Towards a Comprehensive National Youth Development Programme (NYPD) in Malawi

Memories and scars of the brutality of the Malawi Young Pioneers (MYP), a youth programme turned into a para-military wing of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) are still fresh among many Malawians. However, the majority of Malawians also accept that the original aims of the MYP were good in that it was envisaged as a movement through which the youth would be mobilised to contribute to national development through training in basic vocational skills such as carpentry, farming, tailoring and the inculcation into the youth of many other civic duties and responsibilities including the notion of patriotism, respect and self discipline. The MYP was violently disbanded on or around the dawn of a multi-party dispensation in 1994 after a squabble between its paramilitary wing and the Malawi Army.

Since 1994, Malawi has not had a coherent youth development policy despite the growing challenges affecting the youth such as youth delinquency, HIV/AIDS, rising unemployment, inadequate access to education and training and many others.

The call for the revival of the MYP, over a decade after its disbandment, is an interesting proposition. Although many Malawians would be wary of seeing the MYP back in its old form, they would be happy to see a process of reflection to learn lessons from the MYP so that a much more robust national youth development programme can be developed to deal with the current challenges affecting the youth and the nation. I hereby put forward some suggestions on what basically needs to be done towards developing a Comprehensive National Youth Development Programme (NYPD) in Malawi:

1) We need to revise the National Youth Policy (NYP), through an act of parliament, in order to incorporate a National Youth Development Programme (NYPD) (which would define the role of youths in national development and strategies for achieving this);

2) The NYP should incorporate strong provisions for a depoliticisation of the NYPD;

3) The process for achieving 1) and 2) would be a call for a national youth conference, which should involve various key stakeholders such as Govt Ministries, religious organisations, traditional leaders, civil society including youth organisations, educational institutions, private sector, political parties, donors and the youths themselves;

4) Prior to 3) we would need an audit/evaluation of the past performance of the Malawi Young Pioneers, with a view to learning from history, its successes and challenges, how it was sustained in terms of resources, its organisational structure, and what is left of it (i.e. what lessons from the past?)

5) We would also need to review cases of national youth programmes from other countries in SADC and beyond - South Africa is also in the process of revamping or re-development of their national youth programme (I am happy to report that I have participated and contributed to the RSA process through a review of youth policies both of RSA and other countries - very enriching experience!).

In a nutshell, I do think that with the growing challenges relating to food insecurity, HIV/AIDS, unemployment, limited access to education and training, youth delinquency, among others, the development of a comprehensive national youth programme is an issue that needs urgent attention. The scars of the past, emanating from the difficult political environment at the time, ought not to be a reason for us not act to mobilise our youth into a force for good.

The youth are not only the leaders of tomorrow, they are already active player in today's society - they are already leading through their various contributions to socio-economic development of the country. However, they currently lack proper structures and systems through which their energy can be maximally tapped into. They also lack an avenue through which they can shape their lives so that they can better contribute to Malawi's development.

Let’s move to help our youth in Malawi!

Kennedy Lweya, PhD
Training and Development Consultant
Johannesburg

Malawi Needs to Invest More in Tertiary Education

There is growing debate on the merits and demerits of what others are interpreting as a quota system or equitable system in order to improve access to tertiary education in Malawi. As a Malawian, I would like to contribute to this debate with an analysis of the results of a recent Global Competitiveness Report (2008-2009) published by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which has also rated Malawi’s higher education and training rather poorly or as below par.

The recent Global Competitiveness Report (2008-2009) published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) has ranked Malawi on position 119 out of 134 countries in terms of the Global Competitive Index (GCI). Malawi’s GCI score is 3.42. The verdict on other specific factors is explained below, including the fact that the country’s best performing factor is the labour market efficiency while the worst performing factors are higher education and training, market size and technology. Esteemed readers might say but what can a country do about market size? Well, the size of a country’s market is not just about the number of people in an economy, it is also about the purchasing power of participants in a particular market, which creates demand but also the supply side which constitutes the goods and services available in that particular market.

The Report identifies among others, six efficiency enhancers, which are crucial for efficiency-driven economies. These factors include: higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market sophistication, technological readiness and market size.

According to the Table 7 found on page 15 of The Global Competitiveness Index, in terms of efficiency enhancers, Malawi ranks as follows:
Overall, in terms of Efficiency Enhancers Malawi has a score of 3.42 and is ranked 101 out 134 countries surveyed. In terms of specific efficiency enhancing factors the Malawi scores relatively well in terms of labour market efficiency with a score of 4.60 and a ranking of 42 (out of 134 countries). The next factor in which the country performs well is financial market sophistication (score of 4.40 and a ranking of 62); this is followed by goods market efficiency (score of 4.03 and ranking of 84); higher education and training scores 2.85 causing a ranking of 116 out of 134 countries; the Malawian market size scores 2.34 leading to a ranking of 121, and lastly technological readiness scores 2.33 resulting in a ranking of 127 out of 134 countries.

These scores and rankings are very good indicators for appraising the performance of various sectors of the Malawi’s economy and in some cases a good reflection on the performance of relevant government ministries in creating and enforcing the right policy and regulatory environment. For example, a good result in the labour market efficiency reflects good policies in the labour market, which span across allied ministries such as basic health, basic education, labour laws and others. High ranking in terms of financial market sophistication is a good reflection on sound financial and economic policies and so does the goods market efficiency reflect on sound policies relating to the manufacture and movement of goods including investments in physical infrastructure and better taxation policies, among others. On the other hand, a poor result on technology, higher education and training may be a verdict on the country’s poorly structured educational system, the under-investment in tertiary education and the limited capacity of tertiary educational institutions to absorb the large number of students being churned out from the primary and secondary levels of our education. Readers may appreciate that Government has invested a lot in primary and secondary education since 1994. A similar high level investment is now required at the tertiary level of our education, including training colleges and universities, if we are to improve our competitiveness. Quite clearly the long term solution to improving our global competitiveness, in so far as higher education and training are concerned, does not lie in the so called quota system or “equitable distribution” of the currently limited places at the tertiary level of our education but rather in a sustained investment for the expansion of such places in order to increase access and guarantee a merit-based admission system.

Kennedy Lweya, PhD
Training and Development Consultant

Kayelekera Uranium Mining Project

My Opinion on the Proposed Kayelekera Uranium Mining Project

The proposed Kayelekera Uranium Mining Project in a mountanous area of Karonga District bordering with Chitipa in the Northern region of Malawi. Some civil society organisations in Malawi, such as the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation CHRR) have raised environmental concerns about the proposed uranium mining project in various forums, which cannot go unchallenged.

I have travelled on the road that passes close to the proposed project for many years and noticed 'mining' activities going on in the area, which have never been properly reported. Prospecting for Uranium at Kayelekera has gone on since the 1980s. The lack of transparency at the time on what was happening at the proposed mine raised a lot of speculation. Most people in Chitipa and Karonga started believing that uranium was actually being secretly mined by foreign companies with the knowledge of the Government of the time, which probably benefited from the proceeds.

It is documented that in the 1980s the British Central Electric Generating Board (CEGB), discovered and evaluated the Kayelekera deposit up to a full feasibility study and collected many kilograms of uranium samples from the area without making the initiative known to the public. In short, for reasons best known to themselves, there was neither openness nor any keen interest by the previous regimes to develop uranium mining project at Kayelekera in Karonga.

However, from about 2004, Malawians started reading and hearing about the uranium project at Kayelekera with Paladin Africa an Australian company clearly showing interest in the project. This company was transparent about its activities on the proposed project and provided regular updates on their prospecting activities through various media including press articles in the Nation Newspaper and their website. This company, unlike others in the past has been very open on the activities that have been taking place at Kayelekera. The company deserves credit for this and at the same time the current Government should be commended for keeping the public informed and being transparent about the potential uranium mining activities at Kayelekera.

Malawians have in the past been made to believe that the country has no any exploitable mineral resources. With this unsubstantiated belief, it goes without saying that the majority of Malawians ought to rejoice and be excited at the news that there is potential for exploitation of uranium which is a high value mineral resource in the country. This uranium project has potential to contribute significantly to job creation as well as being a source of foreign exchange. The value of the Kayelekera Uranium mining project is estimated at around $150 million. With the expected production of 1,000 tons of uranium per year, the mine clearly will bring into the country a lot of the much needed foreign exchange which will boost the country’s economic development. Furthermore, the company has projected to create 260 jobs for Malawians and 80 jobs for expatriates.

With the above-named potential contribution to the economy, Malawians are impatient at the length of time it has taken to start the mining activities at Kayelekera. However, they are also convinced that such a mega-project ought to pass through correct licensing procedures and feasibility studies, including cost-benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments and other assessments so that all stakeholders such as the investors, Government, the local community, civil society and others are satisfied that the project will be in their best interest. According to Paladin Africa, the feasibility and environmental assessment studies have been completed. In its edition of 21 September, 2006 the ANDnetwork.com quoted Ed Becker – Chief Geologist for Paladin as saying: "Paladin is carrying out a bankable feasibility study and an environmental assessment impact for the Kayelekera Uranium Project." The report goes on to say that this report will be submitted to the Government of Malawi by December 2006 as part of the documentation for a licence application. It is also worth noting that Paladin Africa has over twenty-five years experience in the mining of uranium in Australia and Africa. Paladin Africa has started Construction on the Langer Heinrich Uranium Project in Namibia, which alongside Kayelekera are considered to be the two most advanced uranium projects in Southern Africa.

I have followed civil society concerns on the Kayelekera uranium project with keen interest and concern. I have been particularly disappointed by the negative view of the mine's potential by the CHRR. Without conducting any meaningful and scientific environmental impact assessment, CHRR has been quick to condemn and lobby against the proposed Kayelekera uranium mining project on the pretext that the project will lead to pollution of rivers and Lake Malawi. CHRR has used unsubstantiated environmental concerns as a tool to discourage the start of the mine. Yet, Paladin Africa, as shown above, have in their feasibility studies, considered potential environmental concerns of the mine. Clearly such a project cannot be said to be free of any potential negative environmental effects. This is true for any mining activity. When considering whether a mining project is feasible or not it is often prudent to strive for reaching a balance - we should be looking at cost-benefit analysis to investors, communities and the country as whole. This includes the environmental cost-benefit analysis.

If there are environmental concerns, and yet the project shows potential to produce more benefits than costs, we can recommend a project to start and design strategies for environmental mitigation. In environmental economics, negative environmental impacts, which are often referred to as externalities have to be managed. One way of managing such externalities is to internalise their costs, that is, to make the producers of the externalities to pay the cost of the externalities. When considering the licensing of the mine this is what the Government of Malawi should be looking at. If you asked people of Karonga and Malawi in general and indeed people of Kayelekera in particular, they will be most likely be even wondering why the project did not start many years ago.

CHRR has approached the environmental concerns over the project in a rather simplistic way by appealing to the traditional view that all negative environmental impacts should be avoided by stopping their production - in this case stopping the mining project. The current economic reality of Malawi warrants a more progressive view, where we should encourage this mining investment and design strategies through which we can manage the negative environmental impacts. I do believe that the Kayelekera Uranium Mining Project should be granted a licence to start its operations.

I would be happy to engage CHRR directly to understand their view point, which I believe is misconstrued and not in the best interest of the people of Karonga and the country as whole. CHRR should be very careful not to scare potential investment in the mining sector, which has by the far the best potential to lift the country out of poverty.

Kennedy Lweya, PhD
Training and Development Consultant