Engineers Without Borders
African Programs Staff Positions OPEN!

Apply NOW for these incredible opportunities for impact in Africa.
Visit http://my.ewb.ca/volunteering/applications/

By Anna Hopkins on July 28, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. Article of the Week
annah
Engineers Without Borders - Article of the Week

Are attacks on CIDA under the banner of aid effectiveness really an excuse to further shirk from our responsibilities and will they actually further hamper the effectiveness of our overseas development assistance?

Weigh-in with your comments on this article on www.my.ewb.ca!
---

CIDA Under Attack (From its Own Minister)

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/321-cida-under-attack-from-its-own-minister

The Harper government seems to be planning a hatchet job on the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) - and it looks like Bev Oda, the minister in charge of the agency, is wielding the axe.

At first glance, this might sound far-fetched. After all, the Conservatives have been increasing the foreign aid budget steadily since they were elected. Last year, Canada spent more than $5 billion on aid, a record high. Along with the recent doubling of assistance to Africa and a promise to untie aid completely, these achievements and promises signal a firm commitment to helping poor countries. Or do they?

Gone are the days when Ms. Oda bragged about CIDA's expertise and excellent results. In a recent interview in Embassy magazine, she suddenly went on the attack. CIDA lacked in-house technical expertise, she said. She complained that the agency, for instance, did not have a single health specialist whom she could consult regarding a proposed new health project. This statement came as quite a shock for the five or more health experts at CIDA.

In an even more shocking statement, Ms. Oda claimed that CIDA employees and its NGO partners only looked at how much could be spent, not what results would be achieved. In fact, CIDA and the organizations it funds are required to use a tool known as "results-based management." It is simply impossible to focus only on inputs. As minister in charge of CIDA for almost two years, she has to be aware of this.

Why the sudden and patently unfair attacks on the agency she is in charge of? This is probably part of a deliberate government strategy to discredit the agency prior to freezing or even cutting its funding. Ms. Oda appears to be laying the groundwork with a smear campaign that will unfold in the coming weeks and months. Tellingly, the minister also stated in her interview with Embassy that there would be "no new major injections of funding until she is satisfied the agency is working properly." Given the current recession-induced deficit, the next federal budget could enact harsher measures.

Ms. Oda's unfair attack on her own agency is but the latest installment in the gradual undermining of the humanitarian principles of foreign aid. For the past few years, in a process that began under the Paul Martin Liberals, the government has been steadily shifting its justification and use of foreign aid.

First, aid is being taken away from those who need it most. Now that the target of doubling aid has been achieved, the government will shift its focus to the Americas. A few months ago, it announced that it was dropping eight African countries identified as recently as 2005 as priority recipients of Canadian aid.

Second, decisions are being based on the benefit to Canada rather than to the recipients themselves. Last month, CIDA President Margaret Biggs openly told her audience at Simon Fraser University that Canadian foreign policy objectives were one of three criteria used to determine where CIDA should concentrate its assistance. CIDA will now focus on several Latin American countries with which Canada has been negotiating or recently signed a free-trade agreement.

This is being done in spite of the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, also known as the Better Aid Bill or C-293, a law that stipulates that all Canadian foreign aid must focus primarily on poverty alleviation. Basing aid on donor self-interest, rather than recipient need, contradicts the very principles of aid effectiveness, just like tied aid, a practice that Canada is finally abandoning.

Rather insidiously, Ms. Oda invokes aid effectiveness to justify changes to Canadian policies. This is an Orwellian use of the term. For aid to be effective, there is a general consensus that, among other things, it should be aligned with the planning mechanisms of recipient countries and that the flows should be predictable. Canada committed itself to these principles when it signed the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in 2005. In practice, with the constant changes in Canadian policies and priorities, Canadian aid flows are increasingly volatile. Similarly, when Canada prioritizes prominent stand-alone "signature projects" to elicit gratitude or otherwise promote our supposed national interests, the effectiveness of our aid suffers.

By all means, let's criticize CIDA for its deficiencies and seek to improve policies and practices. Let's not, however, be fooled by lies and unfair distortions and let politicians use them as excuses for cutting assistance to those who need it most.

Get Development Digest and Article of the Week directly in your inbox by signing up here: http://my.ewb.ca/mailing/ListInfo/71

printable verison:
with replies | without replies

Call to action
Replies
By Anna Hopkins on July 28, 2009 at 11:59 a.m.
Anna Hopkins
Forgot to mention that the author is Stephen Brown, an associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Ottawa. The article is from the June 23rd edition of The Mark.

His bio: http://www.themarknews.com/authors/393-stephen-brown

Other related/generally interesting articles on The Mark:
- http://www.themarknews.com/articles/354-whither-development
- http://www.themarknews.com/articles/319-undoing-the-washington-consensus
- http://www.themarknews.com/articles/371-unaccountable-advocacy
- http://www.themarknews.com/articles/377-theres-a-hole-in-my-democracy

By Joshua Gorner on July 28, 2009 at 10:02 p.m.
Joshua Gorner
FTA: "This is probably part of a deliberate government strategy to discredit the agency prior to freezing or even cutting its funding. Ms. Oda appears to be laying the groundwork with a smear campaign that will unfold in the coming weeks and months. Tellingly, the minister also stated in her interview with Embassy that there would be 'no new major injections of funding until she is satisfied the agency is working properly.' Given the current recession-induced deficit, the next federal budget could enact harsher measures."

Unfortunately this seems to be a common theme with the current administration - insist that important programs will be protected, perhaps make one or two well-publicized moves that impact positively on those programs, but simultaneously start laying the rhetorical groundwork to justify more significant changes or cutbacks down the road.

Not exactly the kind of trust-building I'd like to see out of our federal government.

By Seth Bennett on July 29, 2009 at 7:35 a.m.
Seth Bennett
To be fair, here's the actual interview in question (though you might have to register your email address to read it):

http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/cida-5-27-2009

... And CIDA's policy on the Results-Based Management referenced in Brown's article:

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/ANN-102084042-GVJ

A quote from the Embassy article:

One thing that is sure, however, is that the government has no intention of merely paying lip service to ushering in a new way of doing business at CIDA and in international development in general.
[...]
In the interview yesterday, Ms. Oda refuted suggestions the Tories are trying to hollow out or eliminate CIDA.

"There is no discussion about folding it in or diminishing its role," she said. "There are no plans, absolutely no plans, and this is why I have the support of not only the prime minister but also the support of our Cabinet to make CIDA better."



Does this mean that CIDA is safe? Or can they justify slashing its funding (as Brown speculates) by claiming that they aren't "diminishing its role"? Or is the Embassy article simply wrong?
I don't know, but it's definitely something to keep a close eye on.

By Jean-François Soublière on Aug. 4, 2009 at 1:14 p.m.
Jean-François Soublière
I don't understand much about this debate, but I'm really happy to hear that: "Ms. Oda claimed that CIDA employees and its NGO partners only looked at how much could be spent, not what results would be achieved."

This is very similar to the speech that I hear often overseas, which is that development agencies are held accountable on activities and on budget consumption, not the actual effect they're supposed to have.

The author then goes on : "In fact, CIDA and the organizations it funds are required to use a tool known as 'results-based management.' It is simply impossible to focus only on inputs. As minister in charge of CIDA for almost two years, she has to be aware of this."

From my understanding, the canadian government has been pioneering result-based management, which is basically the impact-chain. And as any ewber who ever tried to use the impact chain, we all know how difficult it is to assess outcomes and impact. It's much easier to just look at outputs and take the outcomes for granted.

'Results-based management' doesn't prevent an organization like CIDA to be 'output-focused' nor does it give any guarantee that is it 'impact-focused'. But it gives you the vocabulary and the tools to discuss and analyze it.

I for one welcome Oda's move.

By Ben Russell on Aug. 5, 2009 at 12:08 a.m.
Ben  Russell
From everything that I have heard within the EWB community, it seems as though there are a lot of problems within in CIDA, and that major reforms are needed. In that light I think that the changes that Minister Oda is speaking of seem reasonable and quite necessary. So in that regard there is hope.

However... with the general attitude of this government (just a feeling I have based on the past, no concrete examples) I worry that this could end up being a big gutting of foreign aid/CIDA that doesn't lead to anything else. Basically I think there is a risk that big cuts could be made, but then the necessary following changes are simply forgotten and not accomplished. This is particularly worrisome because of the 'aid shift' and the seeming reality that foreign policy has become a major priority when delivering aid. While this may not result in a gutting of aid, it seems to me that it would result in the end of any reasonably effective bilateral aid on the part of the Canadian government.

It will be a very interesting story to follow over the coming months.

Thanks, Ben

By Heather MacKenzie on Aug. 6, 2009 at 12:07 p.m.
Heather MacKenzie
Just an FYI,

'Results-based management' is not entirely new to the development scene. Logical Framework Analysis of a variety of forms (such as the impact chain) have been circulating in the development industry for a number of years. There are a number of articles out there that are highly critical of Logical Framework Analysis. It has a tendency to result in leaving the 'human' behind in 'human development'. Ultimately, I don't personally think the results frameworks or management styles are nearly as important as the character of the individuals implementing these various frameworks - I dig the good ol' notion of working with humility and accountability to those living in poverty (the intended 'beneficiaries' of development) as my 'framework' for development work - two other ideas that EWB tends to champion.

K, later gaters,

Heather

By Elizabeth Wells on Aug. 9, 2009 at 10:17 p.m.
Elizabeth Wells
I'm not sure how to feel about this article. For one, I hate the politics of strategy. Basically the government making all kinds of lovely promises and changes, increasing aid, the better aid legislation, etc; then resorting to trial by fire so they don't have to go through with their promises. That being said, echoing Jean-Francois, CIDA seems overdue for house-cleaning. I'm not sure about the end justifying the means, but as long as CIDA doesn't cut back on projects that depend on it, (and continues to maintain it's aid budget relative to inflation,) it could come out of this stronger and better than before.


By Nushka Blais on Sept. 1, 2009 at 2:04 a.m.
Nushka Blais
FTA: "We should agree and come to country by country, project by project, what is the outcome?" [Bev Oda] said. "How are we making people's lives better?" - http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/cida-5-27-2009

If that article is lying, I will have to step back and reevaluate my faith in humanity. By reading our "Result-based Management Policy" and reading what Bev Oda says during her interviews, I'm lead to believe she's trying to find a way to make CIDA follow all the policies and acts that have been signed over the past decade. Now she may not be completely up to date with what's going on with CIDA but at least she is putting energy in something that has a great potential.
What I see from these articles is an opportunity for EWB to step in and take a real position in Canada's role in international aid. What NGOs and countries have had "consultations" with CIDA and how are they picked? Would it be useful to have EWB within that list? If so, how do we get onto that list?
If CIDA is trying to build up their capacities and be more effective on the ground, then how can we assist them in reaching that goal? We've got some good experience on the field and some good OVS to help share that experience.
From what I could find online, CIDA still hasn't released their focus under the three areas of focus. (Increasing food security;
stimulating sustainable economic growth, and securing a future for children and youth.) But I came across an article I think most of you will enjoy. (attached bellow)
Any ideas?

attached files:

Please Sign in (or Sign Up) to respond