African Agency

Leave a comment Posted on African Agency

Toward Climate Justice for Africa

Public Debate
Fridays of the AU Commission
Toward Climate Justice for Africa
Opening Remarks by
Desire Assogbavi, Head of Oxfam Liaison Office to the African Union
Friday2African Union Commission, Friday 6 November 2015

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
All protocols observed.

Thank you for joining this public debate co-hosted by the African Union Commission and Oxfam’s Liaison Office to the African Union.
The climate is changing – and you would agree with me that this year has been the hottest on record!
For some of us this means less quality food, less choice, and higher prices.
For nearly a billion people, already living in poverty, it means more hunger, more disease etc…
The changing climate is putting our families and the things we love at risk – our homes, our land, and our food. Unpredictable weather is becoming the norm – destroying harvests, pushing food prices up and food quality down. In the world’s poorest countries, women, often most responsible for feeding their families, are being hit hardest by the impacts of climate change.
Next month, COP21 to be held in Paris, also known as the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, will, for the first time, in over 20 years of UN negotiations, aim to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, with the objective to keeping the global warming at least below 2°C. The new climate change treaty, if adopted will replace the Kyoto Protocol.
In Paris, our leaders will be making decisions that will affect us all – but especially those, whose lives and livelihoods are most at risk.
What will those decisions be?
We need an agreement to help Africa cope with the impacts of climate change. We need billions of dollars to help those already being hit by extreme weather – in order to save lives and livelihoods…
Today, we are meeting to provide input to those who will be seated at the table in Paris in a few weeks.
There will be governments, intergovernmental organisations, UN agencies, and civil society in these meetings. …
Is it reasonable to think that we can agree on a legally binding treaty on climate?
As one of the world’s most vulnerable continents to climate change, Africa must strategically be engaged in this process.
Today we will hear the latest on Africa’s negotiation position. We’ll also hear about Africa’s competing priorities.
We know that a number of African countries, including Ethiopia, are already stepping up the mark with visionary plans, to develop economies powered by clean energy…
For Oxfam, our Key issues in the Paris deal are going to be the following:

1 – Whether there will be sufficient cuts in emissions to slow global warming
2 – Will rich countries provide funding to help the developing world cope with the legacy of 150 years of huge economic progress based on fossil fuels?
3 – Can each country pay into a fund for the damages caused by climate change?

At the last negotiation meeting before Paris, in Bonn Germany in October, we started to see signals that countries have started to assume climate leadership – pledging the transformation of their economies. This made the news in China and the USA.

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are some of the questions on the table for our discussion today. Let’s hear from our panellists and then I look forward to a robust debate.

All suggestions and comments will hopefully, be noted and published as a Bulletin for AU member states to refer to before Paris.

I would like to thank you in advance all for your contributions.

Leave a comment Posted on African Agency

Can Private Sector Really Deliver Financing for Sustainable Development?

UN Financing for Development meeting – Private Sector Side Event – 13th July 2015

Key Note by Desire Assogbavi
Head of Oxfam Liaison Office to the African Union

First, on behalf of the Addis Ababa CSO Coordinating Group and the Women Working Group, I would like to welcome you to this event today.

Can Private Sector Really Deliver Financing for Sustainable Development? — Every word in this question must count!!!!

It is a timely event as we await the political momentum to agree on the way forward for financing for development.

We need billions, even trillions to achieve Sustainable Development …..

Governments across the world are increasingly looking at ways to work with the private sector to meet their development financing needs. — Not a bad idea as such —

The risk, however is that, this finance is not additional, and importantly, not targeted at reducing poverty, or improving equality. It may be simply a poor substitute for plugging the gap in public finance. That is what we want to avoid !!!!

Friends, We must not let the volume of the figures overwhelm us. Sufficient finance is available globally. It just needs to be allocated fairly, alongside systemic international change in policy areas that affect public and private finance, such as taxation, aid, trade, debt and climate change.

The challenge, in terms of the private sector as a whole is to direct its business models through greater transparency, accountability and rules with sustainable development.

My key concern is that, there is little evidence to back this shift to private finance. To date, we have not seen sustainable development outcomes resulting from public private partnerships. ……. Without this evidence, there’s no guarantee that using public finance to get private investors to improve people’s lives and support the sustainable development agenda actually works.

Unfortunately Addis has not created that opportunity to gain political agreement on a comprehensive set of clearly defined criteria, principles and standards that would govern the private sector’s contribution towards lasting and sustainable development outcomes.

Without this, there is a danger that too many examples of “leveraging” or “blending” do not deliver sustainable development impacts; —– do not really leverage additional money over and above that, which the private sector could have provided anyway; —– do not align with government and community needs; —– and in some cases do harm to people, and not encouraging business and investors to walk the extra mile towards better impacts.

The issue of the role of the private sector in development is also complex and I wanted to lay the scene out before you, so that we can approach this in the panel discussion today. I see essentially 3 interconnected domains:

The first is related to the business model and the need to redirect the dominant way of doing business to ensure its adherence to human rights and social, political and environmental imperatives.

Wealth and job creation too often, come at a cost to people and planet, and this cost is borne by the most marginalised communities and individuals.

There are plenty of business practises that are perfectly legal while being inconsistent with human rights, and are socially and environmentally un–sustainable.

In terms of the wider accountability we still do not have binding human rights treaties to protect communities and people against abuses by corporates.

Voluntary rules are not enough and are not compatible with sustainable development principles and human rights frameworks. It has been disappointing to see that in Geneva recently, we saw the same governments that are pushing the agenda on increased private finance for development, blocking any movement on adopting a legally binding instrument for business and human rights.

Secondly, there has been an increase in the private provision of public services and investments. It is important to acknowledge the difference with the first as here, the private sector enters the public domain either because it provides public services (i.e. education or health) or because it receives public resources for public investments (i.e. infrastructure).
This is where blended finance and PPPs materialize. Here it would be important that safeguards, criteria and post assessments be of a high quality in order to ensure the best use of public resources, protect the nature of the public services and the state’s responsibility as duty bearer, and promote and enhance public goods.
The existing evidence shows that PPPs have mixed development impacts. In some cases, PPP projects have not been successful, leaving lasting impacts in both developed and developing
An example of where this type of activity has had a detrimental effect is the case of the Queen Mamohato hospital in Lesotho, where now more than half the country’s entire health budget (51%) is being spent on payments to the private consortium that built and runs a hospital in the capital.
We also know what can go wrong when leveraging private finance fails to respect human rights and the environment.
Recently, several reports have been published that document the negative impacts on communities and the environment in many developing countries resulting from lack of oversight and poorly applied due diligence by the World Bank’s lending arm.

Lastly on the private sector engagement in public policy:, In many cases, we are concerned with what we see as an emerging corporate capture of the public space.

For instance, there is currently heavy corporate lobbying against public country-by-country tax and profit reporting in many countries, despite the public being keen to end tax dodging.
Just to reiterate: rules to protect workers or the natural environment are poorly applied. We therefore need legally binding sustainable development principles that all governments should apply to all projects where public and private finance is combined to ensure social and environmental justice and, we need governments to develop binding rules based on the UN Business and Human Rights Guiding Principles.

I thank you for your attention.

Leave a comment Posted on African Agency

Access to Rights and Governance in the Context of Fragile States

By Désiré Assogbavi

It is universally accepted that human rights are indivisible and interdependent. It is not enough that rights are recognized in national law or policy rhetoric: there should be mechanisms for their full exercise by citizens with no discrimination. But how shall we deal with access to rights in fragile states?

A fragile state has a government is not able to deliver core functions to the majority of its populations. This is true for a wide range of situations, but usually involves a combination of weak administrative capacity and territorial reach, lack of state control over the use of violence, and the lack of accountability to populations, particularly poor and marginalized people. A state is fragile when it is unable to provide for the security and development of a majority of its citizens. A decade ago, most countries in fragile situations were low-income; today, a good number of them are middle-income countries.

The majority of citizens in highly fragile states are known to be poor, experience repeated violence, and suffer economic exclusion and inequality. Is fragility ever an excuse for a lack of respect for human rights, then?

Despite all principles supporting human rights, the reality is that in conflict and post-conflict situations, or other contexts of fragility, there is a breach of individual rights and personal security. In most cases, this includes the violation of a number of other rights due to weak state institutions and state’s inability (but also lack of political will) to meet the basic needs of the population.

Which rights must be met and which should be met, and when and by whom?

The very first step should be the observance of the core principles of human rights: equality, non-discrimination, participation, empowerment, and accountability. Inclusivity and non-discrimination, as well as transparency, are particularly helpful in reducing the tensions and frustration of rights holders, even when state institutions are not able to provide all the rights they are due. This is particularly true when various constituencies including civil society are given the chance to participate in the realization of rights and to promote the inclusive design and organization of democratic institutions such as electoral processes, so as to ensure and facilitate the involvement and participation of socially and economically marginalized and vulnerable groups. Such reform should include measures to support the ability of such groups to exercise their freedoms of association, assembly, and expression.

Prioritization and sequencing?

The International Bill of Human Rights – including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – indicates a series of rights. But there is no guidance as to which comes first, especially today, when we are strongly convinced of the interdependency of those rights.

Some rights cannot be derogated

Some rights cannot be derogated: Article 4 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets out those groups of rights which can never be restricted or derogated. These include the rights to be free from arbitrary deprivation of life; torture and other ill-treatment; slavery, retroactive penalty, and the violation of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Article 4 provides for the derogation of other rights during periods of national emergency, under strictly limited circumstances.

In certain situations of the state’s incapacity or even total failure, it may not be possible to restore all services and meet all needs immediately. We are then forced to prioritize and determine which rights must be met first and which are to be realized over a certain timeframe. This is the concept of the progressive realization of rights.

The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights allows for the progressive realisation of those rights over time, subject to some limitations (mentioned above). Some economic rights must be met at all times, however, including basic requirements for food and shelter.

Whose responsibility?

Unless we get to a situation of the total inexistence of a government, the state has the responsibility to respect the fundamental rights of citizens regardless of the situation. Fundamental rights are not favors given by the state or the government; they are duty, and those in power must account for this duty.

Fragile states may not have the institutional means to meet all of their rights obligations in a particular period, but it has become common to see other actors taking over some of the duties of the state in terms of meeting basic rights. This seems to be the only way to deal with the situation, and there is still room for improvement.

Different UN bodies have the duty to ensure the protection of rights, depending on the situation. These include the Security Council, with or without the consent of national authorities, the General Assembly, ECOSOC, etc. This protection is normally provided through various forms of intervention within the framework of “peace missions”: Human Rights Rapporteurs, ad hoc Commissions of Inquiry, etc. The UN can also send a mission to assume administrative authority in the state (Côte d’Ivoire, Kosovo, East Timor). But political and ideological interests should have a diminishing influence on any of the solutions, and only a better configuration of the UN Security Council can allow this to happen.

Responsibility of other actors?

Civil Society/NGOs: Because of their flexibility and ability to rapidly respond to crises (less bureaucratic, less driven by politics and interests, ability to mobilize resources) coupled with their experience as well as professional staff, NGOs are playing a growing role in the realization of rights in all situations, especially in fragile contexts. They must be encouraged and empowered to continue playing that role in the post-2015 era. The current shrinking of their space, especially in Africa, must be strongly combatted by all means national, regional and international.

The watchdog role of CSOs in monitoring public and private actors should be of great interest, as it can catalyze accountability for the respect or implementation of human rights, particularly in the context of fragility. It must be strongly supported by all stakeholders.

What about business? The UN Guiding Principles require business, as specialized organs of society performing specialized functions, to comply with all applicable laws, including international laws, and to respect human rights. This applies regardless of a state’s ability and/or willingness to fulfill its own human rights obligations. But when businesses have become part of the problem, then something must be done to change their accountability as we enter the post-2015 zone. Multinationals occur in an number of fragile contexts, and have been seen taking advantage of these areas in a variety of ways, mostly in conflict zones, as catalyzers or perpetuators of the fragility of the state. Their actions have included deal making with arms groups and governments in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, and others.

Every year, fifty billion US dollars disappear from Africa through illicit financial flows. At least 70% of these outflows are from extractive industries, some of them in fragile states where national budgets do not meet basic economic rights. Countries like the United States have taken interesting steps to tackle this issue, but we need global coordinated action.

About the Author

Desire Assogbavi is a Lawyer from Togo and currently the Resident Representative of Oxfam International to the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He was formally a Commissioner at the National Human Rights Commission and the National Inter-Ministerial Commission on International Humanitarian Law of Togo

The views expressed in the article are entirely those of the author and are not necessarily the views of his organization.

Leave a comment Posted on African Agency

Hot Topics of the African Union Heads of State Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa

The year 2015 has been declared by the Assembly of the African Union as the “Year of Women Empowerment and Development towards Africa’s Agenda 2063”. As it has become the practice the theme of the year will be discussed in depth during the mid-year summit, after the symbolic launch of the theme at in January. Women Empowerment and Development towards Africa’s Agenda 2063 will be widely discussed in Johannesburg during a presidential interactive panel discussion – after a presentation on the theme by the Women & Gender Directorate of the African Union Commission. The debate is expected to be open and a decision or a special declaration is expected to be adopted.

The Summit will be, as usual organized in 3 steps:

1/ The Permanent Representatives Committee, PRC (Ambassadors): 7 – 8 June in Pretoria (O.R. Tambo Building)

2/ The Executive Council, EC (Ministers of Foreign Affairs): 10 – 12 June in Johannesburg (Sandton Conf Centre)

3/ The Assembly of the AU (Heads of State and Government) 14 – 15 June in Johannesburg (Sandton Conf Centre)

A number of other parallel/side meetings will also normally be held.

Hot Topics of the Summit

According to information gathered from reliable sources in Addis, the Assembly of Heads of State will hold a closed door debate even before the official opening ceremony of the Summit on 14th June. Discussions will include:

Migration, Continental integration including Free Movements, Xenophobia, Governance, Elections problems in Africa, Streamlining of AU Summit method of work and procedures.

A Ministerial Retreat will also be held on 9 – 10 June in Jo’burg and the Peace and Security Council is expected to meet at Heads of State level on 13 June.

Beside the debates and an eventual decision/declaration on the main them of the Summit “Women Empowerment and Development towards Africa’s Agenda 2063”, the following issues are likely to dominate Summit discussions:

Africa Integration with focus on free movement of people and goods (As part of the 10 years implementation plan of the Agenda 2063)

Governance: with Focus on the African Governance Architecture and Elections (As a response to the deficit of democracy and governance in a number of countries)

Illicit Financial Flows: (A follow up on Tabo Mbeki’s report and recommendations)

10 Year Implementation Plan of the Agenda 2063 (see Jan 2015 decisions and documents)

Alternative sources of financing for the African Union (see Jan 2015 decisions and documents)

Conflict, Peace and Security situation in Africa

Climate Change and the Paris Conference: Report by President Abdel Fattah Sissi, Egypt

Issues related to recent developments in the continent: Migration, Xenophobia in South Africa, Counter-Terrorism, and Mediterranean Migration etc.

Structural Reform of the AU Commission etc.

***************

If you want to receive my regular updates, comments and analysis on these issues during the Summit follow my blog: assodesire.wordpress.com or  and follow me on Twitter @assodesire

Leave a comment Posted on African Agency

Citizens’ Participation in African Union Decision Making Process: Some Reflections

Recent developments at the African Union especially the launch of Agenda 2063 – The Africa We Want –  is a landmark step towards the realisation of “an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens and representing a dynamic force in the global arena.” The Agenda itself recognises that people’s ownership and mobilisation is needed as one of the critical enablers to concretise the seven aspirations of what we can call the business plan of Africa. This must be true both at country, regional and continental level. Civic space is being terribly challenged in a growing number of countries on our continent. At the African Union level, CSOs/Citizens’ institutional space is clearly recognised in the founding documents of the AU (constitutive Act) as well as in other policies and instruments of the Union has been growing significantly in recent years but it is still not properly structured. Engagement is still informal in most cases.

Citizens/CSOs influencing space at the African Union must include two main set of targets: 1/AU Member States and 2/ African Union organs including the AU Commission (AUC) but also other organs based outside of Addis Ababa.  In addition, influencing and participation must be built on the decision making process of the African Union starting from policy proposals, the Permanent Representatives deliberations, Experts meetings, Ministerial meetings until the final adoption by the Summit or other organs of the Union. An efficient influencing strategy must include issue-based power analysis, countries’ geopolitical positions, and engaging specific departments of the AUC etc. without forgetting external actors’ influence.  Efficient influencing strategy must also take in consideration the annual calendar of events of the AUC normally adopted in January every year (now discussed in the June/July Summit). We should not also forget the fact that the African Union is looking for expertise and alternative analysis on particular issues. CSOs aiming to contribute must seek specialization and grassroots based perspectives that only CSOs have in most cases.

Decisions of the African Union Executive Council and Assembly are normally the result of work done months before each summit by the Commission and other organs, and in decision-making processes within individual member states. The majority of proposals presented to the Assembly at the Summit have already been largely agreed before they are tabled. Some of the reports on the Summit agenda are even adopted without any further discussions.

Documents adopted by the Assembly usually start life as a policy proposal from one of the AU Commission’s departments, from another AU organ or from a Member State. These proposals are debated in an experts’ meeting, whose members are nominated by Member States, and then in a meeting called for the relevant Ministers from Member States to approve or amend the experts’ proposals. With the exception of decisions with implications for the budget which are then considered by the PRC, the final documents from the ministerial meeting will go directly to the Executive Council and the Assembly for adoption.

desire2

Engaging with Experts and Ministerial Policy debate: Over the last 5 years or so, non-state actors’ engagement of the various steps of the AU Decision making process has been easier than ever, even though it remained informal and unstructured. Most of the departments of the AUC have been systematically inviting non-state actors to policy debates including experts and ministerial meetings. NGOs are even allowed to take the floor during those meetings and share their reports. Organizations that have shown interest in particular issues have normally had a chance to be part of policy discussions at experts and ministerial level as long as they keep contact with policy/desk officers at the AUC or other organs. In 2014/15 for example, my organization Oxfam and a number of its partners, African CSOs and other actors  have had numerous direct engagements with Experts and Minsters in charge of health, peace and security, humanitarian, rural economy and agriculture, economic affairs, trade and industries, human rights, gender etc. In many cases such engagement include participation in formal meetings, side meetings hosted by NGOs and well attended by policy makers including Ministers, Ambassadors, Commissioners and desk officer of the AUC. It is important to insist on the fact that, with very few exceptions, policy influence can only happen at ambassador, expert and ministerial meetings level. At the AU summit, most positions would have already been cooked and a good number of ministerial reports are no more open for discussion before adoption.

AU Summit, a networking opportunity: Normally, there is very little room to catalyze deep policy changes at the Summit level only. Engagement must start from the birth of the process described above. However influence on burning current or on-going issues are best done during the AU Summit. Also, issues on which countries have failed to reach strong consensus during the normal policy process come back to the Summit. The AU Summit equally presents an important opportunity for networking for further engagements and for media work to raise and draw policy makers’ attention on important and current issues. It is also an unique opportunity for organizations, donors and other personalities operating on a wide range of issues from the whole continent and elsewhere to be at the same place at the same time. Non-State actors can hold policy influencing side events during the AU Summit and have delegations to attend. A number of pre-summit consultations are held by CSOs including women groups. ECOSOCC and CIDO are also supposed to hold CSOs pre-summit events but this has not been consistent in recent years.

Observers (CSOs) Accreditation to the AU Summit: Non-state actors’ access to AU Summit has not been properly structured so far and it is difficult to know the actual criteria used by the AUC to identify CSOs to be invited. Organizations working with specific departments at the AUC can forward their applications to those departments. The Citizens and Diaspora Directorate normally post a call for application on the AU website 3 months before the Summit. I am not sure this has been systematic though.

Due to space constraint, the AU Commission makes choices likely based on the timing of application, role envisaged in the Summit, activities related to the themes of the Summit, history of the organization requesting accreditation and institutional relation with the African Union organs etc. CSOs intending to participate in the Summit must first of all apply formally and this needs to be done at least 3 months before the Summit. NGOs having a MoU with the African Union are normally systematically invited to the Summit even though it is not always the case. It is always advisable to make a request ahead of every summit if you wish to be invited.

The current trend since January 2013 is that January Summits seem to be more open to observers (CSOs & Non-African Countries, Int. Gov. Organizations etc.) while access to the mid-year summits are more and more restricted. Speculations indicate that Ambassadors complain about the disturbances at Summit meetings by partners (donors) who host multiple bi-lateral meetings with member state delegations while formal summit policy meetings are running. I have personally witnessed situations where Heads of State and their Ministers of foreign affairs and at times the Ambassadors leave Summit meetings in order to meet with partners. A formal decision is likely to be taken on this issue during the 25th Summit in South Africa in June 2015.

CSOs must not be restricted because of the disturbance caused by partners during the Summits. The AU Summit is an unique strategic and symbolic space where citizens and their formations have a chance to interact with high level policy makers in the corridors, during official opening and closing ceremonies and social events. CSOs also use it for media work including press briefings interview and other media programme.

It is well understood that CSOs do not attend close debates of policy makers during the Summit however the AU Commission itself recognises that Observers including CSOs “are entitled to attend the working sessions of the Executive Council dealing with agenda item of which the AU Commission considers that they are concerned” I am not aware of any case where CSOs have used this provision always included in the AU invitation letters to Summits.

As a way forwards: while African CSOs must stand against any closure  or shrinking of the AU Summit space (an unique and legitimate continental policy and networking space for African citizens) we should effectively organize ourselves to engage on a consistent and continued basis, the most influential policy spaces of the African Union which are the experts and ministerial meetings as well as engagement of the Addis Ababa based Permanent Representatives, various AU organs/ desks etc. Access to those spaces is more and more open.

To read more on this issue, get our AU Compendium here: https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/african-union-compendium

Note: Views in this blog are absolutely personal.

 

Leave a comment Posted on African Agency

La Journée de l’Afrique 2015: De l’OUA… retour à l’OUA?

La Journée de l’Afrique est célébrée chaque année le 25 mai. Elle marque la fondation de l’Organisation de l’unité africaine (OUA) le 25 mai 1963. Ce jour-là, les dirigeants de 30 des 32 Etats africains indépendants ont signé la charte fondatrice de l’OUA à Addis-Abeba, en Ethiopie. En 2002, l’OUA a été officiellement remplacée par l’Union africaine (UA).

Alors que les principaux objectifs de l’OUA étaient de débarrasser le continent des vestiges de la colonisation et de l’apartheid ainsi que de promouvoir l’unité et la solidarité entre les États africains, la nouvelle Union Africaine visait “une Afrique intégrée, prospère et en paix, tirée par ses propres citoyens et représentant une force dynamique dans l’arène internationale ».

Nous pouvons donc conclure que l’OUA a atteint ses principaux objectifs en assurant la pleine indépendance politique du continent et en contribuant à éliminer l’apartheid en Afrique du Sud. Franchement parlant, l’OUA n’a jamais été question de démocratie ou la participation des citoyens. L’OUA était une organisation de dirigeants africains, dont la majorité avait pris le pouvoir par la lutte politique ou par la force.

Lors du Sommet l’Union Africaine à Lomé en 2000, lorsque le nouvel Acte constitutif de l’UA a été adopté, Alors que j’etais responsable du département « Formation Civique » de la radio national du Togo “Radio Lomé”, j’ai diffusé une émission radio intitulée “De l’Union des Chefs d’Etat à l’Union des Citoyens ». Je me souviens encore de l’excitation et du grand espoir des citoyens africains à faire partie d’une nouvelle organisation continentale qui vise la sécurité humaine, la prospérité, le développement et la participation citoyenne.

Comment se portent aujourd’hui l’Union africaine et ses États membres depuis sa mise en place en 2002 pour ouvrir les portes de la prospérité, la sécurité la paix,  la démocratie et les droits de l’homme sur notre continent? Les citoyens ont – ils véritablement eu la chance de participer pleinement? Quid de la mise en œuvre des principes clés qui assureront une Afrique démocratique, respectueux des droits de l’homme et des peuples, et, pouvant débloquer le potentiel du développement? Qu’y a-t-il de la gestion responsable de nos ressources humaines et naturelles pour le bénéfice du continent et de ses filles et fils ?

Aujourd’hui, quand je regarde le Burundi, la RDC, le Togo, l’Ouganda, le Congo, le Soudan, le Soudan du Sud, le Zimbabwe, la Libye, le Cameroun, la Gambie … pour ne citer que quelques-uns, ma question est la suivante: 15 ans après la Déclaration de Lomé, avons vraiment fait chemin vers  l’UA? Ou sommes-nous toujours en train d’osciller autours des pratiques de l’OUA?

Quand je me souviens que 40.000 citoyens africains ont péri dans la mer Méditerranéenne au cours des 15 dernières années (2000 morts depuis Janvier 2015) en essayant de fuir le continent, je me demande si nos dirigeants sont vraiment fiers d’eux-mêmes.

Quand je vois le Président Burundais jouer au football publiquement avec ses amis lorsque plus de 110.000 de ses con-citoyens, y compris les enfants non-accompagnés se perdent dans les collines cherchant  refuge dans les pays voisins, fuyant la persécution … et, au moment où la protestation  se poursuivait, la police tirant à balles réelles et des dirigeants de l’opposition assassinés dans la ville … ma question: Est-ce l’Afrique que nous voulons pour le 21e siècle?

34 des 54 pays africains sont appelés «pays les moins avancés” dans un continent très riche, quand au moins 1 milliard de dollars sortent illégalement  du continent sous la forme de flux financiers illégaux chaque jour par des multinationales avec la complicité  de leurs pays d’accueil et bien sûr aussi de notre propre leadership.

L’Afrique possède  plus de 90% des ressources de chrome dans le monde, 85% de sa platine, 68% de cobalt, 54% d’or, en plus d’importantes réserves de pétrole et de gaz. Notre continent abrite également  des dépôts d’uranium, de manganèse, de diamants, de bauxite et de phosphate en très grandes quantité et qualité.

Dans l’ensemble, lorsque je constate le silence et l’hésitation de nos institutions régionales et pan africaines pour hausser le ton et prendre des mesures concrètes, je me sens terriblement triste, j’ai honte de mon continent, et je suis révolté ….

La Journée de l’Afrique 2015 devrait être un moment de réflexion continental … Le 25 mai n’est observé comme un jour férié que dans cinq pays africains: le Ghana, le Mali, la Namibie, la Zambie et le Zimbabwe. Elle doit être une journée de réflexion et d’action continentale.

Le Sommet des Chefs d’État  de l’UA qui se tiendra en Afrique du Sud dans quelques semaines est une occasion pour nos dirigeants d’examiner  leurs responsabilités et de prendre des décisions audacieuses.

Cette année et l’année à venir (2016: Année de droits de l’homme) devraient être des années pour nouvelle révolution des citoyens africains. Les partenaires du monde entier doivent soutenir fermement Une citoyenneté active, y compris les actions pour revendiquer et obtenir des comptes des détenteurs du pouvoir et la mise en œuvre de nos valeurs communes. Sans cela, notre Agenda 2063 sera un document vide et un pur mensonge pour les générations futures.

Je crois fermement que si le système de gouvernance est amélioré dans le continent, l’Union africaine et ses communautés régionales commencent à jouer leur rôle pleinement et véritablement en mettant la pression sur les gouvernants nationaux en vertu des principes adoptés, les traités et conventions; si les citoyens y compris les jeunes sont mobilisés et solidaires  nous verrons un meilleur continent émerger dans quelques années.

Bonne Journée de l’Afrique !

NB : Mes réflexions sont absolument personnelles en n’engagent pas mon organisation.

Leave a comment Posted on African Agency

Financing for Development Debate @ African Union – Report.

Dear Friends

If you missed the Grand Debate on Financing for Development (FFD) on Tuesday, get the attached Press Statement/Report published by the African Union. You can also download it here:
http://ea.au.int/en/sites/default/files/PR%20128%20-%20Fridays%20of%20the%20Commission%20Debate%20stressed%20on%20a%20robust%20fair%20and%20equitable%20agreement%20during%20the%20July%202015%20Third%20Conference%20on%20Financing%20for%20.pdf 

  or 

http://ea.au.int/en/content/fridays-commission-towards-third-international-conference-financing-development 

Leave a comment Posted on African Agency

How to Finance Africa Sustainable Development Post 2015?

Public Debate – Towards the Third Financing for Development Conference in July 2015 – Tuesday 19 May 2015 from 14:00  @ African Union Commission Headquarter

My Opening Remarks

**********

Excellency, Ladies and Gentlemen, all protocol observed,

Thank you for joining this public debate co-hosted by the African Union Commission’s Department for Economic Affairs and Oxfam Liaison Office to the African Union

The Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) will take place on 13-16 July 2015, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

We expected the conference to be held at the highest possible political level, including Heads of State or Government, relevant ministers – ministers for finance, foreign affairs and development cooperation – and other special representatives.

This conference will set the scene for governments’ efforts to mobilize development finance to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set for the period 2016 – 2030.

Decisions of the  FfD must be bold, visionary, and lead to transformative change if today we are to create universal equitable and sustainable prosperity within planetary boundaries, and fulfil international human rights obligations for future generations.

FFD must build on the foundations of the previous FfD in 2002 in Mexico which is “to eradicate poverty, achieve sustained economic growth and promote sustainable development as we advance to a fully inclusive and equitable global economic system.”

The Third FFD Meeting will be then crucial to ending extreme poverty and tackling inequality everywhere. The conference will also lay the foundation for an agreement in September in New York on the new sustainable development goals, and for a binding climate-change agreement in December in Paris

The Financing for Development process come at a critical time, and must deliver on a number of issues for other crucial global agreements to bear fruit.

This conference will be the 3rd to be organized. The last one happened in Monterrey in Mexico in 2002.

The Addis Ababa event will have a different dimension compare to the previous FFD in Monterrey

  • Monterrey took place after agreement had been reached on the MDGs, while Addis will happen before formal the adoptions of the Sustainable Development Goals
  • Monterrey was focused on a government-to-government agreement but a larger number of stakeholders will be involved in Addis Ababa, including businesses, academics, civil society, scientists, and local authorities.

The conference should unlock finance from many different sources, including but not exclusively aid, to implement the upcoming Sustainable Development Goals.

Addis Ababa meeting will take place in the context of a slow global growth, in a world being devastated by conflicts and facing serious natural disasters and climate issues.

Agreements should have significant consequences for successful implementation of the SDGs at national, regional and global level.

Recommendations should be clearly actionable, with next steps in implementation that are easy to understand, easy to confirm and easy to tract.

There are other previous commitments already made which have not yet been met. There is a need for renewed efforts to meet these commitments; such commitments include meeting the target to provide 0.7% of Gross National Income in Official Development Assistance (ODA).

Given the high expectations placed on the FFD3 and the need to deliver tangible results, it is expected that the Addis Ababa Agreement mobilize international action around specific initiatives focusing on education, health, smallholder agriculture and nutrition, infrastructure etc.

The global scene and challenges have changed since the setting up of the MDGs.

We now have more scientific knowledge about climate change, rapidly growing tax evasion, unsustainable debt burdens, and the impact of trade agreements on domestic resource mobilization in developing countries.

Least Developed Countries (LDCs) have faced many of the greatest challenges in making progress toward the MDGs.

With limited trade and financial links to the rest of the world, LDCs have not gained substantial benefits from globalization, yet they are bearing many of the costs of global progress, such as climate change.

Since the FfD3 process began, lines seem to be drawn, between the global South and the global North.

The Group of 77 and China (G77) the African Group, the Least Developed Countries, Brazil, India, and other states and blocs consistently defend the right to development.

Developed countries including the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan and others assert that all countries have to take responsibility.

FFD must result in finding resources for the upcoming SDGs: This must include both financial resources, non-financial measures including technology transfer and capacity building, as well as international systemic issues of finance, trade, tax etc.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Radical change is needed in the development finance architecture to make it fair and just…

For every $1 dollar developing countries gain from development partners, they lose around $2 dollars (especially in illicit financial flows and debt repayments).

Aid figures are minimized by outflows from corporate tax dodging and illicit flows, lending to developed countries, and profits to private investors.

To rebalance the terms of international financing, to ensure developing countries get their just and fair share, courageous decisions must be taken in Addis Ababa.

As a priority, governments must create a system that ensures multinational companies pay tax where the economic activity takes place and limit discretionary tax incentives so that the hundreds of billions in potential tax revenue credit governments’ budgets.  

 

A Few Questions to Ourselves:

How are we going to deal with Domestic Public Finance?

Are we seeing it as Primary source of development, or complement to aid?

How do we mobilize it, How do we manage it properly?

How do we ensure accountability and transparency on the use of our national resources in order to finance our development?

Who has the responsibility to track and stop Illicit Financial Flows?

What about those assets illegally taken from Africa mostly through practices of tax evasion, trade and services mispricing as well as transfer pricing abuses by transnational corporations?

How do we deal with the lost of  $50-$60 billion a year in illicit financial outflows from Africa. An amount that is more or less equal to the total foreign direct investment (FDI) and more than the total Development Assistance that the continent receives annually?

How do we respond to Domestic and International Private Business and Finance, being promoted by western partners?

Are the current rules of International Trade favourable for Sustainable Development?

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are some of the questions on the table…

Make sure your opinion and your voice are heard in this debate.

The outcome of this discussion will be compiled in a report to be widely disseminated.