomics and Health report estimates that poorhealth costs developing economies $186 billion each year. The price of thischanging would be an extra $27 billion from rich countries. That is onehalf of the partnership.
It would also mean African countries prioritising their own budgets towardshealth and allowing in HIV/AIDS drugs. That is the second half of thepartnership.
It illustrates the way in which the foundations of NePAD must work as apartnership.
This need is even more apparent when we consider the two other buildingblocks of NePAD; debt relief and access to market economies.
NePAD clearly sets out how debt relief should be linked with costed povertyreduction; for those African countries which show a commitment to povertyreduction - and I stress they must show this commitment - there should be anequal commitment from wealthier countries to deeper debt relief for thesecountries.
Yet it is simply not happening under current World Bank criteria.
Zambia, Tanzania and Cameroon debt payments exceed their combined health andeducation budgets. It then means that for poor people in these countriesthe World Bank will in principle be seen as giving, but in practice will betaking.
This can only undermine the NePAD initiative.
The World Bank's constriction on development sustainability is compoundedwhen we consider the economics of African countries since 11th September.
Commodity prices are falling.
African countries rely on coffee; they rely on cotton and on tobacco. Theprices of these commodities have already fallen by 7.4 per cent this yearand the IMF expects them to fall even further.
I strongly suspect that here and elsewhere this will only be achieved ifAfrican countries are given a greater say within international institutions,such as the WTO.
And this leads me to adequate economic access for African countries.
The erosion of Africa's share in world trade between 1970 and 1993represents a lost annual income of $68 billion.
Unfortunately the response seems to be in danger of being whollyinappropriate.
Consider two issues.
Firstly, trade itself. Trade matters; the Centre for Economic PolicyResearch recently published a report on trade liberation and povertyreduction which convincingly asserted that "trade liberalisation can have adirect impact on poverty" but that "the impact on trade liberalisation isvery country-specific".
So on the part of African countries NePAD offers several suggestion on howAfrican economies might benefit from increased trade; on rich countries partthis must mean quota and tariff free access to their markets.
This would fulfil two sides of the partnership.
African countries expressed grave concerns with the liberalisation agenda ofthe Doha round that some one-size-fits-all imposed market liberalisationwould be disastrous for their development. It is particularly importantthat African agriculture is not undermined by unequal competition withindustrialised agriculture.
The UK Government I am sure will want to listen to these warnings and leadthe way with trade liberalisation which accounts for the country-specificneeds of Africa.
NePAD gives particular emphasis to the development of countries privatesector and therefore the initiative aims to promote foreign directinvestment (FDI).
Fine.
FDI has never been high to these countries, it has dramatically fallen sincethe Asian crises, and indeed the Financial Times recently observed thatsub-Saharan Africa's neglected ports had significantly held back theprogress of their economies.
We shall watch with interest the "Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund"announced last week.
We should note that the nine countries in Africa that are experiencing theworst conflict have one thing in common; they all have per capita GNPincomes of less than $200.
Conflict resolution is once more the crux of NePAD's success.
Here the onus must be on African countries themselves and I support thecomments made by the prime Minister today in The Times.
It is ironic then that last week President Mugabe of Zimbabwe should attendthe Southern Africa Development Community which considered developments inAngola and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
That is a potent warning of the community effect NePAD needs to succeed.
That each of these building blocks are inextricably links conveys theessence of sustainable development; but to be sustained the community mustbe stable.
That must mean rich countries promoting trade and civil society; not smallarms trade and civil war.
It will be an enormous effort on African countries side of the partnershipwhich trades twenty per cent of the world's small arms.
It must be a matter of concern that the UK government is continuing asomewhat contradictory approach to arms export to Africa.
On the one hand it supports NePAD and on the other it proceeds with exportlicense to Tanzania for a military air traffic control system with a £28million price tag. The same sum would have provided 3.5 million childrenwith a school education and 2 million people with health care in thecountry.
Indeed a recent report has revealed that the value of arms sales to Africawill have more than quadrupled by next year.
The UK may send peacekeepers to Sierra Leone, but it is also issuing defencesales.
The US may want to watch international terrorism in Somalia, but it isletting the countries' starving go unseen.
The EU may want to enlarge, but it must consider the countries left outsideits borders.
These foundations are fundamental to NePAD; funding is fundamental to NePAD;neither can be allowed to fail.
