Posted on

Practical Steps to Reduce The Risk and Vulnerability of The African Woman to HIV

Volunteers who participated in a study on reducing the risk of HIV infection in women listened as the test results were announced during a meeting in Vulindlela, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Photo by (Joao Silva for The New York Times)

K. Amponsah-Manager

Among the estimated 22.5 million people living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa, women and girls continue to be disproportionately represented. In South Africa, for instance, it is estimated that one-in-three women aged 25-29 are living with HIV (Human Sciences Research Council (2009). Another estimate puts the proportion of maternal orphans – those who have lost their mother – orphaned by AIDS as over 70 percent (Budlender, D. et al., 2008). This is surely a dispiriting statistic. Several reasons can be attributed to this trend including rape and other sexual abuses, cultural practices and societal expectations of women. There are also biological factors that contribute to this inclination. For instance, the female genitals have a more exposed surface area than the male genitals have. Also, there are higher amounts of HIV in semen than in vaginal fluids while again more semen is exchanged during sex than vaginal fluids. These together with the social and cultural factors above precipitate a situation that places the woman at a more disadvantage point of view.

There are several steps communities and policy makers can take to reduce the women’s vulnerability to the epidemic and reverse this distressful trend. These include:

Involving men: In a typical African relationship, the man controls when and how sex happens. The man decides the frequency of sex and whether any protection is used during sexual relationship. The current education targeting men to use condoms should continue but it should place a bigger accent on educating men to respect the women’s choice and needs in sexual relationships. Gender-based violence and stereotypes should be core of any anti-HIV campaigns in African communities.

Accessibility to healthcare needs: Past anti-HIV and family planning campaigns have focused on the man, but it is time to pay attention to the needs of the woman if we can really cut the percentage of women that continue to be afflicted by the HIV epidemic. While the female condom (FC) is available to most women in the developed countries who want to use it, FC is merely another indulgence that the African woman cannot just afford. The situation gets even more challenging as the female condom can be several times more expensive than the male condom. It is therefore crucial for health policy makers and private organization to step in and offer to make these products accessible to the women at a cost that they can afford. Also, women who are abused sexually should have free access to blood tests and other medical services to determine their status. This will halt the further spread of HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) they might have contracted during the assault. Studies show that women with other untreated STDs are more likely to contract the HIV virus than their STD-free counterparts or those who have access the reproductive healthcare needs.

Economic Opportunities and Education: It is sad fact that in the African society, the bread-winner is automatically self-empowered to call the shots and since in most cases, it is the man who holds that title, the women in these societies are the always at the receiving end when it comes to decisions affecting sexual intercourse. A journey to economic empowerment will be relatively long, but in the long run, it is the surest strategy that will place women in positions that they can influence decisions that affect their own lives. According to the UNAIDS, women without education are four times more likely to have the belief that there is no way to prevent HIV. These women do not expect and do not demand any protection during sex even when they know their partners have multiple sexual partners. Early sexual intercourse and early marriages are big factors in predicting a girl’s vulnerability to HIV. In Niger, for example, 50% of girls get married by the age of 15. However, studies show that girls with more education tend to delay marriage and tend to delay their first sexual intercourse. Providing every girl child with at least the basic education will certainly make a dent.

Campaign against social and cultural practices harmful to the woman: Some practices are ‘universally’ classified as sexual violence but are accepted practices in some communities across African and other parts of the world. These include female genital mutilation or female circumcision, marital rape and girl trafficking. In a survey in Kenya, 14% of women said their own husbands (most of whom have multiple sexual partners) had raped them in the past. All these practices disproportionately expose women and girls to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. According to the UN, women who have experienced any of such abuses are three times more likely to be infected by HIV.

Reducing the woman’s vulnerability to HIV is vital in curbing the prevalence and saving the unborn. In fact 390 000 out of the global 430 000 children newly infected with HIV during 2008 were from sub-Saharan Africaas a result of mother-to-child transmission (USAIDS). Why should we wait any longer in tackling the woman’s sexual health needs?

[ad#Adsense-468×60]

Share
Posted on

Empower African Women to Realize the African Dream

Obiageli Ezekwesili

It is hard not to be inspired by the widely-recognized economic growth story of Africa: more than a decade of robust growth for a region that has become a credible destination for investment and has rebounded from the global financial crisis faster than most other regions of the world.

International Women’s Day reminds us not only of the sacrifices and resilience of African girls and women, but of the missed opportunities to tackle the gender-related obstacles that keep half of Africa’s population out of the most vibrant economic sectors on the continent.

In Africa, the feminization of poverty still remains acute. One in 20 girls born today in Angola, Mozambique, Liberia and Sierra Leone will die in childbirth. An African woman is 25 times more likely to die during labour than a European woman. Girls still face genital mutilation in 28 African countries. More than 800,000 Africans, most of them female, are victims of human trafficking.  Three young women are infected with HIV/AIDS for every young man in Africa.

The African woman, however, is also Africa’s face of hope, strength and opportunity. The rate of female entrepreneurship is higher in Africa than in any other region of the world. An African country – Rwanda – boosts the highest female representation in parliament. The primary enrollment rate has climbed from 84 girls for every 100 boys in 1991 to 91 in 2009.

Significant strides have been made on the path towards gender equity, but great challenges remain. The ratio of girls to boys in secondary school has barely moved in the last 18 years – from 76 girls per 100 boys to 79. In tertiary education, there are only 68 young women for every 100 males. In stark contrast to Rwanda, female representation in parliament across Sub-Saharan Africa is only about 18 percent.

The road to achieving the Millennium Development Goals in Africa can be built only on a gender-inclusive agenda, unleashing the productive power of women. That agenda should advance women’s education and access to information, protect women’s rights, improve women’s access to agricultural inputs and security over their land, promote female entrepreneurship, and increase the participation of women in government and public life. Urgent action in five key areas would help.

First, more African girls must go to and stay in school long enough to be armed with the skills essential for success. Girls need support at the secondary and post-secondary levels, where the crucial school-to-work transition is made. It is also vital for girls to acquire skills beyond the classroom – the kind that allow for innovation and entrepreneurship when faced with limitations.

Second, protecting women’s rights is essential for enhancing their access to economic mobility.  Family laws on inheritance, marriage, labour markets and land rights are greater determinants of economic decision-making and empowerment than are business regulations. Legal restrictions on mobility, work outside of the home and control of personal assets are in dire need of reform in many African countries.

Third, women must gain access to productive resources. If women and men had the same access to agricultural inputs, productivity on women’s farms could increase by 10 to 30 percent. It will take innovative programs to provide women with these inputs and concerted action to protect their rights to land, ultimately altering the course of agricultural productivity for women, and for the continent.

Fourth, with African women currently absorbed by businesses concentrated in the less productive areas of the informal sector, breaking free will require access to credit – not just microfinance but to higher credit amounts at low interest rates with longer maturity terms. These need to be complemented by the right kind of technical support for female entrepreneurs, delivered in a timely fashion.

Progress is possible and can come swiftly, as primary school enrolment has shown. It cannot only be symbolic, though. While education is an essential starting point, it is only the first of many hurdles in shrinking the gender gap in earnings and empowerment.

Africa needs to hear the voice of the missing half, who can help set a more representative and inclusive agenda with the right priorities – including advocating for greater commitments for pro-poor, pro-children and pro-women policies and reforms.

Success will require that African governments work with citizens and the private sector, civil society, communities and Africa’s friends in the development community. It will require sustained political will and a commitment to enforce laws that strengthen the agenda on policies friendly to girls and women.

At the World Bank, we are bringing our contribution to help build a foundation for progress, keen to listen to the ideas of the poor and recognize that Africans must lead this process. Our “Road Map for Gender Mainstreaming” addresses gender challenges. Our Gender Action Plan fosters women’s access to land, agricultural inputs, infrastructure, labour markets and financial services, while our Adolescent Girls Initiative trains mentors and empowers young African women to transition to work.

Our private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation has invested a combined U.S. $170 million under a Gender Entrepreneurship Markets initiative which has benefited thousands of women in 23 sub-Saharan African countries.

The subject is close to our hearts. Gender equity and development will be the focus of the bank’s flagship World Development Report for 2012. It is one of the themes for our three-year funding period for 2011 to 2014, for which the bank has raised $49.3 billion to benefit the world’s poorest countries, 38 of them in Africa.

 Last week, the bank’s board of executive directors endorsed our new Africa strategy. Among others, the tools for implementing the strategy – partnerships and knowledge – will leverage our funding to deepen and accelerate economic growth that generates jobs, is broad, diversified and inclusive. This will benefit the poor and women, on whom the well-being of children and future generations is so dependent.

So far, gender has been an obstacle, yet every obstacle is an opportunity in disguise. The expansion of economic and social empowerment of the African woman is the key to the realization of the African promise.

Obiageli Ezekwesili is the World Bank Vice President for the Africa region.

Share
Posted on

Africa: Trading With the Enemy

Jason Hickel

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) masquerades as a boost for Africa‘s development, but the reality is that it’s nothing less that a new scramble for Africa, writes Jason Hickel.

The last decade has seen a remarkable surge in US economic interest in the continent of Africa. Policymakers who once considered Africa the languid backwater of global economics are now rushing in to stake a claim in the continent’s enormous resource endowment.

Most of this effort operates with a rhetoric focused on ‘partnership’ and ‘development’, with the vision of using US trade and investment to lift Africans out of poverty. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exemplified this attitude when she spoke last year at a US-Africa trade policy forum, saying, ‘Let’s help each other make Africa all that it can be.’

But a quick look at the trade policy itself shows that this sugary rhetoric of American benevolence and concern for African welfare is deeply misleading. It does little more than cloak an agenda firmly rooted in economic realpolitik.

Michael Battle, the US Ambassador to the African Union, has revealed the blunt urgency of this agenda in a candid but troubling statement: ‘If we don’t invest on the African continent now, we will find that China and India have absorbed its resources without us, and we will wake up and wonder what happened to our golden opportunity of investment.’

The centerpiece of US trade policy for Africa is the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Signed into law by President Clinton in 2000, AGOA is, according to Congress, ‘perhaps the most significant American initiative on Africa in our country’s history’. It provides trade preferences for duty-free entry into the United States for certain goods from sub-Saharan Africa, which is touted as a way to boost African business by encouraging exports. President Bush signed the AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004, which extends the policy until 2015.

THE BIG CATCH

It’s hard to quarrel with the idea that reduced trade barriers around American markets would be a boon for African exporters. The quintessential example is Lesotho, whose textile industry has flourished since joining AGOA and now exports more than $400 million worth of garments to the United States annually.

But there’s a catch. The US president reserves the right to reevaluate each country for AGOA eligibility on an annual basis; 41 made the cut last year. In order to qualify, African countries have to meet a specific set of stringent ‘conditions’.

Topping the list is the requirement that the beneficiary promote ‘a market-based economy that protects private property rights … and minimises government interference in the economy through such measures as price controls, subsidies, and government ownership of economic assets.’ In addition – and here’s the big one – the beneficiary must make progress toward ‘the elimination of barriers to United States trade and investment’.

In other words, AGOA eligibility requires not just mild economic deregulation but the outright destruction of any and all tariff protections, flinging open African markets to a flood of American goods that inevitably undermine local industry. And African countries don’t really have a choice in the matter, for if they refuse to meet these conditions, they effectively forfeit their access to the American market.

For all of the positive spin that US policymakers put on AGOA, nobody ever so much as mentions these draconian measures, which are easily as destructive as the dreaded ‘structural adjustment’ conditions that the International Monetary Fund attaches to its loans. Essentially, AGOA amounts to a coercive free trade agreement with most of the subcontinent.

Given that AGOA requires its beneficiaries to eliminate barriers to US investment, it’s not surprising that the balance of trade comes out strongly in favour of the United States. Trade data shows that Benin, for example, has exported almost nothing to the United States since it became an AGOA member, but has imported some $600 million worth of US goods that have significantly undercut local producers. Some countries do actually export a great deal under AGOA rules – but only those with substantial petroleum and mineral deposits.

Take Angola, for instance; 99 per cent of all of Angola’s exports under AGOA have been energy-related. In the Congo, that number reaches closer to 100 per cent. The same is true of Nigeria, Botswana, and every other country with an oil and mineral portfolio. Indeed, more than 80 per cent of all exports under AGOA fall under this sector.

AGOA, in other words, is designed to pry open new markets for US goods while making it easier for the United States to extract oil and minerals. And since most of Africa’s oil and minerals are controlled by Western corporations like Exxon, Shell, and Anglo-American, this is hardly an arrangement designed to benefit African businesses.

DUBIOUS ELIGIBILITY

If that’s the tragedy, then here’s the farce. AGOA actually does include a number of progressive conditions for membership. In order to qualify, beneficiaries must develop ‘economic policies to reduce poverty’, uphold ‘the rule of law, political pluralism, and the right of due process, a fair trial, and equal protection’, construct ‘a system to combat corruption and bribery’, and refrain from ‘gross violations of human rights’.

In addition, beneficiaries must implement ‘the protection of worker rights, including the right to organize and bargain collectively, a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor, a minimum age for the employment of children, and acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.”

In practice, however, none of this actually applies. Countries renowned for corruption, human rights abuses, and labour law violations are routinely approved for AGOA eligibility. Indeed, the countries with the most flagrant abuses are those that trade the most under AGOA, giving blatant lie to the claim that good governance is a necessary precondition for successful US investment in Africa. Cameroon, for example, enjoys AGOA eligibility even though the government there rules an undemocratic, one-party state, regularly obstructs political meetings, harasses journalists, tortures human rights activists, and turns a blind eye to child labour. But it has a lot of oil.

Neighbouring Chad also enjoys AGOA eligibility, despite rampant corruption and a long tradition of arbitrary detentions and extra-judicial killings. But it has the Chad-Cameroon pipeline – the single biggest US investment in Sub-Saharan Africa – and Bush and Obama have been devoted to protecting the project’s US investors.

Eritrea is another example. In 2003, the UN named Eritrea one of the ‘World’s Most Repressive Regimes’. But it gets AGOA eligibility in exchange for having joined ‘the coalition of the willing’ during Bush’s war in Iraq. Burkina Faso, Angola, Swaziland, and the Congo all benefit from similar double standards.

The issue here is not just that the United States benefits from corrupt and repressive regimes, but that while AGOA claims to create incentives for political reform in Africa, it actually does the opposite. By encouraging the deregulation of oil and mineral based economies, AGOA contributes to the development of ‘rentier states’ that do not have to rely on income taxes for their revenue.

Such states have no incentive to build up a strong middle class, diversify their economies, or respond to the needs of their citizens. In turn, citizens have no incentive to scrutinise government priorities. As the social contract between citizens and the state erodes, endemic corruption inevitably follows, and states become increasingly repressive in order to maintain their grip on power.

This is what economists call ‘the resource curse’ or ‘the paradox of plenty’. An over-reliance on huge oil and mineral deposits ends up generating corruption, inequality, and widespread poverty instead of positive development outcomes. This pattern contradicts the common assumption that economic liberalisation translates into political freedom or democratic reforms.

WHO BENEFITS?

Although AGOA purports to leverage exports as a way of boosting economic development in Africa, it does not stipulate that the exporting companies must be African. Indeed, most of them are American, Chinese, and Indian. The vast majority of beneficiaries under AGOA are not impoverished Africans, but wealthy foreign corporations.

Indeed, AGOA’s insistence on the elimination of local trade barriers allows US companies to bid freely on things like mineral concessions and government contracts. And given that these companies have deep capital reserves, they can usually win, effectively blocking out their African competitors.

In addition, when it comes to industries like textile manufacturing, AGOA stipulates that producers must use US raw materials, which effectively blocks investment in local upstream sectors. Furthermore, because AGOA requires that goods exported to the United States ‘originate’ in the host country, Chinese and Indian clothing manufacturers frequently label their goods ‘Made in Kenya’ and transship them to the United States through Africa to get preferential treatment. The overall effect, then, is that AGOA does not create greater market share for African companies but actively diminishes it.

One might argue that regardless of where the investment comes from, at least it creates jobs. This may be true. But AGOA does not require that the new jobs go to Africans. Indeed, many of the extractive industries that benefit from AGOA import highly skilled labour from developed countries like the United States.

In Angola, for example, most of Exxon’s engineers are Americans. Furthermore, the jobs that AGOA does create for Africans are often deeply exploitative. AGOA has encouraged the development of Export Processing Zones (EPZs) across the continent, where labour laws are nearly non-existent and wages are rock-bottom in order to attract foreign manufacturers. In the textile industry, the net effect is that Asian sweatshops relocate to Africa to take advantage of AGOA incentives.

In Kenya in 2006, the average wage of EPZ workers in Asian sweatshops was a paltry 20 cents per hour, which amounts to barely more than a dollar a day – the lowest wages in the country. Most EPZ workers – the majority of whom are women and doubly vulnerable to exploitation – have to work excessive overtime just to meet their basic needs, and live in constant danger of being laid off without compensation.

CHANGING AGOA

It doesn’t have to be this way. With a few thoughtful changes, AGOA could be used to make trade work for everyday Africans.

First, the economic liberalisation condition should be dropped. Rich countries like the United States, Britain, Japan, and China initially used tariff protections and subsidies to promote their industries in the early stages of development; it’s cruel to deny those basic strategies to African countries desperately in need of development. Second, the political reform conditions should be taken seriously, and used to leverage best practices in human rights and labour law.

Third, local content rules should require that all US investments in Africa should tier up over a set period to at least 80 per cent local labour and local contracts – characterised by genuine registration – and should require investment in local capacity where it proves too poor to meet the necessary standards. Finally, targeted quotas should be used to channel foreign investment to where it’s needed most, rather than to where the regulations are most relaxed.

But changes of this order are not on the horizon, for – as I have demonstrated – the United States is concerned less about the well-being of Africans than about meeting its own energy needs and promoting the interests of American corporations. We need to cut through the deceptive rhetoric of US trade policy and ask the tough questions: Who really benefits from AGOA? Does AGOA enhance welfare and development, or facilitate extraction and exploitation?

As Ambassador Battle’s statement illustrates, the present trade arrangement between the United States and Africa is eerily reminiscent of the era of colonial conquest. In 1875, as Europe set its sights on Africa’s vast riches, King Leopold II of Belgium wrote to his ambassador in London, ‘I do not want to miss a good chance of getting us a slice of this magnificent African cake.’ It’s America’s turn now, and it appears that the Obama administration – like Bush before him – is driven by a similarly disturbing vision: a new scramble for Africa.

Foreign Policy In Focus contributor Jason Hickel is an instructor and PhD candidate in anthropology at the University of Virginia. His research focuses on trade, development, and political conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Share
Posted on

Protection of Pregnant Women Against Malaria Remains Inadequate

Methods to protect pregnant women from malaria are still underutilised in sub-Saharan Africa, according to a study published today in ‘Lancet Infectious Diseases’.

A review of national control strategies by a team of international researchers, led by the Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium and funded by the Consortium and the Wellcome Trust, has concluded that despite major efforts, coverage is still inadequate in many areas and needs to be scaled up.

Malaria infection in pregnancy can lead to devastating consequences for both mother and child. The World Health Organization’s recommended policy for malaria prevention and control is a package of intermittent preventive treatment – therapeutic doses of a drug at defined intervals to provide protection in young children and pregnant women – and insecticide-treated bednets. These interventions have the potential to substantially reduce the disease burden and adverse outcomes of malaria in pregnancy.

The Roll Back Malaria initiative aimed to ensure that all pregnant women could receive the drugs and that at least four out of five people at risk from malaria were using the nets in areas of high transmission by 2010.

Researchers from the Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium examined specific strategies for malaria control in pregnant women from national malaria policies and calculated the number of protected pregnancies using the most recent national household cluster sample surveys. They were able to compare this to levels of malaria risk by comparing them to maps generated by the Malaria Atlas Project.

The study found that 45 of 47 countries in sub-Saharan Africa had an bednet policy for pregnant women and that estimated coverage was 17 per cent among the nearly 28 million pregnancies at risk of malaria in the 32 countries for which information was available. Among 39 countries with a policy on intermittent preventive treatment, just one in four pregnant women had received some treatment, despite more than three-quarters visiting an antenatal clinic.

Professor Feiko ter Kuile, leader of the Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium and co-author of the study, said: “Ten years after the Abuja declaration, it is encouraging that the majority of malaria endemic countries in sub-Saharan Africa have now adopted insecticide-treated nets and intermittent preventive treatment and the number of countries with nationally representative coverage data has increased to 40 out of 47.

“However, very few countries have reached either the Abuja targets or their own policy ambition, and countries are even further away from the more recent Roll Back Malaria targets set for 2010. In addition, coverage was lowest in areas with high malaria transmission, where the need is greatest.

“Whilst most countries have adopted national policies aimed at reducing and controlling malaria in pregnancy, it is clear that, with some notable exceptions, not enough progress has been made towards the new Roll Back Malaria goals or the policy ambitions of each country.

“Greater effort to fully understand the reasons why coverage is so low and to develop strategies to combat this is urgently needed to protect the tens of millions of pregnancies in sub-Saharan Africa threatened by malaria every year.”

(The Wellcome Trust)

Reference
Van Eijk, AM. Mapping coverage of malaria protection among pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa: a synthesis and analysis of national surveys. Lancet Infectious Diseases; e-pub 26 Jan 2011.
Share
Posted on

Good Growth Expected in Sub-Saharan Africa

[ad#amazon_120x240]Growth in sub-Saharan Africa may exceed growth in all other regions except developing Asia, the International Monetary Fund said.

“growth in sub-Saharan Africa — projected at 5.5 percent in 2011 and 5.75 percent in 2012 — is expected to exceed growth in all other regions except developing Asia,” according to a world economic outlook update released by the IMF.

“This reflects sustained strength in domestic demand in many of the region’s economies, as well as rising global demand for commodities.”

The release of the report took place in Johannesburg because South Africa is seen as a key emerging market economy, and is a member of the IMF and G20, said Caroline Atkinson, director of external relations at the IMF.

The fund was also taking “updates outside Washington to represent the global nature of our work”, she added.

The pace of recovery varied across the sub-Saharan region.

Growth was now close to the pre-financial crisis high in the low-income countries of sub-Saharan Africa. These countries had grown by over six percent prior to the financial crisis and were expected to grow by 6.5 percent in 2011.

“The recovery in South Africa and its neighbours, however, has been more subdued, reflecting the more severe impact of the collapse in world trade and elevated unemployment levels that are proving difficult to reduce.”

The IMF predicted growth of 3.5 percent for South Africa in 2011. This was almost in line with the SA Reserve Bank’s forecast of 3.4 percent growth in gross domestic product for 2011.

South Africa’s forecast growth is below the average of other emerging and developing economies, which were expected to grow by 6.5 percent in 2011, according to the IMF.

“… during the recent crisis South Africa’s financial system fared relatively well,” said José Viñals, financial counsellor and director of the IMF’s monetary and capital markets department.

Risks to the economy remained, because of the influence of the country’s major trading partner, Europe.

“The pace of recovery in Europe, the dominant trade partner for most non-oil-exporting countries in sub-Saharan Africa, is modest and uncertain.”

The IMF warned the “sharp pickup” in fuel and food prices could have a significant impact on non-oil-exporting countries in the region.

“Rising food prices are likely to affect the urban poor in particular, given the high share of food in their consumption baskets.”

Countries would have to counter this with social grants or “social safety nets” which they would have to find funds for.

Global financial conditions broadly improved in the latter half of 2010, although there were still “lingering vulnerabilities”.

Countries should also remain alert about inflation as there was pressure from rising commodity prices.

Olivier Blanchard, economic counsellor and director of the IMF’s research department, told the briefing that global economic recovery continued at two speeds — a slower rate for advanced economies and a much faster growth rate for emerging economies.

This could lead to “tensions and risks” which need strong policy responses, he said.

“With emerging markets now accounting for almost 40 percent of global consumption and more than two-thirds of global growth, a slowdown in these economies would deal a serious blow to the global recovery — and to the rebalancing that needs to take place,” the IMF warned.

Share
Posted on

Africa: Unlocking the Economic Potential of Biotechnology

Jose W. Fernandez

By 2050 population growth is expected to translate into a 70 percent increase in global demand for food. Add the estimated 27 percent decline in global productivity expected due to climate change, and it is clear that the demand for food production will become more critical in the coming decades.

Countries that depend on rain-fed agriculture will be especially vulnerable. Crop models for Sub-Saharan Africa have indicated that in 2050, average rice, wheat, and maize yields will decline by up to 14 percent, 22 percent, and 5 percent, respectively.

But there are rays of hope as we go towards 2050. The potential for agriculture in Africa is great. African countries can use their own experiences, indigenous knowledge and traditional methods, as well as the many talents of their people to adopt and adapt the best of what science has to offer in new technologies.

An essential lever for raising agricultural productivity is increasing investments in science and technology. An important lesson of the 1960s “Green Revolution” was that agricultural research could contribute decisively to spurring agricultural growth. Countries that simultaneously adopted the technology and increased their investments in agricultural research have maintained and even accelerated their rate of productivity and growth. New technologies – like biotechnology, conservation tillage, drip irrigation, integrated pest management, and new multiple-cropping practices – have improved the efficiency and productivity of agricultural resources over the last decade. Around the world some 14 million small and resource poor farmers in the developing world have already benefited from biotechnology crops.

In a 2008 survey of the global impact of biotech crops, the global net economic benefits to biotech crop farmers was $9.2 billion dollars, divided roughly equally between developed and developing countries. In South Africa, for example, biotech maize, soybean, and cotton are estimated to have enhanced farm incomes by $383 million dollars. In other areas of the world, the technology has changed the lives of farmers and raised incomes in a matter of years. In India, conservative estimates for small-scale farmers have indicated that the use of biotech cotton has increased yield by 31 percent, decreased insecticide application by 39 percent, and increased profitability by 88 percent, equivalent to $250 U.S. dollars per hectare. With the advent of enhanced tools, such as drought-resistant corn and disease-resistant bananas, those who have paved the way for the technology will reap even further economic benefits.

African researchers are already working on the next generation of biotech crops that will have a wider array of benefits for farmers, like drought tolerance, nitrogen-use efficiency, and salt tolerance to help address shifting environments due to climate change. But second generation biotech crops will go beyond benefits to the farmer. Work is underway in crops, like cassava and rice, to increase their vitamin, mineral, and protein content, benefitting the consumer as well.

So we know what technology can do. The question is what has been keeping it out of the hands of those who could benefit from it? In many cases misinformation has made people fear a process and its products. However, the real obstacle is the lack of functioning regulatory systems that would allow countries to make their own decisions about the safety of these products. Biotechnology-produced crops have been assessed for safety in all regions of the world – from the European Union to Japan to Brazil to Burkina Faso. Not to adopt biotechnology because of unfounded claims after more than 15 years of safe use and proven benefits would be to unnecessarily narrow an African farmer’s agricultural potential. It is one of the tools, which, when paired with the right incentives, can enable Africa’s farmers and businesses to close the productivity gap.

But those incentives must have political will behind them. Technology alone is not the answer. To make use of the potential of biotechnology, science-based regulatory systems must be established. I call upon those who have the ability to do so to put in place such sound policies, based on science, and to take full advantage of what investment in agricultural science and technology can do for African farmers and economies.

Several African countries have already adopted the policies and regulatory frameworks needed to support the responsible and safe use of biotechnology. I applaud their courage and foresight to move forward. With increased political will, strong research support, and biosafety policies and regulations that empower the use of the technology, African countries can revolutionize their agricultural sector. What’s more, they can squarely look those in the eye who maintain that crop technology leads to lost markets, and ask them to explain why the expanding economies of the world are exactly those that are developing and using biotechnology.

To those who fear monopolies and multinational ownership of the food supply, I say promote competition, don’t stifle innovation. It is clear that economic growth will be achieved by those countries that are innovators in agriculture and that take the leap of faith needed to invest in their farmers, which is an investment in their future.

Mr. Fernandez was nominated by President Obama on August 6, 2009, and sworn in as Assistant Secretary on December 1, 2009. He serves as the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. He leads the Bureau that is responsible for overseeing work on international trade and investment policy; international finance, development, and debt policy; economic sanctions and combating terrorist financing; international energy security policy; international telecommunications and transportation policies; and support for U.S. businesses and the private sector overseas. Mr. Fernandez was named one of the “World’s Leading Lawyers” by Chambers Global for his M&A and corporate expertise, an “Expert” in International Financial Law Review’s “Guide to the World’s Leading Project Finance Lawyers”, and one of the “World’s Leading Privatization Lawyers” by Euromoney Publications.
Share
Posted on

Text messaging to combact malaria

Mobile phones could soon be helping re-assure Nigerians and Ghanaians they are getting genuine medicine.

Text messaging to combat fake pills
Text messaging to combat fake pills

A pilot scheme in the two nations has begun putting unique scratch codes on more than 500,000 medicine bottles and packets of pills.

When the code is texted to a free phone number, a return message will reveal that a drug is genuine.

The scheme hopes to boost efforts to tackle diseases such as malaria and combat the rise in fake medicines.

Security alert

About 700,000 people suffering from malaria and tuberculosis die every year around the world because of fake drugs, suggest statistics from think tank International Policy Network

Globally, about 10-15% of all drugs are believed to be fake but in some parts of Africa this rises to 50%. The problem is made more acute in Africa because some fake medicines being offered to the sick are watered down versions of the real thing and dent the efficacy of the full strength drug.

“Some genuine medicines have lost their potency because of the counterfeiting,” said Gabriele Zedlmayer, a spokeswoman for HP which is a partner in the labelling scheme.

Fake pills are a big problem in Africa where diseases such as malaria are endemic
Fake pills are a big problem in Africa where diseases such as malaria are endemic

This can be a particular problem with malaria as the disease is so widespread in sub-saharan Africa where it is the leading cause of death.

The scheme is being backed by governments and drug companies who have pledged to publicise how it works in pharmacies, surgeries, hospitals and community centres.

Painkillers, anti-malaria drugs and amoebicides from pharmaceutical firms May & Baker in Nigeria and Kama in Ghana will be the first to get the scratch-off labels.

Such a scheme was very important in Africa where about 80% of medicines are generic, said Bright Simons, founder of mPedigree which developed some of the technology to underpin the pilot.

By using the codes, people would get to know pharmacies, hospitals and other outlets they can trust, he said.

Mobiles were the best way for people in Nigeria and Ghana to find out about their medicines because they were so ubiquitous said Mr Simon, adding that even those who do not own a handset themselves can get access via friends and family.

Each packet or bottle has a scratch-off code that can be used only once, said Mr Simons. The security system behind the scenes flags any attempt to re-use codes. As well as letting people know they are getting genuine medicine, it will also alert people when fake medicines are being peddled.

If the pilot proves successful, the scheme will be extended to cover more than six million bottles and packets in the next 12 months.

“This is just the first step,” said Ms Zedlmayer. “It can be applied to any kind of medication.”

(Story by BBC)

[ad#Adsense-200by200sq]

Share
Posted on

Aggregated Health News

Malaria control ‘best in decades’, WHO

(AP) –

GENEVA (AP) — The World Health Organization says a massive malaria control program since 2008 has helped reduce infections across Africa and eradicate the disease in Morocco and Turkmenistan.

The U.N. health agency says the billions of dollars poured into the program have helped buy anti-malaria nets for almost 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa.

It said this has contributed to a drop of over 50 percent in malaria cases in 11 African countries, and two-thirds of the 56 malaria-endemic countries outside Africa. Malaria cases, however, increased in parts of Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe and Zambia.

S. African to double HIV patient treatment

(AP)

JOHANNESBURG — South Africa’s health minister says he has brought down the cost of HIV drugs by 53 percent, enabling the government to treat twice as many patients in the next two years.

Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi said in a statement Tuesday that the government saved 4.7 billion rand ($689 million) by encouraging potential suppliers to participate in the bidding process, requesting a breakdown of costs from suppliers and monitoring price changes.

South Africa has the largest anti-retroviral distribution program in the world but pays significantly higher drug prices than other countries, Motsoaledi says. South Africa has more people living with HIV than anywhere else in the world, with 5.7 million of 50 million people infected

New UN partnership seeks to promote reproductive health in Africa

http://www.un.org

December 2010 – The United Nations has teamed up with the Millennium Villages Project (MVP) to promote universal access to reproductive health in sub-Saharan Africa, focusing mainly on young mothers.

The partnership between the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and MVP will use the Project’s primary health-care provision strategy and the UN agency’s expertise to promote reproductive rights and sexual and reproductive health.

The MVP initiative seeks to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – eight anti-poverty targets with a 2015 deadline – in African countries within five years through community-led development.

Infant mortality rates are almost double among women who have children before the age of 20, compared to mothers in other age groups, a factor that makes it necessary to improve maternal and child health by providing voluntary family planning, medical supplies, training and education among younger women.

The UNFPA-MVP partnership will help local governments to provide supplies to clinics and hospitals in Millennium Village clusters. It will also identify trainers for health personnel.

“We look forward to joining forces with the Millennium Villages Project to widen the availability of sexual and reproductive health services – including family planning, skilled birth attendance, emergency obstetric care and prenatal and postnatal care – across sub-Saharan Africa,” said UNFPA’s Executive Director, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid.

“This partnership will go a long way in saving the lives of more mothers, and allowing more families to enjoy a life of prosperity and good health,” she added.

Jeffrey Sachs, the Director of the Earth Institute, said: “Many programmes such as those in the Millennium Villages show that scaling up primary health systems in rural and remote areas plays a decisive role in reducing child and maternal mortality.

“It is partnerships like these that will make a difference and enable us to achieve Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5 in the toughest parts of Africa,” Mr. Sachs added.

MVP, a partnership between the Earth Institute at Columbia University, Millennium Promise, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and governments, provides a new approach to fighting poverty.

Currently covering approximately 500,000 people, the Project has shown that an integrated package of development interventions, supported by a modest financial investment, about $110 per person annually over 5 to 10 years, can facilitate the achievement of the MDGs.

[ad#Adsense-200by90]

Share