Somalia: IMF, World Bank Say Somalia Ready to Receive Debt Relief
Covid-19: Angola declares State of Emergency from 27 March
Kenya: Govt to Impose 7pm to 5am Curfew Beginning Friday to Contain Coronavirus
The UAE Government donates 11 tonnes of medical supplies to the Seychelles government to help towards the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.
PM announces establishment of National COVID-19 Monitoring Authority
Egypt has ample opportunity to control coronavirus outbreak: WHO
Countries Urged to Use ‘Second Window of Opportunity’ to Avert COVID-19
By: Olusegun Obasanjo, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf & Jonathan Oppenheimer
The world faces unprecedented crisis. The full health consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic are yet to be calculated. This is not to say we should diminish the extent of previous catastrophes.
The First World War cost 40 million lives, or 2.5% of the 1914 world population. This trauma was followed, within a generation, by twice the number of deaths in the Second World War, or 4% of the total population in 1939. The Spanish flu epidemic of 1918, the deadliest in history, cost an estimated 50 million deaths, or 3.3% of the population, and infected perhaps ten times this number.
The difference today is both in the rapidity of the spread of Covid-19 – reflecting our changes to technology, trade and transport over the last century – and the media context in which this is occurring.
Despite the dip in global trade caused by WW1, WW2 and the Cold War, world exports as a proportion of GDP are today 40 times larger (in constant values) than in 1913. Meanwhile, the speed of communications today is astounding.
Between 1914 and 1918 some 80 million telegraphic messages passed through the hands of censors. In 2017, people sent 23 billion text messages each day, American students spending on average more than an hour and a half a day texting. Information spreads faster than ever, which means that more people know about the disease and how to reduce its impact. But panic also spreads faster, sometimes accelerated by fake news, making it harder for leaders to stay focused on what must be done to mitigate its effects.
Trade and technology have fundamentally changed the world economy. This is especially important to developing economies, which lifted their share of world exports from one-third of global trade to half in just 30 years from 1980. Integration with world markets richer than their own has been a crucial aspect especially of the Asian development story. As supply chains have developed, world trade has consistently grown nearly twice as fast as production.
A billion people have, as a consequence, been lifted out of poverty in just a single generation.
In this together
Thus, the correct tactical response to Covid-19 has been to isolate and slow the pace of infection. This allows time to build immunity, reduce the stress on public resources, and hopefully to develop a vaccine.
But it is critical that leaders, and their populations, don’t take the wrong long-term message from this. It is important not to double-down on isolation. Don’t use this opportunity to wriggle out of overdue economic reforms.
Herein lies a great danger, perhaps graver than Covid-19 itself: the collapse of our economies, mortally wounded by a world feeding on its fears, turning in on itself to the exclusion of others.
Our citizens are increasingly self-employed, though the balance of reforms is politically tilted towards the public sector. It is crucial that small businesses don’t go under in the short-term, worsening the effects of the disease. Governments have a responsibility to act now to stem what could become a jobs catastrophe as businesses close doors due to dwindling cash flow. Many developing economies, and especially those in Africa, have few resources to enable a soft landing.
It is crucial that the world’s leaders recognise that disease knows no boundaries, that this is not someone else’s problem, somewhere else. And if the longer-term effects of this crisis are to be mitigated, now is the time to focus on how to develop sustainable economic growth and employment.
The correct global response is to make it easier for businesses to invest and hire, to radically reduce tariffs and other barriers to international trade. We must democratise access to technology. We should strengthen multilateral responses. We are all in this together.
Countries that have been more open have generally fared better in development. This is the lesson not only from Asia’s successful export-driven growth model, which has spurred competitiveness to the benefit of domestic consumers. It is also the lesson from countries that have liberalised in terms of fundamental rights, democracy and freedoms.
Openness relates also to a willingness to learn, permit and even encourage external influences. This was the fundamental lesson from Japan throughout the Meiji Restoration, which provided the catalyst for the entire region to develop and prosper. Singapore relied heavily on external advisers and deliberately sought to attract multinational companies that brought with them not only skills, capital and technology but logistics and ready markets.
All politics is local
We might be experiencing a temporary discontinuation of global integration, prompting us to think carefully about the world we live in and how we limit the spread of negative shocks. The virus may have disrupted global supply chains, prompted (temporary) border closures, and led some to question aspects of globalisation. But the crisis demonstrates the limits of isolated national responses; its resolution will demand unprecedented levels of international scientific and other collaboration.
Putting people, not politics, first will ensure the conditions for continued prosperity post-Covid-19.
Tip O’Neill, the former speaker of the US House of Representatives, famously declared following his only electoral defeat in 1935 that “All politics is local”.
Today, despite the temptation to hunker down and isolate, we need to continue to reform and push for openness and competitiveness. We must act locally, but we need to keep thinking globally.
By: William Moseley
As the COVID-19 pandemic takes hold in Africa, many governments have begun to tighten borders, restrict gatherings and close schools. The crisis has already fundamentally changed people’s lives not just with regards to public health but in terms of politics, the economy, public services, and much more.
What about food systems? One thing that cannot be put on hold is people’s need to feed themselves. How will the pandemic affect Africa’s supplies? How will it impact people’s ability to buy necessities and subsist?
Will COVID-19 directly affect food supplies?
In short, there’s no particular reason to expect Africa’s food supplies to be significantly affected as a direct result of the pandemic.
Many African countries are net importers of food, with the continent spending about $65 billion on food imports in 2017. The global trade on which this relies is not expected to be disrupted by the pandemic. Unlike in 2007-2008, high energy costs are not pushing up food prices.
Africa also grows much of its own supplies. Some 60% of the population is engaged in agriculture, including many small-scale farmers. Purely subsistence farmers – of whom there are relatively few – should be protected by the fact they grow most of their own food. Farmers who produce for the market as well as their own consumption may be well-placed to weather the crisis too, both in terms of feeding themselves and earning an income when other forms of employment decline.
If food security does become a concern, governments and donors may suspend their drive to integrate small-scale farmers into global supply chains and prioritise the provision of local markets instead.
In some cities and peri-urban areas, urban agriculture remains a vital source of food, dietary diversity and income. During the crisis, small-scale gardening in towns could be an important source of food, especially if incomes fall as a result of declining employment.
In some rural areas, foraging and wild food collection is an important source of dietary diversity. While some people have suggested that certain wild species (e.g. bats and pangolins) were the source of COVID-19, it is important not to demonise foraged foods and consider the broader structural forces that have led to habitat destruction and more frequent interactions between humans and wildlife.
Will it affect Africa’s food producers?
This may be more of a concern, though it is difficult to predict exactly what effects will be seen.
According to some estimates, 70% of Africa’s food is produced by women. In several southern African countries, for example, rural women are the primary food crop producers while men are more involved in animal husbandry or labour off the farm. Women are also often responsible for the care of children, the sick and elderly. This means they could have increased exposure to COVID-19 with knock-on implications for food production, food preparation and child nutrition.
It is also the case that farmers tend to be older than average. Africa has a youthful population, but young people tend to be less interested in agriculture and more likely to migrate to urban areas. This leaves a slightly older farming population that could be more vulnerable to the coronavirus. This will be particularly true of people whose immune systems are compromised by HIV/AIDS.
What about people’s ability to buy food?
This may be a more immediate concern and will depend somewhat on the kinds of policies and restrictions governments put in place.
Many people in urban areas already face poverty and struggle to get food. Under COVID-19, these difficulties will increase. The very poorest often depend on casual labour in the informal sector to get by, jobs that will not be possible under conditions of a lockdown or enforced social distancing.
If employment opportunities decline, some urban residents may return to their familial homes in rural areas where access to food is easier. But this is not an option for everyone, especially for those who originally left to escape violence or hunger.
The question of where to buy food is also uncertain. While supermarkets have advanced in some cities, many people in urban areas depend on small shops and open air markets. These outlets are especially important to those who can only afford to buy in small quantities. Efforts to close markets for public health reasons will compromise people’s ability to buy food as well as curtailing the livelihoods of producers and vendors, with knock-on consequences for their own food security. While such actions may become necessary to combat the pandemic, creating alternatives for people will be important.
What needs to be done?
When it comes to maintaining food systems during the pandemic, Africa may have some advantages over other parts of the world such as its relatively younger workforce and more robust urban and small-scale agriculture. Nonetheless, it will certainly face significant challenges in the coming months that will require thoughtful attention from policymakers.
Early warning systems for famines – and associated emergency food provisioning systems – will have to be adjusted to increase attention on urban areas. These initiatives traditionally focus on rural areas and food crises precipitated by droughts or insect infestations. They are much less effective at monitoring reduced food access in urban areas due to declining incomes.
A big part of efforts must also be focused on stemming the spread of COVID-19 itself. Crucial preventative measures – from promoting hand-washing and social distancing to imposing restrictions on gatherings and movement – will be essential to slowing the impacts of the virus including on food systems and producers.
In this, it will be important to recognise the capacity of African governments. While South Korea’s response to the crisis is commendable, it may not be a realistic model for most states on the continent.
Some government capacity could be enhanced if debt service is suspended and COVID-19 related multilateral assistance come without unnecessary strings attached. Renewed calls for structural reforms in a period of crisis are not helpful. More broadly, the global community must realise we are all in this together. While it will be tempting for some countries in the Global North to look inwards as they deal with their own crises, disease and associated food insecurity rarely respect international boundaries.
Finally, existing problems will persist during the COVID-19 crisis and still have to be addressed., Many African governments will have to continue dealing with ongoing challenges such as the desert locust infestation in East Africa. These crises must continue to receive the attention they deserve if domestic food production is to be maintained.