Botswana-EU cooperation:
Focus on cattle, copper and conservation
Full text of an article from The Courier ACP-EU
No. 154,
November-December 1995: pages 26-27
There are three key areas of non-programmed assistance - the Lomé Beef Protocol, Sysmin funding, and operations by the European Investment Bank (EIB). The Beef Protocol allows 18 916 tonnes of beef produced in Botswana to be exported to the EU annually on preferential terms. The financial benefit of this arrangement (although not entirely returning to Botswana), is estimated at about ECU 24 million a year.
The country's copper-nickel mining industry, mainly run by BCL at Selebi- Phikwe, has received ECU 21.65m from the Sysmin loan facility for a rehabilitation and expansion programme. The aim of the funding is to optimise operations and extend the life of the mine and smelter to the end of the century, thereby maintaining the viability of the town that has grown up around the mining operation. The differential in the interest rate between the Sysmin loan to the government and onlending to BCL generates funds which are to be devoted to industrial diversification programmes. The purpose of these is to strengthen the longer-term economic viability of Selebi-Phikwe. A new loan application, aimed at further extending the smelter, with a view to processing other ore deposits in the region, is currently under appraisal. (For further information, see the preceding article on Selebi-Phikwe).
Following earlier investments in Botswana, the EIB has, under Lomé IV, provided loans totalling ECU 27.3m for five separate operations in the electricity, water supply, meat processing and SME sectors. A new EIB loan of ECU 40 million, to support the large-scale 'North-South Water Carrier Project', has been agreed in principle. It is anticipated that the agreement will be signed before the end of 1995. As regards programmed assistance, EU cooperation with Botswana consists of two main 'concentration' areas and a number of other smaller scale actions. In the focal sector of 'environment, conservation and tourism', two major projects costing a total of ECU 13.4m are currently being implemented, relating specifically to wildlife conservation and tourism development. The forestry sector has also been targeted with a project costing ECU 3m, while a further tourism development scheme (ECU 1.5m) is presently being appraised.
In the second concentration area of 'technical education and training', there is a major project under appraisal for the establishment of a Vocational Training Centre in Gaborone. The plan is that this centre should have an Automotive Trades Training Centre attached to it. The estimated overall cost of the project is ECU 20m of which 75% would be financed by the EDF, the remainder being provided by the government.
Outside the focal sectors, EU assistance has been provided for a number of social investments including the fight against AIDS, socio-economic infrastructure in rural areas (under a microproject programme) and assistance for the authorities in controlling drug trafficking. In the area of capacity-strengthening, support is being given to the Ministry of Commerce for trade development. Finally, a project set up under an earlier EDF for small livestock marketing - which has been hit by the collapse of the Botswana Cooperative Bank - is under evaluation.
Recent debates about EU development policy, not least the Maastricht Treaty discussions which resulted in the 'formalisation' of certain key policy objectives, have prompted the Commission delegation in Botswana to look again at the EU's programmes in the country. In particular, it has tried to assess how far the concrete actions of the Community fit in with the objectives and priorities identified both in 'Maastricht' and in the relevant Council resolutions.
The good news is that assistance currently provided in the EU's cooperative relationship with Botswana appears to be broadly consistent with the wider goals. First - and in very general terms - the Treaty on European Union refers to democracy, the rule of law and respect of human rights as fundamental objectives. Few would dispute that the government adheres to these basic tenets. As for more specific objectives such as sustainable economic and social development, smooth and gradual integration into the world economy and combating poverty, most of the programmes appear to fit in with one or more of these aims.
If one is making an honest assessment, however, one must acknowledge that a question mark hangs over the beef protocol, notably regarding the effect that it may have on the environment in Botswana. The protocol, so the argument goes, is one of the main reasons for the expansion of the cattle industry and thus, the EC is accused of contributing to the rapid degradation of range land and the progressive decline of Botswana's wildlife population.
From a strict causative standpoint, this accusation is not entirely fair. The beef protocol imposes strict human and animal health rules in respect of the meat that is exported to the EU but it does not and indeed cannot regulate the local conditions. The creation of an environmentally appropriate internal regulatory framework is, quite properly, a matter for the government of Botswana. Having said this, we are entitled to ask whether the EU has a moral responsibility to assist Botswana in finding longer-term solutions to this problem. Most people recognise that there is a need to reduce the pressure on the land engendered by the cattle industry. There is also the issue of alleviating rural poverty. At present, cattle smallholders derive some advantage from the protocol but so do large-scale farmers and 'middle-men' and there is a question as to equitable distribution of the benefit, bearing in mind that combating poverty is a key objective of Community aid.
This is obviously a complex issue which needs to be analysed in the wider context of EU trade policy and its linkages with the environment of developing countries.
| 1975-1980 | 1981-1985 | 1986- 1990 | 1991-1995 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| National indicative programmes | 19.0 | 23.0 | 30.5 | 32.0 | Other EDF (including Sysmin) and EIB funds | 12.6 | 29.4 | 53.8 | 35.1 | EC Budget | 1.6 | 0.8 | 3.3 | 3.4 | Total | 33.2 | 53.2 | 87.6 | 70.5 |
Developer's Note: These pages were developed for use on the Netscape browser. Please address comments on content or style to Peter Ballantyne, Information Programme, ECDPM