"Africa is now a continent of extraordinary business and investment opportunity," Geldof, who has become one of Africa's most astute and knowledgeable economic commentators, said in a statement on Monday.

"Private equity is one way to support the enterprise and dynamism of the people of the continent and help provide the jobs and skills that are needed."

The fund, named after the shortest distance between Europe and Africa, will invest in companies that promised to provide jobs and long-term growth.

Commerical agriculture, consumer and retail firms, health, telecommunications and financial services are among the main sectors it is looking at, the statement added.

Besides institutional and private investors, the fund's backers include the World Bank's International Finance Corporation, the African Development Bank and the CDC, Britain's development finance arm.

Geldof's announcement is the latest example of the private equity industry training its sights on Africa, home to more than a billion people and many economies growing at 6 percent a year or more.

U.S. firm Carlyle Group has opened offices in Johannesburg and Lagos and is expected to announce the closing of its first Africa fund soon. London-based Helios is likely to deploy capital after closing a $900 million Africa fund in June last year.

Boomtown Rats frontman Geldof shot to global prominence in 1980s as organisers of the Band Aid and Live Aid concerts that raised millions of dollars for African aid.

He also led a major push in 2005 to get rich countries to write off debt to the poorest African countries and double their aid spending by 2010.

Source: http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE81C04U20120213

THE true extent of Africa’s vast wealth of resources is hard to guess. Geologists have picked over most of the rest of the globe in search of minerals, yet huge swathes of Africa remain largely unprobed. But the immense ore deposits so far discovered and soaring commodity prices on the back of rip-roaring Chinese demand have convinced the world’s miners that the continent is the next big frontier. Bumper profits have also spurred mineral-rich countries to seek a bigger share of the spoils.

The list of African governments that have miners in their sights is a long one. South Africa, home to the greatest mineral wealth in the world, estimated to be worth $2.5 trillion, is considering imposing a swingeing 50% windfall tax on mining “super profits” and a 50% capital-gains tax on the sale of prospecting rights. Those are among the proposals put forward by an independent panel of experts, set up by the ruling African National Congress (ANC) to study the possibility of greater state intervention in the mining sector.

Ghana, Africa’s second-biggest gold producer, recently announced a review and possible renegotiation of all mining contracts to ensure that mining profits are “maximised…[for] the good of the country”. It plans to raise taxes on mining companies, from 25% to 35%, and a windfall tax of 10% on “super profits” in addition to existing royalties on output of 5%. Zambia, which is Africa’s biggest copper producer, recently doubled its royalties on the metal, to 6%. Guinea, home to the world’s largest bauxite reserves as well as one of the world’s biggest iron-ore deposits, is helping itself to a 15% stake in all mining projects and an option to buy a further 20%. Namibia has decided to transfer all new mining and exploration to a state-owned company.

If miners in these countries feel hard-done by, they should count themselves lucky that they are not wielding their shovels in Zimbabwe. Its “indigenisation” policy will force foreign firms to “cede” a 51% stake to locals. Nigeria may renegotiate offshore oil contracts, because today’s “unfair fiscal terms” are costing the country $5 billion in lost revenue, it claims. And so it goes on. Right across the continent governments are seeking new ways to squeeze more out of foreign-owned firms growing rich off what lies beneath Africa’s soil.

Resource nationalism is nothing new. Big Oil has suffered periodic bouts of nationalisation and sometimes seen contracts torn up in the Middle East and beyond that had run for more than 50 years. Nor is the practice confined to developing countries that feel they came off second-best when negotiating resource deals in years gone by. Australia is set to raise some $8 billion a year through a controversial new tax on miners; Britain has previously dipped into the profits of oil companies in the North Sea.

However, in the past year resource nationalism has jumped to the top of the list of things that worry the 30 biggest global miners. This was prompted by 25 countries worldwide announcing plans to boost their take of profits, according to a survey by Ernst & Young, a consultancy. A rapid rebound after commodity prices collapsed in the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2009 convinced cash-strapped governments that large multinationals were easy targets. In Africa mining companies are often especially vulnerable—they are usually the biggest corporate beasts around. Widespread poverty has provided a ready excuse for governments dependent on income from resources. The trick for miners is to ensure not only that the money keeps flowing but also that the miners agree to the spending on roads, railways, schools and hospitals that are now a customary part of the package the industry offers to acquire mineral rights.

Many feel abused but they do not have much choice. In a world where big new ore bodies are hard to find, most will keep coming back to Africa. Of the ten biggest mining deals to be completed last year, seven were in Africa, according to Ernst & Young. Even as governments move to grab bigger slices of the cake, high prices mean the miners remain profitable. Anglo American, a mining giant, has earmarked $8 billion for new platinum, diamond, iron ore and coal projects; Brazil’s Vale said in June that it plans to spend more than $12 billion over the next five years. Rio Tinto, which has not had an easy time with its mammoth African investment at Simandou in Guinea, also signalled it will stick with Africa.

Many of the resources are spread across the continent fairly evenly, leaving miners with a choice about where to go. Given that mining investments can cost many billions of dollars and take up to a decade to show a profit, miners are understandably wary of working in countries where the fiscal rules change unpredictably.

Zimbabwe’s new law requiring indigenisation, apparently without compensation, is clearly not designed to attract new foreign investment. The three biggest miners already operating there—Zimplats, Rio Tinto and Anglo Platinum—also face a doubling of royalties on platinum to 10%, along with a ban on raw platinum exports, that will oblige them to build a refinery in Zimbabwe at a cost of some $2 billion.

Regardless of Zimbabwe’s heavy-handed treatment, mining companies do not necessarily object in principle to giving locals a larger stake in their operations. After the end of apartheid in South Africa, white mining bosses were at the forefront of drafting the country’s black-economic-empowerment laws. These require mining firms to sell stakes of at least 26% to black shareholders by 2014.

The ANC-commissioned panel recommends that this be increased to 30%. The Chamber of Mines recently announced that on average its 33 members, representing three-quarters of the industry, had already achieved today’s target. Nonetheless, the government puts the black share at just 9%, as most black-owned shares were bought with borrowed money. This could mean trouble.

Investors have been even more worried by the persistent demands of the ruling ANC’s powerful Youth League for nationalisation, with or without compensation. The ANC’s expert panel has come out strongly against the idea on the grounds that the official purchase of listed mining companies’ shares, at an estimated cost of 1 trillion rand ($130 billion), is far beyond the government’s means and implementing a Zimbabwe-style asset grab would be unconstitutional and counter-productive.

Most ministers are privately opposed to nationalisation. Many lived in exile in Zambia in the 1970s and 1980s when President Kenneth Kaunda nationalised the country’s copper mines—with disastrous effect. South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, continues to insist that nationalisation “is not government policy”. But investors remain nervous.

Ernst & Young recently suggested that southern African countries such as Botswana, Mozambique and Namibia were becoming increasingly attractive mining destinations at the expense of South Africa, which has slipped 18 places since 2008, to 67th out of 79 countries in the annual survey of mining-investment attractiveness compiled by the Frazer Institute, a Canadian think tank.

Miners and governments often look enviously at Debswana, the successful 50-50 diamond joint venture between Botswana and De Beers, the world’s leading diamond firm. Set up over 30 years ago, it accounts for nearly a third of Botswana’s GDP, half of government revenues and around three-quarters of export earnings. Even though 80% of the profits go directly into government coffers, De Beers considers Debswana one of its best investments. So why is the model not being adopted everywhere?

Because, says James Suzman, public affairs director at De Beers, Botswana is unique. It has rich and productive mines, a stable and trustworthy government with one of Africa’s best records of good governance and it is a small country of 2m people where the impact on ordinary folk is huge, so everyone feels they are benefiting. In Namibia, where De Beers also operates, the cash-strapped government seems reluctant to carry its share of the investment burden. And even Botswana is not above a bit of resource nationalism.

Sorted

Last year De Beers was obliged to move its London-based sorting operation to the country—and all the jobs and other economic benefits that go with it—in return for extending the renegotiating period for its diamond-sales agreement from five years to ten. Meanwhile Namdeb, a similar joint venture between De Beers and Namibia, has run into a trouble. Without new investment of around $1 billion, Namdeb says, its mines will have to close in the next couple of years. With it, they could probably be successfully exploited for another five decades.

Populist advocates of greater state participation in mining often forget that nationalisation, partial or complete, means that when the going gets tough, as it eventually will in a cyclical industry like mining, the state must be prepared to cough up, like any other shareholder, to keep the business afloat.

It is much easier for states to impose royalties on production volumes. These can be reaped whether or not the company is profitable. The art is in striking the right balance. African governments must not wring so much out of their resources today that the mining companies fail to invest for the future.

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/21547285

As international anger grows over reports of mass carnage at the hands of the Syrian regime, a U.N. Security Council draft resolution condemning Syria failed to be adopted Saturday after veto-wielding members Russia and China voted against it.

Earlier, U.S. President Barack Obama urged theSecurity Council to pass the resolution Saturday aimed at stopping the bloody crackdown that has consumed the Arab nation.

Thirteen Security Council members, including permanent members France, United Kingdom, and the United States, voted in favor of the resolution.

Some Syrians have cried out for international action to stop attacks on civilians, more so after at least 260 civilians were killed and hundreds wounded after in the city of Homs.

The opposition Syrian National Council blamed government forces for the massacre, with residential buildings and homes randomly and heavily bombed.

In a strongly worded statement Saturday, Obama said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had lost all legitimacy and that the international community "must work to protect the Syrian people from this abhorrent brutality."

Government forces "committed one of the most horrific massacres since the beginning of the uprising in Syria," killing at least 260 civilians over the past day, the opposition Syrian National Council said Saturday.

"During the attack, residential buildings and homes were randomly and heavily bombed," the group said.

Some Syrian residents say the international community is sitting idle as bodies mount in the streets.

"The U.N. isn't doing anything about it. The Arab League isn't doing anything about it. ... While they're having their little discussion, people are sitting here and they're dying," said an activist identified as Danny.

Homs resident Abu Abdo Alhomsy described continuous bombing and snipers perched throughout the city.

"There are so many people on the streets that are wounded and they need help, but we can't reach them to help them," he said. "They're ready to kills us all. They have no problem with doing that. Please, we call (on) the international community for help."

The Local Coordination Committees, a Syrian opposition group, reported 24 more deaths elsewhere in Syria Saturday, most of them killed while taking part in the funeral of a slain protester in Darya, outside Damascus.

U.N. Security Council members gathered in New York to vote on the resultion, which would demand that al-Assad to stop the killing and answer international calls aimed at finding a Syrian-led solution to the crisis.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice responded angrily to the failure to pass, saying the United States was "disgusted."

Referring to Russia, she said, "This intransigence is even more shameful when you consider that one of these members continues to deliver weapons to Assad.

The Russian foreign minister has spoken in defense of Russian arm sales to Syria, saying they did not affect the regional balance of power.

Russia, which counts Syria as a major weapons client, has made clear that it will not accept an arms embargo or economic sanctions.

Obama said the Syrian government was guilty of murdering hundreds of Syrian people, including women and children.

"Every government has the responsibility to protect its citizens, and any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern," he said.

"Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately."

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/04/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The progress that sub-Saharan Africa has achieved in building democracy over the past generation is coming undone. After two decades of significant gains, the continent has experienced a steady decline in democracy over the last several years.

Yahya Jammeh’s suppression of the political opposition, media, and civil society. In Uganda, the government of Yoweri Museveni brutally cracked down on independent journalists and employed repressive tactics against peaceful protesters. Antigovernment protests were also subjected to a violent crackdown in Djibouti, which witnessed the intimidation of opposition political parties prior to an election that resulted in a third term for President Ismail Omar Guelleh. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the flawed November elections sparked widespread violence that continues to engulf Kinshasa and threatens to become a nationwide conflict if a timely political solution is not reached.

The causes for sub-Saharan Africa’s setbacks in the period from 2005 to 2011 vary from country to country, but upon deeper analysis, a clear pattern begins to emerge—Africa has suffered a noticeable decline in all of the fundamental components of freedom that inform Freedom in the World. The sharpest declines occurred in the categories of Freedom of Expression and Belief (22 countries), Political Pluralism and Participation (20 countries), and Rule of Law (20 countries). The score for Organizational and Associational Rights declined in 18 countries, while that for Electoral Process decreased in 14 countries.

The deterioration in these areas reflects the determination of political elites to hold on to power at any cost, and particularly to hijack elections. Excluding countries that suffered armed conflicts or coups over the last two decades (and the newly formed nation of South Sudan), all of the sub-Saharan African states rated Not Free this year have been ruled by the same parties or leaders for at least 20 years, and in some cases much longer.

There is a clear link between the length of ruling parties’ tenures and the steady decline in democracy. Even sub-Saharan Africa’s powerhouses, such as Ethiopia (21 years), Kenya (10 years), Nigeria (13 years), and South Africa (18 years) have experienced an overall stagnation or decline in freedom. The poor performance of precisely these largest and most influential countries, which had previously inspired hope for democratic progress, is perhaps the most disturbing trend in the region. Kenya, despite its previously modest democratic gains, has not fully recovered since the flawed elections of 2007, following which politically motivated ethnic violence broke out. To date, impunity has largely reigned; those responsible for directing and participating in the violence have yet to be held accountable. Similarly, Nigeria’s stagnation since the disastrous elections of 2007 has included pervasive corruption; elections in 2011 that, while somewhat improved, were still marred by numerous cases of political violence and suspected vote fraud; and increasing levels of sectarian and religious violence.

Ethiopia continued a decade-long trend of growing authoritarianism. In 2010, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi masterminded national elections that were thoroughly tainted by intimidation of opposition parties, independent media, and nongovernmental organizations. Meles has increasingly employed so-called antiterrorism laws to brazenly suppress any semblance of political opposition or independent media. South Africa, although still categorized as a Free country, has seen its democracy deteriorate as a result of political interference in the judiciary and threats from top government officials against the media.

Sub-Saharan Africa in 2012 is a political minefield where in almost any election, desperate incumbents could trigger an outburst of repression, political violence, and ethnic conflict. With 18 countries scheduled to hold some form of elections in 2012, including Angola, Cameroon, Senegal, and potentially Kenya and Zimbabwe, democracy may deteriorate further if the balloting is not free, fair, and accepted by all parties.

The continent suffers from leaders who have overstayed their welcome and would in fact be replaced if elections were fair. The international community needs to engage early in electoral processes; step up the pressure to prevent political elites from cracking down on the opposition, media, and civil society in the run-up to voting; and ensure that the electoral results are respected and a transfer of power takes place. Otherwise, sub-Saharan Africa will continue to slip back toward where it started in the early 1970s.

Source: http://freedomhouse.org/blog/perilous-state-freedom-sub-saharan-africa

ON a good day Abdenaceur Hammoudi takes home 15 dinar ($10) from selling fruit in the Tunisian coastal town of Tabarka. Since the overthrow of president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali last January, municipal inspectors no longer demand a three-dinar-a-day bribe. But prices have risen sharply and Mr Hammoudi now pays wholesalers almost double for his supplies. Customers have become scarce and loans are as hard to come by as ever. “The government needs to build factories to bring us proper jobs,” he says.

A year ago the self-immolation of a Tunisian fruit seller, Muhammad Bouazizi, inspired uprisings that toppled the leaders of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, and caused violent chaos in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen. The protests were motivated not just by demands for greater political freedom but also by popular frustration with unemployment and economic stagnation.

Mr Bouazizi, who could not afford a trading licence, set himself on fire after officials confiscated goods of his worth about $200. Whatever its political triumphs, the revolution he sparked has caused an economic downturn. Tunisia saw its GDP growth in 2011 go from 3% to 0%, according to the IMF—the Tunisian government says the economy actually contracted by 1.8%. Egypt saw a decline from 5% to 1%. Libya’s economy is thought to have contracted by more than 50% after its six-month civil war paralysed the oil industry. A former Libyan bank governor reckons the country suffered as much as $15 billion in damage during the conflict to oust Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.

Inflation is on the rise, though exact figures are hard to find. Worried Egyptians are depositing far less money in their banks, fearing a devaluation of the currency. Unemployment is also rising fast. One estimate sees an increase in the official rate from 10% to 15% in Egypt. Youth unemployment is reckoned to be at least 25%.

Tourism, on which some 15m Egyptians depend, has been harmed, too. Workers in once-busy resorts on the Nile have flocked to Cairo, the capital, hoping to pick up menial work. In Tunisia many hotels remain closed. Having bought one in a fire sale, a new owner says, “I’m buying the walls, nothing else.” He dismissed all the staff.

Foreign investment has been hit hardest of all. A Tunisian analyst reckons 120 foreign firms shut up shop, cutting 40,000 jobs. Yazaki, a Japanese cable manufacturer, pulled out of a poor rural region. Overall foreign direct investment dropped by more than a quarter (see chart). In Egypt it plunged from $6.4 billion in 2010 to $500m last year; in Libya it dropped from $3.8 billion to almost nothing.

A few foreign companies have signalled an interest in coming back. Italy’s Eni, an energy giant, says it will invest $600m in Tunisia this year. Thanks to its existing investment in health care, the country also has hopes of attracting medical tourists from Europe and the rest of north Africa, where facilities are abysmal.

In Libya construction and oil companies are falling over themselves in a race to rebuild what will probably be a wealthy country. Cities like Misrata that were destroyed in the fighting need immediate attention. Executives speak of a “gold rush”. The United Arab Emirates, France and other countries that supported the rebels have sent official business delegations.

Many entrepreneurs see unprecedented potential under new governments accountable to their people. The toppling of dictators could open up the private sector, once reserved for those with ties to the ruling circle. Tunisia has a well-educated workforce and decent infrastructure. Libya has the world’s eighth-largest oil reserves; the flow is expected to reach 2010 levels later this year. Egypt has a large domestic consumer market. “There is great excitement. Not every day do you get countries which have been under an autocratic regime for 42 years suddenly opening,” says Kevin Virgil, an investment adviser who hopped on a plane to Tripoli the day Qaddafi was killed. Nonetheless few deals have been signed and most investors remain on the sidelines.

Why they faltered

There are four main reasons for the economic downturn in the post-revolution countries. The first is instability, both imagined and real, that has driven away customers and undermined business confidence. Post-revolution Libya is largely lawless. Young, unemployed men with guns roam the streets. Security firms are decamping from Baghdad to Tripoli. Tattooed former soldiers populate the breakfast rooms of reopened business hotels.

In Egypt the discredited police force has withdrawn from many districts, leaving control to local youths (at least 73 people died in a riot after a football match on February 1st). George Bahna, who runs an engineering-services company, says he abandoned a large project near the city of Suez when locals raided his warehouse and fought gun battles over control of his property. “They stole the metal doors at the entrance,” he says.

Even relatively stable Tunisia has seen continuing disturbances. In the country’s north-west, roads were blocked by angry protesters in January. The government has recorded a total of 330 sit-ins and other protests in the first three weeks of this year over a lack of government services.

The second cause of the downturn is strikes. Workers feel able at last to vent their frustration after years during which they feared repression. Owners report that in many places employees demand more pay and the replacement of managers who have supposed ties to the old regime. “When a strike takes place they have no united leadership, so you’re dealing with 60 people tugging at your jacket asking for this and that. And when you’ve made concessions and you think you’ve resolved it, it all begins again after a couple of months,” says one owner. Civil servants have also been making demands for higher salaries and the replacement of their bosses. Fayza Aboul Naga, Egypt’s minister for planning, has said the country is in “no shape to respond to the demands”.

The poor state of the government machinery is a further reason for the downturn. In many areas the state has either ground to a halt or been overwhelmed by rapid change. Egypt has had four finance ministers in the past year. Businessmen complain of red tape becoming “even redder” as corrupt bureaucrats down tools since they no longer dare to demand bribes. In Libya, where the state barely existed under the paranoid Qaddafi, many institutions have to be built from scratch. Diplomats say 2012 is “year zero”. In all three post-revolution countries, new leaders—who for the first time face legal accountability for their actions—are reluctant to sign off on projects, afraid that they may later have to answer questions in court. This is especially common in Libya, where the National Transitional Council says it will not ink any long-term deals until an elected government is in place.

The final reason for the downturn is the chill that has descended over all businesses connected to the previous rulers, especially privatised ones. Some sales of state assets are rightly seen as acts of plunder. Even where the regimes instituted painful but necessary reforms the benefits mainly went to insiders, leading the public to associate privatisation with crony capitalism. Now that the old rulers have left, their successors are going after some of their cronies, piling on yet more uncertainty.

Libya’s new rulers have said they might revise certain oil contracts. Tunisia has confiscated over 300 companies deemed to be owned or controlled by the discredited cronies, including a 51% stake in Orange Tunisie, a telecoms firm, that was owned by Marwan Mabrouk, the son-in-law of the deposed president. In Egypt wrangling continues over deals made under former President Hosni Mubarak; Damac Properties and Al-Futtaim, two property companies, have agreed to make additional payments for land they bought cheaply from the government in 2006. A senior executive at a property-development firm in Cairo says, “We had to take out ads after the revolution to tell people that we are a major employer, and we received threats from people who wanted to blackmail us.”

The new rulers

Many local businessmen hope that new governments can dispel the gloom. Alas, ministers are preoccupied. Egypt, Libya and Tunisia all face fiscal crises. Tackling them is the first order of business for new ministers. Egypt is the worst off. Its foreign-currency reserves have dwindled, from $36 billion to $10 billion in the past year, and an inflation-inducing devaluation is looming. The government is struggling to finance a budget deficit of 10% of GDP. In January the government managed to sell only a third of a planned $580m bond offering, even though it will be paying yields close to 16%.

The IMF says it stands ready with technical assistance and loans to balance the books and rebuild foreign reserves. It is negotiating a $3.2 billion loan with Egypt that would send a good signal to investors. The IMF is also offering help to Tunisia. Libya is still waiting for the unfreezing of $170 billion in Qaddafi-era deposits abroad.

Most of all the new governments want foreign investment. Abdullah Dardari, a UNESCO economics adviser and former Syrian government minister, says oil-producing Gulf states could easily and profitably invest 10% of their sovereign-wealth funds in north Africa to promote growth and regional stability. “Countries should look at regional ties,” he says.

How soon investors return partly depends on the policies of the new governments. They are mostly made up of moderate Islamists who spent decades in opposition to authoritarian rulers—which makes them suspicious to both the West and the Gulf. In public so far the new governments have emphasised their support for free markets and property rights. They say they look to economically liberal Turkey for inspiration.

Nevertheless the priority for leaders in Tunisia and Egypt is popular concerns, such as cleaning up corruption, creating jobs and investing in new roads and schools. Tunisia’s government has vowed to raise growth to 8% and reduce unemployment from 19% to 8.5% by 2016. Egypt says it will restructure and boost private enterprises such as textile factories that employ some 70,000 workers.

Successful Egyptian entrepreneurs with links to the Islamist Freedom and Justice Party, which won recent parliamentary elections, are promising to dispense advice and capital to small-business owners. Islamist leaders have brushed off calls by hardliners for bans on bikinis and alcohol in tourist resorts. Rachid Ghannouchi, the leader of Tunisia’s ruling Nahda party, has encouraged executives to list more companies on the local stock exchange, which has risen recently (see chart).

But for all the wooing of voters and investors, the new leaders so far lack credibility and expertise. Their plans mostly resemble wishlists. In a worrying flight of economic nationalism, both Tunisia and Egypt have suggested they aim to achieve food self-sufficiency. There is little talk of cutting red tape, privatising state-owned enterprises or slimming the obese public sector, nor have officials contemplated phasing out wasteful and badly targeted subsidies. The hardest part of the north African revolutions is yet to come.

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/21546018

African Union leaders gathered on Sunday for a two-day summit in Addis Ababa selected Benin's President Thomas Boni Yayi to be the body's next chairman. The AU's top post rotates among member states and is held for one year.

African Union leaders chose Benin's President Thomas Boni Yayi Sunday as the 54-member bloc's new chairman, at a two-day summit hoped to help resolve multiple crises facing the continent.

Boni Yayi, who succeeded Equatorial Guinea's President Teodoro Obiang Nguema AU chairman, said he wanted to "ensure that peace comes back our continent," as he accepted the post with "humility" for "the high responsibility."

"We shall continue to work hand in glove to ensure that we consolidate all what we have achieved so far," Boni Yayi said, an economist who is not expected to rock the boat in his new post, a largely ceremonial position.

War-torn Somalia, oil disputes between Sudan and South Sudan, violence in Nigeria and riots in Senegal in response to the president's determination to cling onto power, are also expected to be addressed in sideline talks.

"The development of our continent is in our hands my dear presidents...it is in unity and cohesion that our continent will ensure its development," Boni Yayi added, urging peace in Sudan and South Sudan, the Sahel region and in Nigeria.

The AU chairmanship rotates among African leaders and is held for one year, but intense lobbying continues ahead of a vote Monday for the top job, the head of the bloc's executive arm, the AU Commission.

On Monday, the 18th ordinary summit will chose in a secret ballot whether South Africa's Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma will take over from incumbent Jean Ping. No woman has held the AU Commission post.

South Africa said Saturday it was optimistic Dlamini-Zuma, former wife of President Jacob Zuma, can unseat Gabon's Ping, who was first elected in 2008.

"Government remains optimistic that Minister Dlamini-Zuma will receive the necessary votes," South Africa's foreign ministry said in a statement.

Sources close to Ping say he is confident of re-election, counting on support from French-speaking West and Central Africa countries.

But Dlamini-Zuma, 62, has launched a tough campaign and has the backing of the 15-member Southern African Development Community.

Pretoria has been lobbying hard across the continent to drum up the two thirds of the vote needed.

AU leaders, who gathered in their sleek new headquarters -- a $200m highrise centre built and donated by the Chinese government -- were meeting for their first summit since the death of the bloc's founder Moamer Kadhafi.

After a year that saw the AU faced with a post-election crisis in Ivory Coast as well as the Arab Spring revolutions, Obiang summed up his time in office by accusing "external powers" of trying to "perpetuate their influence" in Africa.

"Africa should not remain indifferent to external interference. Africa should not be questioned with regards to democracy, human rights, governance and transparency in public administration," he said.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the Arab Spring was a "a reminder that leaders must listen to their people."

"Events proved that repression is a dead end. Police power is no match to people power seeking dignity and justice," he said, also urging African leaders must also respect gay rights.

Homosexuality is illegal in most African countries.

"One form of discrimination ignored or even sanctioned by many states for too long has been discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity," Ban said.

The African leaders will also discuss Somalia, where the AU has a 10,000-strong force protecting the country's fragile Western-backed government from the Al-Qaeda-linked Shebab militia.

Regions of war-torn Somalia remains in the grip of a dire famine, but Ping said he was optimistic for the future.

"Never before have the prospects of peace in Somalia appeared so real," he told the opening ceremony.

Insecurity in the Sahel region, where Al-Qaeda linked fighters also operate in several countries, will also be on the agenda.

Discussions are also expected on Senegal, where riots erupted Friday after opposition supporters reacted to a court decision that President Abdoulaye Wade could run for a third term.

A bitter dispute between Sudan and South Sudan over oil pipeline transit fees, heightening tensions between the former civil war enemies, is also hoped to be addressed.

Ping urged the two parties to reach a deal.

"Sudan and South Sudan... should in the supporting interest of the people conclude in earnest the negotiations on the post-cessation arrangements," he said.

Source: http://www.france24.com/en/20120129-african-union-meets-select-new-chairman-yayi-nguema-addis-ababa-ethiopia

Growing inequality, environmental decline and "teetering" economies mean the world must change the way it does business, a UN report concludes.

Health and education must improve, it says. Subsidies on fossil fuels should end, and governments must look beyond the standard economic indicator of GDP.

The High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability was established in 2010 by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Its report will feed into discussions leading to the Rio+20 summit in June.

It is being launched in Addis Ababa by its two co-chairs, Finnish President Tarja Halonen and her South African counterpart Jacob Zuma.

"With the possibility of the world slipping further into recession, policymakers are hungry for ideas that can help them to navigate these difficult times," said Mr Zuma.

"Our report makes clear that sustainable development is more important than ever given the multiple crises now enveloping the world."

Ms Halonen emphasised the theme of equality that runs through the report, in terms of gender and redressing the burgeoning gap between people on high and low incomes.

"Eradication of poverty and improving equity must remain priorities for the world community," she said.

Pushing the boundaries

The panel's 22 members include heads of government and ministers past and present, including Barbadian Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, Australian Foreign Minister and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and India's Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh.

They also include Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Norwegian Prime Minister who led the Brundtland Commission in 1987.

It was that report that coined the most familiar definition of sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

Twenty-five years on, the new report concludes that although substantial progress has been made in many directions, such as reducing poverty, development is anything but sustainable.

"We undertook this report during a period of global volatility and uncertainty," it says.

"Economies are teetering. Inequality is growing. And global temperatures continue to rise.

"We are testing the capacity of the planet to sustain us."

To turn this around, it says: "We need to change dramatically, beginning with how we think about our relationship to each other, to future generations, and to the ecosystems that support us".

Changing track

The report - Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing - includes 56 recommendations that would, if implemented in full, have profound implications for societies, governments, and businesses.

Governments would build the true environmental costs of products into the prices that people pay to purchase them, leading to an economic system that protects natural resources.

Goods would be labelled with information on their environmental impact, enabling consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions.

With UN support, governments would adopt indicators of economic performance that go beyond simple GDP, and measure the sustainability of countries' economies.

Governments would change the regulation of financial markets to promote longer-term, more stable and sustainable investment.

Subsidies that damage environmental integrity would be phased out by 2020. The UN estimates that governments spend more than $400bn each year subsidising fossil fuels, while OECD countries alone spend nearly the same amount on agricultural subsidies.

In parallel, access to energy, clean water, sanitation and food would be increased, meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and going beyond them.

New targets would be established of ensuring "universal access to affordable sustainable energy" by 2030, while universal telecommunications and broadband access should arrive by 2025.

Governments "should consider establishing a global fund for education" in order to meet the existing MDG on universal access to primary education by 2015, and aim for universal access to secondary education by 2030.

These and other targets should be incorporated into a new set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to be drawn up in the next few years, the panel says.

Some of its recommendations parallel the initial draft agreement drawn up for the Rio+20 summit.

"We greatly welcome the report of the panel and its messages," said Farooq Ullah, head of policy and advocacy at Stakeholder Forum, a civil society group involved with preparations for the summit.

"It outlines a vision of the future which is people-centric and which exists within the safe operating space necessary for planetary health and our existence."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16775264

Le recours du pouvoir à la violence pour réprimer la contestation dans les pays arabes risque de se poursuivre en 2012, selon un rapport publié lundi par Amnistie internationale.

L'organisation des droits de l'homme prévient que certains régimes sont déterminés à rester au pouvoir coûte que coûte et qu'ils persistent à vouloir tenter d'offrir « des changements cosmétiques ».

Ces régimes continuent de brutaliser leur population, ce qui prouve que « pour beaucoup de gouvernements, la survie du régime reste leur objectif », a indiqué le directeur par intérim d'Amnistie internationale pour le Moyen-Orient et l'Afrique du Nord, Philip Luther.

Le rapport d'Amnistie internationale dénonce également les violations des droits de l'homme commises en Égypte par le pouvoir militaire en place pour assurer l'intérim depuis le départ d'Hosni Moubarak. Il estime que ces violations sont pires que celles commises sous le régime du président déchu.

« L'armée et les forces de sécurité ont réprimé violemment des manifestations, faisant au moins 84 morts entre octobre et décembre 2011. La torture en détention s'est poursuivie, et le nombre de civils traduits devant la justice militaire a été plus élevé en un an qu'en 30 ans de régime Moubarak », affirme Amnistie internationale.

Le rapport n'épargne pas les autorités par intérim en Libye, notamment pour le manque de contrôle des brigades armées qui ont participé à la chute de Kadhafi ou pour l'absence de procès des quelque 7000 personnes détenues dans des centres de fortune tenus par des brigades.

D'autres pays de la région sont aussi montrés du doigt. Amnistie internationale cite le pouvoir syrien « fermement déterminé » à s'accrocher au pouvoir, « quel qu'en soit le prix en vies humaines et en dignité ».

L'organisation, basée à Londres, a accusé l'armée et les services de renseignement syriens de commettre « des meurtres et des tortures s'apparentant à des crimes contre l'humanité, dans une vaine tentative de terrifier les protestataires et opposants [pour les réduire] au silence et à la soumission ».

L'ONG affirme qu'à la fin 2011, plus de 200 cas de personnes mortes en garde à vue ont été recensés, un chiffre 40 fois supérieur à la moyenne annuelle des dernières années dans ce pays.

Source: http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/International/2012/01/09/002-amnesty-international-rapport-violence-pays-arabes.shtml

Yet more failure to make much progress on climate change in Durban means that developing countries must exert stronger political pressure.

For three years in a row, there has been a disappointing end to international meetings that should have agreed on the steps needed to prevent the human and ecological disasters likely to result from a failure to limit man-made climate change.

The stage was set in Copenhagen two years ago, when the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 15) — widely but perhaps misleadingly billed by environmentalist groups as "the last chance to save the planet" — ended in disarray.

Following an equally disappointing meeting in Cancun, Mexico (COP 16), last year, expectations were low for the outcome of this year's meeting, which took place in Durban, South Africa (COP 17), earlier this month. The financial crisis that has hit industrialised countries over the past two years further lowered expectations, pushing climate change far down their political agendas.

There was, therefore, little surprise that the Durban meeting failed to make much headway, beyond agreement to start negotiations on a new agreement for 2015, to come into effect in 2020.

But the message of Durban was clear for climate change and other sustainability targets. A global transition to a green economy is unlikely to take place through voluntary agreement. It will require strong political leadership, and this must now come from developing countries — emerging economies in particular — which have much to gain from achieving sustainable growth.

Le gouvernement australien s’apprête à créer un centre international de la sécurité alimentaire dans le but d’offrir son expertise technique et en recherche aux gouvernements et aux institutions en Afrique qui souhaitent en bénéficier.  

Le Centre international australien de sécurité alimentaire (AICFS) verra le jour au deuxième trimestre de l'année prochaine.

La première ministre australienne, Julia Gillard, a annoncé la création de ce centre le mois dernier (28 octobre). Il sera mis en place à un coût avoisinant les US$ 37 millions et sera hégergé par le Centre australien de recherche agronomique internationale (ACIAR).

Dans le cadre de ce programme, seront créés entre les chercheurs africains et des organismes de recherche et des établissements d'enseignement supérieur australiens de premier plan des liens pour faire émerger des solutions aux défis de l'agriculture dans les environnements tropical et subtropical.

Des chercheurs australiens formeront également des chercheurs africains dans le domaine des technologies que l’Australie utilise pour faire face à de nombreux défis environnementaux qu'elle partage avec l'Afrique, comme son climat extrême, l'infertilité des sols et les changements climatiques.

Gabrielle Persley, professeur adjoint au Global Change Institute de l'Université de Queensland en Australie, a déclaré que ce centre aidera les chercheurs africains à développer des variétés de cultures résistantes à la sécheresse, un domaine dans lequel l'Australie a fait de gros progrès.

Le centre en question va également développer des vaccins contre les maladies du bétail et conduire des programmes de recherche conjoints avec des homologues africains.

" Les principaux aspects de cette initiative seront le développement des capacités des chercheurs africains et d'autres experts dans des domaines comme l’amélioration de l'accès aux marchés des petits agriculteurs, et le déploiement de la technologie de pointe australienne pour aider les agriculteurs à faire face aux impacts des changements climatiques", a déclaré Persley.

La construction du centre sera précédée d’une conférence internationale sur la sécurité alimentaire en Afrique, dans la première moitié de 2012. Cette conférence réunira des chercheurs australiens et africains dans le but d’identifier les opportunités de coopération.

L’ACIAR note que ce centre finira par avoir une antenne dans un pays africain qui reste à déterminer.

L’AICFS aura pour priorité de parvenir à la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle, et s’orientera vers la commercialisation de la petite agriculture à l’avenir.Pour Daniel Mreli, expert agricole au service de la Sumitomo Corporation au Kenya, cette initiative est bonne pour l'Afrique.

"[L’Australie] est bien avancée et [a] beaucoup de connaissances sur l'agriculture sur les terres arides, notamment les systèmes d'élevage", a-t-il dit.

Mais il a prévenu que les gouvernements et les institutions doivent s’assurer qu'ils transmettent ce qu'ils apprennent aux agriculteurs pour que l'initiative porte des fruits.

Source: http://www.scidev.net/fr/agriculture-and-environment/food-security/news/l-australie-veut-partager-son-exp-rience-dans-le-domaine-agricole-avec-l-afrique.html