An analysis of Canada’s international assistance through the Canadian International Development Agency
Aid stems from the seemingly simple action of lending a helping hand to someone in need. However, when considering aid on an international scale between nations, the subject becomes very complex. Aid is affected by many aspects of human society and culture. Both givers and receivers of aid have much to consider when establishing an ideal plan of action that benefits all the involved parties. Yet despite the complexity of the subject, aid continues to be a major focus of many countries’ budgets and government campaigns. Moreover, in a globalized world where countries are increasingly interconnected, there is a growing interest in aid effectiveness and how aid systems can be improved. This is especially true in Canada where the government continues to revamp its international assistance goals and continuously attempts to address the concerns of the population. On May 20, 2009, the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Canada’s Minister of International Cooperation, gave a speech on the country’s new approach towards aid effectiveness.[1] Canada has established a promising new framework for its international assistance by concentrating its international development goals, focusing on the needs of the people, and working to create sustainable economies abroad. Yet until these goals are fully realized, Canadian aid remains ineffective due to accountability issues such as positive results that remain unproven and uncertainties surrounding the government’s decision to help some countries over others.
The Canadian International Development Agency
The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is Canada’s main hub for the country’s’ international aid and development efforts. It is a government organization which controls and regulates the actions of Canada’s assistance in foreign countries. CIDA manages Canada’s aid efforts (funds, resources etc.) by working with “its development partners, fragile states and countries in crisis, countries of focus, and the Canadian population and institutions.”[2] CIDA bases its aspirations and actions around the Millennium Development Goals which were established by the United Nations in September 2000.[3] These are eight specific goals which “form a blueprint agreed to by all the world’s countries and all the world’s leading development institutions. They have galvanized unprecedented efforts to meet the needs of the world’s poorest.”[4] Furthermore, CIDA has three specific priority themes used “to sharpen the focus of Canada’s international assistance […] increasing food security, securing the future of children and youth, and stimulating sustainable economic growth”.[5] It is important to note that the purpose of this essay is to critique and analyze CIDA’s concentration on its twenty focus countries: Bolivia, the Caribbean Regional Program, Colombia, Haiti, Honduras, Peru, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Ukraine, West Bank and Gaza, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, Sudan, and Tanzania.[6] I will not examine CIDA’s involvement in multilateral agencies (e.g. UNICEF) or its response to emergency crises such as earthquakes or sudden war outbreaks. Canada’s support and immediate response to such things are an essential part of how the country allocates its aid budget. However, being that the country’s foreign assistance is such a broad and intricate system, I chose to streamline my focus in order to critically analyze a more manageable part of a larger issue.
Considering Canadian aid funding
It is essential that Canadians consider how aid funding is being used; this is especially important when the majority of the funds are being focused towards a group of nations chosen by the government. After all, aid funding is funding supplied by Canadians. CIDA’s financial support comes from numerous organizations and government branches which are provided for by Canadian taxpayers. A detailed breakdown of CIDA’s sources of funding can be found in yearly statistical reports; these reports are meant to keep track of all the sources contributing to the international assistance budget. The most recently published report is from the 2008/09 fiscal year which states that CIDA’s spending in its twenty focus countries has increased from previous years to a total of just over $1.2 billion.[7] This means that 80% of Canada’s aid to foreign countries is spent on the development of its twenty chosen states.[8] The investment in these countries is a large and costly responsibility. Canada’s reputation as a provider of international assistance will depend on how the country approaches its commitments to these chosen nations. It is important for Canadians to educate themselves about where their money is going and to discuss how their money should be spent. If Canadians care about their tax dollars, how they are being used, or whether their aid donations are really helping those in need rather than wasting valuable resources and creating more problems, then the subject of aid effectiveness is more important than ever.
The meaning of aid effectiveness
Depending on the context, aid effectiveness can be understood in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this essay and its subsequent arguments, aid effectiveness is defined by the definition given on the CIDA website: “[A]id that yields concrete, sustainable results-aid that makes the best possible use of resources and maximizes benefits.”[9] Personally, I define effective aid as a form of monetary and/or material assistance which allows states to regain control of their governments and recalibrate their focus on addressing human concerns. Human concerns are anything that stands in the way or threatens the access to human rights and justice as defined by The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[10] Additionally, I believe that effective aid is a form of action that can be proven to be making a positive difference in the lives of others and is strictly monitored so that every dollar can be traced from source to target. Effective aid is also dependable and responsible. Meaning, both the aid suppliers and the aid recipients can be confident that their aid is accountable to its promises. In summary, effective aid is a form of assistance which takes into consideration the human concerns of all those involved in the aid process.
Canada striving for aid effectiveness
There are many innovative approaches to Canadian aid which, if fulfilled, will help the country’s international assistance become more effective. I used the ideas put forth by Dr. Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister of Afghanistan, to analyze the new aid effectiveness goals announced by CIDA. Ghani gave a talk on how to effectively help rebuild countries that have been devastated by war, poverty, and natural disasters.[11] His ideas on the subject of aid illustrate the reasons why Canada’s aid goals could lead to better and more effective aid.
CIDA’s aid effectiveness goals
CIDA plans on following three specific goals in order to reach a higher level of aid effectiveness: Increase food security, secure the future of the children and youth, and stimulate sustainable economic growth.[12] CIDA defines food security as the universal ability to access adequate amounts of nutritious food on a continual basis.[13] A concentration on securing the future of children and youth is defined as caring for a county’s future leaders and active citizens. CIDA states that its goal is for “the children living in poverty today to become resourceful, engaged and productive, ready to carry on the work of building a better future for the next generation.”[14] Stimulating sustainable economic growth, however, is not explained by CIDA. The government claims these themes “will allow Canada to focus on key issues and challenges that partner countries are faced with and ensure that Canadian international assistance investments are achieving concrete results.”[15] If CIDA upholds these promises in its work, Canadian aid will become more effective. This is because the themes will keep CIDA on track with its priorities and remind the organization of the goals it has set for its work within each focus country. This is similar to what Ashraf Ghani said about the importance of identifying specific functions which are necessary to effectively rebuild states (e.g. supplying effective aid). Ghani defined functions as societal traits which are agreed upon and deemed necessary to a state in the 21st century. Ghani recited ten functions that he claimed are universally necessary in today’s societies: “[L]egitimate monopoly of means of violence, administrative control, management of public finances, investment in human capital, provision of citizenship rights, provision of infrastructure, management of the tangible and intangible assets of the state through regulation, creation of the market, international agreements — including public borrowing — and then most importantly, rule of law.”[16] These functions are based on the same idea as CIDA’s three priority themes. Both are expressions of what aid suppliers want to achieve in aid recipient societies. The reason these functions make aid more effective is because they help aid organizations prepare for the achievement of positive results. For instance, Ghani used an example alluding to Oxford in 1943: “[P]eople at Oxford prepared for a democratic Germany and engaged in planning.”[17] When specific plans (functions or goals) are focused on in order to build a better future for a country, CIDA prepares itself for positive results. CIDA’s three themes set up clear goals by which the organization can guide itself towards effective aid. CIDA cannot hope of achieving aid effectiveness if its purpose is unclear and its ideal results unknown.
Generating cost-benefit analysis
Another focus of CIDA’s plan to achieve aid effectiveness is to consider aid recipient countries and the cost-benefit factors that impact them. Beverly Oda addressed this issue in her 2009 speech: “Sometimes, [it] would be cheaper to buy food locally than to ship it across the world from Canada. Sometimes, local expertise would be just as good as in Canada, but at a lower cost. Tied aid [aid which must be spent within the donating country] meant that we got less aid for our dollar […] tied aid makes developing countries pay up to 30 percent more than they need to.”[18] Therefore, it was announced that CIDA will fully untie its aid by 2012/13. This will consist of “all goods and services needed in [Canadian] aid work” including food aid.[19] If this goal is fully realized, Canadian aid will be made more effective because countries can begin to save money while generating a sense of worth in their own domestic skills and resources. This same idea is discussed by Ghani in his lecture. He gave an example of how the U.S. could eradicate the drug problem in Afghanistan by stimulating the local economy and building meaningful jobs (enfranchising Afghan textile skills) which would address the cost-benefit concerns and lead to higher aid effectiveness. The U.S. would not have to invest as many resources into eradicating the drug problem if they simply encouraged domestic production. Moreover, Afghans could benefit from being able to support themselves with skills unique to their culture. The importance of cutting costs on both ends of any aid transaction is especially important as prices remain high in the wake of the global financial crisis: “[T]he economic crisis is expected to increase the number of food-insecure by about 9 percent in 2009, [...] these projections imply that the number of undernourished in the world will have risen to 1.02 billion people during 2009, even though international food commodity prices have declined from their earlier peaks.”[20] Every dollar counts in the current economy and if Canadians want to generate more positive results from their aid funding then cost-benefit analysis must remain an important factor in CIDA’s approach to international development.
Considering the aid recipients
CIDA claims that consulting with the citizens and governments of aid recipient countries is one of their main priorities en route to increased aid effectiveness: “[W]e are taking 15 percent of CIDA’s headquarters staff, putting them in the field, and giving them more responsibility and flexibility. It means that our people will be closer to our partners on the ground, that they will be better able to assess local needs and develop more timely and effective responses.”[21] By increasing the direct collaboration between Canada and each aid recipient country, Canadian aid will be more effective. CIDA can better access the concerns of those whom it is trying to help by collaborating with citizens more closely. This increased communication will help further the success of CIDA’s priority themes because a greater mutual understanding of the countries’ needs, views, and concerns can be established. Moreover, CIDA can increase citizen participation by establishing aid effectiveness as a group effort between CIDA and it focus countries. This idea of increasing communication between countries is exactly what Ghani means by addressing “the poverty of our knowledge.”[22] That is, countries need to focus on what they don’t know before helping other nations. This helps to eliminate misunderstandings and allows the aid recipient country to become more intimately involved in its own rebuilding. Aid cannot be effective if it is directed by Canadians who have never even spoken to those they are trying to help. Increased communication is essential to achieving worthwhile consequences from Canadian aid.
Choosing twenty countries of focus
CIDA has integrated an intense focus on a small selection of countries in order to increase its effectiveness in those specific regions. As Beverly Oda explained, “For far too long, Canada’s [aid] […] was spread too thinly, among so many countries and themes that it was hard to see it making any difference at all.”[23] Therefore, the government announced its decision to streamline 80 percent of Canada’s aid funding towards twenty focus countries. The countries are chosen by the government “based on their real needs, their capacity to benefit from aid, and their alignment with Canadian foreign policy priorities.”[24] Changes to the list of focus countries are subject to Cabinet approval which means that our commitments to these specific countries will be long-lasting and continuously developing over time. If Canada does uphold its concentration on these countries, CIDA will have more of a chance to increase aid effectiveness; this organized focus can streamline CIDA’s aid efforts towards specific areas rather than having them spread amongst an unfixed number of countries and varying situations: “Being thinly spread, our money hasn’t had as much impact as it could or should.”[25] In essence, this decided focus allows for a stronger examination of human concerns. This idea goes back to what Ghani said about addressing “the poverty of our knowledge.”[26] To achieve aid effectiveness, Canada should continuously educate itself on the weaknesses (poverty of knowledge) in its aid system in order to address the specific needs (human concerns) of each focus country. Focusing our energies on a specific group of countries will allow Canada to accomplish this. One country cannot save the whole world by itself. It can only make practical contributions to a larger movement towards helping the world. The CIDA website gives detailed descriptions of its work in each focus country and how their efforts will eventually lead to the achievement of their three focus themes. For example, the site discusses examples of the expected results in Bolivia through increasing economic growth (one of CIDA’s priority themes): “Up to 35,000 women will have increased access to markets, property, credit, and technology […] Some 20,000 women will have access to decision-making roles in public, private, and civil society sector organizations […] Technical and vocational training and skills linked to jobs in the local market will be provided to Bolivian youth.”[27] With CIDA focusing its efforts in a specific number of countries, aid can have a greater effective impact compared to making tiny contributions towards a larger number of nations.
Establishing sustainable economies
As part of increasing aid effectiveness, CIDA wants to focus on building sustainable economies in countries that need to get back on their feet. Building functioning economies that address the needs and concerns of citizens is one of the best ways to improve quality of living: “Countries in Asia, Latin America, and in Africa, have shown […] that growing the economy is the best way to help people lift themselves out of poverty permanently.”[28] Helping countries achieve this stage in their own development is the result of aid effectiveness. Therefore, CIDA announced its dedication to supporting the increased growth of the economies within its focus countries. Particularly, CIDA wants to focus on economy expansion through the private sector which allows regular citizens to regain control of their own countries: “Skills training, microcredit, and properly functioning commercial frameworks are all part of promoting economic growth, as is ensuring that the environmental impact of this growth is minimized […] Our aim is to ensure that the basic needs of the individuals are met while helping countries develop the capacity to self-govern.”[29] The reason that supporting economies leads to increased aid effectiveness alludes back to Ghani’s suggested solution for the drug trade in Afghanistan. Ghani pointed out that by giving Afghans the opportunity to self-govern, to utilize the resources that they already have available to them, Afghanistan will be able to care for itself: “[A]id must end in each country in a definable period. And every year there must be progress. On mobilization of domestic revenue, and generation of the economy.”[30] CIDA also gives examples of its efforts to advance economic growth in its report titled “Canada’s International Assistance at Work: Development for Results 2007”: “In 2006-2007, CIDA provided support to 89 micro-financing initiatives in more than 26 countries.”[31] The 26 countries include Ghana as well as12 island states and 3 continental countries in the Caribbean all of which are areas within CIDA’s focus. In this view, effective aid is aid that eventually ends and comes to a sustainable solution for each country of focus. Therefore, the only way to achieve this kind of aid effectiveness is to create a way for countries to reach the point of sustainable self-governance through a working and well-adjusted economy.
Issues of accountability
Despite Canada’s good intentions for the future of the Canadian aid system and the country’s initial steps towards aid effectiveness, the present situation of Canada’s aid efforts is still ineffective. This is largely due to CIDA’s lack of accountability. Within the context of this essay, accountability is “the quality or state of being dependable; especially: an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.”[32] On the one hand, the CIDA website hosts an abundance of information concerning the results of its actions abroad; this information has recently become more consistent, accessible, and easier to understand since the implementation of The Official Development Assistance Accountability Act.[33] This Act (also known as ODAAA) came into force on June 28, 2008 and is meant to increase “clarity and transparency with regard to aid expenditures” and to illustrate how CIDA’s spending coincides with the Government of Canada’s aid effectiveness agenda.”[34] In the short time since the ODAAA has been implemented, CIDA has done well in upholding its requirements. For example, all of CIDA’s reports to parliament, statistical reports on international assistance, and development for results reports have been updated for the 2008-2009 timeline with clear, concise, reader friendly documents. This is a strong step towards increased aid effectiveness; Canadians can see that the government is attempting to take responsibility and is trying to make sure that Canadian aid is accountable to its promises. On the other hand, however, the ODAAA is only in its first year of being enforced and is preceded by a relationship between Canadians and CIDA that is fraught with suspicions and mistrust. For instance, CIDA has claimed that it is monitoring and evaluating its aid program by involving independent auditors to measure results and inviting people from outside the government to sit on CIDA’s Internal Evaluation Committee.[35] Yet, a responsible outside party that can effectively enforce checks and balances on the allocation of CIDA’s aid funding still remains to be proven. For example, an article in the Globe and Mail questioned CIDA’s accountability on this issue: “The Harper government’s sudden interest in aid accountability arrives after years of fractious relations between [CIDA] and Canada’s Auditor-General [Sheila Fraser]. [She] found so many shifts in accounting processes that her office could not deliver a full report on CIDA’s activities. Moreover, her conclusions did not provide any indication that CIDA is implementing Canada’s own Aid Accountability Act.”[36] Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon even “acknowledges that his government cannot tell us how our aid money is being spent.”[37] Despite CIDA’s updated archives on its website, it seems that certain members of the government are seeing serious issues with CIDA’s accountability. With this uncertainty and mistrust remaining, CIDA’s accountability is questionable and the validity of its aid effectiveness is shrouded in suspicion. CIDA needs to establish trust with Canadians and other governmental branches. This, of course, will take time and needs to see the support of outside entities. Canadians need to encourage that knowledgeable and authoritative organizations, set apart from all governmental ties, are given the ability to monitor federal aid policies. One such organization is the Canadian Council for International Co-Operation (CCIC) which was established in 1968 in order to analyze government policies on foreign affairs, trade, debt, defence, and aid.[38] With the suspicions surrounding CIDA’s accountability, responsibility, and dependability, Canada’s aid remains ineffective because every promise and planned action to improve Canadian aid lies on shaky ground. The definition of effective aid (“aid that yields concrete, sustainable results-aid that makes the best possible use of resources and maximizes benefits”[39]) has yet to be fully proven by consistent evidence and is still being called into question by members of the government who are unable to demonstrate its existence.
Conflict between the promises and the outcomes
Further indicators of CIDA’s lacking accountability originate from voiced concerns within the media which illustrate a mismatched relationship between CIDA’s promised results and the real-world outcomes of the organization’s actions. Beverly J. Oda clearly outlined CIDA’s guarantee to the public in her 2009 speech: “We will do our best to communicate meaningful results, and to be open about the setbacks that sometimes thwart our best intentions.”[40] One such setback was discussed in the media just recently when the Canadian Broadcasting Cooperation (CBC) questioned if Canada was getting fair value for its aid money in Afghanistan (one of CIDA’s focus countries): ‘“A lot of money comes to Afghanistan and the villagers say, how much is coming to our village? […] Unfortunately much of it goes in to the administration cost of the [Non Governmental Organizations]. Sadly, it is very little that goes into a project.”’[41] This is an example of an outside voice demonstrating that Canadian aid dollars are not effective, rather they are being used for administrative costs which does not directly help those that need it most. Of course, this is just one example and perhaps there are many people who see the direct effects of Canada’s aid funding being used effectively. In fact, CIDA responded to CBC by stating that money has to be allocated with caution in countries as unstable as Afghanistan: “There are always uncertainties and risks. CIDA and other donors must take into account the reality of Afghanistan’s currently weak institutional capacity, both governmental and non-governmental, to plan and implement development and reconstruction projects as well as the country’s ongoing internal conflict and instability.”[42] Perhaps Afghanistan is not yet ready to receive Canada’s help and perhaps CIDA can not fully implement its aid efforts until the situation becomes more stable. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the media is showing signs of concern towards Canada’s aid effectiveness based on direct reports from outside sources working in aid recipient countries. Moreover, the fact that only limited and one-sided proof exists of CIDA’s positive results in its target countries shows that Canadian aid is ultimately ineffective. This is because Canada’s aid efforts cannot be proven to be making a positive difference in the lives of others with one-sided assurances of CIDA’s accountability. Although, effective actions may be taking place in the Canadian aid system, they cannot be proven outside the government’s own assurances. That is not to say that CIDA should be responsible for having others report the organization’s results so that Canadians can get their proof from governmental and non-governmental sources. Indeed, such a responsibility would be a conflict of interest on many levels. The responsibility on this aspect of aid effectiveness truly lies on Canadians. If Canadians want to see that CIDA is delivering on its promises then Canadians have to demand for that information be made available to them. If the media becomes aware that aid effectiveness is an important issue to Canadians, more public attention and research will be invested in the subject. Furthermore, such organizations as the CCIC are available to use their power in accessing legitimate information and are always a viable option to receive the support of Canadians who wish to enforce non-governmental checks and balances on international assistance. Therefore, in order to reach a higher level of aid effectiveness, Canadians and the government need to commit to ensuring that CIDA’s accountability is kept in check by maintaining communication between all involved parties.
Issues concerning focus countries
Although focusing on a finite number of countries has many potential benefits for aid effectiveness, the government’s motivations to choose certain countries over others generates suspicions about CIDA’s accountability. For example, an article in the Globe and Mail on Canada’s aid efforts in Africa claims that self-interests motivate the government to focus on certain countries: “[T]he Harper government has decided to divert assistance from low-income African countries such as Rwanda to middle-income Latin American countries such as Colombia to serve foreign policy and trade interests.”[43] The CCIC also analyzes this issue in a published review of CIDA’s focus countries: “80% (16 countries) were classified as low income countries in the 2005 list, compared to 63% (12 countries) in the 2009 list. Again this observation is due to greater emphasis in Asia and the Americas where there is greater concentration of middle income developing countries (even though many of these countries have large numbers of poor and excluded people).”[44] This makes Canada’s aid unaccountable to CIDA’s statement that the focus countries are chosen based on their needs. Perhaps the government is choosing countries based on what Canada can gain in return. However, CIDA also claimed that the focus countries are chosen based on “their real needs, their capacity to benefit from aid, and their alignment with Canadian foreign policy priorities.”[45] Using the example from the Globe and Mail, perhaps Rwanda’s current situation lowers their capacity to benefit from Canada’s aid and Colombia’s situation is more receptive to CIDA’s goals and priority themes. Yet, the third basis for choosing focus countries is an “alignment with Canadian foreign policy priorities.”[46] This is the only requirement which remains undefined by CIDA and therefore does not help or hinder the aid effectiveness debate. However, this third undefined requirement does demonstrate another example of CIDA failing to be accountable and communicate its policies and priorities to the public. Yet the fact that these reasons have definitions or not is actually unimportant when compared to a larger issue. The Official Development Assistance Accountability Act clearly states the purpose of foreign aid: “The law says aid must 1) reduce poverty; 2) take account of the perspectives (and ideas) of the poor; and 3) be consistent with international human rights standards.”[47] None of these points are represented in CIDA’s reasoning for choosing its focus countries. If the law is thought of to be just, fair, and right then Canadian aid is ineffective because it does not focus on what the law states effective aid is meant to focus on for guiding its priorities and goals. An article in Embassy enforces this point: “There’s little doubt that the law requires that any decision that has a decisive effect on aid spending—and this one guides two-thirds of all of CIDA’s bilateral spending—should be based solely on the standards of the law rather than the availability of spending opportunities and foreign policy interests.”[48]
Issues of governmental involvement in international aid
By having Canadian aid so intimately involved with the federal government, Canada’s international assistance is less effective. The government has many advantages when it comes to supplying aid abroad. For instance, the government has the authority and power to collect taxes and put portions of that money towards aid funding. An article in The McGill Daily also discussed the positive aspects of the government’s involvement in aid: “[T]here is still a place for government: in cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs). “NGOs often don’t have the clout to change human rights standards in the world or to provide access…. It’s going to take governments to do that.”[49] However, the government also causes many problems in the aid system by the inconsistencies caused through constant changing governments and the inevitable shifting in priorities based on Canada’s current concerns. For example, the article in Embassy explains how changes in the Cabinet effect aid policy: “[F]oreign aid has been managed by an always changing cast of junior Cabinet ministers [...] All of them, however, have had enough influence to launch reforms and revisioning and re-organization. They have done that pretty much without fail, producing perpetual reorganization which saps the energy of the department.”[50] Moreover, the article discusses how the world’s poor were unrepresented by the Cabinet in the 1990s when deficit concerns became the main priority of the government: “That’s why Canada started the present decade as a delinquent donor state with levels of aid at barely 0.24 per cent of GDP [Gross Domestic Product] compared to a globally agreed international target of 0.7 per cent.”[51] The federal government has shown that it can’t always keep aid as a top priority when other issues arise. Sometimes unforeseeable circumstances occur (e.g. economic recession) that cause us to miss achieving our aid goals. However, it seems that the Canadian government is constantly changing especially each time a new government is voted in. There is a constant coming and going of ministers and therefore no one has yet been able to carry out a full recalibration of the Canadian aid system in order to accomplish the priority themes and goals. This causes Canada’s aid to be unreliable and thus ineffective since aid results are a mixture of sporadic successes with questionable stability and accountability. The McGill Daily communicates the opinion of Glen Pearson (an MP and Liberal Party critic) on aid ineffectiveness due to government involvement: ‘“International development has become the victim of politics, […] expressing fears that global issues are losing attention within the political arena as politicians vie more for votes rather than values.”’[52]
The Center for Global Development
The Center for Global Development is a non-profit organization that conducts policy research and “is dedicated to reducing global poverty and inequality and to making globalization work for the poor.”[53] The CGD accomplishes its goals by “actively [engaging] policymakers and the public to influence the policies of the United States, other rich countries, and such institutions as the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization to improve the economic and social development prospects in poor countries.”[54] One of the organization’s main initiatives is the Commitment to Development Index (CDI) which has been issued annually since 2003: “The [CDI] rates 22 rich countries on how much they help poor countries build prosperity, good government, and security. Each rich country gets scores in seven policy areas, which are averaged for an overall score.”[55] An interesting aspect of the CDI is that is focuses not only on the quantity of aid being given but it also considers the quality of aid that governments supply to countries in need. The CDI penalizes donors for giving aid to rich or corrupt governments since this can alter the value of aid dollars. For example, money sent to Iraq comes out being worth 13¢ on the dollar because of Iraq’s weak rule of law and extensive corruption. Overburdening recipients with lots of small aid projects is also counted against donor countries “When projects are many and recipient officials few, the obligation to host visits from donor officials and file regular reports becomes a serious burden.”[56] Furthermore, the CDI penalizes countries that tie their aid, that is, countries which force recipients to spend aid dollars on the donor country’s own goods rather than allowing them to shop around for the lowest price.”[57] Quantity of aid is ranked based on how much aid each country gives in either absolute terms or as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).[58] Moreover, the Index takes into consideration countries private aid contributions through tax write-offs and lower taxes for citizens’ to donate privately. As mentioned previously, the index ranks based on quality of aid; this is to be understood as international assistance that considers the human concerns of aid recipient countries as the essential focus of all humanitarian action. Therefore, quality of aid is equal to aid effectiveness based on the idea that both terms focus on the human concerns of all those involved in the aid process.
Canada’s ranking on the 2009 CDI
Canada ranks 10th out of 21 nations with a score of 4.8 for its aid quality and quantity in the 2009 issue of the Commitment to Development Index.[59] Canada ranks high on the amount of private charitable giving that it donates by way of its tax policy. In fact, Canada is in third place for the amount of its GDP that it puts towards international assistance. Canada also earned points for the fact that it prevents project proliferation; the country is in eighth place for the number of large and average size projects it funds in its aid recipient countries. This illustrates that Canada is on the right track to achieving higher aid effectiveness because it refrains from excessively overburdening aid recipients with too many small aid projects. However, the index states that Canada shows weaknesses in its international assistance through its selectivity: “large share of aid to less poor and relatively less democratic governments (rank: 17).”[60] This issue was previously addressed in this paper when considering problems surrounding CIDA’s practices in choosing certain countries over others for its list of twenty focus states.
The CDI’s top ranking aid contributing countries
The CDI 2009 issue ranks Sweden and Denmark as the top two aid contributing nations. Sweden ranks number one with a score of 14.3: “The Swedish foreign aid program is one of the best in the world in terms of quantity, weighted for country size, as well as its quality. Sweden also bears a large burden of refugees in humanitarian emergencies.”[61] Sweden’s high ranking is due to the country’s high net aid volume as a share of the economy (0.92%; rank: 2).[62] Sweden strongly supports government aid (calculated by percentage of GDP, total amount of tied aid, selectivity of countries, project non-proliferation) and only minimally enforces private aid elements funded through taxes. Sweden does not tax its citizens as much for the country’s foreign aid budget but instead counts the relative economic output in order to give citizens more money in their pockets for private charities. Nevertheless, this aspect of Sweden’s aid policy is considered a major weakness in its international assistance program. Further strengths include Sweden’s efforts to prevent project proliferation and its high level of untied or partially tied aid.
Denmark ranks second on the CDI in terms of its aid policy with a score of 12.2.[63] Like Sweden, Denmark only minimally enforces private aid through taxes and contributes a very high net volume of its economy to aid projects. Again, this is considered by the index to be a weaker choice compared to a country that supports charitable giving through its tax policy (e.g. Canada). However, Denmark ranks number one for its efforts to prevent project proliferation and number four for its focus on helping countries that are poor and are governed relatively democratically. It seems that a hybrid aid policy consisting of Canada, Sweden, and Denmark would create an ideal system by which to regulate and supply international assistance to countries in need. The CDI illustrates that there are some clear suggestions on how to reach a higher level of aid effectiveness and that many rich countries are working to help others in the most effective manner possible.
Conclusion: Attention to the issues is the key to aid effectiveness
Discussions on aid effectiveness always depend on the individual’s personal opinions and views. The question of aid effectiveness depends on the definitions being used. Some people may feel that Canadian aid is effective while others may believe the opposite is true. Still more people may find that Canada has set up a good framework for its aid system but that its actual deliverance of aid and its focus is still ineffective. Whatever the personal view may be, the important question is not so much whether aid is effective or not. Rather it is whether aid effectiveness is being discussed by Canadians or ignored by them. If Canada’s aid is going to get any better then Canadians need to collaborate amongst themselves and with the government. A dialogue needs to be instigated, new ideas generated so that Canadians can be assured that their helping hand is truly effective in the lives that need it most.
———-
Photo: ACDI-CIDA/Roger LeMoyne
———-
[1] The Honourable Beverley J. Oda, “A New Effective Approach to Canadian Aid,” Canadian International Development Agency, May 2009, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/NAT-5208469-GYW (Accessed 15 July 2010).
[2] About CIDA, “CIDA in Brief,” Canadian International Development Agency, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/JUD-829101441-JQC (Accessed 15 July 2010).
[3] We Can End Poverty 2015, “Millennium Development Goals,” The United Nations, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml (Accessed 15 July 2010).
[4] We Can End Poverty 2015.
[5] About CIDA, “Priority Themes,” Canadian International Development Agency, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/FRA-1015144121-PWW (Accessed 15 July 2010).
[6] Regions and Countries, “Countries of Focus,” Canadian International Development Agency, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/JUD-51895926-JEP (Accessed 15 July 2010).
[7] Statistical Report on International Assistance, “Fiscal Year 2008-2009,” CIDA – ACDI, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/stats/$file/STATISTICAL-REPORT-2008-2009_ENG.pdf (Accessed 15 July 2010).
[8] Statistical Report on International Assistance, “Fiscal Year 2008-2009”: Africa ($537 million/44%), Afghanistan ($221 million/18%), Asia ($188 million/15%), Americas ($201 million/17%), Middle East ($51 million/4%), Eastern Europe ($18 million/1%) = 80% of Canada’s bilateral budget.
[9] About CIDA, “Aid Effectiveness Agenda,” Canadian International Development Agency, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2A5tTgN6QvMJ:w3.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi-cida.nsf/eng/FRA-825105226-KFT+%22aid+that+yields+concrete,+sustainable+results-aid+that+makes+the+best+possible+use+of+resources+and+maximizes+benefits%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca (Accessed 25 July 2010).
[10] The United Nations – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop (Accessed 25 July 2010).
[11] Ashraf Ghani, “Ashraf Ghani on rebuilding broken states,” TED Talks, July 2005, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ashraf_ghani_on_rebuilding_broken_states.html (Accessed 25 July 2010)
[12] About CIDA, “Priority Themes,” Canadian International Development Agency, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/FRA-1015144121-PWW (Accessed 15 July 2010).
[13] Priority Themes, “Increasing Food Security,” Canadian International Development Agency, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/FRA-101515656-QEV (Accessed 15 July 2010).
[14] Media Room, “Minister Oda Unveils CIDA’s Children and Youth Strategy (Transcript),” Canadian International Development Agency, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/NAD-121715453-SC8 (Accessed 15 July).
[15] About CIDA.
[16] Ghani.
[17] Ghani.
[18] Oda.
[19] Oda.
[20] Undernourishment around the World, “The global economic crisis: another blow to the food-insecure and vulnerable,” The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0876e/i0876e02.pdf (Accessed 23 February 2010).
[21] Oda.
[22] Ghani.
[23] Oda.
[24] Oda.
[25] Oda.
[26] Ghani.
[27] Regions and Countries, “Bolivia,” Canadian International Development Agency, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/Eng/JUD-129112821-MBV (Accessed 23 February 2010).
[28] Oda.
[29] Oda.
[30] Ghani.
[31] CIDA Publications, “Canada’s International Assistance at Work: Development Results 2009,” Canadian International Development Agency, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/NAD-41910343-K4C (Accessed 26 July 2010).
[32] Merriam-Webster, “Accountability Definition,” Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountability (Accessed 21 February).
[33] Statistical Report on International Assistance – Pg. 6.
[34] Statistical Report on International Assistance – Pg. 6.
[35] Oda.
[36] Brett House and Désirée McGraw, “Our shaky hand on African aid,” The Globe and Mail, February 22, 2010, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/our-shaky-hand-on-african-aid/article1477458/.
[37] House and McGraw.
[38] Canadian Council for International Co-Operation, “About Us,” CCIC – CCCI, http://www.ccic.ca/about/index_e.php (Accessed 26 July 2010).
[39] About CIDA.
[40] Oda.
[41] Afghanistan between Hope and Fear, “But, is Canada Getting Value for Money?” CBC Documentaries, http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/afghanistan/money.html (Accessed 27 July 2010).
[42] Afghanistan between Hope and Fear, “Report on Spending in Afghanistan,” CBC Documentaries, http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/afghanistan/money.html (Accessed 27 July 2010).
[43] House and McGraw.
[44] Canadian Council for International Co-Operation, “A Review of CIDA’s Countries of Priorities – A CCIC Briefing Note (February 2009),” CCIC – CCCI, http://www.ccic.ca/_files/en/what_we_do/002_aid_2009-02_cida_priority_country_review.pdf (Accessed 23 February 2010).
[45] Regions and Countries – Countries of Focus.
[46] Regions and Countries – Countries of Focus.
[47] Gerry Barr, “Best, worst of times of Canadian foreign aid,” Embassy – Canada’s Foreign Policy Newspaper, December 16, 2009, http://embassymag.ca/page/printpage/barr-12-16-2009 (Accessed 21 February 2010).
[48] Barr.
[49] Emma Brown, “Effective aid overseas – Engineers Without Borders stresses importance of sustained volunteer projects,” The McGill Daily, March 20, 2009, http://mcgilldaily.com/articles/29091 (Accessed 23 February 2010).
[50] Barr.
[51] Barr.
[52] Brown.
[53] Center for Global Development, “About CGD,” Center for Global Development, http://www.cgdev.org/section/about/ (Accessed 27 July 2010).
[54] About CGD.
[55] Commitment to Development Index 2009, “What is the CDI?” Center for Global Development, http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/# (Accessed 27 July 2010).
[56] Commitment to Development Index 2009, “What is the CDI – Aid,” Center for Global Development, http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/ (Accessed 28 July 2010).
[57] What is the CDI? – Aid.
[58] What is the CDI? – Aid.
[59] Commitment to Development Index 2009, “Aid – Canada” Center for Global Development, http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/# (Accessed 27 July 2010).
[60] Aid – Canada.
[61] Commitment to Development Index 2009, “Aid – Sweden” Center for Global Development, http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/# (Accessed 28 July 2010).
[62] Aid – Sweden.
[63] Commitment to Development Index 2009, “Aid – Denmark” Center for Global Development, http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/# (Accessed 28 July 2010).
Popularity: 10%
