Ten stories, one continent, a global world.

Get ready to see Africa as you’ve never seen it before. Imagine an Africa with entrepreneurial spirit that is striving to take care of itself and finding African solutions to African problems. That’s what you will see in this groundbreaking one-hour documentary by award-winning producer Carol Pineau.

http://www.africaopenforbusiness.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58294-2005Apr16.html

Yes Africa is not all shanty towns, war and malnourished children.

The negative way the western media portrays Africa halts the amount of foreign direct investment the continent receives because to the outside world Africa seems as mentioned in the video, 'a dysfunctional place'. Since media aims for sensationalist stories such as famine, war, and other events.

Do you remember the last time you saw a story on something positive in the African continent that didn't involve Brangelina?

Downvoted for farhad telling all of us what we believe about Africa.

Before watching this, I thought all black people everywhere were lazy and that there was absolutely no business anywhere in Africa! Thanks for setting me straight!

Clearly, these are NOT the people we're talking about when we talk about African poverty.
The ratio of poor communities to communities like this has got to be ridiculous.

Not to mention the fact that this video comes across like a bad business seminar.
Getting Africa to hand-draw all of our animated specials ain't the solution.

yeah, i'm almost leaning towards agreement with Theo, but i'm very biased due to having a friend from South Africa, another friend who visits his family in Nigeria a lot, and a friend who spent a few months in Ghana recently.

it is true that we hear a lot about all the terrible and serious problems in Africa (AIDS, famine, war, genocide). Does that mean the average non-African entrepreneur thinks of the whole continent as being a dump with ruthless politicians and an uneducated workforce? I don't know.

Yes Theo47, downvoting this sift goes so far in the way of helping these people.

Honestly you surprise me out of everyone, you are willing to villify the US administration for pursuing a unjust war that was conducted by office generals not reading the situation on the ground. Yet when someone comes from Africa, who has worked with NGOs, seen the truth behind how nominal aid donations have sapped out development. You vilify them. So am guessing the same should apply in Iraq War no? Let's not listen to people who been there.

Your simplistic approach towards the problems in Africa shocks me. Your statements are always full of conjecture... has to be... must be... should be... Clearly I must not know what am talking about. The 9 years I spent there were all a rosey colored dream. Please drop the Napoleon complex and move aside.

And Bamdrew? Yes it's needed obviously... http://www.africaopenforbusiness.com/comments.htm

I'm six feet tall and have a huge, huge, huge penis - can I *have* a Napoleon complex?

Of course we'd all like to see a successful, self-sustaining Africa. And hopefully, with programs like the one farhad mentions, it'll happen.

Until then, embrace reality and understand that this is the exception, not the rule. If you have the means, give.

On that we can agree, but let's agree also that frivolous misguided donations that don't take into full account the implications and effects and most important benefit should not be pursued. I believe that sustainable development requires more than the simple installation of technologies or monetary donations. To have the greatest impact overseas we focus on building capacity rather than the delivery of technological goods.

I love the approach undertaken by outfits like http://www.ewb.ca/en/whatwedo/overseas/approach.html, though they are smaller then larger entities like US AID whose approach to aid work seem to be misguided idealism at times without consideration to future effects.

All AID work should be approached with care, yes it's all in good intention, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. One must apply strict self-learning mechanism, always asking... "If I leave tomorrow what will be the long term effects of what I have done here?"

It's always been easy to be all rah-rah Ayn Rand self-sufficiency in America, as we've been blessed with greater natural resources than perhaps any place else on the planet.

The most troublesome spots in Africa are that way because the people who live there are battling for what scraps are left available.

The type of thing farhad talks about require resources and infrastructure that Africa is not easily able to sustain. You can build Las Vegas out of the desert in America a lot easier than you could in the Sudan.

Just because all the aid doesn't get spent in the most efficient way (yet) doesn't mean it isn't useful, that it doesn't save lives. Immediate needs require immediate solutions. To dissuade people from giving now because of a economic model you see somewhere in the future is the height of irresponsibility.

I would have to agree and disagree here Theo, I believed in the same thing, that any amount of aid is warranted. But the fact is that such methodology should only applied in critical situations, the fact is the willingness and dedication is never there when it comes from the foreign nations, there is a knee jerk reaction at the onset of something terrible which is slowly replaced by something else. I mean look at how the world is just standing by watch Darfur self implode. This does not mean I don't support aid programs to it, I just support aid programs that actually factor in what they are trying to do and not try cause more harm by being there. Such as Oxfam, EWB and others http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Road-Taken-Mdecins-Sans-Frontires

Yes America and such has resources and the same can be said of Canada, but one must also remember these nations were developing nations at one point as well. There was no Great British empire giving aid donations to the New World colonies when they emerged (Boston Tea party?).

Africa is not devoid of natural resources to develop itself, it was colonized specifically for it's natural resources (North and South Rhodesia).

However there is problem when you have the interference of aid agencies. Let me give you an example, the provision of electrical power is very important for the development of any economy. Thats a given fact. Development of such power grids and the lines to support them in Africa was funded by NGOs at first, only what this gave rise to is an infinite loop of waiting for more donations to spread the power grid further. People didn't think about raising themselves out of the problems themselves, it became "let's wait for the NGO to do it", and unfortunately there are hundreds of idealistic organizations out there waiting to come in.

This is totally against the way the same issues were settled in Canada and the US during it's development phase after Nicola Tesla's provision of AC power to the Western world over DC by Edison. The Canadian goverment knew that provision of electrical power to all communities in Canada was an important developmental issue, so they would develop the system via goverment subsidy and provide the service to the population at a loss to itself. This is how cheap, affordable electrical power was provided for.

In Africa what happened in various projects was that local electrical power is provided for in localities by NGOs, the goverment then basically sits on it's hands waiting for NGOs to modernize the countryside. However such development is not sustainable in the long term. The reason the goverment subsidized power grid layout worked in Canada was because you had development from centralized localities outward and not a splotch of various power generators all over various communities the NGOs went to.

My basic point is this, yes aid is good, but only aid that is properly vetoed against it's actual effects on the local populace and development as a long term goal. Aid that is looking to end it's own presence in the developing world so it can become developed.

The sad fact at the crux of it is this. NGOs are beholden to themselves. It is profitable for them not to do their job properly because how else are they supposed to raise money for issues. AIDs is always mentioned as the biggest killer in Africa, its not, it's malaria. But how media sensational is malaria compared to HIV/AIDS? NGO's always use their altruistic aims to cover up serious flaws in their application and usage. Look at United Way, just recently found out to spend more then 50% of it's allocated fund raised cash to basically pay itself and inflate its own growth. The whole Live8Aid fiasco a year ago, where did the money go? How was it applied? Does the average person know? No. It's always going into Africa, like it's some blackhole for cash donations.

This is why I like the approach of Melinda and Bill Gates foundation that is strictly self regulating. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) is the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates in 2000. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and, in the United States, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology.

Asian economies in the Eastern rim were also poor and underdeveloped just 50 years ago. Look at how sound goverment policy, education and proper investment in infrastructure has allowed places like Taiwan, South Korea, other Asian Tigers to thrive. There were no NGOs or AID agencies there to do that right?

*africa

Adding video to channels (Africa) - requested by longde.