Abdoulaye Wade's idea of internationalising Africa's forests merits support. It is dishonest and unfair for the poorest people on the world's poorest continent to continue bearing the burden of preserving an environment for the benefit of rich countries that have already destroyed their own environment.

President Wade of Senegal literally and figuratively stands tall among African rulers. The towering Wade is a former opposition politician who was democratically elected the nation's chief political executive in a free and fair election — a rarity on the continent. He also exhibits remarkable guts and wisdom.

It was gutsy of Wade to speak up for democracy when many of his African counterparts were unashamedly ignoring the legitimate claims of President Marc Ravalomanana of Madagascar. Wade's wisdom was equally evident during the ninth session of the African Ministerial Conference (Amcen) on the Environment in early July. Wade suggested to Amcen that Africa's forests be designated an international resource the bill for whose upkeep is footed by all nations.

The idea that forests are an international public good is arguably sensible. It is acknowledged that forests anywhere contribute to the wellbeing of everyone everywhere in the world. It is simple common sense that the cost of preserving and maintaining the forests should be borne by everyone, both rich and poor.

People must eat. In the 21st century, people have to cook much of what they eat. In many poor communities, the only affordable energy sources for cooking are charcoal and firewood. Thus, the threat of forest decimation would be reduced if other energy sources were made more affordable.

Affordability of energy sources

Affordability of energy sources such as kerosene and cooking gas requires a significant shift in the economic outlook of policy-makers in both national governments and international aid agencies. Consider, for instance, the case of Uganda.

The country's forest cover is being depleted at an alarming rate mainly because the bulk of the population uses charcoal and firewood for cooking. In order to preserve the forest cover, the country needs a massive switch to kerosene, cooking gas or electricity. Such a massive switch is unlikely as long as policy-makers stick to their current attitudes.

For instance, a significant drop in the prices of kerosene and cooking gas is required to make the two items affordable to most Ugandans. This can be effected through tax reductions. In Uganda's 2002-2003 national budget proposals, however, there was no such relief.

Relief of pressure on the forests is also unlikely to come from a switch to cooking with electricity. First, the current electricity tariffs are too high for most Ugandans. Second, the amount of electricity that is currently generated is too small to satisfy the energy needs of the country. Third, the generation of more electricity is doubtful thanks to the relentless efforts of well-connected environmentalists. Fourth, the dishonesty of capitalist powers has generated debilitating economic policy asymmetry.

The economic policy asymmetry is centred on the issue of subsidies. The international aid agencies, such as the World Bank group, insist that utility providers in underdeveloped countries should charge 'market-based' rates and that governments should disengage from subsidising utility companies. The agencies' views are in line with the thinking of the political executives in the US, the world's economic superpower.

This superpower is being dishonest on the issue of subsidies. It often seeks to crush any effort by other countries or economic blocs to subsidise the production of various goods. For instance, the US has relentlessly fought against subsidies to Airbus, the European maker of aeroplanes. On the other hand, the US government recently decided to subsidise American farmers and steel companies on account of the sectors' "strategic" importance.

Forests in Africa and elsewhere are arguably strategic to the whole world and, consequently, merit worldwide support. The support could take the form of subsidies for switching to energy sources that preserve forests. If the US were honest about its subsidies to farmers and steel companies, it would also support Wade's idea. — GVNN/The East African (Nairobi)

Grace Bibala writes on economic and policy issues from Kampala.