February 25, 2005

Report says Canada’s faceless foreign aid hurting reputation abroad

By Patricia Williams

staff writer

Canada is at risk of losing its international reputation as a global leader in the hands-on delivery of services in the developing world, members of Canada’s development community warned in a recently released report.

Since 1999, participation by Canadian business, academic and non-government agencies in programs and projects funded with Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) support has been dramatically reduced, the report said. CIDA’s use of foreign channels to deliver official development assistance (ODA) has increased substantially.

“As Canadians spend less time in the implementation process on the ground in recipient countries, it appears inevitable that our capacity to transfer technology, management skills and Canadian values — attributes that distinguish our contribution on the world scene — will diminish accordingly.”

The report, on the impact of “de-Canadianizing” Canadian aid, was prepared by the aid effectiveness discussion forum, a group that includes the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada (ACEC) and Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME).

The document, a comprehensive review of the country’s official development assistance, is intended to stimulate thinking on development issues and provide a perspective for Canada’s foreign policy review. Copies were sent to the prime minister, the cabinet and MPs.

Montreal consulting engineer Robert Ferrari, who chaired the group and who is a member of both ACEC’s international committee and the CME’s international dev- elopment committee, said in a covering letter it’s evident that as part of globalization, the international community is moving toward a multilateral approach to the design and implementation of aid.

“Working either through large multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, or allocating funds directly to governments of developing nations, donor nations can pool their resources and reduce administrative burden within domestic agencies,” he said.

“In step with this trend, CIDA’s adoption of a less overtly Canadian, more deliberately multilateral model has emerged. All Canadians, however, must ask: ‘Precisely how less Canadian will our ODA become and with what impact on its intended beneficiaries.’ ”

Ferrari, vice-president, development at SNC-Lavalin Environment Inc., said the true cost and ultimate impact of programs either administered through foreign institutions or designed and delivered by foreign governments “are difficult to measure, monitor or audit. There is little accountability inherent in these situations.”

Ferrari, whose group included eight other associations and nongovernmental organizations, said Canada has built “an outstanding reputation for the integrity, effectiveness and responsiveness of its aid programs.

“This reputation is well deserved and worth preserving and enhancing where possible.”

In its report, the group recommended:

• That CIDA increase its bilateral portfolio to at least 50 per cent of its budget.

• That the effort towards strengthening aid effectiveness through cash transfers to multilateral institutions and foreign countries be rigorously evaluated for its impact. Such an evaluation should be made with the input from Canadian organizations with front-line development experience “so that CIDA can select the most appropriate funding mechanism for a particular program or project.”

• That CIDA recognize the contribution of Canadian organizations, including the private sector, to the design and delivery of ODA and adopt measures to make use of their expertise and increase levels of competitive bidding accordingly.

The group recommended that CIDA seek innovative measures by which the administrative burden of managing programming be lessened “so that the experience and creativity of Canadian organizations can still be brought to bear in the design and delivery of an innovative, effective, uniquely Canadian aid program.”

• That CIDA recognize the merits, in terms of transparency, accountability and effectiveness of a rigorous bilateral aid program that is both funded and administered directly by the agency.

The group suggested CIDA consider adopting features of other national aid-delivering agencies that “successfully make use of donor countries’ pool of national talent, expertise and resour- ces in providing assistance to developing countries.

Print | Email | Comment