By Jim Coggins

“CANADA is demonstrating the determined political will needed to deliver effective international assistance,” Canada’s Minister of International Cooperation Beverley Oda stated June 20.

But is everything as clear and positive as the government said?

The World Religions Summit, which met June 21 – 23 in Winnipeg, declared that countries in the developed world are not doing enough.

Among other things, Oda pointed out that Canada has doubled its foreign aid.

The claim is, in fact, true – although it also needs to be put into context.

Jean Chretien’s Liberal government drastically cut back Canada’s foreign aid in the 1990s. In 2002, the government announced it would increase aid by eight percent per year. The Conservative government, elected in 2006, continued this policy, and reached the $5 billion level of aid scheduled for the 2010 – 2011 budget year.

While this seems impressive, Gerry Barr, president of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC), told BCCN the doubling merely restored the cuts that had been made earlier.

Because Canada’s economy has been expanding over the last decade, and because of inflation, the increase in foreign aid is not as impressive.

Canadian aid increased from 0.27 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2004 to a projected 0.33 percent of GDP in 2010.

This is only about halfway to the often expressed goal of having developed countries contribute 0.7 percent of GDP to foreign aid.

This spring, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised an additional contribution of $1.1 billion to his Muskoka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health.

Assistance frozen

However, in its March budget, the government announced it would freeze international assistance at 2010 – 2011 levels, with the goal of balancing the budget again by 2015 – 2016.

Barr told BCCN this would mean foreign aid funding would drop to about 0.28 percent of GDP by 2014 – 2015.

The G8 Muskoka Accountability Report is a 92-page summary of the state of foreign aid in the world.

The report reveals foreign aid increased from $80 billion to $120 billion per year from 2004 to 2009, with $24 billion of the annual increase coming from the G8 nations.

News headlines such as ‘G8 pacts littered with broken promises on aid’ are exaggerated.  The Accountability Report is perhaps more realistic: “Overall, G8 members’ progress in meeting these commitments is mixed,” with some members meeting their commitments and others not. Globally, Canada is neither the most nor the least generous nation.

Has the increased giving done any good? Both the Accountability Report and the 2010 United Nations Millennium Goals Report show progress has been made.

For instance, the UN estimates the number of people living in poverty will have been cut in half from 1990 to 2015.

However, the recession and possible reductions in foreign aid may reverse the positive trends. The countries at the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto agreed to cut their deficits in half by 2015; this will likely mean reductions in levels of foreign aid.

“The Millennium Development Goals cannot be achieved if countries freeze their aid spending,” said Barr. He added that the foreign aid freeze by Canada, “the most robustly recovering country in the world . . . sends a toxic message to other donor states who are in tougher times.”

A modest move forward

Harper managed to get commitments of $5 billion from G8 countries for his health initiative, plus $2.3 billion from private foundations. However, Barr noted this fell far short of the $25 billion that is needed.

“The move forward is welcome,” Barr said, “but the outcome was modest at best.”

There have been major changes in how Canadian foreign aid is delivered.

In May 2009, the federal government announced a new approach, involving three key priorities: “increasing food security; stimulating sustainable economic growth; [and] securing the future of children and youth.”

“This government promised to make Canada’s international assistance more effective, more focused and more accountable,” stated Beverley Oda, adding: “We have delivered on our commitment, and this will be shaping Canada’s international assistance for the coming years.”

Most of the Canadian government’s foreign aid is channeled through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) – which gives money to NGOs (non-governmental organizations), including many church-based ones, which do relief and development work.

One aspect of the new emphasis on effectiveness is that 80 percent of Canada’s foreign aid will be delivered to only 20 countries.

Barr told BCCN that it may make sense to “work more in our neighbourhood.”

But he questioned why seven very poor African countries had been dropped from the list of 20, while slightly better off countries in Latin America and Asia will receive aid.

Sensible approach

Don Peters, executive director of Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), noted that some aspects of the effectiveness approach make sense. For instance, after the Haiti earthquake, the government agreed to match contributions raised by non-governmental relief and development agencies; however, the government did not necessarily give the matching money to the agencies which had raised money – but to those which could present a plan to use the money most effectively.

“Trying to get more bang for your buck” is a good thing, Peters said, but added that the focus on effectiveness was a trend already observable under the Liberals.

Continue article >>

Another aspect of the effectiveness approach is that the government ‘untied’ food aid in 2008, and announced plans to untie all aid by 2013.

This means that, instead of buying food or other supplies in Canada and shipping them to a developing nation, aid agencies can buy the food and supplies – often at a lower price – in developing nations.

This helps stimulate the economy in the developing country where supplies are purchased.

This change in policy has been widely applauded by Canadian relief and development agencies.

Controversial funding cuts

Other aspects of the effectiveness approach have been more controversial.

Kairos lost its funding from CIDA at the end of November 2009; and the CCIC has not yet had its funding renewed.

Kairos is a coalition formed by 11 mainline churches and religious organizations.

It supports groups in developing countries, providing training to women on their legal rights; it does educational work on climate change; and advocates for human rights.

It also helps the Sudan Council of Churches monitor the peace settlement in that country.

Kairos and its predecessor programs had been receiving CIDA funds for 35 years. After losing its funding, Kairos has generally managed to maintain most of its operation in Canada, but has ceased funding its overseas partners.

CCIC is an umbrella organization for 90 – 100 relief and development agencies, including World Vision,  the Red Cross and the Development and Peace agency. It helps coordinate work in various parts of the world, and does policy development. The lack of CIDA funding means CCIC will have to continue its work on a much-reduced scale.

CIDA would not talk to BCCN about the funding cuts, except to say Kairos’ program did not match the government’s priorities on food security, children/youth and sustainable economic growth.

Jennifer Henry, Kairos’ manager of dignity, rights and development, noted the three priorities were announced by the government after Kairos had submitted its request for funding for 2009 – 2012. She said much of Kairos’ work supports the government goals, but the application was not phrased in those terms.

Henry noted human rights training can be “transformative,” and can support sustainable development in the long term. She suggested government personnel often want to see  immediate results, but said this approach is shortsighted. Kairos has reapplied for funding.

‘Punishment politics’

Both Kairos and CCIC have suggested they lost their funding because they have been critical of  government policies.

“What we’re experiencing here is punishment politics,” CCIC’s Barr said in a June 2 news release. “Speak out against government policy – and risk losing your funding.”

This idea gained credence when Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, accused Kairos of being anti-semitic for its stand on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Kenney later withdrew the remarks.

Both Kairos and CCIC suggested the defunding will have a “chilling” effect on other agencies’ willingness to speak out.

Peters said MCC “will respond to political issues as they affect the poor and vulnerable,” and that the organization often passes on to the government criticism from its overseas partners.

MCC has criticized the government on some of the same issues as Kairos and CCIC. Perhaps the difference is that MCC engages in “occasional advocacy,” in Peters’ words, while advocacy is a central focus of the other agencies.

One of the things both the government and agencies such as Kairos and CCIC say is that foreign aid is not the only important aspect of international assistance. Henry suggested the long-term goal is to enable people in the developing world to help themselves.

Barr said development agencies have to pay attention to policy development because “all you achieve on the ground can be undone by changes in legislation or trade policy . . . It’s not just about the well in the village or the number of classrooms.”

Debt forgiveness

Between 2005 and 2008, G8 countries provided over $54 billion in debt forgiveness to developing countries.

This move was praised by relief and development  agencies often critical of the G8.

Henry noted church agencies in Canada helped collect 640,000 signatures on petitions supporting debt relief.

Henry also praised the Canadian government for trying to let countries receiving aid have more input on what should be done with it.

But there is disagreement in other areas. For instance, the G20 summit agreed to cut government spending, arguing that this would stimulate growth and create jobs, including in the developing world.

Relief and development agencies have argued government budgets should not be balanced by cutting development assistance.

The G20 summit also agreed private investment will help the developing world.

For example, the Canadian government supports the development of a mine in Guatemala by Canada-based Goldcorp. Both MCC and Kairos have criticized the mine for harming the environment and not helping many local Guatemalans.

Development is extremely complex. Even when governments and aid agencies agree on goals, they may disagree on methods.

August 2010