CIDA - With Affection (1)

Okay, with the last post dealing with the Government, and CIDA’s, disappointing annual report on Canada official development assistance, perhaps it’s only proper that some solid recommendations be given that would help the authors of the report to be far more forthcoming and transparent in next year’s effort.  Some of these ideas have come from non-governmental organizations, some are mine, but they are all sent in the next two postings with affection to an Agency that many want to see succeed, and to its Minister, Bev Oda.Document what you’ve learned – What is different in what you’re doing this year over last? Have your new approaches resulted in improved impacts, and are you planning on expanding your successes to other countries?Give us the big picture – develop a federal framework for the delivery of Canadian aid and development responsibilities and how they fit with our broader foreign policy objectives. The report itself was actually a series of individual reports from each department that had development assistance responsibilities. As such, there was no one overall picture of how the government has integrated all these efforts together. What is our foreign policy, and how does international development match it? Not just an opinion piece – Minister Bev Oda opens the report by stating that she is “of the opinion” that CIDA’s activities meet the three tests of Bill C-293, which we spoke of in the last post. If so, then it should have provided a clear analysis as to why she would make that claim. Two of the three key tests – taking the perspectives of the poor into account and consistency with international human rights standards – were barely covered.Follow the breadcrumbs – the report acknowledges CIDA is the “principal” organization responsible for aid. This makes sense, given its expenditures of $3.75 billion. But thrown into the mix was another approximately $1.3 billion that was supposedly disbursed by 11 other ministries. Who are these departments, and are they all required to disburse their funds through the qualifying filter of the criteria inherent in C-293? How does it all fit together, and are these other departments actually being required to follow the criteria? Who oversees compliance with the Act?Show how you've learned from others – CIDA operates with other nations and partners in the implementation and prioritization of development assistance.  Acknowledge in the annual report how you have learned from others. One of the Agency’s main difficulties is that it appears silo-based and it’s a perception that is growing. Show how you have learned from the British, Norwegians or the Americans as to how to do things better. Some of these nations have accountability acts of their own. Tell us how you have learned from their experience, or how they learned from yours. NGOs, opposition parties, and others are comparing how CIDA stacks up with others; it’s time the Agency did as well.There’s a reason why it’s perceived that the Canadian International Development Agency is on the ropes.  This annual report to Parliament was a serious opportunity to present itself in a new light. Instead, it provided a scattered and vague response to a serious piece of foreign aid legislation that was designed to help it perform more productively. It wasted that opportunity, to the disappointment of all those who care about the organization. This report could have been authored in a manner commensurate with C-293’s requirements and with CIDA’s own vulnerability in mind. As such, it was a wasted opportunity. More suggestions in the next post.