Introduction:
In the concluding part of our exclusive interview with Dr. Stefan Liebing, Chairman of Afrika-Verein der deutschen Wirtschaft e.V., we explore the delicate balance between Human Rights, Environmental policies, and their impact on German-African relations. Dr. Liebing shares his insights on the diplomatic nuances and economic repercussions of Germany’s approach to these critical issues.
R:Ed: Africans find it particularly insensitive how Germans approach human rights issues. Take, for example, the LGBQT+ discussion; it’s not our place to engage in such discussions in Africa. I think it is completely irrelevant, it is not our role to discuss.
Stefan: I concur. When this reputation was being discussed in Germany, an African ambassador emphasized that the human rights situation might not improve if German companies withdraw. He believes German companies uphold human rights in Africa better than some others. So, why does the German government attempt to do our job? For instance, in South Africa, why doesn’t the German government leave it to the South African government to enforce consequences for certain behaviors, rather than dictating terms? We would be quite displeased if the Chinese government told Chinese investors they couldn’t go to Germany without proving adherence to certain standards.
I asked a former diplomat to shed light on the diplomatic strategy behind potentially offending our largest global customer, America. However, he couldn’t provide a satisfactory explanation.
R:Ed: In England, it’s referred to as understanding one’s position, and this isn’t about understanding your place, but recognizing that you aren’t entitled to speak on that particular topic. This is quite remarkable on a public platform. I believe another aspect concerning human rights should be within the purview of African governments because they are in a position of authority.
The third aspect that has become increasingly contentious is the environment. European laws are becoming progressively stringent, leading to a situation where businesses seek environments with less regulation, often turning to Africa for production. This occurs because certain practices, no longer permissible in Germany due to overregulation, find a less regulated setting in Africa. This global scenario is evidently more perilous than if regulations in Europe were more pragmatic and feasible, for reasons that currently seem elusive.
Stefan: Years ago, I suggested the establishment of an EU-Africa trading zone for emission certificates. Currently, our approach involves expensive measures like adding a third layer of glass to German windows, which incurs significant costs and provides marginal CO2 reduction or building efficiency. With a shared trading zone for emission certificates, capital could be directed where one dollar invested can yield substantial emissions reduction, potentially in less environmentally regulated African power plants rather than German ones. To avoid global CO2 emissions, German investments could flow to Africa for green technology, forming part of a comprehensive emissions trading system.
This approach could be economically sensible, allowing us to maximize the reduction of CO2 emissions with the same amount of investment. It has the potential to mobilize significant investment in Africa, transforming the continent into a leader in green technology. The key requirement is to establish a joint market for emissions trading. Given that the EU already has such a system and there exists an Africa free trade zone, a single contract between the African Free Trade Secretariat and the European Union could facilitate this initiative. Surprisingly, despite proposing this idea a decade ago, no progress has been made. It’s a logical and impactful solution.
Implementing unilateral restrictions and excluding technologies in Germany may not be economically sound. As you rightly pointed out, what cannot be produced in Germany may end up being produced elsewhere, potentially in Africa. If we can’t achieve clean steel production here, let’s ensure that steel plants in Africa adopt cleaner practices through an emission trading system. This approach aligns with both economic and environmental sensibilities.
R:Ed: Exactly, it’s disheartening. My father, representing the German Government, played a pivotal role in drafting the initial EU laws on the environment. He even signed as the President of the EU for Environmental issues. He closely monitors the ongoing discussions and expresses frustration, stating that the escalating strictness in Germany is creating more issues in the third world. Although we can measure these impacts, they often go unacknowledged.
Whether it’s water or air quality, he emphasizes the simplicity of significantly reducing the cost of implementing measures like the 18/20 rule in water pollution. However, the focus tends to be on achieving marginal improvements, like making something marginally cleaner by 0.01%, leading to minimal benefits at a phenomenal cost. He mentions the disconnect between scientists and economists, highlighting that scientists might not be consulting with professionals like you or, even if they are, the advice might be disregarded – a situation he terms as “plank tom,” akin to the Russian expression, which implies a futile effort leading to nothing.
R:Ed: Thank you for your time and sharing your perspective on German and Africa collaborations.
Co-author- Rosalie Lalhensia Ngassama
