A longer queue for Africa’s aid
09/24/2009
In conversations and comments surrounding the ever present problems that plague Africa, the issue of aid is inevitable. Africa faces some of today’s greatest developmental challenges, including low literacy rates, a staggeringly high incidence of HIV/AIDS and a huge proportion of the population living below the poverty line; as such, aid becomes the focus of attention in international forums. However, arguments about international aid effectiveness abound. Some say that the supply of aid is critical for Africa’s improvement. Others don’t believe in the virtue of aid. They question whether aid affects a state’s progress. These conflicting viewpoints, known as the ‘Aid Debate,’ color aid initiatives put forth in major policy challenges.
To date, concrete promises of foreign aid dollars, issued by international regimes such as the G-8 and G-20, have not fully materialized. A notable portion of the Gleneagles Communiqué, issued in 2005 by the G-8following the Gleneagles Summit, directed attention to Africa’s unmet needs and demanded coordinated international action. Despite this commitment, Africa remains the only continent collectively behind on achieving all eight of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the proposed 2015 deadline. The MDGs are committed to eradicating poverty, reducing HIV/AIDS infection rates, providing universal education, increasing gender equality, improving child and maternal health, creating environmental sustainability and achieving new global partnerships. To put the magnitude of these goals in perspective, the UN estimated that an investment of $40 to 60 billion per year in low income countries was necessary to comply with the goals.
The crux of these promises, as outlined in the Gleneagles Communiqué, was a commitment to increase foreign aid assistance to $50 billion by 2010. The pledge bolstered hopes that Africa would one day overcome its stigma as a troubled continent. The 2009 G-20 Summit in London reconfirmed global commitments to the Gleneagles promises by the 2010 deadline.
The advocacy organization ONE, a grassroots campaign committed to the goal of eradicating poverty and disease in Africa, reports that two-thirds of promised international aid assistance remains outstanding. Members of the G-20 have only delivered $9.4 of the proposed $50 billion in increased assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa. So with the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh rapidly approaching under the specter of unfulfilled commitments, the question remains – how will the G-20 readdress Africa’s challenges?
According to Dr. Louis Picard, professor at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public and International Affair (GSPIA) and Director of the school’s International Development program, the global “economic meltdown” has placed the African development agenda on the backburner. Dr. Picard emphasizes the massive philosophical shift towards nationalism, due to the current economic crisis, which G-20 leaders will embrace at the Pittsburgh Summit. Such nationalism becomes evident in protectionist policies, such as the ‘Buy American’ provision in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the U.S. stimulus legislation. These policies often leave developing countries out of the deal by dramatically decreasing their exports, which in turn devastates a trade dependent country’s GDP. So in addition to overlooking Africa’s development needs, G-20 members are likely to further damage struggling African economies with unfriendly new trade policies.
Oxfam’s head of research, David Green, expresses similar sentiments. “One of the concerns at the moment is that 17 of the 20 [G-20] countries have actually brought in various protectionist measures since the start of the crisis.” This trend has the ability to depress the GDP of a low income country, which in turn creates greater need for outside assistance in the form of aid.
Debates persist among proponents of the developing world due to this shift towards protectionism. With such a great focus on improving the global economy, unallocated aid for Africa will not be a forerunning agenda item for the international community. An alternative approach to meet Africa’s needs must be devised. For example, advancement need not solely rely on fiscal relief. Accountability of Africa’s leaders for aid funds already distributed is a significant issue that can be promoted under existing programs.
The G-8 Gleneagles Communiqué raised the issue of accountability through organizations such as Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). The EITI fosters growth and reduces poverty through improving accountability in the extractives sector. A continent so rich in natural resources should not be home to malnutrition for over one-third of its population. With EITI membership, African countries can promote the equitable distribution of wealth through oil, gas and mining is spread throughout the population. Currently, 20 of Africa’s 53 countries have achieved candidate status in EITI. The Pittsburgh G-20 can challenge all countries to join in this effort. Programs such as the EITI can stretch current aid funds further by insuring that funds are allocated towards meeting vital obligations - such as the MDGs.
Lack of sufficient country representation is another reason why Africa faces daunting challenges at the G-20. Of 53 African countries, only South Africa is a G-20 member and thus must act as the sole voice of a vast and varied continent. Jacob Zuma, the newly elected president of South Africa, will represent an astonishing one billion African citizens.
Perhaps due to underrepresentation, South Africa has teamed up with foreign ministers from India and Brazil to represent the world’s leading developing countries. At their sixth ministerial meeting in September, India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) came together to discuss hopes for the upcoming G-20. In their final Communiqué, they stressed that “the flow of investment and trade financing to developing countries must be reinvigorated and protectionism, including that within the financial sector, avoided.” The ISBA delegation will hopefully provide an outlet to voice concerns over protectionist policies at this G-20.
With the current state of the global economy, the African community cannot expect unallocated aid to materialize by the 2010 deadline. This is nothing new for Africans. Protectionism may also hinder progress in African trade, as a great number of less developed countries encounter a tremendous decrease in international exports. This decline in trade, in conjunction with decreased aid, will certainly challenge Africa’s development. In the meantime, increased participation through IBSA may allow the continent to increase self-sufficiency. Additionally, maintaining a focus on accountability through transparency can help foster improvements when financial provisions are not as feasible.
Rachael Long, is a first-year International Development student majoring in Non-Government Organizations and Civil Society.
