The population of Lake Victoria’s most famous produce – the Nile perch – is dwindling and conservationists have started making shocking projections for future stocks.
They say the population of the Nile perch has declined from 1.2 million tonnes at the turn of the century to a mere 331,000 tonnes last year. The figures could plunge further if remedial action is not taken immediately.
Up to 22 million people from the region depend on the lake for fish. The industry directly supports two million people, providing them with much needed incomes to sustain their households.
That the population of the Nile perch is thinning is therefore bad news to many. But it must also be understood that the fishermen face difficult but important choices between conserving the resource – so there will be fish to catch in the future – and earning a decent living.
That is why the duty of conservation must not be left to them. It is encouraging the governments of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania through the East African Community’s Council of Ministers, have now launched Sh129.6m campaign to help conservation efforts.
Partner states
The ‘Operation Save the Nile Perch’ drive must not be in vain. It must not follow the familiar script of poor locals whose need for economic development is fought by affluent outside conservationists.
Residents of the three partner states rely on the fishing industry for subsistence. And their economic future will be improved more by preserving the ecosystem and promoting better fishing methods than by unsustainably exhausting what is currently available for export.
Conservation efforts must be supported by all stakeholders with partner states being encouraged to implement the proposed ‘harmonised action plan’ to help end illegal fishing on Lake Victoria and help restore the ecological balance.
Now it is up to the Council of Ministers to create regulations that will make the fishing industry successful. It is time to get rid of systems that have failed and replace them with better alternatives that will protect the marine ecosystem, allow fish stocks to rebuild, and increase revenues.
This will allow fishermen to make profit and also ensure future generations will enjoy the delicacy. It is upon the Ministry of Fisheries to ensure fish catchment sites are not only protected but also nurtured and sustainably exploited.
EA Standard
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Why Africa welcomes the Chinese
Africa must attract broad investment, not rely on handouts, if we are to sustain development
There is a debate among geopolitical and economic commentators about the merits of Chinese versus western involvement with Africa. One argument is that Chinese investment is exploitative and undermines the development of democracy and human rights on the continent. Others view the matter in terms of competition, arguing that China is encroaching on the decades-long monopoly of the west over Africa's natural resources.
Neither of these viewpoints addresses the core issues. First, major players in global investment and development are discussing Africa without engaging its people as equal partners. Second, Africans are not seen to be proactive in setting their own priorities and terms of engagement.
Development aid, fashioned on this skewed relationship, has long been a key source of income for the continent. While helpful, aid has not delivered sustainable development. It is clear that trade and investment bring greater opportunity for wealth creation. Africa welcomes investment, from the east and west, north and south, and Rwanda is no exception. We want investment that offers skills and jobs, encourages entrepreneurship, and provides the opportunity to improve millions of lives.
This call for investment and trade rather than traditional aid does not mean the latter's contribution to addressing poverty is not recognised. However, the fundamental problem with the current development aid practice is the danger countries face as they become perpetually reliant on handouts.
So what should those who give aid, and those who receive it, focus on? The primary purpose of aid should ultimately be to work itself out, leaving a positive legacy behind. Aid should also be used to create opportunities for trade, enhance self-sufficiency and assist with the development of a robust private sector to attract investment. In many countries, for example, aid offers resources such as fertilisers for free. The intention is good but this often prevents local businesses from being able to provide these goods competitively. Given the choice, people would prefer to work and provide for themselves, rather than receive charity. Africans want self-determination and dignity.
Our continent, like others, requires investment to further its development. Efforts to pursue this need not be seen as a threat to the strengthening of democracy. Of course, African leaders should take good governance and human rights seriously – and most do. This is not – and should not be – because anybody else tells us to, or in return for investment, but because it is the right thing to do. The presence of Chinese investment in Africa does not discharge governments of their responsibilities any more than its presence in the EU or US should erode human rights there.
In Rwanda, we have worked hard to tackle the root causes of corruption and ensure there is a strong case for attracting investment. This programme of reform is yielding results and has been recognised by the World Bank's 2010 Doing Business Index, which saw Rwanda jump from 143rd to 67th position in one year, making it the world's leading reformer. In 2008, Rwanda's GDP grew at 11.2%, and despite the global financial crisis our 2009 projections give us cause for optimism. Wages in key export sectors have grown more than 20% annually over the last eight years, and all these developments have occurred while the percentage of our national budget funded by aid has been reduced by half since 2001.
Ultimately, Africa's relationship with its international counterparts should be redefined. For too long, we have not been able to trade fairly with Europe and the US; trade barriers and subsidies, particularly in agriculture, have protected external markets from African products, hindering our ability to trade as equals. Investment and trade with willing countries, including intra-African trade, helps the continent to build a much-needed culture of entrepreneurship and development.
All would benefit if the world focused on increasing investment in Africa, and if Rwanda and the rest of the continent worked to establish more equitable international partnerships. A trade relationship built on this new approach would be more helpful in reaching what should be our common goal: sustainable development, mutual prosperity and respect.
Paul Kageme
President of Rwanda
There is a debate among geopolitical and economic commentators about the merits of Chinese versus western involvement with Africa. One argument is that Chinese investment is exploitative and undermines the development of democracy and human rights on the continent. Others view the matter in terms of competition, arguing that China is encroaching on the decades-long monopoly of the west over Africa's natural resources.
Neither of these viewpoints addresses the core issues. First, major players in global investment and development are discussing Africa without engaging its people as equal partners. Second, Africans are not seen to be proactive in setting their own priorities and terms of engagement.
Development aid, fashioned on this skewed relationship, has long been a key source of income for the continent. While helpful, aid has not delivered sustainable development. It is clear that trade and investment bring greater opportunity for wealth creation. Africa welcomes investment, from the east and west, north and south, and Rwanda is no exception. We want investment that offers skills and jobs, encourages entrepreneurship, and provides the opportunity to improve millions of lives.
This call for investment and trade rather than traditional aid does not mean the latter's contribution to addressing poverty is not recognised. However, the fundamental problem with the current development aid practice is the danger countries face as they become perpetually reliant on handouts.
So what should those who give aid, and those who receive it, focus on? The primary purpose of aid should ultimately be to work itself out, leaving a positive legacy behind. Aid should also be used to create opportunities for trade, enhance self-sufficiency and assist with the development of a robust private sector to attract investment. In many countries, for example, aid offers resources such as fertilisers for free. The intention is good but this often prevents local businesses from being able to provide these goods competitively. Given the choice, people would prefer to work and provide for themselves, rather than receive charity. Africans want self-determination and dignity.
Our continent, like others, requires investment to further its development. Efforts to pursue this need not be seen as a threat to the strengthening of democracy. Of course, African leaders should take good governance and human rights seriously – and most do. This is not – and should not be – because anybody else tells us to, or in return for investment, but because it is the right thing to do. The presence of Chinese investment in Africa does not discharge governments of their responsibilities any more than its presence in the EU or US should erode human rights there.
In Rwanda, we have worked hard to tackle the root causes of corruption and ensure there is a strong case for attracting investment. This programme of reform is yielding results and has been recognised by the World Bank's 2010 Doing Business Index, which saw Rwanda jump from 143rd to 67th position in one year, making it the world's leading reformer. In 2008, Rwanda's GDP grew at 11.2%, and despite the global financial crisis our 2009 projections give us cause for optimism. Wages in key export sectors have grown more than 20% annually over the last eight years, and all these developments have occurred while the percentage of our national budget funded by aid has been reduced by half since 2001.
Ultimately, Africa's relationship with its international counterparts should be redefined. For too long, we have not been able to trade fairly with Europe and the US; trade barriers and subsidies, particularly in agriculture, have protected external markets from African products, hindering our ability to trade as equals. Investment and trade with willing countries, including intra-African trade, helps the continent to build a much-needed culture of entrepreneurship and development.
All would benefit if the world focused on increasing investment in Africa, and if Rwanda and the rest of the continent worked to establish more equitable international partnerships. A trade relationship built on this new approach would be more helpful in reaching what should be our common goal: sustainable development, mutual prosperity and respect.
Paul Kageme
President of Rwanda
Friday, October 23, 2009
Ni Leboo Joo
The worst insult in some far-right circles in America nowadays is to be called “a Kenyan.”
The label acquired racist overtones when Barack Obama, whose father was Kenyan, won the US presidency, sparking emotional denunciations among the so-called birthers, who say Obama should not have competed for the presidency in the first place because he was allegedly not born in the US, and was in fact a Kenyan.
Last week, when Senator Olympia Snowe broke with fellow Republicans and voted with Obama in favour of health care reform, she came in for such a barrage of criticism from the right that a satirical blog, the Borowitz Report, carried a mock news story to the effect that she had been labelled “a Kenyan” by her party.
“This vote is going to raise suspicions, once again, that Sen Snowe was born in Kenya,” the blog purported to quote Republican Party chairman Michael Steele, adding; “We demand that she prove that she is definitely not Kenyan.”
The blog also purported to quote Orly Taitz, leader of the “birther” movement, as terming Snowe’s vote “textbook Kenyan” behaviour, because, “She’s putting her tribe first.”
The label acquired racist overtones when Barack Obama, whose father was Kenyan, won the US presidency, sparking emotional denunciations among the so-called birthers, who say Obama should not have competed for the presidency in the first place because he was allegedly not born in the US, and was in fact a Kenyan.
Last week, when Senator Olympia Snowe broke with fellow Republicans and voted with Obama in favour of health care reform, she came in for such a barrage of criticism from the right that a satirical blog, the Borowitz Report, carried a mock news story to the effect that she had been labelled “a Kenyan” by her party.
“This vote is going to raise suspicions, once again, that Sen Snowe was born in Kenya,” the blog purported to quote Republican Party chairman Michael Steele, adding; “We demand that she prove that she is definitely not Kenyan.”
The blog also purported to quote Orly Taitz, leader of the “birther” movement, as terming Snowe’s vote “textbook Kenyan” behaviour, because, “She’s putting her tribe first.”
Saturday, October 3, 2009
What they don’t tell you about Rwanda
Rwanda enjoys a positive reputation internationally and its President Paul Kagame is regularly praised by the World Bank, the US, and UK administrations for his integrity, efforts at reconciliation, and economic policies. I was impressed by his advice to Kenyans at the national prayer breakfast last May to follow his government’s example of commitment to ethnic diversity, consensus building on the common good, national values, and inclusion of all political views in national life and development agenda.
When I visited Rwanda at the request of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative to do a report on the state of human rights and democracy in Rwanda (in connection with Rwanda’s application to join the Commonwealth) my first impressions, despite some critical reports I had read, were favourable: Very efficient and courteous processing of incoming passengers, a safe, clean and well organised Kigali, and bright and suave officials.
However, I was put on guard when every non-official person I interviewed, diplomats, journalists, professionals, and local and international civil society officers, would not speak to me except on assurances of anonymity.
When I read the constitution, I found no mention of ethnic or religious groups, and came across legislation, which banned discussion of ethnicity (yet huge government posters reminded people of the "genocide against the Tutsi", although of course many Hutus had also been massacred). Those who imply that Kagame’s Rwanda Patriotic Front had killed Hutus unnecessarily are heavily penalised, as are those who question official accounts of the genocide. This hardly fits with Kagame’s advocacy of reconciliation, inclusion or coming to terms with the past.
Exiled hutus
Rwanda President Paul Kagame
Reading numerous reports of the UN Security Council, UNHCR or international NGOs, memoirs of some key Rwandan politicians and of the commander of the UN forces Romeo Dallaire, and scholarly literature, I learnt that, though of course the Tutsi had suffered greatly at the hands of a large number of Hutus, the RPF had also killed thousands of Hutus, and driven many to exile (and then pursued them in their countries of exile). Incoming Tutsi have appropriated Hutu owned land. When considered strategic, the RPF allowed the killing of Tutsis. Dallaire writes that their deaths can also be laid "at the door of the military genius, Kagame, who did not speed up his campaign when the scale of genocide became clear and even talked candidly with me at several points about the price his fellow Tutsi might have to pay for the cause". Kagame refused Dallaire’s proposal to accept ceasefire to stop the massacre, because it did not suit Kagame’s grand design of Tutsi hegemony. He has been quoted as criticising people who see the war in terms of human rights. He has said that some conflicts are good, "a sort of purification" which "erupt in order to make a real transformation possible".
The Rwanda regime relies on power structures that sometimes run parallel to, and sometimes crosscut, the formal government; and in which the army plays a central role. The country has relied heavily for its revenue (to fund its institutions and elite) on plunder of the mineral resources of the DRC.
Mode of extraction
It bears the primary responsibility for the political and economic instability in the Great Lakes Region (including the overthrow of the Congolese government), which is functional to its mode of extraction of wealth and its regional dominance.
It practises, and has contributed to, a complex, regional regime of illegal economic transactions, evasion of UN sanctions, arming of militias, criminal business organisations, and disregard of neighbours’ borders and fiscal systems, which has greatly impoverished the region.
The RPF has used an extraordinary amount of violence, domestically and internationally. It has killed several thousands Hutus, citizens and others, and is responsible for the deaths of even more through displacement, malnutrition and hunger. It has denied hundreds of thousands of children the opportunity of education, and deprived millions of family and community life. It has conscripted child soldiers. The UN has voluminously documented these practices and repeatedly chastised Rwanda for its irresponsible behaviour in the DRC. Beneath the gentility of RPF leaders, the tidiness of Kigali, and its gleaming high rise buildings, I found a country deeply fragmented, operating under the hegemony of a small Tutsi political elite, which rules through oppression and fear.
Effective Public Relations
I discovered that these leaders are extraordinarily effective at public relations, especially as directed at the West, and make the most of the guilt in the West for doing so little to prevent the terrible genocide in 1994, directed largely but not exclusively at the Tutsi.
[The report of the CHRI can be found at http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/hradvocacy/rwanda’s_application_for_membership_of_the_commonwealth.pdf]
By Prof Yash Ghai
Prof Ghai is a former CKRC Chaiman
When I visited Rwanda at the request of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative to do a report on the state of human rights and democracy in Rwanda (in connection with Rwanda’s application to join the Commonwealth) my first impressions, despite some critical reports I had read, were favourable: Very efficient and courteous processing of incoming passengers, a safe, clean and well organised Kigali, and bright and suave officials.
However, I was put on guard when every non-official person I interviewed, diplomats, journalists, professionals, and local and international civil society officers, would not speak to me except on assurances of anonymity.
When I read the constitution, I found no mention of ethnic or religious groups, and came across legislation, which banned discussion of ethnicity (yet huge government posters reminded people of the "genocide against the Tutsi", although of course many Hutus had also been massacred). Those who imply that Kagame’s Rwanda Patriotic Front had killed Hutus unnecessarily are heavily penalised, as are those who question official accounts of the genocide. This hardly fits with Kagame’s advocacy of reconciliation, inclusion or coming to terms with the past.
Exiled hutus
Rwanda President Paul Kagame
Reading numerous reports of the UN Security Council, UNHCR or international NGOs, memoirs of some key Rwandan politicians and of the commander of the UN forces Romeo Dallaire, and scholarly literature, I learnt that, though of course the Tutsi had suffered greatly at the hands of a large number of Hutus, the RPF had also killed thousands of Hutus, and driven many to exile (and then pursued them in their countries of exile). Incoming Tutsi have appropriated Hutu owned land. When considered strategic, the RPF allowed the killing of Tutsis. Dallaire writes that their deaths can also be laid "at the door of the military genius, Kagame, who did not speed up his campaign when the scale of genocide became clear and even talked candidly with me at several points about the price his fellow Tutsi might have to pay for the cause". Kagame refused Dallaire’s proposal to accept ceasefire to stop the massacre, because it did not suit Kagame’s grand design of Tutsi hegemony. He has been quoted as criticising people who see the war in terms of human rights. He has said that some conflicts are good, "a sort of purification" which "erupt in order to make a real transformation possible".
The Rwanda regime relies on power structures that sometimes run parallel to, and sometimes crosscut, the formal government; and in which the army plays a central role. The country has relied heavily for its revenue (to fund its institutions and elite) on plunder of the mineral resources of the DRC.
Mode of extraction
It bears the primary responsibility for the political and economic instability in the Great Lakes Region (including the overthrow of the Congolese government), which is functional to its mode of extraction of wealth and its regional dominance.
It practises, and has contributed to, a complex, regional regime of illegal economic transactions, evasion of UN sanctions, arming of militias, criminal business organisations, and disregard of neighbours’ borders and fiscal systems, which has greatly impoverished the region.
The RPF has used an extraordinary amount of violence, domestically and internationally. It has killed several thousands Hutus, citizens and others, and is responsible for the deaths of even more through displacement, malnutrition and hunger. It has denied hundreds of thousands of children the opportunity of education, and deprived millions of family and community life. It has conscripted child soldiers. The UN has voluminously documented these practices and repeatedly chastised Rwanda for its irresponsible behaviour in the DRC. Beneath the gentility of RPF leaders, the tidiness of Kigali, and its gleaming high rise buildings, I found a country deeply fragmented, operating under the hegemony of a small Tutsi political elite, which rules through oppression and fear.
Effective Public Relations
I discovered that these leaders are extraordinarily effective at public relations, especially as directed at the West, and make the most of the guilt in the West for doing so little to prevent the terrible genocide in 1994, directed largely but not exclusively at the Tutsi.
[The report of the CHRI can be found at http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/hradvocacy/rwanda’s_application_for_membership_of_the_commonwealth.pdf]
By Prof Yash Ghai
Prof Ghai is a former CKRC Chaiman
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Is Kenya a failed state?
A Professor who taught Research Methods and Methodology once told our class that "what you see depends on two things: Where you are standing and what direction you are facing."
I suspect this statement may well inform the response to the public debate as to whether Kenya is a failed state or not.
From casual observation, one cannot fail to see that the political elite in Kenya froth at the mouth whenever anyone dares compare Kenya with her troubled neighbours such as Somalia or DRC. Such politicians use words like "we are a sovereign state" and "we have a duly elected government" to justify that we are not a failed state.
Rarely do the voices of the masses get the same publicity as those of the powerful elite on this debate or any other. It would be safe to say that politicians and wananchi would have converse opinions on the "failed state" debate because the two, metaphorically speaking, stand on different podiums and face different directions and therefore see and experience different "Kenya’s".
The term "failed state" is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government.
The Fund for Peace, United States-based think tank, uses the following attributes to characterie a failed state:
loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
an inability to provide reasonable public services, and
an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.
On the other hand, the UK-based Crisis States Research Centre defines a failed state as a condition of "state collapse" that it can no longer perform its basic security and development functions and loses effective control over its territory and borders.
Since 2005, the Fund for Peace and the magazine Foreign Policy, publishes an annual index called the Failed States Index. The list only assesses sovereign states (determined by membership in the United Nations).
It has released this year’s Failed States Index. From a list of 177 failed states, Kenya is ranked 14th among the top 20. So if our politicians bothered to be informed they would realize that sovereignty does not exclude one from being a failed state as all 177 states named as failed states are all sovereign, some, like Somalia, with very impressive economic growth!
The index's ranks are based on twelve indicators of state vulnerability - four social, two economic and six political.
Social indicators include: Demographic pressures; Massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples; Legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance; Chronic and sustained human flight.
Economic indicators include: Uneven economic development along group lines; Sharp and/or severe economic decline.
Political indicators include: Criminalisation and/or delegitimisation of the state; Progressive deterioration of public services; Widespread violation of human rights; Security apparatus as ‘state within a state’; Rise of factionalised elites; Intervention of other states or external factors.
Published on 19/07/2009
By Roseleen Nzioka
I suspect this statement may well inform the response to the public debate as to whether Kenya is a failed state or not.
From casual observation, one cannot fail to see that the political elite in Kenya froth at the mouth whenever anyone dares compare Kenya with her troubled neighbours such as Somalia or DRC. Such politicians use words like "we are a sovereign state" and "we have a duly elected government" to justify that we are not a failed state.
Rarely do the voices of the masses get the same publicity as those of the powerful elite on this debate or any other. It would be safe to say that politicians and wananchi would have converse opinions on the "failed state" debate because the two, metaphorically speaking, stand on different podiums and face different directions and therefore see and experience different "Kenya’s".
The term "failed state" is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government.
The Fund for Peace, United States-based think tank, uses the following attributes to characterie a failed state:
loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
an inability to provide reasonable public services, and
an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.
On the other hand, the UK-based Crisis States Research Centre defines a failed state as a condition of "state collapse" that it can no longer perform its basic security and development functions and loses effective control over its territory and borders.
Since 2005, the Fund for Peace and the magazine Foreign Policy, publishes an annual index called the Failed States Index. The list only assesses sovereign states (determined by membership in the United Nations).
It has released this year’s Failed States Index. From a list of 177 failed states, Kenya is ranked 14th among the top 20. So if our politicians bothered to be informed they would realize that sovereignty does not exclude one from being a failed state as all 177 states named as failed states are all sovereign, some, like Somalia, with very impressive economic growth!
The index's ranks are based on twelve indicators of state vulnerability - four social, two economic and six political.
Social indicators include: Demographic pressures; Massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples; Legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance; Chronic and sustained human flight.
Economic indicators include: Uneven economic development along group lines; Sharp and/or severe economic decline.
Political indicators include: Criminalisation and/or delegitimisation of the state; Progressive deterioration of public services; Widespread violation of human rights; Security apparatus as ‘state within a state’; Rise of factionalised elites; Intervention of other states or external factors.
Published on 19/07/2009
By Roseleen Nzioka
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
