Archive for January, 2013

FrontPage Africa again ignores EPA-L: A case of media bias?

By Morris T. Koffa

About few weeks ago, FrontPage Africa published its “Who Passed; Who Failed in the Liberian Gov’t: FPA’s 2012 Assessment,” which is the annual ritual of that news media’s way of assessing the performance of the Liberian Government.

The exercise was somehow exhaustive. It assessed just about all of the government functionaries including the Drug Enforcement Agency, Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission, General Auditing Commission, Liberia Civil Aviation Authority, and Forestry Development Authority.

Although the process is nonscientific as FPA readily admits, this annual ritual is often a befitting exercise for public consumption, because it usually generates public interest and provides a window on how the government entities are performing. This exercise also helps the government gather some useful suggestions often driven by public opinion.

For the entities, the media exercise could serve as an opportunity to gauge and analyze their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT); in order to identify existing gap for improvement. Since the entire effort is about the functionaries of the government of Liberia, it is important to be inconclusive of all government entities to create a sense of media balance. Omitting one entity in the exercise, and more so on a consistent basis may generate reasonable perception and conclusion that such an entity is unimportant.

Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia (EPA-L) has been a victim of this exercise of exclusion since its inception several years ago. Such neglect raises logical questions as to why the EPA-L has been left out of the equation, when it should be regarded as an equally important entity of the government.

The EPA-L was created in 2003 by an Act of the Liberian Legislature as an autonomous agency charged with the responsibilities of protecting and managing the environment for the well-being of all citizens and residents. These responsibilities are geared toward developing and sustaining healthy human resources germane to the nation’s economic growth for present and future generations.

Furthermore, the EPA plays a vital role in sustaining the overall economic and social growth as well as the political stability of the nation. No nation succeeds in its developmental goals in the absence of sound environmental practices against the calamities from environmental degradation.

A well-managed and protected environment is considered the crux and indicator of measurable progress as enshrined in the United National Millennium Development Goal (MDG), which stresses that poverty reduction is the measure of sound, sustainable environmental practices.

It goes to say that no nation succeeds holistically without sound, measureable and achievable environmental goals. With such grounded information, EPA-L has been doing its very best even with limited national resources to ensure that Liberia remains a partner in the global desire to protect the environment for humanity. With such a national core mission, leaving out the EPA-L is inconceivable, to say the least.

Excluding EPA-L from the annual evaluation exercise concerns Africa Environmental Watch (AEW), Inc. and perhaps many other environmental groups. FrontPage is one of the iconic news organs in Liberia. It attracts more readerships, therefore, whatever news it provides is widely consumed; and perceptions are developed leading to serious public policy discussion.

Marginalizing a critical government entity such as the EPA-L is likely to give the perception that the entity is irrelevant, and contributes nothing meaningful to the social and economic sectors of the country. Such a notion of exclusion of the EPA-L may send mixed signals to the public and our international partners. In the end, the exclusion could undermine a thriving global partnership which the EPA-L has begun to build.

It should be recalled that at the September 2011 environmental forum held on behalf of EPA-L in Washington DC, partnership initiatives were established. The Liberia Environmental Forum for capacity building and technical assistance of the EPA brought together global partners such as the United States Environmental Protection Administration (USEPA), USAID, Global Environmental Facilities (GEF), UN Sustainable Development Office, National Council for Science and Environment (NCSE), Environmental Law Institute (ELI), Conservation International (CI), University of the District of Columbia UDC and many others.

At the conclusion of the conference, several memorandums of understanding (MOUs) were signed between the UDC and EPA-L, William V. S. Tubman University (TU), and Stella Maris Polytechnic (SMP). As a follow-up to the MOUs, a technical assessment team from UDC and AEW visited Liberia in May 2012 to conduct the need assessment for EPA-L, TU and SMP. Other tangible benefits derived from the conference are beginning to mature.

This is just a glance of what is unfolding in Liberia as a result of the EPA-L’s effort. Of course, there is more to be done but let’s recognize the little that is achieved through the many sacrifices of the hardworking people at the agency. The media has an important role to play in the process.

Another EPA accomplishment is that through its global partnership initiatives with Africa Environmental Watch and others, environmental degree programs are now being offered at Stella Maris Polytechnic and William V.S. Tubman University. These degree programs will prepare research practitioners to assist policymakers in making sound policies that will improve the nation’s environmental practices.

These initiatives are beginning to bear some tangible results. Liberians cannot afford to let these efforts waste. Furthermore, institutions inside and outside of Liberia including the media community bear equal responsibility to promote the EPA-L, because of its core value and mission to protect our environment. If we ignore the importance of the EPA-L and not help publicize the work it is doing, we will open the floodgate of corporations, companies and other institutions to constantly endanger the air we breathe, the water we drink and the soil that grows our food.

On several occasions, AEW brought these concerns to the attention of Front Page Africa’s editor-in-chief. To his credit, FPA published EPA-L related “concerned letters” during the administration of the late Hon. Ben Donnie. Notwithstanding, the situation still persists. Of course FPA has the right to evaluate or assess whomever it chooses, but as a matter of social responsibility and media balance, AEW hopes that just as FPA focuses on other government entities, it needs to extend similar attention to the EPA-L, so that the public will enjoy the same courtesy to better engage or promote the EPA-L in other circles of government.

Once again, the EPA-L was established in 2003; but it did not become fully institutionalized until in 2006 by the Sirleaf-led government. The EPA-L, like other government entities has had its share of challenges, but yet it is making measurable progress amidst limited resources to deal with the enormity of its core vision of protecting and regulating Liberia’s environment. Such progress along with the problems encountered need to be publicized. AEW believes that FPA’s readership deserves to know how their EPA-L is doing and how we collectively can make it better.

The current EPA-L leadership embarked on a visionary roadmap by building a network of domestic and global partnerships for a sustainable environmental future. For example, Environmental Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) is now a standard requirement for all companies (commercial and private), whose activities are deemed sensitive to the environment. This means that the EPA-L often assesses both pre and post environmental conditions of the companies’ activities. The EPA-L often trains inspectors to spot indictors of potential environmental threats. This was never the case in the past.

In conclusion, the AEW hopes that FPA will consider this article as an appeal to focus on EPA-L in present and future media exercises. We all are in this together. Where praise is due, let it be shared all around. Where suggestions for improvement are due, let them also be shared around.

Postwar Liberia needs a sound and balanced critique of development and progress that we all can be proud of. Thank you!

Mr. Morris T. Koffa, is an Environmental Engineer & Disaster/Emergency Management Practitioner, and Executive Director of the Africa Environmental Watch (AEW), Inc. He can be reached at [email protected] and 240-417-2545 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 240-417-2545 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (cell).

A critical look at the role of the Diaspora in Liberia's development

By Cecil Franweah Frank

The diaspora could be a very important force for good or for evil in any country’s development. In scholarly literature, the paradigm of diaspora is frequently viewed as a transnational community that is inclusive of migrant and ethnic communities.

In short, according to Baubock and Faist (2010, p.86), there are three important conditions for the diaspora to become a participant in development policy: first, national or ethnic origin; second, a capability to contribute to development in the country of origin; and, third, a readiness to do so.

Within the context of what has been said above, the question now is has the diaspora been a positive actor in Liberia’s development policy or a destabilizing factor or element undermining peace in the country of origin? This article in large part tries to address this question, particularly in light of the Liberian diaspora now demanding that government grants it dual citizenship.

Ascendancy of the Liberian Diaspora on the National Scene: 1960-1989

The history of the Liberian diaspora has not been fully chronicled in scholarly research. However, much can be said that the Liberian diaspora fully came of age in the 1960s. This is the period that the number of Liberians leaving the country mostly for studies began to increase. Many of these Liberians particularly traveled to the United States. The choice of the United States as opposed to other countries was informed by the perceived historical ties between the two countries and the deepening of US influence in Liberia.

The period 1960-1971 marked the formation of the diaspora as a participant in Liberia’s political and economic development. In the late 1960s, Liberian students in the United States organized the Liberian Student Union, which eventually was renamed the Union of Liberian Association in the United States (ULAA) (Watkins, 2007, p.130).

Many members of the diaspora at the time did not support anti-Tubman opponents like Tuan Wreh and Albert Porte. In fact, the diaspora was mostly complacent in Tubman’s dictatorial regime since they benefited from his paternalistic policies. Besides, the Liberian diaspora that saw its ranks increasing with indigenous Liberians felt the need to repay President Tubman with loyalty because of his policy of Unification which they taught liberated them from oppression by the Americo-Liberian elite.

The period 1971-1980 saw a new stage in diaspora development and participation in Liberia. This period saw the political radicalization of the Liberian diaspora, and was marked by the establishment of various political movements. The first of these movements was the Movement for Justice in Africa (MOJA).

This organization was created by misguided leftist Liberian educators Togba-Nah Tipoteh, Henry Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr., Amos Sawyer and Dew Mason. These were American educated lecturers who benefited from Tubman’s largesse but were led astray by socialist rhetoric. A year later, in 1974, Gabriel Baccus Matthews created the Progressive Alliance of Liberia (PAL). (Sirleaf, 2005, p.102).

1980-1989 marked the third stage in the participation of the diaspora in the development policy and economic affairs of Liberia. The diaspora at first misguidedly greeted the military coup that toppled the democratic civilian government of Liberia and backed the cancelation of Liberia’s 1847 Constitution. This was Africa’s first republican constitution.

This period also saw the struggle within the diaspora between the socialist and capitalist wings. This situation culminated into the Doe Administration being pushed over the cliff into an era of brutal rule. What is interesting to note is that elements of both wings were educated in the bastion of global capitalism and democratic governance – the United States of America.

The Consequential Outcomes of the Diaspora’s Role in Liberia’s Development

In view of the analysis carried out above, it is safe to conclude that the diaspora, particularly the Liberian diaspora in the United States, has had a largely negative influence on Liberia’s development. Given that throughout Liberia’s 165 years of existence, it has been an under-developed country struggling to solidify its sovereignty. Whatever positive contributions isolated members of the diaspora made to their motherland were effectively drowned out by the collective efforts of the diaspora members in political and economic leadership.

Rather than being a force for socio-economic development and political good governance, the diaspora has mainly been a force that led Liberia to its abyss under the deep cloud of poor governance, reckless economic management and massive corruption. This is the legacy of the diaspora’s role in Liberia’s development.

The diaspora had failed to use its influence in Liberia’s political and economic structure to craft development policies, but instead positioned the country to be a natural resource economically dependent nation. This explains why over the many years of Liberia’s existence, the country’s main revenues came from the export of its natural resources and not from any credible coordinated tax revenue-generating system. As such, a key consequence of the diaspora’s involvement in Liberia was the undermining of the country’s statehood and making Liberia dependent on the“George Haddads” to run its economy.

Liberia is one of two pioneer black countries globally. The other country is Haiti. Both nations share one common trait, even if they are not identical in terms of language and culture. The trait that unites them is that they are both spectacular failures. They have contributed to and consolidated the perception that blacks are not capable of ruling themselves without “white” intervention.

Another negative aspect of the diaspora’s role in Liberia has been the ‘governance crisis.’ The governing elites in Liberia had always considered the diaspora as a source of legitimacy. Thus, successive governments in Liberia had sought to cultivate the loyalties and support of members of the diaspora.

This attitude by the governing elite is not surprising given the belief fact that on the whole, diaspora Liberians tend to be more skilled, better educated and wealthier than Liberians in the homeland. Unfortunately, diaspora Liberians have failed by and large to leverage this power of knowledge and wealth to promote good democratic governance in Liberia.

This situation has affected even Liberians educated on the ground, and has created a culture whereby Liberians as a whole have tended to embrace misrule and discourage any efforts to correct the situation. This explains why Liberians continue to embrace the concept that “might is greater than strength” rather than seek to create a law-abiding society where all citizens are equal before the law.

Another negative aspect of the diaspora’s role has been its impact on public policies, particularly as it relates to the “corruption and poverty crisis.” Many members of the diaspora have served in influential decision-making positions, but they have never been able to develop effective policies to tackle widespread poverty and corruption in Liberia. To the contrary, it actually seems the diaspora has abetted poverty and corruption in Liberia. Poverty and endemic corruption are major obstacles to Liberia’s development (Andrews and Hadjimichael, 2006, p.3).

The issues of poverty and corruption have been underlying themes of the diaspora’s opposition to previous governments, but diaspora members have frequently backed away from these issues when given a chance to serve in the Liberian government. This explains why little progress has been made on poverty and corruption.

The present government, which has a large contingent of diaspora members in its ranks formulated an anti-corruption strategy, as well as declaration of assets, and Code of Conduct. But, Liberian newspapers continue to publish on a daily basis cases of high-profile corruption involving members of the diaspora in government.

Conclusion

The Liberian diaspora, particularly the diaspora groups in the United States, has been highly involved in Liberian economic and political structures. The influence of diaspora groups in the United States on Liberia has been one of historical making starting from the country’s founding in the mid-1800s, to the active surge of US influence in Liberia beginning in the 1940s.

However, there is little if anything positive to show for the diaspora’s involvement in Liberia. Even with diaspora members in leadership positions, Liberia continues to remain a deeply under-developed country whose leadership is stuck in the old ways of doing business.

An illustrative example of this perception is news that the current president appointed her sons and relatives to key positions of trust; from security to banking to the natural resource sectors, even though this runs against standard ethics of governance. Such action would have definitely been difficult if not impossible to carry out if there were functional institutions. Similar actions were widespread prior to the civil war.

In post-conflict Liberia, the diaspora still doesn’t have a positive influence on good governance and development. As events later showed, political and pressure groups that were created by diaspora members to advocate for greater openness and transparency in Liberia were not effective because the members of these organizations sought their own agenda under the pretext of seeking to liberate the populace.

Even when given the opportunity to demonstrate their passion and loyalty to their motherland, many of these diaspora members significantly underperformed in political and economic leadership, and failed to usher in any social change.

This should not be surprising given that the anatomy of the Liberian diaspora’s inability to have a positive impact on its motherland, can be linked to the manner in which diaspora organizations operate. A case in point is the Union of Liberian Associations in the United States (ULAA), which since its inception has been little more than a talking shop and instrument for political power in Liberia. ULAA currently lacks a standard headquarters and its leadership is in complete disarray.

The diaspora still has the ability to play a positive role in the establishment of credible, functional political, social, and economic institutions in Liberia. By leveraging the educational skills and know-how of its members, the diaspora can truly become a force for good.

As a start, the diaspora needs to advocate for improved conditions for downtrodden Liberians against an all-powerful centralized government. The diaspora needs to refocus the collective energies of its members on issues that matter such as good governance and stability in the country’s political environment, by pressing for credible, empowered institutions, accountable economic management; by tightening the screw on corruption and pressing for transparency, and by advocating astutely for post-conflict bread and butter deliverables like pipe-borne drinking water, electrification and speedy construction of infrastructure to improve the living conditions of ordinary Liberians.

A good start will be to pressure members of the diaspora that are in political and economic leadership to walk the walk and not only talk the talk. Besides, the diaspora should push the government to encourage inclusiveness rather than picking and choosing among Liberian intellectuals. These actions will enhance the role of the diaspora in Liberia’s development.

REFERENCES

Andrew, D., & Hadjimichael, M. (2006). Liberia: 2006 article IV consultation and staff-monitored program – staff report; public information notice on the executive board discussion; and statement by the authorities of Liberia [Edition illustrated]. International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C..

Baubock, R., & Faist, T. (Ed.). (2010). Diaspora and transnationalism: concepts, theories and methods [Edition illustrated]. Amsterdam University Press.

Dolo, E. (2007). Ethnic tensions in Liberia’s national identity crisis: problems and possibilities [Edition illustrated]. Africana Homestead Legacy Publication.

Sirleaf, A.M.D. (2005). He die before his plans were realized [Edition illustrated]. AuthorHouse.

Watkins, S.R. (2007). Liberia communication [Edition illustrated