Alternatives and solution
Looking at alternative approaches to debt and aid problems is part of AFRODAD’s advocacy work. In partnership and solidarity with the Norwegian Church Aid, European Network on Debt and Development (EURODAD), Jubilee USA, and Jubilee South, AFRODAD will as part of implementing this strategic plan build public awareness of and political will for cancellation of odious and illegitimate debt, and strengthen our call for a Fair and transparent Arbitration process through broad based public education among member organizations combined with a targeted media and political strategy. Plans have also been set in motion for an advocacy project to look at the feasibility of a CSO-initiated alternative to the debt problems by calling for the establishment of a fair and transparent arbitration process that would result in the United Nations establishing an arbitration court or tribunal on debt issues.

AFRODAD is determined to challenge the neo-liberal development paradigm which informs the current power imbalances between Debtors and Creditors in the resolution of Debt. AFRODAD is resolute in its pursuit to convince other African CSOs about the efficacy of dealing with debt issues through the Establishment of a Fair and Transparent Arbitration Mechanism under the United Nations. AFRODAD believes the mechanism will enable the debt crisis to be resolved in a way that preserves the integrity of debtor countries and ensures creditors share the responsibility for the failure of their bad development policy advice and the rise of the debt crisis. To this end, AFRODAD will ensure that CSOs continue to nurture the political steam about the issue within the UN and thus guarantee a positive impact. Debt audits and profiling become essential in this regard.  Realizing the recurring nature of indebtedness and the fact that the current debt relief initiatives (HIPC and MDRI) have not dealt with the problem of external debt comprehensively, AFRODAD calls for the establishment of a Fair and Transparent Arbitration (FTA) mechanism on debt under the United Nations. FTA  seeks to enshrine the superiority of basic human rights, ascertain the legitimacy of creditor claims to deal with the issues of odious debt and give the affected people a right to be heard. Fair and Transparent Arbitration mechanism will deal with cases of illegitimate and odious debts as well as the repatriation of stolen wealth to the debt stricken nations.  

Many development agencies and skeptics have already pointed out that the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) launched in 1996 and its successor the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (eHIPC)‘s inability to achieve the promised objective of a “robust exit from the burden of unsustainable debts” for developing countries. Problems associated with the design and implementation of the initiative suggest that neither of the two HIPC versions has succeeded in providing adequate response to the Third World ’s debt overhang. An analysis of key debt indicators shows that external debt and debt-servicing problems are most severe and persistent in the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs), the target group of the HIPC Initiative. Thus a better mechanism or sustainable means of resolving third world debt crisis such as the FTA is necessary.  In an arbitration process, a dispute must exist between parties before an award is made. The dispute can be the divergence views which the two parties cannot reconcile and therefore requires a third party to make a final decision on which view must prevail on the basis of arguments presented by the parties to the dispute. The Fair and Transparent Arbitration mechanism is necessary in reassigning the responsibility for the Debt crisis and burden partitioning where that might be necessary. Currently, the assumption of the current Debt relief Initiatives is that the Debtor countries are solely responsible for the crisis. While accepting part of the responsibility, due to lack of proper debt management, corruption and other shortcomings, the Debtors point to the large impact of the external factors that have been identified to have contributed to the Debt crisis including the existence of a global trade regime in which the Debtor countries continue to suffer declines in terms of trade and ongoing lack of global market access. Creditors never seen to be part of the problem, which they obviously are.    

Debt in post-conflict societies 
The perception that development policy is increasingly being subordinated to Northern security concerns has stimulated AFRODAD to look into the issues of debt and aid in post-conflict societies. The fact that people in post conflict countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia still pay arrears to creditors for debts incurred as a result of civil war expenses by ruthless regimes poses a lot of socio-economic justice questions. In addition to this, the notion that the administration of aid in these countries seem to be treated the same way as stable countries also brings to question the flexibility of the global aid architecture. A detailed research project, integrating views from citizens in these conflict and post-conflict countries especially the African Great Lakes region, will help challenge the current Aid and Debt discourse and promote the linkage between development, economic justice, human rights, and security both at the political level and in their programme work.

Work on how conflicts affect African development and Debt issues will be studied by AFRODAD in the next three years. Countries emerging from civil war usually attract both aid and policy advice. There is need to investigate whether the absorptive capacity for aid is systematically different in post-conflict countries and to ascertain if their absorption of aid does not result in indebtedness. Equally important is the need to ascertain whether the contribution of policy to growth is systematically different in post-conflict countries as compared to stable economies, and in particular, whether particular components of policy are differentially important. Rapid political and social change in post-conflict situations generally demands a clear set of rules and control over development resources, introducing openness and transparency. These are substantial challenges for any political regime, but they can be monumental in a post conflict environment. There is always need in post-conflict societies to preventing funding from undesirable sources and abuse of state resources; establishing effective legal and procedural frameworks; and balancing sources of development finance with the ability of the recipient country to repay.