The UN has praised Tanzania for granting citizenship to some 162,000 refugees who fled Burundi 38 years ago. “It’s the most generous naturalisation of refugees anywhere,” said UN refugee agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. UNHCR head Antonio Guterres described it as a “historic moment” and urged other countries with long-term refugees to follow Tanzania’s example. Until 2000, Tanzania had one of Africa’s largest refugee populations, 680,000, from Burundi and DR Congo. Some 350,000 Burundians have returned home in recent years, says the UNHCR. A UN spokeswoman said most of those granted Tanzanian nationality were Hutus. They had mostly fled conflict with the Tutsi-dominated army. The spokeswoman said they were already integrated into Tanzanian society and were not living in refugee camps, reports the Reuters news agency. This article is from the BBC News website . © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Follow this link:
UN praises Tanzania refugee move

A controversial Zimbabwean law forcing companies to be majority-owned by indigenous people has been shelved just six weeks after being introduced. The law, which came into force on 1 March, affected companies owned by non-indigenous people and which were valued at more than $500,000(

Nigeria’s Acting President Goodluck Jonathan has told the BBC he has not seen or had “substantial contact” with the ill president in about five months. Umaru Yar’Adua went to Saudi Arabia for treatment in November and despite returning home in February has not been seen since then. Mr Jonathan gave no indication whether the president’s condition had improved. He said he had not seen the president’s doctor but said he had spoken to his wife three times. “I’ve not seen the doctor. I have had – on about three occasions – discussions with his wife and I’ve had discussions with some of the other aides,” he told the BBC’s Network Africa programme. “The last time we [Mr Jonathan and Mr Yar'Adua] had sustained discussions was 26 November,” he said. Mr Yar’Adua was flown to hospital in Saudi Arabia three days earlier, on 23 November. In his interview, he also touched on clashes in Jos, where tensions between Muslims and Christians since the start of the year have left many dead. Mr Jonathan said the violence was ethnic, rather than religious and he promised to persecute those behind text messages inciting the situation. This article is from the BBC News website . © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

More here:
Goodluck ‘not spoken to Yar’Adua’

Spanish police say they have seized more than 800kg (1,760lbs) of cocaine from a lorry disguised as an official backup vehicle for the Dakar rally. The lorry was infiltrated into the race, which now takes place in South America, and loaded with cocaine before being shipped to Spain, police said. The final destination for the drugs was the Spanish island of Ibiza, home to a major drugs trafficking ring. Police said the cocaine was cleverly hidden in false bottoms in the lorry. ‘Transformed’ The vehicle was sent from Bilbao in Spain to Argentina where it was loaded with the cocaine during a stage of the famous auto and motorcycle rally, held from 1-16 January. It then followed the race to its conclusion before being shipped back to Bilbao, where it was seized by police when it arrived on Friday. “The vehicle had been totally transformed to adapt it to its supposed participation in the competition as a support truck, with publicity and logos of the event painted on its side,” a police statement released on Tuesday said. In a joint operation with police in Argentina, Spanish police arrested seven suspects in Bilbao, Barcelona and Ibiza, all of them Spaniards. Police said they were all members of a major drugs trafficking ring which was trying to smuggle the cocaine to the Balearic island of Ibiza in time for its famous summer party season. The police said they also seized 15,000 ecstasy pills, hashish, guns and 47,000 euros (

South Africa bruised by extremists – black and white This article is from the BBC News website . © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

See original here:
Harding on Africa

The Somali Islamist movement al-Shabab has banned the BBC and closed down transmitters broadcasting the Somali language service inside the country. Al-Shabab accused the BBC of fighting against Islam and supporting the transitional federal government, which the rebels are fighting to overthrow. The group said the BBC had been broadcasting the agenda of crusaders and colonialists against Muslims. The BBC said it was strictly impartial and spoke to all sides in the conflict. The BBC has been broadcasting its services in Somali, Arabic and English across the country on a series of FM frequencies for at least a decade, and surveys suggest it is one of the most widely listened-to news services in Somalia. ‘Strict standards’ Al-Shabab ordered all of the BBC’s transmitters to be shut down. A statement by al-Shabab demanded that any organisation transmitting the BBC, or the Washington-based Voice of America, should cancel their contracts. Al-Shabab and its allies control most of southern and central Somalia and all but a few districts of the capital, Mogadishu. They have been fighting to establish an Islamist administration of their own in place of the current government. The BBC’s broadcasts have been taken off the FM bandwidth, but are still available on shortwave and the internet. In response to the statement, the head of BBC Africa, Jerry Timmins, said the organisation spoke to all sides in the conflict, including al-Shabab, adhered to strict standards of impartiality and editorial independence and rejected any suggestion otherwise. This article is from the BBC News website . © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

More here:
Somali Islamists ban BBC output

The need for a new global climate deal is “greater than ever”, according to developing country delegates speaking at the opening of UN climate talks. Blocs representing the poorest nations called for intensive talks during the year, leading to agreement on a legally binding treaty in December. The EU backed the call, re-stating that the conclusion of December’s Copenhagen summit had not met its ambitions. But other industrialised countries do not appear so keen for a new treaty. The three-day meeting here in Bonn is the first since the Copenhagen summit concluded without the global treaty that many countries had aimed for, instead producing a political declaration known as the Copenhagen Accord. The US and other rich countries see it as a positive development, but others decry it as a figleaf that detracts attention from the real issues. Describing Copenhagen as “a total failure”, Venezuela’s delegation chief Claudia Salerno said the accord would not reduce emissions enough to prevent significant climate impacts on poorer countries. “My country raised its voice against the misnomer ‘Copenhagen Accord’ because… it contains proposals for voluntary reductions in carbon emissions that according to scientists would lead to increases in temperature of about 5C (9F),” she said. “So nobody should be congratulating themselves on that. The urgency we face now is even greater than 2009.” Not all analyses of the Copenhagen Accord’s pledges on curbing carbon emissions produce such high estimates for temperature rise, but many of those pledges are far from precise. Lessons of history The US – which did not speak during the opening session here – has been the accord’s principal champion, saying it “achieves a number of landmark outcomes”. Its written submission to the UN climate convention (UNFCCC) backs “further formalisation of the accord” at this year’s summit in Mexico, and says that “it will be difficult to find consensus around alternative proposals that depart from the accord understandings”. These statements have raised the hackles of developing countries, which interpret them as meaning that the US now sees the accord as the central global agreement and is not prepared to engage in anything that goes much beyond it. “As a well-known politician once said, the one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history,” said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu from the Democratic Republic of Congo, speaking for the Africa Group of nations. “The Africa Group believes that if we are to avoid a repetition of Copenahgen and repair this damaged process, then we must learn from Copenhagen.” And one of the lessons to learn, he continued, was that breaking away from formal inclusive negotiations and instead focusing on “a secret text put together by a selected few fundamentally broke the trust that is necessary for any partnership that aspires to be succesful and enduring”. Fernando Tudela, the Mexican delegate whose government will host this year’s summit, referred to the need for “an authentic process of multilateral negotiations”, with many others echoing his call. Time and money How and when these negotiations can happen, though, is another matter. Developing country blocs called for at least three extra meetings this year – and perhaps as many as five – in addition to the regular fortnight in Bonn scheduled for June. Staging all the extra meetings between the 2007 Bali summit and Copenhagen cost more than $30m (

The need for a new global climate deal is “greater than ever”, according to developing country delegates speaking at the opening of UN climate talks. Blocs representing the poorest nations called for intensive talks during the year, leading to agreement on a legally binding treaty in December. The EU backed the call, re-stating that the conclusion of December’s Copenhagen summit had not met its ambitions. But other industrialised countries do not appear so keen for a new treaty. The three-day meeting here in Bonn is the first since the Copenhagen summit concluded without the global treaty that many countries had aimed for, instead producing a political declaration known as the Copenhagen Accord. The US and other rich countries see it as a positive development, but others decry it as a figleaf that detracts attention from the real issues. Describing Copenhagen as “a total failure”, Venezuela’s delegation chief Claudia Salerno said the accord would not reduce emissions enough to prevent significant climate impacts on poorer countries. “My country raised its voice against the misnomer ‘Copenhagen Accord’ because… it contains proposals for voluntary reductions in carbon emissions that according to scientists would lead to increases in temperature of about 5C (9F),” she said. “So nobody should be congratulating themselves on that. The urgency we face now is even greater than 2009.” Not all analyses of the Copenhagen Accord’s pledges on curbing carbon emissions produce such high estimates for temperature rise, but many of those pledges are far from precise. Lessons of history The US – which did not speak during the opening session here – has been the accord’s principal champion, saying it “achieves a number of landmark outcomes”. Its written submission to the UN climate convention (UNFCCC) backs “further formalisation of the accord” at this year’s summit in Mexico, and says that “it will be difficult to find consensus around alternative proposals that depart from the accord understandings”. These statements have raised the hackles of developing countries, which interpret them as meaning that the US now sees the accord as the central global agreement and is not prepared to engage in anything that goes much beyond it. “As a well-known politician once said, the one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history,” said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu from the Democratic Republic of Congo, speaking for the Africa Group of nations. “The Africa Group believes that if we are to avoid a repetition of Copenahgen and repair this damaged process, then we must learn from Copenhagen.” And one of the lessons to learn, he continued, was that breaking away from formal inclusive negotiations and instead focusing on “a secret text put together by a selected few fundamentally broke the trust that is necessary for any partnership that aspires to be succesful and enduring”. Fernando Tudela, the Mexican delegate whose government will host this year’s summit, referred to the need for “an authentic process of multilateral negotiations”, with many others echoing his call. Time and money How and when these negotiations can happen, though, is another matter. Developing country blocs called for at least three extra meetings this year – and perhaps as many as five – in addition to the regular fortnight in Bonn scheduled for June. Staging all the extra meetings between the 2007 Bali summit and Copenhagen cost more than $30m (

The need for a new global climate deal is “greater than ever”, according to developing country delegates speaking at the opening of UN climate talks. Blocs representing the poorest nations called for intensive talks during the year, leading to agreement on a legally binding treaty in December. The EU backed the call, re-stating that the conclusion of December’s Copenhagen summit had not met its ambitions. But other industrialised countries do not appear so keen for a new treaty. The three-day meeting here in Bonn is the first since the Copenhagen summit concluded without the global treaty that many countries had aimed for, instead producing a political declaration known as the Copenhagen Accord. The US and other rich countries see it as a positive development, but others decry it as a figleaf that detracts attention from the real issues. Describing Copenhagen as “a total failure”, Venezuela’s delegation chief Claudia Salerno said the accord would not reduce emissions enough to prevent significant climate impacts on poorer countries. “My country raised its voice against the misnomer ‘Copenhagen Accord’ because… it contains proposals for voluntary reductions in carbon emissions that according to scientists would lead to increases in temperature of about 5C (9F),” she said. “So nobody should be congratulating themselves on that. The urgency we face now is even greater than 2009.” Not all analyses of the Copenhagen Accord’s pledges on curbing carbon emissions produce such high estimates for temperature rise, but many of those pledges are far from precise. Lessons of history The US – which did not speak during the opening session here – has been the accord’s principal champion, saying it “achieves a number of landmark outcomes”. Its written submission to the UN climate convention (UNFCCC) backs “further formalisation of the accord” at this year’s summit in Mexico, and says that “it will be difficult to find consensus around alternative proposals that depart from the accord understandings”. These statements have raised the hackles of developing countries, which interpret them as meaning that the US now sees the accord as the central global agreement and is not prepared to engage in anything that goes much beyond it. “As a well-known politician once said, the one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history,” said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu from the Democratic Republic of Congo, speaking for the Africa Group of nations. “The Africa Group believes that if we are to avoid a repetition of Copenahgen and repair this damaged process, then we must learn from Copenhagen.” And one of the lessons to learn, he continued, was that breaking away from formal inclusive negotiations and instead focusing on “a secret text put together by a selected few fundamentally broke the trust that is necessary for any partnership that aspires to be succesful and enduring”. Fernando Tudela, the Mexican delegate whose government will host this year’s summit, referred to the need for “an authentic process of multilateral negotiations”, with many others echoing his call. Time and money How and when these negotiations can happen, though, is another matter. Developing country blocs called for at least three extra meetings this year – and perhaps as many as five – in addition to the regular fortnight in Bonn scheduled for June. Staging all the extra meetings between the 2007 Bali summit and Copenhagen cost more than $30m (

Should a revolutionary humanitarian food product be protected by commercial patent, when lifting restrictions might save millions of starving children? That is the moral conundrum at the heart of a bitter transatlantic legal dispute. On one side are the French inventors of Plumpy’nut, a peanut paste which in the last five years has transformed treatment of acute malnutrition in Africa. Nutriset, the Normandy-based company, says the patent is needed to safeguard production of Plumpy’nut in the developing world, and to stop the market being swamped by cheap US surpluses. And on the other hand are two American not-for-profit organisations that have filed a suit at a Washington DC federal court to have the patent overturned. They say they are being stopped by Nutriset from manufacturing similar – and cheaper – peanut-based food products, despite the proven demand from aid agencies. “By their actions, Nutriset are preventing malnourished children from getting what they need to survive. It is as simple as that,” said Mike Mellace, of the San Diego-based Mama Cares Foundation. Wonder-product For Nutriset’s general manager, Adeline Lescanne, such accusations are unfair and distressing. “No child in the world has even been denied access to the product as a result of the patent issue,” she said. “If they had – how would any of us be able to go to work in the morning?” The one point of agreement between the two parties is that Plumpy’nut is that rare thing: a wonder-product. A blend of peanut-butter, powdered milk, sugar and vegetable oil fortified with vitamins and minerals, the paste won its glowing reputation during a 2005 food crisis in Niger. “Before, we had to hospitalise malnourished children – which is a huge drain on resources. With Plumpy’nut, largely because it does not have to be mixed with clean water, the children can stay at home,” said Stephane Doyon, nutrition team leader at Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders). “In 2002 it took 2,000 staff to treat 10,000 children during a famine in Angola. In Niger we needed just 150 staff for the same number of patients. Thanks to Plumpy’nut, mass treatment is suddenly possible.” Such has been its success that in the aid world Plumpy’nut is today the standard “ready-to-use therapeutic food” (RUTF), with Nutriset and its partners providing some 90% of global supply. But it is this near-monopoly which is now being challenged. For Mike Mellace – whose proposed alternative is called Re:vive – it is absurd to be barred from making something which is in essence very simple. “Plumpy’nut is not some secret formula. Basically it’s fortified Nutella. Anyone with a basic knowledge of peanuts could have developed it!” he said. “But at Nutriset they do all they can to stop people competing. We have had cease-and-desist letters from them, and lots of other companies around the world have too.” African production According to Mellace, worldwide demand for RUTFs can only be met if supply is opened up – especially in the US, with its large peanut industry. He cites UN figures showing that while 26 million children currently suffer from malnutrition, only between one and two million are receiving Plumpy’nut or equivalents. At Nutriset, they do not dispute the figures – but they do offer a very different interpretation. First, the patent is not universal. In a dozen countries such as Niger, Malawi and Kenya, Nutriset has set up a network of partnerships and franchises so that Plumpy’nut can be made locally and with locally-grown produce. “Our motto is nutritional autonomy,” said Nutriset’s communications manager, Remi Vallet. “We want poor countries to be able to produce the nutrients they need in a sustainable way. “If the US companies were able to beat the patent, the global volume of RUTFs would of course go up. But it would also mean the end for our local partners in Africa, who wouldn’t be able to compete. That is not what we want.” As for the question of demand, Nutriset says it and its partners have plenty of spare capacity. “It is true that something like only 5% of malnourished children are getting RUTFs. But the problem there is not lack of production. It’s because at the moment there is neither the international funding nor the systems in place to provide RUTFs,” Mr Vallet said. ‘Aggressive’ Underlying the Nutriset position is concern over the United States’ historic policy on food aid, which remains heavily influenced by domestic agricultural lobbies. The US is the world’s biggest food donor, but laws there require that 99% of aid money be spent on American-grown surpluses. Nutriset believes its would-be competitors in the US are trying to cash in on this opportunity – to the huge detriment of local producers in Africa. That argument holds little water for Mellace, who notes that Nutriset has itself just opened a joint venture in Rhode Island. The not-for-profit company called Edesia will be America’s first ever RUTF producer. “They come here and get a $2m USAID grant to set up a factory, and then they stop us producing basically the same thing. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth!” he said. Mellace’s case against Nutriset was given added force after Medecins Sans Frontieres also criticised the French company for a “policy of aggressive protection of… patents”. In a letter sent in November, the charity accused Nutriset of invoking patent rights to block a Norwegian competitor from transporting a Plumpy’nut equivalent via Kenya. The dispute was subsequently resolved amicably. “We are not against patents per se,” said Stephane Doyon of Medecins Sans Frontieres. “But we do believe that in a domain as sensitive as humanitarian aid they need to handled with extreme flexibility.” At Nutriset they say they agree. “We know a patent for a life-saving food product is not the same as a patent for a toaster,” said Remi Vallet. “It needs special management, and we give it.” “We are confident that we are acting for the best,” said Adeline Lescanne. “Our goal is long-term -so that governments in the developing world can eventually take charge of nutrition by themselves.” This article is from the BBC News website . © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Read more:
Patented peanuts