This past week, at the second meeting of the International Working Group on Labour in Cocoa Farming, in Accra, Vice President John Dramani Mahama called for the US Department of Labour to remove Ghana’s cocoa from its list of goods produced by ‘child or forced labour’. Ghana’s cocoa regions have long been identified as ‘hotspots’ for child labour – that it is an industry comprised of children supposedly working in appalling conditions. The US Department of Labour has included Ghana’s cocoa on a list of 122 products from 58 countries on its Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (TVPRA List). ‘This is unacceptable and serves to undermine the efforts that we are making to address the issue of the worst forms of child labour as well as a disincentive for other countries to embark on any comprehensive effort,’ the Vice-President said. He continued by citing that the inclusion of Ghana and neighbouring Cote d’Ivoire on the list stemmed from the inability of stakeholders in the cocoa industry to agree on common indicators and benchmarks for measuring the impact of child labour.
On this issue, the Vice President may a point. People in the developed world, particularly those in the ivory tower, seem to have a distorted image of child labour in rural sub-Saharan Africa, seemingly unaware of the fine line between ‘child labour’ in the exploitative sense and children ‘going to farm’. We need look no further than Kanye West’s music video of ‘Diamonds are Forever’, which contains images of children being beaten whilst mining diamonds underground in Sierra Leone, despite the fact that there are no underground mines in that country, to realize how little Westerners know about the issue of child labour in sub-Saharan Africa. The suggestion made in Accra was exactly this: that the United States Government is completely unaware of the situation on the ground, drawing conclusions about situations it knows absolutely nothing about. Ironically, the Vice President is in no position to refute these claims because much like the US Government, he himself has not gone to the field to properly size up the situation. The Vice President’s claim, therefore, is about as reliable as the potentially-erroneous claims being made by the US Government.
But what is perhaps even more bizarre than two governments disputing over something they no absolutely nothing about is the idea of the United States Government actually accusing a country of trafficking individuals. After all, this is the only country, along with Somalia, that has not ratified The United Nations Convention on The Rights of the Child. Somalia can be given some reprieve here, given that it has not had a functional government since 1991 but what is the US’s excuse? Of course, ratification would mean cracking down on a series of US-based clothing companies, a long list of multinationals that include Walmart, GAP, Nike and Adidas, which, if reports are accurate, owe child labour for their hefty profit margins.
But have no fear: hope is on the horizon. Recently, US president Barack Obama described his country’s failure to ratify the UN Convention as ‘embarrassing’, and, much like the climate change issue, has promised to review it. Maybe when he does eventually get around to it, makes an eloquent speech from the White House, and organizes a conference in a world clothing capital like Paris or Milan, we should nominate him for another Nobel Prize.
Saturday 5 December 2009
Tuesday 20 October 2009
Rewarding the Rewarded
Rumour has it that John Agyekum Kufuor, the former President of Ghana, is a virtual shoe-in for the much-coveted US$5 million Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership.
Mo Ibrahim, an African himself and self-made entrepreneur, established the foundation as a ‘carrot’ to discourage kleptocracy on the continent. It is awarded annually to a former African Head of State or government who demonstrates ‘excellence in African leadership’ – basically someone who ‘steps down’ come election time. It is a US$5 million prize awarded over ten years, with the potential for an extra US$200,000 annually for life thereafter. Whilst I share Dr Ibrahim’s passion and desire to eradicate corruption in Africa, I disagree completely with the idea of a financial reward for ‘good leadership’ in Africa and anywhere else for that matter. What next – a Rolls Royce for paying your phone bill?
But the award process underscores everything that is wrong with the approach taken to resolve the continent’s problems to date. It is hypocrisy of the highest proportions: on the one hand, condemnation of the continent’s leadership but on the other hand, a willingness to forge deals with its corrupt elite, in this case, rewarding corrupt leaders for doing the jobs they have been elected to do. We do not want to be seen interacting with the big and bad Mugabes and Obiangs of the world but because we want their countries’ resources, we formulate development action plans to extract coveted raw materials under pretexts of transparency and ‘good governance’.
We need look no further than Kufuor to put into perspective how wrong the Mo Ibrahim Award is. Here is a man who, in his eight years in office, sold Ghana Telecom to Vodafone, sold what little remained of the large-scale gold mining economy to foreign investors, and negotiated unfavorable oil contracts which the impotent, newly-elected NDC Government cannot possibly change anytime soon. The most significant achievements made under his watch were the construction of a shopping mall in Accra, right across from his house; the installation of several roundabouts in his hometown of Kumasi; and providing moral support for the Ghana National Team, on site, at the 2006 World Cup in Germany.
The point is that Kufuor is nothing more than the ordinary man, an unspectacular leader who was more interested in accumulating air miles by travelling outside of his country. So why is going to be given US$5 million – for stepping down at the end of his rule? Rewarding people like Kufuor for doing virtually nothing almost concedes that we have given up on tackling corruption in Africa, and have accepted that the high-ranking people in the region who do their jobs are anomalous and should therefore be rewarded because, well, they do what they are supposed to do.
But I guess there is no reason to get upset over Kufuor having done nothing to get this US$5 million. After all, Barrack Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for doing little more than winning an election and assembling a handful a fairly-engaging speeches…
Mo Ibrahim, an African himself and self-made entrepreneur, established the foundation as a ‘carrot’ to discourage kleptocracy on the continent. It is awarded annually to a former African Head of State or government who demonstrates ‘excellence in African leadership’ – basically someone who ‘steps down’ come election time. It is a US$5 million prize awarded over ten years, with the potential for an extra US$200,000 annually for life thereafter. Whilst I share Dr Ibrahim’s passion and desire to eradicate corruption in Africa, I disagree completely with the idea of a financial reward for ‘good leadership’ in Africa and anywhere else for that matter. What next – a Rolls Royce for paying your phone bill?
But the award process underscores everything that is wrong with the approach taken to resolve the continent’s problems to date. It is hypocrisy of the highest proportions: on the one hand, condemnation of the continent’s leadership but on the other hand, a willingness to forge deals with its corrupt elite, in this case, rewarding corrupt leaders for doing the jobs they have been elected to do. We do not want to be seen interacting with the big and bad Mugabes and Obiangs of the world but because we want their countries’ resources, we formulate development action plans to extract coveted raw materials under pretexts of transparency and ‘good governance’.
We need look no further than Kufuor to put into perspective how wrong the Mo Ibrahim Award is. Here is a man who, in his eight years in office, sold Ghana Telecom to Vodafone, sold what little remained of the large-scale gold mining economy to foreign investors, and negotiated unfavorable oil contracts which the impotent, newly-elected NDC Government cannot possibly change anytime soon. The most significant achievements made under his watch were the construction of a shopping mall in Accra, right across from his house; the installation of several roundabouts in his hometown of Kumasi; and providing moral support for the Ghana National Team, on site, at the 2006 World Cup in Germany.
The point is that Kufuor is nothing more than the ordinary man, an unspectacular leader who was more interested in accumulating air miles by travelling outside of his country. So why is going to be given US$5 million – for stepping down at the end of his rule? Rewarding people like Kufuor for doing virtually nothing almost concedes that we have given up on tackling corruption in Africa, and have accepted that the high-ranking people in the region who do their jobs are anomalous and should therefore be rewarded because, well, they do what they are supposed to do.
But I guess there is no reason to get upset over Kufuor having done nothing to get this US$5 million. After all, Barrack Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for doing little more than winning an election and assembling a handful a fairly-engaging speeches…
Monday 6 July 2009
H2O, Anyone?
One of the most perplexing and infuriating things about Canadians is their obsession with washing their driveways. It seems that, every Saturday during the Spring and Summer seasons, after washing their cars and lawns, Canadians turn their focus to their driveways. Some actually throw soap on the asphalt for good measure, seemingly upset with the quantity of dirt on their driveways, oblivious to the fact that they are located outdoors and adjacent to their soil-filled gardens.
Canada, which has about a half a percent of the world’s population, is endowed with twenty percent of the world’s fresh water. It has endless supplies of fresh water in its Great Lakes and numerous rivers, as well as countless glaciers. This is why, I guess, Canadians have not had to think twice when it comes to washing their cars or driveways.
Let us compare the Canadian case to say, that of Chad, where only 27 percent of the population has access to fresh water; or, Burkina Faso and Fiji, where only 42 percent and 44 percent of the populations, respectively, can access safe drinking water. Other serious cases include: Ethiopia (24 percent), Mauritania (37 percent), Papua New Guinea (42 percent), Laos (37 percent), Oman (39 percent) and Cambodia (30 percent).
These thoughts come to mind as I watch one of my parents’ neighbours wash her driveway so thoroughly and methodically. I am waiting for her to finish so I can go tell her to continue washing the road and the sidewalk, which also deserve a good scrub…
Canada, which has about a half a percent of the world’s population, is endowed with twenty percent of the world’s fresh water. It has endless supplies of fresh water in its Great Lakes and numerous rivers, as well as countless glaciers. This is why, I guess, Canadians have not had to think twice when it comes to washing their cars or driveways.
Let us compare the Canadian case to say, that of Chad, where only 27 percent of the population has access to fresh water; or, Burkina Faso and Fiji, where only 42 percent and 44 percent of the populations, respectively, can access safe drinking water. Other serious cases include: Ethiopia (24 percent), Mauritania (37 percent), Papua New Guinea (42 percent), Laos (37 percent), Oman (39 percent) and Cambodia (30 percent).
These thoughts come to mind as I watch one of my parents’ neighbours wash her driveway so thoroughly and methodically. I am waiting for her to finish so I can go tell her to continue washing the road and the sidewalk, which also deserve a good scrub…
Tuesday 9 June 2009
Why no one cares about Akwatia
This news just in: Akwatia is pretty much dead. Not that anyone would have noticed anyway. Ghana’s once-vibrant epicenter of diamond production is now a shell of its former self. I thought that the Belgium Market, once a bustling centre for diamond sales and exchange, where people in well-dressed clothes from the streets of Accra and abroad met rag-tag bunches of miners, was in a deteriorated state last year. But this year, it is even worse.
Akwatia is a classic example of what happens when donors simply do not care. An injection of donor funds could do a lot for the town. It could reenergize quite quickly if provided with just a small amount of support. Give me US$300,000 and I will set up an equipment-sharing scheme, which will provide the miners with the pumps and excavation technologies needed to access the diamonds located at lower depths which they are currently unable to extract with their shovels and buckets.
But the IFC is not interested because, well, de Beers and BHP Billiton are not interested, so there is no quick money to be made. The UK government is too fixated on fortifying Koidu Holdings in Sierra Leone, whilst the Canadians are enjoying watching their mining companies pillage developing countries of their gold. The Danes, meanwhile, believe that the key to development is the borehole, so 95 percent of their development work in sub-Saharan Africa seems to lead to the construction of a borehole (I am convinced if asked to build a road in Ghana, that DANIDA would somehow find a way to build at least three boreholes instead). The Chinese? It is not controversial enough (i.e. it is not a dam), so there is no chance of assistance from them.
Is not development for Africa about providing for Africans? Well, as the case of Akwatia shows, when there is nothing in it for the donor, it will not attract funding.
Akwatia is a classic example of what happens when donors simply do not care. An injection of donor funds could do a lot for the town. It could reenergize quite quickly if provided with just a small amount of support. Give me US$300,000 and I will set up an equipment-sharing scheme, which will provide the miners with the pumps and excavation technologies needed to access the diamonds located at lower depths which they are currently unable to extract with their shovels and buckets.
But the IFC is not interested because, well, de Beers and BHP Billiton are not interested, so there is no quick money to be made. The UK government is too fixated on fortifying Koidu Holdings in Sierra Leone, whilst the Canadians are enjoying watching their mining companies pillage developing countries of their gold. The Danes, meanwhile, believe that the key to development is the borehole, so 95 percent of their development work in sub-Saharan Africa seems to lead to the construction of a borehole (I am convinced if asked to build a road in Ghana, that DANIDA would somehow find a way to build at least three boreholes instead). The Chinese? It is not controversial enough (i.e. it is not a dam), so there is no chance of assistance from them.
Is not development for Africa about providing for Africans? Well, as the case of Akwatia shows, when there is nothing in it for the donor, it will not attract funding.
Saturday 6 June 2009
Why The Big Bully Could Not Keep Quiet…
It was only a matter of time before Jerry John Rawlings said something.
This week, the volatile ex-president of Ghana, who craves the spotlight and whose soul has failed to languish in the wake of numerous political changes, called upon the newly-elected NDC government to prosecute former ministers of the previous NPP regime. Screaming and foaming at the mouth whilst speaking to fanatical supporters at a rally in Kasoa in the Central Region of the country, ‘J.J.’ labeled all former NPP ministers ‘criminals’, and called upon President Atta Mills to act quickly. ‘Some of the crimes are obvious and yet, the government is saying, “we are investigating”,’ the founder of the NDC party cried. ‘NPP was almost collapsing the moral fibre of the country with corruption until Ghanaians threw them out.’
Whilst NPP and NDC propaganda always has good entertainment value, the matter to which Rawlings alludes is a serious issue indeed. Why? Because all eyes are now on Professor Mills, who did such a good job of divorcing himself from Rawlings during pre-election campaigns and shedding his image as a ‘Rawlings puppet’ – in the process, alienating some die-hard J.J. supporters and nearly costing himself the election. But it appears that he has finally caved into the demands of the former president. As if following instructions, Professor Mills scrambled this past week to appoint a three-member commission to investigate issues related to the Ghana@50 celebrations, which were under the control of the former Chief of Staff, Kwadwo Oyyere Mpiani.
Here is the problem, however. There is little doubt that NPP ministers embezzled funds during their grueling tenure; and, it is likely that the corruption could be traced back to the president’s office itself. A recent article published in the April 2009 issue of the New African condemns critics of the NPP regime, pointing out that under President Kufuor’s eight-year watch, Ghana’s GDP quadrupled and how when he left office, there was a national reserve of US$2 billion, compared to the US$230 million left by the previous NDC government. It of course fails to mention how much of this revenue came at the expense of large-scale privatization (principally in the mining and utilities sectors); that GDP is not a very good indicator of quality-of-life, and how, despite the increase in national GDP, the gap between the country’s rich and poor actually increased during the NPP’s rule; and how President Kufuor spent more time abroad delivering speeches from luxury hotels in the likes of America, Holland and the UK than in Ghana dealing with domestic issues. Also noteworthy, under his watch, Kufuor approved the spending of close to $20 million on Ghana@50 festivities, and even approved the construction of the Accra Mall, which contains expresso bars, a Shoprite and a Nike store – I repeat, a Nike store – on the other side of the Achimota Roundabout, directly across from his house and his son’s hotel. The article also praises the ex-president for ‘passing the torch’ to Atta Mills of the rival NDC party upon announcement of vote results, seemingly overlooking that these things are supposed to happen in a democracy.
But for Jerry Rawlings and his wife to talk, publicly, about how the NPP government was corrupt is more than a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Here is a man who has five mansions and countless cars, which he surely did not purchase on his airforce salary alone. He also financed several questionable development projects during his even more grueling 18-year rule, and, like Kufuor, shelled out millions on a celebration of his own: Ghana@40. In order to give some credibility to the accusations being made of the NPP, therefore, someone other than Jerry Rawlings needs to voice them.
The irony of the unnecessary, protracted verbal war between the NPP and NDC, which too often results in violence in the country, is that both parties are more similar than they are willing to admit: both have done a great job of selling the Ghanaian economy to Westerners, albeit under different circumstances; neither has managed to establish policies with donors capable of facilitating positive growth in Ghana for Ghanaians, the former forging highly-inequitable agreements and the latter, alienating support bodies altogether; and both have to date, identified the poor as the centerpiece of their agendas, yet have done next to nothing to alleviate their hardships.
One thing that is for sure, however, amid the J.J. rants and NPP chopping: that Nkrumah is turning in his grave, wondering ‘what happened?’…
This week, the volatile ex-president of Ghana, who craves the spotlight and whose soul has failed to languish in the wake of numerous political changes, called upon the newly-elected NDC government to prosecute former ministers of the previous NPP regime. Screaming and foaming at the mouth whilst speaking to fanatical supporters at a rally in Kasoa in the Central Region of the country, ‘J.J.’ labeled all former NPP ministers ‘criminals’, and called upon President Atta Mills to act quickly. ‘Some of the crimes are obvious and yet, the government is saying, “we are investigating”,’ the founder of the NDC party cried. ‘NPP was almost collapsing the moral fibre of the country with corruption until Ghanaians threw them out.’
Whilst NPP and NDC propaganda always has good entertainment value, the matter to which Rawlings alludes is a serious issue indeed. Why? Because all eyes are now on Professor Mills, who did such a good job of divorcing himself from Rawlings during pre-election campaigns and shedding his image as a ‘Rawlings puppet’ – in the process, alienating some die-hard J.J. supporters and nearly costing himself the election. But it appears that he has finally caved into the demands of the former president. As if following instructions, Professor Mills scrambled this past week to appoint a three-member commission to investigate issues related to the Ghana@50 celebrations, which were under the control of the former Chief of Staff, Kwadwo Oyyere Mpiani.
Here is the problem, however. There is little doubt that NPP ministers embezzled funds during their grueling tenure; and, it is likely that the corruption could be traced back to the president’s office itself. A recent article published in the April 2009 issue of the New African condemns critics of the NPP regime, pointing out that under President Kufuor’s eight-year watch, Ghana’s GDP quadrupled and how when he left office, there was a national reserve of US$2 billion, compared to the US$230 million left by the previous NDC government. It of course fails to mention how much of this revenue came at the expense of large-scale privatization (principally in the mining and utilities sectors); that GDP is not a very good indicator of quality-of-life, and how, despite the increase in national GDP, the gap between the country’s rich and poor actually increased during the NPP’s rule; and how President Kufuor spent more time abroad delivering speeches from luxury hotels in the likes of America, Holland and the UK than in Ghana dealing with domestic issues. Also noteworthy, under his watch, Kufuor approved the spending of close to $20 million on Ghana@50 festivities, and even approved the construction of the Accra Mall, which contains expresso bars, a Shoprite and a Nike store – I repeat, a Nike store – on the other side of the Achimota Roundabout, directly across from his house and his son’s hotel. The article also praises the ex-president for ‘passing the torch’ to Atta Mills of the rival NDC party upon announcement of vote results, seemingly overlooking that these things are supposed to happen in a democracy.
But for Jerry Rawlings and his wife to talk, publicly, about how the NPP government was corrupt is more than a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Here is a man who has five mansions and countless cars, which he surely did not purchase on his airforce salary alone. He also financed several questionable development projects during his even more grueling 18-year rule, and, like Kufuor, shelled out millions on a celebration of his own: Ghana@40. In order to give some credibility to the accusations being made of the NPP, therefore, someone other than Jerry Rawlings needs to voice them.
The irony of the unnecessary, protracted verbal war between the NPP and NDC, which too often results in violence in the country, is that both parties are more similar than they are willing to admit: both have done a great job of selling the Ghanaian economy to Westerners, albeit under different circumstances; neither has managed to establish policies with donors capable of facilitating positive growth in Ghana for Ghanaians, the former forging highly-inequitable agreements and the latter, alienating support bodies altogether; and both have to date, identified the poor as the centerpiece of their agendas, yet have done next to nothing to alleviate their hardships.
One thing that is for sure, however, amid the J.J. rants and NPP chopping: that Nkrumah is turning in his grave, wondering ‘what happened?’…
Thursday 4 June 2009
The Koidu Road: a UN Peacekeeping Corridor
I have been particularly hard on the UN in this space but just when you think it cannot get any worse, it does.
Yesterday, on our way back from Koidu, the diamondiferous epicenter of Kono District in Sierra Leone, our vehicle broke down. It was a potentially nightmarish scenario: we were in the middle of nowhere – literally – and most significantly, our jack was short of hydraulic fluid and therefore did not work. The only solution was to flag down a passing car and ask them for help.
The first vehicle to pass us was a UN land cruiser, speeding in the opposite direction, going towards Koidu. I did my best to stop the car to ask for help – after all, we were in the middle of nowhere – but it simply accelerated. It sped right by us, its passengers simply staring.
In the end, we managed to stop a TOTAL truck, stumbling along the road at about 30 miles an hour towards Freetown. The truck stopped, and the driver jumped out. He quickly diagnosed the situation and listened to our story, and within five minutes, he produced a jack, had our vehicle hoisted up, and had changed our tire.
But the UN vehicle, only five minutes earlier, had sped right past, its passengers staring. It was travelling at a ridiculous speed towards Koidu, and simply accelerated when its driver saw us trying to flag it down.
Because it was on an important mission, and could not stop.
Because the organization plays a vital role in this country.
Because there is civil violence all over the country, and it is needed here to preserve peace, which is why the vehicle could not stop.
Come to think of it, had the vehicle stopped, its passengers would have had to help us, uh, fix something. That is a result that the organization is not accustomed to achieving in this country, so why break a trend?
Yesterday, on our way back from Koidu, the diamondiferous epicenter of Kono District in Sierra Leone, our vehicle broke down. It was a potentially nightmarish scenario: we were in the middle of nowhere – literally – and most significantly, our jack was short of hydraulic fluid and therefore did not work. The only solution was to flag down a passing car and ask them for help.
The first vehicle to pass us was a UN land cruiser, speeding in the opposite direction, going towards Koidu. I did my best to stop the car to ask for help – after all, we were in the middle of nowhere – but it simply accelerated. It sped right by us, its passengers simply staring.
In the end, we managed to stop a TOTAL truck, stumbling along the road at about 30 miles an hour towards Freetown. The truck stopped, and the driver jumped out. He quickly diagnosed the situation and listened to our story, and within five minutes, he produced a jack, had our vehicle hoisted up, and had changed our tire.
But the UN vehicle, only five minutes earlier, had sped right past, its passengers staring. It was travelling at a ridiculous speed towards Koidu, and simply accelerated when its driver saw us trying to flag it down.
Because it was on an important mission, and could not stop.
Because the organization plays a vital role in this country.
Because there is civil violence all over the country, and it is needed here to preserve peace, which is why the vehicle could not stop.
Come to think of it, had the vehicle stopped, its passengers would have had to help us, uh, fix something. That is a result that the organization is not accustomed to achieving in this country, so why break a trend?
Monday 1 June 2009
Not Questioning Development
It is amazing how we do not question things in Africa – how truly routinized things have become. But why is this the case? And what are the implications of not questioning things?
It seems that fewer and fewer Africans are questioning daily life these days. Why is not doing so, so significant? Because – and apologies in advance for sounding like a broken record – for any significant economic improvement to be made on the continent, a groundswell for change must take place from within. Nothing is owned by Africans these days, and the policies put forward by the World Bank, other development agencies and ‘new arrivals’ such as China and India will not change this anytime soon. Specifically, none of the so-called development these actors are delivering will benefit Africans.
Let me put things into perspective by chronicling the events of my life over the past two days. It started in Ghana, where on Saturday, I went for lunch at a Chinese restaurant. Having grown tired of eating rice, I elected to pursue an attractive alternative; plus, I must confess, the place makes a great green tea and quite bizarrely, a delicious iced tea. My evening ended at a fairly-upscale restaurant owed by a New Zealander, where, for 15 quid a plate, you can get yourself some nice grilled chicken.
On Sunday, I flew to Sierra Leone. I sat beside a senior government official who was ecstatic about how the IFC is financing a new boat connection from the country’s island airport to mainland Freetown. The company that it is assisting is British. I rather elected to take the helicopter for 50 pounds – all of which are manned by Russian pilots. In the evening, I decided to eat at a restaurant owned by a guy named ‘Faisal’ , who, I believe, is French. I sat within earshot of a couple of UN workers who still think there is war going on in this country. That is when I started thinking about this entry.
Because at the Chinese restaurant, I was surrounded by Westerners and affluent Ghanaians; likewise at the upscale restaurant, which had, on the day, played host to pretty much every one of Ghana’s mining expats. That British company that is setting up shop as a transporter, will, in all likelihood, command Western prices and service primarily the scores of NGO officers, contractors and development workers ‘developing’ Sierra Leone – a service currently being provided by the Russian helicopters. Then there is Faisal. I mean, there are a million Faisals in this country, and every one of them sells food that only we in the West can afford.
All of these industries service a small group of people in sub-Saharan Africa, operating in isolation of a burgeoning group of poor people. These industries contribute very little to African economies, and do even less to raise poor peoples’ standard of living. We in the West are not going to change this arrangement, however. Most of us are fully content with going to Accra, Freetown, Bamako and Dakar and lodging in first class accommodation, eating Chinese or Indian food in plush surroundings with fellow expats, and chilling with Faisal in the evenings. The change must come from within. Because unless Africans begin questioning why fortified buildings in the form of plush restaurants and bars, as well as services that they cannot, and likely will not, ever use, keep appearing in their cities, and lobby their leaders, this brand of development will continue to be implemented indefinitely.
It seems that fewer and fewer Africans are questioning daily life these days. Why is not doing so, so significant? Because – and apologies in advance for sounding like a broken record – for any significant economic improvement to be made on the continent, a groundswell for change must take place from within. Nothing is owned by Africans these days, and the policies put forward by the World Bank, other development agencies and ‘new arrivals’ such as China and India will not change this anytime soon. Specifically, none of the so-called development these actors are delivering will benefit Africans.
Let me put things into perspective by chronicling the events of my life over the past two days. It started in Ghana, where on Saturday, I went for lunch at a Chinese restaurant. Having grown tired of eating rice, I elected to pursue an attractive alternative; plus, I must confess, the place makes a great green tea and quite bizarrely, a delicious iced tea. My evening ended at a fairly-upscale restaurant owed by a New Zealander, where, for 15 quid a plate, you can get yourself some nice grilled chicken.
On Sunday, I flew to Sierra Leone. I sat beside a senior government official who was ecstatic about how the IFC is financing a new boat connection from the country’s island airport to mainland Freetown. The company that it is assisting is British. I rather elected to take the helicopter for 50 pounds – all of which are manned by Russian pilots. In the evening, I decided to eat at a restaurant owned by a guy named ‘Faisal’ , who, I believe, is French. I sat within earshot of a couple of UN workers who still think there is war going on in this country. That is when I started thinking about this entry.
Because at the Chinese restaurant, I was surrounded by Westerners and affluent Ghanaians; likewise at the upscale restaurant, which had, on the day, played host to pretty much every one of Ghana’s mining expats. That British company that is setting up shop as a transporter, will, in all likelihood, command Western prices and service primarily the scores of NGO officers, contractors and development workers ‘developing’ Sierra Leone – a service currently being provided by the Russian helicopters. Then there is Faisal. I mean, there are a million Faisals in this country, and every one of them sells food that only we in the West can afford.
All of these industries service a small group of people in sub-Saharan Africa, operating in isolation of a burgeoning group of poor people. These industries contribute very little to African economies, and do even less to raise poor peoples’ standard of living. We in the West are not going to change this arrangement, however. Most of us are fully content with going to Accra, Freetown, Bamako and Dakar and lodging in first class accommodation, eating Chinese or Indian food in plush surroundings with fellow expats, and chilling with Faisal in the evenings. The change must come from within. Because unless Africans begin questioning why fortified buildings in the form of plush restaurants and bars, as well as services that they cannot, and likely will not, ever use, keep appearing in their cities, and lobby their leaders, this brand of development will continue to be implemented indefinitely.
Monday 9 March 2009
Participatory Research
It really infuriates me how development practitioners and academics glorify the term ‘participation’. There are now texts which instruct us on how to carry out participatory research, in which settings it should be carried out, and when and where it can and cannot be carried out. There is even, quite unbelievably, a burgeoning collection of texts providing instruction, which we all follow when developing our project proposals and comprehensive responses to terms of references. But amid all the frenzy to bring to the fore the importance of participatory research and, more broadly, participation, there is the obvious question: should development not be participatory anyway? More specifically, as development, by definition, is about helping the impoverished, is it not necessary to consult the poor people that are being targeted for support?
The aim of Robert Chambers’ seminal work, in my view, is to remind us of what is missing in development research and policy: to encourage us, as researchers, to critically reflect upon how there has hitherto been a missing element in the puzzle, which is the peoples’ voice. But rather than take this on board, and forge ahead with a revised methodology in stealth mode, the ideas have been, quite embarrassingly, glorified and patronized. As I have already mentioned, now, there are burgeoning sets of instructions on how to conduct participatory research, with accompanying guidelines on how the target audience should act (which is not very participatory, by the way). Another quite bizarre aspect of this story is the fact that many of the people who are championing the importance of participatory research do not have the slightest clue about how to conduct it themselves, have never lived in an African village, or, judging by their actions and rhetoric, do not have the slightest clue about what the word ‘participation’ means.
What is rather unfortunate, however, is that the target audiences still do not have a participatory vote in the things that have significant bearing on their lives or things that really matter: a say in whether it is necessary for the person who comes and engages in a ‘participatory exercise’ to take a first-class ticket to their country; about whether it is appropriate for the champions of participatory research to lodge in the Hilton; and whether it is necessary for these so-called pro-poor activists to eat roasted barracuda steak every day. Now I know why everyone is saying that it pays to be participatory…
The aim of Robert Chambers’ seminal work, in my view, is to remind us of what is missing in development research and policy: to encourage us, as researchers, to critically reflect upon how there has hitherto been a missing element in the puzzle, which is the peoples’ voice. But rather than take this on board, and forge ahead with a revised methodology in stealth mode, the ideas have been, quite embarrassingly, glorified and patronized. As I have already mentioned, now, there are burgeoning sets of instructions on how to conduct participatory research, with accompanying guidelines on how the target audience should act (which is not very participatory, by the way). Another quite bizarre aspect of this story is the fact that many of the people who are championing the importance of participatory research do not have the slightest clue about how to conduct it themselves, have never lived in an African village, or, judging by their actions and rhetoric, do not have the slightest clue about what the word ‘participation’ means.
What is rather unfortunate, however, is that the target audiences still do not have a participatory vote in the things that have significant bearing on their lives or things that really matter: a say in whether it is necessary for the person who comes and engages in a ‘participatory exercise’ to take a first-class ticket to their country; about whether it is appropriate for the champions of participatory research to lodge in the Hilton; and whether it is necessary for these so-called pro-poor activists to eat roasted barracuda steak every day. Now I know why everyone is saying that it pays to be participatory…
Tuesday 10 February 2009
The Car, Canada and Tim Horton's
Every time I go to Canada, it never ceases to amaze how different North American society is to European society. What cannot be overstated is that everything in the former revolves around the automobile. Whilst we are quick to point out how the Americans are wholly dependent upon their cars, and are unwilling to embrace any kind of environmentalist or ethical agenda if it entails an abandonment of their SUVs, make no mistake: the Canadians are just as bad.
In Canada, things not only revolve around the car but also develop around it, which has enormous implications for policy. There are numerous drive-through facilities surfacing everywhere, selling all sorts of food. Let us provide an extended analysis of this phenomenon by looking briefly at the coffee shop, specifically Tim Horton’s, Canada’s flagship coffee franchise. This is by no means tasty coffee. In fact, the stuff tastes more like Middle Eastern Crude than coffee. Nor is it by any means ethically-sourced: obtained from the subsistence producer, who is given a fair price for his/her coffee.
It is rather trucker’s coffee. Virtually every Tim Horton’s has a drive-through, designed to cater to the driving society. Whereas in Britain, every coffee shop has some reference to Fair Trade or ethical coffee, in Canada, there is no such reference anywhere at Tim Horton’s. Why? Because there is no need: it does not matter what you serve at the drive-through, as long as it is served at the drive-through. Canada, like the US, does not have a café culture, which could explain why 5 percent of Starbucks franchises in the latter have closed in the past year. The Starbucks that actually earn profits in North America are the franchises that are stationed in places where people will always be: airports, train stations and tourist centres. In Canada, nobody is going to drive to a Starbucks, or a Café Nero equivalent, or a Costa equivalent, because no one is going to drive to these places to get a coffee. Nor, unlike Europe, is anyone going to make a point of buying ethically-sourced coffee, hence the lack of change on the Tim Horton’s coffee menu.
Someone recently asked me the other day how you could get more Canadians to get off their seats and buy ethically-sourced jewelry such as Fair trade gold and ethical diamonds, the demand for which is growing exponentially in consumer circles. My solution: make it available on the Tim Horton’s drive-through menu.
In Canada, things not only revolve around the car but also develop around it, which has enormous implications for policy. There are numerous drive-through facilities surfacing everywhere, selling all sorts of food. Let us provide an extended analysis of this phenomenon by looking briefly at the coffee shop, specifically Tim Horton’s, Canada’s flagship coffee franchise. This is by no means tasty coffee. In fact, the stuff tastes more like Middle Eastern Crude than coffee. Nor is it by any means ethically-sourced: obtained from the subsistence producer, who is given a fair price for his/her coffee.
It is rather trucker’s coffee. Virtually every Tim Horton’s has a drive-through, designed to cater to the driving society. Whereas in Britain, every coffee shop has some reference to Fair Trade or ethical coffee, in Canada, there is no such reference anywhere at Tim Horton’s. Why? Because there is no need: it does not matter what you serve at the drive-through, as long as it is served at the drive-through. Canada, like the US, does not have a café culture, which could explain why 5 percent of Starbucks franchises in the latter have closed in the past year. The Starbucks that actually earn profits in North America are the franchises that are stationed in places where people will always be: airports, train stations and tourist centres. In Canada, nobody is going to drive to a Starbucks, or a Café Nero equivalent, or a Costa equivalent, because no one is going to drive to these places to get a coffee. Nor, unlike Europe, is anyone going to make a point of buying ethically-sourced coffee, hence the lack of change on the Tim Horton’s coffee menu.
Someone recently asked me the other day how you could get more Canadians to get off their seats and buy ethically-sourced jewelry such as Fair trade gold and ethical diamonds, the demand for which is growing exponentially in consumer circles. My solution: make it available on the Tim Horton’s drive-through menu.
Thursday 1 January 2009
Making sense of child labour in rural sub-Saharan Africa
I am in the process of revising a paper on child labour in African artisanal mining camps, and find myself seriously struggling. Not because it is something that I cannot do; the paper will be revised, and likely accepted. I just find that there are way too many generalizations about child labour in rural sub-Saharan Africa.
You have, on the one hand, an ILO and supporters calling for a ban on child labour, even in rural areas. The view being espoused by this school is that child labour is ‘bad’, irrespective of where, and the conditions under which, it takes place. Children, proponents argue, should not be working, regardless of the circumstances; rather, they should be in school. On the other hand, you have a group which argues that in rural sub-Saharan Africa, child labour is a part of the culture – that ‘going to farm’ has been, and continues to be, an integral part of rural livelihoods. Both sides are, for the most part, inflexible, unwilling to embrace the other’s views.
After reading the slew of ILO documents on child labour in sub-Saharan Africa, however, you are left with the impression that parents are forcing their kids to work – that they are cruel, and wish to deprive them of their education. In my experience, however, it is quite the opposite: that poor African families make incredible sacrifices to send their children to school, irrespective of what few opportunities may lie at the ‘end of the tunnel’ for high school, college and university graduates. Indeed, many of the first postcolonial African leaders – Nyerere, Nkrumah and even Mugabe before he became senile – preached the value of education. Whether or not it is because the messages of the Fathers of Independence continue to resonate, the rural African family continues to attach enormous value to education.
In many cases, African children work to generate sufficient funds to pay for their school fees. But – and thanks to the ILO – all we, the ignorant public, are provided, is one side of this: conclusions drawn from the terrible images of young children lifting sacks of ore at a mine site, or carrying firewood for miles. Someone needs to tell the ILO that these scenarios are not a result of exploitation, cruelty, or families’ ignorance of school or education. On the contrary, it is the value rural African families place on education which leads to children pursuing work. Rather than condemning the African village for ‘forcing’ their children into work, should we not be praising families for the lengths to which they go in order to ensure that their children attend school? A more logical means of ‘eradicating’ the child labour ‘problem’ in rural sub-Saharan Africa, therefore, would be to support families by providing them with the finances to send children to school; or, in instances where children are ‘breadwinners’, to provide families with the finances equivalent to that which would be lost as a result of removing a child from work.
But the ILO has a policy of not paying for school fees. Alas, we are forced to endure all of these nonsensical claims…
You have, on the one hand, an ILO and supporters calling for a ban on child labour, even in rural areas. The view being espoused by this school is that child labour is ‘bad’, irrespective of where, and the conditions under which, it takes place. Children, proponents argue, should not be working, regardless of the circumstances; rather, they should be in school. On the other hand, you have a group which argues that in rural sub-Saharan Africa, child labour is a part of the culture – that ‘going to farm’ has been, and continues to be, an integral part of rural livelihoods. Both sides are, for the most part, inflexible, unwilling to embrace the other’s views.
After reading the slew of ILO documents on child labour in sub-Saharan Africa, however, you are left with the impression that parents are forcing their kids to work – that they are cruel, and wish to deprive them of their education. In my experience, however, it is quite the opposite: that poor African families make incredible sacrifices to send their children to school, irrespective of what few opportunities may lie at the ‘end of the tunnel’ for high school, college and university graduates. Indeed, many of the first postcolonial African leaders – Nyerere, Nkrumah and even Mugabe before he became senile – preached the value of education. Whether or not it is because the messages of the Fathers of Independence continue to resonate, the rural African family continues to attach enormous value to education.
In many cases, African children work to generate sufficient funds to pay for their school fees. But – and thanks to the ILO – all we, the ignorant public, are provided, is one side of this: conclusions drawn from the terrible images of young children lifting sacks of ore at a mine site, or carrying firewood for miles. Someone needs to tell the ILO that these scenarios are not a result of exploitation, cruelty, or families’ ignorance of school or education. On the contrary, it is the value rural African families place on education which leads to children pursuing work. Rather than condemning the African village for ‘forcing’ their children into work, should we not be praising families for the lengths to which they go in order to ensure that their children attend school? A more logical means of ‘eradicating’ the child labour ‘problem’ in rural sub-Saharan Africa, therefore, would be to support families by providing them with the finances to send children to school; or, in instances where children are ‘breadwinners’, to provide families with the finances equivalent to that which would be lost as a result of removing a child from work.
But the ILO has a policy of not paying for school fees. Alas, we are forced to endure all of these nonsensical claims…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)