PHM-Exch> African finance ministers dismiss development declarations

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: Itai Rusike itai at cwgh.co.zw    Zimbabwe

  Please see the report below. Its an assault on the Abuja commitment to 15%
financing to health.  In terms of the evidence of progress we have seen
since the Abuja commitment in reversing the ESAP induced decline in the
health budget, of the health gain from Abuja indicated in the brief
attached, of the role of parliaments in the budget and in promoting the
gains from the commitment,  the understanding of and support for the
aspirational targets and their relevance in international negotiations by
the finance ministers from Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Malawi and Cote D'Ivoire
and the need for this to be a cabinet wide and not simply a finance
ministers issue:

 Can you notify the MPs and health civil society in the region of this
position of some (not all) of the finance ministers in the region?

   - What actions can we each take to raise and widen the debate on this
   beyond the finance ministers so that other ministers, parliament and civil
   have a say in it?
   - Do we need a petition on this to protect our aspirations for health
   budgets expressed in Abuja?



*Would this have implications at the AU Heads of State Summit?  Heads of
State deciding to rescind on the Abuja Declaration?  *

*African finance ministers dismiss development declarations*

*Geoffrey Njora*

*Pambazuka News, 2010-04-22, Issue 478*

*http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/63894*

*[Geoffrey Njora is a pan-African analyst who attended the meeting of the
finance ministers.]*

The commitment of African finance ministers to continental integration, the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the declarations of their own heads
of state has come into question after national delegations from South
Africa, Rwanda and Egypt succeeded in deleting any reference to budgetary
targets for education, health, agriculture and water in the report and
resolutions of the annual meeting of the African Union and Economic
Commission for the Africa Conference of Ministers of Finance, Planning and
Economic Development, which took place in Malawi at the end of March.
Geoffrey Njora explores the possible consequences of their actions.

After two heated debates during the recent African ministers of finance
meeting in Malawi, national delegations from South Africa, Rwanda and Egypt
succeeded in deleting any reference to budgetary targets for education,
health, agriculture and water in the Common Position on MDGs and the
conference report and resolutions. Their action brings into question the
extent to which African finance ministers are committed to continental
integration, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the declarations
and resolutions of their own heads of state.

The budgetary targets are embedded in a set of important declarations and
decisions adopted by Africa's 53 Presidents as far back as 2000. The
declarations and decisions include the Dakar Framework for Action-Education
For All: Meeting Our Collective Commitments (2000), the Abuja Declaration on
HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Other Related Infectious Diseases (2001), the
Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security (2003) and Sirte
Declaration on Agriculture and Water (2008). Among other strategies, these
declarations and decisions commit governments to devote up to 20 per cent of
their budgets to education, 15 per cent to health, 10 per cent to
agriculture and 0.5 per cent to water and sanitation.

The delegations were attending the 3rd Joint Annual Meeting of the African
Union and Economic Commission for Africa Conference of Ministers of Finance,
Planning and Economic Development in Lilongwe, Malawi, held from 29-30
March. The ministers had met to address progress towards the MDGs and in
particular, realising food security and employment among other issues.

2010 is a critical year for these issues. In September, African presidents
will join their counterparts to report against the Millennium Development
Goals in the UN General Assembly. African governments will challenge the G20
to follow up G8 promises on doubling aid to Africa and global trade reform
in June, as well as push for the delivery of US$30 billion promised for
national adaptation and mitigation efforts in Copenhagen last year. In this
context, the positions taken by the finance ministers completely undermine
African governments' attempts to hold their development partners accountable
for the promises reached.

In the heated debates, Cecil Noel, South Africa's chief finance director set
the tone for the debate that followed, stating, 'These targets do not make
any sense. I shall be asking my head of state to propose a review of these
targets in the AU Summit in Kampala in July.' He proceeded, supported by
Egypt's deputy minister Hany Dimian to argue, 'The heads of states have made
a colossal mistake These targets straightjacket the process of budgeting in
our countries.' Rwanda's finance minister John Rwangombwa concurred and was
swiftly followed by Zimbabwe and Egypt's call for the targets to be
abandoned. Mozambique's vice finance minister Pedro Couto called for any
reference to a 10 per cent budgetary target for agricultural investment to
be struck from the resolutions. Ironically, the declaration is known as the
Maputo Declaration. Agriculture ministers adopted it in a meeting chaired by
Mozambique in 2003 in Maputo.

Delegations from Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Malawi and Cote D'Ivoire argued for
their retention in the drafts prepared by the AU Commission and Economic
Commission for Africa. Addis-based ambassador Nkoyo Toyo warned against
delegations dismissing decisions. She referred to their historical
importance as standing commitments and cited a number of countries that have
raised their budgetary allocations. The Nigerian head of delegation further
noted, 'I worry about the precedence we are setting where we make
commitments and drop them when it is expedient.' Kenya's national planning
permanent secretary Edward Sambili reminded the delegations that the targets
are aspirational in nature. He further pointed to the 38 per cent that Kenya
currently allocates to the four sectors as evidence that it is possible to
reach these targets.

Attempts by the meeting's Malawian chairperson Hon Ken Kandodo and AUC
chairperson Jean Ping to remind the finance ministers that the ministers did
not have the power to change these presidential commitments fell on deaf
ears. Accordingly, without the consensus needed, the references to the
budgetary targets were struck first from the resolutions, then the Common
Position on the MDGs and finally the report of the ministers conference.

There are many consequences that could flow from this. Firstly, this could
indicate an abandonment of the bold financing that has gone into reversing
vulnerability to food insecurity, disease and denial of access to education.
According to NGO The African Monitor, it is these targets that have inspired
the improvements in small-scale farming, primary education enrolment rates
and falling HIV/AIDS infection rates. In 2009, they noted that despite this
progress, 44 countries continue to import 25 per cent of their food needs,
and that retention of girls in education and the overall quality of
education is still weak. Huge inequities exist between urban and rural, rich
and poor and most people living positively with HIV/AIDS do not have access
to life saving medicines.

Secondly, how will Africa now have the integrity to hold the G8 and
international community to the commitments that they have made to contribute
0.7 per cent of their gross national product and double development
assistance to Africa? Should presidents backtrack on these commitments in
Kampala, will African Union president Bingu wa Mutharika be able to stand
before the G20 in June and the UN General Assembly in September and remind
the international community of their obligations? I think not.

Thirdly, the dismissive nature with which the finance ministers have treated
these targets begs the question of whether the Millennium Development Goals
and all the other decisions taken under the auspices of the African Union
will go the same way. This path would further damage the credibility of
Africa's leaders in the eyes of those African citizens who feel their
leaders lack political will, are unaccountable and completely
self-interested. For these citizens, it is one more reason to dismiss
Africa's leadership.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20100608/98418c15/attachment.html>