- Delegates argued that the context of the discussion needed clarification. In the view of many, NEPAD’s challenges were largely economic in nature, relating to trade, finance and debt issues. Participants noted that the present global economy was not benefitting Africa. It was therefore suggested that Africa should find creative ways and regenerate notions of collective self-reliance and regional integration as the building blocks for African unity and development.
- There were also concerns that the NEPAD initiative was located within the Washington consensus and as a result was likely to perpetuate and reinforce the subjugation of Africa in the international global system, the enclavity of African economies and the marginalisation of the majority of Africa’s people.
- The meeting expressed concern about the model of accumulation proposed in the NEPAD process and noted that it may not be appropriate for Africa’s development.
- Questions were raised about the enthusiasm of the G8 leaders over NEPAD. It appeared as if the G8 saw NEPAD as a partnership of global elites and Africa as an investment opportunity, without taking into account Africa’s development. Concerns were raised that debt cancellation, to remove the debt burden that has hindered Africa’s development efforts, was not on the agenda of the forthcoming G8 summit. Participants, however, cautioned that judgment should be reserved until the nature of projects to be supported by the G8 leaders at this meeting became known.
- Participants also noted that the G8 was employing double standards by urging African countries to adopt free trade policies whilst in their own countries they were erecting protective barriers against African products, for example through the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union and the recently enacted United States Farm Act.
- Participants noted that NEPAD was the product of a small group of political elites without the participation of the African people and civil society organisations. Consequently, questions were raised as to whether the African people could claim ownership of NEPAD given the absence of consultation and dialogue between these African leaders with civil society organisations. The meeting emphasised that partnership between African governments, organic intellectuals, and civil society organisations, including trade unions, women’s and youth organisations, was of cardinal importance.
- Following from the above, participants observed that scholars were now being invited to discuss details of implementation instead of reflecting on the project’s origins and ideological grounding. Against this background, participants noted that this “expert meeting” was not adequately briefed by the NEPAD Secretariat.
- Questions were raised whether Africans have learnt the lessons necessary to make NEPAD a success, given the past experiences of Africa’s development efforts, including the Monrovia Strategy of 1979, the Lagos Plan of Action of 1980, the IMF-World Bank imposed Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) of the 1980s and 1990s, and the African Alternative to SAPs of 1989. The SAPs, especially, appear not to have reversed Africa’s underdevelopment.
- Participants noted that there was a lack of a common understanding of the concept of democracy and whether African politicians, given their antecedents, were to be trusted with representing the interests of the people – either nationally or continentally via the Pan-African Parliament (PAP).
- Questions were also raised about the lack of minimum performance criteria for countries to qualify for AU membership.
- The location of Peace and Security structures at the level of Heads of State and Government, at the expense of involving civil society groups such as human rights NGOs, was noted with concern.
- Participants noted that some countries did not have properly elected and constituted national legislatures, but were instead ruled via one-party systems, military regimes, and monarchies. In light of this experience, participants expressed concern that the PAP was going to consist of delegates from national parliaments rather than being directly elected by the people. In addition, concern was expressed that it would have little or no legislative power binding on national governments.
- It was noted that although NEPAD alludes to infrastructural development and access to resources like water, it is vague about the distribution of these resources.
- Similarly participants noted that the land question was not adequately addressed. The role of the state in land ownership and distribution remains undefined in the NEPAD project; as well as how to resolve existing conflicts around access to land.
- The meeting raised the question of how NEPAD was going to address the issue of negligible investment of resources in African states. It noted that internal resource mobilisation was critical given the drought of Foreign Direct Investment and Official Development Assistance, and the waste of resources through conflicts and wars in many parts of the continent.
- Similarly, participants noted that NEPAD seemed to privilege foreign investors at the expense of domestic investors.
- While lauding the goals of NEPAD, participants expressed concern about the lack of clarity as to how its projects and programmes will be implemented at national, sub-regional and continental levels. Perhaps more important was the time frame set for accomplishing the projects under the International Development Goals (IDG) and how those of NEPAD could work within this context. For example, under IDG, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty has to be reduced by half in 2015, having started in 1990. By implication, NEPAD is already 11 years behind schedule and has just 14 years to achieve the results. Nor has much progress been made by the various African countries such as Nigeria that had embarked upon poverty reduction projects. As for the elimination of gender disparity in primary and secondary education enrollment, the target year is 2005. Again, it means that NEPAD has just three years to implement strategies for sustainable development at national level. One implication of keying into the time frame of the IDG was that NEPAD might not be able to achieve the expected results.
- It was noted that there still remained a lack of a shared vision about Africa’s development needs and an African identity. Participants expressed dismay that the NEPAD process did not give adequate attention to this important question.
- Participants expressed concern about the relationship between Africa and its Diaspora which has been characterised by complexities and problems in view of changes in historical linkages and geographical context. It was also marked by asymmetrical relations between communities and the Diaspora.
|
