Bill Clinton on Africa and the Future

HASH(0x9498948)

August 7, 2008

During his annual whirlwind tour of Clinton Foundation humanitarian projects in Africa, which ended Monday, former U.S. President Bill Clinton sat down with National Geographic News's David Braun in Kigali, Rwanda, for a conversation on how African leaders can unite to fight the energy, climate, and food crises and how the continent is so much more than the disasters that often define it in the media. (Hear the full interview.)

Africa is perhaps more vulnerable than other continents to the food, energy, and climate crises. But can Africa also provide part of the global solution to these problems?

I am trying to work on all three of them. And I am trying to convince Africa that the energy crisis and climate change and Africa's capacity to develop its economy through agriculture and to improve the health of their people through nutrition should be pursued in tandem.

Africans should realize that they might actually be able to skip a stage of development. They don't have to go through the carbon-intensive phase. They can't afford it, unless they have their own oil resources.

A lot of the modeling that's been done about bad things that are going to happen as a result of global warming shows that the biggest consequences in the early phases … will happen in Africa and in other places surrounding the Equator. So Africans have a big stake in avoiding this.

Wherever possible Africa should maximize the use of small-scale solar and wind energy.

In the rapidly urbanizing areas of Africa they should do what the Clinton Foundation has been asked to do [by local governments] in Addis Ababa [Āds Ābeba], Ethiopia, and Lagos, Nigeria, and in non-African places like Delhi in India—to manage solid waste and municipal water systems with maximum efficiency. Recover the methane gas [released by decomposing trash], turn it into energy. Take all the organic material in landfills and compost it and either use it for energy or make fertilizer.

[Related: "Alcohol, Feces, Carcasses Fuel 'Green' Vehicles in Sweden" (June 25, 2007).]

Organic farming can get rid of the methane contribution to global warming from urban landfills and animal waste by recovering the material and reusing it as compost. [See "Global Warming Feedback Loop Caused by Methane, Scientists Say" (August 29, 2006).]

All of this helps on the energy side, on the climate change problem side, and on the food production side.

Africa is uniquely positioned to produce biofuels that do not displace the production of essential foodstuffs or raise the price of food.

Countries can grow jatropha [a plant that produces seeds containing up to 40 percent oil] on marginal lands, which produces 4 gallons [15 liters] of biofuel for every 1 gallon [4 liters] of gasoline used to produce it.

This is a much better ratio than, say, corn-based ethanol. And it has a conversion cost somewhat lower than traditional cellulosic ethanol in the U.S. [for example, ethanol made from switchgrass].

In some places, including Ethiopia, they're capable of growing sugarcane and using the Brazilian process to produce 8 gallons [30 liters] of biofuel for every gallon [4 liters] of gasoline used to produce them.

And Africa can do it without the risk of deforestation the Brazilians are now facing. [Related: "Ethanol Production Could Be Eco-Disaster, Brazil's Critics Say" (February 8, 2007).]

Many African countries could pursue both reforestation and the production of biofuels, and do it on land that wouldn't displace maize or soybeans or any essential foodstuffs, and therefore wouldn't contribute to the rising price of food or scarcity or malnutrition.

So Africans have a whole array of options, if they have leaders and policies that say, We are going to go after increased food production, fight climate change, and overcome our energy shortages.

Do leaders of the developed world appreciate that, if these issues are resolved in Africa, it is a benefit for the whole planet, and therefore also for the developed countries?

Some do and some don't. There's a predisposition among leaders of the world to see this once they see the quality of leadership in Africa and look at how many of these countries in sub-Saharan Africa have been enjoying brisk growth rates.

There is a willingness to help Africa. The best example is what the Global Fund, the American government, the [Bill and Melinda] Gates Foundation, and others have done in helping with AIDS, TB, and malaria—and what we do building out health systems. The work [former U.S.] President Carter has done on infectious diseases has been out of a real desire to help Africa.

Those of us who spend a lot of time here and know a lot of Africans gravitate naturally from the health care issues to the energy and economic and food issues.

African leaders declared an African renaissance a few years ago and promised good, accountable government. But have setbacks like Zimbabwe and Darfur in Sudan created an impediment to the world's involvement in Africa?

I would argue, based on my personal experience for the last decade, that Zimbabwe and Darfur are the exceptions, not the rule.

If you look at the African countries where you've had good leadership, good policies, sensible aid, trade, debt relief, and investment, the results show not a negative but an enormously positive picture of almost unlimited potential.

Do you have a sense that Africa is coming together politically, that the countries are more supportive of one another, as envisaged by South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki, Nigeria's former President Olusegun Obasanjo, and others?

[Most African countries are] predisposed to that, but most of the countries still are at a stage of development where what they need even more is a workable strategy [not just a philosophy] that has a reasonable chance to succeed—and then people supporting that strategy.

And then we need some very specific ways of following through on the economic plan and continental vision that Obasanjo and Mbeki have.

One of the most hopeful developments in the last couple of years has been the not very much noticed announcement by Bob Zoelleck, president of the World Bank, that the bank was wrong to discourage agricultural development and diversification and not to finance that for the last 20 years.

Instead of [enabling] Africa [to] leap over agriculture and go to industrial development and get its food imported cheaper, [the anti-agriculture mindset] made Africa even more at risk from high [food] subsidies in Europe and in the U.S.

But the truth is, if you look at it in a more organic way and go back to the idea that agriculture can form the first base of significant wealth generation and make Africa more independent economically, then you can begin to realize the African continental vision by lowering barriers to food trade [within Africa].

That vision will be realized when there is a core number of countries capable of sustaining significant growth and seeing how much they have to gain from cooperating with each other.

I'm very optimistic. I just think it's important not to be impatient. You need to have a theory of putting one foot in front of the other.

And we need to get them the help they need and try to see that they have the capacity to organize themselves so that a very significant percentage of the population of every country can access whatever progress can be made.

For more on the Clinton Foundation's 2008 African tour and other issues, see David Braun's blog.