From a total of seven Francophone African countries, CIDA has now reduced its focus to two. African countries of focus for CIDA are now Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, Sudan and Tanzania.
The move to greater geographic focus came after years of criticism, mainly from the OECD, that CIDA was geographically too scattered. This criticism had also been leveled by the OECD in most recent DAC peer reviews of Britain, France, Germany and other bilateral donors. No attempt was made by the OECD, however, to coordinate the ‘focus’ that it sought. The result is that Ghana and Mozambique, for example, are now focus countries for Canada and a dozen other bilateral donors, while most have abandoned countries of much greater need, such as DRC, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
‘We’re not abandoning any countries,’ CIDA Minister Bev Oda said, announcing the cuts during a media scrum in February 2009. ‘What we’re saying is we’ve selected 20 countries in which we will focus our programming.’1 CIDA President, Margaret Biggs explained it this way: the countries that appear on CIDA’s revised list were selected on the basis of three criteria. Need was the first, she said. Canada’s ability to engage with a country in a meaningful way was the second. And the third criterion was a foreign-policy consideration. 2
‘These are interesting criteria,’ writes Gerry Barr, Executive Director of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, ‘but they have nothing to do with the ODA Accountability Act. A legal rationale of the Act, commissioned by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, finds that the Act’s three criteria for ODA (contributes to poverty reduction; takes into account the perspectives of the poor; and is consistent with international human rights standards) should be equal in weight, interdependent, cumulative and the only criteria to be rightly applied by a competent Minister when deciding on aid spending.’3
Minister Oda, for her part, says ‘For many countries formerly on Canada’s list, little will change, since much of their Canadian aid was delivered through our multilateral and partnership programs.’
That is not exactly true. Six African countries chopped from the list were among the top 30 recipients of Canadian bilateral aid in 2006-7, as was Sri Lanka, another dropped country (and the recipient of Canada’s very first ODA under the Colombo Plan). By cutting its bilateral programs to these countries, CIDA will ‘save’ about $185 million. That is a lot of money for poor countries, and it cannot mean that ‘little will change’ unless the aid was not accomplishing much in the first place.
But there is another question. If ‘little will change’, why make the change? Why the points about ‘need’, ‘Canada’s ability to engage in meaningful ways’ and ‘foreign policy considerations’? Why make any cuts at all?
It has been said, though never as an overt policy, that Canada wants to be among the top five donors in a given recipient country. By refocusing on a few, Canada could become a bigger player. This would presumably give CIDA more policy leverage.
The truth is, however, that in most African countries, Canadian aid volumes – even if they were to double – would never be competitive with those of larger donors, especially in countries where there is already donor crowding.
Canada is a minor player in most of the new countries of focus. Canadian ODA in 2008 represented more than 10% of all ODA in only three of the African focus countries (Ghana 10.2%, Senegal 13.4%, Mali 18.6%).4 If all of the $185 million saved by cutting programs were distributed proportionally among the remaining four, Canada would still not reach 10% of total ODA in any of them. Canada, in fact, can never buy its way to relevance. And ‘leverage’ – in a real partnership – should derive from the quality of programming, not the size of the budget.
Other questions arise:
- Can Canada engage more meaningfully in Ethiopia or Sudan than it could in Zambia or Rwanda?
- Are the needs greater in Mali than in Peru?
- Are our foreign policy considerations greater in Mozambique than they are in Kenya?
Six of the eight dropped African countries are among the 20 poorest countries in the world, falling into what the United Nations euphemistically calls ‘low human development’. All have serious deficiencies in maternal and child health, Canada’s new high-priority programming area.
Four of the seven countries of focus fall into the ‘medium human development’ category, while the new South American countries of focus fall into the ‘high human development’ category. However CIDA defines ‘need’, the choices it has made seem to ignore need, and the possibility that Canada might make a real difference with small amounts in countries that have been abandoned by other donors.
There is a further issue, however. African growth rates over the past decade have been relatively high. Africa has become a focus of investment not just for China, but for Canadian companies. Africa is not just an aid recipient, it is a continent of great promise, and it is in Canada’s interest to remain engaged.
CANADA: ON TRACK IN DOUBLING ITS AID TO AFRICA?
CIDA’s annual statistical report for 2006-7 stated that ‘Budget 2008 reconfirmed the government’s commitment to double its international assistance to Africa in 2008-9 over 2003-4 levels.’
CIDA’s statistics for 2006-7 show that Canadian international assistance to Africa rose from $1.05 billion in 2003-4 to $1.89 billion in 2006-7 – almost double, as claimed.
In these numbers, however, there is subterfuge. First, in reporting to Canadians, CIDA speaks of ‘international assistance’, and counts a variety of outlays that are not eligible for inclusion as ODA. For example CIDA shows expenditures of $142.17 million in Sudan but some $70 million of this was support to African Union (AU) peacekeeping that could not be counted as ODA. Some $56 million was spent on humanitarian relief, leaving a tiny amount, some $7.1 million, for bilateral development programming – one third of what was spent in the same year in six of the seven countries that were dropped by CIDA.
This is not to suggest that what Canada is doing in Sudan is unimportant, or that any of it should be stopped. But in terms of long-term development commitments, Canada has much less invested in Sudan than every single one of the countries it dropped from the list. CIDA is not likely on this basis to be able to ‘engage in meaningful ways’ with Sudan.
Canada’s second largest aid recipient in the entire world in 2006-7 was Cameroon, a country now dropped from the list. Total ‘expenditure’ on Cameroon was stated as $224 million, although all but $9 million of this was debt relief. While debt relief is a real cost to the donor and a real benefit to the beneficiary, it does not represent new money for new activities.
If the non ODA spending in Sudan and the debt relief to Cameroon alone are removed from the calculation of the increase in Canadian ‘aid’ to Africa, the growth falls from 80% over the four years in question to more like 53%. In a year when ODA increased by 7%, the statistics for 2007-8 actually show a fallback in ‘aid’ to Africa from the dubious 2006-7 figure of $1.89 billion to $1.74 billion.5
What will emerge in the statistics for 2008 and beyond remains uncertain. The $500 million Canada Fund for Africa was closed in 2008, and it is not at all clear that the ‘savings’ on closed programs will be reallocated within Africa. Funding will have to be found for CIDA’s new programs in middle income Colombia and Peru. If Canada aimed to reach 10% of ODA to Colombia, it would have to increase aid spending there by 625% over 2008 figures.
With the likelihood of a slowdown in ODA (if not cuts) to deal with post-recession deficits, there may well be no significant growth in aid for the African countries that are the centre of new ‘focus’. In fact funds may well be diverted to Colombia and Peru. In the process, Canada will simply have lost a generation of experience and investment in eight very poor countries where we once made a difference.6
On top of all this, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon has added to the confusion by saying (in February 2010) that Canada will not commit to any further increase in African aid until it is satisfied the $2 billion it has already delivered has not been wasted. He said that Canada has fulfilled its aid promises to Africa and now wants to use its G8 chairmanship to ensure accountability for the money already spent.7
This suggests that Canada has been pumping money into Africa – ‘doubling’ the amount in five years, four of them under the Conservative government -- without any assurance about where it has gone or how it has been used. If Canada’s Foreign Minister is this concerned about our aid to Africa, why was it doubled? The truth is probably more complicated. Canada wants to take credit for ‘doubling’ its aid to Africa at the G8 summit, but knows that real spending has been dropping, and will drop further in 2010. The drop can be explained later as a concern ‘to assure accountability’, while simply facilitating the move away from Africa.
Juliette Yameogo Ambassador to Canada from Burkina Faso attended a Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee meeting along with 18 other African ambassadors in May, 2009. She asked why so many of the countries that had been dropped had not been consulted prior to Minister Oda’s press conference in Ottawa. Almost all of them learned of the cuts through the media.
‘Canada was a friend who understood the challenges of Africa,’ Yameogo said. ‘For us, Canada is a country where its citizens stand solidly with oppressed people both at home and elsewhere in the world. In international gatherings, Canada has always stood shoulder to shoulder with Africa in defense of our continent’s interest.’ She asked, ‘Are we to believe that our long time friend, Canada, is leaving? …We would like our friend Canada to come back to Africa.’8
WHAT CANADA SHOULD DO IN AFRICA
- POVERTY MUST BE THE CENTRAL FOCUS: Over the years, Canadian aid has frequently lost sight of its poverty-reducing mandate and focus. This must be reconfirmed in our geographic and sectoral priorities in Africa.
- REVIEW THE CUTS: While it makes sense to focus on some countries and some sectors, there has been no discussion about the dramatic choices that have been made over the past two years with the many Canadian organizations, companies and academics whose long experience of Africa has created unique partnerships and opportunities. The options must be reviewed, along with the overall and relative levels of Canadian assistance to Africa.
- NOT JUST “BETTER PERFORMERS”: Many donors, including Canada, have sought out countries deemed to be “better performers” as a way of achieving better results. This has turned some countries with great needs, often emerging from conflict and bad governance, into “aid orphans”. In coordination with other donors, Canada should take on at least one or two “fragile” African countries as special cases for Canadian attention, as we have with Haiti.
- REVIEW THE SECTORAL PRIORITIES: CIDA has changed course on its priorities so many times in the past decade that Canada has become a jack of all trades and master of none. Do the current priorities make sense in all regions and all countries? What do they mean for organizations responding to requests from Africa? How rigidly will the priorities be interpreted? How closely must independent Canadian organizations follow CIDA’s lead? These questions and others need to be considered in consultation with African partners in establishing realistic long-term directions for Canadian development assistance.
- THE CASE FOR BUSINESS: For many years Canada has prioritized private sector development. In Africa this has focused almost exclusively on the creation of opportunities for Canadian investors and exporters. The development of small and medium African enterprise has been ignored by most donors, including Canada. SME is the engine of economic growth in North America, Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa. CIDA should take a long hard look at whether Canada has skills, experience and institutions that could turn this neglected area – and a priority for Africa – into a priority for Canada.
- STAY THE COURSE: Once there has been full consultation on geographic and sectoral priorities, there must be a bipartisan political agreement that Canada will remain true to the directions that have been set, and not permit a return to the constant changes that have weakened our aid programs.
- DECENTRALIZE: Several Canadian governments, including the current one, have committed to greater decentralization in decision making, understanding that better and more timely decisions can be taken closer to the beneficiaries and field operations. It hasn’t happened. Meaningful authority must be moved to country-level offices.
- CIVIL SOCIETY: Expand the role of African and Canadian civil society organizations in designing and implementing the ODA program.
- ENGAGEMENT WITH CANADIANS: We have recommended elsewhere that 5 per cent of Canada’s ODA budget be allocated to robust and dynamic engagement with Canadians. This should have a clear and sustained Africa focus.
3 Gerry Barr, ‘ODA Accountability Act: Remarkable Legislation, Disappointing Implementation’, in Canadian Council for International Cooperation, A Time to Act: Implementing the ODA Accountability Act: A Canadian CSO Agenda for Aid Reform, CCIC, forthcoming April 2010, accessible at www.ccic.ca.
42008 statistics on relative shares of ODA are from the OECD DAC data base: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ODA_RECIPIENT
5 In fact
if debt forgiveness and the non-ODA aid to Sudan are removed from both
years, the comparable figures show a very slight increase, from $1.6
billion to $1.67 billion.
6 The 2007-8 Statistical Report states that ‘On 20 May 2009, Canada announced its achievement of [the doubling] target. A website reference for the announcement is incorrect. The Statistical
Report states that the ‘exact total’ showing the 2008-09 ‘target set
and achieved by the Canadian government’ will be reported at a later
date. See http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/stats/$file/Statistical_Report_InternationalL_Assistance_2007-2008_EN.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment