Africa/Global: Scaling Up Solar
| March 21, 2017 | 8:12 pm | Africa, environmental crisis | Comments closed

Africa/Global: Scaling Up Solar

AfricaFocus Bulletin
March 21, 2017 (170321)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

Even in the United States, where action on climate change is under
aggressive assault by climate deniers in the Trump
administration and Congress, renewable energy is projected to
continue to advance rapidly, on the basis of its still rapidly
growing cost advantages over fossil fuels. According to a report
just released by GTM research, the US total solar market, already
supplying the largest share of new power production, is poised to
triple over the next five years. The prospect for renewable energy
to power increased access to electricity in Africa is also dramatic,
according to a new report from the Africa Progress Panel.

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/clim1703.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/clim1703.php

In both developed countries and in regions where hundreds of
millions lack any access at all to electricity, the technical
capacity for rapid massive expansion of renewable energy supplies
has already been demonstrated. Scaling up, however, requires
financial innovation as well, and that still depends in large part
on public policy as well as private sector financing. Fortunately,
in Africa as well as at the global level, recognition of the
potential benefits is growing almost as fast as technical
innovation.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains opening remarks by Kofi Annan on
the launch of a new report by the Africa Progress Panel: “Lights,
Power, Action: Electrifying Africa.” The full report stresses the
central role of off-grid and mini-grid systems in providing access
to electricity for the estimated 620 million Africans currently
without such access. The report, too long and complexly formatted to
be excerpted here, is available in pdf format (http://tinyurl.com/jr8g7q8).

While acknowledging the role of extending the grid and some
continued reliance on large-scale power-production projects, the
report’s emphasis is the demonstrable untapped potential for scaling
up both small-scale household systems and community-level mini-
grids, both of which have been demonstrated in practice as cost-
effective.

Also included is the executive summary of a World Resources
Institute study published in December 2016, focusing particularly on
the remarkable success and even-greater potential of “pay-as-you-go”
solar systems, using the case studies of Kenya and Tanzania. The
principal obstacle to scaling up, the study concludes, is not
technical but rather financial. New forms of financing and seed
funds have enormous potential for expansion.

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on climate change and energy,
visit http://www.africafocus.org/intro-env.php

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

Opening remarks by Kofi Annan, Chair of the Africa Progress Panel,
at the launch of “Lights, Power, Action: Electrifying Africa” in
Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire on 13 March 2017.

Africa Progress Panel

http://tinyurl.com/k7t9cdl

Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am pleased to be with you in Abidjan this morning.

Achieving universal access to modern energy is critical to Africa’s
transformation.

The Africa Progress Panel, which I chair, welcomes the opportunity
to collaborate with the African Development Bank and other key
stakeholders in pushing for the changes we need to see.

It was in that spirit that I gladly accepted President Adesina’s
invitation last year to serve as a lead champion of the New Deal on
Energy in Africa. His leadership in positioning the AfDB at the
forefront of the New Deal process is precisely what is needed to
change the game for Africa.

The Africa Progress Panel first drew attention to the need for
bolder action to electrify Africa faster in our 2015 Report: “Power,
People, Planet: Seizing Africa’s Energy and Climate opportunities”.
Two years later, this need remains as urgent as ever.

Nearly two-thirds of Africans – 620 million people – still do not
have access to “affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern
electricity”, the energy goal that is central to Agenda 2030.

Africa’s energy deficit continues to stifle economic growth, job
creation, agricultural transformation, and improvements in health
and education. Meeting Sustainable Development Goal 7, the energy
goal, is a pre-condition for achieving many of the other goals.

The good news is that we are no longer in the dark, so to speak,
about how to tackle this challenge.

In several countries, including Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco and South
Africa, renewable energy makes up an increasingly important share of
national power generation.

There are also a number of promising initiatives aimed at providing
electricity across borders, mostly drawing on renewable resources
such as solar, wind and hydro power.

We now need to see more of them deployed at far greater scale to
bring power and light to Africans who still lack modern energy.

That is the core message of the APP’s new report, Lights, Power,
Action: Electrifying Africa, which is launched today.

Traditional approaches to extending the grid are no longer viable as
the main option for African countries. They take too long and do not
meet the needs of our growing economies and societies. Instead,
governments and their partners need to re-imagine their energy
future.

We are not saying countries should immediately stop using fossil
fuels and switch to renewable sources of energy. As our report
clearly states, the cost of transitioning to renewables may be
prohibitively high in the short term – especially for countries that
use their sizeable endowments of coal and other fossil fuels to
generate energy.

What we are advocating is that African governments harness every
available energy option, so that no one is left behind. Each country
needs to decide on the most cost-effective, technologically
efficient energy mix that works best for its own needs.

To meeting rapidly growing demand, that energy mix will gradually
progress towards greater use of off-grid household systems and mini-
grids. It should also lead to the emergence of more flexible, hybrid
national energy systems that link grids to off-grid generation.

Mobile phone technology has already helped Africa to leapfrog over
conventional technology and to improve financial and social
inclusion. In the same way, we foresee that innovation will bring
millions of Africans into the energy loop, leading to better health,
better education, better access to markets, and better jobs.

Off-grid electricity generation used to be regarded in Africa as a
stop-gap measure – a way to power a few lights during the long wait
for a grid connection. In recent years, the number of households
connected to off-grid power has soared, improving millions of lives
while relieving a chronic shortage of power.

Some of these home systems may in future connect to grids through
buy-back schemes, enabling households to earn extra cash from the
power they generate. Such arrangements are already working in
Australia, some parts of Europe and the United States. Overall,
however, policy and regulatory environments in Africa need to
improve considerably to make such linkages reality.

As we document in our new report, off-grid solar products can act as
rungs on an “energy ladder”, providing a range of energy services to
households and enterprises with different energy needs and incomes.

Mini-grids can also offer sustainable permanent alternatives to
connecting to the grid, especially as reliable and affordable
products come on-stream that are attractive to small and medium-
sized enterprises as well as communities operating far from the
national grid.

The agenda is clear and the challenges are well known.

As well as leading the way in promoting wider use of off-grid and
mini-grid technology, African governments must continue to work hard
to transform national energy grids that are often unreliable and
financially fragile.

Many energy utilities are mismanaged and inefficient. A lack of
accountability and transparency in their governance also nurtures
corruption.

Electricity theft at staggering scale is often the result of this
malpractice; rolling black-outs are the result of mismanagement. All
continue to feed a deep sense of frustration among citizens.

They also highlight why power provision has become a highly
political issue in several countries.

Poor energy governance reflects the wider governance deficit that
threatens to derail development efforts in a number of countries.

So what do African governments and their partners need to do to make
this vision of an empowered Africa a reality?

Africa’s leadership, in both public and private sectors, needs to
step up and champion the “energy for all” agenda.

Governments need to intensify their efforts to put in place
regulatory environments that give the energy sector incentives to
deliver on its transformative potential.

The private sector, African and non-African, should be encouraged to
enter energy generation, transmission and distribution markets,
deepen linkages throughout the value chain, and build the investment
partnerships that can drive growth and create jobs.

While the onus is on African leadership and ownership of this
agenda, Africa’s energy future is also an issue of global relevance.
Although Africa only accounts for a tiny fraction of global
emissions, it wholeheartedly embraced the Paris climate agreement’s
overarching ambition – limiting global warming through unshakeable
and progressive commitment to a low-carbon planet.

The Paris commitment has led the industrialized countries to pledge
billions of dollars to supporting the low carbon transition, in
Africa and elsewhere. However, and as we have repeatedly highlighted
in our reports and our public advocacy, very little of that money is
moving yet.

Ladies and gentlemen,

As our new report shows, where there is good leadership, there are
excellent prospects for energy transition, and leaders in a number
of countries are demonstrating the levels and intensity of political
will needed to address these serious and persistent problems.

We urge governments to put in place the integrated plans and
policies that can scale up Africa’s energy transition. The success
of countries such as Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Morocco, Rwanda and
South Africa shows what can be achieved.

Achievements at the national level are essential but only part of
the solution. To fully address the energy challenges, governments
must collaborate more closely on a continental scale. Improved
cross-border power trade is crucial to realising Africa’s energy
potential. Yet less than 8 per cent of power is currently traded
across borders in Sub-Saharan Africa.

There is a glaring need to adopt a more continental approach to
power infrastructure development and management in order to
accelerate regional power integration.

This must involve a greater pooling of electricity resources and
harmonisation of national grids. Massive increases in investment in
regional transmission infrastructure and the development of new
power trading arrangements are also essential.

The ultimate goal should be to interlink Africa’s numerous and
fragmented power initiatives to create a single pan-African power
grid.

We know what is needed to reduce and ultimately eliminate Africa’s
energy deficit. Now we must focus on implementation.

The time for excuses is over.

It’s time for action.

**********************************************************

Stimulating Pay-As-You-Go Energy Access in Kenya And Tanzania: The
Role of Development Finance

World Resources Institute

Issue Brief

December 2016

Sanjoy Sanyal, Jeffrey Prins, Feli Visco, and Ariel Pinchot

http://tinyurl.com/mhsps2l

Executive Summary

Nearly 620 million people in sub-Saharan Africa lack electricity
access. Improving access to affordable and reliable energy is
critical to reducing poverty and improving quality of life (IEA
2011). To improve energy access, it is important to develop
financing and payment schemes that fit consumer energy budgets.
“Pay-as-you-go” (PAYG) business models harness technology to provide
a “one-stop-shop” solution for consumer finance and energy products.
The PAYG model originated in Kenya, and addresses the key challenges
of extending end-user finance and collecting payments from remote
customers who often have erratic and limited cash flow. PAYG
companies, at this point, typically provide basic lighting and
mobile phone charging services. The technology can play an important
role in expanding access to electricity services to remote and low-
income populations.

This issue brief draws on findings from desk research, workshops,
and inter views with PAYG companies, donors, and development finance
institutions (DFIs) active in energy access in East Africa to assess
how PAYG companies have stepped up to serve the approximately 35
million people in Kenya and 36 million people in Tanzania who lack
access to electricity, as well as additional millions who are
underserved. Our paper also draws on interviews with stakeholders
involved in Bangladesh’s IDCOL program to provide insight into how
DFIs and donors supported the Bangladesh program, in order to elicit
lessons relevant to the Kenyan and Tanzanian contexts. We chose
Bangladesh’s IDCOL program as a reference point for two reasons: the
energy enterprises in Bangladesh perform the same one-stop-shop role
as the PAYG companies, and IDCOL provides an example of where DFIs
have played a significant role in channeling finance (US$750
million) to achieve substantial energy access goals (three million
solar home systems).

Given the nascent stage of most energy access markets, much of the
existing PAYG literature focuses on analyzing the innovative
variations of business models as well as factors that could improve
the enabling environment. However, market players in both Kenya and
Tanzania have evolved beyond an early-stage pilot phase. These
pioneering companies have successfully raised grant, equity, and–
more recently– debt finance to pilot, develop, and scale their
businesses. According to our estimates, they have reached more than
half a million households through rapid sales growth. The market
overall is also evolving, as suggested by the participation of 52
international private sector investors–ranging from foundations  to
large companies–and five debt deals struck in 2015, the largest of
which was a US$45 million raise by one company. Market leaders such
as M-KOPA, Mobisol, and Off-Grid Electric have begun expanding into
regional markets.

While encouraging progress has been made, the addressable markets in
Kenya and Tanzania are much larger than those reached by existing
companies so far, and the products they offer need to be larger in
capacity if they are to provide more than basic lighting and mobile
charging. PAYG companies will require about one billion dollars
across these two countries to scale for broader impact. Therefore,
this issue brief focuses on how this broader impact can be created.
We look at how successful PAYG businesses operating in Kenya and
Tanzania have raised finance and the constraints faced by the
industry, and we propose recommendations for how donors and DFIs can
continue to support the development of these markets.

Currently, the various types of capital (debt, impact equity
capital, grant) that PAYG companies need are available almost
exclusively from international investors. Local financial
institutions in Kenya and Tanzania have been hesitant to provide
financing to PAYG customers: they perceive PAYG companies as early-
stage, risky businesses and are unfamiliar with the technology as
well as the creditworthiness of rural consumers. The absence of
local capital sources to some extent explains the fact that almost
all the successful PAYG companies are foreign owned and foreign
managed. Local companies often lack the initial resources, as well
as the networks and skills, to raise both early-stage capital and
develop complex financial structures to raise debt capital from
international markets. Local companies are also hesitant to take on
foreign currency risk.

Technological barriers to the PAYG business are falling, and the
sector is likely to see the entry of a larger number of companies.
This is not yet happening, because access to finance remains a key
entry barrier, particularly for locally owned and managed companies.
Finance is most critically needed to build out marketing, sales, and
service infrastructure and to provide customers with financing. The
relative lack of access to finance results in fewer companies and
less competition in the PAYG sector.

DFIs and donors have a role to play in supporting local financial
institutions to extend local currency debt. In Bangladesh,
international DFIs and donors channeled funds for energy access
through IDCOL, a government-owned financial intermediary. IDCOL also
played a strong role in market development. The market support roles
played by IDCOL can be adapted to the Kenyan and Tanzanian contexts.
The debt- financing role in Kenya and Tanzania can be played by
commercial banks from the very beginning. Involving commercial banks
would have the advantage of ensuring that funds are available to the
sector even after donors withdraw. …

Drawing on the success of the IDCOL program and the unique needs of
PAYG companies, we offer recommendations targeted primarily to DFIs
and donors regarding how they can support local financial
institutions in their efforts to expand energy access in Kenya and
Tanzania.

* International DFIs and donors can leverage their long relation-
ships with local financial institutions in Kenya and Tanzania to
stimulate local finance for the PAYG sector. DFIs and donors can
provide guarantee schemes and lines of credit to local banks. This
support would help banks develop a deeper understanding and
familiarity with PAYG business models, and make finance more
accessible to local companies. International DFIs and donors can
“crowd in” private sector investment in PAYG by channeling their
investments through fund of funds run by professional impact
investors and incentivize PAYG companies to invest in targeted
marketing and distribution infrastructure through results-based
financing. DFIs and donors can also provide technical assistance to
public organizations to support capacity building in monitoring and
verification.

* Local commercial banks can begin to explore the PAYG sec- tor, and
understand company cash flow patterns, through the provision of
short-term trade finance. They can also explore mechanisms such as a
debt ser vice coverage account to partially cover for default risks.

* National governments can provide support through a suite of policy
and regulatory measures to unlock domestic commercial financing for
distributed renewable energy including, for example, the development
of mechanisms to coordinate roles of institutions in this space and
encourage private sector activity by setting clear national
priorities and releasing grid extension plans to the public.

* Private sector investors can help companies to access different
types of capital and partnerships in response to evolving business
needs. This may include support for raising capital from local
commercial banks. Foundations and family offices can provide loss
guarantees to local banks.

* Private sector PAYG businesses can adopt standardized accounting
standards to assist in transactions with local banks.

The scope of this issue brief is confined to analysis of financing
in support of PAYG solar home system companies. While we recognize
that PAYG products providing lower-level energy services are not
comprehensive solutions to the energy access challenge, we believe
that our recommendations will also support the broader energy access
sector, including mini- and micro-grids.

Introduction

The Imperatives of the Electricity Access Challenge

Nearly 1.3 billion people, or 18 per cent of the world’s population,
still lack access to grid electricity (IEA 2014a). An additional one
billion are “under electrified,” a status charac terized by unstable
grid connection with regular power outages (A.T. Kearney and GOGLA
2014; IEA 2013). Sub-Saharan Africa bears a disproportionate share
of this burden. Over 620 million people, nearly two-thirds of the
region’s population, are without electricity access (IEA 2014b).
Increasing access to afford- able and reliable energy services is
fundamental to reducing poverty and improving other human
development indicators (IEA 2011).

Electricity access has long been measured by the physical connection
of a household to grid electricity or the presence of a nearby
electric pole. This binary definition of electricity access has
increasingly come into question in recent years, because it fails to
capture the quality of electricity services received by end users.
In response, the World Bank’s Energy Sector Management Assistance
Program (ESMAP) has developed a multi-tier framework for defining
and measuring levels of energy access. Under this approach, access
to electricity refers to the ability to obtain electricity that is
characterized by the following attributes: “adequate, available when
needed, reliable, of good quality, affordable, legal, convenient,
healthy and safe for all required applications across households,
productive enterprises and community institutions” (Angelou and
Bhatia 2015).

The framework measures electricity access across five tiers; each
tier reflects a specific level of performance of an electricity
supply system defined by the attributes. Tier 1 and Tier 2 are the
low-power capacity levels (minimum 3W and 50W, respectively). At
Tier 1 level, electricity access is defined as providing lighting
and mobile charging for a minimum of four hours per day. At Tier 2
level, access additionally includes the ability to power a fan
and/or television for four hours (see Annex II).

The PAYG businesses that we study in this issue brief provide
electricity access mainly at the Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels through
standalone solar home systems (SHSs). The standalone solar system
comes with a battery, a charge controller, a solar panel and LED
(light emitting diode) bulbs, and a mobile charger. Larger systems
(typically 50W and above) can potentially connect direct current
(DC) appliances such as a television. Even at lower tiers of
electricity access, there are numerous household-level benefits.
These benefits stem from the fact that the SHSs replace alternate
sources, which are often very expensive.

Previous WRI research conducted in collaboration with the
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis indicates that
household kerosene use is significantly lower for house- holds with
SHSs, even when compared with grid customers. While 80 percent of
households with access to grid electricity continue to use kerosene,
only about 25 percent of homes with SHSs use kerosene. The
reliability of SHS electricity supply may explain this finding (Rao,
Agarwal, and Wood 2016). Other research indicates benefits such as
prevention of GHG emissions (both carbon dioxide and black soot)
(Kaufman et al. 2000; Wang et al. 2011), increased household
disposable income because of reduced spending on kerosene and
candles (Mills 2005; Tracy and Jacobson 2012), health benefits such
as reduced accidents and indoor pollution (Mills 2014; Samad et al.
2013) and social benefits such as increased evening study hours for
children (A.T. Kearney and GOGLA 2014; Khan and Azad 2014; Samad et
al. 2013).

The Importance of “Pay-as- You-Go” (PAYG)

Previous WRI research has underscored the importance of designing
financing and payment schemes that fit consumer energy budgets. The
research notes that energy enterprises have to design innovative
financing and payment schemes to encourage consumers to purchase
their products, because customers are accustomed to buying energy in
small increments (Ballesteros et al. 2013). …

PAYG is a technology-driven method that allows consumers to pay the
lease amount for a given energy system or pay a fee for the service
of using the system. It uses information technology to enable remote
activation with payment receipt (Alstone et al. 2015). PAYG includes
a range of business models, which differ as to how payments are
accepted and to whom the ownership of the system ultimately
devolves. From the consumer’s point of view, the PAYG model offers a
one-stop shop, where the product and the financing are available
from the same source. The willingness of companies to finance
products gives customers confidence in the new technology. Indeed,
energy companies have tried to partner with microfinance
institutions (MFIs) but often with limited success. The energy
service companies have typically been smaller than their counterpart
MFIs, and partnerships have been hard to manage given the differing
expectations of the two parties. In Kenya, for example, consumers
could not access technical maintenance services from the energy
companies, which were limited in their geographic outreach. The poor
after-sales service left many customers dissatisfied with their
products, which in turn led to a refusal to repay loans (Rolffs,
Byrne, and Ockwell 2014).

The benefits of the PAYG model in providing a one-stop-shop solution
to customers are several. As we have already noted, the offer of
finance by the energy company instills trust in consumers regarding
the quality of the product. Operational efficiency is improved
because there is no need for coordination between finance providers
and technology providers. With PAYG, the companies are able to
provide longer-term loans than those usually offered by MFIs. PAYG
models also allow the provision of relatively large credit amounts
(to cover the cost of the renewable energy system) to consumers
whose credit worthiness may be unknown. The credit risk is partially
mitigated by the incentive system that links payments to service
provision. PAYG approaches, which use mobile communication
technologies, also reduce the costs associated with collecting
repayments (Rolffs, Byrne, and Ockwell 2014). Finally, PAYG enables
significant data collection. This gives enterprises the advantage of
understanding product performance and consumer behavior (Alstone et
al. 2015).

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

V. I. Lenin with kitten
| March 15, 2017 | 9:17 pm | V.I. Lenin | Comments closed
Lenin with kitten

Lenin with kitten

Africa/Global: Invisible Crises, Failing Safety Nets
| March 14, 2017 | 7:41 pm | Africa | Comments closed

AfricaFocus Bulletin
March 14, 2017 (170314)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“Famine ‘largest humanitarian crisis in history of UN’: UN
humanitarian chief says 20 million people in Yemen, South Sudan,
Somalia and Nigeria face starvation and famine,” says the headline
in Al Jazeera, echoed in the BBC and other international media, but
easily ignored without the high-intensity spotlight that
occasionally targets disasters with greater geostrategic centrality.
In the United States, while headlines rightly focus on the 24
million who would lose health care under the Republican Trumpcare
plan, no one has yet calculated the toll from a proposed 50% cut in
the U.S. budget for support of the UN.

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/hum1703.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/hum1703.php

No one would claim that the international humanitarian assistance
program is without major flaws, and UN officials quickly note
that it cannot solve the fundamental issues leading to disaster, in
particular military conflicts that in turn rest on political and
diplomatic failures. This is particularly notable in the four
countries mentioned in this most recent appeal, most dramatically in
Yemen where U.S.-backed Saudi intervention has not only directly
imposed massive civilian casualties but also blocked humanitarian
assistance.

The situation in the three remaining countries named, all in Africa,
varies, and the failures are both national and international.
Providing assistance will not resolve the fundamental issues. But
there can be little doubt that the weakening of the international
safety net will both cost lives and increase the difficulty of
addressing the underlying issues.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains, just below, links to several
recent articles, as well as the text of(1) the March 10 report to
the Security Council by UN Under Secretary-General Stephen O’Brien,
and (2) the press release from the Oslo conference in February on
the humanitarian crisis in north-eastern Nigeria and the Lake Chad
region.

Additional links to recent related articles of interest:

From Baidoa in Somalia, Kevin Sieff of the Washington Post reports
on visit by UN Secretary-General António Gutteres to Somalia, March
11, 2017.
http://tinyurl.com/gpvmmp2

“Famine ‘largest humanitarian crisis in history of UN’: UN
humanitarian chief says 20 million people in Yemen, South Sudan,
Somalia and Nigeria face starvation and famine,” Al Jazeera, March
11, 2017. http://tinyurl.com/jpdbowj
Includes link to 25-minute video special report

“UN: World facing greatest humanitarian crisis since 1945,” BBC,
March 11, 2017
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39238808
Includes overview map and short video report on each country
mentioned

“‘Where is the help?’: black tea and dark despair as Somalia edges
closer to famine,” Guardian, March 10, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/gn3aksb

Colum Lynch, “White House Seeks to Cut Billions in Funding for
United Nations,” Foreign Policy, March 13, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/hg3n27b
“The budget proposal reinforces a shift by the Trump administration
from U.S. support for diplomacy and foreign assistance to increased
financial support for the U.S. military.”

Note that Yemen, the only non-African country on the UN’s list of
four most-affected countries, is, with Somalia, is on the list of
two countries the Trump administration is using as “test cases” for
loosening Obama administration rules on counterterrorism actions
outside designated combat zones (http://tinyurl.com/znwr2ct). “The
move to open the throttle on using military force — and accept a
greater risk of civilian casualties — in troubled parts of the
Muslim world comes as the Trump administration is also trying to
significantly increase military spending and cut foreign aid and
State Department budgets.”

On Thursday, March 9, 53 House Democrats wrote to Secretary of State
Tillerson, urging him to “use all U.S. diplomatic tools to help open
the Yemeni port of Hodeida to international aid humanitarian aid
organizations to allow them to import food, fuel, and medicine into
northern Yemen and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Yemeni
children who face starvation.”
For more details and to sign a petition to support this, visit
http://tinyurl.com/z46z5az

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency
Relief Coordinator, Stephen O’Brien

Statement to the Security Council on Missions to Yemen, South Sudan,
Somalia and Kenya and an Update on the Oslo Conference on Nigeria
and the Lake Chad Region

10 March 2017

http://tinyurl.com/j6ojjz6

Mr. President, Council members,

Thank you for inviting me to brief on my visits to countries facing
famine or at risk of famine: Yemen, South Sudan and Somalia. I will
also briefly mention the outcomes of the Oslo Conference on the Lake
Chad Basin.

I need to mention that I also visited Northern Kenya where
pastoralists are worst affected by the terrible drought. Over 2.7
million Kenyans are now food insecure, a number likely to reach 4
million by April. In collaboration with the Government, the UN will
soon launch an appeal of $200 million to provide timely life-saving
assistance and protection. For what follows however, I will focus on
my other visits over the past 16 days.

Yemen

I turn first to Yemen. It’s already the largest humanitarian crisis
in the world and the Yemeni people now face the spectre of famine.
Today, two-thirds of the population – 18.8 million people – need
assistance and more than 7 million are hungry and do not know where
there next meal will come from. That is 3 million people more than
in January. As fighting continues and escalates, displacement
increases. With health facilities destroyed and damaged, diseases
are sweeping through the country.

I spoke with people in Aden, Ibb, Sana’a and from Taizz. They told
me horrific stories of displacement, escaping unspeakable violence
and destruction from Mokha and Taizz city in Taizz governorate. I
saw first-hand the effects of losing home and livelihood:
malnourishment, hunger and squalid living conditions in destroyed
schools, unfinished apartments and wet, concrete basements. In the
past two months alone, more than 48,000 people fled fighting, mines
and IEDs from Mokha town and the surrounding fields alone. I met
countless children, malnourished and sick. My small team met a girl
displaced to Ibb, still having shrapnel wounds in her legs while her
brother was deeply traumatized. I was introduced to a 13-year-old
girl who fled from Taizz city, left in charge of her seven siblings.
I spoke with families who have become displaced to Aden as their
homes were destroyed by airstrikes living in a destroyed school. All
of them told me three things: they are hungry and sick – and they
need peace so that they can return home.

I travelled to Aden on the first humanitarian UN flight, where I met
the President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Republic
of Yemen. I also met with the senior leadership of the Houthi and
General People’s Congress authorities in Sana’a. I discussed the
humanitarian situation, the need to prevent a famine and to better
respect international humanitarian law and protect civilians. I
demanded full, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access. All
counterparts promised to facilitate sustained access and respect
international humanitarian law. Yet all parties to the conflict are
arbitrarily denying sustained humanitarian access and politicize
aid. Already, the humanitarian suffering that we see in Yemen today
is caused by the parties and proxies and if they don’t change their
behaviour now, they must be held accountable for the inevitable
famine, unnecessary deaths and associated amplification in suffering
that will follow.

Despite the almost impossible and terrifying conditions, the UN and
humanitarian partners are not deterred and are stepping up to meet
the humanitarian needs across the country. In February alone, 4.9
million people received food assistance. We continue to negotiate
access and make modest gains. For instance, despite assurances from
all parties of safe passage to Taizz city, I was denied access and
retreated to a short safe distance when I and my team came under
gunfire. Yet, we managed to use this experience to clear the path
for reaching people inside Taizz city with a first humanitarian
truck delivery of eight tons of essential medicine on the Ibb to
Taizz city road since August 2016. We will not leave a stone
unturned to find alternative routes. We must prevail as so many
lives depend on us, the full range of the humanitarian family.

For 2017, the humanitarian community requires US$ 2.1 billion to
reach 12 million people with life-saving assistance and protection
in Yemen. Only 6 per cent of that funding has been received thus
far. An international ministerial-level pledging event is scheduled
for 25 April, but the situation is so dire that I ask donors to give
urgently now. All contributions and pledges since 1 January will be
counted at the event.

I continue to reiterate the same message to all: it is only a
political solution that will ultimately end human suffering and
bring stability to the region. And at this stage, only a combined
response with the private sector can stem a famine: commercial
imports must be allowed to resume through all entry points in Yemen,
including and especially Hudaydah port, which must be kept open and
expanded. With access and funding, humanitarians will do more, but
we are not the long-term solution to this growing crisis.

I am pleased as I said to confirm that a ministerial-level pledging
event for the humanitarian response in Yemen for 2017 will take
place in Geneva on 25 April. The Secretary-General will chair the
event, co-hosted by the Foreign Ministers of Sweden and Switzerland,
to advocate for more resources and access. For 2017, as mentioned,
the Yemen humanitarian response plan asks for US $2.1 billion to
assist 12 million people in need across all 22 governorates.

South Sudan

Turning to South Sudan which I visited on 4 and 5 March. The
situation is worse than it has ever been. The famine in South Sudan
is man-made. Parties to the conflict are parties to the famine – as
are those not intervening to make the violence stop.

More than 7.5 million people need assistance, up by 1.4 million from
last year. About 3.4 million people are displaced, of which almost
200,000 have fled South Sudan since January alone. A localized
famine was declared for Leer and Mayendit [counties] on 20 February,
an area where violence and insecurity have compromised humanitarian
access for years. More than one million children are estimated to be
acutely malnourished across the country; including 270,000 children
who face the imminent risk of death should they not be reached in
time with assistance. Meanwhile, the cholera outbreak that began in
June 2016 has spread to more locations.

I travelled to Ganyiel in Unity state where people have fled from
the horrors of famine and conflict. I saw the impact humanitarians
can have to alleviate suffering. I met an elderly woman with her
malnourished grandson receiving treatment. I listened to women who
fled fighting with their children through waist-high swamps to
receive food and medicine. Some of these women have experienced the
most appalling acts of sexual violence – which continues to be used
as a weapon of war. Their harrowing stories are only a few among
thousands who have suffered a similar fate across the country.

Humanitarians are delivering. Last year, partners reached more than
5.1 million people with assistance. However, active hostilities,
access denials and bureaucratic impediments continue to curtail
their efforts to reach people who desperately need help. Aid workers
have been killed; humanitarian compounds and supplies have been
attacked, looted, and occupied by armed actors. Recently,
humanitarians had to leave one of the famine-affected counties
because of fighting. Assurances by senior Government officials of
unconditional access and no bureaucratic impediments now need to be
turned into action on the ground.

Somalia In Somalia, more than half the population – 6.2 million
people – need humanitarian and protection assistance, including 2.9
million who are at risk of famine and require immediate assistance
to save or sustain their lives, close to 1 million children under
the age of 5 will be acutely malnourished this year. In the last two
months alone, nearly 160,000 people have been displaced due to
severe drought conditions, adding to the already 1.1 million people
who live in appalling conditions around the country.

What I saw and heard during my visit to Somalia was distressing –
women and children walk for weeks in search of food and water. They
have lost their livestock, water sources have dried up and they have
nothing left to survive on. With everything lost, women, boys, girls
and men now move to urban centres.

With the Secretary-General – his first field mission since he took
office – we visited Baidoa. We met with displaced people going
through ordeals none of us can imagine. We visited the regional
hospital where children and adults are desperately fighting to
survive diarrhoea, cholera and malnutrition. Again, as if proof was
needed, it was clear that between malnutrition and death there is
disease.

Large parts of southern and central Somalia remain under the control
or influence of Al-Shabaab and the security situation is volatile.
Last year, some 165 violent incidents – an 18 per cent increase
compared to 2015 – directly impacted humanitarian work and resulted
in 14 deaths of aid workers. Al-Shabaab, Government Forces and other
militia also continue to block major supply routes to towns in 29 of
the 42 districts in southern and central Somalia. This has
restricted access to markets, basic commodities and services, and is
severely disrupting livelihoods. Blockades and double taxation bar
farmers from transporting their grains. It is critical that AMISOM
and Somali forces secure vital road access to enable both lifesaving
aid and longer term recovery. A lot of hope is placed in the new
Government.

The current indicators mirror the tragic picture of 2011, when
Somalia last suffered a famine. It is important to add that when the
famine was called at that time 260,000 had already died, this will
be important in what I am about to tell you. However, humanitarian
partners now have a larger footprint, mature cash programming,
better data through assessments, better controls on resources and
vetting of partners, as well as stronger partnership with government
authorities. The Government recently declared the drought a national
disaster and is taking steps to work with humanitarian partners to
ensure a coordinated response. To be clear, we can avert a famine,
we have a committed clear new President, a humanitarian and
resilience track record, a detailed plan, we’re ready despite
incredible risk and danger, we have local and international
leadership, we have a lot of access, now we need the international
community, at the scale of you the donor agencies and nations, to
invest in Somalia, its life-saving – but we need those huge funds
now.

For all three crises and North-Eastern Nigeria, an immediate
injection of funds plus safe and unimpeded access are required to
enable partners to avert a catastrophe; otherwise, many people will
predictably die from hunger, livelihoods will be lost, and political
gains that have been hard- won over the last few years will be
reversed. To be precise we need $4.4 billion by July, and that’s a
detailed cost, not a negotiating number.

Oslo Conference Before I visited all these countries, I was in Oslo,
where the governments of Norway, Germany and Nigeria, in partnership
with the United Nations, organized a humanitarian conference on
Nigeria and the Lake Chad region. 10.7 million people need
humanitarian assistance and protection, including 7.1 million people
who are severely food insecure. Humanitarian partners scaled up
their response to reach the most vulnerable groups threatened by
violence, food insecurity and famine, particularly in North-Eastern
Nigeria.

Fourteen donors pledged a total of US$672 million, of which $458
million is for humanitarian action in 2017. This is very good news,
and I commend those who made such generous pledges. More is needed
however to receive the $1.5 billion required to provide the
assistance needed across the Lake Chad region.

We stand at a critical point in history. Already at the beginning
of the year we are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the
creation of the United Nations. Now, more than 20 million people
across four countries face starvation and famine. Without
collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply
starve to death. Many more will suffer and die from disease.
Children stunted and out of school. Livelihoods, futures and hope
will be lost. Communities’ resilience rapidly wilting away.
Development gains reversed. Many will be displaced and will
continue to move in search for survival, creating ever more
instability across entire regions. The warning call and appeal for
action by the Secretary-General can thus not be understated. It was
right to take the risk and sound the alarm early, not wait for the
pictures of emaciated dying children or the world’s TV screens to
mobilise a reaction and the funds.

The UN and humanitarian partners are responding. We have strategic,
coordinated and prioritised plans in every country. We have the
right leadership and heroic, dedicated teams on the ground. We are
working hand-in-hand with development partners to marry the
immediate life-saving with longer term sustainable development. We
are ready to scale up. This is frankly not the time to ask for more
detail or use that postponing phrase, what would you prioritize?
Every life on the edge of famine and death is equally worth saving.

Now we need the international community and this Council to act:

First and foremost, act quickly to tackle the precipitating factors
of famine. Preserving and restoring normal access to food and
ensuring all parties’ compliance with international humanitarian law
are key.

Second, with sufficient and timely financial support, humanitarians
can still help to prevent the worst-case scenario. To do this,
humanitarians require safe, full and unimpeded access to people in
need. Parties to the conflict must respect this fundamental tenet of
IHL and those with influence over the parties must exert that
influence now.

Third, stop the fighting. To continue on the path of war and
military conquest is – I think we all know – to guarantee failure,
humiliation and moral turpitude, and will bear the responsibility
for the millions who face hunger and deprivation on an incalculable
scale because of it.

Allow me to very briefly sum up. The situation for people in each
country is dire and without a major international response, the
situation will get worse. All four countries have one thing in
common: conflict. This means we – you – have the possibility to
prevent – and end – further misery and suffering. The UN and its
partners are ready to scale up. But we need the access and the funds
to do more. It is all preventable. It is possible to avert this
crisis, to avert these famines, to avert these looming human
catastrophes.

********************************************************

Oslo humanitarian conference for Nigeria and the Lake Chad region
raises $672 million to help people in need

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 24 Feb 2017

http://tinyurl.com/zu9l5za

Oslo 24 February 2017 – Some 170 representatives from 40 countries,
UN, regional organisations and civil society organisations gathered
at the Oslo Humanitarian Conference on Nigeria and the Lake Chad
Region today. The conference was co-hosted by Norway, Nigeria,
Germany and the UN and followed a civil society meeting with large
participation from local organisations working in Nigeria, Chad,
Niger and Cameroon.

One of the world’s largest humanitarian crises is currently
unfolding in the Lake Chad region with 17 million people living in
the most affected areas. Nearly 11 million people urgently need
humanitarian assistance. At the conference, 14 donors pledged $458
million for relief in 2017 and an additional $214 million was
announced for 2018 and beyond. Pledges were announced by the
European Commission, Norway, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland,
France, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands
and Republic of Korea.

Humanitarian partners agreed to further scale up their response to
reach the most vulnerable groups threatened by famine, including
children with severe acute malnutrition. Special attention was given
to the protection needs of women, children and youth, as well as the
need for longer-term support and durable solutions for the displaced
populations.

Foreign Minister Borge Brende of Norway said:

“The conference has helped raising awareness and increased support
for millions of people affected by this crisis, not least for the
many children and young people who are currently out of school. It
is crucial to provide and protect education to safeguard their
rights and pave the way for a peaceful development in the region.
Our goal must be to ensure quality education for all, for girls as
much as for boys. It is of critical importance also to enhance the
protection of women and girls, who often carry the main burden of
crisis and conflict, and ensure that women are involved in ongoing
processes related to peace and development in the region.”

The Foreign minister of Nigeria, Geoffrey Onyeama, said:

“Nigeria is suffering from violent extremism at the same time as it
is dealing with low oil prices and an economic recession. While the
Government is committing significant budgetary allocations to
confront the security and humanitarian situation arising from the
insurgency, we also need all the help and support we can get from
the international community.”

The Foreign Minister of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel, said:

“With today’s pledges, humanitarian agencies can now concentrate on
their work – to save lives and offer help to those in urgent need.
Germany contributes 120 million Euro over the course of the next
three years to those efforts. We will provide 100 million Euro for
humanitarian assistance and 20 million Euro for stabilization
efforts in the region. In the long run, we have to strengthen our
partnership with the countries involved to address the root causes
of terror, displacement and poverty. For that purpose, we
established today a Consultative Group on Prevention and
Stabilisation with our counterparts from the region.”

United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and
Emergency Relief Coordinator Stephen O’Brien said:

“The humanitarian crisis in the Lake Chad Region is truly massive
with a staggering 10.7 million people in need of immediate
humanitarian assistance. Without our increased support, affected
communities will face a life of hunger, disease, gender-based
violence and continued displacement. But there is another future
within grasp: as the international community scales up support, we
can stop a further descent into an ever-deepening crisis with
unimaginable consequences for millions of people. I am grateful for
the generous support to humanitarian action we have heard this
morning. The UN and our partners are ready and mobilised to further
scale up our life-saving response – the people in the region have no
time to wait.”

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

СССР 1953 год похороны Сталина ☭ Великое прощание ☆ Документальная хроника ☭ Советский Союз.
| March 11, 2017 | 8:03 pm | J. Stalin, Russia, USSR | Comments closed

‘Whites want us to keep working for them’: Mugabe
| March 6, 2017 | 7:48 pm | Africa | Comments closed

2017-02-23 06:06

http://www.news24.com/Africa/Zimbabwe/whites-want-us-to-keep-working-for-them-mugabe-20170222

Robert Mugabe (File: AFP)

Robert Mugabe (File: AFP)

Harare – Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe says he’s worried that whites “have taken over once again” – especially on some farms.

In a long interview with state TV to mark his 93rd birthday, Mugabe said he was proud that “most of the land that used to be in the hands of the settlers is now in the hands of our own people”.

But he said some blacks had “surreptitiously” handed over management of their farms to whites, an apparent reference to the new black commercial farmers who employ dispossessed white farmers on their land.

Mugabe said: “Stupid stupid we, as indeed we are doing that.”

“There are [some blacks] who have really gone to sleep and the whites have taken over once again and it’s sad, isn’t it?” he added.

Under Mugabe’s land reform programme, around 4 000 white-owned farms were redistributed to blacks beginning in 2000. It’s not clear how many whites are back working on the land as managers, though News24 has heard of a number of cases. Around 300 whites particularly dairy farm owners, still own their farms though in many cases they have been forced to downsize.

With foreign direct investment at a low in Zimbabwe, the president also hit out at some blacks who he said waited for whites to invest “and then they go and work for” them.

Said the longtime Zimbabwe leader, whose birthday party will be held on Saturday: “Have we become the masters of our own economy or are we still, you know, thinking of whites as the best entrepreneurs and Africans as the labourers?”

He added: “Of course the whites would be happy to see us continue to work for them.”

Read more on:    robert mugabe  |  zimbabwe  |  southern africa
South Africa: Targeting Immigrants, Again
| March 6, 2017 | 7:42 pm | Africa, Analysis, Imperialism, political struggle | Comments closed

AfricaFocus Bulletin
March 6, 2017 (170306)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“In the post-apartheid South Africa, resurgence of xenophobic
violence is a symptom of the deep leadership deficit. For the fourth
consecutive week now, South Africa is witnessing what many analysts
call a “resurgence” of xenophobic violence in parts of Johannesburg
and Pretoria, the country’s capital city. The reality is that this
type of violence is a daily occurrence in the country, although it
does not always get media attention. It has, in fact, become a long-
standing feature in post-apartheid South Africa.” – Jean Pierre
Misago, African Centre for Migration and Society, Johannesburg

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/migr1703.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/migr1703.php

South Africa is not unique in seeing a “resurgence” of anti-
immigrant violence this year. As in many other countries, notably
the United States and many European countries, this trend draws on
widespread prejudice among substantial sectors of citizens against
immigrants seen as criminal and job-takers. But it is also driven by
official state policy which employs its own official bureaucratic
violence, by the “leadership deficit” cited by Misago, and by even
more massive and multifaceted anti-immigrant campaigns such as that
currently being mobilized by the new U.S. administration.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains three short articles with news
and analysis of the most recent events in South Africa, as well as
links to other sources for deeper analysis.

Additional short articles and reports of related interest, including
reactions from other African countries:

Omano Edigheji, “Xenophobia in South Africa and Nigeria,” Sahara
Reporters, February 26, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/hfqya5d

Simon Allison, “South Africa has become the Bad Guy in Africa,”
Daily Maverick, February 26, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/jm9qlxm

Alexandra Hiropoulos, “Gauteng Xenophobic Attacks February 2017,”
Xenowatch, February 26, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/jm6xnmr

And for contemporary US parallels, see Anand Giridharadas, “A Murder
in Trump’s America,” The Atlantic, February 28, 2017, at
http://tinyurl.com/zv8ucb9
On murders of immigrants, including the most recent shooting in
Kansas.

Laila Lalam, “Donald Trump Is Making America White Again,” The
Nation, March 2, 2017
By Laila Lalami

Donald Trump Is Making America White Again

Holland Carter, “For Migrants Headed North, the Things They Carried
to the End,” New York Times, March 3, 2017
Art exhibit on deadly results of U.S. immigration policy in desert
on Mexican border, from Clinton through Obama

Emily Bazelon, “Department of Justification,” New York Times
Magazine, February 28, 2017
On the anti-immigrant agenda of Jeff Sessions, Stephen Bannon, and
Donald Trump.
http://tinyurl.com/jxsb4af

Additional sources on the anti-immigrant attitudes and the Trump
election campaign can be found at
http://www.noeasyvictories.org/usa/anti-immigrant.php

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on migration and related issues,
visit http://www.africafocus.org/migrexp.php

Of special interest is the 2014 article by Sisonke Msimang,
“Belonging–why South Africans refuse to let Africa in,” –
http://www.africafocus.org/docs14/sa1410.php

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

Xenophobic violence in the ‘Rainbow’ nation

by Jean Pierre Misago

Al Jazeera, March 1, 2017

http://tinyurl.com/hggn89u

[Jean Pierre Misago is a researcher with the African Centre for
Migration and Society at the University of the Witwatersrand, South
Africa.]

[Text only. Original at link above contains additional links to many
other sources.]

In the post-apartheid South Africa, resurgence of xenophobic
violence is a symptom of the deep leadership deficit.

For the fourth consecutive week now, South Africa is witnessing what
many analysts call a “resurgence” of xenophobic violence in parts of
Johannesburg and Pretoria, the country’s capital city.

The reality is that this type of violence is a daily occurrence in
the country, although it does not always get media attention. It
has, in fact, become a long-standing feature in post-apartheid South
Africa.

Since 1994, tens of thousands of people have been harassed, attacked
or killed because of their status as outsiders or foreign nationals.

Despite claims to the contrary by the government, violence against
foreign nationals in South Africa did not end in June 2008 when the
massive outbreak that started a month earlier subsided.

As the current incidents illustrate, hostility towards foreign
nationals is still pervasive in the country and continues to result
in more cases of murder, injuries, threats of mob violence, looting
and the destruction of residential property and businesses, as well
as mass displacement.

And yes, the violence is xenophobic (and not “just crime”, as many
in government prefer labelling it) because it is – as the scholar
Belinda Dodson reminds us – “an explicit targeting of foreign
nationals or outsiders for violent attacks despite other material,
political, cultural or social forces that might be at play”.

It is a hate crime whose logic goes beyond the often accompanying
and misleading criminal opportunism. The real motive of the
violence, as unambiguously expressed by the perpetrators themselves,
is to drive foreign populations out of communities.

Xenophobic violence as a symptom of leadership deficit

A quick analytical look reveals that the drivers of ongoing
xenophobic violence in South Africa, as well as the lack of
effective response and preventive interventions, reflect a dreadful
lack of competent, decisive and trusted leadership at all levels of
government.

The drivers of xenophobic violence in South Africa are inevitably
multiple and embedded in a complex interplay of the country’s past
and present structural – political, social and economic – factors.

Chief among underlying causal factors is obviously the prevailing
anti-immigrant sentiment easily fuelled by political scapegoating.
Political leaders and officials of the national, provincial and
local government often blame foreign nationals for their systemic
failures to deliver on the political promises and satisfy the
citizenry’s growing expectations.

Due to political scapegoating, many South African citizens perceive
foreign nationals as a serious threat that needs to be eliminated by
any means necessary. This perception is stronger among the majority
of citizens living in poor townships and informal settlements where
they meet and fiercely compete with equally poor African immigrants
for scarce resources and opportunities.

The result is that local residents in these areas have become
increasingly convinced that foreign nationals are to blame for all
their socioeconomic ills and hardships including poverty,
unemployment, poor service delivery, lack of business space and
opportunities; crime; prostitution; drug and alcohol abuse; and
deadly diseases.

By blaming foreign nationals for its failures to deliver on its core
functions and responsibilities, the South African government is
unfortunately displaying an obvious if sorry sign of weak and
incompetent leadership.

The triggers of the violence paint an even more worrying picture of
the leadership deficit in the “rainbow” nation. Indeed, the strong
anti-immigrant sentiment alone cannot explain the occurrence of
violence in some areas and not in others where such negative
attitudes are equally strong.

Attitudes are not always a good predictor of behaviour. Rather ample
research evidence indicates that the triggers of the violence are
located in the “micropolitics” at play in many of country’s towns
townships and informal settlements.

Instigators and perpetrators of xenophobic violence are well known
in their respective communities, but the de facto impunity they
enjoy only means that they are likely – as they have in many cases –
to strike again.

Violent attacks on foreign nationals are usually triggered by
political mobilisation led by local economic and/or political
players and informal community leadership groups (in the form of
civic organisations, community policing forums, business
associations, concerned residents’ associations, etc) for their
economic and political interests.

This violence is essentially “politics by other means”. It has
proved a useful tool for these local politicians to consolidate
their power and community leadership monopoly needed to expand their
client base and the economic revenues it represents.

These “violence entrepreneurs” capitalise on people’s sentiments and
frustrations and have no difficulty co-opting local residents for
participation in the violence given the pervasive negative
attitudes. Xenophobic violence is triggered by the mobilisation of
the existing collective discontent.

With denialism and impunity, violence continues

It is common knowledge that the official South African government’s
response to xenophobia and related violence has been characterised
by “denialism”.

Such denialism is rooted in a discourse which labels all xenophobic
violence as “just crime and not xenophobia”, a categorisation that
demands few specific and sustained interventions or policy changes.

Both President Jacob Zuma and Minister of Home Affairs Malusi Gigaba
repeated the popular if infamous refrain this week.

Perhaps understandably, admitting the existence of a xenophobic
citizenry is both ideologically and politically uncomfortable for
the ruling African National Congress, which is now the custodian of
the multiracial, multi-ethnic “rainbow” nation and sees itself as
the champion of human rights and unity in diversity.

In addition to the lack of effective policy response, the government
unwillingness to recognise xenophobia coupled with a general weak
judicial system has also led to an alarming culture of impunity and
lack of accountability for perpetrators and mandated institutions:
foreign nationals have been repeatedly attacked in South Africa
since 1994 but few perpetrators have been charged, even fewer
convicted. In some instances, state agents have actively protected
those accused of anti-foreigner violence.

Similarly, there have been no efforts to hold mandated institutions
such as the police and the intelligence community accountable for
their failure to prevent and stop violence despite visible warning
signs.

As an example, government promises to set up special courts to
enable quick prosecutions after the 2008 and 2015 violence never
materialised.

Instigators and perpetrators of xenophobic violence are well known
in their respective communities, but the de facto impunity they
enjoy only means that they are likely – as they have in many cases –
to strike again.

Unfortunately, the government’s unwillingness to acknowledge that
this violence is xenophobic and its failure to work on finding
appropriate solutions are a sign of ineffective leadership. Without
appropriate intervention violence will continue.

**********************************************************

Black lives don’t matter in xenophobic South Africa

Redi Tlhabi

Washington Post, March 2, 2017

http://tinyurl.com/hved2oz

Redi Tlhabi is a radio and television journalist from Johannesburg.

Last week was an ugly, humiliating one for South Africa; a country
once considered a jewel of democracy on the African continent has
been gripped by a wave of xenophobic violence. In a matter of days,
more than 30 stores belonging to foreign nationals were shut down
after intense attacks and looting by locals in several townships. We
are breathing a sigh of relief that there has been no loss of life.

This is not the first time that foreigners have faced attacks in
South Africa’s townships and provinces. In 2008, the country’s
streets were ablaze, literally, with violence against foreigners.
Ernesto Alfabeto Nhamuave, a national from Mozambique, was beaten,
stabbed and set on fire in broad daylight. A police officer tried in
vain to douse the flames, but it was too late. Nhamuave died. And
there has been no justice for him. Sixty-two people, including South
Africans, were killed at that time and more than 100,000 were
displaced. Last year, more than 20 shops were looted in one area
alone, and foreign nationals had to flee their homes.

On Friday, with the government’s endorsement, citizens from
Pretoria, the capital, marched against foreign nationals in an anti-
immigrant protest. The government said that the march was an
agitation against crime in South Africa, which has been endemic in
this society for many years. Yet the protesters did not march to
police headquarters; instead they went to the Home Affairs office,
which is in charge of immigration in the country.

The xenophobic violence tends to have a racial element. Nigerians,
Somalis, Malawians, Pakistanis and Zimbabweans are often the targets
of this prejudice. Perhaps it reflects the complex truth about South
Africa’s xenophobia — that it is never just a rejection of a
different identity but also a lament for the economic exclusion
experienced by black South Africans, or all black Africans, for that
matter. The acts of violence are specifically targeted at African
and Asian migrants. White migrants are safe. They own businesses and
property and generally go about their lives peacefully. They are
seen as providers of work and capital, but black ones are seen as
encroachments and threats. They are from the margins of our society,
and even the language used to describe them — illegal immigrants,
illegal aliens, outsiders — creates an “us and them” dynamic. They
are dirty, they are criminals, they are drug peddlers — common
accusations that are articulated boldly on radio and television.

It is surreal as we watch how here and in the United States, black
lives really don’t matter. Even in a majority black country, the
government is not decisive or unequivocal in its condemnation,
choosing instead to obfuscate and sanitize this xenophobia by
calling it something else, such as “criminal acts.” These are hate
crimes, no different from the killing of Indian engineer Srinivas
Kuchibhotla in the United States. The suspect reportedly asked him
and a companion whether they had valid visas and shouted that they
should “get out of my country.” This sounds so familiar. Migrants in
South Africa are constantly told to “go back home.” We have not
experienced random shootings by citizens, but rather a well-
orchestrated, mass uprising by multitudes. And in this way,
individuals escape personal responsibility for hate crimes.

Nelson Mandela, the founding father of our democracy, said: “South
Africans must produce an actual South African reality that will
reinforce humanity’s belief in justice. … Never, never and never
again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the
oppression of one by another.”

We have failed. According to the Migration Policy Institute, South
Africa displays one of the highest levels of xenophobia in the
world. In the past decade, foreigners have been blamed for every
malaise under the sun — “They are stealing our jobs,” “committing
crimes” and, of course, “taking our women.” High levels of
unemployment — especially youth unemployment, which averaged 51
percent between 2013 and 2016 — creates a fertile environment for
foreign workers to be scapegoats, despite the fact that foreign-born
migrants make up only 1.6 million of South Africa’s population of
about 55 million.

South Africans must remember the sagacity and generosity extended to
us in our time of need. African countries took on South Africa’s
liberation movements when they were banned by apartheid. They
provided a home and education for their families. Some of these
governments provided financial help to the party that is in
government in South Africa today. I am hoping that the divisions
that colonialism and racism tried to engineer in our psyche will not
prevail. I am hoping that citizens who endeavor to make their
countries “great again” will not do so at the expense of basic
decency and justice.

********************************************

The awful politics of xenoophobia

by Stephen Grootes

Daily Maverick, February 27, 2017

http://tinyurl.com/jhx7pf4

South Africans have a certain reputation for public robustness. We
fight, scream, and shout at each other, all in the name of deciding
what would make for a better country. At times, though, this
robustness threatens to derail us at a time when many people could
be vulnerable to serious harm. On Friday in Pretoria, violence broke
out during a march planned by people who were “opposed to illegal
immigrants”. The police struggled to maintain order. And instead of
speaking with one voice, everyone in a leadership position was busy
pointing fingers, particularly at Joburg Mayor Herman Mashaba.

There was plenty of notice that xenophobic violence was coming. In
stark contrast to the violence that claimed nearly 60 lives in 2008,
and the awfulness that marked the violence in KwaZulu-Natal two
years ago, last week we knew that a group of people in Mamelodi were
going to march against the presence of foreign nationals in their
community. They said that it was a march against crime, but when
pushed on their motives it became clear that the real issue was
simply that they did not like people who were not like them.

When the marching and the clashes started on Friday, the police
immediately moved to contain the protests. A group of Somali men
grouped together, partly perhaps for protection, partly perhaps to
cause their own violence. This was the kind of thing that only leads
to trouble. One of the oldest insults among human beings can be
boiled down to this: He is a foreigner, and therefore a barbarian.
And it is also universal among societies everywhere; when people
feel their lives are getting worse and hopeless, they will turn on
people they see as different, or somehow not being “like them”.

Situations like these need cool heads, and plenty of disciplined
force from the police. But a problem of this kind also needs
leadership.

On Friday morning, the ANC released a statement about the xenophobic
violence, essentially calling for calm. But by the third paragraph
of the statement, it was already attacking Johannesburg Mayor Herman
Mashaba, saying he should be “singled out for particular mention”,
and attempting to blame him for the violence. They claimed further
that “it was the reckless statements of Mayor Mashaba that lit the
tinderbox of hatred in the first place”.

Where the ANC is absolutely correct is to criticise Mashaba for his
words and actions on this issue in the last few months. His comments
about “illegal immigrants”, and his almost wilful and deliberate
conflation of the words “immigrants” and “criminals”, was wrong,
perhaps bordering on the criminal. As a public representative, he
should be ashamed of himself, and the DA should be ashamed of itself
for not smacking him down in public. His comments in this regard are
surely against everything the DA claims to stand for.

It is hard to know why Mashaba made them in the first place. Maybe
he genuinely believes there is a problem and that it needs to be
addressed. Perhaps he feels that it’s a way to get votes. As the US
and other places have recently demonstrated again, being “anti-
immigrant” can play successfully to prejudice. Or he could just be
prejudiced himself, like so many other South Africans, and people
all over the world.

But to say that he is responsible is to utterly miss the greater
context of what is happening in South Africa these days. And, worse,
it is to forget the role the ANC government played over the last few
years.

Last week, before the march, Home Affairs Minister Malusi Gigaba
held a press conference specifically about the xenophobic tensions.
He said he had met with the organisers of the march, and had pleaded
with them to act responsibly. It was the kind of act that you would
expect someone in his position to do; it was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, his department could also be accused of playing a
role in demonising foreign nationals in the first place. It is his
officials who deport people, and decide which foreign nationals get
to stay and which get to be kicked out. And, depending on where you
stand on these things, it is also his department that has largely
failed to deal with the problem. The perception has grown that
people who are foreign are here illegally, because government has
failed to stop them from being here.

But it is not only Gigaba’s fault. It is impossible to police this
properly, the dynamics of economics, geography and the human nature
to desire a better life for yourself and your children are all
against him. With the best will in the world, Gigaba is going to be
unable to change those perceptions, or even make much of a
difference on the ground. Stopping human migration requires the kind
of a control over a population that North Korea has. Anything less
will just not work.

Gigaba himself has a fairly decent track record in this regard. He
at least is not afraid to call xenophobia what it is, and to label a
xenophobic march a xenophobic march. His political boss, President
Jacob Zuma, appears unable to do even that, claiming on Friday that
there were even foreign nationals in these marches, because they
were actually “anti-crime”. Proof, once again, that it’s not only
the facts that are alternative, sometimes it’s the entire universe.

Gigaba once did something that very few other ministers have done on
this issue. He raised the ire of Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini. In
2015 Zwelithini had been accused of making comments that were seen
as an incitement to commit violence against foreign nationals. A few
days later, violence did in fact erupt in KwaZulu-Natal. Gigaba made
a comment that leaders should behave responsibly, which appeared to
have angered the king.

In the end, the SA Human Rights Commission decided, controversially,
to exonerate Zwelithini. And the ANC, certainly in public, has
failed to publicly criticise the king for these comments. Which
surely suggests they do not believe that there is a link between
what he said and the violence that followed.

It is important to follow this logic through to the bitter end. If
the Zulu king makes comments like this and does not incite violence
against foreign nationals, while the mayor of Joburg makes similar
comments and does incite violence, then who has more power? Is the
ANC seriously suggesting that Herman Mashaba, as a DA mayor, has a
greater moral authority and plain old influence over people in
Tshwane than King Goodwill Zwelithini does in KZN? And if that is
the case, it surely follows then that the ANC is actually in much
greater political trouble than we thought.

In politics, it is usually a mistake to build your enemy up, to make
them look powerful. In their haste to be seen to condemn Mashaba,
that is exactly what the ANC is doing. It made him look powerful, as
if he had the ability to shape events, that he has this magical
authority over people. Who, for the record, weren’t even in “his”
city, but in Pretoria.

But what is also being forgotten here is the other actions of
national government. As the CEO of the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation,
Neeshan Balton, pointed out on Friday, it was national government
that decided to roll out “Operation Fiela”, whose aim was action
against foreign nationals. And it is national government alone that
controls the police. And thus the officers who are famous for
rounding up foreign nationals and stealing cash from them. It’s not
about what you say as a leader, it’s also about what you do. Our
government has failed to do much to change attitudes, to present any
kind of example.

Mashaba himself said, in a statement issued on Monday, that he had
tried to set up several meetings with Gigaba to discuss this entire
issue, and invited him to a city lekgotla on the issue. Mashaba says
he declined that invitation. But it would appear Gigaba is happy to
discuss the issue, just not with Joburg’s DA mayor. Rather,
according to Mashaba, he has accepted an invitation to speak at an
event hosted by the Joburg ANC, and its leader, and former Joburg
mayor Parks Tau.

No matter how you look at it, that is playing politics in times when
the national government should know better.

To look at this situation from a neutral standpoint, should such a
place exist, is to realise that everyone is at fault here. Mashaba
should not have said what he said. The ANC national government has
not provided an example of how to treat foreign nationals, despite
often saying the right words. People of influence who say things
that are xenophobic are let off the hook.

Very few of the people who call themselves leaders in our society
can escape blame here. And if any of them think that they can blame
someone else, it’s time they took a look in the mirror. DM

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

Africa/Global: Open Data for Tax Justice
| February 28, 2017 | 10:49 am | Africa | Comments closed

AfricaFocus Bulletin
February 28, 2017 (170228)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“Multinational companies typically publish global, consolidated
accounts – and international accounting standards now allow these to
roll into one all financial information on the substance of their
economic activities, or at best to provide regional figures. This
means that country-level information on profits, revenues, taxes,
borrowings and employees, for example, are not provided. … As the
name suggests, the longstanding proposal for country-by-country
reporting (CBCR) would make multinational companies break down and
publish their results for each country. This is essential for
citizens to know what companies and their affiliates are doing where
they live, and what contributions they are making.” – Open Data for
Tax Justice announcement

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/tax1702.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=
http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/tax1702.php

The need for CBCR, a demand first advanced by tax justice
campaigners in 2003, has become widely recognized, leading to
proposals by international bodies such as the “rich states” club of
the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).
The OECD proposal for collecting and sharing such data only by
selected tax authorities, however, is in sharp contradiction to the
initial goal of public transparency. And further retreats from
transparency are already visible in initial actions by the
Republican-dominated U.S. Congress (see
http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/iff1702.php).

In response, leading tax justice campaigners have set out a roadmap
for “the creation of a global public database on the tax
contributions and economic activities of multinational companies. ”
Using new technologies to collect in standard format information
from a wide variety of public sources, the database has the goal of
making information accessible worldwide for journalists,
policymakers, tax officials, and civil society activists.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains excerpts from the press release
and white paper released on February 17, 2017

For more details, see http://datafortaxjustice.net

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on tax justice and related
issues, visit http://www.africafocus.org/intro-iff.php

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Trump Election: Intersecting Explanations

http://www.noeasyvictories.org/usa/trump-win-reasons.php

Observations (fourth installment, Feb 28, 2017)

Much of the commentary on the narrow victory by Tom Perez over Keith
Ellison in Saturday’s election for the chair of the Democratic
National Committee has had a narrow focus, interpreting it as a
victory for the Democratic establishment over progressives who had
backed Bernie Sanders in 2016. While to some extent true, that is a
highly over-simplified view, and  neglects the wide-ranging
mobilization and rethinking within the broader context of the highly
decentralized Democratic Party, progressive movements, and their
common social base.

Several articles on Saturday’s results with more nuanced analysis:

Peter Dreier, “Three Cheers for the Perez-Ellison DNC Team To Move
the Democrats in a Progressive Direction,” Huffington Post, February
25, 2017 http://tinyurl.com/gkqmp46

David Weigel, “Why did Keith Ellison lose the DNC race?” Washington
Post, February 26, 2017 http://tinyurl.com/zq7hf9r

James Downie, “Tom Perez’s biggest problem as DNC chair: His
backers,” Washington Post, February 27, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/hqu2vxd

And, for a wide range of articles digging more deeply into the
mistakes and structural limitations of the Democratic Party and the
Clinton campaign, and their implications for current strategy, see
http://www.noeasyvictories.org/usa/clinton.php (10 articles from
Nov. 11 – Dec. 20, 2016 and
http://www.noeasyvictories.org/usa/democratic-party.php (15 articles
from Mar. 30, 2016 – Feb. 21, 2017

And you can find sources on 19 other relevant “explanations” for the
election outcome at
http://www.noeasyvictories.org/usa/trump-win-reasons.php

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

Launch of White Paper Setting Out Roadmap for Creation of a Public
Database of Country-by-country Reporting Data

Press Release

17th February 2017

Leading tax justice campaigners and open data specialists are today
publishing a white paper setting out a roadmap for the creation of a
global public database on the tax contributions and economic
activities of multinational companies.

The open database would draw on various existing information sources
to create a central point for  publicly available country-by-country
reporting (CBCR) data to help tax authorities, tax justice
campaigners, investors, journalists and citizens to gain a better
understanding of the activities of these companies.

Multinational companies typically publish global, consolidated
accounts – and international accounting standards now allow these to
roll into one all financial information on the substance of their
economic activities, or at best to provide regional figures. This
means that country-level information on profits, revenues, taxes,
borrowings and employees, for example, are not provided. There may
be a set of results for “Africa” or “Europe”, but even then the
combination of operations in (say) Ghana and Mauritius, or France
and Luxembourg, makes it is impossible to unpick these numbers in a
useful way.

As the name suggests, the longstanding proposal for country-by-
country reporting would make multinational companies break down and
publish their results for each country. This is essential for
citizens to know what companies and their affiliates are doing where
they live, and what contributions they are making.

An OECD standard has now been introduced which will require all
multinationals of a certain scale to report this information
privately to the tax authority in their headquarters country. In
addition, there are public standards for limited CBCR data with
respect to the extractive and financial sectors in the EU, creating
multiple requirements for some multinational companies. It is
critical that this data is used effectively, and seen to be so used.

The next two to three years provide a window in which to establish a
single format for reporting, to ensure lower compliance costs for
businesses and to facilitate more effective use of the data by civil
society, media and tax authorities alike. This will both confirm the
value of CBCR and help policymakers to move towards a global
consensus on requiring a comprehensive public CBCR under a single
standard.

The paper – What Do They Pay? -  is co­authored by Alex Cobham (Tax
Justice Network), Dr Jonathan Gray (University of Bath and Open
Knowledge International) and Professor Richard Murphy (University of
London). It is the result of a partnership between the Tax Justice
Network (TJN) and Open Knowledge International (OKI) supported by
Omidyar Network and the Financial Transparency Coalition (FTC). TJN
has, since its establishment in 2003, led the way in developing and
promoting the idea of public CBCR for multinational companies. OKI,
who partnered with TJN in establishing the Open Data for Tax Justice
initiative, are pioneers in using open data to achieve tangible
policy results and human progress. The FTC has championed public
CBCR since its inception, as have many FTC members including
Christian Aid, Tax Justice Network-Africa and TJN.

The white paper is divided into four main sections. Firstly, the
authors present a set of user stories, questions, requirements, and
scenarios of usage for a database. Secondly, they look at what kinds
of information a public database could and should contain. Thirdly,
they look at the opportunities and challenges of building a public
database drawing on various existing information sources. Fourthly
and finally, the authors suggest next steps for policy, advocacy,
and technical work towards a public database.

As leading organisations in this field, TJN and OKI now propose to
establish an open database, to include all publicly available CBCR
data; to provide a venue for multinationals that wish to lead in
transparency by publishing their data voluntarily; and to make the
data, and core tools and risk measures, accessible to a wider
audience.

Alex Cobham, chief executive of the Tax Justice Network, says:

“This white paper marks an important step towards the creation of a
fully public database to track the tax behaviour of both
multinationals and jurisdictions from Luxembourg to Mauritius, and
from Bermuda to Singapore. We’re delighted that so many
organisations and experts have contributed to this process, which
has really strengthened the analysis and design. And we’re
delighted, too, at the ongoing discussions with investors and
business groups around providing and using data.

“It’s striking that civil society is leading on this process, rather
than the OECD or a global tax body. But just as civil society
created the original proposal for country-by-country reporting,
perhaps it’s right that we should also take a lead in creating the
database that will eventually deliver the full benefits – from lower
costs for multinationals dealing bilaterally with different tax
authorities, and for tax authorities exchanging information with
each other, to the benefits of the public being empowered to hold
governments and multinationals to account for their role in
international tax avoidance.”

Dr Jonathan Gray, Prize Fellow at the University of Bath’s Institute
for Policy Research and Senior Advisor to Open Knowledge
International, says:

“This new report outlines the case for a global public data project
that would transform democratic engagement around the role of
multinational corporations in our economies. A civil society
database would be more than just an information source: it would
facilitate collaboration amongst researchers, journalists and
campaigners and pave the way for an official database at an
international body such as the UN.”

Richard Murphy, Professor of Practice in International Political
Economy at City, University of London and director of Tax Research
UK, says:

“Country-by-country reporting was created to be used. Its purpose is
to show what is happening in the world and to change it. That’s why
a database holding all publicly available CBCR data is vital: with
it we can see who is doing what, and where and demand change from
the governments and companies engaged in tax abuse.”

Launched in 2016, supported by a grant from Omidyar Network, the FTC
and coordinated by TJN and OKI, Open Data for Tax Justice is a
project to create a global network of people and organisations using
open data to improve advocacy, journalism and public policy around
tax justice.

More details about the project and its members can be found at
http://datafortaxjustice.net

***************************************************************

What Do They Pay?: Towards a Public Database to Account for the
Economic Activities and Tax Contributions of Multinational
Corporations

Alex Cobham
Chief Executive, Tax Justice Network
Visiting Fellow, King’s College London

Jonathan Gray
Prize Fellow, Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath
Co-Founder, Public Data Lab
Senior Advisor, Open Knowledge International

Richard Murphy
Professor of Practice in International Political Economy, City,
University of London
Director, Tax Research UK

February 2017

[Excerpts: for full report see
http://datafortaxjustice.net/what-do-they-pay/]

Introduction

Many of the policy proposals put forward by the Tax Justice Network
(TJN) after its establishment in 2003 were so far from mainstream
thinking about tax that it was difficult to find a policy audience
with which to discuss them seriously (Murphy, Christensen & Kimmis,
2005). But by 2013, just ten years later, these proposals had come
to form the basis for the global policy agenda – including “Country-
by-Country Reporting” (CBCR) of the tax contributions and economic
activities of multinational companies.

So common is the exposé of tax avoidance by multinationals today –
think of headlines featuring Apple or Amazon, Google or Starbucks –
that it would be easy to forget how recently things changed. But the
Tax Justice Network’s first front-page media splash was only in
2007. Even the headline, ‘Revealed: How multinational companies
avoid the taxman’, has become so familiar that it would be almost
redundant today (Guardian, 2007).

Over the past decade, international media coverage and civil society
campaigning has flourished. Investigative journalists have
undertaken international collaborations highlighting the scale and
societal effects of tax avoidance strategies. In many lower-income
countries, the tax treatment of multinationals has risen to the top
of policy agendas, driven by civil society mobilisation and public
anger. In OECD countries, protesters have taken to the streets to
oppose the minimal contributions of high street companies. The issue
has caught the attention of populist political movements of various
stripes.

By 2013, issues of tax were atop the global policy agenda too. The
G8 and G20 groups of countries set the aim of reducing the
‘misalignment’ between the location of multinational companies’
economic activity, and the location of declared, taxable profits.
The OECD was given a mandate to change international tax rules to
achieve this end, including the specific remit to introduce a
country-by-country reporting standard. While there are a range of
benefits to this data being compiled and made public, the critical
development is that it is intended to show for the first time
exactly where companies do business, and the extent to which this is
aligned – or misaligned – with where they declare profits. This is
would not be a smoking gun to establish that a specific tax
avoidance structure has been at play; but it could be a powerful
instrument to help a variety of different actors to know where to
investigate further, and what the scale of the problem may be.

The OECD standard for CBCR is technically very close to the original
TJN proposal (Murphy, 2003) – but politically very far from it. The
TJN proposal was for accounting data that it always intended be made
public, to ensure the accountability to citizens of both
multinationals and of tax authorities. The OECD data, in contrast,
is to be provided privately to the tax authority in a
multinational’s headquarters jurisdiction. It may then be exchanged,
under a range of conditions, with other tax authorities in which
subsidiaries of that multinational company trade. But under no
circumstances are those tax authorities allowed to make the
information more widely accessible. Longhorn et al (2016) provide a
comprehensive analysis of various CBCR standards, their evolution
and the arguments and evidence on their value.

Knobel and Cobham (2016) demonstrate the paths by which OECD
reporting could exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, existing global
inequalities in taxing rights with respect to multinationals. In
addition to failing to respond to lower-income countries’ revenue
losses, the lack of transparency means that the current standard
will also fail to build confidence in the fair tax treatment of
these high-profile taxpayers – missing an important opportunity to
build tax morale and wider public support for tax compliance.

As things stand, if CBCR data is not made publicly available the
OECD initiative would perhaps be the least transparent transparency
measure imaginable. And yet, it marks an important step forward for
CBCR. With most major multinationals now actually facing the
obligation to comply with the OECD requirement, the argument about
transparency has turned. The question now is no longer ‘Why should
this information be collected?’ Instead, it is now ‘Why should this
information, now collected, be kept secret?’.

The OECD is in some sense a late adopter, with multiple country-by-
country reporting standards having been introduced since the
original proposal. Notably, these include public CBCR for extractive
sector companies in both the EU and US, and for financial
institutions in the EU. There were also two notable attempts to
include CBCR data in International Financial Reporting Standards,
and although both failed the fact that this was not on technical
grounds did prove that this data is within the scope of such
standards. The data is, to be clear, accounting data rather than tax
data: it reflects the location of activities, and is not an extract
from a tax return.

That some variations on CBCR have been adopted does, however, mean
that in the absence of any official attempts, there is the
possibility for civil society to take steps towards establishing a
public database of all available CBCR information. This could
support greater use of the existing data by various stakeholders,
from tax authorities to activists and journalists. The data produced
may also be of some interest to investors, many of whom are now
showing some awareness of the significance of this data.
Importantly, it also provide a platform for the creation and testing
of risk measures – above all, those that capture the extent of
profit misalignment and therefore allow tracking of progress on the
global policy aim of its curtailment. In addition, such a database
would provide an avenue for companies that embrace transparency to
begin unilaterally to publish their own CBCR.

Overall, the use of such data is likely to provide valuable evidence
not only on the underlying issues of misalignment, but also on the
challenges and opportunities of CBCR data. In particular, it may
help to resolve questions on the need for data quality and
consistency, and to motivate convergence towards best practice among
existing and possible future standards. Over time, it is possible to
imagine such a database being hosted within a more official setting
such as the mooted intergovernmental tax body that could be created
at the UN (Cobham and Klees, 2016).

For now, this report focuses on what a global public database could
look like; what public sources of information already exist and
which may be important to prioritise in addition; how far towards
ideal CBCR it is possible to reach using existing sources; and what
changes would be needed to strengthen the contribution from CBCR
towards the shared, global policy aim of reducing corporate tax
avoidance by curtailing profit misalignment.

Our aim is not to create the perfect, final product in terms of a
public CBCR database. In their “Changing What Counts” report, Gray,
Lämmerhirt and Bounegru (2016) emphasise the role that citizen and
civil society data can play as an advocacy tool to shape
institutional data collection practices. In that spirit, the aim
here is to provide not a final product but the basis for discussion,
experimentation and iterative improvement, that we hope will help to
prepare the way for a global database that is maintained by an
international public body in the longer term.

To that end, we would like to experiment assembling and aligning
data that has been published in accordance with various existing
CBCR standards and publishing requirements. This may be used to
construct an open, online database into which researchers and other
actors can enter new data as it becomes available, and which has the
potential to become a longer term global repository for public data
about the tax contributions and economic activity of multinationals,
and a useful resource for future research and policy analysis. The
proposed database could contain and support a range of different
tools and indicators, in order to facilitate different forms of
analysis and comparison across companies and across jurisdictions.
This would represent an important step towards understanding the
role of multinationals in the composition of the world economy – as
well as paving the way for an official public database.

The purpose of creating a database would extend beyond that of a
technical project to simply gather and publish existing information.
There are other things that we might expect a global civil society
database to do. As economic sociologist Donald MacKenzie argues,
economic models can be considered not just cameras which represent
the world, but also as engines which change them in different ways
(MacKenzie, 2008). By taking steps to render the economic activities
and tax contributions of multinationals publicly visible,
measurable, quantifiable and accountable, it might be expected to
change not only the dynamics of corporate reporting (as one might
expect), but potentially also the operations and organisation of
multinational firms as they adjust to new forms of publicity and
public engagement. The behaviour-changing effects of public data on
the economic activities and tax arrangements of multinationals are
certainly deserving of further attention and research.

A public database could potentially play a social function in
assembling and facilitating collaboration between different “data
publics” interested in multinational taxation. It would thus
represent an experiment in socio-technical design to organise public
activity around tax base erosion. As well as supporting links
between relevant data projects such as OpenCorporates, Open
Ownership, the Open Contracting Partnership and OpenOil, it could
act as a locus to coordinate the efforts of different actors and
groups who are interested in undertaking research, journalism,
advocacy, public policy, and public engagement work in the service
of building a fairer global tax system. This would not simply be a
matter of catering to pre-existing social groups, but also
potentially creating new kinds of associations and collaborations
between different actors. As such a public database could also be
viewed as a democratic experiment – especially if these different
groups play not only a role not only in using and consuming data,
but also in co-designing and assembling the database (Gray, 2016a,
2016b). Such a database might thus open up space for new kinds of
democratic deliberation and public engagement around how the global
economy is organised – and how some of the largest most powerful
economic actors on the planet – both multinationals and
jurisdictions including major tax havens – can be understood,
managed and held to account; as well supporting civil society
interventions around the kinds of transparency measures and data
collection processes we have in place to understand and shape the
behaviour of these actors.

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org