An overview of aid issue, and some suggested new approaches

While the table below applies to most developing countries, the suggestions and critiques were drafted with Africa in mind.  It is offered as a contribution to the ASG’s in-depth study on a New Framework for Aid for Africa. 

Paul Hitschfeld, Ottawa

Feature/Issue	Description	Alternative approaches
Canada’s perceived G8/G20, Commonwealth and Francophonie obligations	Despite our world status and reputation we are still a relatively reluctant donor, at the middle/low end of the ODA/GNP ratio. Mainly it is because we do not see aid as a foreign policy instrument.	Redefine aid according to new parameters, re-engage Canadians and developing countries, try new approaches. Especially, stop treating LDCs as “poor” countries, see them as partners.
OECD/DAC obligations:	We tie our aid very much to the DAC rules. They are increasingly constraining and may prevent us from being creative	We may wish to do some new aid programs which do not fit the DAC criteria. For instance, financing commercial channels with LDCs.
Humanitarianism	Still a major driver, yet not sufficiently understood by most Canadians.	Could be detached from the rest of the aid bureaucracy.
Public opinion on aid	A major driver, but not an informed one;	More education on what the world is like, and seeking more engagement by Canadians (each in his/her own way)
Public engagement:	Not sufficient, and falling. With decrease in tied aid, fewer Canadians are “out there”.	Should reconsider the trend to untying, so as to increase the number of Canadians serving overseas, not only in aid roles, but in trade promotion or “exchange” functions.
Seeking political advantage through aid.	Not considered “correct” to say so, but we should adopt that view. Also, many of the current aid recipients are not likely to become important in the next few years.	Our current focus on the poor may be ill-advised. A focus on the “up-and-coming” may be better for Canada, give better results and yield long-term partnerships.
Security considerations, strategic and commercial payback	We do not exploit this enough	We may wish to associate aid to a  broader set of relations
Governance	We are right to insist on it; it is a key driver to progress.	But do we do enough to strengthen it? There are many institutional strengthening measures we could take, but they are long-term and have little visible “monuments” to show.
Aid effectiveness	Has become a slogan and is over-emphasized. Is actually becoming a burden or an obstacle to action.	The impact should be measured in terms of long-term holistic gains and stronger relations between Canada and the LDC.
Top down, insufficient dialogue	Despite our very best intentions this is a major feature of being a donor. Inevitably we will consider ourselves authorized to insist on things being done the way we want. But often we do not know enough about the context into which the aid is going and do not want to take the time to find out. Thus, what we “want” as a donor may be wrong or inappropriate.	Our ignorance of all the local conditions is the first reason why many aid projects fail. Knowledge is not gained during a planning study. It involves integrating projects into a local framework. Having local people plan projects is a good first step.
Culturally invasive	Inevitably, aid is tainted by the culture of the donor, which means it is not in the culture of the recipient; this disconnect is a major reason for project failure.	Executing agencies must be much more culturally attuned.
Aid is fractured into bite-size pieces; it is a “projectized”, not holistic, approach	Donor aid is circumscribed in time and place, whereas development problems are long-term, broad in scope, and intertwined. This is a factor in project failure.	Actually, donor-funded projects are often add-ons to existing problem solving. It may be better to integrate donor supported projects into existing channels.
Not all who are involved are professional:	Along the whole chain, from politicians, down to senior bureaucrats, to aid administrators, to field personnel: Canadians live in a world of comfort and prosperity which means that they simply cannot understand the dynamics of poverty and socio/political stress. The poverty in turn means that locally ambitious people scramble for power and resources and money, which we, in a land of plenty, do not understand. We call it corruption, demagogy, lack of democracy, but many unsavoury features of developing countries are a natural outcome of local conditions. As donors we fail to understand this and attack the symptoms of the problems, and often not their causes.	To professionalize the aid personnel essentially means to increase significantly their knowledge of the regions they operate in.  Thus, longer and more frequent postings in the same area, more language skills, and more contact with local people. That is to say that aid personnel should be less generalist, and more professional.
Dialogue at the wrong level	Allocations by donors are rarely based on country needs alone: they are based on dialogue between bureaucrats on both sides. We fail to listen to market forces: what do the people want (as consumers of services)? As a new donor, China seems to have understood this better. Ironically, the Chinese bring consumer satisfaction to developing countries; we bring complex and somewhat hazy notions of broad-based social change.	More dialogue with civil society, the business sectors, and other parties (other than government people) is required. This cannot be done by aid bureaucrats, but through informed intermediaries.
Aid fatigue syndrome	DAC-tracked ODA is levelling off at about $120 billion per year. Why doesn’t it grow: because, intuitively, we feel that aid is not working and that we need something else, but we cannot admit it out loud and thus and have trouble working towards a new paradigm.	It may take a wholesale review of ODA to redefine what we want in terms of relations with developing countries. Maybe “aid” is not the best approach. Maybe “facilitating” relations would be better.
Links to commerce	We have always said that what we do in aid is not commercially motivated. But commercial relations are what the LDCs want most. How can we reconcile the need for social justice with the need to create wealth?	It may be time to reconsider this position and add enhanced commercial relations as a parallel  tool in strengthening relations with a developing country, alongside aid. That would give twice the impact and twice the understanding.
Donor coordination versus donor competition	There is progress to make on this, but competition is a fact of life and we should not play it down too much. And, seeking a positive profile in a developing country through the aid program is actually more transparent than saying that we are doing aid selflessly. It is a universal fact that people understand your motives better when you admit doing things for your own benefit.	Mutual benefits are an even better objective, a feature we have not played up with the Canadian public, nor with recipients.
“Bilateral” aid:	It is the most targeted, the most arbitrary (in terms of country selection), the most politically sensitive, the highest spending, and the most bureaucratic of all aid channels. Because of its high profile, decisions are taken at a higher level, thus by people less knowledgeable and apt to throw in other considerations.	This is the channel which needs the greatest overhaul. It could be reduced and replaced by a more holistic negotiation with countries, allowing for the blossoming of relations in fields other than traditional “aid”.
Support to IFIs and UN organizations (including humanitarian)	Yes, the Canadian profile is lost, but often money is put into hands of specialists (who are less generalist than Canadian aid managers).	Leave as is.
Support to NGOs (of all sorts)	Not only “development NGOs” but all kinds of other organizations which could develop relations with LDCs.	Local knowledge and cultural aspects are better managed at this level.
Private sector mobilization.	Used to be important in years past, is now atrophied.	Time has come to revive the relationship with the Canadian private sector. They should be engaged not so much on a contractual basis, but as co-investors alongside with aid channels.
“All-of-government” approach	Often mentioned, but not much respected in reality. Silos still rule.	Canada’s relations with developing countries could be much enhanced if they were planned holistically: political, economic, aid, humanitarian, strategic, security, etc., all in one country strategy. There is no down-side to this approach.
Variable geometry	Only LDC countries are ODA-able. This gives them status as recipients, but paradoxically this ties our hands because then we see them “only” as aid countries.  The aid label is becoming counter-productive. Aid countries are more willing to shed the “recipient” label than we are willing to give up the “donor” title.	We still need the classic ODA framework for some countries. We also need a new post-ODA approach for those ex-LDCs doing well, which are graduating out of an aid recipient status.