Haiti: More Announceables

It has been two years since the devastating earthquake in Haiti that killed over 300,000 people and left 1.5 million homeless. In January, on the anniversary of the event, Canada’s Minister for International Cooperation, Bev Oda, paid a visit to Port au Prince, with the customary blizzard of press releases.

One is hard-pressed to imagine the joy of Haitians at yet another visit from the Honourable Bev, who has made multiple trips to the country during her tenure as minister responsible for CIDA. But Haitians would be fully justified in asking “So what?” in the face of more promises from Canada.

The official line from CIDA, on behalf of the Canadian government, is that Canada’s generosity to Haiti knows no bounds. “Canada is on track to disburse more than $1 billion in Haiti (2006-2012) to implement long-term development and to meet immediate humanitarian and reconstruction needs….” according to Ms Oda’s letter marking her visit. But just what is happening to this impressive amount of money?

The showcase announcement during the Minister’s most recent Haitian sojourn was $20 million for the resettlement of 5,000 families who have been living since the earthquake in makeshift shelter on the Champ de Mars, a major park in the centre of Port au Prince. The label on this project is “Canada to resettle Haitians from Champ de Mars.” No mention of Haitian partners, whether government or civil society. Isn’t it their country? Maybe we just forgot.

In digesting the news of this latest component of Canadian largesse, a certain degree of scepticism is understandable. When will this wonderful – and very necessary – work actually be done? Canada is very adept at making announcements, but delivering is another matter. Look at the saga of the national police academy, an $18 million project announced in October 2008, in recognition that a strong and competent police force is an essential component of Haiti’s sustainable development. Good for Canada to support this initiative.

Obviously Ms Oda thinks so too, which is why she re-announced the project in April 2010, though nothing had been done by CIDA to implement the project to that point. All right, there had been an earthquake in January, but even before then the project had become embroiled in contractual gridlock. In a press release in October 2011, the last time Oda was in Haiti, there was again mention of the national police academy project (“Canada is committed to the construction of the National Police Academy….”) but no word on when it would happen.

Hence the cynicism in reading the fulsome announcement regarding the displaced persons resettlement project; it’s natural to speculate a bit on just when anything will actually occur. In dealing with Haiti, is Canada following the pattern of so many donors and external agencies scrambling to do things right – Ms Oda’s well known preoccupation with her version of accountability – rather than doing the right things, and helping build Haiti’s capacity to develop itself?

In the absence of meaningful details from CIDA on what has been and is being done with the $1 billion-plus devoted to Haiti –  as opposed to press releases extolling ministerial commitments –  one is left to speculate how many other commitments made in the last three to four years are also languishing somewhere in bureaucratic limbo. More transparency regarding Canada’s aid performance is long overdue. This would be welcomed by Canadians, and even more by our partners in developing countries. Now that Canada has signed on to the International Aid Transparency Initiative, can we hope for some change?

Aid Transparency: It's About Time

On November 28, CIDA announced that Canada was joining the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). This is a welcome move.

In recent years there has been a growing demand for greater transparency in foreign aid: how much is being spent, where, on what and for whom. And of course, taxpayers want to know what effect it is having. The problem is that while governments do publish annual statistics on aid-giving, data is often general, incomplete, out of date and it cannot be readily compared with that of other countries. Many donor countries, Canada included, count things in their “aid envelope” that do not meet the OECD definition of official development assistance. “Aid” is frequently used to advance the commercial, strategic and military priorities of the giver. Pledges are announced with much fanfare, often more than once, but they are not always redeemed. Finding out precisely what Canada pledged in response to the Haiti earthquake, for example, is virtually impossible. Getting trustworthy data on what has actually been spent cannot be obtained, it seems, without applying to Access to Information.

The problem is bigger than that, however. Most donors do not have timely information about what others are spending. The result is a badly coordinated mish-mash, with donors crowding into some sectors and some countries, while completely ignoring others. Recipient countries cannot plan or balance their own spending with any accuracy or predictability, and while all donors speak about their desire for results, monitoring and evaluation remain as patchy as the delivery. After 50 years of what many critics call “failed aid”, taxpayers and the citizens of recipient countries have a right to know how these very large aid budgets are being spent.

The multi-government 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action called, inter alia, for greater aid coordination, transparency and predictability. But on these issues there has been little or no progress and aid has actually become more fragmented than ever. Now, at last, there is a solution: the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) that CIDA has just joined. It calls on donors to put their money where their mouth is, or more precisely, to put their reporting where their money is.

IATI has developed a common, international standard that sets guidelines for publishing information about aid spending. This is not a new database, and it doesn’t replace existing systems like the one managed by the OECD. It complements and supplements standards and definitions that have already been agreed.

Donors that become members of IATI – and the term “donor” includes governments, foundations, multilateral institutions and NGOs -- agree to make public, in a detailed and timely fashion, information on aid volumes, aid allocations and the results of development expenditure when they are available.

In addition, participating donors and developing countries will make public all conditions linked to disbursements. Donors will provide full and timely information on annual commitments and actual disbursements, allowing recipients to accurately record aid flows in their budget estimates and accounting systems. And donors will provide full and timely information on their rolling three- to five-year forward expenditure and implementation plans, allowing recipient countries to integrate them into their medium-term planning.

This idea is long overdue. Britain and the World Bank have signed on and have indicated starting dates. Australia, Denmark, Switzerland and half a dozen others, including the European Union and Germany, are on the road to implementation. Two dozen developing countries have endorsed IATI, including almost half of those designated as countries of focus by CIDA.

Having announced its intention to join the IATI, Canada now has some work to do. The international “Publish What You Fund” coalition, which campaigns for greater transparency in foreign aid, ranks Canada in 28th place out of 58 donors – “poor” but not dismal, and better than France, Germany and theUnited States. With some effort, we could go from a B-minus to something considerably better.

The proof, of course will be in the pudding. Canada passed an “Aid Accountability Act” in 2008, requiring a central focus on poverty reduction. Aid watchers are still awaiting meaningful implementation by the government.