|Title||Using Africa’s Resources for Development – Part 1|
|Date released (year)||2012|
|Production company||Uongozi Institute|
|Keywords/tags||Oil, mining, natural resources, governance|
|Link to film||http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLSBXye-Ngs
|Synopsis||Prof. Paul Collier advises how Africa should benefit from mineral, oil and gas extraction.
The current high prices for minerals, oil and gas offer an opportunity for resource-rich countries in Africa to transform their economies and thereby the lives of its people. Yet this ‘golden opportunity’ can be ruined by corruption, environmental degradation and mismanagement, with benefits limited to a lucky few.
What policies do governments need to have in place for the responsible exploitation of minerals, oil and gas? How can African economies prepare themselves to manage new found wealth? How can governments invest and save for future generations? How should exploration rights be valued and extraction companies taxed?
Professor Paul Collier explained his strategy for stimulating economic growth in developing countries through selling natural resources such as minerals, oil and gas at an event hosted in Tanzania by UONGOZI Institute on 20 February 2012
|Reviews/discussion||The Institute of African Leadership for Sustainable Development, commonly known as UONGOZI Institute, offers training, discussions and resources on leadership, executive management and strategic thinking to leaders in Africa engaged in sustainable development.
“Uongozi” means leadership in Kiswahili, and inspiring and strengthening leadership is the core purpose of our organisation. Based in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, UONGOZI Institute is dedicated to supporting African leaders to attain sustainable development for their nations and for Africa
We seek to inspire leaders and promote the recognition of the important role of leadership in sustainable development. We believe that:
Leadership is the key to achieving sustainable development
The development of a leader requires specialised grooming
An African model of leadership is vital for achieving the most favourable development outcomes for Africa.
The Institute is an independent government agency established by the Government of Tanzania and supported by the government of Finland.
A prosperous and equitable Africa through effective leadership for sustainable development.
To inspire and equip African leaders to realise their personal and collective potential to deliver sustainable solutions for African citizens.
BRICS bloc’s rising ‘sub-imperialism’
Is this the latest threat to Africa?
By Patrick Bond
2012-11-29, Issue 608
Like Berlin in 1884-85, the BRICS Durban summit is expected to carve up Africa more efficiently, unburdened – now as then – by what will be derided as ‘Western’ concerns about democracy and human rights.
The heads of state of the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS) network of governments are coming to Durban, South Africa, in four months, meeting on March 26-27 at the International Convention Centre (ICC), Africa’s largest venue. Given their recent performance, it is reasonable to expect another “1%” summit, wreaking socioeconomic and ecological havoc. And that means it is time for the first BRICS countersummit, to critique top-down “sub-imperialist” bloc formation, and to offer bottom-up alternatives.
After all, we have had some bad experiences at the Durban ICC.
In 2001, in spite of demands by 10,000 protesters, the United Nations World Conference Against Racism refused to grapple with reparations for slavery and colonialism or with apartheid-Israel’s racism against Palestinians (hence Tel Aviv’s current ethnic cleansing of Gaza goes unpunished).
The African Union got off to a bad start here, with its 2002 launch, due to reliance on the neoliberal New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad) promoted by Pretoria.
The 2003 World Economic Forum’s African regional meeting hastened governments’ supplication to multinational corporate interests in spite of protests.
In 2011, Durban’s UN COP17 climate summit – better known as the ‘Conference of Polluters’ – featured Washington’s sabotage, with no new emissions cuts and an attempted revival of the non-solution called ‘carbon trading’, also called ‘the privatisation of the air’.
Like Berlin in 1884-85, the BRICS Durban summit is expected to carve up Africa more efficiently, unburdened – now as then – by what will be derided as “Western” concerns about democracy and human rights. Reading between the lines, its resolutions will:
– support favoured corporations’ extraction and land-grab strategies;
– worsen Africa’s retail-driven deindustrialisation (South Africa’s Shoprite and Makro – soon to be run by Walmart – are already notorious in many capital cities for importing even simple products that could be supplied locally);
– revive failed projects such as Nepad; and
– confirm the financing of both land grabbing and the extension of neocolonial infrastructure through a new ‘BRICS Development Bank’, likely to be based just north of Johannesburg where the Development Bank of Southern Africa already does so much damage following Washington’s script.
The question is whether in exchange for the Durban summit amplifying such destructive tendencies, which appears certain, can those few of Africa’s elites who may be invited leverage any greater influence in world economic management via the BRICS? With South Africa’s finance minister Pravin Gordhan’s regular critiques of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), there is certainly potential for BRICS to “talk left” about the global-governance democracy deficit.
But watch the ‘walk right’ carefully. In the vote for World Bank president earlier this year, for example, Pretoria’s choice was hard-core Washington ideologue Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Nigerian finance minister who with IMF managing director Christine Lagarde catalysed the Occupy movement’s near revolution in January, with a removal of petrol subsidies. Brasilia chose the moderate economist Jose Antonio Ocampo and Moscow backed Washington’s choice: Jim Yong Kim.
This was a repeat of the prior year’s fiasco in the race for IMF managing director, won by Lagarde in spite of ongoing corruption investigations against her by French courts, because the Third World was divided and conquered. BRICS appeared in both cases as incompetent, unable to even agree on a sole candidate, much less win their case in Washington.
Yet in July, BRICS treasuries sent US$100 billion in new capital to the IMF, which was seeking new systems of bail-out for banks exposed in Europe. South Africa’s contribution was only $2 billion, a huge sum for Gordhan to muster against local trade union opposition. Explaining the South African contribution – initially he said it would be only one tenth as large – Gordhan told Moneyweb last year that it was on condition that the IMF became more “nasty” [sic] to desperate European borrowers, as if the Greek, Spanish, Portuguese and Irish poor and working people were not suffering enough.
And the result of this BRICS intervention is that China gains IMF voting power, but Africa actually loses a substantial fraction of its share. Even Gordhan admitted at last month’s Tokyo meeting of the IMF and world Bank that it is likely “the vast majority of emerging and developing countries will lose quota shares – an outcome that will perpetuate the democratic deficit.” And given “the crisis of legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness of the IMF”, it “is simply untenable” that Africa only has two seats for its 45 member countries.
Likewise, South Africa’s role in Africa has been “nasty”, as confirmed when Nepad was deemed “philosophically spot on” by lead US State Department Africa official Walter Kansteiner in 2003, and foisted privatisation of even basic services on the continent. In a telling incident this year, the Johannesburg parastatal firm Rand Water was forced to leave Ghana after failing – with a Dutch for-profit partner (Aqua Vitens) – to improve Accra’s water supply, as also happened in Maputo, Mozambique, (Saur from Paris) and Dar es Salaam (Biwater from London) in Tanzania.
As a matter of principle, BRICS appears hell bent on promoting the further commodification of life, at a time when the greatest victory won by ordinary Africans in the last decade is under attack: the winning of the Treatment Action Campaign’s demand for affordable access to AIDS medicines, via India’s cheap generic versions of drugs. A decade ago, they cost $10,000 per person per year and only a tiny fraction of desperate people received the medicines. Now, more than 1.5 million South Africans – and millions more in the rest of Africa – get treatment, thus raising the South Africa’s average life expectancy from 52 in 2004 to 60 today, according to reliable statistics released this month.
However, in recent months, Obama has put an intense squeeze on India to cut back on generic medicine R&D and production, as well as making deep cuts in his own government’s aid commitment to fund African healthcare. In Durban, the city that is home to the most HIV+ people in the world, Obama’s move resulted in this year’s closure of AIDS public treatment centres at three crucial sites. One was the city’s McCord Hospital, which ironically was a long-standing ally of the NGO Partners in Health, whose cofounder was Obama’s pick for World Bank president, Jim Kim.
|Links to other resources||Thomas Pakenham (1992) The Scramble for Africa: White Man’s Conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876 to 1912. See: http://www.amazon.com/Scramble-Africa-Conquest-Continent-1876-1912/dp/0380719991
The Economist (2011) Africa’s natural resources: Spread the wealth: http://www.economist.com/node/18114495
|Date released (year)||2009|
|Production company||TV/e Inspiring Change|
|Keywords/tags||Climate change, neoliberalism, deforestation|
|Link to film||http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6_k0CXcHwQ
|Synopsis||Could carbon become the developing world’s new cash crop? Tropical forests store a quarter of the earth’s carbon and suck in 15 percent of all the CO2 we emit each year. A new international concept called REDD aims to make tropical forests more valuable as living, breathing ecosystems than if they are cleared for farmland. Prototype REDD projects are now getting underway, to test out how best to make this complex scheme work. Earth Report travels to the vast rainforests of Africas Congo Basin, to find out if forests can realistically pay their way as global carbon stores and who exactly will benefit.|
|Reviews/discussion||What is REDD?
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is a set of steps designed to use market and financial incentives in order to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation and forest degradation. Its objective is to reduce greenhouse gases.
“Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation” implies a distinction between the two activities. The process of identifying the two is what raises questions about how to measure each within the REDD mechanism, therefore their distinction is vital. Deforestation is the permanent removal of forests and withdrawal of land from forest use. Forest degradation refers to negative changes in the forest area that limit its production capacity.
Development of a REDD mechanism has progressed significantly since 1995 with the set up of a UN programme and various capacity building and research activities. Projects are also being trialled through national government programmes and the private sector. REDD+ is increasingly likely to be included in a post-2012 international climate agreement, yet many challenges are still to be solved. How will the REDD+ mechanism link to existing national development strategies? How can forest communities and indigenous peoples participate in the design, monitoring and evaluation of national REDD+ programmes? How will REDD+ be funded, and how will countries ensure that benefits are distributed equitably among all those who manage the forests? Finally, how will the amount of carbon stored and sequestrated as a result of REDD+ be monitored?
REDD is sometimes presented as an “offset” scheme of the carbon markets and thus, would produce carbon credits. Carbon offsets are “emissions-saving projects or programmes” that in theory would “compensate” for the polluters’ emissions. The “carbon credits” generated by these projects could then be used by industrialised governments and corporations to meet their targets and/or to be traded within the carbon markets.  However this perspective on REDD+ is contested and hotly debated among economists, scientists and negotiators. Recent studies indicate such an offset approach based on projects would significantly increase the transaction costs associated to REDD+  and would actually be the weakest alternative for a national REDD+ architecture as regards effectiveness, efficiency, its capacity to deliver co benefits (like development, biodiversity or human rights) and its overal political legitimacy.
In recent years, estimates for deforestation and forest degradation were shown to account for 20-25% of greenhouse gas emissions, higher than the transportation sector. Recent work shows that the combined contribution of deforestation, forest degradation and peatland emissions accounts for about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, about the same as the transportation sector. Even with these new numbers it is increasingly accepted that mitigation of global warming will not be achieved without the inclusion of forests in an international regime. As a result, it is expected to play a crucial role in a future successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.
|Links to other resources||See UN REDD site: http://www.un-redd.org/
Espinoza Llanos, Roberto and Feather, Conrad (Nov, 2011). “The reality of REDD+ in Peru: Between theory and practice – Indigenous Amazonian Peoples’ analyses and alternatives”. AIDESEP and Forest Peoples Programme.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/01/3054102.htm?section=justin Carbon offsetting scheme open to corruption, report warns
Vickers, Ben (Apr 2008). “REDD: a Steep learning Curve”. Asia-Pacific Forestry Week. http://www.recoftc.org/site/fileadmin/docs/Events/Features/article_on_APFW_REDD_short__3_.pdf. Retrieved 2009-11-23.
“Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009”. UNFCC. 2009. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/cop15_cph_auv.pdf. Retrieved 2009-12-28.
“REDD: Agriculture and deforestation: What role should REDD+ and public support policies play?”. Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations. december 2010. http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Idees-pour-le-debat/Agriculture-and-deforestation-What-role-should-REDD+-and-public-support-policies-play.
|Title||DSDS Conversation-II: Renewable energy solution for Africa|
|Date released (year)||2013|
|Keywords/tags||Energy, protest, sustainability, renewables, climate change|
|Link to film||http://youtu.be/VR8NKhDFbsU|
|Synopsis||Dr Pradeep Monga of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) and Mahama Kappiah of ECOWAS talk to One World at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit (DSDS-2013) about Africa’s governance issues, especially where development projects are concerned. Both think renewable energy is a solution to infrastructure problems in Africa.
|Reviews/discussion||TERI’s Delhi Sustainable Development Summit (DSDS), organized annually since 2001, is an international platform for exchange of knowledge on all nuances of sustainable development. Over the past twelve years, it has emerged as one of the most leading forums on issues of global sustainability. The Summit witnesses the attendance of various heads of State and Governments, thought leaders, policy makers and the crème de la crème of industry and academia who come together to deliberate on myriad issues. Until date, a total of 33 Heads of State and ministers from over 43 countries have registered their presence at the Summit.
15 Nov 2012
The day marked the signing of contracts between government and independent power producers (IPPs), which will see the addition of 1 400 megawatts to the country’s power grid — a move that has been hailed as ‘historic’ for the renewable energy sector.
“This is a very proud day for us. It’s a great day for South Africa. It’s easily the most important day in the renewable energy sector globally this year,” said Mainstream Renewable Power head of procurement and project delivery, Barry Lynch.
The global renewable energy developer, Mainstream, together with its partners, was in December 2011 named as part of the preferred bidders in Window 1 of the Energy Department’s Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Programme (REIPPP).
The total 28 approved bidders, announced during COP17, signed implementation agreements and direct agreements with the department, with power utility Eskom signing power purchase agreements with the bidders.
The majority of the companies that won the bids are foreign companies, with 67 South African companies having formed partnerships with these companies.
|Links to other resources||Deborah A. Bräutigam and Stephen Knack (2004)Foreign Aid, Institutions, and Governance in Sub‐Saharan Africa,
Economic Development and Cultural Change , Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 255-285, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/380592
John O. Kakonge (1998) EIA and good governance: Issues and lessons from Africa, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp. 289–305, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00003-1
Harald Winkler (2005) Renewable energy policy in South Africa: policy options for renewable electricity, Energy Policy, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp. 27–38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00195-2