Why China should help Mozambique and Tanzania develop their Natural Gas production Capacities

I refer to the section 3.1 titled ‘Addressing General weakness of the economy’  and section 6.1  titled ‘Unchecked Greed and Resource Conflict’ of the above document, which has the following interesting paragraphs:

Given the prospects of high revenue earnings from economic rents of oil and natural gas, unchecked greed of business, political or other social leaders can foment and precipitate “resource conflicts”, which manifest as civil wars, regional conflicts involving neighbouring countries which share common borders, as well as in-country social divisions which weaken national solidarity. In the extreme they become a prelude to secessionist tendencies, with intent to draw new territorial boundaries curving out the regions with rich resource endowment and to declare them as independent sovereignty. That is the “resource curse” per excellence! Resource conflicts destabilize nations hosting unchecked greedy “resource seeking investments” and increase the risk to human safety, natural resource extraction infrastructures, as well as raise the overall cost of doing business.
… The discovery of huge natural gas resources has engendered heightened expectations for Tanzania with respect to revenue receipts and the likely spending power of the government. People think Tanzania can immediately get out of the poverty trap and move into the middle to high income bracket. Such popular view does not appreciate the level of investments required, the engineering challenges to be overcome and the time required to move through all the process steps before commercial gas production commences. The timeline is
between 5 to 8 years activities.

While there may be few dream images of the erstwhile Middle East and Persian Gulf countries as models for sharing national prosperity of the new gas economy, there are also nightmare images of the bad experiences of the Niger delta being repeated in the Ruvuma delta. It is common knowledge that oil production in the Niger delta has resulted in environment degradation on a massive scale, which has totally damaged the traditional local economy and livelihood which was based on fishing and agriculture. In that regard, the local communities feel “left out” of the growth and economic benefits, which have accrued to Nigeria as an outcome of exploitation of the petroleum resources. Then local communities have come to be viewed as a security threat because they have engaged in hostile activities against both the Government and the Oil industry. …

But first, lets deal with China. I’m not completely sold about them. I like their organisation and unity, and how they can achieve seemingly heavy tasks, in very short periods of time, and at a fraction of the cost west companies would undertake such tasks. But there can be a price. On quality in particular. Further, I don’t like the controversies that they tend to leave behind, or rather the alleged conduct of some Chinese companies, neatly dissected here, regarding their practices in Africa, and the implications of such practices. I also wish Chinese politicians and officials could at least raise human rights issues when dealing with countries such as Uganda, Sudan (where they’ve sent 700 troops), DRC, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia.

But that’s besides the point. Some readers of this blog will know  that there have been large Natural Gas finds off the coasts of Tanzania and Mozambique. The estimates of the finds range from  46 trillion cubic feet(tcf) to 55 tcf. for the deposits in Tanzania, and 50 tcf. to 70 tcf. for the deposits in Mozambique. In plain English it’s a fortune!

According to Standard Bank, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) will add $39 billion to the Mozambican economy over the next 20 years, boosting GDP per capita from approximately $650 in 2013, to $4500 by 2035.

The trouble is, it is being claimed that billions upon billions will be required to put in place the technology, infrastructure, structures and logistical capacities to realise the benefits of these reserves.

And I simply don’t believe it will cost that much.

Now, I may be an engineer – one who knows how to build certain things cost-effectively, but I’m not a geological engineer. I’m not a surveyor, or an industry professional within the natural gas or petroleum industry, and my contention is based purely on rebuttals such as these – in this case of the corrupt practices in the construction sector in Malawi. But having said that I can find some credible industry professionals who can provide an honest unbiased opinion of the costs involved.

In other words, the $10 billion that is claimed in the above paper as the cost of building capacity, how exactly did they arrive at such a costing? I’m not disputing it outright, I’m just curious to know how they computed the figures…. since as I stated earlier, contractors and other infrastructure developers have a bad habit of quoting say £10,000 for a job that in real terms will cost £1000 to build (that is in real money the cost of raw materials, labour, logistics). The extra £9000 goes to profits for the company …and it is this that I have a probelm with because in my view it is hugely inflated.

So if someone says some project will cost $10 billion, alarm bells automatically start ringing in my head. I begin asking, is that $10 billion the real cost of raw materials and labour, or are we factoring in wastage in terms of corruption, the profits you want your company to make – off the coffers of the undiscerning African government, and off the backs of the helpless African people??

In the long term this translates to tax payers who must be taxed heavily to pay off the debt that will be taken by the government to finance such a project. Pensions that will remain meagre, because the African government is still paying that $10 billion loan they took…school children who will continue to have poor facilities, because…well, there’s no money to invest in modern educational facilities…salaries that will remain low…lapses in security, because, well, there’s simply not enough money about to improve security or pay decent salaries… I could go on.

My point is if the Mozambican and Tanzanian governments asked the Chinese for greater degree of help, in establishing the industry, employing professionals, while maintaining ownership of the whole project and resource (or atleast a large % of it) – as opposed to letting any foreign corporation have the lions share – the governments would most probably be able to build everything cost-effectively, probably for less than £2 billion, and Tanzania and Mozambique would come out stronger than any arrangement that gives ownership (or  the lions share) of the finds to a foreign private company.

Floods hit parts of Malawi & Mozambique

floods-mwTorrential rains have caused major floods in southern parts of Malawi and parts of Mozambique.

The president of Malawi has declared 15 districts as disaster areas, and has appealed for humanitarian assistance to deal with the crisis. The Vice President Saulos Chilima has called on members of the general public to help fellow citizens affected by floods that have hit the nation.

Malawi’s department of climate Change and Meteorological Services has warned of heavy rainfall and flash floods in the country for the next two to three weeks.

Reports from Malawi say that up to 100 people (the government says 48) have died across Malawi as a result of the floods and around 70,000 people have been displaced. In Mozambique,  20,000 people have been displaced. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has created a map (via http://reliefweb.int) showing the affected areas.

We’ve also received reports that there has been water cuts in Blantyre for at least 3 days now, and electricity supply has also been cut off.

The Malawi President will visit some of the affected areas tomorrow, according to the Government’s press release:

FloodsMore details here and here

Some people have set up funding initiatives, including one on Go Fund Me here to try to raise money for the humanitarian assistance.

Launch Of Innovative Project To Prevent Stunting Among Children

LILONGWE – A new project to establish best practices for tackling stunting is being launched in Malawi today. Recurrent food insecurity, poor dietary diversity and repeated illness are among the root causes of stunting (low growth for age) among nearly 1 million Malawian children under five – almost half the country’s children in this age group.

The project, implemented in Ntchisi district in Malawi’s central region, will reach 66,000 mothers and children over three-and-a-half years. It is designed to reduce stunting in the district by 5-10 percent as well as build evidence for the best ways of tackling the problem. Having been launched in Malawi, which has one of the highest rates of stunting in the world, the project will be introduced to Mozambique later in the year.

Malawi is currently experiencing a deteriorating food security situation following low crop production as a result of long dry spells and floods and high food prices. Now, during the height of the ‘lean season,’ the months before March when the next harvest is due, WFP is providing food assistance to more than 1.8 million Malawians.

More here Launch Of Innovative Project To Prevent Stunting Among Children via trust.org

Politics: Mozambique, Malawi should belong to Great Lakes Region – Museveni

Politics: Mozambique, Malawi should belong to Great Lakes Region – via Afrique en Ligne

He called for cooperation between peoples and nations from the region by promoting peace and development, adding that it was important to build infrastructure, like roads, railways and electricity for economic growth.

Similar Links

Reuniting Africa: Infrastructure

It was delightful to hear news that Kenya in collaboration with the Chinese government will be investing $13.8 billion to build a railway line to link its port city of Mombasa with the capital Nairobi. It is hoped that the line will eventually extend to the landlocked countries of Uganda, South Sudan and Rwanda. This is great news not only because of its Pan-African connotations, but also because it’s a step forward towards getting Africa’s infrastructure interconnected and closer to global standards ( for example to the level of the Eurotunnel).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Whenever foreigners come to Africa to visit, they always exclaim how challenging and long it can take to get from one place to another in certain areas. It’s incredible how disconnected Africa remains. The same applies to movement of goods (a factor essential for commerce and business). Often and comparatively with say Asia, it takes longer (and costs a lot more) than must necessarily be to send goods, or receive goods from one African country to another, which is not desirable.

The vastness and distances may be a problem, and environmental degradation such projects cause is also a major consideration, but that doesn’t mean that there are no workable solutions to such challenges. Often the cause of inaction or lack of progress appears to be bad politics and selfish financial interests, which end up  frustrating well-meaning projects whose economic and social benefits could be significant for a country and its neighbours, and far outweigh the negative impacts.

Take Malawi for example. Mota Engil the Portuguese conglomerate was contracted by the government of Bingu Wa Mutharika to construct a port in Nsanje (see animation of the Nsanje Inland Port via YouTube), at great expense to the Malawian tax payer.

The  project was part of a project known as the Shire-Zambezi Water Way, and whose total cost was said to be US$6 billion would have reduced the cost of importing goods by 60%.

The Malawi section of the project took years to build, and costed the Malawian government €25 million dollars. Now, almost 2 years after the sudden death of Mutharika, the first ship is yet to sail to the port. There is little or no dialogue about the way forward, the current Malawian president is in no rush to resurrect the project, even when the Malawi Trade & Investors Quarterly Magazine in 2007 wrote that Malawi spends at least US$200 million annually to import or export goods via ports in Mozambique or Tanzania. My question is this: isn’t reducing the cost of imports for landlocked countries in Africa a priority to the whole of Africa? Shouldn’t it be a priority to all Africans? Think about it… look at the US, or for that matter the European Union, and their policy of free movement of goods.

How can the countries in Africa, let alone the continent ever develop when leaders do not collaborate or are only too willing to impede such meaningful projects before they even commence? Why can’t African leaders (including the chiefs of the African Union, SADC, COMESA and African Development bank) begin to practise continuity, and put pressure on the stakeholders to get to grips with the project? Of the countries who signed the memorandum of understanding of the Shire-Zambezi Water Way, why does it appear like no one is actively seeking to resurrect and resume the project ( Is the said feasibility study Mozambique was demanding underway? If so what is the progress on that front?), since it’s undeniable that there will be mutual benefits to the greater economy of Southern Africa?

Looking at half-hearted comments from those who think they have something to lose (other shallow comments from here), you will find that the Mozambicans have to shoulder part of the blame for the stalling of the project. Against all appearance of conventional wisdom, it seem they have been dragging their feet from throwing full support behind the project, with talk of environmental assessments, etc and greater emphasis of development of roads?? Can such a massive project have been commenced and physical construction at Nsanje began without first assessing or undertaking an environmental assessment?

I’m not convinced. Either there’s something about this project that ordinary folk like us have not been told, or there was a massive miscalculation on the part of Mutharika to begin building the port. Else, it was visionary (see YouTube marketing clip ‘overselling’ the idea here), a quality often lacking within leadership across Africa.

Having said that, it is more likely than not, that the reason some people in Mozambique are unwilling to fully support the project is to do with the alleged financial loss they expect if goods are able to go straight into Malawi or Zambia and Zimbabwe, and not via Beira or Nacala.

Such a selfish narrow viewpoint undermines any potential benefit a new transportation link may create for the region. Surely, a thoughtful and better-informed African leader would have recognised the overall impact (e.g. jobs, increased trade, tourism, easier flow of resources, cheaper import costs and societal advancement)  the port will have not only to the Mozambican towns near Nsanje, but also to the greater Southern African economy of Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, or even to Rwanda and Burundi.

Very few African countries geographically formed themselves into the shape they currently take. In fact only Liberia and Ethiopia were never colonised, but even their national polity formation had a lot to do with regional colonial activity around and about them. Thus, most decisions that determined the geographical shape of African countries were made by colonialists, a figment of history most Pan Africanists would rather forget. This to me means that it is shortsighted, regressive, a deficiency in intellect and a great fallacy (most often perpetuated by ignorance), for leaders of African countries today to be fighting against each other, or indeed dashing each others economic fortunes – when there is every chance that had colonialism never occurred (as we understand it), Africa could have ended up as a vast continent of undivided Kingdoms, each with access to the sea. Something that would have looked like this:

644px-Colonial_Africa_1913_Gold_Coast_map.svg
What Africa may have looked like if colonisation hadn’t occured. What Africa may look like in the future, hundreds of years from now

That is precisely why Uhuru Kenyatta must be applauded for the visionary Mombasa Nairobi railway link.

Similar Links:

Peter Mutharika attacks Malawi govt. for ignoring ‘Ndata’ University, Nsanje port in budget

MALAWI: Dream fades for inland port project

The Shire Zambezi Waterway Project is still a priority says Sadc secretariat [August 2013]

Malawi, Mozambique agree deal on Nsanje World inland port [April 2013]

Nsanje Inland Port Mw

No Smoke without a Fire 2

8009726839_72b720cc65_h

There’s no smoke without a fire, so the saying goes.

Even though, there may be smoke resulting from  smear campaign fires full of falsities, deliberately started to taint, destroy or implicate an innocent person or groups of people, generally the above saying holds true in many circumstances.

Lately, the Malawian government has been bombarded by a barrage of criticisms over its policies and governance of Malawi. To pick a few of these criticisms, there have been attacks over its response to economic affairs ; the 100 days party in preference to Independence day celebrations; an alleged scam perpetrated by parliamentarians ; Madonagate recently took centre stage (see more here and here ) ; Apollo’s tender award (see here , here and here) ; closely related the purchase of vehicles  have caused controversy; a shady oil deal allegedly implicating President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria and a Nigerian firm  have shown the government in a less than admirable light;  an allegedly tainted judiciary , one fraud scam  after another ; serious doubts over the devaluation of the Kwacha ; the food crisis …and many more.

Surely, while there is likely to be over estimations and trumped-up charges, all this negative publicity couldn’t possibly all be unsubstantiated or false, its origins hidden deep in the crevices of slimy and nefarious intentions? Definitely not. Neither could it all be hearsay, otherwise who’s to stop these news sources from being sued for spreading false rumours? My take is that there may be more than just a few grains of truth in all this.

Admittedly, the Joyce Banda government inherited a broken economy. The country was on the brink of collapse, everything from policing, schools, universities, food supply, aviation, hospital supplies to availability of fuel and forex was in a mess, and the ‘ruins’ had to be rebuilt from the foundations upwards, a feat not exactly easy when you have hostile donors eyeing you suspiciously, some of whom are waving questionable policies at you. Add to that citizens reeling from the effects of a disaster and the opposition parties pulling at your legs to do something fast to rectify the situation.

However, you can only blame your predecessor for so long, in that by now the ‘honeymoon’ is over and the current administration could have been well on their way towards thinking about long-term, or at least a feasible, well-thought through plan for the long-term. For example, as several people observed here, what was the purpose of spending millions on new cars for ministers  when signficantly less could have been spent on used (but equally functional) cars? Or on another front, how could the food crisis have occurred when a few years before, there had been a food surplus to the tune of  half a million tones? Further, on matters of energy, is it really justifiable for the government to sign a power supply deal with Mozambique even when it is the case that Malawi can in fact generate its own power?

Where from you  ask?

From our rivers, the plentiful sunlight our country receives, our uranium. For example, when will a consultation on the exploitation of solar at industrial scale be issued? Or shouldn’t we be exploring underwater current hydro, as others are currently doing? Surely, with the amount of sunlight we get, and considering that solar technology is becoming ever more accessible, a large Solar plant that could complement the existing hydroelectric power plants has got to be a feasible venture.

Clearly, some of the above scandals point to deeper and graver problems at the core of the government. In particular, it no news in Malawians circles that some of the senior members of government are corrupt sorts, tainted by one corruption scandal after another. In fact, worse than that, a few were implicated in the coup attempt, led by honchos in the DPP party, at the time when the former President Bingu Wa Mutharika suddenly died. There’s also allegation that some may have benefitted from business deals with Mota Engil, the portuguese conglomerate that built the Nsanje port. This allegation goes to say that Mota Engil made secret payments into bank accounts of the former president, Bingu Wa Mutharika, including being the company behind the construction of  Ndata farm, the palatial home of the former president.

Much closer to the president,  I wonder whether it did cross Joyce Banda’s mind that refusal to declare assets (even when it is said that she was strictly not required to do so again) could work against her credibility and standing. Didn’t it occur to her that such was a missed opportunity to show transparency and ‘clean hands’ in that if she did re-declare her assets, it would squarely put her into the ranks of African politicians who have been hailed as heroes? The likes of  ChissanoMogae and Pires. I’m curious to know what her advisers said to her about this issue? Or is it the case that some around her see her re-declaring of asset as amounting to measures that would make misappropriation of funds harder?

It all begs the question, how can the government (and the president — who appears to be a reformer) succeed in transforming the plight of Malawi (and thereby helping Malawians) in the long-term, when she is a government which is increasingly becoming leaven? Or should we ask whether One muddy buffalo truly makes the whole herd dirty? Anzathu ena ochangamuka ndi anzeru ananena kuti mutu umodzi siwusenza denga. But what if the numerous mitu ikusenza madengawo ndi yoduka yokha yokha?

Similar:

1. The US government is promoting corruption in Malawi

2. UK firm SEAM partner with Mota-Engil in Malawi gold rush

Airports and their importance to Economic growth – lessons from Mozambique, Switzerland and Norway

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

AirportLilongwe

The images above show sketches of the new Nacala International airport  designed by Brazilian Architects Fernandes Arquitetos (who own the copyright to the images)  [More here]. According to the above Wikipedia entry,  “Once the airport is open people will not have to go to Maputo to get in to the country “. In other words, this will open up the North of Mozambique to the world, essentially removing the bottleneck that necessitated international passengers travelling by plane from the North, to go all the way to Maputo, which is ~1500km South west of Nacala, even when such passengers were destined for the north part of the country.

The impact of such an upgrade must not be underestimated. According to Laurie Price, Director of Aviation Strategy at Mott MacDonald, airports not only create employment and act as business getaways, but they are the main driver for tourism growth. He goes on to map a graph that lists aviation trips in countries in terms of their Propensity to Fly against Economic Strength (GDP).  Norway, a country with the highest Human Development Index features at the top with the highest propensity to fly, and interestingly, the highest GDP:

table on trips per capita against gdp - norway at top

He also makes reference to  an Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) September 2005 study that revealed that “25% of all companies sales are dependent on air transport.” and “70% of businesses report that serving a bigger market is a key benefit of using air services.”

Categorising Africa & Middle east, Russia & China and part of South America as restricted by regulation, Price appears to suggest that liberalised airline transport industries of Europe and North America make the greatest contribution to GDP.

table1

While the links between economic growth and air transport may not be welcomed news for the pro-green lobby who would have us each drive a Toyota Prius (or better, not drive at all),  similar views as those of Laurie Price have been reflected elsewhere; James Cherry, President and CEO Aéroports de Montréal, called airports

“..economic engines and most of all a reflection of the communities they represent “ [See here]

He gives an example of Canada where he says

“… airports generate an estimated $34 billion in economic activity and are responsible for 300,000 direct and indirect jobs “

This probably suggests that a thriving air transport industry that interconnects a country to the outside world is essential for economic development. For landlocked countries not receiving supplies directly via their own ports, one would imagine that the air transport industry (including Cargo services) becomes a much more crucial factor to their economic activity.

Looking at the airports of the countries on the above graph, it appears that most countries with thriving tourist industries either have an extensive airline communication network or have many international airports within them, for some an  international airport connecting each of their major cities (or tourist centres) to the outside world. Even Switzerland, a landlocked country smaller than Malawi in size (at  15,940 sq miles – roughly one-third of Malawi’s total area [~ 45,560 sq miles]) has at least 7 airports that appear to be international airports, with flights by the local carrier serving over 70 destinations in 38 countries.

The Mozambican project was made possible by a loan of $80 million from the Brazilian government via the Brazilian development bank, Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Economice Social (BNDES), as part of a $300 million credit line opened up to support projects in Mozambique.

While the airline industry in southern Africa currently appears chaotic and in tatters, with Malawi having recently flogged 49% of its airline to Ethiopian airlines,  it may be time to try different tactics. When some people have complained of unfair treatment and lack of understanding [See the sad story of Nyasa Express here] on the part of Malawian politicians regarding opening up Malawi to international travel, it would probably be wise, in my view to reconsider this issue, and abandon protectionist measures.

If Mzuzu airport, Chileka airport in Blantyre, Karonga airport and Salima airport were expanded and upgraded, to handle international flights, following a similar approach to what has happened in Mozambique with Nacala airport, it is not inconceivable to see how such measures  would create employment, begin to stimulate industry, attract investment and open up the Malawi to global trade.

Similar

1. Importance of Airports – Los Angeles Times

2. Artist Trinta says tourism ministry “dull”

3. Propeller Planes Come Back Amid High Fuel Prices

4. Aviation in Africa: Going south

5. List of Airports in Ethiopia

6. King Shaka Airport, Durban

7. Economic Growth | Aviation: Benefits Beyond Borders

Imagine an African continent…” – Kofi Annan

Among the comments underneath the video on YouTube are:

1. “I want to be optimistic but judging from the butt licking seen at a recent Africa Business Forum (held in Dubai), I can assure you the African has a long way to go. It’s about change of mindset. Nobody is interested in HELPING you, they want your RESOURCES stupid! I almost plucked my lashes on hearing Prime Ministers, Ministers and top African leaders trashing each other and worshiping foreign. Over 50+ years after independence, you still cannot put your house in order! African Union my foot!”

2. “I wish this message is played over over in the bedrooms of these insensitive leaders in Africa.”

and

3. “Bless u Papa”

The issue Annan addresses is one that is critical to Africa’s economic development. Africa will not develop if African leaders are squandering African resources. If they are giving away Africa’s riches liberally. It appears like few African leaders ever question whether the contracts they sign with investors are truly in the country’s best interest. Do they ask third-parties for comment, or solicit views from across the country? Is there even a consultation?

Remember my observations here, about ENI which has been given a 70% interest in a Natural Gas finding off the coast of Mozambique? That’s precisely the unwise decisions which Annan refers to. Surely, there is little justification in giving away such a large interest, when Mozambique has more need for such resources which are essential to help it in eradicating poverty. Mozambique could have bought the required equipment and done the appraisal or exploration themselves. In the current global economic crisis, where jobs are scarce, I’m not convinced that anyone would have struggled to find the right talent, with the right experience to do the job to a satisfactory level of competence. In any case, no Mozambican (or African) company is likely to ever be awarded such a large interest in a natural resource in Italy (or indeed in Europe, America, or in Asia).

It’s simply not going to happen, and the Italians would never allow their government such obtuse liberties. Certainly not to the tune of $10 billion.

How then can African leaders justify giving away that much wealth, when their country folk are poor, and when the technology for mapping, finding and extracting Natural gas is somewhat elementary? And readily available. It’s not Space Science, or Nuclear Physics. But even if it were, in the current recession where governments are pushing for cuts throughout the western world, how many Nuclear Physicists or Space scientists, or Geophysical surveyors or Engineers out there are currently out of a job, and would relish such a challenge for less than $150,000 a piece, saving Mozambican government billions? Did the Mozambican government even consider doing the exploration or extraction itself using employed staff?

Lastly, I’ll leave you with a sobering question. Despite the fact that ENI have already sold part of that stake to the Chinese, do you know where the money they get from this deal will go? As in what does a company that makes billions in profits do with an additional $10 billion or more?

Will it be used to build schools or hospitals in Mozambique, some of which unfortunately look like this:

Or would the majority of such funds be used to multiply ENI’s wealth, possibly to issue dividends to ENI’s shareholders in Italy & Europe (or other industrialised and rich countries), where their schools and hospitals look like this:

Where will the majority of this money be invested? In Italy, in Europe? Or  in Africa?

If you showed the contents on this blogpost to any Mozambican, and asked them where in their view those resources are most required, what do you think they will  answer you?

I’d like to know how much (if any) of the actual monetary benefit ENI receives from this interest eventually remains in Mozambique ( for use in development, for Mozambican banks to make investment in foreign markets, etc). Surely if we are to take what Annan seems to clearly allude, Mozambique is the rightful owner of the natural resource. Why then should they receive peanuts from it? Shouldn’t they receive the lions share?

I’m not saying that ENI hasn’t contributed to social programs in Africa, or in other parts of the world, where they have operations,no that’s not what I’m saying. To the contrary ENI has supported social programs, most recently in Libya.

My point is, if European and American companies display wildly unrestrained greed in the form of behavior that suggests that they do infact own African resources, and African politicians are unable, unwilling or pressured from objecting to grossly unfair deals that are ‘discriminatory’ in every meaning of the word, and clearly unfair; and if civil society is unable to force African governments to renegotiate these unfair contracts (ideally before they are signed), how does anyone expect the continent of Africa to ever achieve economic development??When the resources that matter, and could make a huge difference to millions of lives, are given away so easily, moving only from South to North, or only from South to East, or from South to West??

Similar:

1. Who Owns the Land? Cameroon’s Large-Scale Land-Grabs

2. ‘The Resource Curse’: Why Africa’s Oil Riches Don’t Trickle Down to Africans

3. Africa Debate: Will Africa ever benefit from its natural resources?

4. Scramble for Africa

5.  Resource curse not the only reason for Africa’s poverty

6. Gazprom Said to Seek Stake in Eni’s Gas Assets in Mozambique