DEVELOPMENT: U.N. Urged to Drop Africa Plan, Support Region’s Effort

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 11 2002 (IPS) - A 10-year United Nations development plan for Africa has failed and should be buried in favour of an initiative championed by the continent’s governments, an eminent persons’ panel urged Tuesday.

Lack of international support and a rash of armed conflicts within the region undermined the U.N. New Agenda for the Development of Africa (NADAF), said the panel, headed by former Ghanaian Finance Minister Kwesi Botchwey.

The United Nations should not attempt to create a successor programme to NADAF, the 12-member panel added.

Instead, it recommended that the world body throw its weight behind the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) when the U.N. General Assembly convenes in September.

NEPAD enjoys backing from all 53 African governments plus Britain and Canada. It calls for multi-party democracy and good governance in return for increased private investment and official development assistance (ODA).

Botchwey, director of Africa Research at the Centre for International Development at Harvard University, told reporters Tuesday that although Africa had made some impressive strides towards multi-party democracy. However, a sharp drop in aid, unfavourable markets for exports, devastating conflicts, and continuing poor governance continue to hinder its economic progress.

The U.N. General Assembly adopted NADAF in 1991. In the normal course of things, the plan would have been extended for another five or 10 years.

In a report released Tuesday, the panel said one outstanding feature of NADAF was that it set a region-wide average economic growth target of at least six percent per year throughout its 10-year period, 1991-2001.

To achieve this rate, the report said, it was estimated that a minimum net ODA of 30 billion dollars would be required in 1992, after which real net ODA would have to increase at an average of about four percent a year.

But throughout much of the last decade, the growth rate in Africa was only about three percent, well below the minimum needed to attain poverty reduction targets set by the international community.

The outcome was very disappointing, Botchwey said, adding that a central problem was the failure of the international community to deliver promised external support for Africa.

Instead of increasing, ODA to Africa continued to decline during the last decade: from 28.6 billion dollars in 1990 to 16.4 billion dollars in 2000, according to the study. The 43 percent decline in ODA had a negative effect on Africa’s economic performance, it said.

The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said last month that only five countries met the U.N. target of providing 0.7 percent of their gross national product (GNP) as ODA to poorer nations. The five were Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.

The report added that debt reduction mechanisms had yielded few significant results by the end of the decade, although 33 African countries qualified for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt-relief initiative.

“Many creditor countries, recognising implicitly the inadequacy of the enhanced HIPC, have arranged varying additional measures for debt cancellation and reduction,” the report noted.

Botchwey said that not only was there a shortfall in resources to Africa but even the international trade environment was hostile.

Trade opportunities increased far more slowly than anticipated. Moreover, the continuing reliance of African countries on a very narrow range of primary commodities deprived them of the benefits of the considerable growth in global exports of manufactured products.

Commodities made up about 26.6 percent of Africa’s total exports, while oil accounted for about 54.7 percent and manufactures about 18.4 percent, the study said.

Despite several shortcomings, the panel said liberalisation, privatisation, and market-based policies pursued during this period helped to improve the macroeconomic situation in African countries that implemented adjustment programmes.

“But overall, the adjustment programmes had serious adverse effects on social conditions and failed to restore growth,” the study said.

Very few African countries succeeded in attracting investments that would have supported accelerated and employment-generating growth, in spite of improvements in the investment climate, it added.

The panel also blamed poor economic performance on internal factors, such as despotism and corruption.

In recommending that NEPAD be adopted by the U.N. system as the framework for its African support efforts, the panel said the proposed new plan was an integrated and comprehensive programme for Africa’s development, designed by African leaders themselves.

NEPAD’s critics, including African civil society organisations, have scored it for failing to embody alternatives to orthodox free-market economic policies.