Thoughtful article. You only have to look at the US airline carriers (delta and united) growth in routes this year direct to Africa. . To underscore this shift in thinking about the continent. As well as it’s historic underinvestment.
With the sporting world about to shift its attention to South Africa for the next month, it could be a good time for countries to reassess their relations with the continent as a whole.
Two reports this week, one from U.K.-based think tankChatham House and one from consultancy McKinsey & Co, do just that.
McKinsey’s forecasts says sub-Sahara Africa is well-positioned to become the developing world’s “next great success story” and an investment target for those seeking new markets. [Read the report here.]
Meanwhile, Chatham House said that many Western nations are still weighed down by perceptions of Africa as an aid recipient rather than a strategic trading partner and risk missing opportunities that China and Brazil are already tapping into. [Read the report here.]
Why does it matter?
As Chatham House points out, Africa accounts for 40% of the world’s basic mineral resources, 10% of freshwater supplies and 15% of agriculture land. It’s also about to become a larger player in the world’s oil production.
The rise in prices for minerals such as gold and copper since 2000 has helped lift the continent’s GDP. McKinsey says its collective GDP as of 2008 was $1.6 trillion, roughly equal to that of Brazil’s or Russia’s, and that real GDP growth rose by 4.9% between 2000 and 2008, more than twice its pace of the 1980s and 1990s.
While the financial crisis in the past two years seriously cut African trade and reduced foreign investment, it’s picking up again.
Developing nations have latched onto Africa’s economic potential and have increased their share in Africa’s total exports and imports in 2009, Standard Chartered research shows — emerging economies increased their share of Africa’s total exports in 2009 to 40% from 33% in 2008 and for imports to 47% from 46%.
Chatham House compiled data for export and import values between different countries and the African continent, showing export values to Africa grew between 2006 and 2008 by about 50% for the U.S. to $29 billion and 87% for China to $50 billion.
Africa is also becoming a good destination for goods — Africa is urbanizing and has as many cities with populations of at least one million, just as Europe does, McKinsey says.
There are risks to growth and investment, however. The individual countries in Africa face serious challenges such as poverty and disease. Political uncertainty and corruption are also still strong in many countries.
“Wars, natural disasters or poor government policies could halt or even reverse these gains in any individual country,” research from McKinsey Global Institute said. “But in the long term, internal and external trends indicate that Africa’s economic prospects are strong.”
Goldman Sachs may have taken a lot of heat lately, but they may have done themselves a great favor by releasing their 2010 World Cup Research Report earlier this month. Running a little over 70 pages, it's a remarkably in-depth summary of each country in this year's finals, including football prowess, economic state, and political situation. Furthermore, it provides a primer on the potential hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, and, unsurprisingly but more than interesting, an examination of economic growth and decline vis-a-vis the international football teams of respective countries.
Some of the most noteworthy things to take away: like most of the speculation has focused on, the report predicts a European-hosted cup in 2018, and a return to the U.S. in 2022. (Also included are bid pitches from Russia, England, and the U.S.) Interestingly, this is what it says about the U.S. bid:
The sport has taken roots in the USA and the market is quickly becoming one of FIFA’s most important. They already pay one of the largest television rights fees to FIFA of any country. However, the perception is still otherwise.
For U.S. soccer fans, that perception is extremely frustrating. It is somewhat accurate: for a team that has qualified for the last six World Cups (granted, a Foreign Policy* staff team could probably qualify for the finals out of the Confederation of North, Central American, and Caribbean Association Football -- CONCACAF), interest would appear to be lower than warranted. (Six out of six is, by the way, quite impressive: England, France, and the Netherlands can't claim that streak.)
But that's changing. Go to many bars in the District on Saturday or Sunday morning, and you'll see European football -- usually the English Premier League -- on the TV. From my own observations (be wary of perception bias), the sport with the most jerseys worn on the streets of Northern Virginia and D.C. is soccer, by far. Moreover, 24.5 million Americans play football, the second most (behind China's 26.2 million) in the world. Since 1994, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of U.S. soccer fans, but among casual or non-fans, there still remains an idea that soccer is not an "American" sport. (It should also be noted that the U.S. Women's team is the dominant global powerhouse.)
UEFA's (Union of European Football Associations) selection of the 2012 Euro Cup host proved prescient, as well. Picking in 2007, Poland won the rights to host the tournament (OK, co-host with Ukraine, but since then UEFA has suggested Poland be the sole host, which the Poles have graciously declined to accept). Poland, however, was the only bid country that hasn't suffered economic decline since -- and yes, Greece was the first bid country eliminated.
Other notable findings: the Growth Environment Scores (a Goldman-devised figure of sustainable economic growth and productivity) of respective countries loosely correlate to soccer performance, but a much stronger connection exists between the improvement of economic conditions and national soccer teams. (Algeria, which did not qualify for the 2006 finals in Germany, posted the highest GES improvement among developing countries over the last four years.) The report also argues that success is partially dependent on the number of males aged 18-34 in countries, and provides a UN chart with predictions for 2050. If the claim is accurate, the Nigerian Super Eagles are going to be really, really good in a few decades.
Lastly, Goldman offers their own predictions of the semi-finals (I won't spoil, though I will say it's what my predictions are as well), and lists the probability (with their metrics) that each country will become World Cup champions.
It's lengthy, but an extremely interesting read, and provides the best rundown of the Cup to come that I've seen. Check it out.
The African continent will have robust economic growth this year.
ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast—Economic growth in Africa will rebound with growth of 4.5% in 2010 and 5.2% in 2011, according to forecasts in a report published Monday.
The African Economic Outlook 2010 report predicts the recovery will remain uneven, with southern Africa—the region hardest hit in 2009—recovering more slowly than the rest of the continent. The report by the African Development Bank, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa said East Africa is predicted to lead the way higher, with growth averaging more than 6% in 2010 and 2011.
"The prospect of only a moderate recovery in a number of African countries makes it even more pressing to address the structural problems, which existed even before the global crisis," said Leonce Ndikumana, Director of the Development Research Department at the African Development Bank.
The report's authors say the world financial crisis slashed growth levels on the continent from an average of 6% in 2006 to 2008 to 2.5% in 2009.
"The good news is that the continent has proved resilient to the crisis," said Henri-Bernard Solignac-Lecomte, Head of the Europe, Africa and Middle East Desk at the OECD Development Center in a press release. Mr. Solignac-Lecomte added that the bad news was that the downturn could make it more difficult for countries to meet their targets of reducing poverty.
The study also studied taxation revenue and found large differences in the performance of individual countries, with some collecting only half the expected revenue given living standards and incomes.
The report was published at the start of the annual meetings of the Board of Governors of the African Development Bank Group.
The economic benefits of hosting a large scale international festival like a World Cup is paying off for South Africa.
South Africa's economy grew at its fastest pace in more than 1 1/2 years as exports grew amid strengthened global demand and the country geared up to host the soccer World Cup, government data for the first quarter showed Tuesday.
The economy should continue to benefit from the World Cup and a slow recovery in domestic consumer spending following last year's recession.
This comes after news showing that African economies have passed the "stress test".
African economies have shown resilience in the face of global financial adversities, have passed the stress test and can be expected to achieve economic growth this year, says Donald Kaberuka, president of the African Development Bank (AfDB).
Addressing African finance ministers April 26 in Washington, Kaberuka acknowledged that the global financial crisis has done some damage, but said African economies are expected to average 5 percent economic growth in 2010 and 6 percent growth in 2011, with some countries forecast to achieve an even higher rate.
In many African countries, he said, the crisis has “only been a setback.”
The entire continent has been subjected to a “stress test and has passed,” he told the ministers, diplomats and finance experts, many of whom were in Washington for World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings.
For sub-Saharan Africa, Kaberuka said, capital inflows to the region swelled from $10 billion in 2001 to $53 billion just before the economic crisis in 2007. He acknowledged however, that much of the inflow has been concentrated in a few countries and dependent on factors such as the size of the market, the level of political stability, the depth of financial markets and the availability of natural resources.
The AfDB president said while the region’s four largest countries accounted for about 88 percent of those capital inflows, there was a “broadening out” of the recipient base just before the crisis.
As conditions improve and investors see more of the changes they like to see — political stability, accountability and economic transparency — Kaberuka predicted, “I think we will see a change.” He added that Africa is changing right now, but acknowledged that many people are not yet seeing it.
As an example, he pointed to Cape Verde, calling it a “miracle” country in Africa. Cape Verde has gone from being very poor to being a middle-income country. It is no longer receiving soft or concessional loans from the AfDB, he said, but is now borrowing money at market rates. Even though it is still in need of foreign aid, investment and tourism, he said, Cape Verde has made great strides through remittances from its expatriate community and by making good choices.
The African Development Bank has worked hard to stimulate development in Africa, he said. Financing activities by the AfDB have increased from a modest $300 million in 2005 to $1.6 billion in 2008 through direct lending and equity participation.
The global financial crisis presented the AfDB with challenges but also the opportunity to innovate, he said, adding that the goal of the AfDB is to make every dollar it puts into the African economy count for five dollars in real terms to help stimulate economic growth and development.
Kaberuka told his audience that he is convinced that “the macroeconomic reforms that took place in Africa in the 1980s — mainly in the areas of public finance and exchange rates — have provided a very firm foundation [on which to build]. Now what we need are reforms in the microeconomic areas and the efficiencies of institutions.”
Questions are often raised about how much more aid can be given to Africa, he said.
“There is another way to look at this problem,” he said, and he identified lack of infrastructure as the biggest hindrance to Africa’s development and a factor “beyond any country or firm” to confront singlehandedly.
He said the explosive growth of telecom markets in Africa has stepped up demand for fiber optics and satellite communication facilities to meet a substantial need. “At the same time,” he added, “growing businesses large and small are hampered by power outages, poorly maintained roads and dilapidated railways.”
Africa — a continent with 1 billion people, 40 percent of whom live in urban areas and are in need of housing, telephones and services of all types — needs infrastructure. And this need for infrastructure is transforming Africa. In response to these needs, he said, 60 percent of AfDB’s financing in Africa goes to infrastructure — roads, rails, water, broadband, etc.
Lat years economic crisis was an opportunity to pass through reform measures and stay on the economic development front tempted to change course that many countries were on. Africa should stay on course, its going in the right direction.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="460" caption="The secret military agreement signed by Shimon Peres, now president of Israel, and P W Botha of South Africa."][/caption]
Britain’s Guardian newspaper said it has proof that Israel had offered to sell nuclear warheads to South Africa in 1975. Documents uncovered by an American academic researching Israel’s ties with South Africa’s then-white minority government claims that Israeli President Shimon Peres, then defense minister, had offered the warheads “in three sizes”.
The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.
The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.
The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.
They will also undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.
A spokeswoman for Peres today said the report was baseless and there were "never any negotiations" between the two countries. She did not comment on the authenticity of the documents.
South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.
The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials "formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal".
Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
The memo, marked "top secret" and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: "In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere."
But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.
The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong's memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.
In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.
Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel's prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.
South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.
The documents confirm accounts by a former South African naval commander, Dieter Gerhardt – jailed in 1983 for spying for the Soviet Union. After his release with the collapse of apartheid, Gerhardt said there was an agreement between Israel and South Africa called Chalet which involved an offer by the Jewish state to arm eight Jericho missiles with "special warheads". Gerhardt said these were atomic bombs. But until now there has been no documentary evidence of the offer.
Some weeks before Peres made his offer of nuclear warheads to Botha, the two defence ministers signed a covert agreement governing the military alliance known as Secment. It was so secret that it included a denial of its own existence: "It is hereby expressly agreed that the very existence of this agreement... shall be secret and shall not be disclosed by either party".
The agreement also said that neither party could unilaterally renounce it.
The existence of Israel's nuclear weapons programme was revealed by Mordechai Vanunu to the Sunday Times in 1986. He provided photographs taken inside the Dimona nuclear site and gave detailed descriptions of the processes involved in producing part of the nuclear material but provided no written documentation.
Documents seized by Iranian students from the US embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution revealed the Shah expressed an interest to Israel in developing nuclear arms. But the South African documents offer confirmation Israel was in a position to arm Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads.
Israel pressured the present South African government not to declassify documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky. "The Israeli defence ministry tried to block my access to the Secment agreement on the grounds it was sensitive material, especially the signature and the date," he said. "The South Africans didn't seem to care; they blacked out a few lines and handed it over to me. The ANC government is not so worried about protecting the dirty laundry of the apartheid regime's old allies."
Israeli President Shimon Peres on Monday categorically denied a report that he offered nuclear warheads to South Africa in 1975, when he was defense minister.The report published Sunday in the British newspaper The Guardian is based on an American academic's research and claims to cite secret minutes of a meeting Peres held with senior South African officials.
Peres said Israel never negotiated the transfer of nuclear weapons to South Africa.
"There exists no basis in reality for the claims published this morning by The Guardian that in 1975 Israel negotiated with South Africa the exchange of nuclear weapons," the president said in an English-language statement. "Unfortunately, The Guardian elected to write its piece based on the selective interpretation of South African documents and not on concrete facts."
The article is based on a series of documents the South African government declassified in response to a request from American academic Sasha Polakow-Suransky, who is writing a book called "The Unspoken Alliance" about the close relationship between the Israel and South Africa.
Appearing alongside the article, the partially censored documents show a formal request from the South Africans for nuclear-capable warheads, and minutes of meetings in which then-Defense Minister Peres listed weapons available for sale.
But they do not appear to confirm any transfer of weapons, or any explicit offer from the Israelis to sell nuclear materials or nuclear-capable weapons to the South Africans.
The documents accompanying the story do show Peres' signature on minutes from a meeting where the then-defense minister discussed payloads available in "three sizes," one of several phrases that Peres said The Guardian misconstrued.
In response to the article, the South African government said it has dismantled all its nuclear weapons but did not relate to the 1975 claim.
The British paper did not call the Israeli government for a response to the article, Peres said, adding that his office "intends to send a harsh letter to the editor of The Guardian and demands the publication of the true facts."
The Guardian claims the documents offer the first documentary evidence of Israel's nuclear program.
In 1986, another British newspaper, the Sunday Times, published pictures and descriptions from a former technician at Israel's main nuclear reactor, leading experts to estimate that Israel had the world's sixth-largest nuclear arsenal.
According to its policy, Israel has never acknowledged or denied possessing nuclear weapons, though it is widely assumed to have them.
The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.
The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.
The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.
China on Thursday announced its largest investment in South Africa for more than two years, entrenching its position as the resource-rich continent’s most important economic and commercial partner.
For example, FAW, a Chinese carmaker, last month announced a $100m investment in South Africa. “Chinese companies are coming to the party,” said Martyn Davies, chief executive of Frontier Advisory Services, a Johannesburg-based consultancy. “They have a high level of confidence in the continent and see South Africa as a springboard for expansion elsewhere.”
The China Africa Development Fund and Jidong Development Group will help build a new cement plant worth at least Rmb1.5bn.
The announcement lays the ground for a planned August visit to Beijing by Jacob Zuma, the South African president, who has made deepening economic and political ties with China a priority of his foreign policy.
China emerged as South Africa’s largest trading partner last year, partly due to a large rise in iron ore exports, mirroring a trend in other countries on the continent, which have been courted by Beijing for their resources and growing markets.
The latest agreement will see the two Chinese entities joining forces with Continental Cement, a local enterprise, and Women Investment Portfolio Holdings, a South African company dedicated to empowering black women. They will build the new plant in Gauteng province, outside Johannesburg.
The new plant is aimed at making up a shortfall of domestic building products, such as cement, much of its caused by the huge infrastructure programme from construction for the football World Cup.
Congested roads and railways make it relatively costly for South Africa to import cement, so investment in local production facilities is correspondingly more attractive.
Growing economic ties with China and other big emerging markets have paved the way for closer political ties, especially since Mr Zuma came to office last May. While his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki, expressed reservations about China’s role in Africa, Mr Zuma’s own enthusiasm has been greater.
A $5.5bn investment by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China in South Africa’s Standard Bank agreed in October 2007 remains easily the largest Chinese investment in Africa to date, accounting for about a quarter of the funds that Beijing dedicated to the continent.
Much of that investment has concentrated on roads, power plants and other infrastructure but analysts say a growing number of Chinese companies are beginning to buy building and other materials locally. They are also eyeing Africa’s rapidly growing consumer markets.
Japan and South agreed to cooperate in the field of Nuclear energy.
SA's relations with Japan took a new turn last week when the two countries agreed to start negotiations on future co-operation on friendly nuclear energy that could be SA's answer to alternative power generation and the reduction of carbon emissions.
//
There was no time frame for signing an agreement, Kazuo Kodama, a spokesman for Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada, said on Friday at the 10th SA-Japan Partnership Forum meeting in Pretoria. But Okada and SA's Minister for International Relations and Co-operation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane regarded the matter as urgent, Kodama said.
//
The visit last week of Okada, a member of the Democratic Party that took power last year, ending the post-war domination of the Liberal Democrats, marked the centenary of official relations between SA and Japan.
Japan's willingness to share nuclear technology with SA indicates a significant change in relations. Nkoana-Mashabane said SA was considering upscaling the stature of Japan's diplomatic relations. This would be the fourth country the administration of President Jacob Zuma would have prioritised after the US, China and Germany since taking office.
Japan is SA's third-largest trading partner. Exports to Japan last year were R34bn down from R66bn in 2008. Imports slowed to R26bn last year from R41bn in 2008.
Japan also expected SA to play a leading role on the continent in building the new world order, participating in the Group of 20 countries as well as the transformation of the UN Security Council . Both Japan and SA are considered to be candidates for permanent seats on the council, Okada said.
Talks between the two countries explored the potential to expand and diversify trade that for many years had focused on SA largely exporting natural resources to Japan. SA's principal exports are base metals, heavy metals and cars, while imports from Japan are mainly cars, machinery, chemicals, earthmoving equipment and hi-tech equipment.
More background info on Japan-South Africa relations.
The debate about Solar energy both pros and cons have been discussed extensively, especially when a whole new industry is emerging that is drawing intense competition between China, U.S. and Europe. What i want to look at, discuss is the opportunity that this is a great time for Africa as a whole to jump on to the modernization of energy in the 21st century and leap-frog certain aspects and downsides of industrialization. Which the main disadvantages are environmental degradation.
African countries, blessed with sunlight all year round, are tapping this free and clean energy source to light up remote and isolated homes that have no immediate hope of linking to their national electricity grid. As you can see from the reporting byDeutschewellenglish progress is being made.
Electrifying rural areas poses unique challenges for African governments. Remote and scattered, rural homes, unlike homes in urban areas, are costly and often impractical to connect to the grid. Under the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), countries are seeking innovative alternatives to give rural families efficient means to cook their food and light their homes. Stand-alone sources of energy, such as solar, wind and mini-hydro generators, can help fill the gap.
NEPAD, Africa’s development blueprint, recognizes that to achieve the desired social and economic prosperity, countries must boost access to cheaper and reliable energy. Excluding South Africa and Egypt, no more than 20 per cent (and in some countries as few as 5 per cent) of Africans have electricity. This figure falls to an average of 2 per cent in rural areas where the majority of Africans live — a far cry from the 35 per cent consumption level, or more, African leaders wish to achieve.
Africa can gain a lot by embracing this opportunity. Came across a time article that confirmed what i been thinking on, but couldn't really find a reputable source that stated the case well in a short reading.
For years the Sahara has been regarded by many Europeans as a terra incognita of little economic value or importance. But this perception may be headed for a drastic overhaul. Politicians and scientists on both sides of the Med are beginning to focus on the Sahara's potential to power Europe for centuries to come. These people believe the 3.32 million-sq.-mi. (8.6 million sq km) desert's true worth lies in the very thing long regarded as its biggest liability: its arid emptiness. Some patches of the Sahara reach 113 degrees F (45 degrees C) on many afternoons. It is, in other words, a gigantic natural storehouse of solar energy.
A few years ago, scientists began to calculate just how much energy the Sahara holds. They were astounded at the answer. In theory, a 35,000-sq.-mi. (90,600 sq km) chunk of the Sahara — smaller than Portugal and a little over 1% of its total area — could yield the same amount of electricity as all the world's power plants combined. A smaller square of 6,000 sq. mi. (15,500 sq km) — about the size of Connecticut — could provide electricity for Europe's 500 million people. "I admit I was skeptical until I did the calculations myself," says Michael Pawlyn, director of Exploration Architecture, one of three British environmental companies comprising the Sahara Forest Project, which is testing solar plants in Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Pawlyn calls the Sahara's potential "staggering."
At this point, no one is proposing the creation of a solar power station the size of a small country. But a relatively well developed technology exists, which proponents say could turn the Sahara's heat and sunlight into a major electrical source — concentrating solar power (CSP). Unlike solar panels, which convert sunlight directly into electricity, CSP utilizes mirrors to focus light on water pipes or boilers, generating superheated steam to operate the turbines of generators. Small CSP plants have produced power in California's Mojave Desert since the 1980s. The Sahara Forest Project proposes building CSP plants below sea level (the Sahara has several such depressions) so that seawater can flow into them and be condensed into distilled water for powering turbines and washing dust off the mirrors. Wastewater would be used to irrigate areas around the stations, creating lush oases — hence the forest in the group's name.
One country is perfect for solar energy due to its climate, South Africa. South Africa's solar radiation output is over twice that of Europe - making it one of the highest in the world - and is the most readily accessible resource available. This immense energy resource lends itself to a number of potential uses and the country's solar-equipment industry is growing with a number of companies in South Africa selling solar panels and other related solar energy products. There are some problems that the country faces, which have been magnified since the 2010 World Cup is taking place this summer.
For many years, South Africa has suffered from poor energy efficient housing. Low-cost housing is particularly poor for saving energy, resulting in high levels of wasted energy especially in winter. The result is harmful levels of air pollution in townships, due mainly to coal burning.
But not all is lost....
Research has shown that if low-cost housing can be fitted with solar panels then fuel savings of as much as 65% could be made. This makes solar energy for homes an environmental and money-saving success mainly because:
Solar energy has become more efficient.
Less expensive to install. It’s still more expensive than traditional power, but this will change in the not-too-distant future with fuel and utility costs rising.
When this happens, the demand is likely to go crazy which should lower the costs even more as competitors fight over the market share.
And energy saving homes can be built at the same cost as energy-wasteful houses. Water heating accounts for a third to half of the energy use in the average South African household. This comes mainly from electricity. If solar energy replaced electricity for this then it would save the lower income households significant money, whilst saving energy, which will in turn improve the environment in which they live.
A roll-out programme of solar water heaters has started, with the focus on higher income households in Gauteng, the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. This program is led by the Central Energy Fund (CEF).
Solar water heaters have many benefits both for the customer and for South Africa. The customer benefits by having a reduced electricity bill and the country benefits because less power has to be generated and so less pollution is generated.
And as solar water heaters and photovoltaic solar panels can be used both at residential and commercial buildings, with the amount of sunshine South Africa basks in, there really is no excuse for the government not pushing solar panels more aggressively.
African countries must think outside the box for development and modernization. This chance is ripe for the pickings. The sun is free, inexhaustible, and no country controls it. The future is bright for those who chose to harness the given opportunity .
The African Union's New Partnership for Africa's Development, NEPAD unveiled 'The Best of Africa 2010-2015' project aimed at attracting investments into Africa.
The project will focus on showcasing Africa as a business and investment destination, according to NEPAD's Planning and Co-ordinating Agency chief executive officer Dr. Ibrahim Assane Mayaki.
The initiative draws on the declaration of the 8th Assembly of the African Union (AU) Heads of State and Government through which the AU reaffirmed its commitment to make the 2010 World Cup a truly African tournament.
"We are looking to take advantage of the presence of the international and African business representatives that will be in South Africa for the World Cup in June. The idea is to get these representatives to engage each other on increased investments, growth and development for Africa." says Dr. Mayaki.
The Best of Africa project will take place in the first week of the World Cup in South Africa and will include a business conference, an exhibition and a cultural festival - all designed to showcase opportunities in the continent.
"It is a worthwhile initiative but much will depend on how well the African governments follow through with parties interested in investing in Africa. It is clear that there are investment opportunities in Africa but it is important to provide the favourable environment for investors to see a return." says TradeInvestSA editor JP van der Merwe.
"Feasibility studies for new projects will need to be thorough, land rights and ownership will need to be well defined and governments will have to outline definitive investment plans, where a thorough step-by-step process is followed. For portfolio investments, African markets will have to continue to open themselves up so that potential investors can buy or sell assets quickly and without hassle," he adds.
Although one is to celebrate their golden years with grace, humility and a positive outlook on life for being able to live to such an age, Robert Mugabe seems to be the exception to this understanding.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="298" caption="Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai"][/caption]
A year after a historic coalition government was formed, most Zimbabweans are in no mood to celebrate today's anniversary. Civil servants are on strike, reforms are stalled, farmers are under attack, and the autocratic Robert Mugabe still controls most of the levers of power.
The coalition, which allowed opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai to become the Prime Minister, has staggered through a rough year. The economy has improved, but the government is paralyzed by internal feuding and fierce resistance from Mr. Mugabe's allies. And it faces the risk of collapse if the squabbling persists and foreign donors remain unwilling to help.
Mr. Mugabe, still President at the age of 85, is showing no signs of surrendering power. He has stubbornly blocked the political reforms that were supposed to flow from a breakthrough 2008 agreement between the opposition and the ruling ZANU-PF party.
That agreement, which led to the coalition government that was sworn in a year ago, is now "becoming a joke," according to Eddie Cross, a senior member of Mr. Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change.
Only 12 per cent of the agreement has been put into effect, Mr. Cross estimates. A top MDC leader, Roy Bennett, is still being prosecuted on charges widely believed to be trumped up. Many other MDC members have been arrested or harassed. Deadlines for reform have been repeatedly ignored, and commercial farmers are still losing their farms to invading thugs.
Mr. Mugabe and his supporters are increasingly hardline, refusing any concessions unless Mr. Tsvangirai persuades foreign governments to lift targeted sanctions that prevent Mr. Mugabe and his cronies from travelling to Europe or North America. Meanwhile, all negotiations are deadlocked.
Mr. Mugabe has "made a complete fool" of the regional leaders who brokered the coalition deal, Mr. Cross said on his website. "While they fiddle - Zimbabwe burns. No progress with health and education or economic recovery and investment. No reduction in political violence and human rights violations. No change in the media and the daily outpouring of propaganda."
Mugabe is living off his past legacy as a foot soldier and leader of Zimbabwean independence. The problem is that he never left or put aside his rebel insurgent mindset and adapted a governing mentality for the country. Mugabe is like
a wounded bull, still dangerous to its pursuers. The MDC is willing to finish the fight, but this might leave it fatally wounded, too....The region will have to decide whether to leave the old bull to die on its own and simply let Zimbabwe slide back into chaos.
Mugabe has repeatedly complained about Western interference and used colonialism as a threat to Zimbabwe's sovereignty. The only logical and substantive outcome would be more international involvement with a tougher stance. The friendly approach has run its course, especially with South African input. This should be led by the U.S. since it has less or no historical "slave-occupation", unlike some European countries. This would be one area of the world where President Obama can quickly and decisively have a lasting and positive impact-legacy.
[/caption]
[/caption]