of CIDA.
Interesting discussion today about the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). First of all, I remember being asked “what do you think of CIDA?” many times. I generally failed at answering the question.
I have seen some of their projects succeed. I am a beneficiary of CIDA through the Journalism and Development scholarship. At the same time, I am increasingly concerned about their conduct, mandate and structure within Canada. Clearly, it’s not the people who work in CIDA who cause trouble, it’s the placement of the organization vis a vis the government and the way it is integrated into Canadian society and politics.
What transpired from the discussion today – led by one of Canada’s leading development experts (I’d rather not print his name here – though he is generally openly critical of CIDA) – is that the main problem is structural. Not internally, but in regards to CIDA’s position next to the Canadian government.
CIDA is semi-independent. So, while the CIDA President might have a certain degree of control over the agenda, basically the government stears the ship. The current Minister for International Cooperation (who deals with Canada’s development agenda and CIDA) is Bev Oda.
One key problem with this set-up, so I hear, is that CIDA is neither in government, nor out. The government sets CIDA goals – for example, the recent withdrawal by CIDA from Africa – and charts a politically-oriented course. The Conservative government, undoing a lot of hard work, turns to its Southern partners. Why? Because they are economically most important. At the same time, the Minister for International Cooperation is a) not very powerful within government overall, and b) rotates out of the position around every two-five years, depending on the political situation. This means that CIDA is both disempowered through their direct relationship with the government and the nature of the relationship.
So, while CIDA’s mandate is the alleviation of poverty, this goal is not followed by government. While CIDA may want to achieve this goal, they can’t because of their structural links with government (money, the minister, project approval and so on).
Moreover, since the government decides CIDA’s goals and agenda, it also means that CIDA has to maintain short term projects (generally less than 5 years). So, while CIDA can do wonderful work in Kenya, for example, for five years, they must have a new project budget approved after the term is up. If CIDA’s focus has changed to South America – through politics – chances are that the continuation of this project will not be allowed.
At Smilie’s book launch yesterday, “Freedom From Want,” he spoke about BRAC. This organization is independent in the sense that money is not – or less – of a concern. This ensures that BRAC can implement long-term projects. I am not sure what is considered “long-term” exactly, but I understand that upwards of 10 years is pretty good. This leaves time for failures. Yes, failures.
The dreaded word in development. Failures are necessary for development. As pointed out today, development essentially means change (not necessarily growth). Change is achieved by success through understanding what does and doesn’t work. When donors run on a results-based approach (as CIDA does in general), they do not allow organizations to try different development models. They promise donors x model and x result. The organization has to hope for the best – or be already really familiar with the region and the work – to ensure “successful results.” Unsuccessful results are shrouded in complex, upbeat reports.
Looking at Aga Khan, I see that their donor base is extremely strong. Moreover, they have a for-profit arm that invests in African – and other – stock (Serena Hotel, for example). This approach gives nearly unlimited funding. This means that they can implement long-term projects with allowance for failure, modification and change. Since they are politically independent, it also means that they can stay in regions despite political whims of “let’s help Rwanda!” On that note, politicians thrive off success. So do aid projects. That’s why you’ll see a glut of NGOs in regions like Rwanda where some type of positive result seems to be guaranteed – or at least fudgeable.
Anyways, I think – I hope – the era of critical development is being ushered in. I can’t wait for the day where CIDA can run long-term programs with no need to follow geo-strategic motivations. The day where failures are as important as successes. A day where donors understand the need for this development model-type.
Smilie mentioned that there seems to be two-tracks that might bring CIDA there: either ensure that the government – no matter who is in power – understands that CIDA’s mandate is this and must be maintained. Set-up a “slush-fund” for other government projects that involve the army, RCMP, and so on. Or, dissolve CIDA. Put it under DFAIT.
Either way, he was sure to emphasize that the Auditor General (who ensures that all CIDA projects and purchases are results-based) and the government must be included, as well as a whole lot more dialogue is necessary, before any action can and should be taken.
Lastly, take this all with a grain of salt. These thoughts are based on what I understood from a very interesting lecture. Once again (should it not be obvious), I am no expert.
(None of this reflects the opinions or views of the Aga Khan Foundation Canada.)
