A stream cannot rise above its source
Financing of Africa’s regional integration
Janah Ncube and Achieng Maureen Akena
2012-11-23, Issue <
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/issue/607> 607
<
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/85519>
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/85519
<
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/view?q=africa+union+logo&uname=110842048834
086824084&psc=G&filter=1#5740513675730293714>
http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/607/aulogo.jpg
Who funds the African Union? Africans can not champion their own solutions
when they can’t pay for them. Financing Africa’s unification by outside
sources endangers genuine development and self-respect.
On Monday 15 October 2012, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma began her tenure as the
Chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC). Her election at the
African Union (AU) July 2012 Summit preceded a long drawn and somewhat not
so fluent appointment. Her election ushered in the first female Chairperson
of the African Union Commission (AUC) and its predecessor the Organisation
of African Unity. The election’s controversy unfortunately, overshadowed
other important issues that were discussed and decided upon by this Summit.
Of great concern to us is the funding of the AU which is the key driver of
Africa’s integration and developmental agenda.
The July 2012 Summit also approved the 2013 Budget of the African Union
totalling USD277 million with contributions as follows:
• AU Member States: $122.8 million (44 per cent)
• Development Partners (Donors): $155.3 million (56 per cent)
• Total Budget: $277.1 million
Of the amount that the African governments are contributing, only $5.3
million goes towards programmes of the AU while 96% goes to operational
costs. This amount is actually 1.9% of the total budget. The total
operational cost is covered by the Member States. [1] For the programme’s
budget, the table below illustrates that the cost of programming at the AU
is borne by external donors. [2]
Programme costs for key AU institutions such as the Pan African Parliament
(PAP), the Human Rights Commission (ACHPR), the African Court (AfCHPR),
NEPAD, the Commission on International Law (AUCIL), the Anti-Corruption
Board and the Committee on the Rights and Welfare of Children (ACRWC) are
all being paid for by donors. In fact, there is no allocation at all from
Member States towards costs for the ACRWC which has a mandate to promote and
protect the rights of children in Africa. The newly constructed AU Offices
and Conference Center facility were solely financed by the Chinese
government at USD$200 million and the office building being constructed for
the Peace and Security Council being financed by the Germany government at
26.5 million euro are also worth mentioning here.
HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE
While it is commendable that the operational costs are wholly covered by AU
member states, it is quite disturbing that the integration and development
agenda for this continent is being paid for by foreign resources. Who then,
is really in charge at the African Union? Who decides what initiatives and
developmental projects are to be embarked on? If our continental
institutions and even our governments themselves obtain a majority of their
funding from external donors, then, who really drives the African agenda?
Who defends Africa’s interests in the global arena where these donors have
great influence? During the AUC elections for the Chairperson,
representatives of member states complained that there was some manipulation
by some foreign governments – with such a picture, this would not be
surprising. If someone is paying most of your bills why act surprised when
they think its up to them to decide what goes on in your home?
The graph below illustrates how the AU cash inflows have transpired for 2011
and 2012. It had to operate with little over half of the required (budgeted)
amounts. Due to the global economic downtown, donors only came up with 42%
of what was expected from them. Is it wise to have the continent so beholden
to donors?
The state of financing of the Union also calls into question the commitment
to building a strong and viable institution when the AU functions each year
with only 50-60% of its required finances. This inhibits its capacity to
fulfil on its mandate and assist member states to meet the aspirations of
African peoples. If it hurts to spend money on Africa we will continue
undeveloped, poor, weak and beholden to those who toss their crumbs to us
and strip us of our natural resources.
AFRICAN SOLUTIONS TO AFRICAN PROBLEMS?
The AU has to wait on external funding before it can respond with
peacekeeping missions to countries in crisis. 2011 saw several such
situations such as Côte d’Ivoire and Libya. In both situations, the AU was
unable to respond adequately or provide peacekeeping forces, and received
heavy criticism for it, particularly from within the Continent. Even though
there is change of leadership at the AUC, the new Chairperson may not
respond any differently to crises situations if there are no resources to
deploy the African standby force. 2012 has the situations in Mali, Somalia,
Eastern DRC and Guinea Bissau to deal with, the growing insecurity in the
Sahel region as a whole, as well as the persistent scourge of the rebel LRA
forces which are causing displacement across 3 countries in central Africa.
We can not champions our African solutions when we can’t pay for them.
A TREE IS KNOWN BY ITS FRUIT
There is, currently, deep frustration among the citizenry of the continent
who watches their leaders bi-annually fly huge delegations to AU Summits and
bear costs for their government. government officials attend numerous AU
meetings and conferences, and yet there does not seem to be any obvious
results from the AU. The AU not being able to fulfil its mandate hampers
continental integration. It really does seem like the Regional Economic
Communities like ECOWAS, SADC and EAC are more visible, relevant efficient
and independent. One wonders why they would be willing to be subsumed into a
seemingly weaker continental institution. One wonders how African Citizens
are expected to be known and be inspired by an AU whose results they don’t
see.
WHO IS PAYING UP?
Only five (5) countries contribute two thirds of the portion from AU member
states. These are the so called “big five” and only 2 were paid up by
mid-2012. If 5 out of 54 countries contribute 66 per cent and the majority
48 countries contribute 34 per cent what happens when one of these five
countries fails to pay as Libya did in 2011 and 2012? In fact, Gaddafi in
2011 withheld Libya’s contribution to the AU because he was not pleased with
the lack of progress on trajectory to the United States of Africa. When one
of these five countries doesn’t pay up, the AU feels that pinch.
Only 11 (20 per cent) of the 54 Member States had fully paid their
contributions by mid-2012 with 19 countries owing for the current year and
24 (44 per cent) having arrears from previous years. So when our countries
do not pay up, how exactly is the AU supposed to operate? At this same
Summit while reviewing the report of the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating
Agency, the African Heads of States ‘deplored the low level of annual
contributions from Member States for funding the NEPAD Agency operations
with the implied continued reliance on Development Partners which hampers
the Agency’s delivery and infringes on African ownership of the NEPAD
agenda’. Whom exactly were our Heads of States and Governments so strongly
criticising except the countries they lead? Where is the sincerity in this?
If it hurts to spend the money we will not see any development taking place!
How can NEPAD deliver when its not resourced?
Donor funds are not all about hidden agendas (although many times its about
their interest) they are also about international collaboration, faith in a
strong AU (Africa), sense of responsibility towards Africa due to historic
baggage. These are much appreciated but they cannot be our main source for
funding our integration agenda. The current state of funding at the AU
accentuates our concern, that Africa remains accountable to its donors and
not its peoples and makes hollow the commitments to transform the AU into an
institution that is people-centred.
HOW SERIOUS ARE WE ABOUT THE AU?
In a context where member states are failing to contribute to the program
cost, the AU has managed to secure some funding to run these programs,
indeed this is commendable. But does the availability of sources from donors
discourage member states from taking responsibility of their own
initiatives? Is it that we do not take the AU seriously? Could it explain
why since 1963, only 25 treaties out of the 42 adopted at the AU have come
into force. And even those in force, the implementation at the national
level is minimal and unfelt. Our national governments fail to comply with
the African Union’s decisions on integration, development and people’s
rights. The lack of accountability systems monitoring the compliance of each
African state has lead to the slow ratification and implementation of
numerous African Union instruments. In the mean time, the gap between
policies and reality keeps expanding. There are huge inequities between the
urban and rural, rich and poor people; 2 out of every 5 men and women die of
infectious diseases, 1 in 16 women dies at child-birth and 44 out of 54
countries currently import 25 per cent of their food needs and over 300
million people are denied the right to food.
IF YOU HAVE WEALTH, YOUR VOICE IS LISTENED TO
Out-going Chairperson Dr Ping at his last address to the Executive Council
of Ministers in July 2012 pointed out that the AU has little legitimacy in
claiming marginalisation in global politics when it is unable to be self-
sustaining and depends on donors to support its programmes. How legitimate
is the ownership of the AU by member states? As citizens it frustrates us
when we see African solutions and proposals being despised and ignored by
the West; we saw it in Libya for instance and yet it is Africa that pays the
prize when the west intervenes with their solutions for their interests. We
recognize that the crisis in Mali for instance is a consequence of Libya.
Africa’s voice remains weak and a whisper in the global arena and the AU
which was set up to consolidate our voice and enable us to project Africa
based on our synergies depends on the same international community to do its
work.
AFRICA, IT’S TIME TO PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!
Our continent faces increasing numbers of people living in deplorable
conditions, unacceptable levels of underdevelopment after five decades of
independence, high unemployment, high maternal mortality just to mention a
few ills. We need to develop good infrastructure that not only connects our
countries but connects farmers to markets so we can begin to feed ourselves
and not import food when we have large tracts of agricultural land and most
of our people as farmers.
If our governments and heads of states and governments are serious about
tackling poverty, growing our economies and ensuring Africa catches up with
the 21st century why is there no equivalent action in terms of funding for
the AU? If all the time spent in these Summits, the talk, speeches, debates
are not being backed up by money then surely our talk is cheap. Its time
African governments put their money where their mouths are. Africa should
take responsibility of the institutions Africa has created. Don’t just talk,
talk and back that talk with money. A stream cannot rise above its source.
If you expect results, effectiveness and efficiency at the AU, release the
resources!
IT’S TIME TO LOOK INWARDS, AT WHAT AFRICA HAS
Africa has great wealth, oil, gold, diamonds, wood, coltan, water,
agricultural land, gas, precious stones, young people and yet we are so poor
every year we go to bow to the Chinese, the Europeans for more loans. Its
time to clean up our act and re- organise how we utilize and manage our
resources. Our natural wealth should not enrich a few but benefit all.
The first place to start is with dealing with corruption. Since 2000, Africa
is loosing close to USD50 billion annually with a large portion of this from
the extractive industries. The AU-Anti Corruption Board which was set up to
look into such issues is incapacitated and needs member states to support it
and not donor funding. Former President Thabo Mbeki is leading a High Level
Panel looking at the illicit flow of finances from Africa. Recommendations
from this panel need to be implemented.
In 2011 the AU established a High Level Panel on Alternative Financing which
is led by former President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria. The Panel has made
recommendations for possible financing options for the AU, for example from
levies on international travel and imports. This is highly commendable as
the implementation of its recommendations will go a long way to providing
sustainable ‘own’ resources for the AU. Although this does not absolve our
countries from ensuring that we pay for our integration agenda, its benefits
are desperately needed on this continent.
CONCLUSION
Paying for our institutions is about self respect. Africa paying for the AU
will prove our seriousness about making African institutions work for
Africa. The AU exists as a mechanism that helps us drive our collective
development and a better life for African peoples. This better life for all
will remain a dream if the river source is not opening up and pouring its
waters to the streams that water our development. It’s time to take the AU
seriously, its time for Africa to resource its institutions.
For more information on issues raised in this article please contact:
Centre for Citizens' Participation on the African Union (CCP-AU) Tel:
+254-20-3877508 Fax:+254-20-3877663 Email: <mailto:info_at_ccpau.org>
info_at_ccpau.org Web: <
http://www.ccpau.org> www.ccpau.org Twitter:
_at_Citizens4Africa
------------[ Sent via the dehai-wn mailing list by dehai.org]--------------
Received on Thu Nov 22 2012 - 18:45:20 EST
