The federal government recently announced that it will focus Canadian foreign aid on a reduced number of countries. International Co-operation Minister Aileen Carroll said Canada provides assistance to 155 countries, more than any other donor, making it hard to develop expertise in any. The aid program has often been criticized for its dispersion, and the government has frequently stated its intention to cut the number of recipients. But, until now, that has not happened.
There are reasons for this. Canada is a member of the Commonwealth, the Francophonie and the Organization of American States. These and other long-standing political and commercial relationships have acted as a magnet where our aid programs have been concerned. In addition, we have embassies in many developing countries where the needs are great and where the government and other donors expect us to be a player. The truth, however, is that only 18 countries actually receive more than $10-million a year from Canada. Most of the others receive small amounts that are not likely to change significantly, and not just for the reasons mentioned. Canada has an emergency assistance program that responds to need, rather than to established geographic plans. Last year, emergency assistance went to more than 60 countries. Our development assistance finds its way to a wide variety of countries through our contributions to Canadian NGOs, academic institutions and professional bodies, to United Nations agencies and international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.
The real question, then, is not so much whether Canadian aid should be focused on fewer countries but whether we should dump all the countries with small programs of Canadian assistance and concentrate our effort on even fewer than the 18 currently receiving more than $10-million. Our two largest recipients, Iraq and Afghanistan, were nowhere to be seen on Canada's aid radar before 9/11. They head the list for political, rather than developmental, reasons, and will presumably be exempt from any short-term paring exercise.
How, then, do we choose among the remaining 16? Do we focus on the poorest countries, or the "better performing" ones that have shown good development potential? Do we focus on those with good track records where corruption and governance are concerned, or on those with potential markets for our products?
Bangladesh, historically one of our largest aid recipients, meets one, or perhaps one and a half, of these criteria. China, another large aid recipient, meets one or one and a half of these criteria, but not the same ones as Bangladesh.
What about countries such as Sierra Leone and Congo, both trying to claw their way out of mismanagement and war -- and discovering that, like Canada, many donor countries are searching for focus, and it does not include them? Mozambique, one of Canada's favourites, is also the favourite of 12 other donor countries. With no co-ordination, the result is Mozambique 12, Sierra Leone 0.
The focus debate is mostly about money. But Canada should emphasize something other than cash. After years of shifting from one priority to another with every regime change at the Canadian International Development Agency, Canada began to focus a few years ago on some key themes: basic education, health and nutrition, child protection, HIV/AIDS, and agriculture.
Here is where our real comparative advantage can lie. We are not a major donor, so the volume of our aid will never give us great policy leverage with most developing countries. But if Canada were the most knowledgeable donor in the world, say, on basic education, countries would come to us first for our expertise, rather than our cash. Our muscle would come from knowledge, rather than our bank account. Such an approach would give us a much bigger bang for our buck, and would allow us to move to a form of aid based on the merit of proposals and their implementers, and the potential payoff of the investment.
This does not require concentration on a small number of countries; it requires a focus on learning, and the application of lessons from one project and one country to another. Traditionally, our aid programs have been stove-piped in countries where we have embassies.
But, in today's globalized world, the presence of a Canadian aid office has become much less important to effective aid delivery. Knowledge and embassies are two different concepts; one is not synonymous with or dependent on the other. The emphasis should be on spreading what we know rather than on reducing our ability to do so.
Ian Smillie, an Ottawa-based writer and consultant, is co-author of The Charity of Nations: Humanitarian Action in a Calculating World.