CIDA - With Affection (2)

There’s a reason CIDA has a coterie of anonymous lovers.  The NGOs who contributed their own ideas to overcome the organization’s shortcomings didn’t want their identities revealed for fear they would have their present and future funding cut.  That likely says more about the Agency that anything else – just at a time when it needs friends, its heavy-handedness keeps them at a distance.  Nevertheless some of their ideas are listed here, along with my own, for how to make next year’s annual report more transparent and accountable.Come into the open – most NGOs and other qualified observers state that it remains unclear whether Bill C-293 has had much effect on the Agency at all. Efforts by many to acquire more evidence from CIDA that the Act is being implemented have been rebuffed.  So, next year, if the Act is in fact guiding CIDA’s and the Government’s development assistance, prove it with concrete examples and proper accountability to Parliament.Prove it – one of the three key criteria in C-293 is the requirement to link development funds to poverty reduction.  The Act itself is actually vague on this point as to what that exactly means. CIDA could go a long way to re-establishing credibility by listing a series of “determinants” of poverty reduction and then going on then validate how they have done it.  This year’s report was woefully inadequate in this regard.Serious engagement – the present report outlines some $27 million spent on engaging Canadian citizens.  Well, how did that work for the Agency? The public knows almost nothing about Canadian international development and CIDA holds the main responsibility for failing to engage citizens at even the most primary level. Part of the reason there was so little media coverage of the report’s release was due to the fact the media instinctively understood citizens weren’t interested. By its absence, CIDA is teaching people not to care – a sad indictment in an age of accountability.Be environmentally friendly – research on climate change around the world has enforced the clear link between poverty and environmental degradation.  Knowing this, other countries place environmental stewardship high up the list for criteria for any project.  Not CIDA, the Ministry of the Environment, or any other department was listed in the report as having taking this challenge seriously – a tragic oversight.Consult – reviews of the Government’s recent report have been largely condemning. Part of the reason for that undesirable effect is that CIDA’s main partners weren’t consulted in the drafting of the report.  The supposed funding hub for many NGOs, CIDA continues to live in isolation away from its natural partners.  Drawing in opposition parties for their input was too much for this government to consider, I suppose.There's lots more, but all the Agency needs to do is go to their friends for more good advice.  It’s beyond understanding why a Government that holds out “accountability” as its key operational mandate should show such a clear lack of transparency and openness in this past report, especially in humanitarian endeavors. At a time when stimulus funds are flooding Conservative ridings and the party’s logo is prominent on so many of its cheques, it seems odds that it won’t put its own “brand” on CIDA and its operation.  But maybe that’s just it: by maintaining secrecy, it can underperform and underwhelm.  By ascribing to this kind of conduct, CIDA continues to bleed friends and is unable to influence people.  I would ask the good folks in the Agency to consider some of the above suggestions for input into next year’s report.  But hurry, because it’s getting harder and harder to believe in the once-proud organization, and your friends and citizens will soon start moving on.