A Senate report released in February paints a bleak picture of Africa's economic state and chastises a Canadian agency for dumping billions of dollars into the continent with little to show for it.
“The committee has concluded that 40 years of foreign aid has done little to propel Africa from economic stagnation or to improve the quality of life on the continent,” states the report of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. “CIDA is ineffective, costly and overly bureaucratic.”
The report points out that between 1965 and 2004, Sub-Saharan Africa's international economic share has not only stagnated, but actually dropped to nearly half of what it was previously. This despite $12.4-billion in bilateral aid sent to Africa from CIDA since 1968.
Though there seems to be consensus that the Canadian International Development Agency needs some sort of a makeover — be it dispatching more workers to the field with decision-making power, decentralizing operations, or even scrapping the agency all together and creating a single “Africa Office” (all of which the report suggests) — do CIDA's shortfalls mean that Canadian money, and specifically Presbyterian money, has been squandered?
Karen Plater says no. As communications coordinator for Presbyterian World Service & Development, which receives CIDA money for approved projects at a 3:1 cost sharing ratio, Plater has seen the results of CIDA projects.
“CIDA has always challenged us to ensure our projects are having the results we want, and to ensure there is poverty reduction. If we hadn't had the CIDA funds, there are projects we wouldn't have been able to do — especially more abstract projects that can be difficult to raise money for, like gender issues and women's empowerment.
“Maybe it's difficult to see at the national level, but when you're talking about people's lives, if the money hadn't been given, they almost certainly would have been worse.”
She thinks some of the recommendations are good ones — like empowering field staff to make decisions and using their skills and abilities to direct projects — but she maintains that a Canadian connection is important in order to communicate to policymakers what is needed on the ground.
Conversely, moving CIDA under the jurisdiction of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as the report suggests as a possible solution, is something Plater warns against.
“I think Ottawa should coordinate aid, trade, security and foreign affairs, but to have them bundled under one roof could be dangerous. I'm concerned about linking aid to the geo-political affairs of Canada.
“I think the idea of strengthening CIDA to be more like the UK's Department for International Development so that it would have more policy clout, decision-making authority and financial resources is interesting,” said Plater, referring to a suggestion in the report that CIDA should morph into something resembling the powerful and autonomous British agency.
“It's good to look at the operations and ask if this is effective, but it dismisses the accomplishments that CIDA has made over the years. It's easy to say, why haven't we eradicated poverty? But these aren't easy issues to deal with, or easy problems to solve.”
Much of PWS&D's development work with CIDA is concentrated on agricultural productivity and access to micro-finance and small business development — grassroots areas that need strong support and often have quick and measurable results. Plater said it is changes in these areas, on the smaller, local level, that were most likely overlooked in the Senate report, which focused more on national results — areas that are slower to show change and are much more difficult to affect.
“I don't think it is fair to just look at 'Africa's share of the global economic activity drop from 1965 to 2004' and put all the blame on aid. Certainly foreign trade policies and macroeconomic realities have a greater influence than aid,” she said. “We have seen our aid programs have a positive impact on people's lives and I think the funds CIDA directs to PWS&D are effectively used.
“The question I always like to come back to,” said Plater, “is what would Africa be like if it had not been given that money?”
