Using Africa’s Resources for Development – Part 1

Title Using Africa’s Resources for   Development – Part 1
Director(s) Uongozi Institute
Date released (year) 2012
Production company Uongozi Institute
Length 39.44mins
Keywords/tags Oil, mining, natural resources, governance
Link to film
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.


Our Vision

A prosperous and equitable Africa through   effective leadership for sustainable development.


Our Mission

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:

The Economist (2011) Africa’s natural resources: Spread the wealth:

REDD Alert


Title REDD Alert
Date released (year) 2009
Production company TV/e Inspiring Change
Length 22 mins
Location Congo
Keywords/tags Climate change, neoliberalism,   deforestation
Link to film
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)[1] 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. [1] However this perspective on REDD+ is contested and hotly debated among   economists, scientists and negotiators.[2] Recent studies   indicate such an offset approach based on projects would significantly   increase the transaction costs associated to REDD+ [3] 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.[4]

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.[5] 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.[6] 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.[7]

Source: wikipedia

Links to other resources See UN REDD site:

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.   Retrieved 2009-11-23. Carbon   offsetting scheme open to corruption, report warns

CDM Carbon Sink Tree Plantations:   Insights into Sustainability Issues

Vickers, Ben (Apr 2008). “REDD: a Steep learning Curve”. Asia-Pacific   Forestry Week.   Retrieved 2009-11-23.

Forest Dialogue (2009). “Investing in REDD-Plus”.   Retrieved 2009-11-20.

“Copenhagen Accord of 18 December   2009”. UNFCC. 2009.   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.


DSDS Conversation-II: Renewable energy solution for Africa


Title DSDS   Conversation-II: Renewable energy solution for Africa
Date released (year) 2013
Production company OneWorld
Length 8.51mins
Location Delhi, India
Keywords/tags Energy, protest, sustainability, renewables, climate change
Link to film
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
Title: SA’s renewable energy future looks bright
Pretoria – November 5 will always occupy a place of special prominence in the   history of South Africa’s quest to secure the stability of energy supply in   the country, especially as it forges ahead with its massive infrastructure   build programme.

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,


John O. Kakonge (1998) EIA and good governance: Issues and lessons   from Africa,  Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp.   289–305,


Harald Winkler (2005) Renewable energy policy in South Africa:   policy options for renewable electricity, Energy Policy,   Volume 33, Issue 1, pp. 27–38,