Memorandum submitted by Christine Andela,
Executive President of COSADER (Network of Cameroonian NGOs on
Food Security and Rural Development)
COSADER (Network of Cameroonian NGOs on Food
Security and Rural Development) is composed of 40 NGOs and rural
organisations active on food security and rural development issues.
We are member of "Cotonou Group" gathering European
and African NGOs working on the Cotonou Agreement.
I have participated in many international conferences
WTO: in Seattle, for example , P7 with the Green of the EU Parliament
in Kenya last year, to name few, and I am author of some articles
mentioned in the web.
INTRODUCTION
The debate on the debt of developing countries
has gained momentum since Jubilee 2000, with increasingly refined
analyses on the origins of the debt, on how it was contracted,
and the game of interests between debtors and creditors.
Eloquent expressions such as "shameful
debts", "debts several times reimbursed" and references
to the responsibility shared by these groups in the weight of
the debt on African economies, say a lot on the changes in the
vision that the protagonists have of what has become a real scourge
for Africa's development.
Even the World Bank and the IMF wear themselves
out in "moralising" their interventions in Developing
Countries by clinging to good governance, a veritable panacea
whose role, among others, is to clear the international community
of the failures of structural adjustment policies.
In Europe, the opening up of the European Community
to new States and the nervousness in the fight against terrorism
gave rise to fears at one moment that Africa would be consigned
to oblivion. But strong signals have been sent out, contrary to
such fears, both by the G8 and the EU.
The recent visit of British Premier Tony Blair
to the ECA (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa) on
7 October 2004 in prelude to ADF IV (African Development Forum),
and his commitment to include support for Africa as a priority
in the dual British mandate of president of both the G8 and EU
in 2005, are some of these signals.
New initiatives are taking shape, such as Tony
Blair's "Commission for Africa", alongside earlier initiatives
such as Japan's TICAD. Bilateral debt remissions are very often
the fruits of such initiatives oriented towards Africa's development.
QUESTIONING POLICIES
ON DEBT
However, in spite of all these efforts, several
questions still persist which are far from being merely theoretical
concepts for civil society organisations directly involved in
the daily subsistence struggles of local communities. In my over
10 years of working closely with the rural communities of Cameroon,
in the framework of the NGO Action Group for Food Security and
Rural Development (COSADER), I have come across several of these
issues:
1. I shall start from the end—ie from
the HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) Initiative: In most
cases, countries being included in this initiative lack management
mechanisms simply because no one has thought about it: the debtors,
because the initiative is not theirs; the creditors, because what
is more interesting is the urgency to announce the number of countries
eligible, being as many pledges of debt reimbursement.
In this way, the national community gets entangled
due to the absence of these management mechanisms, with the following
immediate consequences:
— absence of a national vision on the
initiative;
— absence of participation from the
civil society in the debate on the initiative;
— domestication of funds by the government;
— loss of trust by civil society vis-a"-vis
financial donors and creditor countries; and
— non access to HIPC funds by the poor.
It is this last aspect in particular that raises
a number of questions amongst the grassroots organisations as
to the usefulness of this initiative.
2. In extrapolating, a second question is
raised: does the policy of indebtedness serve Africa's development?
One is tempted to immediately answer no, in view of the foregoing,
knowing that the objective of the HIPC is to make debt servicing
more "bearable" by the elected countries.
In a country like Cameroon, there is no indication
that after four years of election into the HIPC the debt load
has become any lighter. In 1999, the debt load represented 6.2%
of the GDP, and this proportion has remained unchanged to this
date, with government reports showing an increase in poverty and
in food insecurity affecting 27% of the population as against
20% in 1999.
This indicates a complete failure.
It should however be admitted that the HIPC
initiative only includes an infinitesimal portion of Developing
Countries.
3. This leads to a third question: Why is
there so much noise surrounding this initiative while the greatest
part of the debt remains unmentioned? Or, to inverse the terms,
can Africa develop in the absence of development programmes, but
by cloistering herself in the straitjacket of instruments imposed
by her creditors which are directed towards debt servicing rather
than development? The New Partnership for Africa's Development
(NEPAD) is attempting to break this vicious circle.
4. The debt policy is a failure in Developing
Countries. Rather, it leads to over-indebtedness and aggravation
of poverty. Can debt reduction not constitute a positive basis
in development policy?
For instance, France has announced the "contrat
désendettement Développement" (C2D) or the
debt reduction/development contract, which gives back reimbursed
money to the debtor country in the form of donations intended
for development projects. This initiative is a major step in debt
servicing, in as much as particular emphasis appears to be placed
on direct access of Civil Society Organisations to a portion of
these funds. But we are still bound by the logic of donor countries/recipient
countries.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION
The following conditions are necessary in order
for debt reduction to become a driving force in development:
— debt reduction must be negotiated
by Developing Countries as part of a veritable development policy
which should not be confused with poverty reduction strategies,
as well formulated as they may be;
— civil society and the private sector
should be partners of governments in these negotiations;
— debt reduction should be disconnected
from World Bank and IMF conditionalities which place countries
under control or tutelage; and
— specific mechanisms should be set
up by Developing Countries for the transparent and fair management
of funds.
The struggle for the reduction of Africa's debt
burden is a struggle for freedom: freedom for Africa to determine
her own development priorities and options and to negotiate them
with partners rather than donors.
The African civil society is party to this struggle,
together with the civil society of the North, for more equity
in North/South relations and for global good governance.
November 2004
| 
