Malaria nets. Photo: Tomas de la Maza (flickr)

Is malaria's reign of terror coming to an end?

Every year, 500 million people fall seriously ill with malaria — a disease that induces fever, chills, nausea, flu-like illness and, without treatment, coma and death. More than 1 million people die each year from malaria — almost all in the developing world. The near-universal poverty of its victims is one reason it has not received the attention, and therefore the money, necessary to secure its demise.

Even in the face of these scary statistics, malaria may be about to meet it's match. The Economist reports a renewed sense of interest in its eradication, mainly because it jeopardizes the UN's Millennium Development Goals, a set of benchmarks in health, education and human welfare that world leaders committed to attain by 2015.

There's a cost-benefit rationale, too. Malaria costs Africa upwards of $12 billion a year in health expenses and lost productivity. Yet a five-year eradication plan might cost as little as $2.2 billion a year, according to a report by Malaria No More and McKinsey & Company.

With these numbers in mind, last week the UN unveiled a new campaign to fight malaria at its most critical spots. The Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership — created to "enable sustained delivery and use of the most effective prevention and treatment for those affected most by malaria — staged the first World Malaria Day last week. It coincided with a UN plan to spray inside houses and distribute insecticide-treated bed nets to "all people at risk" of the disease by the end of 2010.

Any effort to stamp out malaria must deal with an added layer of complexity. When diminished but not destroyed, malaria can come back with a vengeance. Any letup in the eradication campaign may end up actually increasing the numbers of those at risk.

But considering how much malaria undermines the war on poverty, a risk taken to ensure its eradication may be a risk worth taking.

Photo: JohnMMM (Flickr)

Typically, the discovery of “black gold” in African countries has led to conflict over land and overwhelms governments with more revenue than can be effectively managed. Brutal secessionist conflicts have been taking place for years in countries rich with oil, including Sudan, Nigeria and Angola. Ghana hopes to buck the trend. The country is one of the most stable on the continent and responsible development of its oil industry can provide a good model for other African nations.

"There’s no reason that oil should be a curse,” one government official told Financial Times, which recently published a special report on Africa's fossil-fuel resources. “We want to make sure we follow the example of countries like Canada or Norway who’ve used oil to their benefit."

Why can’t African countries – or any developing country, for that matter – use newfound oil wealth to raise living standards for all citizens? For starters, the oil market is vulnerable to price shocks, and the centralized revenues are susceptible to theft. Dependency on oil as a primary commodity can discourage economic diversification.

Another critical issue is the exploitation of indigenous populations near extraction sites, a prime example being the abuses felt by those in the Niger delta region of Nigeria. Governments frequently overlook the fundamental needs of communities adjacent to oil drilling sites. Ghana’s new oil find may not be very beneficial to communities that fish the waters where the discovery was made.

Can Ghana avoid these pitfalls? The government says it plans to use the oil wealth to turn Ghana into "a middle-income country" by 2015, and to invest in infrastructure, health care and education. That's reminiscent of rhetoric used by officials in Nigeria, Angola, and the Congo — all are failing to follow through with those promises.

Can Ghana succeed in turning the “black gold” into a blessing for its citizens, or will oil once again prove a curse?