Season's Greetings

The blog wishes all readers, visitors and partners a wonderful and prosperous new year in 2013. The blog is hopeful of engaging in and debating cross-cutting and salient issues that affect at large global poverty and development efforts.

Keep visiting, reading, disseminating and contributing to issues through rejoinders and direct comments. Let's together make progress and development happen.

Thank you.

Ghana's Election: High Expectations

By:  Alex Vines, Research Director, Area Studies and International Law; and Head, Africa Programme, Chatham House. 

Ghana's presidential and legislative elections set for 7 and 28 December 2012 respectively, will be extremely close and come at a significant time given the region's instability.  

The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has again selected Nana Akufo Addo as its presidential candidate and aim to regain power after its 2008 defeat. Akufo Addo was defeated by less than 1% of the vote in the final run-off - just 40,500 votes. The ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate, President John Mahama, is campaigning to convince voters that he and his party are fit to continue in office. 

The credibility of the process will be key. Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, the wife of the controversial and outspoken former president, Jerry John Rawlings, has been barred on technical grounds from running in the presidential election. Although she never really stood a serious chance of winning significant votes, this has focused attention on the impartiality of the Electoral Committee, whose perceived independence will be essential if the result of this expected tight election is to be peaceful. We have seen in other elections in Africa in recent years how partisan electoral commissions have been triggers for protest and violence.

The management of the economy has been the main battleground on which the candidates have fought. Mahama promises to improve living standards, tackle inflation and boost infrastructure development. Corruption scandals have hurt the ruling NDC's reputation, but the NPP's record in office was also far from clean. Both parties know that by the time of the next election in 2016, a projected oil and gas production boom will favour the then incumbent.  

Hot issues at the debates

There have been two feisty presidential public debates (and a vice-presidential debate) during the electoral campaign. There was no clear winner in the first presidential debate, partly because it lasted over five hours and even for Ghanaian audiences with stamina for long discussions, the key messages were diluted. The economy and education were the main issues discussed. President Mahama reiterated pledges made in his party manifesto, such as to target real GDP growth of over 8% a year and lowering the fiscal deficit to 5% of GDP (from an estimated 6.5% in 2012).

Much shorter, lasting three hours, the second presidential debate covered a range of issues, including corruption and foreign policy. Mr Akuffo-Addo highlighted the GH¢52m (US$27.4m) Woyome scandal, which engulfed the government in early 2012, as an example of the administration's cronyism, and alluded to the lack of corruption allegations against himself. 

On foreign policy, the government's approach to the situation in Côte d'Ivoire featured prominently in the debate. Mr Akuffo-Addo claimed that Mr Mahama had damaged Ghana by allowing Ivorian dissidents to operate from bases within Ghana. Mahama replied that he enjoyed excellent relations with the Ivorian government. 

The NPP and Mr Akuffo-Addo were seen as the winners of the second debate, especially on the corruption issue. If Akuffo-Addo wins the upcoming election, it is argued that the relationship with Ivoirian President Ouatarra would improve, as bilateral relations still suffer from the perception in Abidjan that the NDC favoured President Gbagbo during the 2011 Ivoirian post-election crisis. In the context of an inward looking Nigeria, if Ghana can improve its relations with Côte d'Ivoire, and in partnership with Senegal, regional integration in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) could be quickened. 

A third party, the Convention People's Party (CPP), did well in the presidential debates and may increase its influence, especially as a victory is not likely during the first round of voting on 7 December. Its leader, Abu Sakara, could be in the position of kingmaker if the NDC and the NPP have to compete for votes from CPP supporters in the second round. He has criticised both parties and neither can currently assume his support.  

Looking to Africa's newest oil producer

The international markets are optimistic that Ghana's elections will pass smoothly. In late November, Standard & Poor's (S&P) Ratings Services maintained its B ratings for Ghana's long-term and short-term foreign- and local-currency sovereign debt, with a stable outlook. The elections are important for further consolidating Ghana's democracy and building up the credibility and institutions required to oversee Ghana's newly found oil and gas windfall. Whoever wins will need to manage expectations, seriously combat corruption and reform the tax system including working out the fairest way to tax the vital mining sector. 

In a region where the promise of 'Africa Rising' is meeting the complicated reality of on-going political, economic and security challenges, Ghana’s continued stability and growth provides an important foundation for optimism. For this reason, these elections are important not just for Ghana, but for the growing number of states and actors seeking to benefit from increasing confidence in Africa.

SEC Must Reject Oil Industry Assault on Transparency

Secrecy breeds corruption and mismanagement

Source: Revenue Watch Institute, November 5, 2012: http://www.revenuewatch.org/news/press_releases/sec-must-reject-oil-industry-assault-transparency

NEW YORK—The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must reject oil companies’ demand for a delay in enforcing new disclosure rules, to carry out the law of the land and protect the public interest, the Revenue Watch Institute said today.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have asked the SEC to delay, or “stay,” new securities rules requiring oil, natural gas and mining companies to make public their payments to governments, until federal courts issue a verdict in a lawsuit recently filed by API and the Chamber. Representing major oil companies, API and its allies are demanding the courts overturn the rules as well as the underlying transparency law they carry out.

“API is making an extraordinary assault on corporate and government transparency,” said Daniel Kaufmann, president of Revenue Watch. “Based on its own clear criteria, the SEC has firm grounds for rejecting the oil industry’s stay request.”

“Suspending the rules would harm investors as well as citizens of developing countries, who stand to greatly benefit from greater transparency and accountability,” Kaufmann said. “There is no reason for the SEC to be intimidated by API into changing its well thought-out timeline, which calls for this greater company disclosure to begin in 2014.”

The rules carry out Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, passed by Congress in 2010, which requires companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to report publicly their payments to governments, for each country and each natural resource project. In drafting the rules, the SEC solicited and considered extensive public comments for two years, including from the oil industry.

The law and SEC’s rules are also the template for transparency legislation being finalized by the European Union, and have been strongly endorsed by British Prime Minister David Cameron and other leaders.

Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), strong supporters of the disclosure law, have urged the commission to “deny the stay request, and actively resist any other attempt to delay the implementation of the rule.” They also cite the precedent that U.S. rules have set for the EU, warning that delaying their implementation will “cause harm to investors and citizens in the United States and abroad.”

Publish What You Pay, the leading civil society coalition involved in the SEC’s two-year rulemaking process, has also urged the commission to strongly defend its rules.

Timeline: Dodd-Frank Section 1504

SEC Rules to Bring Transparency to Oil and Mining Industries

Oil Companies' Lawsuit Seeks to Undermine Global Transparency

Aid to developing countries: restructuring needed!

Whose interest: donor or recipient countries?
Picture source: capitalismmagazine.com

Aid contributes to the fight against poverty and hunger in developing countries. It is also increasingly argued that aid is hurting developing countries especially those in Africa. In recent decades, Africa has witnessed more aid than any other continent. According to the 2011 ONE Data Report, total development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa reached $39.7 billion in 2010, representing an increase of $13.5 billion over 2004 levels.

It is hard to understand the paradox of aid. It is incredibly disappointing that the region that receives the most aid is today the poorest continent in the world, particularly considering the valuable natural resources at its disposal. Even with increased foreign aid, it is overwhelmingly evident that about 51 per cent of people in sub-Saharan Africa live on less than 1.25 dollars per day.

The disparity between aid and effective development has therefore generated unprecedented debate regarding whether or not Africa really needs aid to combat the ever-increasing poverty, hunger and economic backwardness. The Rome Declaration (2003), Paris Declaration (2005) and Accra Agenda for Action (2008), meant to rethink the architecture of aid, have been necessary but have barely made an impact. The declarations and commitments constitute talks without action. Of the thirteen measurable targets set by the Paris Declaration, only one had been realized as revealed by the 2011 Monitoring Survey of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It is sobering and worrying indeed.

This is a stark reminder that aid is not effective. Aid makes the poor poorer and the rich richer. It is widening the gap between rural and urban settings. Development and progress is at a standstill if not dwindling.

The causes of aid ineffectiveness are not hard to guess. The world does not need a miracle to make sure that aid alleviates poverty. It is about getting priorities right, cooperation and real commitment to global development. Aid commitments are falling short apart from aid being used as a tool to threaten developing economies. The potential global recession has seen aid threatened with cuts too. Britain has made moves to cut its aid. The donors choose when and what to give out. Obiageli Ezekwesili, World Bank Vice President for Africa - at the first-ever African Investment Summit organized by the London Stock Exchange (LSE) on Tuesday October 11 in London - warned that the temptation to cut aid to Africa would be a great mistake. The warning may already have been ignored. David Cameron has threatened to cut aid intended for Ghana and Uganda this year in response to their treatment of homosexuals. Britain has already done it to Malawi. The UK government has cut aid by $30 million to Malawi after two homosexuals were sentenced to 14 months hard labor for having an engagement ceremony.

Is aid obligatory or merely a country’s wish? Britain can decide the amount and the timing of its hand-outs to needy economies. The ‘beggars can’t be choosers’ syndrome should no longer play a role here. However, developing economies should own what they receive! Uncertain aid unsettles the priorities of developing economies. Shouldn’t aid commitments be made certain to inform development agendas of less developed economies? Threats to cut down or withdraw aid only vindicate aid ineffectiveness and unfulfilled commitments. Accra Agenda for Action’s (AAA’s) ownership of programmes of aid is just a mirage. Donors still decide. Aid with strings attached dictates what to do or otherwise.

Commitments should be made to go beyond the rhetoric. Commitment not backed by actions has the tendency to put development at risk. Over 13 million people are in danger from life-threatening hunger in the horn of Africa, increased child and maternal mortality is gradually putting developing countries especially those in Africa on the brink of extinction and hopelessness, and civil war is apportioning enough time for tensions and killings.

Africa dare not depend on aid. Commitments are the sole wishes of donors. They decide what and when to give. If aid follows this pathway, then aid will be needless for ‘needy’ economies.

It is not surprising when aid does not meet its aspirations. It is because donors clamour for secrecy. They support opaque deals. According to Publish What You Fund, a number of donors seem to be ”attempting to dilute or undermine” commitments to aid transparency “by removing all references to the International Aid Transparency Initiative” and implementation deadlines during the “Working Party on Aid Effectiveness” meeting in Paris this week. When Africa loses nearly $150 billion a year through pervasive corruption, it stands to reason that transparency is a precondition for real aid. How much is invested in poverty and hunger reduction programmes? Only donors and governments of developing countries are aware of what goes out and what comes in. Citizens have been turned spectators -- watching just for the fun of it while they are bear the brunt of poor utilization of those funds.

If aid is for democracy, then citizens reserve the right to know. The right to information is what democracy demands. The ‘Arab Spring’ revolution was the result of frustration with increasing secrecy and a demand for openness. Light should be shed on what governments are doing with the few stipends at their disposal to improve the lots of the poor. 

The ostensibly divergent interest of donor countries and especially Africa on aid brings another question to mind. Is the aid regime teaching Africa to fish? Or is aid driving Africa to fish in water without fish or dead fish? This trend puts the progress of developing economies at risk. 

In all, achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 should set the motion for a new transparent architecture of aid that makes poverty and inequality a priority. Aid that puts ownership of project while dissipating  inherent 'lethal' political and economic interests of donors is what's needed to engender development in ailing developing economies. Again, and critically important, aid in freedom should be delivered. Not aid with unnecessary conditionalities that limit the range of choices of recipient countries.  

With the clock inching closer to the 2015 deadline of the Millennium Development Goals, it is crucial both donors and recipients of aid go beyond the vocal commitments to make aid contribute to equitable pro-poor development. Less of that, Africa should think inwardly for a development miracle. Ensuring effective development in backward economies especially those in Africa is urgent. Explaining the glaring disconnect between aid  and poverty reduction is also crucial for today's policy discourse. Tomorrow may be too late.

By: Stephen Yeboah, Masters candidate in Development Studies, The Graduate Institute, Geneva. The author is also a freelance journalist.

Article was published prior to the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea in 2011. Follow the link here: Aid at donor's command

Local-level development in Ghana -- In search of radical rethinking

Decentralization: opportunity or charade?

That Ghana’s decentralization programme is fraught with inefficiencies is never a far cry from reality. The decentralization programme which began in 1988 had an objective of promoting effective and accountable local government in the country with the ultimate goal of clamping down on poverty. Rather the significance of decentralization has been stultifying. Lives in rural areas and even urban communities have increasingly been subjected to a quagmire of crushing poverty while the few so-called elites – stuck in their intellectual conservatism – amass fleeting wealth to themselves.

Of all the obstacles that seemingly hinder the country’s development efforts, “dirty” decentralization is perhaps the most daunting. Though they are known to be society elites they are as well “functional illiterates” – who do not understand the meaning of development. The reasons  for increased rural poverty, primitive agriculture practices, inaccessible potable water and health facilities are not far-fetched. The local governance systems meant to cater for grassroots concerns are all broken and have simply been rendered dysfunctional. 

Sekyere South District happens to be one of the twenty seven (27) districts in Ashanti Region. The district, upon personal experience, has sadly been the epitome of a broken and dysfunctional decentralization. A district with all the available good conditions to support viable economic activities and varieties of crops including cocoa and coffee simply lives outside its vision and mission. With its inspirationally engraved vision of “creating the necessary conditions for private sector development through job creation and access to basic services by actively involving the masses in the decision making process”, one is pricked to assume if even there is poverty in the region. This vision, however, smacks of a complete 'cartoon' paradox.

Poverty continues to exact its ravaging effects on the majority. The fate of smallholder farmers is as unpredictable as the rains they depend on to farm. Delving into the issue of local governance in the metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies, one is tempted to believe if Ghana is really committed in the fight against poverty, hunger and backwardness. Setting priorities to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 mean nothing to national and local political leaders and civil and public servants. It is disheartening to witness how the concept of decentralization is being outrightly disregarded. How structures of decentralization have being manipulated by the few to satisfy their illegitimate selfish interests. 

In most metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies (MMDAs), laws governing local government structures are simply taken for granted. Hypocritically infused with the ethos of participatory governance, the few stand for themselves and how to fill their ‘stomach’ is their agenda all day. They are rather representative of themselves thinking of nothing good but how to line their pockets to the detriment of the ordinary poor. In their frenzy attempt to amass cheap wealth, viable projects are at best delayed. Again, a project that would seemingly not bring money to the pocket of one person or a “clandestine group” would not be undertaken simply because signatories may not be ready to validate the withdrawal of funds for projects that benefit the poor. Even worrying is that amidst the display of these shameful attitudes, several kilometers of roads in the district are poor and dusty, affecting the ease with which people move and agriculture produce are transported to the market. Children still sit under trees or dilapidated structures to access basic education. People travel kilometers to access potable water and health.

Indeed, we should not expect as a nation to see development [not interventions from the World Bank, IMF] if these shameful and outrageous attitudes persist. For reasons unknown, the government, development experts, aid agencies and multilateral institutions assume that such lawlessness and banditry at the local government level have no effect whatsoever on local economic development. The destruction being caused by the country’s local governance system is first eroding public confidence and trust and also denying the people the right to development. This is a break in social compact that has the propensity to engender social unrest and public discontent.

The reason for the struggle of Ghana to extend the benefits of development to the poor could be attributed to the pageantry of selfishness and insensitivity of people at full display in MMDAs. What’s happening in Sekyere South District is a sign of a national canker. Sekyere South District is a sad scenario where local government and national constitutional laws are easily flouted with impunity.

This article is not meant basically to disclose the blatant anomalies in Sekyere South District Assembly and all MMDAs but to shed light on activities holding back the progress of the nation. Definitely, intrinsic and regular monitoring is needed at the local government level if development can be realized. These attitudes being exhibited are rather worsening and 'glorifying' rural poverty and underdevelopment. It's obviously unacceptable. It is about time poverty was eradicated in rural areas. The district structure of governance in its deep state of vulnerability demands urgent rethinking and restructure.

It is increasingly clear that such antics and obsession with individualism to the neglect of the peoples welfare not only contradict contemporary development agenda but also infringe upon the inalienable rights of the people to development.

From the foregoing, it is the truth that decentralization needs a deliberate didactic re-structuring geared toward changing attitudes of civil and public servants and instilling a sense of responsibility. The voices of the local people are powerful to demand better governance and accountability. Massive education and empowerment at the local level will offer a potential counter-effect to this mess being witnessed. The nation needs to battle against increasing illiteracy. This as such calls for an increased investment in both formal and informal education. Education and empowerment that is needed to generate awareness of the people to hold officials in check. Again, the local should be made to have a say in the day-to-day implementation of projects and programmes.

By: Stephen Yeboah, Geneva