But the AU Authority will come into force only when the 53 African states ratify an amended treaty of the AU, known as the Constitutive Act. The deal was reached after several hours of painstaking discussions on the subject, marked by walkouts by some of the leaders, but the details of how the new authority would work has yet to be hammered out. As African leaders battled to save the deal on the formation of the AU Authority, an attempt to introduce the formation of an African Defence Council further threw the discussions into disarray as leaders tussled on whether a defence council for Africa should replace the peace and security council.

In the end, the leaders agreed to transform the current AU Commission into an Authority, which is a first step towards the formation of a United States of Africa government - an issue that has divided the leaders since substantive debate on the declaration of an Africa government kicked off in 2005.

Diplomats said the agreement reached would allow the African states at least six years to consult before committing themselves to submitting their authority to the newly created AU Authority. ‘They agreed that the Authority would be created and that the states have six years to further consult their parliaments,’ a Kenyan diplomat, speaking on conditions of anonymity, told PANA.

African leaders stayed behind to further debate the proposed establishment of an African defence council, an issue that also polarised proceedings in Sirte, venue of the 13th session of the African Union heads of State and government Assembly that was meant to discuss agriculture. Sources said African leaders insisted that the creation of the defence council would contravene the treaty establishing the Peace and Security Council of the AU, and that the proposal was eventually shot down.

Debate has been rife on how to create the AU Authority and whether the creation of such an Authority would affect the sovereignty of the various member states of the AU.
 
Sirte - 03/07/2009

The decision was made at the end of a four-hour debate on the issue, which polarised the attention of the heads of state, and government, who said they could not deliberate on the issue because two texts were proposed to them, according to sources close to the summit. In the absence of a final report on the works of the executive council, the president of the executive council, the secretary of the AU affairs to the Libyan popular committee for external Affairs and international cooperation, Ali Triki, presented a text, including proposals by Libyan leader Mouammar Kadhafi.

These proposals touch on the competence of the Authority, defence, security and external relations. In addition, they say that full executive powers must be given to the Authority, which would also absorb all the other organs. However, these proposals are not in the second text submitted to the delegations.

After long discussions, the question became ‘which text should we rely on to deal with the issue of the transformation of the Commission into an Authority,’ the source said. In the end, the heads of State and government decided to send back the two texts to the foreign affairs ministers to harmonise their position.

A visibly upset Kadhafi declared to the heads of State and government that he was not fighting for the interests of his country because, as he put it, Libya had sufficient resources to take up the challenges of development. ‘We are close to Europe and the Union for the Mediterranean is courting us, but we remain deeply pan-Africanists,’ he was quoted as saying. He warned: ‘should this discussion fail’, he would no longer participate in a debate on the government of the Union.

The council, which comprises Foreign ministers of member states, is expected to make the recommendations to be adopted by the leaders at their summit, which ends Friday. The executive council was originally slated to end its three-day meeting on Tuesday, but deliberations were extended till Wednesday as the transformation issue, proposed by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, became knotty.

Sources at the meeting told PANA the ministers could not reach a consensus on the transformation, which would see the emergence of an Authority comprising a chair, a vice-chair and 10 secretaries with specific portfolios. The proposal by the Libyan leader, who is also the AU chairman, also includes the inclusion of defence, security and coordination of external relations within the Authority’s field of competence. A number of countries, including Nigeria, are opposed to the immediate creation of the Authority.

The Libyan delegation, which had expected that the proposed transformation would sail through easily, is said to be disappointed at the turn of events, especially the opposition by certain member states. With the work of the council stalemated over the transformation, a source within the council told PANA that nothing prevents the heads of State from going ahead to deliberate on the issue and take appropriate decisions without consulting the foreign ministers.

The report says 161 actions in relation to 38 decisions and a declaration made by the executive board and 103 other actions linked to 42 decisions and seven declarations were identified as being measures to be taken.

In the course of their proceedings from 24 to 27 June, the representatives had expressed deep concern about this situation that questions ‘the credibility of the African Union and which constitutes its main weakness’. They said this weak level of implementation for adopted measures was ‘a shared responsibility between member states and AU organs involved in implementation’.

This situation is particularly justified by the fact that the member states, the Commission and the other organs do not have the adequate capacities at their disposal, says the Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR). Some representatives point out that the main problem in the implementation of measures is the absence of adequate financial means.

In this context, decisions must be taken in relation to the means of the AU. The report on the implementation of measures taken by the executive board and the conference had the same conclusions. ‘It is extremely important that measures be taken after profound evaluation of t heir financial impacts and human resources and institutional capacities required by the African Union and the other concerned organs as well as member states involved in the implementation process,’ according to the CPR.

To solve this problem, the representatives proposed in a report to rationalise the number of projects submitted for adoption to AU organs. In addition, they asked the member countries, the Commission and the other organs that measure projects to be submitted to the deliberative organs be given an evaluation sheet for their financial impacts, their financing sources and their institutional implementation capacities. CPR and the Commission are also urged to hold consultations immediately after the summit to examine and agree on a mechanism for the monitoring and implementation of these measures.

Agriculture is an overlooked ‘emergency’ that deserves as much attention as the global financial crisis, according to Kate Norgrove with Oxfam UK’s office in Dakar, Senegal. ‘Nearly $9 trillion has been injected into the global financial sector since January 2009 versus $4 billion in global ODA [overseas development assistance] to agriculture. That is small change relative to the scale of the problem.’

Decades of declining production have pushed more families into hunger and disease, according to Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). AGRA calculated that 18 percent of ODA in 1980 went to agriculture versus 4 percent in 2006.

Small farms bear the brunt of these cuts, according to Oxfam UK. In a recent report, the NGO noted the United States and European Union invested less than $3 per small farm in poor countries from 1986 to 2007. ‘Half these farmers do not produce enough to feed their families,’ Namanga Ngongi, AGRA’s president, told IRIN. ‘Small-scale farmers are not organised and do not have a voice in their government’s agriculture policies.’

More than 70 per cent of Africans depend on agriculture to live, according to the UN. People across sub-Saharan Africa protested when the prices of agricultural inputs, food and fuel soared in recent years; prices remain unaffordable for many.

AGRA’s Ngongi said while he recognised the term ‘green revolution’ recalls memories of failed agricultural investments, “Running away from the word does not solve productivity problems. We cannot tinker around the margins. Africa’s agricultural problems need massive investments – nothing short of a revolution.”

Solutions need to be tailored to small-scale producers’ needs, he added. If smaller packages of fertilisers, seeds and tools were available, people who can only afford smaller quantities are more likely to buy. The readily available packages weighing up to 100kg are impractical for farmers – most often women – travelling in precarious transport over long distances on poor roads, Ngongi told IRIN.

Ngongi told IRIN farmers are now forced to travel long distances to get seeds and fertilisers because there are not enough small traders in rural areas. ‘In western Kenya where AGRA has implemented agro-leadership programmes to train traders, farmers are now walking on average 4km to buy inputs versus 17km before.’

Cash-strapped governments are unable to back loans to small farms, according to AGRA. ‘Banks need risk assurance,’ Ngongi said, describing a loan-assurance programme in Kenya backed by AGRA and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) that has agreed to loan $50 million to small-scale farmers over three years.

In a recent report on cash transfers in southern Niger, the NGO Save the Children UK wrote: ‘Providing agricultural inputs alone is not sufficient to help the poorest households increase their food production. These inputs must be accompanied by economic support (cash or food) so that able-bodied adults can spend sufficient time working in their own fields.’

African Union’s Commission’s deputy chairperson Erastus Mwencha said the fight against terrorism in Somalia, battling international fraud and stepping up Africa’s fight against illegal activities, would form part of Africa’s new institutional building mechanisms once its new strategic plan is approved.

African leaders have gathered in the Libyan city of Sirte on 1 July to discuss the organisation’s strategic plan, which among other issues, seeks to address a common defence policy for the continent while also styling up the AU Commission to engage directly in the implementation of mega development projects. ‘The strategic plan 2003-2007 was meant to create working structures of the African Union Commission (AUC). We have a new strategic plan for 2009-2012, which will focus on the effectiveness and efficiency with its first pillar as peace and security,’ the AU deputy chief told a news conference.

The first pillar of the new AU strategy focuses on peace and security with the creation of the African standby force as a key plank of the plan. Mwencha said it was not immediately clear if the African standby force would be used in the defence of Africa but most experts, including the AU peace and pecurity Commissioner Ramtane Lamamra, had previously told PANA that the army would be used for Africa’s peacekeeping efforts.

Mwencha said the first AU strategy saw the creation of the African peace and security council, worked on a 24-hour basis to react to any emerging crises and threats to peace in the continent. The second part of the plan is examining the defence of Africa with a common defence policy for Africa, which has been proposed for debate during the summit in Sirte as part of the big discussions.

The new defence policy could be in place within four to five years. ‘We are still in the primary stage of putting in place the elements, including the operations of the African standby force, and whether the force would be part of Africa’s defence,’ Mwencha said. The AU also plans to focus on large-scale development of the continent. This strategy takes note of the fact that the commission failed to establish itself as a project execution authority and it now needs time to become a major institution in the implementation of Africa’s economic and social projects.

So far, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) is being styled as the implementing arm for major projects to be taken regionally and continentally.

Speaking on behalf of Africa’s traditional leaders, Ghana’s John Naba challenged African leaders, gathered in Sirte to discuss the transformation of the African Union Commission into an Authority, to discard their thinking along the continent’s colonial boundaries and work towards unity.

African leaders are divided on whether they should declare the formation of the AU Authority during the current Summit. ‘The time has come for Africa to achieve peace and do away with the continued civil conflicts. We, the chiefs of Africa, have agreed to give all our support to AU leaders for the realisation of peace in Africa,’ Naba affirmed.

Addressing African leaders earlier at the opening of the summit, Naba recalled that his association had called for a single passport in 2002. Naba said his group would support AU leaders to enable them achieve their goals, which included a common government, and urged them to work towards the achievement of free movement in the continent.

He said the traditional rulers were seeking recognition from the AU leaders because they were in direct contact with the grassroots. The traditional rulers sparked controversy in January when they declared the Libyan leader, Mouammar Kadhafi, the King of Kings, a title they bestowed on the AU chairman ‘for his personal efforts to help Africa achieve full unity.’

With the theme ‘Investing in agriculture for economic growth and food security’, the summit is scheduled to take place from July 1 to 3. Leaders of AU member states are expected to extensively discuss how to increasing the continent’s agricultural investment in order to face the challenge of ensuring Africa’s food security during the summit.

The recent sharp increases in the prices of food, especially cereals and oilseeds, created hardships for consumers in the region. The World Food Program (WFP) said in a release that the situation of food prices increase is most dramatic in sub-Saharan Africa with domestic prices of rice are much higher than 12 months earlier in all countries analysed. Food price rising contributes to more difficulties in addressing the hunger and undernourished problem as the WFP disclosed that there are 236 million people undernourished in sub-Saharan Africa. Some effective approach to agricultural production growth will involve strengthening agro-dealer networks and farmer organisations to increase access to affordable quality seeds and fertilisers, improving farmers’ knowledge of integrated soil fertility management and strengthening farmers’ opportunities.

During the opening ceremony of the 15th ordinary session of the executive council of the AU on June 28, Abdoulie Janneh, United Nations Under Secretary General and Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), called on Africa to speak with one voice in trade negotiations so as to better structure policies related to markets, land, development of intra-regional trade and the promotion of diversity of agricultural produce throughout the region of the continent.　

The heads of states will also discuss on strengthening the role of the AU in the prevention, management and resolution of election disputes and violent conflicts in Africa. Madagascar’s political crisis will be another hot topic in the summit. While referring to the situation in Madagascar at the opening ceremony of the executive council meeting, the chairperson of the AU Commission, Jean Ping, expressed his concerns about the resurgence of coups d’état and unconstitutional changes.

Soon after the political stalemate broke out last December, international communities, including AU, called the two rivals, Madagascar’s former President Marc Ravalomanana and the opposition leader Andry Rajoelina, to find a peaceful way out of the political crisis, the worst in years in the Indian Ocean island. Madagascar was suspended the AU membership in March and later cancelled the hosting of the summit, due to be held in Madagascar’s capital Antananarivo, after the army forced out Ravalomanana and installed the opposition leader in his place.

At the official opening ceremony of the executive council meeting, Jean Ping further pointed out that the 13th session of the AU assembly would be called upon to pronounce itself on the recommendations of the executive council on the transformation of the Commission into the Authority of the AU.

Moreover, the summit is expected to discuss a number of issues, including the situation of refugees, returnees and internally displaced persons in Africa; racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia; the implementation of the joint Africa-EU dialogue strategy and its action plan; the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals; the progress on water and sanitation goals in Africa and on the AU women’s fund, among others.

The establishment of the AU to replace the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which was founded in 1963, was envisaged at an African summit in September 1999 in Libya’s Sirte, with a view to further African cooperation, development and integration. The Constitutive Act of the AU entered into force in May 2001 and the AU was formally formed in July 2002.

However, the official theme of the meeting will be ‘Investing in Agriculture for Economic Growth and Food Security’. It is now six years since the AU adopted the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), which provided the framework for the most recent Economic Report on Africa, issued by the AU and the UN’s Economic Commission for Africa.

This report emphasises the need for the continent to give greater attention to this crucial, but often neglected sector, if the essential goals of economic diversification, job creation and poverty alleviation are to be realised in Africa. It talks of the opportunities for the creation of regional value chains integrating agriculture with other economic sectors to promote sustainable development. Agribusiness, processing, bio-fuels, soil management, seed improvement and fertiliser production all form part of this chain.

The urgency of renewed attention to the agricultural sector has been driven by the realisation that Africa’s traditional exports are both too limited in number and too vulnerable to sudden shifts in global commodities markets, as witnessed so dramatically over the past year. It also reflects a need to reduce dependency upon food aid to meet the needs of Africa’s rapidly growing population and to address the anomaly of the continent remaining a net importer of food, despite it boasting the world’s largest area of unused arable land and pasturage.

The sudden spike in staple food prices and the social distress and political unrest to which this gave rise have also focused attention on a sector that lends itself poorly to the developmental photo-opportunities and media coverage offered by infrastructural turn-key projects. But this price rise and the uncertainties of global food markets has also concentrated the attention of a number of states beyond Africa, rich in capital but suffering a dearth of viable agricultural land or the water to irrigate it. This is not a new phenomenon, and for a few years now agriculturally stressed countries have sought to reduce their dependency on the vagaries of the market by investing in countries with an apparent abundance of underutilised land. Economic privatisation opened up huge tracts of fertile land in Russia, Siberia and Ukraine for such purposes.

Now, Africa and South-east Asia have become sought after venues for the investment of foreign agricultural capital, especially from the Middle East and Asia. Much of this investment comes in the form of the securing of long-term leases on farmland, which are then developed and farmed to provide crops for export to the country providing the capital. The International Food Policy Institute has estimated that some 20 million hectares may have been leased in this fashion, equivalent to a fifth of the agricultural area of Europe.

Such arrangements may also be attractive to host governments, eager to cash in on underused or undeveloped natural assets. Advocates of these policies also emphasise the gains to be made in employment, technology transfer and infrastructural development. These may all suggest a convenient fit with the policies to be explored in Sirte, where years of underinvestment in agriculture will come under the spotlight. But one is well advised to be careful of what one wishes for, and the casual and opaque way in which some African governments have already entered into agreements with overseas investors should give cause for alarm.

It does not take a great deal of imagination to realise that the ‘offsets’ being offered by investors in terms of infrastructure, technology and jobs for the locals may not live up to expectations. Under what conditions would African governments be motivated to terminate or abrogate contracts with wealthy sovereign funders? Can one assume that the governments themselves act with the long-term interests of their own citizens at heart? A noticeable lack of transparency in the initiation, negotiation and implementation of existing contracts would suggest otherwise. Speculation about an attempt by President Marc Ravalomanana of Madagascar to lease a vast part of his island to Korean investors was used by his opponents to mobilise popular opinion against him. The details of this ‘deal’ are still unclear.

But there are other ways in which such apparently beneficial deals may exacerbate the situation in a continent in which political and community conflict are already rife. It is very easy for governments to claim that under law they have the right to dispose of land and the water on and beneath it. Across much of Africa, systems of registered and commercially oriented tenure do not exist, which is not to say that communal land rights should be ignored. This applies as much to the rights of farming communities as to nomadic pastoralists. Tampering with such customary rights has been a fertile source of conflict in Africa, as the recent histories of Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya and Cote d’Ivoire all demonstrate.

In their deliberations in Sirte, Africa’s leaders would do well to contemplate the social and political costs of offers that may seem too good to refuse. They, and would-be investors, should also be reminded of the protection they are bound by international law to provide for the people of Africa who depend upon the soil for their livelihoods. Those who remain ignorant of such obligations would do well to read the report of the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, published on 11 June this year. Entitled Large-scale land acquisitions and leases: A set of core principles and measures to address the human rights challenge, this excellent piece provides a succinct set of guidelines for the possible implementation of such policies.

*Richard Cornwell is a Senior Research Consultantwith the African Security Analysis Programme of the Institute for Security Studies in Tshwane (Pretoria).
 

Released on the eve of the summit, ‘Investing in Poor Farmers Pays: Rethinking How to Invest in Agriculture’ warns that under-investment and bad agricultural policies by African governments and international donors have exacerbated chronic poverty and hunger for tens of millions of Africans. 60 per cent of all Africans live in rural agricultural areas, while the urban poor are also increasingly facing food crises and malnutrition. Oxfam welcomed the AU’s decision to make agriculture this summit’s theme. It said that local communities must have a greater say in shaping the policies that affect their lives if real change was to occur.
 
Lamine Ndiaye, head of Oxfam’s Pan Africa programme for Economic Justice, said: ‘One in three Africans is now affected by food crises. Investing in agriculture is part of the long-term solution to the food, financial and climate crises. The economic collapse is changing the way that people suffer from hunger – food is available but it simply costs too much for millions of people to afford. AU leaders must commit to more investment in small-scale African agriculture to break the current dependency on the global market.’
 
Oxfam urged African governments to meet the commitments they made at the 2003 AU Summit in Maputo to allocate a minimum of 10 per cent of national budgets for agriculture, and more for rural development. Only seven countries have since reached this modest target. Most African governments are averaging only about 4.5 per cent. Yet investing in agriculture pays for itself by reducing poverty, reducing dependency and stimulating local markets, Oxfam’s report finds.
 
International donors have also failed to live up to their commitments to poor African farmers. Just over $1 billion of the $12 billion that donors committed last year to help poor countries cope with the global food crisis has so far reached the ground. Bad donor policies, such as forced liberalisation of local markets and support for large-scale agricultural projects instead of small-scale community farmers, have also undermined African agriculture. While spending on agriculture in poor countries has decreased over the past twenty years, the US spent $41 billion and the EU $130 billion on its domestic agricultural markets in 2007.
 
Lamine Ndiaye said: ‘This Summit must mark a new era for African farmers. Small-scale agriculture is the backbone of most African economies, the largest contributor to many countries’ GDP, and is absolutely integral to African development. Yet for decades, our own governments and the international community have repeatedly neglected and under-invested in agriculture and rural development. Many farmers work in harsh, remote environments with inadequate access to markets and basic services such as water, land, healthcare and education.’
 
Oxfam’s report argues that additional investment must also be spent more wisely. Climate change is one of the biggest long-term challenges facing Africa, with desertification and drought devastating many rural areas. Community farmers manage some of the most degraded and fragile lands, and effective investment must aim to promote environmental sustainability. Marginalised and impoverished areas also need particular support.
 
‘Investing in agriculture goes hand in hand with addressing the marginalisation of entire sectors of African society. Rural development is badly needed in areas without schools and healthcare, and among pastoralist communities. Women play a vital role in the agricultural economy yet are hampered from reaching full potential by low rates of literacy, nutrition and civil rights, and the impact of HIV/AIDS. Securing land rights for women and empowering women farmers would mark a major step forward,’ said Lamine Ndiaye.
 

At the last AU summit, in January 2009, leaders failed to address these ongoing conflicts or take measures to protect civilians from violence and suffering, Oxfam said. Since then, violence in eastern DRC, south-central Somalia and southern Sudan has escalated even further and countless more lives have been destroyed. The rest of the international community has been equally ineffective. ‘Every minute of every day since AU leaders last met has seen the equivalent of a family of five made homeless by these conflicts. The AU must unequivocally condemn such suffering. It is unacceptable that right now African women continue to be raped, men killed, families torn apart and the lives of generations of children are shattered,’ said Desire Assogbavi, Oxfam’s Senior Africa Policy Analyst.
 
Oxfam called on the AU to put renewed emphasis on sustainable diplomatic and political solutions to these conflicts, rather than military actions that bring yet more death and misery for civilians, such as this year’s offensives in DR Congo and northern Uganda. It said the AU had in the past played a key role in forging the peace agreement between northern and southern Sudan, which although now facing serious challenges, demonstrates what can be achieved when there is sufficient political will.    
 
DR Congo has seen the highest levels of displacement since the start of the year. Up to 800,000 people in eastern DRC have fled as a result of a new UN-backed military offensive by the Congolese army, which began in January and has led to numerous reprisal attacks by FDLR rebels. Terrified communities have told Oxfam staff of widespread rape, and burning and looting of villages in North and South Kivu. ‘The AU must tell the Congolese government that such massive suffering will not be tolerated. While FDLR atrocities must be addressed, government troops are also committing unacceptable human rights violations,’ said Assogbavi.
 
In the past six months, southern Sudan has seen some of the worst violence and displacement since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Around 200,000 people have fled increasingly deadly conflicts linked to tribal clashes, cattle raids and North-South tensions. Meanwhile, Darfur remains the scene of one of the world’s biggest humanitarian crises, and the ongoing conflict has displaced at least 140,000 people so far this year – most fleeing to already severely overcrowded camps, and now receiving even less aid following the recent expulsion of humanitarian agencies. ‘With the peace agreement looking increasingly fragile, urgent diplomatic attention is needed. AU governments played a key role in forging the peace deal - they must now help keep it alive. A return to war would have devastating consequences not only for Sudan but all its neighbours,’ he added.
 
Tens of thousands more people have also been made homeless in northern DR Congo and southern Sudan by ongoing attacks from northern Uganda’s Lords Resistance Army. A joint military offensive against the LRA launched in late 2008 has failed to halt its attacks on civilians.
 
In Somalia, 160,000 people have fled the capital Mogadishu since May, after an upsurge in fighting between the Transitional Federal Government and opposition groups and militia. Most are sheltering in vast camps around the city, where conditions are dire as deteriorating security makes it harder than ever for aid agencies to reach people in need. Oxfam called on the AU to urge all parties to the conflict to respect international law, cease fighting in populated areas, and allow the safe delivery of aid. ‘Peace and security in Africa has made great strides forward over the past decade – there are now fewer conflicts across the continent, and African peacekeepers have intervened to protect civilians. However, the ongoing humanitarian suffering and conflicts in these three countries are delivering a fatal blow to the hopes of a peaceful and prosperous future for Africa. The AU must step up and challenge those that are responsible, and say that enough is enough,’ continued Assogbavi.   

Such an eventuality also raises doubts over the merger, scheduled for next year, of SACU and the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) into a single customs union under the Southern African Development Community (SADC). On its part, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is facing the unwelcome prospect of another key member country, Ghana, giving in to pressure to go it alone in a partnership agreement with the European Union. The sub-regional grouping concluded in May that disagreements between it and the EU meant that the June deadline for concluding its comprehensive EPA could not be met. 



After the signature of a similar stand-alone agreement between Cote d’Ivoire and the EU, a decision by Ghana to sign its own EPA with the EU would undermine the region’s attempt to have a common agreement with the European Union which meets the differential development levels and needs of countries in the region. As the ECOWAS Commission President, Ibn Chambas warns, West Africa would feel the pain if they fail to have a common agreement. ‘Our region will have different trade agreements with the European Union that will adversely affect our regional integration process’, he stated. 



Meanwhile, the decision on 8 June by the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) to adopt a common external tariff is set to run the gauntlet of the contradictions generated by the grouplets into which the community has split around the EPAs. Each of the two grouplets is working out its own tariff arrangement with the EU. Experts believe that this situation will lead to the same tensions among member countries over tariff revenue, which have now exploded in SACU (see below). 



And in Central Africa, resentment still persists over Cameroon’s failed bid to foist its bilateral interim EPA with the EU on the rest of the region. In a word, in all the regional economic communities that are meant to serve as the building blocks of Africa’s economic integration, the corrosive potential of the EPAs is coming into effect at a frightening speed. All this is a far cry from the high-minded declarations with which all parties opened the negotiations in 2000 – with claims that the EPAs would be instruments for deepening Africa’s regional integration. 

Reacting to the signature of the interim agreement by the four Southern African countries on 4 June, South Africa declared that it would tighten its border controls with Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland (who, together with South Africa and Namibia, form SACU). The country also raised the need for reassessing the distribution among the member countries of revenues from the customs revenue pool. 



South Africa’s actions are legally supported under SACU rules, which prohibit members from striking new trade deals with third parties without the consent of the other members. South African Trade Minister Rob Davis said that tightening border controls was necessary to prevent European goods enjoying easier rules of origin or lower tariff levels in the signatory countries from entering South Africa as a result of the SACU regime. The Minister was particularly concerned with the textile sector, which the country is keen to protect. Here changes in rules of origin could, in the view of the Minster, lead to European products entering the South African market without undergoing any more transformation than the addition of buttons or change of labels.

‘We would not be allowing them to come into the SA market, and if that means that we have to introduce border controls issues with Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland and they have to do likewise, then so be it,’ the Minister is reported to have said. Review of the distribution of the customs revenue would be necessary because the countries which have signed the interim agreement will be letting goods into the community at a lower customs rate, thereby reducing their contribution to the customs revenue pool. This will logically affect their share of the pool. 



Reduction of the revenue could devastate the treasuries of the countries concerned. Lesotho earns about 60 per cent of its state revenue through the SACU revenue-sharing arrangement; while Swaziland earns as high as 70 per cent. Compensating for such loss through taxation could lead to a doubling of VAT rates and the tripling of corporate taxes. Even relatively affluent Botswana earns about a third of revenue from customs transfers. Diamond on which the country heavily depends is also hit by the global crisis. On Wednesday 3 June, the African Development Bank extended its biggest ever loan facility, of $1.5 billion loan to Botswana to help the country cope with the financial crisis. The country may still be in discussion with the World Bank for similar support. 



Clearly for these countries, the cost of the signing the IEPAs is getting to crisis proportions. The other members of SACU (South Africa and Namibia), together with Angola (the other member of the Southern African configuration negotiating EPA with the EU), refused to sign the interim agreement with the European Union because the EU was unwilling to integrate a memorandum of understanding reached by the parties as a legally binding part of the agreement. 



Though by a different route, ECOWAS seems headed in the same direction as SACU. The ECOWAS region as a whole is locked in disagreement with the EU over fundamental elements of the EPA. Key among these differences is the percentage of European goods that the region is prepared to allow in duty free entry, as well as the period over which such liberalisation should take place. While the EU insists on 80 per cent being allowed in duty-free entry over a period of 15 years, West Africa insists on 60 per cent over a period of 25 years.

Other issues of conflict concern the Most Favoured Nation Clause, by which the EU is demanding any favourable treatment that the region subsequently grants other major economies should be automatically extended to the EU, as well as how to deal with issues such as services, investment and intellectual property. West Africa’s fundamental disagreement with the EU over these issues was affirmed at the May 12-16 meeting of the EPA Ministerial Monitoring Committee in Abuja, Nigeria, which concluded in view of this that the June deadline was not realistic. 



The region’s insistence on 60 per cent of tariff liberalisation is meant to cope with the needs of countries as diverse as the Gambia and Nigeria. For small Gambia, which depends heavily on import revenue, and which has very little by way of export capacity, the scope of tariff liberalisation is critical since the effect will be one-sided destruction of its revenue, with nothing to gain in return by way of exports. Nigeria represents about 60 per cent of the region’s market and its manufacturing capacity and potential, and yet exports little more than petroleum products to the EU. Thus it is keen to protect its economy from being a dumping ground for cheap European goods with devastating consequences for the manufacturing sector and its future. 



Maintaining the regional balance has been under strain since December 2007 when, under what observers have described as undue and sometimes illegal bilateral pressure from the EU, Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana agreed interim EPAs with the European Union. The terms of these agreements were contrary to the West African common position. Both of them provided for 80 per cent of tariff liberalisation for EU goods over a period of 15 years. The deals also accepted other controversial EU demands such as MFN and export taxes. 



Both countries have looked to the subsequent conclusion of an ECOWAS-wide agreement as a means for alleviating some of the onerous terms of their interim agreements. Especially in the case of Ghana which, unlike Cote d’Ivoire has still not signed the interim agreement it initialled in 2007, the prospect of a better ECOWAS deal has served as means for the new government to avoid having to sign and implement a deal agreed by an earlier regime, and whose terms seem to contradict the policy options and perspectives for which it was voted into power. The new government has faced mounting pressure since it assumed office in January from the EU to sign the interim deal. The passing of the June deadline for the ECOWAS-wide deal has brought the prospect of Ghana succumbing to EU pressure a step closer. 



Such a development would not only unravel the efforts so far by the ECOWAS Commission and key member countries like Nigeria and Senegal to reconcile the pressures on Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana within a collective regional perspective. Furthermore, if Ghana succumbs, then with Cote d’Ivoire having already signed its interim EPA, the second and third largest economies in the region will be open to influx of duty-free EU goods. Nigeria’s concern over the effects of EU goods on its domestic market would then inevitably increase. Experts worry that Nigeria’s response will be a legitimate resort to a practice it has used in the past: restricting entry of identified goods into its market, in an attempt to stem the inflow of cheap EU goods. The last time it applied a similar measure, Ghanaian manufactures felt more than an unwelcome pinch in uncomfortable places. Indeed on some calculations, over two-thirds of manufacturing jobs in Ghana are in enterprises whose major export market is Nigeria. 



In addition, differential tariff regimes between the EU and Ghana, the EU and Cote d’Ivoire, and between the EU and the other countries of West Africa pose undue complication and actual dangers to the application of the ECOWAS common external tariff which have just been adopted, especially over the question of revenue sharing and the question of equitable support for small and vulnerable economies within the zone that this implies. A similar but more advanced situation confronts COMESA. The region has just adopted a common external tariff. However, as a result of the interim EPAs, the member countries are now split into two groups, EAC and the ESA, each of which has different tariff arrangements with the EU. 



For both regions, the emerging acrimony in SACU over tariff revenue and its sharing may be a mirror of their future disintegration. The possibility of such a future is itself evidence that the far higher cost of the EU’s push to conclude EPAs at all cost is the fate of Africa, its countries and people and their individual and collective needs. Namibian Industry Minister Hage Geingob spoke for many when he denounced the EU’s methods and approaches which led to Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique and Swaziland breaking ranks with the rest of SACU. ‘We might be small, but we are still a sovereign state. You cannot smoke cigars in boardrooms in Brussels and bulldoze us,’ he said. 



For EU Trade Commissioner Baroness Ashton, on the other hand, the agreement which came into being through splitting a once solid regional grouping in two was ‘a vote of confidence in the process that we have put in motion to build a strong and lasting economic relationship’. All par for the course of getting a good deal for Europe. 


The leaders are expected to approve a radical remake of the key organs governing the NEPAD structure, putting a ministerial team at the top management of the organisation - board of directors - and making the organisation’s chief executive an AU employee.

AU Commission chairperson Jean Ping told the African leaders attending the NEPAD heads of State implementing committee meeting that the process of integrating the NEPAD into the organs of the AU was nearly complete and that just a few challenges remained to be ironed out. He said a team of experts appointed to work out the finer details of importing the NEPAD secretariat into the AU organs had concluded a new treaty that would be required to designate NEPAD as an organ of the AU Authority, expected to be declared at the end of the Sirte Summit.

NEPAD was formed as a programme aimed at addressing Africa’s development challenges, and it was seen as a paradigm shift in Africa’s relation with its development partners. But the ideals of the NEPAD appeared to duplicate the work of the AU, and a campaign to have the NEPAD programme taken over by the AU kicked off. NEPAD sought to entrench ideals such as good governance, poverty eradication and offered an element of peer review, meant to push for an equal progress of democracy and good governance across Africa.

Speaking during the opening session of the NEPAD steering committee meeting, Ping said the harmonisation of NEPAD programmes with the activities of the AU Commission had proved to be more challenging than initially anticipated. The Kenyan consultants who have worked out the structure of the NEPAD have proposed that it should become a technical body of the AU, whose work will be to translate AU’s social and economic development policies into regional projects and continental projects. The AUC would then take the lead as a policy-making body.

Ping regretted that the progress had been slow in making the AU and the NEPAD to work in conformity with one another, adding: ‘Progress has been too slow. To accelerate integration of NEPAD into the AU, promote joint working, cooperation, coordination and reduce overlap, I will exert all efforts to ensure that this process is expeditiously completed,’ he said.

The AU Commissioner for Rural Economy and Agriculture, Rhoda Peace Tumusiime, said the African leaders, expected to meet from 1-3 July, would discuss ways of boosting Africa’s agricultural production. ‘We are talking about regional product markets. Africa’s food import bill is too high. Our countries are spending $33 billion to import food. If this money were traded in Africa, we would be able to increase our investments,’ she said.

African leaders have slated their summit this July to discuss agricultural production as a means of increasing Africa’s economic growth. The decision to prioritise agriculture and economic growth has been hailed as a timely move. Campaigners and lobbyists attending the AU in Sirte, central Libya, have hailed the issue of agriculture and food security as timely, coming against the backdrop of the global food crisis that hit Africa in 2008.

Across Africa, food riots were reported in 2008 after prices of domestic foodstuffs skyrocketed, and most citizens took to the streets to demand for affordable basic commodities. Experts attributed the lack of adequate foodstuffs on agricultural policies adopted by the West, the use of foodstuffs for biofuel production and the diversion of arable land to the production of grains for biofuels.

Tumusiime regretted that food production in African had declined in the past and that African leaders had taken steps to stem the decline in production. She said the effects of climate change and the lack of integrated agricultural food markets in Africa were partly to blame for the huge export of African crops. ‘The African leaders have been acting. There has been a trend of increasing investments in agriculture,’ she told a news conference on Monday.

African leaders agreed in 2003 to increase agricultural production to more than ten per cent of their country’s overall budget. Tumusiime said most countries had implemented the decision and some states had gone beyond the ten per cent requirement and were currently working on increasing investments in other agriculturally related sectors.

She said African producers of food crops sold their products to Western companies while the import bill for food crops remained high in Africa. ‘Commodities produced in Africa are meant for companies in the West,’ she noted, saying there should be a balance between cash crops and food crops.
 

The ‘controversial tough’ decision of the African leaders was in conformity with what the leaders said was the utmost disregard for Africa’s request for the lifting of an arrest warrant against the Sudanese leader issued in March this year. The African foreign ministers, attending the 15th session of the executive council meeting in Sirte, central Libya, want the ICC to determine whether the treaty also binds all countries that are not signatories to the Rome statute.

According to a position paper before the African ministers and which has been the point of high-level lobbying, led by the Sudanese delegation, the African ministers said the behaviour of the ICC chief Prosecutor Louis Ocampo should also be subject of future debate by the African members of the court. African state parties to the ICC statute have not unanimously agreed on the pattern of pulling out their membership but there are indications that unless the court shows that it is not committed to action on all war crimes, a final decision on whether African state parties should pull out of the court could be made in May 2010.

The African state parties, who form 30 out of the 108 members, said their membership of the court was a binding commitment that AU could not make on their behalf and therefore agreed that more time should be given to the court. Although the decision by the 30 African state signatories to the Rome Statute to pull out of ICC within a year if the court does not show its impartiality has not been endorsed by all, a campaign is underway in Sirte to have this position adopted.

Confidential working papers, obtained by PANA, show that although the African leaders affirmed their support for the court, the court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant against the Sudanese leader against Africa’s request for a deferral was in gross violation of the African Union. The African countries also said the ICC prosecutor should work closely with African countries in future if it planned to indict any African leader. ‘The ICC prosecutor should engage with the African Union to identify African prosecutors with whom he would work in establishing elements of a crime,’ they said.

The African leaders said the court’s decision to indict President Al-Bashir while ignoring the request of AU to defer the process by a year was a gross violation. The AU legal experts, who have drafted the paper, argued ‘there is a complementary relationship between peace and justice and none should be pursued at the expense of the other.’ According to the decisions taken during a meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 9 June, the African states reaffirmed the decision of the AU assembly requesting the application of Article 16 by the UN Security Council to defer prosecution of Al-Bashir for a year.