|Revised Tuesday, 16-Dec-2003 12:33:13 EST||version française | Commentary | Contact Us | G8 Information Centre|
23. The Kananaskis Summit: The Development Agenda, Nicholas Bayne
I am Nicholas Bayne. I am a member of the International Relations Department of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
The Kananaskis Summit has been innovative in its format, in a number of ways:
This lecture assesses the results of the Kananaskis Summit on development issues. These issues have increasingly dominated the Summits of the last cycle, from Lyon in 1996 to Kananaskis in 2002. This trend reflects growing concern that the poorest countries, especially in Africa, are not benefiting from globalization, but rather are falling behind.
Africa was the central issue for the Kananaskis Summit. This lecture will therefore look mainly at what was agreed on Africa, fitting in other development issues, such as debt relief, education, health and trade, into the African context.
NEPAD and the Africa Action Plan
The major achievement of the Kananaskis Summit was to launch the G8's Africa Action Plan in response to the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) and to link the two together.
NEPAD is the first example of a development plan for Africa created by African governments themselves. It has not been imposed from outside. The Africans take ownership of it and make themselves responsible for putting it into effect. NEPAD contains a range of economic programs, but its central feature is a political commitment to better standards of governance, through improved democracy and respect for the rule of law. The Africans undertake to make each other accountable for respecting these standards and are setting up a peer review system for this purpose. The aim is to make Africa more attractive to foreign private investment and more deserving of help from the G8 governments and other outside sources.
The Africa Action Plan announced at Kananaskis is the G8's response to the Africans' appeal for help to support NEPAD. In the Action Plan, the G8 members:
The G8 members have made a broad financial commitment in support of their action plan. Earlier in 2002, at Monterrey, they promised to increase their total aid spending by US$12 billion per year over five years. They agreed at Kananaskis that at least half of this increase could go to deserving African countries. Within this total, however, it is not clear how the G8 countries will proceed to develop enhanced partnerships. So far, each G8 member has made its own commitment to increased action, without visible co-ordination. For example, the United States and the United Kingdom announced new measures just before the Summit and Canada did so just afterward, but there was no sense of a collective program.
Specific Development Issues
The Africa Action Plan sets out a program of measures in support of Africa in two political areas - in peace and security and in better governance - and six economic ones - trade, debt relief, education and information technology, health, agriculture and water. The peace and security section stands out in its aim of giving Africa, by 2010, the capacity to resolve all its civil conflicts, starting with the trouble spots in Congo, Angola and Sudan. The other sections, taken together, aim to help African countries meet NEPAD's political standards and economic goals.
These sections overlap with the Summit's actions on a range of specific development issues, as follows:
Except on debt relief, the harvest from Kananaskis was fairly meagre on these items, which were discussed under the "economic growth" item on the agenda.
Prospects for Africa
Obasanjo, speaking just after the Summit, called the Africa Action Plan a good beginning and hoped it would lead on to a good ending. This comment reflects well the strengths and weaknesses of the Action Plan and the NEPAD in combination. The concept of Africa reviving by its own efforts, with the west helping but respecting African ownership, generates strong positive symbolism. It has parallels with the relationship between the Americans and Europeans in the Marshall Plan after World War Two, which had such far-reaching and durable results.
Against that, however, there are still many uncertainties. The NEPAD process is still very unfamiliar for African governments. For example, African governments hesitated at first to condemn the elections in Zimbabwe, although Mbeki and Obasanjo then came out against them. The NEPAD process is still at the elevated level of heads of government. It has a long way to go before it can bring benefits at the grass roots and it has attracted criticism because it was developed without consultation. So the G8 may not believe the Africans will change their ways and may not exert themselves enough to help.
On the other side, the resources and the trade access offered by the G8 may not be adequate for what Africa needs. The commitments on education, health and trade are imprecise, at best. So the Africans may not have the incentive to bring in painful changes, if these will not be sufficiently rewarded.
But it was always clear that the revival of Africa would be a long-term enterprise. The G8 Africa Group, which prepared the Action Plan, remains in being. Frenc president Jacques Chirac, who will host next year's Summit in France, has said that Africa will once again be the leading issue on the agenda. The combination of the G8 Africa Action Plan with NEPAD has the potential to provide a fresh start for Africa, so that African countries can really benefit from globalization and begin to catch up with other regions, instead of falling behind. This would have great economic advantages, not only for the people of Africa, but for the whole world economy. It would have great political advantages, in bringing peace and security to a troubled continent and preventing failed states in Africa from becoming havens or breeding grounds for terrorists.
Not available at this time.