Underpaid, overworked and disillusioned: doctors and nurses are leaving Africa in droves. But the G8’s response today offers nothing that will prevent further migration of Africa’s healthcare workers.
International NGOs say that despite the announcements of funds for HIV and AIDS and other diseases, the G8 has not got back on track to meet the promises they made in 2005.
Aditi Sharma, head of ActionAid’s HIV and AIDS campaign, says the G8 leaders had recognised the problems but not offered any concrete action. “The shortage of health workers was on the summit agenda, but the G8 hasn’t made any specific commitments: no specific funds, timelines or targets,” she says.
A report by the Ethiopian National HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Office in 2005 stated that there are just 2,115 doctors for a population of over 77 million people – and newly trained doctors all too often migrate, for better earnings to support their extended families.
And it’s not just a problem in Ethiopia. Collins Magalasi, director of Action Aid in Southern Africa, told me that “over 70 per cent of the doctors and nurses trained in Malawi have emigrated. The G8 countries are utilising them. We can’t stop doctors leaving”.
Malagasi thinks the G8 countries should fund training institutions and provide earnings for healthcare workers that will make it more attractive to stay in Africa. The solution is in the hands of the developed countries.
This isn’t a new story: despite all the talk of funding drugs and clinics for HIV, the fact is that a continued critical shortage of doctors and nurses means people are dying in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa.
The G8 has committed to spending $60 billion to fight infectious diseases over the next five years, but civil society groups are worried that not enough funds will be available to retain doctors and nurses in developing countries.
It’s depressing for me to watch what’s happening here at the G8. It looks like I’ll be going home to the same problems as before.
Technorati Tags: africa, brain drain, ethiopia, g8, healthcare
Showing posts with label NGOs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NGOs. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 June 2007
Monday, 28 May 2007
Paladin Resources Ltd.: Kayelekera Project, Malawi
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- May 28, 2007 -- Paladin Resources Ltd. ("Paladin" or "the Company") (TSX: PDN)(ASX: PDN) wishes to advise shareholders that its subsidiary Paladin (Africa) Limited ("PAL") and the Government of Malawi have been named defendants in two actions commenced by a group of Non-Government Organisations ("NGO's") in Malawi. Shareholders should also be aware that the NGO's claim that their actions are not intended to stop the development of the Kayelekera Project. Mr Mwakasungula of the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation, who has sworn the affidavit in support of the legal actions, states: "Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR), which I represent, and all the other Plaintiffs herein are not against the Kayelekera Project. It is a very welcome project ..."
The two actions referred above seek to delay the Kayelekera Project until the Government and PAL, amongst other things:
(i) rectify alleged deficiencies in the process associated with the grant of approval under the Malawi Environment Management Act ("EMA"); and
(ii) put in place additional protective measures affecting both the local community and the country.
Both the Government and PAL intend to vigorously defend all claims particularly those concerning the Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA").
The EIA was prepared by Knight Piesold (Pty) Limited ("Knight Piesold"), a member company of the International Knight Piesold Group. Knight Piesold is an engineering and environmental consulting firm based in Johannesburg, South Africa. International Knight Piesold Group has offices in Canada, Australia, the USA, and various offices in Africa and South America. A team of in-house and sub-contracted specialists sourced from Malawi and from around the world were involved in the preparation of the EIA. The EIA was reviewed by the Director of Environmental Affairs in accordance with the EMA prior to the grant to PAL of the approval to proceed with the Kayelekera Project.
The two actions referred above seek to delay the Kayelekera Project until the Government and PAL, amongst other things:
(i) rectify alleged deficiencies in the process associated with the grant of approval under the Malawi Environment Management Act ("EMA"); and
(ii) put in place additional protective measures affecting both the local community and the country.
Both the Government and PAL intend to vigorously defend all claims particularly those concerning the Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA").
The EIA was prepared by Knight Piesold (Pty) Limited ("Knight Piesold"), a member company of the International Knight Piesold Group. Knight Piesold is an engineering and environmental consulting firm based in Johannesburg, South Africa. International Knight Piesold Group has offices in Canada, Australia, the USA, and various offices in Africa and South America. A team of in-house and sub-contracted specialists sourced from Malawi and from around the world were involved in the preparation of the EIA. The EIA was reviewed by the Director of Environmental Affairs in accordance with the EMA prior to the grant to PAL of the approval to proceed with the Kayelekera Project.
Wednesday, 9 May 2007
NO COURT INJUNCTION : Malawi NGOs cave in over Paladin uranium mining project
Popular demand for uranium mining in Malawi has bullied non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the country into submission following threats that they would take Paladin Resources (ASX, TSX:PDN) to court to stop it from mining uranium in the country's northern region district of Karonga.
Just after the received its mining license from the Malawi government to start developing its Kayerekera Uranium Project, the NGOs announced they would be going to court to stop Paladin from developing the mine. The NGOs argued that people around the area were not happy with the project as it threatened their health and that they could not allow the project to go on until all the claimed grey areas in its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report were addressed.
The development threatened to be a spanner in the works of Malawi's first ever mining venture. However over the weekend the Malawi government interacted with chiefs and people around the mine to hear their take on the project as well as to highlight to them its prospective benefits. From the discussions, it was apparent that there was a popular demand for the uranium mine in the district, which might change Malawi's economy from solely being agro-based as uranium would become the country's second largest forex earner.
"I was very surprised because on the ground people have different opinion on the project than that being championed by the NGOs who are against it and claimed to speak on behalf of the people," said Minister of Mines and Natural Resources Henry Chimunthu Banda after the meeting. "The people including chiefs are happy and spoke in support of the project which they said would transform lives and the district as well."
The NGOs argue that the EIA report submitted to government by Paladin was not conclusive as it does not spell out clearly how it would protect people from radioactivity. One of the NGOs against uranium mining - Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (CCJP) in Malawi's northern city of Mzuzu - seems to have been bullied into submission and now turns to God for assistance but still insists Malawians are not being told the truth about the effects of uranium.
"We just hope God will guide us that this project does not take off," CCJP's John Chawinga told the local press. "Honourable Minister Banda is an interested party. There is no way he can go there and say people are not happy because government wants this project to take off at all costs and they are not telling the people the effects of uranium mining."
In April government awarded Paladin a 15 year license renewable for further 10 year period. The license covers an area of 55.5 sq. km. According to Paladin, commencement of construction of the Kayerekera Uranium Project marks a "highly auspicious moment in the development of Paladin towards becoming a major uranium supplier to the global markets".
"The Kayerekera Uranium Project is scheduled to commission in September 2008 and reach full production during the 2nd quarter of 2009. Annual production will be 3.3 Mlbs U3O8," reads part of the Paladin statement. "The CAPEX to build the project is US$185M for which the major portion of funding was raised through its US$250M convertible bond raising carried out in December 2006."
Had the NGOs managed to take Paladin to court, the case could have been the first of its kind in the country in recent times between the civil society and a private entity.
Just after the received its mining license from the Malawi government to start developing its Kayerekera Uranium Project, the NGOs announced they would be going to court to stop Paladin from developing the mine. The NGOs argued that people around the area were not happy with the project as it threatened their health and that they could not allow the project to go on until all the claimed grey areas in its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report were addressed.
The development threatened to be a spanner in the works of Malawi's first ever mining venture. However over the weekend the Malawi government interacted with chiefs and people around the mine to hear their take on the project as well as to highlight to them its prospective benefits. From the discussions, it was apparent that there was a popular demand for the uranium mine in the district, which might change Malawi's economy from solely being agro-based as uranium would become the country's second largest forex earner.
"I was very surprised because on the ground people have different opinion on the project than that being championed by the NGOs who are against it and claimed to speak on behalf of the people," said Minister of Mines and Natural Resources Henry Chimunthu Banda after the meeting. "The people including chiefs are happy and spoke in support of the project which they said would transform lives and the district as well."
The NGOs argue that the EIA report submitted to government by Paladin was not conclusive as it does not spell out clearly how it would protect people from radioactivity. One of the NGOs against uranium mining - Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (CCJP) in Malawi's northern city of Mzuzu - seems to have been bullied into submission and now turns to God for assistance but still insists Malawians are not being told the truth about the effects of uranium.
"We just hope God will guide us that this project does not take off," CCJP's John Chawinga told the local press. "Honourable Minister Banda is an interested party. There is no way he can go there and say people are not happy because government wants this project to take off at all costs and they are not telling the people the effects of uranium mining."
In April government awarded Paladin a 15 year license renewable for further 10 year period. The license covers an area of 55.5 sq. km. According to Paladin, commencement of construction of the Kayerekera Uranium Project marks a "highly auspicious moment in the development of Paladin towards becoming a major uranium supplier to the global markets".
"The Kayerekera Uranium Project is scheduled to commission in September 2008 and reach full production during the 2nd quarter of 2009. Annual production will be 3.3 Mlbs U3O8," reads part of the Paladin statement. "The CAPEX to build the project is US$185M for which the major portion of funding was raised through its US$250M convertible bond raising carried out in December 2006."
Had the NGOs managed to take Paladin to court, the case could have been the first of its kind in the country in recent times between the civil society and a private entity.
Friday, 27 April 2007
EPA may ''Destroy'' Malawi's Manufacturing Potential
BLANTYRE, Apr 26 (IPS) - Economic circles in eastern and southern Africa are abuzz with discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of the economic partnership agreement (EPA) which governments of these countries are negotiating with the European Union (EU).
Sixteen nations in the Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) EPA grouping are scheduled to sign the agreement by December this year, along with other countries in the rest of Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) regions.
While the Malawian government is looking forward to this step, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the country remain apprehensive. Five influential NGOs, whose voices are taken seriously on the political and economic scene in Malawi, warn that the EPA will undermine the country's economy.
These NGOs are the Malawi Economic Justice Network; the Farmers Union of Malawi; the Civil Society Agriculture Network; the Malawi Council of Churches; and Oxfam in Malawi.
They have written to the EU's president, German chancellor Angela Merkel, arguing that the EPA is a bad deal as it will not allow Malawi and similar poor countries to protect their domestic industries with tariffs and other measures.
The group of NGOs also argues that the EPA is different to the Lome preferential trade agreement which it is replacing. The new trade deal will ''force'' Malawi to open up its market to the industrialised world and end up perpetuating economic misery among its population of 12 million people, say the NGOs.
Some 65 percent of Malawians live below the poverty line of less than 1 US dollar a day.
The organisations also contend that the EPA will open up Malawi's local markets to goods produced at lower costs in developed European countries. These goods will compete against Malawian goods which have been manufactured in a less advanced country that is already struggling against global economic constrictions.
''The EPA will decrease government revenue through loss of tariffs and undermine the benefits of regional trade integration,'' the NGOs argue. They believe that Malawi has the right to pursue autonomously determined trade and economic policies for the development of its economy, just like other countries do.
The NGO community in Malawi is not alone in its protestations. A report released this year by Tearfund, a global Christian relief and development charity, warns that the EPA negotiations are unbalanced. The report says the EPAs will create a greater disparity between the ACP countries and the EU in terms of development and economic power.
In the report, entitled ''Much to lose, little to gain: Assessing EPAs from the perspective of Malawi'', Tearfund warns that the EPA threatens to reinforce Malawi's position as an exporter of low-value, unprocessed commodities.
This will undermine the Malawian government's development strategy to add value to agricultural goods and to develop a manufacturing sector. It will also undermine regional integration among Malawi and its neighbours and will lead to a significant loss of fiscal revenue. There will also be other major adjustment costs, says Tearfund.
''EPA negotiations are cloaked in the language of partnership and development, but in the grossly unbalanced negotiating dynamic between the EU and the ACP, the European Commission is using EPAs to force its own agenda on Africa.
''Malawi has little to gain and potentially a huge amount to lose from entering into an EPA with the EU,'' Tearfund concludes.
Tearfund reminds the Malawian government that Malawi, as a least developed country, is in theory able to opt out of an EPA. It recommends that Malawi does that and rather sticks to the duty-free, quota-free access it has under the EU's Everything But Arms preferential trade initiative.
The concerns from the civil society groups seem to have some influence over the EPA process. The government of Malawi hosted intensive technical discussions this week (on April 24) for all the countries involved in the trade deal.
To allay fears, minister of trade Ken Lipenga has previously indicated that the government will conduct all the necessary consultations before signing the agreement. ''We will not just sign for the sake of it. We know that trade liberalisation has some negative effects and we will consider these when negotiating,'' Lipenga said.
In direct reference to the NGOs' concerns, Malawi's principal secretary for trade and private sector development Newby Kumwembe told IPS that the country's private sector incurs heavy production costs in some areas which render them uncompetitive on the global economy.
Kumwembe also argues that a lot of people have misunderstood trade agreements. Nowadays the big markets of Europe and the US have toughened up their entry requirements. Poor countries like Malawi need agreements such as the EPAs to be able to participate in the global economy. (END/2007)
Sixteen nations in the Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) EPA grouping are scheduled to sign the agreement by December this year, along with other countries in the rest of Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) regions.
While the Malawian government is looking forward to this step, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the country remain apprehensive. Five influential NGOs, whose voices are taken seriously on the political and economic scene in Malawi, warn that the EPA will undermine the country's economy.
These NGOs are the Malawi Economic Justice Network; the Farmers Union of Malawi; the Civil Society Agriculture Network; the Malawi Council of Churches; and Oxfam in Malawi.
They have written to the EU's president, German chancellor Angela Merkel, arguing that the EPA is a bad deal as it will not allow Malawi and similar poor countries to protect their domestic industries with tariffs and other measures.
The group of NGOs also argues that the EPA is different to the Lome preferential trade agreement which it is replacing. The new trade deal will ''force'' Malawi to open up its market to the industrialised world and end up perpetuating economic misery among its population of 12 million people, say the NGOs.
Some 65 percent of Malawians live below the poverty line of less than 1 US dollar a day.
The organisations also contend that the EPA will open up Malawi's local markets to goods produced at lower costs in developed European countries. These goods will compete against Malawian goods which have been manufactured in a less advanced country that is already struggling against global economic constrictions.
''The EPA will decrease government revenue through loss of tariffs and undermine the benefits of regional trade integration,'' the NGOs argue. They believe that Malawi has the right to pursue autonomously determined trade and economic policies for the development of its economy, just like other countries do.
The NGO community in Malawi is not alone in its protestations. A report released this year by Tearfund, a global Christian relief and development charity, warns that the EPA negotiations are unbalanced. The report says the EPAs will create a greater disparity between the ACP countries and the EU in terms of development and economic power.
In the report, entitled ''Much to lose, little to gain: Assessing EPAs from the perspective of Malawi'', Tearfund warns that the EPA threatens to reinforce Malawi's position as an exporter of low-value, unprocessed commodities.
This will undermine the Malawian government's development strategy to add value to agricultural goods and to develop a manufacturing sector. It will also undermine regional integration among Malawi and its neighbours and will lead to a significant loss of fiscal revenue. There will also be other major adjustment costs, says Tearfund.
''EPA negotiations are cloaked in the language of partnership and development, but in the grossly unbalanced negotiating dynamic between the EU and the ACP, the European Commission is using EPAs to force its own agenda on Africa.
''Malawi has little to gain and potentially a huge amount to lose from entering into an EPA with the EU,'' Tearfund concludes.
Tearfund reminds the Malawian government that Malawi, as a least developed country, is in theory able to opt out of an EPA. It recommends that Malawi does that and rather sticks to the duty-free, quota-free access it has under the EU's Everything But Arms preferential trade initiative.
The concerns from the civil society groups seem to have some influence over the EPA process. The government of Malawi hosted intensive technical discussions this week (on April 24) for all the countries involved in the trade deal.
To allay fears, minister of trade Ken Lipenga has previously indicated that the government will conduct all the necessary consultations before signing the agreement. ''We will not just sign for the sake of it. We know that trade liberalisation has some negative effects and we will consider these when negotiating,'' Lipenga said.
In direct reference to the NGOs' concerns, Malawi's principal secretary for trade and private sector development Newby Kumwembe told IPS that the country's private sector incurs heavy production costs in some areas which render them uncompetitive on the global economy.
Kumwembe also argues that a lot of people have misunderstood trade agreements. Nowadays the big markets of Europe and the US have toughened up their entry requirements. Poor countries like Malawi need agreements such as the EPAs to be able to participate in the global economy. (END/2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
