Ce Forum MONDE-HISTOIRE-CULTURE GENERALE est lieu d'échange, d'apprentissage et d'ouverture sur le monde.IL EXISTE MILLE MANIERES DE MENTIR, MAIS UNE SEULE DE DIRE LA VERITE.
AccueilAccueil  PortailPortail  GalerieGalerie  FAQFAQ  RechercherRechercher  S'enregistrerS'enregistrer  MembresMembres  GroupesGroupes  Connexion  
Derniers sujets
Marque-page social
Marque-page social digg  Marque-page social delicious  Marque-page social reddit  Marque-page social stumbleupon  Marque-page social slashdot  Marque-page social yahoo  Marque-page social google  Marque-page social blogmarks  Marque-page social live      

Conservez et partagez l'adresse de MONDE-HISTOIRE-CULTURE GENERALE sur votre site de social bookmarking

Partagez | 

 Le NEPAD, «qu'ossa donne de neuf»?5

Aller en bas 
membre mordu du forum

Nombre de messages : 654
Localisation : Washington D.C.
Date d'inscription : 14/06/2005

MessageLe NEPAD, «qu'ossa donne de neuf»?5

Nepad Not Just About Money Says G8 official
South African Press Association (Johannesburg)
February 16, 2002
Cape Town

A top G8 official on Friday warned African leaders against "unrealistic expectations" of money from industrialised countries to support the New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad).
Briefing journalists in Cape Town, Canada's G8 group of industrialised countries representative Robert Fowler said Nepad was about changing the relationship between the developed world and Africa, and not primarily about money.

"Of course its about money, but its not just about money. In fact its even not primarily money."

" ... its about putting in place the conditions that will allow investment to come to Africa, because private investment is going to bring to Africa far, far more than any foreseeable amount of global assistance could bring."

"If people believe Nepad is suddenly going to produce US64-billion then they may be disappointed."

Fowler -- the personal representative of Canadian Prime Minister and G8 chairman Jean Chretien was speaking after meeting South African President Thabo Mbeki and the 15-member Nepad implementation committee. He was part of a top-level G8 team, which included Britain's Baroness Valerie Amos, Walter Kansteiner of the US, and former International Monetary Fund managing director Michael Camdessus of France. Fowler said the costing of the development plan had not been discussed at the meeting the third of six the G8 was using to prepare its answer to Nepad.

"I know there is a number in Nepad and its US64-billion. It is to me inconceivable that those kinds of resources in that volume could be made available in an early time frame." A number of the countries in the G8 were experiencing economic problems and some of the economies were in a period of retrenchment, but this did not mean the group would not provide some financial assistance. The Canadian government, for example, had set aside CAD500-million dollars for Nepad.

The G8 was looking to Nepad to help ensure that the climate was right for increased investment, he said.

These included, amongst other things, a commitment to good governance, effective administration, and the fact that African governments will measure each other, he said.
Amos said the political and economic turmoil in Zimbabwe was a cloud that hung over the Nepad process but could not be seen as a litmus test for the plan.
The international community as a whole had a responsibility to come together to work out the issues that Zimbabwe needed to address. That country's government had not only put Zimbabwe at risk but also other countries within the region through bad economic management and by condoning intimidation and violence.

"We have seen the government of Zimbabwe at every stage ignore some of the warnings of the international community, but I think it would be wrong to be seen as a litmus test for this process (Nepad)," she said. The head of the Nepad secretariat and Mbeki's economic adviser Wiseman Nkuhlu agreed, saying it was too early to judge the programme. South Africa and the rest of the continent were taking its responsibilities on Zimbabwe very seriously.

Leaders could no longer hide behind sovereignty as in the past, but actions had to be taken within the context of legitimate structures, such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC). "That is why we can only deal with Zimbabwe within the context of SADC, within the context of the agreements of the OAU (Organisation for African Unity) and the United Nations," he said. Nkuhlu said the Nepad secretariat was conscious of the fact that Africans had suffered many disappointments and were impatient to see results.

Therefore, while the plan may take many years to show significant results, it was important that Nepad showed some successes every six months, he said.

Though written for and before Monterrey, these are relevant

Africa Action Document
March 20, 2002

This posting contains a brief statement by Africa Action on issues neglected or ignored at Monterrey. It also includes a recent action alert from the Globalization Challenge Initiative on the privatization of water in Ghana - an illustration of how policies imposed by "donors" in the guise of "reform" in fact add additional burdens on the poor and undermine the purported commitment to poverty reduction.

A related posting also distributed today contains excerpts from a briefing paper on poverty reduction released by Oxfam International on the eve of the global Financing for Development Conference being held this week in Monterrey. The Oxfam paper serves as one benchmark for the enormous gap between the rhetoric of world leaders, including new promises rolled out for Monterrey, and the reality of actual resources delivered for public investment to address global inequality.

The official Financing for Development conference site, with live webcast, speeches, and other documents, is available at:

Africa Action Statement on the
Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development
The Bush Administration Proposal
for Increased Aid to Poor Countries
March 20, 2002

President Bush travels to Monterrey, Mexico tomorrow to attend the International Conference on Financing for Development, a global summit to discuss reducing world poverty. The two key issues highlighted by the rich donor countries are (1) how much aid should they provide poor countries, and (2) what they will require of poor countries in terms of better governance.

We welcome the momentum toward realistic levels of development assistance, and agree that governments of both rich and poor countries should be held accountable. But we are appalled that the priority concerns of African countries have been largely sidelined.

The cancellation of Africa's illegitimate foreign debts and the full funding of the UN Global AIDS Fund are the essential first steps for saving millions of lives lost each year in Africa to poverty and the closely linked health crisis. These issues should top the agenda.

In Monterrey, Bush will present a new U.S. initiative. On Thursday last week, the President announced a proposed increase in U.S. assistance to developing countries. But the proposal was so hastily prepared that the White House has already had to issue corrections. As now described, the White House proposes an additional $10 billion in aid to developing countries over three years beginning in 2004. Named the Millennium Challenge Account, the initiative offers increased funding to countries who meet specific criteria including economic policies and governance conditions defined by Washington. Currently, most U.S. aid goes to two strategic allies in the Middle East, not to fight poverty in Africa.

The Bush initiative requires closer scrutiny. It reflects the White House's concern with criticism at Monterrey and from groups like ourselves, pointing out the fact that the richest country in human history is not contributing its fair share. But it does not show serious planning and commitment commensurate to the need.

The essence of the initiative is a bargain: countries deemed to be well behaved will be rewarded with greater U.S. funding. But the planned increase does not begin until 2004, and the requirement for greater resources to fight poverty is immediate. The promised increase is still well below what the U.S. can and should provide immediately to channels for effective delivery of resources that are available now.

It has been clearly demonstrated, for example, that public investment in health is effective in reducing poverty and promoting economic growth. It is correct to demand that resources are used effectively to achieve their intended purposes, but the monitoring mechanisms should be independent rather than unilaterally imposed by donors. These investments by rich countries are an obligation and moral responsibility, not an optional commitment.

The Bush proposal also fails to offer anything new on debt cancellation. The U.S. contribution to the Global AIDS Fund remains a meager pledge of $500 million over two years. Bush's announcement may reap short-term public relations dividends, but it fails to address today's most desperate needs.

Similarly the summit taking place this week in Monterrey has misplaced its priorities. The leaders of the world's richest countries promote free trade and foreign investment as the engines of development, supplemented by small increases in aid. But the principal obstacles to reducing poverty in Africa remain the hemorrhaging of some $14 billion in annual debt repayments to rich foreign creditors and the AIDS pandemic and the larger health crisis it represents.

This year is going to be critical in determining how the U.S. and other rich countries respond to Africa's economic challenges. In the aftermath of September 11th, they are being forced to address the widening divide between rich and poor countries. New international efforts, including those emerging from Monterrey, must be measured by how they respond to Africa's greatest immediate challenges: Debt and AIDS!

Africa Action
110 Maryland Ave. NE, #508,
Washington, DC 20002.
Phone: 202-546-7961.
Fax: 202-546-1545.

The Perspective
Atlanta, Georgia

Posted April 23, 2002

The African conceived and led New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) is an ambitious attempt by African leaders to jumpstart development in the continent. However, NEPAD as currently articulated, lacks a serious focus on the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa. As a vehicle for Africa's renaissance, based on indigenous initiatives and focused external support, NEPAD must be seen as a vehicle for tackling major impediments to the economic growth and political stability in Africa. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is unarguably the greatest threat to Africa's development at this point in time. I discuss why HIV/AIDS should be on the shortlist of any NEPAD strategic priorities.

NEPAD is touted as a "holistic, comprehensive integrated strategic framework for the socioeconomic development of Africa." NEPAD provides a "vision for Africa, a statement of the problems facing the continent and a program of action to resolve these problems." The goals of NEPAD include (a) promoting accelerated growth and sustainable development (b) eradicating widespread and severe poverty, and (c) halting the marginalization of Africa in the globalization process. Sectoral priorities of NEPAD include bridging the infrastructure gap in the continent; human resource development initiative (poverty reduction, higher education attainment levels, reversing brain drain, and health); agriculture; the environment; cultural issues, and science and technology.

As African leaders prepare to engage their G-8 counterparts during the June 2002 meeting in Canada, the current focus of NEPAD is on five areas of development:
1. Capacity building on peace and security.
2. Economic and corporate governance.
3. Infrastructure development.
4. Financial standards and the establishment of a Central Bank.
5. Agriculture and market access.
These focus areas of development in NEPAD are appropriate and deserve commendation. However, it is difficult to contemplate a serious attempt at jumpstarting development in Africa without urgent attention to HIV/AIDS, a condition that can negate not only the vision of NEPAD but also its goals, priorities, and current areas of focus. I briefly review the effect of HIV/AIDS on NEPAD's goals, priorities and current areas of focus.

HIV/AIDS is a formidable foe of accelerated growth and sustainable development in Africa. According to the World Bank and UNAIDS, HIV/AIDS in the hardest hit countries of Africa is directly responsible for an annual loss of 0.5-1.2 GDP. This is in a continent that must achieve a growth rate of 7 percent to meet the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of halving poverty levels by 2015. By 2020, heavily infected countries may lose up to 20 percent of their GDP to AIDS. HIV/AIDS is also fingered as a major factor in the current life expectancy in Africa of 47 years instead of 62 years, without AIDS.

HIV/AIDS is also a deadly opponent of any serious poverty alleviation effort in Africa, where at least four of every ten individual live on less than $US1 a day. By picking off the most productive segments of the society, AIDS creates a cascade of poverty enhancing effects at family, community and national levels. The World Health Organization's Macroeconomic Commission in its recent report estimates that regions that suffer truncated lives from early deaths and chronic disability stand to lose billions of US dollars a year. According to the UNAIDS, in Botswana where one of every third adult is living with HIV/AIDS, one quarter of households can expect to lose a breadwinner within 10 years, and per capita household income for the poorest quarter of households will fall by 13 percent. As breadwinners fall sick and die, household income dries up, food becomes increasingly scarce and/or rationed, children are pulled out of school, and poor families spend limited savings and household holdings on fruitless AIDS palliative treatment. Communities are deprived of their best-trained leaders, and nations suffer from the untimely deaths of its best bureaucrats, technocrats, doctors, nurses, teachers and other professionals. Public expenditure on healthcare will go up at a time of declining tax revenue from limited numbers of productive workforce. Africa's marginalization in the globalization process is exemplified, according to the World Bank, by its almost zero share of global manufactured goods, less than 2 percent of global trade, and its reliance on volatile commodity prices as sources of foreign exchange. As a continent that export mostly non-processed goods, Africa in addition to the impediments of massive agricultural subsidies imposed by the West, must deal with its small domestic markets that are dependent on the HIV/AIDS ravaged tiny middle class. Business organizations in many parts of the AIDS hard-hit Southern Africa have to hire two or more persons for the same job, and are incurring heavy costs in absenteeism, insurance premiums and death benefits. At least 28 percent of miners in South Africa are believed to live with HIV/AIDS. According to both the World Bank and UNAIDS, private investments are not likely to flow consistently to countries that are losing their best workers to AIDS because of stagnating demands and high labor costs. Farmers are also at the receiving end of HIV/AIDS: the International Labor Organization, an arm of the UN, estimates that at least 7 million farm workers in Africa have died of AIDS, and millions more are still at risk. In addition, critical investments in soil enhancement and irrigation are drying up because of the epidemic, according to the UNAIDS.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

 Sujets similaires

» donne timbres
» [Hurlelune] donne supplément pour jdr Hurlements
» Je donne
» Chrome trop neuf!!
» Clocher neuf et coq heureux
Partager cet article sur : diggdeliciousredditstumbleuponslashdotyahoogooglelive

Le NEPAD, «qu'ossa donne de neuf»?5 :: Commentaires

Aucun commentaire.

Le NEPAD, «qu'ossa donne de neuf»?5

Revenir en haut 

Page 1 sur 1

Permission de ce forum:Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Sauter vers: