Analysis

In recent times, developing countries are faced with a challenging task of balancing their commitment under various international instruments such as the Paris Agreement to achieve a Just Energy Transition and their pertinent need for industr1ialization and development. At the center of this contention is the knowledge that resources are scarce and must be allocated judiciously towards desired goals. The existing scarce resources are further plundered through illicit financial flows because of ineffective systems in developing countries. This paper examines the idea of a Just Transition through the lens of developing countries like African countries whose contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions have been minimal. The paper highlights access to finance as a key component of an expedient Just Transition and highlights illicit financial flow as a threat to the realization of the Just Energy Transition among other pre-existing structural challenges. This paper calls on developing countries to tighten their ship in retaining capital and limiting the illicit exportation capital towards realizing the Just Energy Transition.

Over the past few decades, we have seen an emerging form of neoliberal discourses on Africa that focus on emergence, as the continent has moved from being framed as the world’s “problem case” to the exciting new frontier of “Africa Rising". This has pushed neoliberal capitalists to see Africa as a continent of the future that is about to achieve transformations and socio-economic progress if it follows the orthodox advice of opening its market and accepting negative integration into the world economy. However, fuelled heavily by GDP growth rates, the “rising” narrative has been adept at obscuring a reality of widening wealth inequality and persistent poverty among the majority sections of the continent’s population even while witnessing the emergence of mega shopping malls and cell phones in almost every hand. Additionally, the myth of an Africa that achieves growth has overshadowed the quality of this growth as it does not lead to an improvement in the living conditions of Africans but instead breeds illicit financial flows (IFFs).

Climate finance is critical in addressing climate change because of the large-scale investments required for the climate transition. Climate finance refers to local, national or transnational financing – drawn from public, private and alternative sources of financing that seek to support mitigation and adaptation actions that will address climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement call for financial assistance from Parties with more financial resources to those that are less endowed and more vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. Despite the gathering momentum when it comes to climate finance, developed nations have so far failed to meet their long-standing climate pledges. Developed countries fall significantly short of their commitment to contribute $100 billion annually to support climate actions in developing nations. There remains a substantial financial gap in climate finance in Africa, yet climate disasters cost between 5 and 15% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), the implementation of African Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) requires nearly $3 trillion, including about $2.5 trillion between 2020 and 2030. The need to fast-track climate finance is urgent and undeniable. However, Parties should also take into account the question of financial integrity in the climate transition. Transparency International defines financial integrity as “a financial system that operates in a clean, transparent and accountable way”. Tax transparency, fiscal transparency, procurement and contract transparency, and beneficial ownership transparency are prerequisites to financial integrity.

This essay proposes an alternative to the contemporary theorization of the relationship between Illicit Financial Flows (IFFs) and Migrant Rights. Contemporary theorization of the relationship between IFFs and Migrant Rights solidified a linear correlation between human trafficking or smuggling and IFFs. It is common among existent literature to state that human trafficking and smuggling are some of the contributors to IFFs out of Africa. For instance, the High-Level Panel on IFFs from Africa noted that IFFs “typically originate from three sources: commercial tax evasion, trade mis-invoicing, and abusive transfer pricing; criminal activities, including the drug trade, human trafficking, illegal arms dealing and smuggling of contraband; and bribery and theft by corrupt government officials." Further notable is that analysis of the impact of IFFs on development usually tends to marginalize migrant (“a person outside of a State of which they are a citizen or national, or in the case of a stateless person or person of undetermined nationality, their State of birth or habitual residence”) communities in its theorization or empiricism. That is partly because contemporary development studies fail to recognize the relationship between IFFs and migrants’ right to development. Therefore, this essay is an early-stage critical theorization and a call to action for scholars to theorize the relationship between IFFs and migrant rights to development.

The Gabonese duffel bags of cash televised in September this year demonstrate the inadequacy of existing measures to stem state-abetted graft. The African Union’s High Level Panel (HLP) on IFFs promotes policy harmonization, however, its non-binding provisions slip towards toothlessness, given that states themselves drive SIFFs. Implementing the HLP needs muscular institutional ruptures with graft. Crucially, existing anticorruption measures are crippled by the fact that SIFFs blur the lines between licit and illicit finances. Therefore, policymakers should embed anti-corruption norms within the constitution to enable the people to revolt against enduring SIFF regimes such as the Bongo dynasty.

The exponentially growing discomfort around Illicit Financial Flows (IFFs) globally is an indicator of the undesirable effects that result from the IFFs, ranging from social, economic and even political consequences. There is a general concurrence that IFFs take away substantial amounts of finances from the developing countries, which finances could otherwise be utilised in domestic investments, provision of public services such as education, security, health etc., and offsetting foreign debts. It is on this basis that discussions about IFFs in developing countries should not be postponed.

It is common knowledge that several African economies have a nagging public debt burden. However, in real terms, outside of Oceania, Africa has the lowest public debt in the world. The challenge with Africa is that most of its debt is owed to non-African creditors and the debts are contracted in foreign currency thereby exposing African countries to currency volatility. Another challenge is that these non-African creditors consider the African market as risky, thereby charging higher interest on our loans. While African countries are struggling to finance public debt which ordinarily should be within the capacity of African economies to accommodate, it is estimated that Africa loses about $140 Billion annually to corruption.

This blog provides an alternative approach, described as a potential abusive tax avoidance (PATA), to evaluate incidences of illicit financial flows (IFFs) in Africa. By way of a working definition, PATA arises when there is a greater probability that a proposed tax legislation is susceptible to abusive tax avoidance. The abuse contemplated under the PATA is similar to Steve Dean’s argument of how considerable degree of taxpayer autonomy– under the guise of tax deregulation - can negatively impact a nation’s tax system. PATA provides a complimentary mechanism to examine how a proposed international tax framework can result into IFFs. The author undertakes this analysis using the global minimum tax proposed by the OECD to address the tax consequences of the digitalized economy.

The escalating concentration of global extreme poverty is particularly pronounced in Africa, where the continent presently accounts for 55% of the total worldwide poverty. Reports indicate that these numbers are expected to rise due to the enduring impacts of climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the conflict in Ukraine. As we hit the six-year mark before the designated milestone for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it is apparent that African nations are still notably behind in making substantial strides toward the specific targets outlined in the SDG Agenda. Expanding upon the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which concluded in 2015, the SDGs underscore the commitment to addressing a broad spectrum of global challenges. The SDG Agenda tackles 17 pivotal development challenges, spanning areas such as poverty, health, gender equality, crucial aspects of economic growth, urgent global warming issues, social justice, and the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies. Globally, there is a recognition that countries bear the primary responsibility for addressing systemic issues leading to revenue loss, and global cooperation is essential to supporting national efforts in achieving the SDGs. Within the African context, there have been calls to African leaders to address structural barriers impeding domestic resource mobilization as a key to the successful implementation of development projects aimed at enhancing the lives of African citizens. This is viewed as a sustainable solution to confront the severe and multidimensional nature of poverty in African nations, requiring concerted efforts from leaders to reshape policies that currently facilitate capital outflows.

Joining the new global rush for “Blue Gold” Uganda, a landlocked country, recently adopted its national blue economy strategy prepared with the support of the Africa Blue Economy (IGAD). From South Africa to Kenya or Cameroun, African countries, -as most States and regions around the world-, are encouraged to design Blue Economy frameworks, and other implementation toolkits, to grasp the economic opportunities offered by the extraordinary resources of oceans, seas, rivers, and lakes. As for Uganda, the Blue Economy concept is now extended far beyond the Oceans to cover all fresh waters as well as ground waters and associated resources. The African Union (AU) developed its Blue Economy Strategy from 2018 to guide sustainable development and the utilization of aquatic resources in the continent. It was endorsed, in October 2019, and is referred to in the strategic framework for the socio-economic transformation of Africa over the next 50 years, the ambitious Africa 2063. Promoted as the new gold for Africa, the Blue Economy is presented by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa as a tool for “both coastal and land-locked States” to “harness opportunities, which could yield mutual benefits, including the provision of efficient and coordinated services to each other as well as access to resources”.