Agenda 12 4

ISSUE Vol. 12 No.4 2009 US$5.00 GB£3.00 €5.00

Find out what's on the African AgendaTo subscribe, please fill in the

form and post it to theaddress shown

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION

RATES

(INDIVIDUALS)

Africa & Global South $35

North America & Australia $55

Europe €55

U.K £35

Ghana ¢90,000

INSTITUTIONAL/ CORPORATE


North America & Australia $70

Europe €70

U.K £45

Ghana ¢100,000

STUDENTS

Ghana ¢84,000


North America/Australia $50

U.K £30

Europe €50

The African continent is mostly reported as a land of poverty, civil strife and end-less lines of begging hands. Problems facing the continent are portrayed andcommunicated mostly by foreign eyes through the monopoly-controlled newsmedia.

Rarely are Africans themselves given a forum to highlight what they see as press-ing problems, and offer analyses and solutions to tackle the challenges. By pub-lishing African Agenda, Third World Network Africa aims to provide exactly thatforum. Open your eyes and ears to an African perspective on critical issues suchas trade, the environment, gender and sustainable development.

I wish to subscribe to AFRICAN AGENDA and I enclose A cheque/bank draft payable to Third World Network

AMOUNT ………………………............................................................................................................................................………..............................................……….............................................

NAME: ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................………..............................................………...

ADDRESS: .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................………..............................................

CITY: ...............................................................................................................................................………...... POSTCODE: ........................................................................................................

COUNTRY: .........................................................................................................................................................................................

Send to Third World Network, P.O. Box 19452, Accra-North, Ghana

METHOD OF PAYMENT

Cheque/Bank draft payable to Third World NetworkDirect Bank Transfer: Account Name - Third World Network Bank Address:- Standard Chartered Bank, Foreign Services

Branch High Street, P.O. Box 768, Accra-GhanaAccount No. 2800202240700

CREDIT CARD

Please charge the amount of ................................................................................................. to my credit card

AMERICAN EXPRESS MASTER CARD VISAAccount No.

Signature:................................................................................................................................. Expiry Date:..........................................................................................................................

West Africa Telephone +233 -21- 511189 fax 233-21-511188Email: [email protected] /[email protected]

Note to subscribersAs part of efforts to improve our data management all

subscribers have been allocated identification numbers. You will always find them on your address labels. Please

quote these numbers in all correspondence regarding your subscription.

The material in this magazine may be freely reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided that the source of the material is attributed to African Agenda ISSN 0855-3378.

Editor-in-Chief: Yao GrahamEditor: Cornelius AdedzeAssistant Editor: Kwesi W. ObengCirculation: Joyce Ofori-KwafoDesign: David Roy QuashiePrinting: Royal Crown Press Ltd, Accra - Ghana

Tel: +233 21 506404, 504041, 0244 360686, 0277 404447E-mail: [email protected]

EDITORIAL, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND ADVERTISING:

TWN-AfricaP.O. Box 19452Accra-NorthGhana, West AfricaTel: (233) 21 511189/503669/500419Fax: (233) 21 511188Email: [email protected]: www.twnafrica.org

TWN INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT

President: Mohammed IddrisDirector: Martin Khor121-S Jalan Utama10450 PenangMalaysia

African AgendaPublished by TWN Africa

page 5 photo: 2009 floods in West Africa

African Agenda is published six times a year by Third World Network (TWN) Africa.TWN is an international network of groups and individuals who seek greater articulation of the needs and rights of the peoples of the Third World, especially marginalised social groups,a fair distribution of the world’s resources and forms of development which are ecologically sustainable and fulfil human needs. TWN Africa is grateful to Oxfam-NOVIB, Development

and Peace, InterPares (Canada), OSIWA, TrustAfrika, Kairos (Canada) and G-RAP (Ghana) for their support.

CoverClimate change: a crisis of the commons…..................................… page 5

Africa holds firm to its climate change agenda.............................… page 9

Rich countries undercut successful outcome—G77 and

China charge.................................................................................... page 12

Delay tactics on emission reduction numbers.............................… page 15

Time to act on climate change is now, says AU..........................… page 18

DevelopmentTanzania’s pot of gold and taxes…................................................. page 19

Tanzania government sued over mining contracts......................… page 23

Social Watch rejects expanding role of IMF,

World Bank, G-20........................................................................… page 25

PoliticsMozambique fluffs chance to deepen democracy.......................… page 28

WomenComplicating the vote for women…............................................... page 31

InternationalMaking it on their own terms…...................................................... page 33

UN mission urges accountability for war crimes in Gaza…........... page 35

Short storyWilmot-Baidoe…............................................................................. page 37

Contents

As Copenhagen drawsnear, hope for a compre-hensive binding agree-

ment that seeks to mitigate thenegative impact of climatechange is all but gone. The lastpreparatory meeting inBarcelona clearly indicated toall that Copenhagen would notamount to much.

Most people believe thereis something definitely wrongwith the climate in the midst ofthe various natural disasters,like floods, drought, etc and rec-ognize according to USPresident Obama’s envoy onclimate change issues, ToddStem, that ‘the damage to ourplanet, to our community, to ourchildren and their children willbe just as great.’ How to effec-tively meet this ‘damage’ headon and prevent the great disasterthat awaits humanity hasbecome a tussle between therich developed countries whoare the major polluters and thepoor developing countries whothough not great polluters suffermost from the effects of climatechange. Indeed Copenhagen hasbecome the battle between thepoor and the rich countries ofthe world as the rich seek toprotect their wealth andlifestyles against basic survivalneeds of the poor. As pointedout by a coalition of NGOs intheir statement in Barcelona:

‘At stake in the climatenegotiations is the biggest dis-tribution of wealth andresources between rich and poorcountries in modern history. Therich are seeking to write-offrather than repay their debt forconsuming the Earth’s atmos-pheric space.’ (See page 11Don’t kill Kyoto......)

Africa, which contributesless than 3.5 percent of globalemissions, is one of the conti-nents worst affected by climatechange and therefore rightlyleads the fight for commitment

to Kyoto protocols and beyondagreement. For Africa, climatechange mitigation is a matter ofsurvival as day-in-day-out,year-in-year out, its poverty lev-els are compounded by naturaldisasters traceable to climatechange. (See page 5, Climatechange: a crisis of the com-mons) These disastrous conse-quences for Africa and the restof the world are thankfully notin dispute, however, taking pre-venting measures and correctingthe already negative impactsthrough provision of funding tomitigate these have becomeproblematic.

Whilst it may be true thatthe great polluters like the USwhich contributes about 25 per-cent to total emission are notimmediately at risk, the fact thatthey contribute greatly toendangering the lives of othersmust make them responsive totheir plight. China which alsocontributes some 21 percentalthough per capita it emits only5.5 tonnes as against the US percapita of 21.2 tonnes, has a hugerole in finding a lasting solutionto the issue. Obama and Hu mayhave come out with a joint state-ment during Obama’s recentvisit to China urging an agree-ment in Copenhagen that would“include emission reduction tar-gets of developed countries andnationally appropriate mitiga-tion actions of developing coun-tries.”, but the hard reality isthat it may all be just merewords. Truth is that based onwhat happened in Barcelona,the talk is now aboutCopenhagen not being theforum for a ‘serious deal’ butjust a milestone in the journeytowards achieving an agreementon climate change!

This is why African coun-tries supported by the G77 donot have to relent in their effortsto see a meaningful and com-prehensive climate change

agreement. They must not cavein to the usual pressure fromdeveloped countries that charac-terise international negotiationsin other international for a likethe World Trade Organisationand others. Indeed, Africa’sdecision to speak with one voiceis reassuring. (See page 9,Africa holds firm to its climatechange agenda). At least so farfrom various meetings of the tencountries elected to representAfrica at the Summit and theassurances of the chairman,Prime minister Meles Zenawi ofEthiopia have proven thatAfrica’s unanimous agenda ison course. Even if Africa doesnot succeed in wringing itsdemands from the developedworld it would have stated itsposition on climate changeunequivocally in world matters.It would also have offered anoption that may ultimately savethe world if complied with.

For civil society organisa-tions, Copenhagen may be a lostcause but it offers yet anotheropportunity to seize the ‘politi-cal terrain back from business-friendly half-measures, such ascarbon offsets and emissionstrading, and introduce someeffective, common-sense pro-posals.’

Some of these proposalsinclude the somewhat contro-versial “climate debt,” whichcalls on rich countries to payreparations to poor countries forthe climate crisis. For them it istrue that ‘We all share this frag-ile blue planet, so we all need towork together to save it’ howev-er, there is the need to differen-tiate between those who causedthe climate crisis (the developedworld) and those who are suf-fering its worst effects (thedeveloping world). This isenough justification for thedeveloped to pick the bill for,‘climate debt’. The costinvolved in adapting to the

adverse effects of climatechange should therefore be theresponsibility of the countrieswho have created the monstroussituation.

All that Africa and the restof the countries suffering fromclimate change impact are ask-ing for is a chance to survive. AsSharon Looremeta, an advocatefor the Maasai ethnic group inKenya recently put it, theMaasai have lost at least 5 mil-lion cattle to drought in a coupleof years though, “The Maasaicommunity does not drive 4x4sor fly off on holidays in air-planes,” she says. “We have notcaused climate change, yet weare the ones suffering. This is aninjustice and should be stoppedright now.”

They demand a show ofresponsibility and readiness toright over 200 years of wrongbeginning from the industrialrevolution. The developedworld led by chief culprit, theUS must live up to its promiseas epitomised by Obama in hisspeech to the UN generalAssembly last September that:

“Yes, the developed nationsthat caused much of the damageto our climate over the last cen-tury still have a responsibility tolead, we have a responsibility toprovide the financial and techni-cal assistance needed to helpthese [developing] nations adaptto the impacts of climate changeand pursue low-carbon develop-ment.”

The developed world hav-ing acknowledged the ‘climatedebt’ they owe the rest of theworld have to act as responsiblecitizens of the world and helpclean it up and ensure a sustain-able world! If they refuse,Africa and the rest of the coun-tries worst affected by climatechange must not relent in theirfight for climate justice as bysaving themselves they wouldsave the rest of the world!

Editorial

4 AFRICAN AGENDA VOL.12 NO.4

Will the world save itself?

5

As 2009 draws to a close, the world’s attention is focused on the December UN conference on climate change in the Danish capital, Copenhagen. World leaders’ failure to agree on the way

forward could deal a deadly blow to the future of developing countries especially in Africa, wherepeople are already suffering from the impacts of climate change, writes *Kwesi W. Obeng.

AFRICAN AGENDA VOL.12 NO.4

In September 2009, heavyrainfall across the Sahelianregion of West Africa killed

many, displaced hundreds ofthousands and destroyed farmsand infrastructure – effectivelysinking many more families inpoverty – in the face of the cur-rent debilitating global financialand economic downturn.

In 2007-2008 massivefloods swept across the entiremiddle of Africa – from Senegal

in the west to Uganda in the east– killing hundreds of people,submerged whole communities,wiped out food and cash cropstocks, destroyed farmlands andlivestock.

Much earlier in 2000, tor-rential rains accompanied byflashflood and landslides sub-merged swathes of the southernhalf of the continent. In thepost-conflict state ofMozambique for instance, the

floods cost the country overUS$500 million. A decade on,Mozambique has still to recoverfrom that disaster. The gover-nance crisis in Zimbabwe hasbeen made worse, in part, bysevere droughts that followedthe 2000 floods.

Presently, millions in theHorn of Africa, West Africa andSouthern Africa require emer-gency food aid, triggered main-ly by a combination of poor har-

vest, floods, droughts and badnational policies. Rivers,streams and lakes that sustainedcommunities and the large pop-ulation of wild life especially inEast Africa have either dried upor shrunk to dangerous levels.

Three of Kenya’s mostimportant rivers – Makalia,Nderit and Njoro – that feed theworld-famous Lake Nakuruhave dried up. Other riversincluding Mara, Sondu and

Climate change:A crisis of the commons

Cover

2009 floods in West Africa


Perkerra, which is renowned forirrigation schemes in the aridlower parts of Lake Baringo, areat the brink of extinction.

Now the Kenyan authori-ties are compelled to spendthousands of dollars a month toprovide fresh water at the LakeNakuru National Park, a majortourist attraction in Africa. Thatis surely not sustainable.Ghana’s Volta Lake, which sup-plies close to 80 per cent of thecountry’s electricity has beenshrinking for many years. Thedwindling size of the all-impor-tant Niger River, by far the mostimportant river in West Africathreatens the livelihood of mil-lions of people in Guinea, Mali,Niger, Benin and Nigeria.

Many other large waterbodies criss-crossing Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are also atdangerously low levels. MtKilimanjaro with its iconicsnow and ice cap is set to loseits crown in less than twodecades.

WorstThe worst is yet to come,

warns the 2010 WorldDevelopment Report. Titled‘Development and ClimateChange,’ the World Bank paintsa bleak future for the world ifworld leaders and other policymakers fail to take drastic meas-ures now to save the planet fromdeteriorating any further fromglobal warming. This is but oneof many new reports pointing tothe dangerous impacts of cli-mate change on the environ-ment and human beings.

Many other recent reportsincluding studies by the Inter-governmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), the Food andAgriculture Organisation (FAO)and the Organisation forEconomic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) indicatethat climate change is alreadyhaving lethal impacts on devel-oping countries, particularly inAfrica, where most humandevelopment indicators were onpositive trajectories until the

financial crisis began to bitefrom the middle of 2008.

Climate change is a globalphenomenon but owing toAfrica’s peculiar state of under-development, lack of financialand the technological muscle tomitigate and adapt to these dan-gerous climatic changes, thecontinent is set to be about thehardest hit if current deteriora-tion of the world’s climateremains on the same course.

According to the UNAfrica, Asia and Latin Americacould record a decline of up to40 per cent in potential agricul-tural productivity if tempera-tures go up by more than 2degrees celcius.

Indeed, they may have con-tributed the least to globalwarming but developing coun-tries in general will dispropor-tionately suffer from climatechange.

StalemateThe science of climate

change has indeed grownstronger in the last few years.And going to the UN summit inCopenhagen in December, someof the top issues of contestationare the cost of adaptation, whoto bear what and which coun-tries must give up or significant-ly cut back on greenhouse gas(GHS) emissions to save theworld from the worst forms ofglobal warming.

Inaction on climate change,countless research studiesemphasis, is not an option.However adapting to theimpacts of climate change todeveloping countries will becostly and stifling.

The World Bank’s WDR2010 report warns that even atwo degree Celsius rise in tem-peratures will jeopardize devel-opment efforts especially inAfrica and South Asia.

It will cost developingcountries between US$75-bil-lion to US$100-billion a yearfrom 2010 to 2050 to adapt toclimate change induced by atwo degree Celsius rise in tem-

perature, say the 2010 WDRand the Economics of Adaptionto Climate Change (EACC),another 2009 World Bank study.

Developed countries willalso need to invest aboutUS$400-billion a year by 2030to assist developing countries tomitigate climate change throughthe adoption of more efficientcarbon technologies. This is theWorld Bank’s clearest warningyet that progress in developingcountries will severely beundermined by climate changeif the world fails to act swiftly,decisively and audaciously.

‘Faced with the prospect ofhuge additional infrastructurecosts, as well as drought, dis-ease and dramatic reductions inagricultural productivity, devel-oping countries need to be pre-pared for the potential conse-quences of unchecked climatechange’, says Katherine Sierra,World Bank vice president forSustainable Development.

But not many in the devel-oping world are convinced theright decisions and commit-ments will be made inCopenhagen especially by richcountries.

At a UN-led Copenhagenpreparatory meeting held inBangkok Thailand in October,India Premier’s special envoyon climate change, ShyramSaran chided developed coun-tries for self-centeredness andgreed.

No equityThe Indian envoy said ‘they

don’t talk about equity, theyonly talk of how to protect theirlifestyles…the industrializedcountries keep talking abouthow the large populations inIndia and China are using up theworld’s resources. I rememberonce when it happened, anAfrican delegate got up andquoted from a World Bankreport to show that an Americanor a European child uses 30times as much natural resourcesas a child from Africa.’

‘The trouble is’, Saran said,

adding ‘when we make thesepoints, they are not refuted. Ifsomeone tells me I’m wrong,then I can have a discussion.But nobody says that. They sim-ply ignore what we say, and getback to their agenda.’

The WDR 2010 puts annu-al global mitigation investmentsto between US$260-billion andUS$1.2-trillion by 2030. This issignificant a sum in the short-term, but it is certainly ‘not pro-hibitive’ says the report. Thisamount is equivalent to three (3)per cent of today’s globalinvestment spending and about0.2 per cent of the projectedworld GDP in 2030.

‘Economic growth is themost powerful form of adapta-tion…however it cannot be“business as usual”. Adaptationminimizes the impacts of cli-mate change, but it does notaddress its causes. There is nosubstitute for mitigation toreduce catastrophic risks’,Warren Evans, who is the WorldBank director for EnvironmentDepartment, was quoted in apress release issued by the Bankin the run-up to the Bangkokmeeting on climate change.

Insurance‘The uncertainties about the

potential losses associated withclimate change and the possibil-ity of catastrophic risks maywell justify earlier and moreaggressive action than a simplecost-benefit analysis would sug-gest’. Better still, the reportposits, the huge adaptation andmitigation cost and could betaken as the ‘insurance premi-um’ to keep climate changewithin safer bands.

World leaders will be gath-ering in the Danish capital ofCopenhagen in December to setnew targets to control climatechange and find successor to theKyoto Protocol.

Up to 70 per cent of Sub-Saharan Africa’s (SSA) popula-tion depends on agriculture. Theregion’s agriculture is largelyrain-fed. This is precisely why

Cover

7

Cover


Sub-Saharan Africa is expectedto be hardest hit by global warm-ing. Together Africa’s 63 trans-boundary river basins accountfor 90 per cent of the continent’ssurface water resources.

Africa has since the 1980sbecome so heavily reliant onfood imports, in part, because ofunbridle liberalisation, privati-sation and deregulation of thecontinent’s economy and badleadership. As a result the foodcrisis which intensified from2007sparked violent publicprotests in many countriesacross the continent.

This situation is alarming,the FAO has warned. Accordingto the UN agency, importsaccounted for more than half ofgrain supplies in eleven (11)Sub-Saharan African countries– Angola, Cape Verde, Eritrea,the Gambia, Lesotho, Liberia,Mauritania, Senegal, Somalia,

Swaziland and Zimbabwe – in2005-2006. In another sevencountries - Benin, Cameroon,Cote d’Ivoire, Congo DR,Ghana, Guinea-Bissau andMozambique – this shareranged from 30 to 50 per cent.

Although reliance on grainimports has helped keep pricesat affordable levels, the ‘lack ofdomestic agricultural growththat drove up the imports in thefirst place, has exposed manycountries to volatility on inter-national markets,’ says the FAOin a new report, ‘The State ofFood Insecurity in the World2009’. The report is the FAO’s10th progress report on worldhunger since the 1996 WorldFood Summit.

Food prices remain high.These already existing threatscould worsen given the pace atwhich arable lands across Africaare being grabbed by foreign

countries and transnationalcompanies to produce food andnon-edible bio-fuel crops suchas jathropha for the consump-tion of their home countries.

While no single factor cansufficiently explain the patternand extent of recent food pricemovements, it is also clear thatAfrica’s over dependence onimports of cereals and othercrops such as maize and rice,which can be produced on thecontinent, exposes Africa’sgrowing population to the leastspike in food prices on the inter-national market be it throughclimate change or the work ofspeculators.

So that from mid-July 2007to December 2008, the ‘averagemonthly rate of growth in maizeprices in Nairobi and Kampalaamounted to 3.7 and 7.1 percent, respectively, comparedwith a world price monthly rate

of 4.3’, says another 2009 FAOreport, ‘The State ofAgricultural CommodityMarkets: High food prices andthe food crisis –experiences andlessons learned’.

In Ghana, as in many othercountries, the poor have been hitthe hard. Obviously, it is evenworse when the country is poorand heavily dependent on foodimports. The FAO report indi-cates that in Ghana, white maizeand imported rice prices in 2008rose by 51 and 43 per centrespectively in real terms above2007 prices to absorb a largechunk of poor households’incomes. ‘The impact was mod-erated to some extent by thediversity of the Ghanaian diet,the fact that cassava, which isnot widely traded on world mar-kets, accounts for about one-quarter of total caloric intake;

Dry river bed : Kenya’s river Njoro; once a permanent river from Mau forest

and the availability of locallyproduced rice. However, cassa-va and local rice pricesincreased from 2007 to 2008 by26 and 33 per cent respectively.’

FAO estimates that 1.02billion people worldwide areundernourished. This actuallymeans there are more hungrypeople than at any time since1970. The FAO has sincethumbed the panic button, warn-ing world leaders that the deteri-orating food crisis along withthe global financial crisis andthe already gloomy predictionsof the impacts of climate changeon agriculture and livelihoods indeveloping countries could dec-imate whole populations andtrigger armed conflicts withinand between countries in theglobal South, essentially Africaand South Asia.

Presently, the southern andparts of eastern Africa are in thegrip of multi-year droughts. Inthe Horn of Africa alone, theUnited Nations warns that 20-million people need emergencyfood aid. Other parts of theworld from Australia to theMidwest of the United States,the impacts of the changing cli-mate are too visible to ignore.

No dealBut initially presented as a

critical fork in the road in thefight against climate change, tocheck the global phenomenonfrom spiraling out of control,Copenhagen may, after all, notlive up to its billing.

It is increasingly becomingclear, more than ever, that theremay be no concrete deal inCopenhagen. At the last formalround of negotiations held inNovember in Barcelona (Spain)before Copenhagen summit, EUleaders failed to agree on howmuch funds they are willing tomake available to developingcountries to both adapt to andmitigate climate change.

The United States, EU andBritish negotiators said it wasimpossible to finalise anenforceable deal by December.

British officials, for instance,were emphatic that the mostCopenhagen can offer the worldis a ‘political’ commitment andnot the much-needed legallybinding successor to the KyotoProtocol.

Diplomats and other nego-tiators who attended theBarcelona meeting where quiteclear that it take at least anotheryear to negotiate a successorpact to the Kyoto Protocol andpossibly a much longer timeframe for national governmentsto ratify.

The UN has since con-firmed that there would be noconclusive deal in Copenhagen.‘Little progress was made onthe key issues of emission tar-gets and finance [at theNovember meeting] that wouldallow developing countries to

limit their emissions and adaptto climate change,’Yvo de Boer,the UN director of the talks wasquoted. ‘Without these twopieces of the puzzle in place, wewill not have a deal. Leadershipat the highest level is nowrequired to unlock the pieces’.

Developing countries havealso threatened to walk out ofCopenhagen if industrializedcountries fail to commit to mas-sive cuts in their GHG emis-sions.

In spite of the initial opti-mism, it would appear develop-ing regions of the world particu-larly Africa may have to bracethemselves for the worst byadopting measures that couldenable their population to adaptto worst impacts of climatechange.

While what has been

described in several studies asimpacts and potential effects ofglobal warming are not neces-sarily new, their intensity andthe near absence of crediblesafety nets in Africa to amelio-rate their frequency and disas-trous impacts could worsen theplight of millions on the conti-nent.

It is against this backdropthat unbridled environmentallydestructive activities such asindiscriminate logging and min-ing in forest reserves and over-exploitation of fragile eco-sys-tems such as wetlands and low-lying areas must seize forthwithif the continent is to thrive in thecoming and obviously harsherdecades.

*Kwesi W. Obeng is assistant edi-tor of African Agenda.

Cover


Climate change, say leading glaciologistsand climatologists, could cause the leg-endary snow and ice atop Mt Kilimanjaroto disappear within the two decades. Thesummit of Africa’s highest and most ele-gant mountain brushes the clouds at19,340 feet. This is yet another pointer tothe impacts of climate change in Africa.

In a new report based on ice-core analy-sis and published in the journalProceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, the scientists point out that forthe first time in almost 12,000 years,Africa’s highest peak will be ice-free asearly as 2022 or as late as 2033.

‘Of the ice cover present in 1912, 85 percent has disappeared and 26 per cent ofthat present in 2000 is now gone’. Thefindings come a month to the climatechange summit in the Danish capital ofCopenhagen to find a new accord on cli-

mate change to replace the KyotoProtocol which expires in 2012.

In his documentary ‘Inconvenient Truth’,Al Gore, the former United States vicepresident made the disappearing snowcap of Africa’s highest peak, a corner-stone of his crusade against global warm-ing: ‘Within the decade, there will be nomore snows of Kilimanjaro.’

Communities living around and on theplains surrounding Mt. Kilimanjaro relyheavily on water from the mountain forhousehold uses, irrigation, andhydropower. The loss of this irreplaceableresource will severely affect their everydaylife.

In Swahili, Kilimanjaro translates to ‘shin-ing mountain,’ but with climate change atthe current pace, the elegant outcrop iscertain to lose its shine for a long time.

Africa’s crowned roof leaking

9AFRICAN AGENDA VOL.12 NO.4

The preparatory talkstowards the CopenhagenUN Summit have yet

again shown the sharp dividebetween the rich and the poor.In the midst of all this opposi-tion from the rich developedworld, Africa one of the worstaffected by climate change andlargely poor continues to holdon to its demand for a good dealin Copenhagen.

From Kyoto through Bali,Bangkok to Barcelona, the signswere clear that deals aimed atfighting the negative effects ofclimate change would be diffi-cult to arrive at. The developedcountries with the US as their

arrow-head have opposed themeasures outlined in the newproposed agreement. Insteadthey are proposing a new agree-ment that clearly waters downthe Kyoto Protocol.

At the Bali climate meetingin December 2007, there wastalk of dealing with the US, amajor stumbling block to nego-tiations if it failed to return tothe Kyoto Protocol, as a specialcase through binding under itscommitment inside the ClimateConvention, of which it is amember.

The developed countrieswere expected by now to havecome up with numbers on ‘how

much they will commit to cuttheir Greenhouse Gas emissionsafter 2012, when the first com-mitment period of the KyotoProtocol (KP) ends, so that asecond period can begin in2013’. But so far they haveshown unwillingness to committo the second period under theKyoto protocol. Indeed, thereare signs that some want toabandon the protocol altogether.The Kyoto Protocol had boundthe developed countries to com-mitments to cut their emissionsby 5% collectively by 2012(compared with 1990) in thefirst period. The new cut after2012 was expected to bring the

emissions level down by 25% to40% by 2020 (compared with1990). But talks have gone onthis for three years without anyagreement.

Obviously tiring of these,African countries and the G77and China foresee failure of theCopenhagen Summit and byextension the international cli-mate regime itself.

“We call on the developedcountries that are members ofthe Kyoto Protocol to standfirmly in the KP and to engageseriously in negotiations for asecond commitment period,”The 77 and China said in a

Cover

Most people do not dispute the dire effects of climate change on human existence, but negotiations leading to the Copenhagen Climate Change talks show that for some especially thegreatest emmiters of carbon (the developed countries) it is politics and show of power as usual,

writes *Cornelius Adedze.

Africa holds firm to its climate change agenda


Cover

statement on Oct 9. “We will also consider the

Copenhagen meeting to be adisastrous failure if there is nooutcome for the commitmentsof developed countries for thesecond commitment period ofthe Kyoto Protocol.” Theyadded.

AfricaAfrica on its part stated

through Ethiopian PrimeMinister Meles Zenawi that theAfrican delegation will notclaim compensation but fightfor global action to reduce theimpact of climate change “Wewill never accept any globaldeal that does not limit globalwarming to the minimum avoid-able level, no matter what levelof compensation and assistancewe are promised” he argued.Zenawi, elected by the AfricanUnion to head Africa’s delega-tion to Copenhagen was sup-ported by AmbassadorLumumba D’Aping of Sudan,who chairs the G77.

“Europe, Japan andAmerica must quickly find asolution that combines theirdeep emissions cut with fairnesstowards developing countries,to avert a disaster inCopenhagen” he said.

Earlier Zenawi had cau-tioned that, ‘If need be we areprepared to walk out of anynegotiations that threaten to beanother rape of our continent,”he said. A threat duly carriedout, albeit, briefly at Barcelonathe last preparatory talks beforeCopenhagen.

According to the AU’sCommon position document,rich nations need to reduce theirgreenhouse gas emissions by atleast 40 per cent below 1990levels by 2020 and at least 80per cent below 1990 levels by2050. Africa also demanded abetter climate change adaptationfund worth $67 billion per yearby 2020.

So far, the developed coun-tries have pledged an aggregateof less than 10%. The US, the

world’s second biggest polluter,has pledged to cut around 4%on 1990 levels, or 17% on 2005levels.

PollutersThe Kyoto parties now emit

roughly 25 percent of all green-house gasses. Rapid industriali-sation of emerging countrieslike China and India has beenaccompanied by a significantrise in emissions. The develop-ing world now contributesalmost 50 percent of globalemissions.

The rest is largely attrib-uted to the US. China is thebiggest polluter emitting 6.8 bil-lion tonnes annually (21.5 per-cent), followed by the U.S. with6.4 billion tonnes (20 percent).However, per capita Chinaemits only 5.5 tonnes, comparedto the 21.2 tonnes U.S. citizenscontribute.

According to a recent arti-cle in the scientific journalBiogeoscience the whole ofAfrica emits a mere 3.7 percentof global output. This includesSouth Africa that emits1.5 per-cent of global CO2. The entirecontinent’s carbon footprintbetween 1990-2004 constitutedless than half the CO2 emis-sions of the UK in that period.

As a result of these stagger-ing statistics developed coun-tries were to commit to thetransfer of technology to devel-oping countries, based on prin-ciples of equity. Africa needs anestimated $300 Billion in finan-cial support and technologytransfer to mitigate the impactof climate change, according tothe AU position paper. The con-tinent demands that developedstates should commit 0.5 percent of their GDPs for climateaction in developing countries.

FundingAfrican parliamentarians at

a meeting in Nairobi, Kenyaalso added their voice to thedebate. In a declaration at theend of their meeting they stated:“The money for financing cli-

mate change should be new andadditional (to development aid)and should be provided in theform of grants and other innova-tive financial mechanisms andinstruments,” and that themoney should be committedbefore the Copenhagen talks.Unfortunately so far this finan-cial commitment has not materi-alized and may not likely beachieved.

However, African leadersbelieve clinching the compensa-tion deal before hand will pre-vent a repeat of the Kyoto pro-tocol case that saw some richnations back out of the deal longafter developing nations hadappended their signatures.

The danger that staresAfrican countries due to climatechange has been duly noted bythe World Bank in this year’sWorld Development Report. MsMarianne Fay, the World Bankchief economist at the release ofthe report stated that:

“Countries in the sub-Saharan Africa are dispropor-tionately affected by climatechange such that they needscaled up financial and techno-logical support to help their vul-nerable people to adapt to theclimate change while also meet-ing urgent energy needs.”

NeedsAfrica’s climate change

adjustment needs include low-carbon technologies, energy-efficiency projects and renew-able-energy technologies,which it has so far lacked due tofinancing and difficulty inobtaining intellectual propertyrights.

An EU proposal to scale upclimate change mitigation andadaptation funding for develop-ing countries has also come upbut it is believed places unreal-istic spending demands on poorcountries. This proposal esti-mates that the cost of dealingwith climate change in poorcountries will reach € 100 bil-lion (around US$146 billion) by2020 and calls on developed

country governments to con-tribute US$32-73 billion of thisannually, with the EU commit-ting US$3-22 billion - the finalfigures contingent on the quali-ty of the climate deal reached inCopenhagen in December. Therest, it argues should come fromdeveloping countries them-selves who should contribute20-40 per cent of the total andfrom international carbon mar-kets, which the Commissionsays could be worth up toUS$56 billion per year.

A member of Africa’s nego-tiating team, William KojoAgyemang-Bonsu thinks thesuggestion that poor countriesmay have to meet 40 per cent oftheir climate change costs is “abig joke” as though badlyaffected by climate changeAfrica contributes less to theproblem. Indeed the main thrustof Africa’s negotiating positionis basically the fact that theyplay almost a negligible role incausing climate change.

Prime Minister Zenawi,underscores this and hence hiscall for a robust and fair practi-cal agreement to be arrived at inCopenhagen because, “Africahas contributed nothing to theglobal warming but the conti-nent will be hardest hit by cli-mate change as compared toother continents”.

Mere declarationAfrican Union, Chairperson

Ping on his part says Africa isnot looking for ‘a mere declara-tion’ but concrete practicalmeasures that will mitigate thepresent climatic crises and sparethe continent from catastrophes.“This threat is not only endan-gering the continent but it is ourlives that are at stake” Mr. Pingadded.

African civil society groupslike the Pan African ClimateJustice Alliance, PACJA, havecalled for the conclusion of thenegotiations in order to safe-guard lives and livelihoods ofthe most vulnerable communi-ties, majority of whom are


found in Africa.PACJA coordinator, Mr

Mithika Mwenda urged indus-trialized countries to agree todeep domestic emission cutsand massive transfer of technol-ogy for adaptation and transi-tion to low-carbon develop-ment.

PACJA also condemneddeliberate efforts by developedcountries to kill the KyotoProtocol and effectively killingthe hopes for climate justice.

“Should we allow this tohappen once more? The futureof the climate negotiations andindeed the future of vulnerablepeople and the planet cannot be

held hostage by the politics andinterests of one particular state.We cannot allow the politicalambition of the international cli-mate regime to be sabotaged byrecalcitrant positions,” Mr.Mithika, said.

They appealed to devel-oped country negotiators to stopthe same endless game of musi-cal chairs and shifting of goal-posts by introducing new andconfusing concepts like politi-cally binding agreement orlegally binding political com-mitments that have been invent-ed to confuse the negotiations.

PACJA has also called for arejection of attempts by EU and

other developed countries toarrive at a political declarationin Copenhagen, as opposed to alegally binding post 2012 agree-ment. It added that what is onoffer is no deal so African coun-tries should accept it as it is abad deal.

The US and China duringpresident Obama’s recent visitto China have both promised tomove the climate change agen-da forward such that accordingto Obama Copenhagen will“include emission reduction tar-gets of developed countries andnationally appropriate mitiga-tion actions of developing coun-tries.” Sure signs there has been

some movement in the rhetoricsince Barcelona, but the devilthey say is in the detail.Copenhagen may therefore yetsave the world or just likeKyoto postpone action untilanother day, a more likelyproposition as there are talksalready of a December 2010meeting in Mexico.

Whatever the outcome ofCopenhagen, Africa needs tohold firm to its stand to saveitself from drought, flash floodsand the resultant poverty.

Cornelius Adedze is Editor ofAfrican Agenda.

At stake in the climate negoti-ations is the biggest distribu-tion of wealth and resources

between rich and poor countries inmodern history. The rich are seek-ing to write-off rather than repaytheir debt for consuming theEarth’s atmospheric space.

To achieve this goal, they areseeking to kill the Kyoto Protocoland to shift the burden of mitigat-ing and adapting to climatechange to developing countries,while continuing their excessivelevels of consumption and pollu-tion.

The Kyoto Protocol does notend in 2012. Developed countrieshave a legal obligation to take mit-igation commitments as part of asecond commitment period of theKyoto Protocol.

We, global civil society organi-zations from developed and devel-oping countries, condemn allefforts by developed countries toend the Kyoto Protocol, as it risksleading to a race to the bottom.

We further condemn the appar-ent complicity of the EuropeanUnion, the Danish COP Presidency

and the UNFCCC Secretariat inspreading misinformation aboutthe Kyoto Protocol and the negoti-ations, and seeking to collapse thetwo separate negotiating tracksinto one “political agreement” inCopenhagen.

We express our concern at theDanish Prime Minister’s statementthat “Our end goal is an interna-tionally legally binding treaty forwhen the Kyoto treaty comes to anend in 2012.”[1] The DanishPrime Minister’s misstate-ments about the KyotoProtocol reflect a clear biasagainst the demands of devel-oping countries for the contin-uation of the Kyoto Protocoland are unacceptable.

We express our concern at theEuropean Union’s call for a “singlelegally binding instrument…thatbuilds on the Kyoto Protocol andincorporates all its essentials, as anoutcome from Copenhagen inDecember 2009.”[2] TheEuropean Union is, in effect,calling for the end of the KyotoProtocol, shirking their legallybinding obligations to agree

to a second commitment peri-od after 2012.

We express our concern thatthe UNFCCC Secretariat has pub-lished documents falsely statingthat “the existing legally bindingagreement which governs carbonemissions - the Kyoto Protocol -expires in 2012.”[3] By spread-ing misinformation about theKyoto Protocol, the Secretariatis derogating from its respon-sibility of “creating and main-taining necessary conditionsfor an early, effective and effi-cient implementation of theKyoto Protocol,”[4] includingits second commitment period,reflecting a clear bias againstthe position of developingcountries.

We stand in solidarity with theAfrican delegates who at this meet-ing sought to focus the negotia-tions on the core of Kyoto Protocolnegotiations — developed coun-tries’ emission reduction commit-ments beyond 2012 — and we callon Annex I parties to honor theirexisting obligations by implement-ing, rather than ending, the KyotoProtocol.

Cover

Don’t kill Kyoto, says global civil societyStatement issued by 51 civil society groups in Barcelona

The Group of 77 andChina, for the most part,saw very little engage-

ment on the part of developedcountries to move forward onnegotiations at the just endedBarcelona talks under theUnited Nations Framework onConvention on Climate Change(UNFCCC).

Instead, the Group founddeveloped countries activelyengaged outside the process,thus effectively undercutting thenegotiations under the UNFC-CC and dampening expectationsfor the outcome in Copenhagen.

These were the concludingremarks at the closing session ofthe 7th session of the Ad HocWorking Group on Long-termCooperative Action (AWG-LCA) on November 6th.Malta’s Michael ZammitCutajar chaired the session.

The next session of theAWG-LCA will be held inCopenhagen, in conjunctionwith the 15th meeting of theConference of Parties (COP 15)from December 7-18. TheAWG-LCA was mandated inBali in 2007 to reach an agreedoutcome and adopt a decision atCOP 15.

Ambassador IbrahimMirghani Ibrahim of Sudan,speaking for the G77 and China,reaffirmed the Group’s positionthat the UNFCCC process, at

this critical stage, is the solelegitimate forum of these nego-tiations. He also denouncedattempts to place the determina-tion of the agreed outcome inCopenhagen in the hands of afew countries, be this at thehighest political level.

The Group called uponthose developed countries tostop such attempts that will onlyobstruct efforts to reach a bal-anced, ambitious, comprehen-sive and legally-binding out-come. It also expressed con-cerns over efforts by somecountries to move the negotia-tions outside of the ambit of theConvention, and to prejudgeand undermine the processundertaken under the only legal-ly-binding Convention toaddress climate change.

The G77 and China alsoexpressed concern overattempts to diminish the level ofambition of the outcome ofCopenhagen. It deplored theslow progress made at this ses-sion in Barcelona, despite thecontinued efforts of the Groupto engage fully and construc-tively in good faith, in substan-tive negotiations leading to anequitable, fair, just and ambi-tious outcome in Copenhagen.It confirmed its understandingthat the work done in Barcelonawill be carried as it stands to theAWG-LCA’s eighth session in

Copenhagen.The Group remained firm

on its position on the two paral-lel tracks of negotiations (of theAWG-LCA and the Ad HocWorking Group on FurtherCommitments for Annex IParties under the KyotoProtocol) in this process withoutexporting vital parts of one, theKyoto Protocol, into the other,the Convention, weakening theprinciple of common but differ-entiated responsibilities, and inthe process, denying historicalresponsibilities.

The Group sees an outcomethat should include a strongagreement on ambitious reduc-tion targets by developed coun-tries that are not Parties to theKyoto Protocol and on thedelivery of means of implemen-tation (of the UNFCCC). TheGroup sees an effective finan-cial mechanism under theauthority of the Conference ofParties to implement commit-ments related to the provision offinancial resources; an effectivemechanism for developmentand transfer of technology andan institutional arrangement todeliver finance for the imple-mentation of adaptation actions.

China’s head of delegation,Su Wei , in an apparent refer-ence to the United States, calledon developed countries whowere waiting for developing

countries to act, to look ahead.‘Developing countries havealready left you behind, and wecannot be used as an excuse anymore for your inaction,’ said SuWei. ‘Please wake up and to seethat Copenhagen is just milesaway, you have to get running inorder [to] catch up. Otherwise,you will fail in the race toCopenhagen and beyond,’ headded.

China said that it takes thethreat of climate change veryseriously and has already inte-grated climate change responsesinto the social and economicdevelopment of the country.Fighting climate change hasbecome an integral part of itsnational sustainable develop-ment strategy. China, he said,will continue its proactive andconstructive role in the negotia-tions and to make its utmosteffort to contribute to achievean ambitious, strong, meaning-ful and binding outcome inCopenhagen.

Shyam Saran, SpecialEnvoy of Prime Minister ofIndia on Climate Change, cate-gorically rejected attemptsbeing made to already declarefailure at Barcelona and down-grade expectations fromCopenhagen.

He emphasized that India isnot prepared to give up at thisstage and retained the audacity


Cover

Rich countries undercutsuccessful outcome

– G77 & China chargePreoccupied with their interests, even at the expense of the global good, rich countries

effectively undermined Barcelona preparatory works toward the Copenhagen climate summit in December, writes *Meena Raman.

13

to hope to deliver on an interna-tional legally binding outcomethat is equal to meeting theurgent and compelling chal-lenge of global climate change.India said that if those who havepromised to take the lead, wishinstead to fall behind, as adeveloping country, it will notslacken efforts. In many ways,

developing countries arealready doing much more onclimate change than their devel-oped country partners. They aregoing round in circles: ‘I willshow you my targets, when youshow me yours,” said Mr. Saran(referring to the developedcountries’ “refrain.’

For a substantive outcome

in Copenhagen, India said that akey component remained thewillingness of the Annex IParties to come up with signifi-cant emission reduction targets,both for the medium term andthe long term. Kyoto ProtocolParties must do so as part oftheir legal obligations. Theyneed to commit to specific,

legally binding targets for thesecond commitment periodcommencing 2013. Those whoare not Parties to the KyotoProtocol must commit them-selves to comparable commit-ments, as they are obliged to dounder the Bali Action Plan.

Whatever outcome is possi-ble at Copenhagen, India saidthat Parties must ensure thatpost-Copenhagen the UNFCCCcontinues to remain the founda-tion of global climate changeaction. The Bali Action Planequally will continue to providethe mandate of subsequent workand Parties must guard against aweak, declaratory outcome,which then becomes the tem-plate for future work whichwould be a setback.

Egypt’s Mootaz Ahmadeinsaid some progress was made,albeit not on all fronts. Therewere yet serious differences onmany fundamental aspects,especially the nature and scopeof expectations from developedand developing countries; thedifferentiation of responsibili-ties between developed anddeveloping countries; thesources and amount of financ-ing requirements to face theconsequences of climatechange; the scope and role ofmarkets and the private sector infinancing adaptation and miti-gation actions in the developingworld; and whether these areadequate mechanisms to deliverthe financial and technologytransfer obligations of devel-oped countries under theConvention. The outcome ofCopenhagen should thus reflectthe delicate balance betweenthese considerations.

But in reality, both groupshave different expectations fromthat legally binding outcome:Annex I countries would expectmitigation commitments on allParties. They would also like tosee participation from develop-ing countries in the financingefforts. Egypt and other devel-

Cover


UN is leading the Copenhagen climate summit

oping countries, on the otherhand, are expecting legal com-mitments and compliance fromdeveloped countries, on financ-ing and the transfer of technolo-gies for mitigation and adapta-tion actions.

“We are looking for astrong and serious commitmentfor medium and long term emis-sions reduction targets fromAnnex I Parties,” the Egyptianenvoy stressed. Egypt empha-sised that conceptual differ-ences should be addressed. ‘It isnow time to understand thatchanging the Convention, ormoving the goal posts has cometo an end.’

‘Our partners have tounderstand that before askingothers to undertake new com-mitments, one should start toimplement his own in order toset the right example. In thiscontext, it might be useful tostart thinking about streamlin-ing the text objectively by tak-ing out those controversial con-cepts that do not belong to theBali Action Plan, or theConvention, and transfer theissues which relate to the KyotoProtocol to the AWG-KP’, theEgyptian envoy said, addingthat ‘parties should understandthat the success of Copenhagenwill depend on the political willof those who possess the finan-cial and technological means toaddress the challenges of cli-mate change.’

South Africa expressed dis-appointment that developedcountry Parties lacked politicalwill. ‘Instead of showing leader-ship, they are leaving finance tothe markets and want develop-ing countries to pay their way.Technology is simply left tocooperation. Adaptation is to befunded by developing countries.There has been lack of progressin the negotiations in Barcelona. There is need for a strengthenedclimate regime that resolves theclimate crisis and supports sus-tainable development.’

South Africa rejected aweak outcome in the form of a

political declaration. It wants alegally binding two-track out-come, for the amendment toAnnex B of the Kyoto Protocol(for aggregate and individualemission cuts for developedcountries in the second commit-ment period) and a separatelegally binding outcome in theConvention track.

Grenada, speaking for theAlliance of Small Island States(AOSIS), said that the Groupwould not go to Copenhagen toreaffirm the status quo. Therewas need to work with anincreased sense of urgency foran ambitious and comprehen-sive outcome that preserves thelegal nature of commitmentsunder the UNFCCC and theKyoto Protocol. For 15 years, itsaid, there was reliance on thedecisions of the Conference ofParties.

ConcernAOSIS states wanted a

legal outcome and not just COP(Conference of Parties) deci-sions. It expressed deep concernover some quarters that wantedto lower the collective expecta-tions in the legal form and in thecontent of the outcome. It saidthat weak political declarationsare not the solution but finalis-ing a legally binding outcomethat responds to the scale andseriousness of climate change. Itcalled for the sealing of a legaldeal.

Algeria, speaking for theAfrican Group, stressed theneed for new and additionalfinancing which is to be 1.5 percent of the global GDP to sup-port mitigation and reduce cli-mate vulnerability and buildresilience. It emphasised thetwo-track process outcomeunder the AWG-KP and theAWG-LCA in Copenhagen.

One was for the amend-ment of Annex B to the KP(emissions reductions of Annex1 Parties for the second commit-ment period) and a separatelegally binding outcome underthe Convention track. If there is

no outcome in the KyotoProtocol process, there wouldbe no legally binding outcomein the AWG-LCA. There wasneed for significant politicalwill and movement in the nego-tiations.

FrustrationBolivia expressed mixed

feelings and frustration over thenegotiations. It said that devel-oped countries must fulfil theirhistorical debt owed to develop-ing countries for their emissionsand hence, they must commit todeep emission cuts for the sec-ond commitment period underthe Kyoto Protocol and fulfil themandate of the Bali Action Plan.The Latin American countryrejected efforts by developedcountries to get developingcountries to trust the carbonmarkets to deliver on finance,when such trust in markets ledto the devastation in the lives ofmillions following the financialcrisis.

Norway said that followingfrom Bali, it felt there would bea ratifiable treaty as an outcomebut this was now not realistic. Apolitical decision must specifythat a final outcome must be rat-ifiable.

There was need for indus-trial countries to take the lead,with all developing countriesexcept the LDCs participating.There is need for new and addi-tional mechanisms to widen themarkets.

Australia, speaking for theUmbrella Group (developedcountries who are not part of theEU), said that it was pleasedwith the progress made inBarcelona. Its objective inCopenhagen was to ensure arobust and comprehensivelegally binding outcome thatreduces emissions substantially.There was need for significantemissions reductions to beundertaken by developed coun-tries and capture as much aspossible the future growth ofemissions in developing coun-tries. It welcomed major devel-

oping countries to internation-alise their pledges.

The US also said that sub-stantial progress was made inBarcelona. It said that the issueswere complicated, that requirednothing less than a transforma-tion of the energy system. Thereis need for the contribution ofall countries as it wants to see aneffective and equitable agree-ment.

The European Union said itwants a globally ambitiousagreement which keeps temper-atures below two (2) degreesCelsius. There was need to buildon the Kyoto Protocol and takeall that is essential into an inter-nationally legally bindingagreement. This can includequantified emission reductionobjectives; robust reporting;flexibility mechanisms; land-use and land use change; com-pliance mechanism; and aframework for enhanced actionsfor developing countries.

AgreementParties should agree to a

global cut of 50% in emissionsby 2050 with developed coun-tries doing 80-95 per cent cutsbased on 1990 levels. Asregards the 2020 target, devel-oped countries need to urgentlyreduce emissions by 30 per cent,while developing countriesundertake substantial deviationfrom baseline of their emissionsfrom 15-30 per cent. In finance,the EU said both public and pri-vate financing were important.

It also said a quick start tofinancing was needed fromabout five to seven (5-7) billionEuros for the first three years ofthe Copenhagen agreement.Japan said that a fair and effec-tive single new legal instrumentfor a post-2012 framework wasneeded. Japan also suggested toall Parties to clarify their miti-gation actions to be reflected inan international instrument.

*Meena Raman writes for theSUNS published by Third WorldNetwork, Malaysia.

Cover


15

Just weeks away from theCopenhagen Conferenceon Climate Change, no

figures on emission reductionby developed countries (AnnexI Parties) for post-2012 commit-ments are in sight.

Emission reduction targetsso far declared by developedcountries in aggregate rangebetween 13-26 per cent below1990 levels by 2020 as calculat-ed by the Secretariat of the UNFramework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC),and 12-19 per cent by theAlliance of Small Island States(AOSIS), if the US (non-KyotoProtocol party) is included.

This is far below what thescience requires. The prospectsof developed countries comingup with ambitious targets inCopenhagen are not good, asindicated in the final contactgroup session on this issue inBarcelona, Spain, on November6.

The discussion has takenplace in the Ad Hoc WorkingGroup on Further Commitmentsfor Annex I Parties under theKyoto Protocol (AWG-KP)since 2006, and should havebeen finalised by April and June2009 so that the necessaryProtocol amendment to incorpo-rate the next commitment peri-od and targets could be adoptedat the fifth Meeting of Parties inCopenhagen.

Annex I Parties have

delayed tabling their commit-ments citing various reasons,among others, the need for clearrules for Land Use, Land UseChange and Forestry(LULUCF) and the flexibilitymechanisms (CleanDevelopment Mechanism, JointImplementation and EmissionsTrading) under the KyotoProtocol.

Activities in the LULUCFsector provide a way of offset-t i ng emi s s ions , e i t he r by

Cover


Delay tactics on emissionreduction numbers

There are real fears that the world may come out of the Copenhagen summit on climate change almost empty-handed, with nothing substantial to starve the world’s climate from

deteriorating any further as bloc of countries employ delay tactics and uncertainties mount,writes *Hira Jhamtani.

Climate justice : polluters must foot the tub

increasing the removals ofgreenhouse gases from theatmosphere (e.g. by plantingtrees or managing forests), or byreducing emissions (e.g. bycurbing deforestation). UnderArticle 3.3 of the KyotoProtocol, Parties decided thatgreenhouse gas removals andemissions through certain activ-ities - namely, afforestation andreforestation since 1990 - areaccounted for in meeting theKyoto Protocol’s emission tar-gets.

Conversely, emissions fromdeforestation activities will besubtracted from the amount ofemissions that an Annex I Partymay emit over its commitmentperiod.

Under Article 3.4 of theKyoto Protocol, Parties couldelect additional human-inducedactivities related to LULUCF,specifically, forest management,crop-land management, grazingland management and re-vege-tation, to be included in itsaccounting for the first commit-ment period.

In response to this, severaldeveloping countries, notablythe African Group, requestedAnnex I Parties to make a writ-ten submission on the break-down of the figures they haveannounced, indicating howmuch of the target would beachieved through domesticefforts, how much throughLULUCF and the flexibilitymechanisms.

The secretariat then com-piled these figures in a newinformal note dated November6, 2009 that was distributed atthe last contact group session.

Of the Annex I Parties,Australia, Belarus, Canada, theEU, Iceland, Liechtenstein,New Zealand, Norway andSwitzerland provided informa-tion in the paper. Japan said ithad also provided information,but had not been incorporatedinto the secretariat paper due tosome technical error.

Based on the information,the range of figures did not

change as compared to the pre-vious Secretariat paper distrib-uted on 2 November, i.e. 16-23% reduction in aggregatebelow 1990 levels by 2020. Theemission reductions in aggre-gate were based on the invento-ry data that were available onthe UNFCCC website, whichcontains emission estimates upto 2007. Annex 2 of the paperprovides information fromAnnex I Parties about the break-down of their emission reduc-tion pledges in terms of domes-tic efforts, LULUCF and the useof flexibility mechanisms.

The break-down for somecountries is interesting to note.For instance, Canada’sannouncement of 20 per centreduction based on 2006 has apreliminary range of LULUCFof – two (2) to two (2) per centof total 2006 emissions, but nosignificant use of the mecha-nisms. For Norway, LULUCFcovers six (6) per cent, with noindication on the proportion formechanisms.

For the EU, the 20 per centreduction pledge does notinclude LULUCF, while for a30 per cent target, the prelimi-nary range for LULUCF is -3 tothree (3) per cent. Preliminaryestimates for mechanisms arefour (4) per cent for 20 per centof reduction and nine (9) per

cent for 30 per cent reduction.In its submission, New

Zealand said it has not based thestringency of its target pledgeon specific assumptions aboutthe quantity of reductions to bemet domestically due to vari-ability of factors driving emis-sions and reductions.

Japan said it does not havea break-down of domesticaction, LULUCF and mecha-nisms at this point in time. It isstill conducting a detailedanalysis.

Ethiopia, on behalf of theLeast Developed Countries(LDCs), said that many Partieshave not participated actively inthis exercise. If they can giveestimates that are closer to thetruth, it would be helpful.Otherwise, it is very difficult tocome up with a conclusion ornew ideas for the purpose.

Gambia, on behalf of theAfrican Group, said that themain purpose for requesting thisinformation is to ensure thatParties, particularly those whosay they cannot conclude onpledges without LULUCF rulesand mechanisms, can providemore definite figures.

‘We are dismayed,’ it said,‘that such Parties are unwillingto put forward the numbers.Without these numbers, therewould be no movement on the

LULUCF and mechanismsissues. We reiterate that Africawill not give a blank checkbefore we get the figures’. Itasked these countries to gohome and do their homework,and give the figures if they wantto move forward inCopenhagen.

Micronesia, speaking forthe Alliance of Small IslandStates (AOSIS), said the chal-lenge is to understand Table 1(in the informal note of theSecretariat that provides a com-pilation of the pledges by AnnexI Parties). For instance, in thecase of Australia, the table saysthe use of mechanisms has beenincluded in the pledges. But thenarrative in Annex 2 (the writ-ten submission of Annex IParties to indicate the use ofLULUCF and mechanisms)says that the majority of abate-ment measures are to be donedomestically.

Micronesia said that the useof mechanisms can be translatedas 49 per cent. Numbers is whatthis group is about, it stressed.

To this, Australia respondedthat there is a dilemma ‘as weare putting the cart before thehorse’. It said that it has not pro-vided specific figures asrequired because it needs clearrules on land use and markets,and not the other way round.

Cover


Moshi town at the foothills of Mt. Kilimanjaro : may disappear with the last chunk of the mountain’s snow cap


Cover

New Zealand said it is in asimilar position, because thecountry has a land-based econo-my, so LULUCF rules areimportant. “We need to under-stand the rules and their inter-play. Once we have confidenceand certainty, it gives confi-dence. If we do not know therules, we are unable to come outwith outputs,” said the NewZealand envoy.

Norway found it difficult toproduce a number in terms ofpercentage between domesticefforts and the use of mecha-nisms. On LULUCF, it said theassumption is that the presentrules would stay but at sometime there would be the need toimprove them.

Ethiopia said it has heardfrom Annex I Parties the condi-tionality of setting the rulesright.

‘Here is the problem. Weneed to agree on basic princi-ples. Should the rules come firstor the targets. We cannot startwriting the rules, without defin-ing where we want to get to. Ifwe set a clear target, then westart writing rules in order toremove barriers that hinderachieving the target. Writingrules without a target is likestriking in the dark. Settingrules also have inherent prob-lems, right for whom? Rules

should be set together, if somecountries do not like the rules,they should be able to acceptthat. We cannot have rules thatsatisfy all. The LDCs appeal toAnnex I Parties, to be flexibleand provide numbers soon soour work in Copenhagen wouldbe facilitated,’ said Ethiopia.

Micronesia, speaking forAOSIS, said this is about thelevel of ambition in the globalpathway. “The question is: is thelevel of ambition consistentwith the global pathway? “Nomatter what you do with therules, it is plain that the level ofambition is low. Worse still, ifcountries can use LULUCFrules, we will be degrading thelevel of ambition, and may endup with no ambition,” it said.

In response to Ethiopia,New Zealand said that whensetting the rules right, the ques-tion is not just right for whom,but also right for what. ‘For us,they should be right for theenvironment. If we do not getthe rules, we will not walkaway. We will look at the wholepackage. But we need to knowthe rules,’ it said.

South Africa, on behalf ofthe G77 and China, said it maybe useful to illustrate the useful-ness of the information provid-ed. For instance, in the case ofthe EU, for its 20 per cent emis-

sion reduction target, the offsetis projected to amount to four(4) per cent. But when we lookat the 30 per cent target, whichis a ten percent increase, the off-set is nine (9) per cent whichmeans five (5) per cent of thatincrease is offset.

The fundamental questionis then what is preventing theEU from increasing its unilater-al target from 20 to 25 per cent?

Twenty-five per cent emis-sion reduction is not sufficientbut at least it is the bottom rangeof the figures contained in theIntergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) report.

To this, Sweden, on behalfof the EU, said “we are not hereto talk about projections interms of the figures in the table.People can misinterpret withoutthe narrative. It said that the EUdoes not make a 25 per cent uni-lateral commitment, “we haveto ask the political masters. Thecontext of 20per cent reductionand 30 per centreduction wasset two years ago when therewas no offer from the world.Since then, we have seen coun-tries coming with pledges. Buttoo many are still sitting on thefence”.

South Africa said the G77and China acknowledges theEU’s offer and agree that someParties should come off thefence. But there is the opportu-nity to increase the target now.New Zealand said that ‘we werenot asked to increase the levelof ambition. We were asked toprovide data on what proportionof the targets would be domesticeffort and what would bethrough international effort’.

Sudan (which currentlychairs the G77 and China) saidthe message sent by the AfricanGroup was very clear. ‘We seedelaying tactics, we hear aboutuncertainties. Why do we saythis on the last day before theCopenhagen conference? If wehave this way of thinking, wewill not reach a deal. We appealto all Parties to reach a deal. We

think every Party knows what isbehind the figures. It is notabout uncertainty; it’s aboutdelaying,’ it said.

At the end of the session,co-chair Gertraud Wollanskyfrom Austria provided a sum-mary that would be reported tothe AWG-KP plenary.

Bolivia asked for a clarifi-cation on the non-paper thatcontains proposals on this issue,whether it would be revised as adocument for Copenhagen. Theco-chair said it is not their deci-sion and will recommend revi-sion to the chair of the AWG-KPand asked Parties who haveinputs to communicate with theSecretariat.

The co-chairs then posed anumber of questions relating tothe implications of the propos-als on the base year (single ormultiple); the length and num-ber of commitment periods;whether the uncertainty can beresolved in Copenhagen andhow; how to increase level ofambition for emission reduc-tion; and how to translatepledges into quantified emissionlimitations and reduction objec-tives.

Wollansky reminded thegroup that based on the workprogramme for 2009, a draftdecision should have beenadopted at the 7th and 8th ses-sions of the AWG-KP (Apriland June respectively). Thatwas not possible, but there is thedeadline at Copenhagen. Thegroup will be expected to deliv-er its work then.

The contact group closedwith many developing countriesstill questioning how to bridgethe gap between the emissionreduction announcements andwhat the science requires.

They felt the developedcountries were unnecessarilywithholding information, thusundercutting the process toreach a decision.

* Hira Jhamtani writes for theSUNS published by Third WorldNetwork

Cover


The African UnionCommission’s deputychairperson, Erastus

Mwencha, who participated in ahigh level seminar held withinthe framework of the fourth edi-tion of the EuropeanDevelopment Day, has said thetime to act on climate change isnow.

The seminar themed‘Understanding the costs ofadaptation’ was designed toraise awareness and improve

understanding of the costs ofadaptation to climate change,including uncertainties, indeveloping counties as well asimprove understanding on cost-ing, prioritizing and integratingadaptation in development plan-ning and budgetary processes atthe national level, for effectiveuse of resources.

Focusing on the costs ofadaption in Africa, the Deputy-Chairperson observed that,there is sufficient evidence for

action and ‘we should not waituntil we know everything toact’, adding, ‘the time to act isnow’.

Mwencha underscored theneed to screen each project foran opportunity so as to promoteclimate adaptation and reducefuture impacts and establish anational and regional frame-work for action. ‘Delayed adap-tation costs today will meanincreased adaptation costs in thefuture’, said Mwencha, pointing

out that provision of financialresources for implementation ofadaptation measures is criticalfor Africa.

The panel of the seminarwas made up of Raila Odinga,Prime Minister of the Republicof Kenya, Bert Koenders,Minister for DevelopmentCooperation, The Netherlandsand Katherine Sierra, VicePresident for sustainableDevelopment, World Bank.

Time to act on climate change is now, says AU

The AWG-LCA also adopted the following conclusions proposed by the Chair in a document L5:

1. The AWG-LCA requested the secretariat to compile the texts contained in the latest available non-papers produced by the chairs, co-chairs and facilitators of the groups during the seventh session of the AWG-LCA into an annex to the report on its seventh session for facilitating negotiations of the AWG-LCA at its eighth session in order to enable the Conference of the Parties to reach an agreed outcome at its fifteenth session. The report shall be made available in a timely manner, preferably two weeks in advance of the eighth session of the AWG-LCA (this will be in Copenhagen itself).

2. The AWG-LCA reiterated its understanding that all texts and submissions from Parties, including those contained in documents INF.1 and INF.2 remain before the AWG-LCA and that the documentary form does not prejudge the form and legal nature of the agreed outcome envisaged under the Bali Action Plan.(INF.1 refers to the revised negotiating text which was produced on 22 June 2009, while INF.2 refers to the reordered and consolidated revised negotiating text dated 15 September 2009.)

3. The AWG-LCA agreed to carry out its work under agenda item 3 at its eighth session through one contact group in order to conclude its work on all of the elements of the Bali Action Plan in a comprehensive and balanced manner.

In relation to the above conclusions by the Chair (as contained in document L5), South Africa made an interpretative statement that the annexes to the report will not be a basis of negotiations but as documentation to facilitate work. It also said that there was need to agree on how the single contact group that will work in Copenhagen is to be organized.


Development

For Tanzania, seated atopa giant 45 million ouncepot of gold, economical-

ly valued at US$39 billion, thecountry, one of the ten poorestin the world is bound to getpoorer still if the governmentfails to capture a just proportionof royalties and taxes. Thecountry is Africa’s third largestgold producer.

Though US$2.5 billion ingold has been exported duringthe past five years, primarilythrough two major multination-als, Canada’s Barrick Gold, andthe South African-based Anglo-Gold Ashanti (AGA), the gov-ernment has accrued justUS$21-US$22 million perannum on average.

A third of Tanzania’s 36-39million people live on less thana dollar per day. Over the pastdecade, following the 1998Mining Act – the product of afive-year World Bank-financedsectoral reform programme –Tanzania has experienced large-scale mining developmentsincluding the Geita, North Mara

and Tulawaka mines. Gold pro-duction has since increasedfrom 1-2 tonnes per annum in1998 to 50 tonnes, valued atUS$876 per ounce in 2008. Butthe liquidation of Tanzania’sfinite resources has yet to reallybenefit the country, despite therecent five-year commodityboom (2003-2008).

Tanzania is Africa’s third leading gold producer, coming after only South Africa and Ghana. Yet the country hardly benefits from its enormous mineral wealth. Nebulous mining laws and

contracts, crafty mining corporations and official complicity have combined to rob the country of its wealth, writes *Khadija Sharife.

Tanzania’s pot ofgold and taxes

Development


Mines and taxationAccording to a recent

report by Tanzanian lawyer,Tundu Lissu and British histori-an and former researcher atChatham House, Mark Curtis,Barrick Gold failed to declarepayments in royalties and taxesto the government. AGA, pro-ducing three million ounces ofgold from the Geita mine, val-ued at US$1.43 billion at cur-rent gold prices, paid taxes aver-aging US$13 million perannum, cumulatively totalled atUS$96 million (2000-2006).

AGA’s 2006 own countryreport reveals remittancesincluding corporate tax of US$1million paid to the government,along with royalties of US$5.6million, import duties of US$11million, and other indirect taxesof $US8.2 million. Since 2000,stated AGA’s Alan Fine, thecompany has paid US$266 mil-lion in tax.

Meanwhile, allege theauthors of the report, both com-

panies have failed to pay a centtoward corporation tax (peggedat 30 per cent), consistentlydeclaring losses despite makingheavy capital investments. In2008, Barrick’s GeneralManager Greg Walker said,‘Barrick is not paying corpora-tion taxes; we will only startpaying corporation taxes in2014 when we will begin realis-ing profits.’ A leaked report ofUS auditing firm, Alex StewartAssayers (ASA), contracted bythe Tanzanian government in2003, revealed that four goldmining companies, includingBarrick and AGA, deprived thegovernment of US$132 millionvia tax avoidance, by overstat-ing losses of US$502 millionfrom 1999-2003.

Each year, developingcountries lose US$385 billion intax abuse, due to the lack of cor-porate country reports and auto-matic exchange of tax informa-tion. Ironically, the firm, whichdemanded an advance of US$1

million, in addition to fees set at1.9 per cent of the market valueof gold exports, applied for taxexemption. It was mired byaccusations of corruption con-cerning the tender process andallegedly received questionableremittances from the Bank ofTanzania.

Of the report’s government-imposed secrecy, ASA’s chiefexecutive Dr Enrique Segurasaid, ‘the auditing contract waslaced with confidentiality claus-es that virtually ban the auditorsfrom publishing their findings.’This may be because, accordingto Tanzania’s own auditor-gen-eral, 20 per cent of the budget islost to corruption, nor are rev-enues publicly disclosed by thegovernment, or accessible toparliament. Some officials inthe Ministry of Minerals arealleged to own mineral rights,leading to a conflict of interest.Thes officials in the miningdepartment are also alleged todemand bribes before issuing

mining or prospecting licenses,stated the report.

At the current rate ofextraction, 1.6 million ouncesper annum from five majormines (Geita, Tulawaka, NorthMara, Bulyanhulu andBuzwagu), Tanzania’s gold isexpected to last just 28 years, asituation prompting Tanzania’sCommissioner for Minerals todeclare, ‘the companies areholding a panga by the handleand we are getting the sharpend.’

In response to a recentreport, ‘A Golden Opportunity:How Tanzania Is Failing ToBenefit From Gold Mining’,Barrick stated: ‘the 45 millionounces of gold referenced as thebasis for their calculation of aUS$39 billion “fortune” stillreside in the ground. The 45million ounces of gold con-tained in rock in the ground hadutterly no value until someone

Aerial view of the Geita mining complex

21

Development


invested in its discovery anddelineation, nor does it have anyvalue now if it cannot be prof-itably extracted – none. ‘So far,based on the evidence that isavailable to the investors in theTanzanian gold industry andTanzanian Government policymakers, it is not at all clearwhether the large gold depositsin remote parts of Tanzania canbe extracted, processed andmarketed at a profit on a sus-tained basis.’

Corporate advantage Thanks to the 1998 code,

the cornerstone of the country’smining industry, royalty rates –fixed at three per cent and deter-mined not on production value,but instead on ‘netback value’,allowing the company to deductcosts and can also be deferred –has been described ‘as good asan exemption’ by an official ofthe Tanzania RevenueAuthority.

An IMF study (2001) foundthat most royalty rates – rangingfrom 2–30 per cent, are oftenpegged at 5–10 per cent.Countries like Botswana havelargely managed to avoid the‘resource curse’ by fixing royal-ties at 10 per cent, unlikeZambia’s 0.6 per cent, again –the latter negotiated by theWorld Bank.

Were Tanzania to peg ratesat 5 per cent, say the authors,revenue would have risen byUS$61 million over the past

seven years, while a rise to 7.5per cent and 10 per cent wouldhave raised revenue to US$131million and US$300 millionrespectively. The World Bank’sinvolvement in Tanzaniaextends back four decades andUS$4 billion – a strategy theBank (2000) would later admitwas ‘flawed’.

In 1990, the World Bankpublished a Mining SectorReview for Tanzania, coincid-ing with the Bank’sInternational DevelopmentAssociation (IDA) reform ofTanzania’s financial sector. Thisreform included partial liberali-sation and bank privatisation,facilitating the flow of foreigndirect investment – and poten-tial mass capital reversals andflight – by removing controls oninternational transactions.

Further reviews were laterundertaken by the World Bankand Transborder, a UK firm thatmarkets their services and areasof expertise as attracting and

maintaining foreign investmentin the petroleum sector, andmining and minerals sector. Inthe case of Tanzania,Transborder reviewed theTanzanian Companies Act aswell as the country’s legal, fis-cal and regulatory frameworkfor mining, financed by a WorldBank credit to Tanzania.

The product was the foun-dation of the 1998 mineral code.The Act allows:

• 100 per cent ownership of minerals and mines to foreign corporations, preventing the government from entering into joint ventures;

• the right to employ unlimited foreign personnel;

• unrestricted repatriation of capital and profits;

• the right to carry forward and offset losses; and

• various tax exemptions and concessions amongst other hidden subsidies.

According to the ‘tax sta-bility’ provision, the Tanzaniangovernment is forbidden fromrevising tax and royalty rates forthe ‘full project life’ of the min-ing operation. That is until thecompanies willingly leave orthe gold reserves are exhausted.

A 2002 report published bythe government, entitled,Poverty and HumanDevelopment Report, revealedthat ‘despite growth, the shareof mining in GDP is still smallat two (2) per cent. Economiclinkages between mining andthe rest of the economy havebeen limited. The tax/royaltyincentives have so far resultedin limited tax revenues, thoughclearly, increased export earn-ings have been generated.

The report also found,‘Foreign mining companies inTanzania are given up to 5-yeartax holiday at the beginning ofproduction, pay to theTanzanian government a royalty

Taxation by country: US$210 mil-lion (2006)

Argentina: $13 millionAustralia: $25 million Brazil: $38 million Ghana: $5 million Guinea: Mali: $47 million Namibia: $4 million South Africa: $77 million Tanzania: $1 million USA :

(Anglo Gold Ashanti 2006 AnnualReport)

Mining is barely making a positive impact on the country’s economy


Development

fee of only three (3) per cent ofthe value of their mineral out-put, and thereafter are free totake out of the country 100 per-cent of their profits. Most oftheir mining equipment is alsonot taxed.’

Attempts by the govern-ment in 2004 to alter the tax hol-idays granted to mining corpo-rations, resulted in the full forceof ‘home country’ governmentslobbying against implementa-tion.

In 2004, in a letter to theChairman of the Mineral SectorRegulatory System ReviewCommittee, then-Minister forIndustries, Trade andMarketing, Basil Mrambarecounted events: ‘Duringpreparations (for enacting the2004 Act) several foreign diplo-mats based in the countryformed a committee to examinethe proposals which is ratherunusual. As the (then) FinanceMinister, I met twice with themto hear and respond to theirobjections on the method fortaxation of mining incomes ashad been proposed by an expertfrom Oxford University, UnitedKingdom. Eventually, theCabinet decided to shelve anentire portion of that Bill thatrelated to mining.’

According to Lissu andCurtis, Parliament does nothave any access to the contractssigned by the government. ‘Thegovernment’s repeated refusalto make these agreements pub-lic means that elected represen-tatives cannot influence theterms under which foreign min-ing companies extract the coun-try’s most lucrative resource.’

The exception wasBarrick’s leaked Buzwagi con-tract, referring to a mine at itsnamesake in the Shinyangoregion. The contract, negotiatedby Barrick and the government,was signed in a London hotel inFebruary 2007. It allows for thecompany to maintain current taxlevels throughout the ‘life of theproject’, placed at 25 years,with an option for Barrick to

renew the same terms for a fur-ther 25 years:

• VAT exemption; • a cap of US$200 000 in

taxes per annum; • the right to repatriate 100

per cent of profits; • deduct 80 per cent of

capital expenditure from tax payable;

• right of access and acqui-sition of water and land; and

• the right to pursue arbitra-tion in London, or alternately, via the 1998 code, the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, amongst other clauses. The UK is Tanzania’s largest bilateral aid donor, with aid - the centre of Tanzania’s political economy, supply-ing 40 per cent of the country’s budget (2007).

Mining and development Presently, close to 80 per

cent of Africa’s resources areprimary commodities; the bulkof income is derived in threeways: Tax, royalties andemployment. Due to the WorldBank and IMF’s structuraladjustment programme (SAP),marketed as the vehicle toward‘development’, Africaneconomies were located withinthe global economy as produc-ers of raw commodities.

SAP development goalswere described by the WorldBank as, ‘more to do with“global positioning” than withmanagement of the nationalhouseholds’. But as the UnitedNations Conference on Tradeand Development (UNCTAD)reveals, the employment impactof large-scale mining is negligi-ble at best. ‘Large-scale mineralextraction generally offers lim-ited employment opportunities,and hence has little impact onemployment,’ said the UN tradebody.

A survey by the World

Bank (1995) puts the number ofTanzania’s artisanal miners at550 000, a figure said to havetripled over the followingdecade. In 2004, a report by theBritish government’sDepartment for InternationalDevelopment (DFID) describedartisanal mining as possessing,‘considerable potential toreduce poverty. What emergesfrom the study is that incomefrom mining, particularly goldmining, is a more regular sourceof income than from otherlivelihood sources and it hasbeen instrumental in reducinghousehold food shortages.’

Monthly payments for mineworkers average $120 - $240,similar to what artisanal minerscan expect to earn. In Tanzania,10,000 miners are employed inthe gold industry by multina-tionals, with little in the way ofcollective bargaining. In 2006,AGA placed the figure ofunionised workers at 3.1 percent.

Failure to capture, disclose,transparently monitor and investrevenue from liquidated finiteresources has resulted in a con-tinent consistently mired in the‘resource curse’, with govern-ments holding themselvesaccountable to corporationsonly.

Ecological costLess than 17 per cent of

Sub-Saharan Africa’s GDPcomes from tax, a figure thathas remained stagnant duringthe past 14 years; grants or ‘aid’often exceed non-grant rev-enues in countries like Zambiaand Sierra Leone. Yet, theimpact of large-scale gold min-ing is not limited to revenue, butincludes the loss of scarceecosystem. The economic costof pollution and its impact onsurrounding communities andecologies is enormous.

For every ounce of goldextracted, 79 tonnes of waste iscreated, leaching toxic heavymetals such mercury, arson andlead into the ecosystem.

Meanwhile, sulphides releasedfrom crushed rock interact withwater and air to form sulphuricacid, causing acid minedrainage (AMD). Gold is oftenextracted using cyanide, a dead-ly chemical and vital reagent,via a leaching process. In 2008,AGA’s cyanide use increased bysix (6) per cent to 26,803,755kilograms, or 5kg per ounce.AGA’s use of cyanide inTanzania totaled 2,226,000kg in2008.

AGA, a signatory to theCyanide Code, asserts that thelegacy of pollution emanatingfrom the Geita mine is also root-ed in the country’s colonial his-tory, with 4.5 million tonnes oftoxic tailings having alreadycontaminated aquatic, wetlandand other vegetations. A 2007study by Cornell Universityrevealed that 40 per cent of theworld’s death toll is caused bypollutants contaminating air,soil and water resources, whichsaw industrial, specifically goldmining, ranked as one of twolead causes.

The latter issue recentlycame to the fore following alle-gations of AMD contaminatedwater from Barrick’s NorthMara gold mine leaching intothe Tigithe River, pressing thegovernment to ban water usagenear the mine in July. ‘The min-ing companies proclaim to havea policy of zero discharge, butthis is not the reality,’ statedLissu. ‘But I believe that thingscan change for the better,’ hecontinued. ‘There are only twoways to change the situation.The first is to allow the govern-ment to enter in joint ventureswith the corporations. The sec-ond is for us, Tanzanians, tostand up and demand a seat atthe table. It will not be given tous for nothing. We have to earnit.’

*Khadija Sharife is a journalistand a visiting scholar at theCentre for Civil Society (CCS) in South Africa. This arti-cle first published in The Thinkerand www.pambazukaorg.


Development

Aconstitutional petitionhas been filed in theHigh Court, seeking to

have all the mining contractsentered into by the governmentwithout Parliament’s approvaldeclared null and avoid, in an

effort to curb the plunder of thecountry’s natural resources.

A Dar-es-Salaam-basedenvironmental and human rightsactivist, Rugemeleza Nshala,and a company called MteteziLimited, have sued the Minister

for Energy and Minerals and theAttorney General.

They want the court toimmediately stop the operationsof the holders of special mininglicences and mining companiesthat have signed Mining

Development Agreements(MDAs) with the government‘because their activities areunconstitutional’.

The petitioners claim thatthe powers conferred on theMinister for Energy andMinerals to sign MDAs areunconstitutional, as they inter-fere with the duties of otherministries, councils, agenciesand departments of the State.

The petitioners are chal-lenging the Mining Act No. 5 of1998 that gives the ministerpowers to sign MDAs on behalfof the government.

Tanzanian government suedover mining contracts

Heavily endowed witha wide range of minerals, gems andmetals such as goldand tanzanite,Tanzania is a majormining country inAfrica but it hasfailed to maximizereturns from its mineral resources, inpart, because ofporous mining contracts. ‘Enough isenough’, says a localorganisation whichhas just sued the government in a HighCourt to abrogate allmining contractssigned without theapproval of the country’s Parliament,writes *BernardJames.

Tanzania’s President Jakaya Kikwete

Development


They now want the court todeclare that all the MDAssigned with the holders of thespecial mining licences, whichwere not approved byParliament in line with themandatory requirements of arti-cles 63 (3) (a-e) of theConstitution, be scrapped.

The article gives theNational Assembly powers todeliberate on and ratify alltreaties and agreements towhich the United Republic ofTanzania is a party, and listsprovisions, which require ratifi-cation. It also empowersParliament to put any questionsto any minister concerning pub-lic affairs.

The petitioners are accus-ing the Energy Minister ofgranting mining concessions toforeign mining companies ofunlawfully, and allocating largeareas that were initially ownedby local communities and arti-sanal miners to transnationalfirms.

They assert that the alloca-tions are responsible for theforceful displacement of mil-lions of agriculturalists, peas-ants, pastoralists and artisanalminers from their lands, in totaldisregard of their land and prop-erty rights enshrined and pro-tected in the Constitution.

The petitioners want thecourt to order that all the peopledisplaced to make way forlarge-scale mining be resettledon their land and paid compen-sation.

‘We feel that our country’smineral resources are beingsquandered, as the currentexploitation is only benefitingthe foreign mining companiesand yet the current mining andits taxation legal regime are notonly illegal, but also unconstitu-tional,’ they argue.

The petitioners also arguethat the granting of mining con-cessions to foreign companiesthrough local affiliates underthe guise of Section 10 (1) and(2) of the Mining Act No 51998, not only grants uncon-

scionable incentives to thosefirms, but also purports to sup-plant the laws of the land, andcurtail the legislative powers ofParliament.

The section preventsParliament from passing anylaw that might in ‘one way oranother interfere with their tax,social and economic obligationsthat they found at the time theycame to invest in the country’.

The petitioners claim that‘the curtailment of the parlia-mentary powers is not onlywantonly violates Article 13,which calls for equal treatmentunder the law, but also the entiredemocratic frameworkenshrined in the Constitution.’

Article 63 (3) (a) to (e) ofTanzania’s constitution grantsParliament powers to oversee,monitor and supervise the work-ings and operations of the gov-ernment, including the ratifica-tion of all agreements signed inthe name of the republic.

‘Yet the respondents havenever presented any MiningDevelopment Agreement(MDAs) signed with foreignmining companies to Parliamentfor deliberation, review, ratifi-cation or rejection.’

The petitioners are alsoaccusing the government ofgranting ‘generous and unwiseincentives’, including tax-holi-days, tax exemptions, ‘unlimit-ed immigration quotas for theirso-called experts’, and the fuellevy, all of which, they claim,

have led to the plunder thecountry’s mineral resources.

To back up their petition,the petitioners are citing the tax-free sale of several mining com-panies. These include LusuGold Mine, which was sold bySamax Resources of Canada toAshanti Goldfield (nowAnglogold Ashanti) in 1998, at$213 million, the BulyanhuluGold Mine disposed of bySutton Resources of Canada toBarrick Gold, at $348 million in1999, and Nyabigena andNyabirama mines in Tarime dis-trict that were sold by EastAfrica Gold Mine to the PlacerDome at $252 million.

Petitioners say, during thehearing, they will demand thatthe minister and the AG producein court all documents on thesale of those assets by the for-eign mining companies.

They will also rely heavilyon the findings of commissionon mining management (theBomani team) appointed byPresident Kikwete in 2007.

According to the Bomanireport, while the foreign miningcompanies were raking in mil-lions of dollars from Tanzania’smineral resources, they paid noincome tax and still enjoyed alot of tax waivers.

The petitioners will adduceevidence proof show to thecourt how six foreign miningcompanies were granted anExcise duty waiver of Sh39.8billion and Sh59.0 billion in

2006/07 and 2007/08, respec-tively.

The petitioners also chal-lenge Section 10 (1) and (2) ofthe Mining Act No. 5 1998,which allows the minister tolimit environmental manage-ment responsibilities of theholders of special mininglicences, the obligations ofwhich are demanded by sectoralenvironmental legislation andthe Environmental ManagementAct No 20, 2004.

Nshala and the companyare also challenging the disputesettlement procedure by wayinternational arbitration, as setout in the Mining Act 1998.

It is their contention thatthe procedure voids the jurisdic-tion of domestic courts in deter-mining mining investment dis-putes, contrary to Article 107(1) of the Constitution, whichvests in the Judiciary the powersto hear and determine all dis-putes arising in the country.

The petitioners are accus-ing the government of abdicat-ing its responsibility of policydesign, formulation and imple-mentation and becoming anagent of the World Bank, imple-menting the latter’s dictates,including the Strategy forAfrican Mining, 1992, whichpaved the way for enactment ofthe Mining Act, No 5, 1998.

*Bernard James writes for TheCitizen newspaper in Tanzania.

Geita mines owned by Anglo Gold Ashanti

Social Watch, the interna-tional network of citizen’sorganizations engaged in

the fight against poverty, equi-table distribution of wealth andrealization of human rights, hasheld its 4th General Assemblyin Accra, Ghana’s capital.

The meeting, the first to beheld in Africa since SocialWatch was formed in 1995, wason the theme ‘People First:Social Watch’s response to the

global crisis’. The Assemblywhich is a ‘space for reinforcingthe sense of belonging tostrengthening the network’sidentity and unity’, examinedthe implications of the systemiccrisis on human, gender andsocial rights and proffered alter-native solutions to these globalchallenges.

The Accra GeneralAssembly, said Dr. RoseMensah-Kutin, convenor of

Network for Women’s Rights inGhana (NETRIGHT), also ana-lyzed and deepened membersunderstanding of the ‘social andenvironmental impacts of theglobal economic and financialcrisis on women, and explored‘what our governments aredoing about it and what we our-selves are doing about it as civilsociety coalitions.’ NETRIGHTis convenor of Social WatchGhana.

The Assembly, whichmeets every three years, set itsmedium- and long-term priori-ties and identified potentialalliances in advocacy strategy.Participants also elected mem-bers of the CoordinatingCommittee to coordinate andoffer political leadershipbetween assemblies.

Ghana’s vice presidentJohn Mahama, who was thespecial guest at the opening

Development


Social Watch rejects expandingrole of IMF, World Bank, G-20Social Watch held its Annual Assembly in Accra, Ghana’s capital. The meeting organized

once every three years attracted over 100 participants from 60 countries (both developing and developed) and explored the systemic crisis laid bare by the global financial crisis and

alternative solutions to it, writes *Kwesi W. Obeng.

26

ceremony, said relentlessdemands by citizen groups andsocial movements, such asSocial Watch, for accountabilityfrom both governments andinternational institutions havehad significant impact onnational and global policy deci-sion-making processes andimplementation of adopted poli-cies.

The Ghana government,vice president Mahama said,will not shirk its social contractwith the people by sacrificingtheir welfare on the altar of fis-cal and monetary expediency’.As such, government has itseyes ‘wide open’ in the coun-try’s dealings with theInternational Monetary Fund(IMF), World Bank and othermultilateral institutions.

He noted that the Ghanagovernment has initiated a sta-bilization programme against

the financial and economicdownturn with support from theIMF and the World Bank,adding government is cautious-ly engaged with these multilat-eral institutions.

Ghana and Botswana, twoof Africa’s best performingeconomies in the last decade areamong a long list of Africancountries which have sprinted tothe Bretton Woods institutionsand other IFIs for loans andother forms of assistance to con-tain the rippling effects of theglobal financial and economicmeltdown.

In July, the Ghana govern-ment secured US$1.1 billionfrom the IMF after a two-yearbreak from receiving financialhelp from the leading IFI.Earlier in June, Botswana, fordecades Africa’s best governedcountry, secured US$1.5-billionin financial assistance from the

African Development Bank(AfDB) as the country’s dia-mond industry came apart as aresult of collapse in the priceand dwindling demand for theprecious gem.

The US$1.5-billion toBotswana is the largest assis-tance the AfDB has ever award-ed to a single country. It is alsothe first time Botswana hasgone to any IFI for help in thepast seventeen (17) years.

The vice president ofGhana also admitted that inspite of the rising optimism insome parts of the world that anupturn in the global economy isin sight, the same cannot be saidof Ghana or Africa as a whole.‘For many millions around theworld, it will take many years torecover from the negativeimpacts of the multiple crisis –starting with the food crisis, fuelcrisis and financial crisis. These

optimistic pronouncements,therefore, do not reflect the real-ity as they affect millions ofAfricans on the ground,’Mahama observed.

Indeed, the world haschanged rather dramaticallysince the last Social WatchGeneral Assembly held in Sofia,Bulgaria in 2006. Lead amongthese changes are the globalfinancial and economic criseswhich erupted in September2008 (and symbolized by theexplosion of Lehman Brothers,the American investment bank-ing giant); emergence of a newglobal power bloc – BRIC(Brazil, Russia, India andChina) and a freeze up of theDoha Round of World TradeOrganisation’s (WTO) tradenegotiations.

There is also the increasingglobal recognition of climatechange as man-made and the


Development

Participants at the meeting

threats the phenomenon posesto life on the earth along withintransigence of rich countriesto accept the notion of ‘climatejustice’; election of BarackObama as president of theUnited States on a platform ofchange and signals of a changein tact in favour of multilateral-ism in US foreign policy;expansion of G-8 to G-20 andthe formation and deepening ofdeveloping and least developingcountry coalitions as well asmovements such as the G-33and G-77 and soaring popularmistrust of the domineeringneo-liberal economic, financialand political institutions.

Dr. Yao Graham, coordina-tor of Third World Network-Africa (TWN-Af) in a keynotespeech said the financial crisisand the damage it has wreakedon the global economy raises anumber of issues. Key amongthe issues thrown up by thefinancial crisis includes the roleof the state in development, theimportance of regionalism andglobal economic balance.TWN-Afr co-hosted the 4thGeneral Assembly of SocialWatch with NETRIGHT.

Historically, Grahamobserved, when the developedcountries of the North were insurplus, the IFIs did not manageor regulate them. Therefore,there was a fairly high probabil-ity that surpluses in emergingeconomies especially in the FarEast could go unregulated.

He said just as in the past, itwas conceivable that the IMFand World Bank could wellbecome very useful tools to thenew and emerging economicand political powers, especiallyChina and India. This clearlyhas implications for the globaleconomy particularlyeconomies of the developingworld.

On the role of the state indevelopment, Graham said thecrisis draws to the fore thestate’s interventionist role is notonly at the local arena but alsoat the global level, pointing out

that Brazil is the fourth largestiron ore producer in the worldand the country owns and runsthe profit-making CompanhiaVale Do Rio Doce (CVRD).Brazil’s CVRD is the world’slargest iron ore producer andexporter.

Graham also noted that therole of the state is not just sim-ply as an intervener but also asan actor, pointing out that theregional is going to be extreme-ly important even as the majorpowers move to create newalliances.

The General Assembly isthe highest directive body ofSocial Watch. The first threegeneral assembly meetings wereheld in Rome, Italy (2000),Beirut, Lebanon (2003) andSofia, Bulgaria (2006). Manila,Philippines will host the 2012General Assembly.

Created in 1995, SocialWatch is a network of NGOswith members from over 60countries across the world. Ithas served as an importantmeeting place for non-govern-mental organisations concernedwith social, development and

gender discriminations,’responding to the need to pro-mote the political will requiredfor making the United Nationspromises come true. The 2009Assembly undertook to raise thenumber of its members in devel-oping countries especially inAfrica.

The United Nationsremains Social Watch’s princi-pal target as the ‘legitimate uni-versal institution’. The AccraAssembly, however, expressedits opposition to the increasingrole of the G-20 forum andattempts to expand and re-enforce the role of the WorldBank and the InternationalMonetary Fund. But theAssembly reaffirmed the net-work’s support for the creationand strengthening of regionalalternatives ‘that reflect aspira-tions of the poor and marginal-ized populations.’

Since its creation 14 yearsago, the network which contin-ues to expand, both quantita-tively and qualitatively, haspublished 14 yearly ‘SocialWatch’ reports on progress andsetbacks in the struggle against

poverty and for gender equality.These reports have been partic-ularly useful as tools for advo-cacy on all fronts – local,national, regional and interna-tional levels.

The 2009 Social Watchreport titled ‘Making financeswork: People First’ and pre-pared by over 60 CSOs fromacross the world was launchedon September 25, 2009 at theUnited Nations Plaza in NewYork City. The report was alsolaunched in many other coun-tries including Ghana whichtook place on October 7, 2009.

The 2009 report succinctlyshows that the best way out ofthe current economic and eco-logical crisis is to devote moreresources and technology tostrengthen people’s well-being.

In August 2009, SocialWatch established a permanentoffice in New York to enable theorganization to maintain contin-uous presence at the UN andalso to coordinate advocacyefforts with country missions atthe UN head office.

*Kwesi W. Obeng is assistant edi-tor of African Agenda.


Development

Roberto Bissio, Social Watch Coordinator


President ArmandoGuebuza was re-electedon October 28 with a

record vote of nearly three mil-lion, with the opposition votefalling below one million for thefirst time. Frelimo will have 191of the 250 seats in parliament(Assembleia da República, AR),also a record in the four multi-party elections since 1994.

Afonso Dhlakama, guerril-la leader of Renamo in the1980s and presidential candi-date in all four elections, fellfrom his peak vote of 2.1 mil-lion in 1999 to only 650,000 thisyear. Daviz Simango, mayor ofBeira and leader of a new party,MDM (Movimento

Democrático de Moçambique,Mozambique DemocraticMovement), gained 340,000,8.6 per cent of the vote, thelargest ever for a third candi-date, and established himself asthe first credible opposition fig-ure from a younger generation.

Turnout was 45 per cent,similar to 2004, but much belowthe high levels of 1994 and1999. In the presidential con-test, blank votes, with no markfor any candidate, were six (6)per cent of the total – double thelevel of 2004 but similar to1994 and 1999.

Also in the presidentialelection invalid votes (nulos –mainly ballot papers marked for

two candidates) were four (4)per cent of the total, significant-ly higher than in previous elec-tions. We believe that at leastone per cent of all ballot papers– perhaps 40,000 or more – arevotes for the opposition whichwere tampered with by pollingstation staff – usually adding anextra ink mark to make theminvalid.

There were also widespreadindications of ballot box stuff-ing, with polling stations inTete, Gaza and Niassa withnearly 100 per cent turnout, andnearly everyone voting forFrelimo. The National ElectionsCommission (CNE) appears tohave excluded 104,000 ballot

papers (2.6 per cent of the totalvote) where ballot box stuffingwas suspected, although this hasnot been confirmed becausechanges to results made by theCNE are secret.

In the parliamentary elec-tion, Frelimo won a majority inall provinces except Sofala,where Frelimo has 10 seats,Renamo five (5) and the MDMfive (5)5. In Maputo city, MDMwon three (3) seats. In a deci-sion which triggered some con-troversy, MDM was allowed tostand in only four provinces,and excluded from seven (7)because it did not presentenough candidates. MDM

Mozambique fluffs chanceto deepen democracy

As in 2004, the ruling Frelimo party’s overwhelming victory in 2009 is tainted by misconduct,unfairness, secrecy, and confusion. Lead international observer groups, Commonwealth, EISAand the European Union, all strongly criticized the polls. The Bulletin looks at three areas ofcriticism: the lack of fairness and a “level playing field”; obsessive secrecy and lack of trans-

parency; and legal and procedural confusions and incompetence.

Politics

President Guebuza casts his ballot

Politics


claims it submitted documentsfor enough candidates but can-not show copies, while the CNEacts in secret and does not makerecords public, so Frelimo usedthe Renamo-designed procedurefor selecting representatives ofcivil society as members of theelections commissions to ensurethat many of the people from“civil society” were sympathet-ic to Frelimo. It was all legal;Frelimo simply saw better thanRenamo how to use the law toits advantage. Nevertheless, itleft a bad taste in the mouth.And it created elections com-missions whose sympathieswere known and were assumedto be biased, and it was assumed

that one party had an unfairadvantage. This linked directlyto the CNE’s obsessive secrecyand lack of transparency – doc-uments which were secret (butshould have been public) foundtheir way into Frelimo handsbut not those of the opposition.

Changing the rules A key issue relates to the

five documents that each candi-dates had to present – certifiedcopies of birth certificate, iden-tity card and voters card; a cer-tificate of no criminal record;and a letter saying they agree tostand and are eligible. This hadbeen required in all previouselections, but the two 2007 laws(7/2007 and 10/2007) relaxedthis and required fewer docu-ments. But law 15/2009 passedon 9 April this year in anattempt to correct variousinconsistencies also reintro-duced the need for more docu-ments. Parties still had morethan three months to collect thedocuments, but at that pointinequality kicks in – inevitably,

officials act quickly to give doc-uments to Frelimo officials(who may also be their superi-ors in the civil service), whereasit may take weeks longer foropposition parties to obtain thesame documents. Thus the com-bination of a law making itharder for candidates passedlate in the day and an unsympa-thetic civil service suddenly tiltsthe playing field – the opposi-tion is kicking the ball uphill.

Frelimo, with moreresources, could cover all even-tualities; the new oppositionparty MDM (MovimentoDemocrático de Moçambique,Mozambique DemocraticMovement) was left to guess asto how the law was to be inter-preted. The CNE may haveapplied the rules equally to all,but by not telling the partiesprecisely what the rules were,they again gave advantage tothe stronger party.

When party and stateoverlap

In a predominant party statesuch as Mozambique there is aninevitable overlap betweenparty and state. The question offairness or level playing fieldrevolves around how those linksand power are used. Do civilservants treat all parties equally,or is power abused?

One of our local journalistsoffended a district administratorwith a report in the Bulletin.The district administrator tele-phoned the provincial STAE(Technical Secretariat forElectoral Administration) anddemanded that STAE withdrawthe journalist’s press credential.STAE is supposed to be a neu-tral administrative body. Butdistrict administrators are pow-erful both in the party and stateapparatus, so provincial STAEwithdrew the credential.

Use of state resources andcars is another part of the pack-age.

Across the country, civilservants delayed issuing docu-ments to opposition parties, and

in a few places even refused toissue credentials to party pollingstation delegates. And out of the90,000 polling station staff,1000 or more thought that firsttheir duty was to the rulingparty and not to a fair election,and stuffed ballot boxes orimproperly invalidated votes forthe opposition – or stood by andsaid nothing when other mem-bers of the team did so. Theyassumed that Frelimo wouldprotect them, and they wouldnever be identified or prosecut-ed, and they are probably right.

No single item makes theprocess unfair, or tilts the play-ing field too much. But takentogether, the playing field forthis election was on the side of avery steep hill, and the keyobservation groups are right tobe critical.

To be internationallyacceptable, some more balanceand fairness will be required.And, at the end of the day, it isFrelimo which will have tomake the political choice – isthe risk of losing fair electionsin 2013 and 2014 so great that itneeds to ignore internationalcriticism, or is it genuinely pop-ular and able to win fair elec-tions?

Unusual secrecy The Mozambican govern-

ment – and even members of theNational Elections Commission– apparently do not realise thatthe level of secrecy and lack oftransparency in theMozambican electoral processis not normal in democracies.

The problem starts with theelectoral laws themselves,which give the NationalElections Commission the rightto change results, in secret, andwithout listing or explainingchanges. The law does notrequire secrecy, but does notdemand transparency, and hasconsistently been interpreted inthe most narrow way byNational ElectionsCommissions over the years.

In 1994 it could be argued

that so soon after the war, therewas still substantial distrustbetween Frelimo and Renamo,and that in order to smooth thetransition from war to peace, itwas necessary to allow spacefor political deals in secret. But15 years later, expectations havechanged. Mozambican civilsociety and internationalobservers no longer judgeMozambique’s elections bypost-war standards, but by thestandards of other democracies.Nor is it difficult to providetransparency; the smooth run-ning of polling day shows thatthe CNE and STAE can success-fully run a very complex opera-tion. And, as Mark Stevens ofthe Commonwealth observerteam noted, Mozambique is amember of the Commonwealthand that “elsewhere in theCommonwealth, such trans-parency is easily provided.”

Basic information about theelectoral process was neverpublished. A complete list ofapproved candidates for nation-al and provincial parliamentswas never published, makingMozambique one of the fewdemocracies in which citizensdo not know the names of thepeople for whom they are vot-ing. Amazingly, lists were givento observer groups, but werenever made available to the vot-ers.

Similarly, a full list ofpolling stations was never pub-lished. Lists (with errors) werepublished in Noticias and on theCNE website, but only ofpolling centres or locations.Thus the list says, for example,that the primary school inImpaca, Pebane, has 4 pollingstations. But it does not give thepolling station number or theregister book number; eventhough such lists exist, they arekept secret.

The bizarre secrecy ofpolling station numbers made itmore difficult for parties toorganise their party delegatesand for the ElectoralObservatory to organise its

Parliamentary seats in 4 elections

1994 1999 2004 2009

Frelimo 129 133 160 191

Renamo 112 117 90 51

Others 9 8


Politics

sample count. The computerisedrecords of the voting are avail-able to observers and media, butthe only way to access the infor-mation is by polling stationnumber, which is secret.

Going back to the veryselection of civil society mem-bers of election commissions,there was never an explanationof why some were selected andothers were not. In SouthAfrica, for example, selection ofmembers of the election com-mission is a very public process.

Most CNE decisions anddeliberations remain secret andwere never published. Yet somewere published promptly andothers only after long delays. Akey document relating to thevote tabulation process(Deliberação n.º 69/CNE/2009)was approved by the CNE on 27September and was made avail-able to those who knew it exist-ed and asked for it, but it wasnot put on the CNE websiteuntil a month later, on 27October, the day before theelections.

It is not just the internation-al community and Mozambicancivil society who complainabout the secrecy. In its rulingon 19 January 2005, theConstitutional Council said “theprinciple of transparency of theelectoral process is an essentialelement of its national and inter-national credibility.”

When the present NationalElections Commission (CNE)was appointed in 2007, it wasclear that it had a huge work-load to prepare a new registra-tion and four elections – munic-ipal, provincial, parliamentaryand presidential. The law recog-nised this, and said that mem-bership in the CNE was exclu-sive and full time – no otheremployment was allowed. Butone of the first decisions of thenew CNE was that the law didnot apply to them, and CNEmembers could continue also intheir previous positions.

Nevertheless the part-timeCNE had two years to prepare

for this year’s elections, andnothing that happened in thepast six months was unexpect-ed. An early problem facing theCNE was that the existing elec-tion legislation has been built upover time, and in places is con-tradictory. With CNE help, par-liament (Assembleia daRepública) passed a new law –which corrected some problemsbut created new ones.

Secrecy means we do notknow if the CNE studied thelaws and worked out how it wasgoing to interpret the laws andresolve the various contradic-tions. Parties and media wereleft to interpret the laws as bestthey could. Where the CNE didagree a limited set of tabulationguidelines, it was three weeksbefore they were published onthe CNE website. (And its web-site was down for much of thepost-election period.)

ContradictionsSometimes the CNEs own

documents were contradictory.The ruling which rejected theMDM lists for most provincessays on page 6 in a section head-ed “procedural irregularities”that “candidates lists withoutindividual candidate’s files”were “defects” which could beresolved in the five daysallowed to the parties to correctsuch defects in submitted docu-ments. But then on page 9 in asection of “overcoming proce-dural irregularities” the deliber-ation says that the lack of a fileis not a defect which can beovercome and that candidateswithout files were automaticallyrejected. This contradiction iscrucial, because if the first state-ment was followed, MDMwould have been able to submitthe missing files.

After two years of plan-ning, how did the CNE notexpect thousands of files with atleast 10,000 documents on 29July?

But the confusion did notstop there. The boxes of fileswere simply passed on to CNE

members to check, with no pre-arranged system. Each teamacted in its own way, and differ-ent decisions were made andletters sent to parties containeddifferent kinds of information.The CNE was so overwhelmedthat it did not give the partiesthe chance to appeal as set out inthe law.

The same thing happenedwith the district and provincialcounts. No instructions weregiven; district STAE teams satwith the law, a very limitedCNE guidance note, and a pock-et calculator and had to decidewhat to do. Some districts sim-ply went though the polling sta-tion results sheets (editais) foreach candidate and keyed thenumbers into the calculator;others wrote them on tallysheets and added up thecolumns. The same lack ofdirection was repeated atprovincial level.

Transparency“The work of the National

Elections Commission, as apublic institution, must be pub-lic. It is the only way to ensureconfidence. The CNE may beacting perfectly properly, but itmust show that to the public bybeing transparent,” explainedMark Stevens of theCommonwealth observer team.

That approach has not beentaken by the CNE. Some mem-bers take the opposite view, thatthey were appointed to this jobbecause of their integrity, andany demand for more informa-tion and transparency is a per-sonal attack on their integrityand trustworthiness.

Unfortunately, that has notbeen accepted. As the EUobservers noted, “there is a gen-eral lack of trust in the inde-pendence of the CNE, due inparticular to insufficient meas-ures to improve transparency”.

The candidates lists are oneplace where competence, trans-parency and trust come together.For at least a week after thedeadline, the CNE was still

posting lists of candidates out-side its offices in Maputo; someof the lists had errors or too fewcandidates. No other list waspublished, and the day beforethe election, the CNE was stillediting the version to eventuallybe published in Boletim daRepública. Amazingly, there isno public record of the originalcandidates lists. So it is widelyassumed that the CNE contin-ued to change and amend thelists well after the legal dead-line, as happened with the BeiraRenamo list in 2003 local elec-tions.

Thus a lack of competenceor capacity meaning lists werenot posted in time, plus a lack oftrans-parency by not putting theoriginal lists on the web, leadsto total lack of trust and anassumption of bias.

Much the same occurredwith the exclusion of the MDMfrom some provinces. Lack oftransparency means that all weknow for sure is that the secretinternal mapa de controlo(activity log) given to theConstitutional Council dis-agrees with a letter sent by theCNE to the MDM. For CaboDelgado, the letter sent to theMDM says that three candidateswere missing criminal recordscertificates (and these were sup-plied), yet the mapa de controlosays that the three submitted nofiles at all and thus were exclud-ed. Lack of competence, intelling two groups two differentthings, combined with total lackof transparency, leads again tolack of trust and the assumptionthat MDM was treated unfairly.

It could have been the lackof planning and agreed systemsthat caused the problem of thecontradictory documents. Butthis only leads to the assump-tion that the lack of transparen-cy is an attempt to cover up dis-organisation, rather than tocover up unfairness.

The Bulletin, The MozambiquePolitical Process Bulletin hasbeen published since the peaceaccord in 1992

Since the signing of theComprehensive PeaceAgreement (CPA) in

2005, which ended the 21 yearsof civil war in the south, elabo-rate and ambitious plans havebeen made for elections, whichthe people will excitedly takepart in next year.

Before Sudan went to warin 1983, women were not

allowed to vie for politicaloffice or to vote. Next April,they will be asked to cast theirballots in a contest in which 25per cent of seats have beenreserved for women.

The excitement is also tem-pered, however, by concernsover the major obstacles womenface in exercising their demo-cratic rights.

Literacy Illiteracy presents one of

the biggest obstacles to wom-ens’ empowerment. Mostwomen in South Sudan havenever had any formal educationand are unable to read and write.

“Although women form themajority of the population, mostare not educated and as a result,

it is possible most people willvote for the wrong parties,” saysMichael Huda Daudi Laila,minister of health in CentralEquatorial State.

The problem is compound-ed by the complexity of the poll.Voters will be expected to cast12 different ballots, which mayprove to be overwhelming.

Women


Complicating the vote for women In April 2010, the people of South Sudan will vote in a milestone general election, and for thefirst time, South Sudanese women will be able to participate but as *Ruth Omukhango writes

they are challenges facing women voters.

Sewing at a textile factory

32

Lucie Luguga, UnitedNations Development Fund forWomen (UNIFEM) programmemanager in South Sudan, fearsthe number of votes each indi-vidual will be required to castwill mean voting can]t be fin-ished in the one day set aside forthe election.

To demonstrate how longcasting ballots could take,UNIFEM South Sudan officecarried out a mock votingprocess with women in one vil-lage, and found that it took closeto 45 minutes for each womanto cast all 12 ballot papers. Thewomen were also angry over theamount of time they werespending in the exercise.

“Some women even walkedaway before the exercise wasover,” says Luguga. “We couldnot finish voting for even fivepeople within one day. Thewomen were annoyed with usbecause they thought that wewere wasting their time and thatwe invented our own votingprocess.”

UNIFEM’s findings aresupported by the InternationalInstitute for Democracy andElectoral Assistance (IDEA) inKhartoum, which has carriedout its own research on the via-bility of the electoral process.

Voter educationIDEA programme officer

Cecilia Poni Joshua says aneducated person will need 36minutes to vote and an illiterateperson could take twice as longbecause they would requireassistance.

Jersa Kide Barsaba, a mem-ber of the Southern Sudan HighElections Committee, says thatfor the process to be successful,intense civic education must becarried out. “This electoralprocess is going to be the mostcomplicated ever and needscomprehensive voter educa-tion,” she says.

The vastness of SouthSudan, and its poor transportand communication infrastruc-ture, is expected to exacerbatethe situation, though Barsaba

says election officials plan toput up as many voting centres aspossible. “We have bought andhired vehicles that will transportvoters who are far from votingcentres, with the help of chiefs.”

Despite widespread scepti-cism over feasibility and thebarriers people face, theElection Commission is confi-dent that the elections will beaccomplished in one day.Barsaba points out, however, ifthis proves impossible, theCommission is empowered toextend the polling period.

Election day aside, voterregistration presents anotherchallenge. Voter registrationbegan in August and is sched-uled to end on Nov. 30, butaccording to observers, this isnot sufficient time.

BriberyMany people, particularly

in rural areas where the majori-ty are women, do not haveidentification cards required forregistering as a voter. Politicalparties are concerned that thismight lead to bribery and rig-ging ahead of the election.

Fears that officials mayintimidate voters before issuingIDs were raised by RababBaldo, a Khartoum-basedUNIFEM programme specialistworking on gender equality andgood governance, at a confer-ence organised by UNIFEM andUnited Nations DevelopmentFund, Joint Donor Team, theInternational RepublicanInstitute (IRI) and USAID inJuly.

Baldo explained that theadministration issuing cardsmay manipulate women intovoting for certain candidates,adding that many women werenot aware of their rights, as theyhad never voted before.

“Women may get told tovote for a particular candidateas a condition of getting an ID,”he said.

Confounding matters fur-ther is the fact that to be regis-tered as a voter in a particularconstituency, must prove that he

or she has lived there forbetween three to four months.

The UNIFEM conference,geared to empowering womento deal with all these issues andincrease their bargaining powerwith government and otherpolitical players, was seen as thefirst step in women gaining aclear understanding of theirparty policies and what they cando to make sure they get theirpolitical party’s support.

High cost Women are confused about

the conditions of nominationand representation, for instance,and Baldo says the high candi-dacy fees is another obstacle towomen running for office. Tocontest the presidency, a candi-date must pay 10,000 Sudanesepounds - 5,000 U.S. dollars -money few women would beable to raise.

The fee to represent a localconstituency or become a mem-ber of national parliament is 100Sudanese pounds ($50) which ispaid to the National ElectionsCommission. “There is need fora joint fund to support allwomen candidates, includingthe independent candidates whowill not be coming in throughany party,” Baldo says.

Election CommissionerBarsaba agrees that the fees forpresidential, vice presidentialand governorship are high, butsays the fees for other seats areaffordable and if the women feelthey cannot raise the money,they should approach donoragencies through their politicalparties.

Women candidates are alsoworried about their security,despite Section 65 of theElections Act requiring policeofficers to accord equal securityto all candidates and politicalparties.

The war may be over, butmany people are still armed.Women candidates fear theycould be attacked during cam-paigns or if they show interestin vying for constituency seats.In many parts of the country,

people are loyal only to theSudan People’s LiberationMovement (SPLM), and mayintimidate candidates fromother parties.

Lords Resistance ArmyRebels of northern Uganda haveinfiltrated south Sudan region,and women fear they might beused to attack candidates andvoters alike.

But as the clock ticks toApril 2010, women in SouthSudan move on hoping thatthese issues will be tackled sothey can raise their political pro-file to another level.

Fine-tuning affirmativeaction in South Sudan

Twenty-five percent ofseats at local, state and nationallevel have been reserved forwomen, but analysts say thereare problems with the formula.

To begin with, only womenwho are nominated by partieswill qualify to participate in theelection. This will require themto have bargaining power, inorder to negotiate with theirpolitical parties, says RababBaldo, a Khartoum-basedUNIFEM programme specialist.

With no clear criteria forselection to the women’s list,female politicians’ relativeweakness within establishedparties, and the fact that manywomen probably don’t have themoney to register their candida-cy, the fear is that the womenwho end up filling the 25 per-cent of reserved seats will repre-sent the interests of male powerbrokers who put them on the listrather than them being a strongvoice for women’s interests.

Tereza John, a member ofthe Legislative Assembly inWestern Bar El Ghazel State isamong the women calling forpolitical parties to set aside aspecific budget to supportwomen candidates for nomina-tion as well as during the cam-paigns and mobilisation activi-ties.

*Ruth Omukhango writes for theIPS from Sudan.

Women


33

International


Among the conventionalwisdom in the businesspress is that developing

countries should bend overbackwards to create a friendlyclimate for foreign corpora-tions, follow orthodox (neolib-eral) macroeconomic policyadvice, and strive to achieve aninvestment-grade sovereigncredit rating so as to attractmore foreign capital.

Guess which country isexpected to have the fastest eco-nomic growth in the Americasthis year? Bolivia. The coun-try’s first indigenous president,

Evo Morales, was elected in2005 and took office in January2006. Bolivia, the poorestcountry in South America, hadbeen operating underInternational Monetary Fund(IMF) agreements for 20 con-secutive years, and had a percapita income lower than it hadbeen 27 years earlier.

Evo sent the IMF packingjust three months after he tookoffice, and then moved to re-nationalise the hydrocarbonsindustry – mostly natural gas.Needless to say this did not sitwell with the international cor-

porate community. Nor didBolivia’s decision in May 2007to withdraw from the WorldBank’s international arbitrationpanel (ICSID), which had a ten-dency to settle disputes infavour of international corpora-tions and against governmentsof poor countries.

But Bolivia’s re-nationali-sation and increased royaltieson hydrocarbons has given thegovernment billions of dollarsof additional revenue –Bolivia’s entire GDP is onlyabout US$16.6 billion, with apopulation of 10 million people.

These revenues have been use-ful for a government that wantsto promote development, andespecially to maintain growthduring the downturn.

Public investmentincreased from 6.3 per cent ofGDP in 2005 to 10.5 per cent for2009. Bolivia’s growth throughthe current world downturn iseven more remarkable, in that, itwas hit hard by falling prices forits most important exports – nat-ural gas and minerals, and alsoby a loss of important exportpreferences in the United Statesmarket.

Bolivia and Ecuador show that even small developing countries can pursue independent economic policies, stand up for their rights, and win, * writes Mark Weisbrot.

Making it on theirown terms

President Rafael Correa of Ecuador and his Bolivian counterpart Evo Morales

The Bush administrationcut off Bolivia’s trade prefer-ences that were granted underthe ATPDEA (Andean TradePromotion and DrugEradication Act), allegedly topunish Bolivia for insufficient

co-operation in the ‘war ondrugs.’

In reality, it was more com-plicated: Bolivia expelled theUS ambassador because of evi-dence that the US governmentwas supporting the oppositionto the Morales government, andthe ATPDA revocation followedsoon thereafter. In any case, theObama administration has, sofar, not changed the Bushadministration’s policies towardBolivia, but Bolivia has proventhat it can do quite well with orwithout Washington’s coopera-tion.

Ecuador’s leftist president,Rafael Correa, is an economistwho, well before he was electedin December 2006, had under-stood and written about the lim-itations of neoliberal economicdogma. He took office in 2007,and established an international

tribunal to examine the legiti-macy of the country’s debt.

In November 2008 thecommission found that part ofthe debt was not legally con-tracted, and in December Correaannounced that the government

would default on roughlyUS$3.2 billion of its interna-tional debt. He was vilified inthe business press, but thedefault was successful. Ecuadorcleared a third of its foreigndebt off its books by defaultingand then buying the debt back atabout 35 cents on the dollar.The country’s internationalcredit rating remains low, but nolower than it was beforeCorrea’s election - and it waseven raised a notch after buy-back was completed.

The Correa governmentalso incurred foreign investors’wrath by renegotiating its dealswith foreign oil companies tocapture a larger share of revenueas oil prices rose. And Correahas bucked pressure fromChevron and its powerful alliesin Washington to drop his sup-port of a lawsuit against the

company for massive pollutionof ground waters, with damagesthat could exceed US$27 bil-lion.

How has Ecuador done?Growth has averaged a healthy4.5 per cent over Correa’s first

two years. And the govern-ment has made sure that it hastrickled down: health carespending as a percent of GDPhas doubled, and social spend-ing in general has expandedconsiderably from 5.4 percent to8.3 percent of GDP in twoyears. This includes a doublingof the cash transfer program topoor households, a $474 millionincrease in spending for hous-ing, and other programs for low-income families.

Ecuador was hit hard by a77 per cent drop in the price ofits oil exports from June 2008 toFebruary 2009, as well as adecline in remittances fromabroad. Nonetheless it hasweathered the storm pretty well.Other unorthodox policies, inaddition to the debt default,have helped Ecuador to stimu-late its economy without run-

ning too low on reserves. Ecuador’s currency is the

US dollar, so that rules out usingexchange rate policy and mostmonetary policy for counter-cyclical efforts in a recession – asignificant handicap. Instead,Ecuador was able to cut dealswith China for a billion-dollaradvance payment for oil andanother one billion dollar loan.The government has also begunrequiring Ecuadorian banks torepatriate some of their reservesheld abroad, expected to bringback another US$1.2 billion.The government has startedrepatriating US$2.5 billion inCentral Bank reserves heldabroad in order to financeanother large stimulus package.

Ecuador’s growth willprobably come in at about one(1) per cent this year, which ispretty good relative to most ofthe hemisphere – for exampleMexico, at the other end of thespectrum, is projected to have a7.5 per cent decline in GDP for2009.

The standard reporting andeven quasi-academic analysis ofBolivia and Ecuador are thatthey are victims of populist,socialist, ‘anti-American’ gov-ernments – aligned withVenezuela’s Hugo Chavez andCuba, of course – and on theroad to ruin.

To be sure, both countrieshave many challenges ahead,the most important of whichwill be to implement economicstrategies that can diversify anddevelop their economies overthe long run. But they havemade a good start so far, by giv-ing the conventional wisdom ofthe economic and foreign policyestablishment – in Washingtonand Europe – the respect that ithas earned.

*Mark Weisbrot is co-director ofthe Center for Economic andPolicy Research, in Washington,D.C. He is also president of JustForeign Policy. His article wasfirst published by published byThe Guardian Unlimited onOctober 28, 2009 and then ThirdWorld Network Features.

International


The ‘el Trio’ non-conventionalists - Chavez, Correa and Morales

35

‘The lack of accountabilityfor war crimes and possiblecrimes against humanity has

reached a crisis point,’ the headof the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gazaconflict, Justice RichardGoldstone of South Africa, hastold the United Nations HumanRights Council.

‘Now is the time for action.A culture of impunity in theregion has existed for too long,’

said Justice Goldstone, whoheaded a four-member Missionto investigate all violations ofinternational human rights andhumanitarian law that mighthave been committed in thecontext of the Israeli militaryoperation conducted in Gazaduring the period fromDecember 27, 2008 to January18, 2009.

The ‘ongoing lack of jus-tice is undermining any hope for

a successful peace process andreinforcing an environment thatfosters violence.. experience hastaught us that overlooking jus-tice only leads to increased con-flict and violence,’ he said.

Justice Goldstone’sremarks came during his pres-entation of the report of theFact-Finding Mission to theHuman Rights Council.

The other members of theFact-Finding Mission included

Professor Christine Chinkin ofthe London School ofEconomics and PoliticalScience, Hina Jilani, Advocateof the Supreme Court ofPakistan, and Colonel DesmondTravers, former officer inIreland’s Defence Forces.

The Fact-Finding Missionfound that there was evidenceindicating serious violations byIsrael of international human

International


UN mission urges accountabilityfor war crimes in Gaza

A United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of December 2008 reports of evidence of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during themonth-long conflict. However the international community is heavily split on the findings and

recommendations of the report, writes *Kanaga Raja.

Gaza : trucks loaded with humanitarian aid

rights and humanitarian lawduring the Gaza conflict. Israelhad committed actions amount-ing to war crimes and possiblycrimes against humanity, it said.

The report, first released inSeptember, also found that therewas evidence that Palestinianarmed groups committed warcrimes, as well as possiblycrimes against humanity, intheir repeated launching ofrockets and mortars intoSouthern Israel.

RecommendationsThe 574-page report, which

contained detailed analysis of36 specific incidents in Gaza, aswell as, a number of others inthe West Bank and Israel, madea number of recommendations,chief among these being that theHuman Rights Council requestthe UN Secretary-General tobring the report to the attentionof the UN Security Council sothat the Security Council mayconsider action according to therelevant recommendations ofthe Mission.

It also recommended thatthe Security Council requireIsrael to report to it, within sixmonths, on investigations andprosecutions it should carry outwith regard to the violationsidentified in the report.

It further recommendedthat the Security Council set upa body of independent expertsto report to it on the progress ofthe Israeli investigations andprosecutions.

If the experts’ reports donot indicate within six monthsthat good faith, independentproceedings are taking place,the Security Council shouldrefer the situation in Gaza to theProsecutor of the InternationalCriminal Court (ICC).

The report also recom-mended that the same independ-ent expert body report to theSecurity Council on proceed-ings undertaken by the relevantGaza authorities with regard tocrimes committed by thePalestinian side, and that if

within six months there are nogood faith independent proceed-ings conforming to the interna-tional standards in place, theCouncil should refer the situa-tion to the ICC Prosecutor.

‘The Government of Israelhas a duty to protect its citi-zens,” Justice Goldstone toldthe Human Rights Council.“That in no way justifies a poli-cy of collective punishment of apeople under effective occupa-tion, destroying their means tolive a dignified life and the trau-ma caused by the kind of mili-tary intervention the IsraeliGovernment called OperationCast Lead.’

Violence‘This contributes to a situa-

tion where young people growup in a culture of hatred and vio-lence, with little hope forchange in the future,’ he added.He called on the Council, andthe international community asa whole, to take up theMission’s recommendations.

In a statement at the HumanRights Council in response tothe report of the Fact-FindingMission, United States AssistantSecretary of State forDemocracy, Human Rights andLabour, Michael Posner, saidthat the document was ‘deeplyflawed’. He further said the USdisagreed sharply with the doc-ument’s methodology and manyof its recommendations, includ-ing their extraordinarily broadscope.

The ‘unbalanced recom-mendations taint many of thereport’s suggestions for interna-tional action,’ he told theHuman Rights Council.

Pakistan, on behalf of theOrganization of the IslamicConference, acknowledged thereport and thanked the Missionfor presenting an objective,impartial and most comprehen-sive account of violations ofinternational human rights lawand international humanitarianlaw throughout the occupiedPalestinian territory including

East Jerusalem.Egypt, speaking on behalf

of the Non-Aligned Movement(NAM), urged the HumanRights Council to seriously con-sider the report to ensure thecredibility of the Council bytaking concrete follow-up stepsto hold accountable the perpe-trators of such crimes, and bringto an end the persistent situationof impunity and defiance ofinternational law.

Tunisia, on behalf of theArab Group, echoed sentimentsexpressed by Egypt on behalf ofNAM.

Nigeria, on behalf of theAfrican Group, welcomed thereport, saying it was compre-hensive and balanced.

MessageIn a press release issued,

Human Rights Watch said thatthe failure of the United Statesand European Union govern-ments to endorse the report ofthe Gaza fact-finding missionsends a message that seriouslaws-of-war violations will betreated with kid gloves whencommitted by an ally.

The US-based human rightsgroup said that the reportreflects a sober, careful assess-ment of the violations commit-ted by both sides in the conflict.

According to HumanRights Watch, the statement bySweden on behalf of theEuropean Union at the HumanRights Council recognised theseriousness of the report butfailed to endorse its conclusionsor recommendations. EU coun-tries on the Council includingthe United Kingdom, Franceand Germany remained silentabout the report.

‘The US effort to dismissthe Goldstone report was down-right shameful for an adminis-tration that claims to promotethe rule of law and accountabil-ity for war crimes,’ said Juliettede Rivero, Geneva director atHuman Rights Watch.

‘It is also deeply disap-pointing that key EU govern-

ments did not seize this valuableopportunity to demand justicefor victims on both sides of theconflict. The report’s detailedfindings and its careful recom-mendations deserve support, notdismissal and silence,’ sheadded.

Meanwhile, UN HighCommissioner for HumanRights, Navanethem Pillay, rec-ommended that all allegationsof breaches of internationalhumanitarian law and humanrights violations during theGaza military operations andtheir aftermath – whetherthrough attacks on civilians andcivilian objects in Gaza or indis-criminate rocket attacks intoIsrael – be thoroughly investi-gated by credible, independentand transparent accountabilitymechanisms, respectful of inter-national standards of dueprocess.

ReparationEqually crucial is uphold-

ing the right of victims to repa-ration, she said in her first peri-odic report to the Council on thegrave violations of human rightsin the occupied Palestinian terri-tories.

The recommendations ofJustice Goldstone’s fact-findingmission should be followed upby the Council in order to fulfillits responsibility to promoteuniversal respect for the protec-tion of all human rights and fun-damental freedoms for all. Theinterest of all victims andrespect for international lawmust be the central focus of theCouncil’s action, she said.

‘This body’s impartialityand an even-handed approachon the part of the internationalcommunity as a whole, areindispensable to help preventfuture human rights violationsand to establish solid bases forpeace and security,’ the HighCommissioner stressed.

Kanaga Raja is the editor of theSUNS published by Third WorldNetwork.

International


37

Short Story


Adjei Manu was besidehimself with worry. Heracked his brain but for

the life of him could make nosense of the events of the day. Onarrival in the office that morning,he had buzzed his secretary.“Any calls, Lucia?”

“Yes sir,” answered theindefatigable Lucia. “ Mr.Allotey’s secretary called to sayhe’ll be coming over.”

“Tell them I’m in.”An insufferable meddler,

Pappoe Allotey, the Chief ofStaff at the Presidency, hadwound his tentacles around theentire government machinery, sothat all persons, both high andlow, had to contend with him. Ineffect, he had the last word whenit came to appointments, becausehe had the President’s ear. Hesingle-handedly decided whobelonged to the kitchen cabinet.He was responsible for dissemi-nating government policy downthe line. Thanks to him the vari-ous ministers had no autonomywhen it came to recruiting con-sultants, a lucrative business forall involved.

In short, Allotey was afeared man and those who want-ed to remain at post were wiseenough not to cross him.

Donkor turned out to be trueto type. Around him was an auraof urgency. A short, balding man,he walked with short, quicksteps. He installed himself in achair opposite Adjei Manu withthe familiarity of one who wasused to dealing with members ofcabinet.

“I’ve been instructed to giveyou this, he said, handing Adjei afolder. “Chief says you should gothrough it and be ready for ameeting with Mr. Wilmot-Baidoe next Thursday. He says itis terribly important.”

Adjjei Manu was perplexedbecause he was Minister ofLands and Forestry. WilmotBaidoe was to those in the know,the energy consultant who

advised those in the energy sec-tor. He was a man Adjei Manuloathed to no end. What could anenergy consultant have to dowith the Lands and Forestry?What could all this possibly por-tend?

The moment Donkor left, hesettled in an arm chair, crossedhis legs and opened the folder.‘STUDY OF POTENTIAL FORA PROSPECTIVE BIOFUELINDUSTRY’ was the title. Theauthor, proclaimed the folder,was Wllmot-Baidoe.

“Biofuels” Adjei Manumuttered aloud. That explainedthe involvement of the MinistryLands and Forestry. The utiliza-tion of the lands and forestresources of the country wasenvisaged. But Wilmot- Baidoe?So virulent was his loathing ofthe man that it took Adjei Manusome time to bring his temperunder control.

Finally, he was able to con-tinue reading the memo. Rightfrom the beginning, he realized itwas vintage Wilmot- Baidoe.The paper began by stating thefact that in the ‘advanced’ coun-tries, a favourie phrase of theman, the trend was towards bio-fuels. It stated the obvious factthat the sources of fossil-basedfuels were not limitless. For along time, the world had been atpains to find substitutes for fossilfuels. Fortunately, the efforts ofthe researchers had been reward-ed. The document went intoglowing praise of the benefits ofbiofuels.

An idea suddenly struckAdjei Manu. He remembered thelecture he had attended just theprevious week, organized byFriends of the Environment, anenvironmental NGO on GMcrops. The main speaker, AduMantey,had been particularlyimpressive. He had been intro-duced as a doctorate holder whohad written a dissertation on:‘Environmental Challenges ofthe Third World: The Case of

Sub-Saharan Africa.” He hadturned out to be a man with atotal grasp of the facts, receivinga long applause at the end of hispresentation. More importantly,the man had spoken with the fer-vor of a campaigner, a truebeliever. It was just possible thathe might have a take on thiswhole biofuel business.

Rifling through his stack ofcomplimentary cards, he quicklyfound what he was looking for.

Mantey answered on thefirst ring.

“You may not rememberme,” said Adjei Manu. “I’mAdjei Manu. I was at your lectureon GM crops.”

“How could I forget you,Minister of Lands and Forestry?”The voice reminded Adjei Manuof the enthusiasm Adu Manteyexuded at the lecture.

“That’s right,” said AdjeiManu.”You know what?Something has come up. It has todo with biofuels. Wonder if youmight be interested.”

“Indeed!” Mantey said with-out hesitation. It’s right down mylane, one of my favourite inter-ests at the moment. What are youthinking of?”

“Look, my friend, this is allso sudden, but do you think youcan come over to the ministrysometime today?”

“No problem,” said Manteywith obvious relish. “Whattime?”

“Some time in the afternoon.Would three o’clock be okay?”

“Three o’clock would be justfine, sir. And who should I reportto?”

“Come straight to my office.I’ll inform the front desk.” Thenhe apologized again for the shortnotice.

Now his mind at rest, hecontinued reading Wilmot-Baidoe’s document.

When Adu Mantey finallyarrived, there was somethingabout him that made Adjei Manusmile involuntarily. His whole

person oozed with anticipation ashe grinned broadly.

“You’re right on time,” saidthe minister. “How refreshing.Have a seat.” He handed his vis-itor a copy of the Wilmot- Baidoedocument. “This is what I wantyou to take a look at,” he said.

Adu Mantey stared intentlyat the document, then he smiled.

“What is it?” asked the min-ister.

“Oh,sorry,” Adu Manteyfumbled.

“Perhaps, you’d like to makeyourself comfortable in one ofthese?” Adjei Manu said,motioning toward what lookedlike a small conference table.

Adu Mantey obliged. “Want something to drink?

Coke, tea, coffee?”“Coffee would do. Thanks.”

After ordering coffee fortwo on the phone, Adjei Manusat at his desk, unable to concen-trate on any of the myriad dutiesthat faced him on his desk.Hearing his visitor turn a sheetover, he glanced up and saw thelatter smiling to himself.

“You seem to be enjoyingyourself.”

“This man Wilmot- Baidoe,Have you ever met him?”

“No, but I’ve heard so muchabout him, read his articles in thepapers. He’s notorious enough.”

Sensing that he was infriendly territory, Adu Manteysaid, “It ‘s always amusing to seethese consultants waxing lachry-mose about global warming andso on.” There was a rueful smileon his face.

Adjei Manu burst into laugh-ter. “You are a man after myheart,” he said. “Waxing lachry-mose! What a poet you are. Tellme, did you do Latin in school?”

“What would you say if Isaid I did?”

“I’d say you and I belong toa dying breed.”

“The man is incredible,”Adu Mantey said, becoming seri-ous all of a sudden. “Sir ?”

By Kwao Tordzro

WILMOT-BAIDOE

“Yes ?“What do you make of this?”

Adu Mantey asked, wavingWilmot- Baidoe’s document inthe air.

“That’s why I called you.Let’s see what you think.”

“Can I be frank?””Feel free.”“With what I know about

Wilmot- Baidoe, I would say thegovernment has already decidedto go in for biofuels.

“And what do you think ofthat?”

“That’s what I’d like to askyou,” Adu Mantey replied.

“Don’t you think it’s curiousthat government has decided on athing like this and there’s notbeen so much as a whiff of suspi-cion from any quarter?”

“By government, you meanthe chief of Staff,” said his visi-tor.”

“That man’s total appropria-tion of power has become institu-tionalized.

In a country where the con-stitution does not provide for aprime minister, the man hasmaneuvered himself into theposition of a virtual prime minis-ter.”

Adu Mantey became pensivefor a long moment, then he said,“That explains a whole lot ofthings. The man is nothing but apaper pusher with no vision.Insensitive positions, such peo-ple are total disaster call thempermanent secretaries, chief sec-retaries, whatever. In PappoeAllotey, you have all that, com-bined with the worst in a politicalmaneuverer.”

It was decided that AduMantey should study Wilmot-Baidoe’s document; and the twowould meet on Monday.

The next few days, AdjeiManu and Mantey noticed subtlehints in the newspapers aboutbiofuels. He could not wait forMonday.

Inevitably, Monday arrived.Adu Mantey practically stormedinto the minister’s office. “Justlook at this trash!” he said, hand-ing the minister a copy ofMillenium Goal, one of the newpublications which had under itsmasthead, the slogan: ‘Leadingthe Nation Into The BrightFuture.’

On the front page was thescreaming headline: Biofuels:The answer to Global Warning’

“Good timing, don’t yousee?” said Adjei Manu. “To start

this thing in the midst of the fuelshortage.”

“They’re smart, to be sure,”Adu Mantey said in agreement.

The minister handed him astack of other newspapers. “Idon’t suppose you’ve had thetime to look at all of them.”

They seem to be going allout for the thing,” Adu Manteysaid after a while.

“The thing,” said AdjeiManu, “is what is in it for ourgood old Chief of Staff?”

“For a Minister”, asked AduMantey with a wink, “ your atti-tude to this whole thing smacksof treachery?”

“The hell it does,” AdjeiManu shot back. “What about thelands and the forest resources ofthis country, of which this min-istry is custodian?”

Adu Mantey could not arguewith that. In the heady days ofthe electioneering and campaignpromises, Adjei had worked hardenough to emerge as the party’svoice for stakeholders in mattersconcerning lands and forestry.He had risen from Chairman ofthe Parliamentary Committee forLands and Forestry to minister.He was not about to cede controlof his hard- won turf to any cor-rupt and meddling Chief of Staff.

“Have you heard thatWilmot- Baidoe is appearing onTV tonight? Outlook.”

“I know,” he replied withalacrity, “and I’ve not been idle.”

Outlook was a popular pro-gramme on which among otherthings, top-level governmentofficials or their emissaries airedout policy, to sound out the pub-lic and generate debate. In thesedebates, those in the know knewthat Pappoe Allotey, the Chief ofStaff, had arrogated unto himselfthe right to decide who spoke forthe government, effectively rid-ing rough-shod over the Ministerof Information himself.

“Let’s hear you.” AdjeiManu said to Adu Mantey.“What’s your big plan?”

“We’re going to usePeople’s Mouthpiece.”

“You don’t mean it”“Trust me.”Adjei Manu was right to be

alarmed. “That paper has beenblacklisted by the government.”One minister had actuallyreferred to it as ‘mouthpiece ofthe lunatic fringe.’

“The more reason why itshould serve our purpose best.”

People’s Mouthpiece was a

weekly that championed all kindsof causes that the governmentfound repulsive.

“Let Wilmot-Baidoe speakout. Even without hearing himout, we are ready for him. Don’tmiss the newspaper segment ofBreakfast Show on TV tomor-row. I’ll see you in the morning.”With that, he took his leave.

Adjei Manu could not helpthe look of disdain that came onhis face when he saw Wilmot-Baidoe’s face on the screen.From his custom-tailored suit, tohis expensive coiffure to his aris-tocratic bearing, everythingspoke of wealth. The studio setwas as if it had been speciallydesigned for him, or it allowedhim to settle down comfortablyin an arm chair, while with anaccent manufactured by peoplewho went to schools patronizedby the rich but not necessarilyexclusive to their children, hespoke, tapping the air in a deli-cate way with a manicured fore-finger to emphasize his points.

“Well, viewers,” saidKwamena Jonah the presenter,“welcome to Outlook.

Tonight,we are going to talkabout what has come to beknown as biofuels. Simply put,biofuels are fuels extracted fromcrops to produce energy as a sub-stitute for fossil fuels.

With us in the studio is Mr.Joseph Wilmot-Baidoe an energyconsultant who is no stranger onyour screens.”

Wilmot-Baidoe gave a slightnod.

“Well, Mr. Wilmot- Baidoe,can you begin by giving us abrief overview of what biofuelsis all about.”

“Thank you Mr. Jonah. Asyou know, ever since the oil cri-sis of the seventies, the world hasbegan to realize that it cannotcontinue to rely on petroleum asthe only source of energy. Forone thing, the world’s reserves ofpetroleum are not limitless.Sooner or later, these reserveswill be completely exhausted.

“The scientific communityhas been busy researching alter-native sources of energy. Billionsof dollars have been sunk into theeffort. Fortunately, the world islucky today to have biofuels as apromising alternative source forenergy.”

He listed the advantages ofbiofuels. He spoke of how itreduced dependence on expen-sive foreign oil, how it solved the

problem of climate change, howit promised to become a newsource of income for the poor ofthe developing world.

Spewing a slew of statistics,he spoke of how in the year 2000,Brazil had produced 15.9 billionlitres of bioethanol, more thanone-third of the world’ supply.Rising world demand had pro-vided the opportunity to expandthe production of sugarcaneethanol.

Wilmot-Baidoe’s one-sidedpraise singing filled Adjei Manuwith exasperation. He turned thetelly of and went off to bed. Ithad been a long day.

He slept so deeply that hedid not have time to go throughthe papers before BreakfastShow.

Without brushing his teeth,he switched on the TV the pro-gramme had already started. Heprayed that he had not missed thePeople’s Mouthpiece portion. Hewas lucky. “Now, to People’sMouthpiece, said the presenter.

It was a blistering attack onall the myths surrounding biofu-els.

Under the title: Biofuels:The Myth of the New Millenium,it said among other things, that“with biofuels, fuel crops arenow competing with food cropsfor land. Food crops are nowbeing turned into fuel crops.Sugar cane, soybean, rapeseedand oil palm were all beingturned into sources of fuel to sat-isfy the insatiable thirst of fuelfor the rich countries.

Increased production of bio-fuels, would increase the needfor water resources for agricul-tural production, which wasalready consuming 93 percent ofthe world’s available waterresources. The use of corn to pro-duce ethanol in Mexico hadresulted in rising prices of cornas a source of food in that coun-try.

In countries like Brazil,Malaysia and Borneo, massivedeforestation had taken place inthe wake of the biofuel industry.Millions of the poor had beenrendered landless as the wealthycorporations had seized theirland for the production of biofu-els

Adjei Manu was soengrossed in the programme thathe suddenly realized that hewould have to hurry to work if hewas not to keep Adu Manteywaiting.

Short Story


SUBSCRIPTION FORMAnnual Subscription Rates (12 issues) Airmail Surface mail

Developed countries (Institutions) US$60 US$45

Developed countries (Individuals) US$45 US$30

Third World individuals & groups US$35 US$20

For India subscribers: Special rates Rs500(surface airmail). (For address, please see below).

For Malaysia subscribers: Special rates at RM35 per year or RM65 for 2 years (Please send cheques/postal order to Third World Network).

NAME:……………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….…………………....

ADDRESS:……………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….……………

……………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….……….......

CITY:…………………......……. POSTCODE:………......…..…. COUNTRY:…………..............….....................………….

I would like to subscribe by AIR/SURFACE MAIL and

I enclose the amount of……………………….........................................................

Please charge the amount of …………………...........……. to my credit card

American Express MasterCard Visa

Account No.

Signature:…………………........................……. Expiry Date:……………….......................................……….

SUBSCRIBERS IN INDIA:Payments and enquiries can be made to: the OtherIndia Bookstore, Above Mopusa Clinic, Mapusa 403507, Goa, India.

AUSTRALIA, BRUNEI, PHILIPPINES, SINGAPORE, THAILAND, UK, USA:You can pay by credit card or cheque/bank draft/international money order in own currency, US$ orEuro. If paying in own currency or Euro, please calculate equivalent of US$ rate. If paying in US$,please ensure that the agent bank is located in USA.

ALL OTHER COUNTRIES:Credit card or cheque/bank draft/ international money order in US$ or Euro.If paying in Euro, please calculate equivalent of US$ rate.If paying in US$, please ensure that the agent bank is located in USA.

CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED:VISA/MASTER CARD/AMERICAN EXPRESS.

Please send payment/enquires to:

THE WORLD NETWORK121-S JALAN UTAMA

10450 PENANG MALAYSIA

Email: [email protected] .myWebsite:http://www.twnside.org.sg

Date post:	10-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	twnafrica
View:	222 times
Download:	5 times

Agenda 12 4

Documents