Tuesday, September 22, 2026
Home Blog Page 43

Stock-Market-Style power trade planned as $40B energy gap spurs reform

0

Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP) is advancing plans to establish a competitive, stock-market-style system for cross-border electricity trading as the country seeks to mobilise an estimated USD 40 billion for its rapidly expanding energy sector.

The proposal is tied to the Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP), a regional initiative intended to enable member states to trade electricity through a structured day-ahead market. But the initiative remains stalled by governance disagreements, technical bottlenecks and diplomatic tensions over the location and control of the market operator.

EEP Chief Executive Officer Ashebir Balcha said the transition to a market-based framework remains necessary despite the uncertainty surrounding the regional market’s launch.

“The Eastern Africa Power Pool market has not yet properly started; we are currently in a dispute,” Ashebir said. “Over the past years, there has been a fierce struggle—and it continues—over efforts to move the market away from the market operator within the pool to another country.”

The Eastern Africa Power Pool includes Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Sudan, South Sudan, Egypt, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Djibouti, Somalia and Libya. It was established to promote the efficient use of power resources, strengthen regional energy security and facilitate cross-border electricity trade.

Although the EAPP has tested its Day-Ahead Market (DAM) platform and finalised standardised grid-connection codes, the market has yet to begin formal trading. According to EEP, a major point of disagreement is a proposal to relocate the market operator from its current administrative home—an initiative Ethiopia has strongly opposed.

Ethiopia recently assumed the chairmanship of the EAPP Coordinating Committee and has called for the prompt implementation of the DAM system. At the 37th Extraordinary Meeting of the EAPP Coordinating Committee in Addis Ababa, State Minister of Energy Sultan Wali urged members to operationalise the platform to prevent further economic losses and missed opportunities across the region.

The governance dispute is not the only barrier. Physical infrastructure remains a major constraint, particularly along the Ethiopia–Kenya–Tanzania interconnection.

Ashebir said existing transmission networks are not yet capable of carrying the high volumes of electricity needed for an active regional market. Congestion in Kenya’s domestic grid, he said, has limited transmission through the Ethiopia–Kenya corridor to less than 500 megawatts.

Without major upgrades to national transmission systems and cross-border interconnectors, the region’s ambition to create a functioning electricity market will remain limited. Recent work on the Zambia–Tanzania interconnector is also expected to create a critical link between the Southern African Power Pool and the Eastern Africa Power Pool, which have not previously traded directly.

The need for reform is being driven by the scale of Ethiopia’s domestic energy requirements. According to EEP, the Ethiopian Electric Utility requires more than USD 20 billion for transmission, distribution and customer-access expansion, while EEP requires about twice that amount for generation and related infrastructure.

Together, the investment need is estimated at USD 40 billion—far beyond what the federal government can finance alone.

To close the gap, the government is accelerating private-sector participation through independent power producers, public-private partnerships and decentralised renewable-energy solutions. The Public-Private Partnership Directorate has identified 36 projects open to private investors, covering hydropower, solar, wind and geothermal energy.

Ethiopia has revised its National Energy Policy to create a more favourable framework for private investment in power generation, transmission and renewable energy. The policy is intended to help meet rising demand, improve resilience, expand regional electricity exports and support electric mobility.

The government is also seeking to expand electricity access. Ethiopian Electric Utility connected 664,505 additional households during the fiscal year ending July 2026, taking its customer base above 5.88 million. However, rural access remains far below urban levels, underscoring the scale of the remaining challenge.

In addition to large hydropower projects and regional transmission infrastructure, officials are increasingly promoting decentralised generation, particularly rooftop solar and mini-grid systems.

Ashebir said consumers should eventually be enabled to generate solar electricity and sell surplus power back to the national grid. The so-called “prosumer” model would allow households, businesses and industrial users to become both electricity consumers and producers, easing pressure on centralised generation and transmission networks.

The approach would represent a significant shift for an electricity system traditionally dominated by large state-led hydropower projects. The country is now seeking to diversify its energy mix through solar, wind and geothermal resources while retaining hydropower as the central source of generation.

Four solar projects recently inaugurated in West Hararghe are expected to benefit more than 5,276 households and public institutions in communities located far from the national grid. The projects were financed through a World Bank-supported programme and form part of a wider plan to build rural solar mini-grids.

The Corbetti Geothermal Project is also moving forward through private-sector participation. Its initial phase is expected to develop a 50-megawatt geothermal plant, followed by a second 100-megawatt phase.

Under the revised policy framework, private developers will be allowed to generate power, develop dedicated transmission infrastructure and use the national grid to supply domestic industries or export electricity to neighbouring countries.

Such reforms reflect Ethiopia’s ambition to become a regional renewable-energy hub. The country’s large hydropower base, expanding solar and wind resources, and location at the centre of the Horn of Africa give it a potential advantage in cross-border electricity trade.

Yet the plan depends on resolving the EAPP’s governance impasse, upgrading transmission capacity and securing finance for major new infrastructure.

Time on two scales: Lifespan and civilization 

0

Technology is changing at a pace that often exceeds humanity’s ability to understand its consequences. Artificial intelligence, biotechnology, robotics and space exploration are advancing simultaneously, promising to reshape how long we live, how we work and even where humanity may one day survive.

Nobody can say with certainty whether this acceleration will prove entirely good or bad. Technology has always carried both possibilities. It can cure disease, reduce suffering and expand human knowledge. It can also deepen inequality, create new risks and place enormous power in the hands of a few institutions or individuals.

The challenge is not to stop progress. It is to guide it responsibly.

Humanity today stands at an unusual point in history. We remain biologically fragile, bound to a single planet and vulnerable to disease, conflict and environmental shocks. Yet we are also developing tools that may extend healthy life, reduce catastrophic risks and eventually allow human communities to live beyond Earth.

This places time on two scales: the lifespan of an individual and the lifespan of civilisation.

The first scale: human life

Life expectancy has increased dramatically over the past two centuries. In many pre-industrial societies, average life expectancy at birth was low largely because infant and child mortality were extremely high. Improvements in sanitation, clean water, nutrition, vaccination, antibiotics and maternal care transformed this picture.

The greatest historical gains in average life expectancy did not come primarily from making very old people live much longer. They came from preventing people, especially children and mothers, from dying young.

Today, many developed countries have life expectancies of 70 to 80 years or more. Yet the next challenge is different. It is not only about preventing early death; it is also about delaying or reducing the diseases that limit healthy life in middle and old age—heart disease, cancer, diabetes, kidney disease, dementia and other chronic conditions.

Artificial intelligence could become a powerful part of this next stage.

AI is already helping researchers understand proteins, identify patterns in scans and improve the speed of medical discovery. AlphaFold, for example, has made major advances in predicting protein structures, a development that can support biological research and drug discovery. Researchers say it has transformed structural biology by producing predictions that, in many cases, approach experimental accuracy.

AI-assisted systems are also being tested and used in areas such as diabetic-retinopathy screening, skin-cancer assessment and radiology. Their greatest near-term contribution may be earlier detection, better risk prediction and more targeted treatment—not instant cures for every disease.

This distinction matters. AI may not make people immortal, and it cannot yet solve the most difficult biological problems of ageing. But it can help doctors recognise disease earlier, help researchers identify promising treatments faster and help health systems direct limited resources more effectively.

There is also serious research into ageing itself. Scientists are studying cellular reprogramming, senolytics, tissue regeneration and drugs that may slow some processes associated with ageing. These fields remain experimental. They should not be confused with proven pathways to radically extended human life.

Still, it would be unwise to dismiss them. Many ideas that sounded impossible a generation ago are now standard medical practice.

The sensible expectation is not that everyone will soon live beyond 150 years. It is that scientific and technological progress may add more healthy years to life by reducing disease, disability and preventable decline.

The second scale: civilisation

The second question is larger: how long can human civilisation endure?

The average human life may be 70, 80 or perhaps 100 years. Civilisation, however, may last for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years—if humanity avoids self-destruction.

This requires a different way of thinking.

A person plans for a career, a family and retirement. A civilisation must plan for pandemics, climate shocks, nuclear conflict, ecological collapse, artificial-intelligence risks, asteroid impacts and technological failures that cannot be repaired quickly.

No one has an exact model for the probability of civilisation-ending events. But uncertainty is not an argument for ignoring risk. It is an argument for building resilience.

A species confined to one planet has a fundamentally different risk profile from one with self-sustaining communities in several locations. The comparison is simple: a company with one server faces different dangers from a company that maintains multiple backups in different data centres.

Earth must remain humanity’s first priority. It is our only home, and it remains vastly more hospitable than the Moon or Mars. No space settlement should become an excuse to neglect poverty, war, environmental destruction or public-health failures on Earth.

But protecting Earth and pursuing long-term space settlement are not opposing goals. They are complementary forms of insurance.

NASA’s Artemis programme is intended to return humans to the Moon and build capabilities for eventual missions to Mars. NASA currently targets a human lunar landing in 2028, while Mars missions remain a longer-term objective.  These plans do not mean that humanity is ready to establish a self-sustaining civilisation beyond Earth. We are not.

Living on Mars or the Moon would require reliable food, water, energy, medicine, shelter, manufacturing and communication systems in environments hostile to human life. The technical challenge is immense.

Yet this is precisely why the work should begin gradually and seriously. Four and a half billion years of Earth’s history have produced one species capable of understanding planetary risk and imagining survival beyond its home world. Whether this opportunity remains open indefinitely is unknown.

One instinct, two horizons

Extending an individual life and extending the life of civilisation are expressions of the same instinct: the desire to create more time.

At the personal level, we try to prevent disease, improve health and protect families. At the civilisational level, we must reduce the risks that could remove humanity’s future altogether.

If AI can postpone the date at which a body fails, that does not automatically mean it can postpone the date at which the human species fails. A longer-lived population, confined to a single vulnerable planet, remains one major disaster or human error away from catastrophe.

That is why the same commitment that drives medical research should also drive environmental protection, peacebuilding, pandemic preparedness, nuclear restraint and space exploration.

Civilisational insurance is not an insult to Earth. Taking out insurance does not mean one expects the house to burn down; it means one recognises that a valuable home deserves protection.

The immediate work must remain here: building a more peaceful, sustainable and equitable world. We should make Earth safer, healthier and more liveable for everyone. At the same time, humanity should pursue the long-term goal of becoming multi-planetary—not as an escape from responsibility, but as an additional safeguard against extinction.

Technology gives us unprecedented tools. The question is whether we will use them merely to live longer as individuals, or wisely enough to give civilisation itself a longer future.

From Pledges to Zero: Africa Must Finish the Polio Job

0

African leaders have never been short of promises.

Every year, health ministers pledge to end preventable child deaths, strengthen primary healthcare and ensure that no child is left behind by vaccination programmes. Polio regularly features among those commitments.

But Africa has reached the point where another promise is not enough.

At the 76th session of the World Health Organization Regional Committee for Africa in Addis Ababa, ministers endorsed a new strategy for child health and survival and a programme aimed at training, employing and retaining three million additional health workers by 2035.

The ambitions are welcome. The test is whether they will survive beyond the conference hall.

Africa has already demonstrated that polio can be beaten. In 2020, the continent was certified free of wild poliovirus—a remarkable achievement built through years of vaccination, surveillance and community mobilisation.

Yet the job is not finished.

Variant poliovirus continues to cause outbreaks, while children in conflict-affected, remote and underserved communities remain at risk. The final mile is proving to be the hardest.

That is why Africa must now move from polio campaigns to polio systems.

A vaccination drive can reach a child once. A functioning health system can protect that child throughout childhood.

The distinction matters. A child who misses a vaccine is often also missing nutrition services, clean water, sanitation and basic healthcare. Reaching such children requires more than periodic vaccination teams. It requires health workers who are present, equipped and trusted in their communities.

Africa faces a projected shortage of more than six million health professionals by 2035. In 2024, the continent had only about 46 percent of the health workforce it needs.

That shortage is not an abstract statistic. It directly affects polio.

Someone must find children who have been missed. Someone must investigate suspected cases. Someone must maintain surveillance, track vaccination records and respond immediately when the virus is detected.

Without enough health workers, even the best regional strategy will remain just that—a strategy.

The proposed Health Workforce Management Programme for Africa is therefore critical to the continent’s polio ambitions. But recruitment alone will not solve the problem.

Health workers must be trained well, deployed where they are needed and given the transport, supplies, supervision and data tools required to work effectively. In communities where government services are weak and misinformation travels quickly, they must also have something no policy can simply manufacture: community trust.

For years, polio has been fought largely through emergency campaigns and short-term targets. Those campaigns have saved countless children. But they can also hide the weaknesses of routine health services.

When the campaign ends, the health system must remain.

That is the real opportunity before African governments now. Immunisation must become part of everyday primary healthcare. A child receiving nutrition services should have their vaccination status checked. A community health worker visiting a vulnerable household should be able to provide or connect the family to immunisation services. Surveillance should continue whether or not an outbreak is making headlines.

This approach is not only better health policy. It is the only sustainable path to zero.

Donor money will not last forever. Health priorities are competing for the same limited resources. Polio programmes must therefore demonstrate that they are building stronger health systems—not creating parallel ones.

The responsibility ultimately lies with African governments.

The continent does not lack the technology to stop polio. It does not lack the experience. It has already eradicated wild poliovirus.

What it needs now is political consistency.

Zero polio is a test of whether governments are willing to invest in the children who are hardest to reach. It is a test of whether health workers will be supported rather than celebrated only during campaigns. And it is a test of whether regional institutions and development partners can align behind national priorities instead of scattering resources across disconnected initiatives.

The pledges made in Addis Ababa are a good beginning.

But history will not remember the wording of another resolution. It will remember whether African children remained protected.

Africa has already shown that it can defeat wild polio.

Now it must show that it can finish the job.

Not with another campaign. Not with another pledge.

With health systems that deliver—every day, in every community, until zero becomes reality.

Malvinas: The Strength of a Just Cause

0

Only a few weeks ago, the Question of the Malvinas Islands once again took centre stage on the international agenda. The Organization of American States (OAS), the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization (C24), and the States Parties and Associated States of Mercosur reiterated their call for Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume negotiations in order to resolve the sovereignty dispute through peaceful means.

This renewed support offers an opportunity to reflect on a cause that shapes our history, defines our present, and speaks to the future of our Nation.

Each new pronouncement confirms that the Malvinas Question remains unresolved and very much alive. It also invites us to ask what Malvinas truly means to Argentina. The answer, naturally, extends far beyond any commemoration.

2 April and 10 June mark defining moments in our national memory. However, the responsibility to safeguard our sovereign rights transcends any anniversary. Malvinas is a cause that demands our commitment every day. And it is that conviction which inspires every step of our foreign policy.

The recent pronouncements at the OAS and the United Nations are of enormous political and diplomatic significance. At those forums, it was once again clearly reaffirmed that a sovereignty dispute exists between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, and that this dispute must be resolved through bilateral negotiations, by peaceful means, and in accordance with international law.

It is clear that resolutions do not, in themselves, solve the dispute. Their value lies in the fact that they keep alive the obligation to negotiate, as established by the United Nations, and make increasingly evident the United Kingdom’s decision to continue disregarding that mandate.

Maintaining this position requires sustained effort. Every consensus achieved demands active, persistent, and technically sound diplomacy. It requires work. It has to be built. It must be defended. At the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we advance our national position at every multilateral forum, engage in dialogue with governments from all regions, explain the legal basis of our claim, present our arguments regarding the inapplicability of the principle of self-determination to this case, and strengthen a network of shared positions that keeps an essential truth alive. Malvinas is not a solitary cause. History, law, and the community of nations converge in upholding the legitimacy of our claim.

A Just Cause

Malvinas strikes a profound chord with our Nation because it transcends any merely cartographic reading. It embodies our territorial integrity, our oceanic projection, our bicontinental identity, our wealth, and our projection into the South Atlantic.

Argentina cannot be conceived without these dimensions. The South Atlantic constitutes our Nation’s strategic depth. It is there that Patagonia, the sea, Antarctica, our continental shelf, and a decisive part of our future come together.

On the basis of that conviction, President Javier Milei has reaffirmed the legitimate and unrenounceable nature of our claim. Guided by that mandate, I am honoured, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, to undertake the commitment to uphold this cause with firmness and perseverance.

This is not merely another item on the foreign policy agenda. It is an institutional responsibility that binds us to the National Constitution, to our history, and to every Argentine who understands that sovereignty is defended through action. That responsibility also requires us to demonstrate, time and again, why international law supports Argentina’s position.

Our claim rests on historical and legal foundations that Argentina has upheld continuously since its independence. As successor to Spain’s rights, in accordance with the principle of State succession, Argentina exercised effective acts of authority over the Islands, formally took possession of them in 1820, and created the Political and Military Commandancy in 1829.

In 1833, the United Kingdom occupied the Islands through an act of force to which our country never consented, violated Argentina’s territorial integrity, expelled our national authorities and the population lawfully established there, populated the territory with its own settlers, and prevented Argentine citizens from settling on the Islands.

That event gave rise to a colonial situation that continues to this day. Argentina never consented to that occupation and has maintained a constant, peaceful protest grounded in law.

Along the same lines, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2065, adopted in 1965, marked a turning point. It formally recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute and established the path of bilateral negotiations as the means of resolving it, bearing in mind the interests of the inhabitants of the Islands. Since then, the international community has recognized an ineluctable legal fact: There exists a sovereignty dispute that remains to be resolved.

There is a mistaken belief that the 1982 South Atlantic conflict brought the sovereignty dispute to an end. The facts show otherwise. Barely five months after the cessation of hostilities, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 37/9, calling upon Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume negotiations. The conflict neither altered the legal nature of the dispute nor resolved it. The international community reaffirmed then, as it continues to do today, that a peaceful solution remains the only path forward.

Nor is the Question of the Malvinas Islands merely another case of decolonization or a case to which the principle of self-determination applies. It is a special and particular colonial situation originating in the violation of Argentina’s territorial integrity. The passage of time does not turn illegitimate occupation into sovereignty. Nor will it disrupt the territorial unity of the Argentine Republic.

It should be noted that the United Nations recognizes both the principle of self-determination of peoples and the principle of territorial integrity of States. The United Nations itself determines which principle applies depending on the particular circumstances of each case. More than six decades ago, Ambassador José María Ruda summarized this issue with clarity that continues to resonate today, stating that the Malvinas Question concerns the principle of territorial integrity of the Argentine Republic.

That was precisely the interpretation adopted by the General Assembly, which determined that the dispute arose from the occupation of part of Argentine territory through an act of force carried out in 1833. For that reason, it never considered the principle of self-determination to be applicable and has instead consistently held that a solution must be reached through negotiations between the parties, bearing in mind the interests of the inhabitants of the Islands.

“We Must Not Fall into the Referendum Trap”

The same reasoning explains why the United Nations distinguishes between the interests of the inhabitants of the Islands and their wishes regarding sovereignty. Our National Constitution provides that recovery of the full exercise of sovereignty must be achieved while respecting the way of life of the islanders and in compliance with the principles of international law. That commitment is permanent. It is an entirely different matter to claim that a population artificially implanted by the occupying power may determine the sovereignty of the disputed territory. For that reason, no referendum unilaterally organized by the United Kingdom can produce legal effects concerning a dispute that must be resolved exclusively between Argentina and the United Kingdom through negotiations. We must not fall into the referendum trap.

The Strength of Our Rights

At the OAS, our region once again adopted by acclamation a declaration stating that the Malvinas Question is a matter of enduring hemispheric concern. At the C24, all the Latin American countries that are members of the Committee co-sponsored the resolution, which was adopted by consensus. This is further reinforced by the continued support of Mercosur, CELAC, the Ibero-American Summits, the Brasilia Consensus, the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic, the Group of 77 and China, SICA and other multilateral fora.

To all those countries that stand with us, I convey the gratitude of the Argentine Republic. Their commitment to international law strengthens the diplomatic capital that enables us to keep our claim alive and to raise the political cost of British indifference.

There is another consideration that is equally important. The United Nations have not merely urged Argentina and the United Kingdom to negotiate. Ever since Resolution 31/49, they have expressly requested that both parties refrain from introducing unilateral modifications while the dispute remains unresolved. The meaning of this mandate is unequivocal. Neither party may take advantage of the situation to consolidate factual circumstances or make decisions over resources whose ownership remains contested.

Despite this, the United Kingdom has continued to ignore this call for decades, engaging in the exploration and exploitation of natural resources, granting licences, and maintaining a disproportionate military presence.

Argentina has responded to these affronts with the same consistency it has maintained in its diplomatic position. Argentina’s laws prohibit hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation on the Argentine continental shelf without prior authorization from Argentine authorities, and those who engage in such activities are subject to penalties.

This decision seeks to protect resources that belong to all Argentine citizens and whose use may not be fully decided on until the dispute has been settled in a lawful manner. Protecting our natural resources is also protecting an essential part of Argentina’s wealth.

The magnitude of the deployment of British troops speaks volumes. The islands are home to around 3,000 residents and there are approximately 1,200 British military personnel deployed. This ratio reflects the tactical nature of the occupation. For the United Kingdom, the Malvinas are not an expression of its identity. They are a strategic enclave used to preserve military, economic and geopolitical interests in one of the most relevant regions in the Southern Hemisphere.

The Sea Lion project is one of the clearest demonstrations of the United Kingdom’s violation of the above-mentioned international mandate. In December 2025, Rockhopper Exploration Plc and Navitas Petroleum Development and Production Limited announced a purported final decision to invest in the development of this field in the Northern Malvinas Basin, relying on invalid licences issued by illegitimate authorities. Every unilateral action by the United Kingdom confirms that the dispute remains unresolved. Every international declaration and resolution is a reminder that there is only one acceptable way to resolve it.

Argentina has rejected this unilateral act, reserving all of its rights and making it clear that anyone who engages in or facilitates illegal activities in areas under dispute will be subject to administrative and criminal penalties, as well as other types of action in domestic and international jurisdictions. Protecting our territorial integrity is also protecting Argentina’s maritime domain.

A greater cause

The Malvinas also live in the memory of our veterans, the families of the fallen, and every Argentine household where this name is spoken with respect. They have instilled this cause with a moral dimension that no public officer may forget. Every diplomatic achievement we make also contributes to honouring this legacy. Their sacrifice demands that our public conduct and foreign policy be worthy of their example.

We will therefore carry on. We will be present at the United Nations, the OAS, and every multilateral forum and bilateral discussion where our rights need to be defended. We will respond unequivocally to every unilateral action, whatever its form. We will do so firmly and guided by the conviction that just causes require strategic patience, national unity and perseverance.

Argentina’s commitment to negotiations remains unaltered. I am convinced that the solution will be peaceful, diplomatic and in accordance with international law. This willingness coexists with an immutable certainty. Argentina’s claim is not affected by the passage of time, nor will it be relinquished or abandoned.

The Malvinas are part of our history, our territory, our sea, our memory and our destiny. Their cause is an intergenerational promise. It is the voice of a nation that knows how to wait without giving up and how to assert its claims without giving in.

Every day, I renew this mandate knowing that there can hardly be a greater honour for a Foreign Minister than spreading the voice of this legitimate cause around the world and championing it with the same passion with which it is embraced by millions of fellow Argentines. Therein lies one of the greatest honours and commitments for any Argentine citizen. That is my own commitment.

By history, by right and by conviction, the Malvinas are Argentine.

Pablo Quirno is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of the Argentine Republic.