David Smith's well-researched articles on sub-Saharan Africa (Africa digs in as the good times roll ... at last, 29 March) highlight the clear evidence that parts of the continent are at last on the cusp of a dramatic transformation driven by resource exploitation and incipient marketisation. The crucial question for all of us, because we share the planet, is whether that will result in an equitable, sustainable future or, as Smith speculates, growing inequality and persistent poverty, at the same time as resource profligacy. This is surely the central agenda for the Rio+20 and the post-2015 millennium development goals.
The demographic transformation that typifies development, urbanisation, has yet to take hold in sub-Saharan Africa – only Lagos approaches megacity status of 10 million people. The Chinese are, it seems, leading the way in infrastructure-led assistance, and this points to the urgent need for the international aid programme as a whole to look ahead, beyond the food crises, to building the capacity of African governments to plan for and manage the growth of cities. Unless they do, the high levels of mortality and of ill health will simply be reproduced in the future slums and sprawl.
Neil Blackshaw
Little Easton, Essex
• While it is commendable to talk up the prospects for Africa, as the traditional image of a hopeless continent is no longer justified or helpful, the figure of 34% of all Africans being middle class, as used by Mthuli Ncube, chief economist of the African Development Bank, is deeply misleading. It is true, the continent is booming, with some of the highest growth figures on the planet, but this growth sits firmly on the back of natural resources, such as oil and minerals, that foreigners are extracting and shipping abroad. When one knows that the African Development Bank sees the consumption of $2 a day as the threshold of middle class, and that roughly one-quarter of all Africans have yet even to have electricity, one can get a better picture of the reality. That there is a surge in optimism in African capitals is undeniable; the challenge is to support governance and regulatory systems (such as anti-corruption and tax-evasion legislation) that will enable Africa's wealth of natural resources to actually reduce poverty rather than, as is more traditional, increase it.
Peter Hudson
Director, Rainbow Development in Africa
• Your report (29 March) on the losses faced by Lloyd's of London after an "unprecedented series of natural disasters" rightly noted the impact of several major events in 2011, including the Japan tsunami, the earthquake in New Zealand and floods in Australia and Bangkok. This is a powerful illustration of a world where natural disasters and humanitarian emergencies are becoming the norm. However, the crisis which affected the largest number of people last year was the drought in east Africa, affecting over 11.5 million people in one of the poorest regions of the world. None of these 11.5 million people were insured at Lloyd's of London, and many are trying to rebuild their livelihoods with no financial support beyond that provided by charities like Cafod. The rich have the option of insurance to help mitigate the impacts of natural disasters. The poor do not. We must not abandon them because of this, nor break our promises to support them.
Mike Noyes
Head of humanitarian programmes, Cafod
• Last week's report on aid from the House of Lords (Abandon 0.7% international aid target, peers tell ministers, March 29) makes recommendations which could seriously undermine the reputation of the UK government as one of the world leaders in poverty reduction.
The suggestion that the Department for International Development should consider how Britain could derive direct economic benefit from its development aid is incompatible with this success, and would ultimately mean that UK aid was able to help fewer of the people who need it, and deliver poorer value for money for British taxpayers.
The report states that it is not possible to increase the amount of aid at the same time as improving its quality, but DfID has already proven that it is able to scale up its investments while also leading the world in terms of aid effectiveness.
Aid helps to ensure that the world's most disadvantaged people are able to access health, education and other essential services to help them build a brighter future. Spending this small percentage of 0.7% on development is a pledge we have made and one we can and must afford to keep.
Caroline Harper
Chief executive, Sightsavers
• Gordon Peters (Letters, 22 March) says Eritrea deserves a better press. I heartily agree. It has an extraordinary landscape, a perfect climate, a fascinating history, and a resilient and wonderful population. However, President Isaias, who rules Eritrea, deserves all the bad press he gets.
Isaias has locked up all independent journalists, all opposition politicians and many evangelical Christians. There have been no democratic elections since independence. He has expelled all international NGOs. Any remaining independent observers (such the international diplomatic community) have been prevented from travelling outside the capital to assess the impact of the recent drought which has devastated the Horn of Africa.
The British military administration in Eritrea ended 60 years ago. In this anniversary year, it is all the more appropriate that Isaias gets the bad press he deserves in the UK.
Will Cobbett
London
• Characteristically, the Department for International Development reverts to its default position in the face of criticism of the aid budget. That position is known as shroud-waving – "250,000 newborn babies will die needlessly" – has long been discredited in Whitehall negotiations and is better known as bureaucratic blackmail. The House of Lords committee is surely correct to ask for greater accountability and might query why the Afghan government, long known as the recipient of huge sums of DfID largesse in the name of "capacity building", should still be an international byword for corruption? Perhaps the Lords might care to add a footnote to their report urging that some of the planned DfID budget increase should be diverted to the BBC World Service to make good the grievous cuts it suffered in the last spending round. Who doubts that the BBC World Service is the finest, most effective form of international aid?
John Tusa
Managing director, BBC World Service 1986-92