The African Union is actively mobilising resources to help members implement the Paris Agreement, but funding challenges abound
Left: Flash floods on the eastern banks of the Nile river, 50 km north of Khartoum, Sudan, 2019 Photo: Ebrahim Hamid / AFP
Land erosion, drought and desertiﬁcation, flooding, the Sahara Desert expanding southward at a rate of 48 km a year, change in the distribution of rainfall, rivers and freshwater resources’ drying-up, among others. This is what Africa’s environment looks like right now. Experts say climate change has already had a devastating impact on food and agriculture, livelihoods, human health and ecosystems. Climate change has generated deadly inter-ethnic conflicts over land and water resources, especially in the Sahel region, and is also said to be triggering mass migration as disgruntled people leave their homelands in search of greener pastures.
A 2018 World Bank report, Groundswell – Preparing for Internal Climate Migration – estimated that climate change will push more than 140 million people to migrate within countries by 2050, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia and Latin America. Environmental degradation on this scale has exposed the limited ability of many African countries to manage climate change. In response, the African Union (AU) has launched a series of measures aimed at redressing the suffering caused by climate disasters.
The Addis-Ababa-based continental body is mobilising resources to support member countries in their implementation of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), said Leah Naess Wanambwa, Senior Policy Officer at the Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture at the AU. To date, 51 of the 54 UN-recognised African countries, which are members of the AU, have ratiﬁed the Paris Agreement. Currently, four countries are receiving technical and ﬁnancial support through a joint initiative between the AU Commission and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Wanambwa added, without naming these countries.
“The African Commission is in the process of mobilising additional support to cover more countries,” she told Africa in Fact. The continent’s leadership had shown consistent and coordinated resolve to support actions at the country, continental and global levels, said Kwame Ababio, Senior Programme Officer at the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)’s Technical Cooperation and Advisory Services, an AU economic development agency.
“For the continent, climate change presents an existential danger, both now and in the immediate future. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its ﬁfth assessment report, described Africa as being among the most vulnerable continents to climate change and its impacts,” Ababio told Africa in Fact. He added that the limits of Africa’s adaptive capacity to climate change were exacerbated by widespread poverty and an “overwhelming” dependence on the continent’s environmental resources for livelihoods.
The AU’s high-level approach to supporting affected countries is led by the Conference of African Heads of State and Government on Climate Change (CAHOSCC), the standing committee of the African Union Heads of State and Government Architecture. Implementation, particularly with regard to policymaking and ﬁnding coordinated African positions on issues on climate change, is led by the African Ministerial Conference on Environment (AMCEN). In recent decades, African countries have sometimes been at odds with one another due to the divergent political agendas of their leaders. This has sometimes affected the continent’s ability to solve its own problems.
Recently, in January 2020, the AU expressed serious doubts about the credibility of the 2019 presidential election in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and called for the announcement of the results to be suspended. The DRC government, led at the time by Joseph Kabila, rejected the AU’s call on national sovereignty grounds. In the event, in early February the country’s independent electoral commission accepted the results, and the international community, African countries included, accepted the outcome of the DRC’s January elections in the name of stability. “In doing so, they have failed the Congolese people,” wrote Mo Ibrahim and Alan Doss on 9 February in The Guardian.
Analysts believe that Kabila manipulated the results to place his ally Felix Tshisekedi on top, instead of Martin Fayulu, who is thought to have won the election outright. The issue divided African leaders, with politicians holding economic interests in the DRC swiftly siding with Kabila. The gathering economic and social crisis in Zimbabwe that resulted from Robert Mugabe’s long occupation of the top spot is another recent example. While South African leaders opted for quiet diplomacy on Zimbabwe, Botswana’s former president Ian Khama openly called on the late Mugabe to step down.
However, African leaders have moved to tackle climate change by uniting and speaking with one voice, said Wanambwa. As an important part of this, in 1995 the African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change (AGN) was established at COP1, the ﬁrst UN climate change conference, in Berlin, Germany, to represent the interests of the region with a common and uniﬁed voice. Currently, the African Commission also provides some support to the AGN with regard to its participation in the climate change negotiations which have been ongoing since then, she told Africa in Fact.
The AGN negotiates the continent’s position at the climate conventions at the experts’ level. The African Commission’s support has been aimed at ensuring that experts provide technical backing to the AGN on the different thematic areas under the convention. The African voice at climate negotiations has grown from strength to strength and been united, according to Wanambwa. Ababio agreed, saying the AGN had engaged with a wide range of groupings to arrive at a common African stance in relation to many issues raised within the UN Framework Convention on Climate.
It is critical for Africa’s very survival that climate change be mainstreamed into major economic sectors, he added. African governments were spending an estimated 2-9% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [estimated between $51.6 billion and $232.2 billion] on tackling climate change, while the annual costs of building resilience could range from $140 billion to $300 billion by 2030,” Ababio explained (The estimation above is calculated on the basis of Africa’s total nominal GDP, which was about $2.58 trillion in 2017).
“Bold climate action” could deliver at least $26 trillion in global economic beneﬁts between now and 2030, according to a September 2018 report, Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21st Century, released by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. In 2007, the AU launched the Great Green Wall of the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative, in partnership with the UN Convention to Combat Desertiﬁcation (UNCCD). The proposed 8,000 km-long line of trees and plants will stretch across the entire Sahel and traverse some 20 countries from the Atlantic coast of Senegal to Djibouti.
It’s an ambitious undertaking that many observers describe as the AU’s biggest climate change project to date. According to the AU, the aim is to reverse land degradation and desertiﬁcation in the Sahel and Sahara region, boost food security and support local communities to adapt to climate change (See also Joe Walsh’s article on page 136).
Such efforts and initiatives appear to have gained support from some independent voices, such as Uganda-born environmental activist William Leslie Amanzuru, winner of the 2019 European Union Human Rights Defender Award. Amanzuru’s organisation, Friends of Zoka, advocates for the protection of the 6,145-hectare Zoka Central Forest Reserve located in northern Uganda. While he praised the AU for what it was doing to ﬁght climate change on the continent, he told Africa in Fact that he deplored the lack of political will shown by most member states. Widespread lack of political will was the biggest problem for the continent’s efforts to combat climate change, he said.
Financial assistance to member states granted by institutions such the African Development Bank (AfDB) for climate change redress was being diverted to political purposes, Amanzuru claimed. The AU needed to design appropriate accountability mechanisms for these funds, he urged. The AU certainly does face serious funding challenges with regard to its capacity to respond to climate change. In 2016, the AfDB estimated that Africa was accessing only about 3% of international climate ﬁnance.
“At the national level, there is inadequacy in governments’ capacity at the human and institutional level to meet international standards and fund eligibility requirements,” NEPAD’s Ababio told Africa in Fact. Without external support, African countries would only be able to implement about 30% of their commitments in terms of the Paris Agreement, he warned.
Greendustrialisation: now or never
African economies looking for a sustainable industrialisation model find themselves at a crossroads with little time to decide the way forward
Ruth Amoah (right) and her workers at small chocolate producer Moments Chocolate’s workplace remove husks from roasted cocoa beans in Accra, Ghana, 2019
Photo: Cristina Aldehuela / AFP
Lack of industrialisation is often pointed out as the key factor behind Africa’s underdevelopment. Among those supporting the idea are Mike Morris and Judith Fessehaie, who wrote in their 2014 paper, The Industrialisation Challenge for Africa: “Only a massive industrialisation effort will enable Africa to eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development”. According to United Nations (UN) statistics from 2019, Africa is home to more than 1.2 billion people or 16% of the world’s population, 85% of whom “are still poor if judged by the standards of upper-middle income countries”.
Yet, the continent accounts for less than 2% of international trade and global manufacturing. Based on the current demographic trend, the UN forecasts that Africa’s population will reach 2.5 billion people by 2050 – a dramatic increment that will put further strain on already scarce jobs and insufficient public services and natural resources. Due to low levels of industrialisation, Africa is by far the continent that produces the least CO2 emissions. UN statistics for 2016 show that Africa emits just 4% of the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. According to an early 2020 Oxfam study, “The average Brit will emit more carbon in the ﬁrst two weeks than the citizens of seven African nations (Rwanda, Malawi, Ethiopia, Uganda, Madagascar, Guinea and Burkina Faso) emit in an entire year”.
Nonetheless, Africa pays the toll for pollution as much as any other part of the world, and available data suggest that the continent is affected by climate change more immediately than other regions. “For sub-Saharan Africa, which has experienced more frequent and more intense climate extremes over the past decades, the ramiﬁcations of the world’s warming by more than 1.5°C would be profound,” said the UN’s spokesperson for sustainability issues, Dan Shepard, when summing up the conclusions of the 2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“Temperature increases in the region are projected to be higher than the global mean temperature increase,” wrote Shepard on the panel’s conclusions, which predicted a decrease in precipitation in Africa of up to 20% if the projected warming is not corrected. As the developed world pushes forward to move away from a model of industrial production based on burning fossil fuels that is proving unsustainable, African economies ﬁnd themselves at a crossroads with little time to decide the way forward. Stepping up efforts to boost production through energy sources that are being dropped elsewhere does not seem like a viable option for Africa.
On the one hand, it would be met with reticence from donors and partners much aware of the urgency of greening the economy. Besides, its success would come at a price for a continent whose rich natural environments remain largely unscathed compared to other parts of the world. In these circumstances, both governments and international institutions are, at least from a declarative point of view, decisively opting for what has been called “a green path to industrialisation”, what we will call greendustrialisation.
“The big opportunity for Africa in 2016, as a latecomer to industrialisation, is in adopting alternative economic pathways to industrialisation,” a report by the UN Economic Commission for Africa (2016) noted. Titled Greening Africa’ s Industrialization, the document argues that African countries have the potential to “beneﬁt from their current low-carbon position and leapfrog” a future, without a “high dependence on volatile fossil fuels” and avoiding the complex and costly transition processes required in more industrialised economies.
An example of greendustrialisation given by the report is the Hawassa Eco-Industrial Park in Ethiopia, some 275 km south of the capital. This textile manufacturing plant started operating in 2016 and is the flagship project of the government’s industrial parks programme aimed at creating jobs and boosting exports. The Hawassa park runs on renewable hydroelectric power and employs a Zero Liquid Discharge system (ZLD) that enables it to recycle 90% of the sewerage disposal waters. Its success supports the notion that building green infrastructure from scratch might be easier than greening an existing one.
The Hawassa Park has been built with abundant and diversiﬁed foreign investment, especially from Asia. Some 25,000, mostly female, Ethiopians currently work at the plant, which is expected to employ 60,000 people when running at its full capacity. Cheap labour and the good conditions offered to investors by the Addis Ababa government have drawn clothing giants such as Guess, H&M and Levi’s to commission some of the garments they sell to manufacturers working from this park. According to 2016 World Bank data, agriculture employs between 65 and 70% of Africa’s workforce and supports the livelihoods of 90% of the continent’s population.
Thus, the success of industrialising African economies lies to a great extent in the transformation of the sector. Ivory Coast is the world’s top cocoa producer, but most of the volume extracted is processed (in the form of liquor, butter, cake or powder) abroad. The government has repeatedly vowed to spur its cocoa processing capacities in the coming years. At the same time, Ivory Coast aspires to boost the manufacturing in the country of cashews, cotton, rubber and coffee, whose production is mostly exported in raw form. Singapore-based agribusiness giant Olam International is one of the companies already processing cocoa and other commodities in Ivory Coast.
Its factories employ 5,000 people and are mentioned as an example of good environmental practices by the UN Economic Commission for Africa. A major challenge for both cocoa supply and manufacturing in Africa and overseas is the deforestation provoked by logging aimed at making space for planting more cocoa trees to farm. In 2017, the governments of Ivory Coast and Ghana launched, together with 35 global cocoa and chocolate companies, the Cocoa & Forests Initiative. Its main provision is “a commitment to no further conversion of any forest land for cocoa production”. One of the intended measures is investing “in sustainable agricultural intensiﬁcation in order to grow more cocoa on less land”.
Between 1988 and 2007, the website of the initiative says, 2.3 million hectares of rainforest was cleared for cocoa farms in Ivory Coast and Ghana. In a 2015 speech before the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the then Ethiopian prime minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, mentioned the development of manufacturing and the transformation of the agricultural sectors as two pivotal points to drive Africa’s industrialisation. Desalegn, who has been commended for championing the greendustrialisation agenda pioneered by his predecessor, Meles Zenawi, also alluded to the procurement of energy as “one of the binding constraints for industrialisation”.
He unequivocally propounded the development of “renewable energy”, which he considered to be “our comparative advantage in Africa”, as the only desirable way forward. In an example of integrated greendustrialisation, Ivory Coast is planning to build a 60 to 70 MW capacity biomass power- generation plant running on waste from cocoa pods. The project is supported by the US and will be up and running in 2023 if the process goes as planned. Ivory Coast aims to develop 424 MW of biomass power generation capacity by 2030, in an effort to increase and diversify its electricity generation sources as power demand has grown due to economic growth.
In December 2019, the Ivorian government and a French consortium led by Electricite de France (EDF) signed a concession contract for the construction of a biomass power plant of an installed capacity of 46 MW. It should be ready by 2023, when it will start generating electricity from oil palm waste. While countries like Malawi, South Africa and Rwanda have made remarkable progress in developing biofuels, wind and solar energy, Kenya is the leading actor in Africa when it comes to energy transition. Between 2010 and 2018 Kenya’s economy expanded at an annual average rate of 5.8%, according to World Bank data.
Between 2010 and 2019, Kenya’s peak demand for electricity almost doubled (from just over 1,000 MW in 2010 to exceed 1,900 last year), official data from the Nairobi government shows. Back in 2008, the Kenyan government launched its Kenya Vision 2030, a plan aimed at industrialising the economy to bring prosperity to citizens within a “clean and secure environment”. To sustain the projected economic expansion, the plan provided for an increase in the country’s power capacity based on the development of renewable energies, particularly hydroelectricity and geothermal energy. In December 2019, Kenya put a new 50 MW solar plant online.
It increased the share of renewable energy in its power mix to a remarkable 93% and took the country closer to the government’s target of being entirely green energy powered by 2020. In a 2019 policy research working paper for the World Bank, Catrina Godinho and Anton Eberhard cite the following facts to explain Kenya’s success. Since 1996, “policy and regulatory functions were separated from commercial activities; generation was unbundled from transmission and distribution; cost-reflective tariffs were introduced; and generation was liberalised.”
In a second phase of the reform that started in 2002 “independent regulation” was strengthened and the national generation company partially privatised to attract foreign investment. As a result of these policies, which continue, Kenya “has … become an investment destination for IPPs” (Independent Power Producers). This has allowed it to triple its generation power capacity since 1990, “with generation capacity expanding more rapidly than peak demand” and having achieved a power surplus (Godinho and Eberhard) – while almost entirely greening the company’s power sourcing.
Kenya ranked ﬁfth in the BloombergNEF’s 2019 Climatescope report, which evaluates the investment conditions in clean energy in 104 emerging countries. “The country is gradually increasing its share of non-large hydro renewables by adding solar, wind and geothermal,” the report read. “In 2018, Kenya recorded its highest ever clean energy investment with $1.4 billion,” it added. However, the eastern African nation’s vigour in exploiting Africa’s privileged natural resources to propel industrialisation remains unparalleled in a region with huge discrepancies from country to country, where economic growth is still propelled by extraction commodities.
Despite its desperate need to intensify generation and the commitment of its politicians to take the green way to industrialisation, Africa lags far behind all the other continents in renewable energy actual generation and capacity growth (IEA 2019). Half of Africa’s booming population still has no access to electricity, and power cuts affect 80% of the companies operating on the continent. “Despite progress in several countries (e.g. Kenya, Ethiopia, Ghana, Senegal, Rwanda), current and planned efforts to provide access to modern energy services barely outpace population growth,” the IEA notes in its 2019 World Energy Outlook. Data for 2019 of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) show that Africa’s renewable generation capacity of 46 GW accounted for 2% of global share.
Some 60% of the total share of electricity generated in sub- Saharan Africa comes from hydropower. Oil comes second with a share of 18%, followed by gas (16%). According to the IEA, Africa’s hopes to face the growing demand, brought about by demographic growth and projected economic development, rely on the development of solar energy, which has the potential to overtake hydropower as the main renewable generation source – coupled with the use of the abundant reserves of natural gas discovered in recent years in the continent.
“The big open question for Africa remains the speed at which solar PV will grow. To date, the continent with the richest solar resources in the world has installed only ﬁve gigawatts (GW) of solar PV, less than 1% of the global total,” the IEA concludes.
Africa: agriculture and environment
Climate change will hit Africa hard, but it also offers the continent an opportunity to build resilience and diversify livelihoods
A young man stands among stationary boats at the dried inland Lake Chilwa in Zomba District, eastern Malawi, October, 2018. Lake Chilwa is the second-largest lake in Malawi after Lake Malawi. The dying lake is having an adverse effect on the livelihoods of communities.
Photo: Amos Gumulira / AFP
The changes ahead for Africa’s environment, which form the foundation of the continent’s societies and economies, will be challenging, but bright spots abound. Africa is a continent of contrasting environments absent a singular deﬁnition. A mosaic of terrains, the continent weaves together tropical forests, grasslands, savannahs, deserts and mangroves, ice-capped mountains, rivers, lakes and coasts across 55 countries, 1.2 billion people and 30 million square kilometres of land. This enormous landmass contains a quarter of global biodiversity, supports the world’s most prodigious gatherings of large mammals, and its diverse animal, plant and marine ecosystems drive economies and shape societies, cultures and development.
Human actions have played a central role in changing the African environment and its landscape over a long and complex history. African indigenous knowledge and practices include shared cropping systems and zai rain-fed irrigation methods that have mitigated droughts and famine for centuries. Yet, much of the more recent environmental history of Africa is dominated not by stories of Africans managing a challenging environment in harmony with ecosystems, but rather of foreign-driven exploitation of its people and resources, including minerals, fossil fuels, farm and forest produce for export.
Africa today is no less dependent on its environment than in the past. This is especially true in rural areas. Approximately 57% of Africa’s population, or 740 million people, live in rural areas. Agriculture is the continent’s biggest employer, supporting the livelihoods of 51% of the population. The majority of the population working in agriculture is engaged in smallholder agriculture that is undertaken in harsh environmental conditions with limited and highly variable natural rainfall. The high dependence on agriculture and the environment has signiﬁcant and far-reaching consequences, not just for the 740 million rural people of Africa, but for the continent as a whole.
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reports that nearly a quarter of the population, or 224 million people, in sub-Saharan Africa are undernourished, with 31% experiencing food insecurity. Food shortages and malnutrition result in stunted growth and permanent damage that has long-term impacts. On a continental level, Africa is not feeding itself. According to the African Development Bank, net food imports to Africa are costing on average $35-$42 billion per year and are predicted to reach $110 billion by 2025. As stated by Akinwumi Adesina, the bank’s president, in 2017, “Africa’s annual food import bill weakens African economies, decimates its agriculture and exports jobs from the continent.” This food bill does not represent investment – these are sunk costs.
The consequence of this heavy reliance on challenging and unpredictable environmental conditions by such a large proportion of the population is a signiﬁcant downward pressure on human and economic development. With two thirds of every country’s human capital beholden to the environment, and more speciﬁcally unpredictable rainfall to provide livelihoods, the opportunities for entry into skilled employment such as teaching, business, the health profession and trading are curtailed.
Climate change is making these challenges worse. The facts and ﬁgures on global climate change are startling. Prior to 1800, the global level of atmospheric CO2 was 280 parts per million (ppm).
Data drawn from ice cores show that CO2 varied within a relatively narrow range, roughly between 180 and 280 ppm, over the past 800,000 years – never moving above 300 ppm. Currently, CO2 is above 416 ppm. Over this same 800,000 years, methane has never been higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb), but now this gas, which is 22 times more powerful than CO2, is 1,873 ppb. The unprecedented speed and scale of these greenhouse gas emissions brings us into a new era of uncertainty with regards to their impact on the environment and our planet. According to the UN, Africa is the continent that will be hardest hit by climate change.
The key word, however, when attempting to understand climate change in Africa, is uncertainty. One of the challenges in predicting the impact of climate change on the continent is the extremely complex, yet poorly understood, large-scale weather systems that interact across the landscape. While rainfall patterns have been exceptionally difficult to predict, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that temperatures have risen by about 0.5°C over most of the African continent during the past 50-100 years. While this increase in temperature may seem insigniﬁcant, it is accelerating and will have a widespread impact on agriculture.
Many staple crops such as wheat, maize, millet and sorghum are especially susceptible to changes in temperature. Scientists predict that by 2050 the agricultural production of millet and sorghum in West Africa will potentially decrease by 13% in Burkina Faso, 25.9% in Mali and 44.7% in Senegal. Even if a quarter of these decreases in production are actualised, they will amplify shocks and stresses in those countries that today face food insecurity that will have an impact on up to five million people, according to the World Food Programme. Higher temperatures will also likely cause desert areas to encroach further south, also limiting agricultural options.
This may have unexpected consequences on migration and food insecurity, forcing people into conflict and causing an increase in bush meat consumption that may encourage new zoonotic diseases to emerge. Climate change will further impact biodiversity. An assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa, published by the independent Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), estimates that by 2100 climate change could have caused the loss of over half of Africa’s bird and mammal species and a significant loss of plant species.
That will have a substantial impact on livelihoods, water and food supply and reduce people’s resilience to shocks and stresses because these ecosystems are the foundation of healthy societies and economies. Another area of clear impact occurring along coasts due to rising sea levels and warming. Sea levels have risen between 13-20 cm over the past 100 years and this is accelerating. Rising sea levels are caused by warming seas that expand as they increase in temperature and melting land-based ice flows into the ocean. Africa has just over 30,000 km of coastline that is undergoing increasing population growth and urbanisation.
These urban areas will be susceptible to more flooding due to storm surges. But warming sea levels are also impacting the environment in other, unpredictable ways. The devastating locust swarms currently destroying crops and livelihoods across East Africa may be linked to climate change. The warming Indian Ocean has contributed to 2019 being one of the wettest October-December rainy seasons in ﬁve decades. This drove eight cyclones across the region in 2019 – the most since records began – and enabled desert locusts to leapfrog into East Africa where they have now laid eggs and are hatching in their trillions.
David Hughes of the UN’s FAO, told the BBC in May that they “threaten the food of 23 million people. It is the number one food security issue in East Africa at the moment.” Climate change is not the only factor leading to this uncertain future, however. Many scientists posit that we have now entered the Anthropocene, a new geological age in which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment. The African environment, for example, has suffered signiﬁcantly from human-led degradation that has accelerated over the past century. This includes the over-exploitation of wildlife and ﬁsheries and natural habitat loss, especially from agricultural expansion.
The Anthropocene is characterised by an increasingly interconnected and accelerating world. These characteristics have signiﬁcant implications for how we understand risks. The current Covid-19 pandemic is an example of how a zoonotic disease that emerged from wildlife to humans in a city in China is having an enormous and rapid negative impact on people and economies in Africa and around the globe. When we combine the interconnected and rapidly changing nature of the Anthropocene with the uncertain impacts of climate change in the context of Africa, the future looks challenging.
African leaders are not to blame for the impacts of climate change against which they must build resilience. Africa has 17% of the world’s population, but has only contributed 4% to global carbon emissions, and much of this has been to supply export products for higher-income countries. But regardless of where the blame for climate change lies, the reality is that the global public and private sectors have a shared responsibility to address the interconnected and uncertain risks it poses.
Domestically, African governments and the private sector need to recognise the impact of climate change and champion green growth that works with nature to build resilience and supports people, especially rural populations, to adapt through improved early warning systems, agricultural investment and diversiﬁed livelihood options. The current Covid-19 pandemic and its economic implications provide an opportunity to employ the old adage of “never waste a crisis”. As Paul Kagame, the President of Rwanda stated: “We are not making a choice between environment and prosperity; but we are rather looking at how we combine both.”
This is the opportunity to invest in recovery solutions, such as job programmes that directly invest in natural capital like nature-based tourism, that will help the continent to come back stronger. The World Travel and Tourism Council estimates, for example, that 3.6 million people in Africa are employed in the nature-based tourism industry, which was worth $29 billion in 2018. These programmes can also build the capacity of local communities and drive forward opportunities for women and youth.
Navigating this uncertain future will also require an improved understanding of environmental and human interactions through investing in science and education.
For Africa to thrive amidst the shocks and stresses that lie ahead, it will need leadership and cooperation from governments, the private sector and people that builds resilience to upcoming challenges by supporting growth and development that protects and works with the environment. As South African climate activist Ndivile Mokoena said: “Climate change is largely viewed as an environmental issue. However, it encompasses everything: it is a developmental issue, it is a human rights issue, it is a social issue.”
On 7 January, 2020, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) published an article about ‘The top 10 crises the world should be watching in 2020.’
Then countries potentially facing devastating crises in 2020 were listed. Nigeria was ranked fourth, in the company of the likes of Yemen (1), the Democratic Republic of Congo (2), Syria (3), Venezuela (5), Afghanistan (6), South Sudan (7) Burkina Faso (8), Somalia (9) and Central African Republic (10). As regards Nigeria, the IRC said that the country’s decade-long battle with insurgency in Nigeria’s north-east was the most prominent of the multiple threats the country faced, along with rising communal violence in central areas and the north-west.
Moreover, a cholera outbreak in 2018 across 20 states in Nigeria aggravated the country’s battle with food insecurity, while large-scale displacement had left “over half of the 13.4 million people living in the conflict affected north-east states need[ing] some form of humanitarian assistance”, according to the article. The country would see “new constraints on humanitarian efforts, that would exacerbate existing conditions. The situation in the north-west could deteriorate even further, particularly if armed groups operating there establish links to counterparts active in the Sahel.”
But the IRC, like the Nigerian government and Nigerians generally, could not have foreseen the humanitarian crisis that would unfold in only a matter of months as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has posed risks beyond mass displacement and food insecurity, including a major challenge to the country’s health sector. As recorded in my first blog in this series, Nigeria recorded its index case on 27 February. And the country went into its battle with the novel virus equipped with a health budget of $1.09 billion, or 4.14% of the annual budget.
Then countries potentially facing devastating crises in 2020 were listed. Nigeria was ranked fourth.
Beginning in March, the federal and state governments, with relevant agencies, announced a series of policies aimed at controlling the spread of the virus.
In mid-March, Nigeria’s National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) provided guidance on planning mass gatherings, as initial cases of infected people were confirmed. Later that month, the country’s Central Bank rolled out N100 Billion credit support for the healthcare sector, as well as guidelines for its operations under pandemic conditions.
A few days later, Lagos State, where Nigeria’s index case originated, promulgated Infectious Diseases Emergency Prevention Regulation 2020, to become effective on 27 March. Ekiti State, in the country’s south-west region, soon followed with regulations detailing measures aimed at preventing the spread of the virus in the state.
In early April, when the country had only 209 confirmed cases of infection, the Nigerian government announced plans to create a N500 billion ($1.39 billion) coronavirus fund to strengthen its healthcare infrastructure to tackle the virus. Mid-month, the National Environmental Standards And Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) published guidelines for handling chemicals used as disinfectant, as well as guidelines for handling infectious and medical waste.
The country’s Central Bank rolled out N100 Billion credit support for the healthcare sector, as well as guidelines for its operations under pandemic conditions.
Lagos State, which has been commended for taking the lead in regard to policies and guidelines dealing with the pandemic, launched Eko Telemed, a toll-free voice and video call service available in four major languages, for use in remote consultations. Later that month, the NCDC published guidelines for employers and businesses in Nigeria, effective from 4 May, aimed at ensuring that people interacted safely in the workplace.
With the first phase of the easing of the lockdown on 30 April, the Presidential Task Force on Covid-19 issued further guidelines aimed at containing the virus. On 7 May, the federal government also approved a waiver on import duties relating to medical equipment and supplies. It also directed the Nigeria Customs Services (NCS) to expedite the clearing of imported health and medical equipment and supplies. On 31 May, the Lagos State government also started a ‘register to open’ initiative aimed at assessing the level of preparedness of hospitality centres, places of worship, night clubs, events centres, gyms/spas, and social clubs to carry out measures aimed at curbing the spread of the virus.
Analysing these steps, Dr. Ejike Oji, chairman of the medical sub-committee advising the Ministerial Expert Advisory Committee on Covid-19, said the pandemic has exposed “the good, the bad and the ugly” in the country’s health governance capabilities.
The “good side” was that federal government had shown “tremendous leadership by making sure that funds are approved both for the public and private sector,” he told Africa in Fact. “We are talking about 600 billion naira. Every single case treated at public isolation and treatment centres costs 50,000 naira. The federal government bears that cost. That is leadership.”
The pandemic has exposed “the good, the bad and the ugly” in the country’s health governance capabilities.
Also, the federal government had set up the Presidential Taskforce (PTF) on Covid-19, which, working with the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), had given crucial direction to the country and helped to achieve uniformity of purpose at national government level in dealing with the pandemic. In particular, the participation of the NCDC had ensured that the PTF had technical support. “That shows leadership too,” Oji said.
But he was critical of the efforts of state governments. Overall, state governments had “failed woefully” to deal effectively with the virus. “Most of the states are not putting proper [administrative] structures in place. There are no isolation centres. They are also not tracking, testing and isolating people who are positive, but in denial.”
Indeed, the coronavirus pandemic has made everybody in Nigeria acutely aware that our healthcare system is broken. Since no one can leave to seek treatment abroad, everyone is dependent on what services they can find within the country – delivery of which is almost entirely in the hands of state administrations.
As regards public policy and implementation, the Nigerian government’s health portfolio is devolved to the states, and the federal government cannot prescribe policies to them. The federal government can only offer guidelines to be followed. Many of Nigeria’s state governments have acted irresponsibly in handling the pandemic, according to Oji. “The PTF handles the guidelines, while the states are supposed to deliver services on the ground. But some states are still in denial that Covid-19 is even occurring in their territory. And some state leaders who have taken ill – commissioners and even governors – have run to Abuja to get treated.”
The coronavirus pandemic has made everybody in Nigeria acutely aware that our healthcare system is broken.
Almost 50% of cases in Abuja had come from other states, such as Kogi and Kano, he noted. Abuja had the highest number of isolation beds, and had carried out more tests per capita than any other state.
Many states had also not done well with public education and community engagement – key measures in reducing the spread of the virus. Aid agencies seem to be stepping in for the government here. In Nigeria, the International Committee of the Red Cross, is using commercial rickshaws, commonly called keke, to spread Covid-19 prevention messages. In Lagos, UNICEF is supporting awareness campaigns by health educators in local government areas in Lagos State, which has a population of more than 14 million people.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has partnered with telecoms company Airtel to help the Nigerian government provide critical information on how to avoid contracting COVID-19. The project targeted “more than a million” Nigerians daily, and was part of a broader programme of US government support, with $6.7 million pledged “to bolster Nigeria’s efforts to prevent and respond to the spread of the virus,” according to the organisation’s website.
But efforts to control the spread of the coronavirus across Africa should go beyond such traditional public health measures, according to Evaborhene Aghogho Nelson, a physician and currently a global health and development post-graduate fellow at University College, London. “Response coordination should also be framed around symbols or figures that strengthen national unity in order to sustain community mobilisation,” he told Africa in Fact. “It is crucial African heads of state engage communities in ways that echo their shared beliefs and ideologies, and that approach should be reflected in planned behavioural change strategies.”
“It is crucial African heads of state engage communities in ways that echo their shared beliefs and ideologies, and that approach should be reflected in planned behavioural change strategies.” – Evaborhene Aghogho Nelson
Some states were showing signs of good leadership, such as the Federal Capital Territory (as it happens, it is the country’s capital). The FCT, with a population of more than 2.4 million people had tested 14 23,169 samples as at the end of July. Of these, 2,687 were positive, 810 had been treated and successfully discharged, while 39 deaths were recorded. The FCT minister, Muhammad Musa Bello, had set up an advisory committee, which Oji believed was “doing well” in supporting the healthcare department.
More recently, Kano had improved its performance in dealing with the virus, he added. As I referenced in my fourth blog, Zango and Dorayi, two pilot projects in Kano have taken the lead in engaging community influencers with knowledge transfer and the implementation of targeted health interventions. Kano, the most populous state in north-west Nigeria, with a population of more than nine million people, had tested 19,916 samples by the end of July. Of these 1,314 tested positive, with 1,035 treated and discharged, and 52 deaths.
In June, the Nigerian government introduced a plan to invest in healthcare infrastructure, the Economic Sustainability Plan. The plan constitutes a “12-month, N2.3 Trillion ($6, 052, 631, 578) ‘Transit’ plan between the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) and the successor plan to the ERGP, which is currently in development.” The ERGP, developed by the Administration of President Muhammadu Buhari in 2017, was aimed at restoring economic growth.
The new plan was announced on March 30, 2020 and includes measures to increase government revenues, a support package for private businesses (with an emphasis on strategic sectors most affected by the pandemic) and vulnerable segments of the population, specific measures to support the states and the FCT, and a strategy to keep existing jobs and create new ones, among others.
In June, the Nigerian government introduced a plan to invest in healthcare infrastructure, the Economic Sustainability Plan.
The Economic Sustainability Plan has been applauded as a step in the right direction. The country’s response to the pandemic was “well-planned and articulated,” said Edward Kallon, UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Nigeria. He added that “interactions between the federal government and stakeholders would aid a smooth implementation of the plan,” perhaps suggesting that co-ordination was failing at that point in the system.
However, critics have argued that the stimulus package is small when compared to countries of similar size. “While Nigeria’s stimulus package is 1.6% of its GDP, Morocco, Namibia, and Senegal have deployed packages valued at 2.7%, 4.3%, and 7% of their GDP respectively,” Mma Ekeruche, an economist at the UK-based Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa, told Africa in Fact. Only 11 million Nigerians would receive the ₦20,000 ($52) provided to families registered in the National Social Register of poor and vulnerable households, she said. “This is [in] sharp contrast to the 84.7 million Nigerians living below the poverty line.”
More generally, Ekeruche argues that the new plan is “overly optimistic” in saying that the ₦2.3 trillion stimulus package would result in an economic decline of 0.59%. This is against a backdrop of current recession projections of -5.4% by the IMF. Funding the financial package would be challenging, she added. “The low oil price has significantly depleted the country’s revenue source, [so] producing a bigger stimulus through more debt is a tough choice.”
Oji argues that a major cause under-performance in healthcare delivery is related to the funding of the Basic Health Care Provision Fund. The Basic Health Care Provision Fund stipulates that the federal government should set aside a minimum of 1% of National Consolidated Revenue for the Basic Health Care Provision Fund. But a decline in projected national 2020 income due to the pandemic had seen this reduced by N3.3 trillion (about 39%) from an initially approved amount of N8.41 trillion to N5.08 trillion. Oji suggested that legislators should see to it that the Basic Health Care Provision Fund (BHCPF) receives 2% of the national budget to meet future requirements.
However, critics have argued that the stimulus package is small when compared to countries of similar size.
The Nigerian government was heading in the right direction regarding its policies for the health sector against the backdrop of the pandemic and attempting to make them sustainable in the future, said Dr Henry Uro-Chukwu, a health policy and systems research specialist. But he echoed concerns that some states, such as Kogi and Cross River, had denied the existence of the virus. This was “obviously due to improper guidance. Community engagement by community leaders,” he said, was “completely missing”.
In a wide-ranging interview, he outlined a detailed view of areas where Nigeria’s healthcare system could be significantly improved, given the lessons from dealing with the coronavirus. “A health system is not only about money,” he said, adding that it’s also how money is used.
His proposals included reviewing human resources practices, upgrading information management systems, reviewing standards in medicine supply and logistics, and preventive medicine, among other measures to improve healthcare delivery. “If you have these pillars [working] together, that makes up a good and functional health system.”
In particular, he argues that “60% or 70%” of the plan’s health budget of N2.3trillion should be targeted at prevention activities and community mobilisation, with the other 40% or 30% going into therapeutic medicine. In outline, he argued that spending more on prevention of diseases would help to reduce the amount spend on treating them.
More specifically as regards the virus, the country needed to invest in local vaccine production and community engagement and education to create a two-pronged preventive approach to curbing its spread. The effort in developing this would also help to create a more sustainable medical infrastructure for the future, he concluded,
But will the lessons of the virus be learned? Looking back at my blogs for this series, I see that the lack of connection between federal and state levels has been a constant concern. In the immediate post-colonial period, Nigeria’s federal system was designed to address the “wicked problem” of its large and diverse population. But maybe that “solution” has created another “wicked problem”: how can the autonomous states be encouraged to devise policy and implement it more effectively within the context of our federal system?
We’d love to hear from you! Join The Wicked Conversation by leaving your comments below, or send your letter to the editor to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Covid-19 has taken the world by storm. It has exposed deep fragilities in our global systems. Our economic systems, first and foremost, clearly require deep reform. Failing to properly account for ecological degradation has unleashed climate change and viral dark matter, both of which have exacerbated vulnerabilities among the worst off. Ecological economists have been raising the red flag on this front since the late 1960s at least. If Covid-19 is not a catalyst for designing and implementing new economic models that help us to arrive at a more safe and just space in our delicate web of planetary boundaries, it is hard to imagine what could be. Our next edition of Africa in Fact deals with this very issue.
The edition thereafter addresses health. Health systems, even in rich countries, were already creaking under the strain of lifestyle diseases. In poor countries, the health burden of infectious diseases such as TB and HIV, along with malaria, hardly disappeared when Covid-19 arrived. Every bed set aside for Covid-19 patients is a bed that cannot be used to treat other urgent health needs. The Economist was quick to point out (26 March, 2020) that any given American ICU unit had more ventilators than entire African countries. While the article contained interesting analysis, the headline carried unwarranted Afro-pessimism – “Africa is woefully ill-equipped to cope with Covid-19”. The Guardian’s Afua Hirsch provided a subtle correction and provocatively asked: “Why are Africa’s coronavirus successes being overlooked?”
On Africa Day, it is well worth noting that any given set of data visualisations reveal that African countries have thus far been spared the worst of Covid-19’s direct effects, though the knock-on effects of global and local policy decisions are still to be fully accounted for. In a unique contribution to understanding the variation in governance responses from different countries, Africa in Fact will be running a special 12-week digital edition of the journal with authors from six African countries – Nigeria, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Each author will write six short blog posts, working in teams of three. In other words, every week, starting on Wednesday, 27 May, we will publish three posts. Over the first two weeks, we cover the first theme – type of leadership response; over the next two weeks, the second theme, and so forth. Don’t miss them.
A quick glance across sub-Saharan Africa reveals that the highest death rate (outside of South Africa) is Cameroon with 5.88 deaths per million. Spain’s is more than 10 times that, with the UK only slightly lower – horrible tragedies that we lament. So, was The Economist wrong? It’s hard to say. But what it didn’t appear to factor in is that, in general, African countries have become adept at dealing with infectious diseases. Moreover, our demographic profile (youth-heavy), and the fact the elderly tend to live at home (rather than in care homes with other elderly people), means that vulnerability to severe infection may be lower than in countries with different demographics and spatial concentrations of elderly people. Despite technological and capacity deficiencies, we’ve found ways and means of addressing health disasters. Ghana and Senegal have led the way in demonstrating innovative, professional responses. Of course, a lack of data and testing at scale remains a challenge for most countries. And death rates in places like South Africa (6.22 per million) are climbing exponentially.
Nonetheless, six weeks after The Economist’s first pessimistic article (linked above), the newspaper published another article titled “Why Covid-19 seems to spread more slowly in Africa”, commending the Ghanaian government for its swift response. From the available data, it notes that the World Health Organization (WHO)’s analysis suggests that “the virus is spreading more slowly in Africa than elsewhere”. While variation is high, and undercounting is likely, “official data are still a rough reflection of reality in many countries”.
The graphs below, produced by our in-house data specialist, Monique Bennett, annotate relevant policy interventions over time in each of the six African countries featured in our special edition. Each graph plots positive infections against recoveries. The recovery rate is particularly important, as it provides epidemiologists with an idea of potential immunity levels, which can help to inform lockdown decision-making and potentially tell us something about the possibility of achieving herd immunity (provided we have a similarly good idea of R – the rate of spread of the disease, which will depend on having far more data).
Our proviso, of course, is that the graphs are a reflection of data that we deem useful to visualise from a governance perspective. We are not suggesting that where infection rates appear to slow (or increase) after a particular policy intervention that these two events are causally connected. We are simply plotting a timeline of how things have unfolded according to the public data that we have at our disposal. The y-axes have been differently scaled for each country, so please do take note of that, too.
Each country has very different screening, testing and contact-tracing capacities and strategies; the data presented on the graphs above is ultimately a reflection of those policy decisions, and a function of the number of tests completed. These differences will be addressed in the blog series. So, the bottom line is: don’t miss out on this unique pan-African contribution.