March 12, 2012
“Defanging”—that’s what one observer has called it. “Wrecking” might be another term for what CIDA is doing to Canada’s once vibrant, once independent NGO sector. A survey of 158 organizations just released by the Canadian Council for International Cooperation (CCIC) and its seven provincial/regional counterparts has confirmed what many already suspected: that CIDA’s new rules of engagement have weakened the credibility and the capacities of NGOs, added to their costs, damaged or disrupted their overseas programs and put a chill on the advocacy work of those that were so inclined.
Let’s recap: beginning in the 1960s, CIDA supported independent NGO development work for three reasons. First, NGOs did good work that was often innovative and ground-breaking. Second, NGOs carried the Canadian flag to some countries and remote areas that CIDA itself could never reach. Third, NGOs worked with donations provided by Canadians over and above the tax dollars already being spent by CIDA. By “matching” these donations, CIDA could encourage more good work, improve Canada’s reputation abroad and generate more private donations.
In the early 1980s, CIDA looked for a way to streamline its project-by-project, year-by-year approach. It began to give multi-year “program funding” to NGOs with proven track records. The NGOs in question had to follow an agreed plan and submit to regular CIDA evaluations, but the new approach speeded up the process and gave NGOs and their overseas partners the kind of continuity, discretion and predictability that are essential elements of effective development.
In 2011 all that was swept aside by CIDA’s new approach. Now CIDA puts out a call for proposals and asks NGOs to send in competitive bids on initiatives of CIDA’s choosing. Typically, half the money must be spent in CIDA’s own “countries of focus”, and 80% must be spent on CIDA’s own chosen themes. The themes are broad, but independence is gone. And the “countries of focus” rule is counter-intuitive. It draws NGOs away from countries they have worked in for years, countries where needs are great and where they might be the only Canadian development presence of any kind. In fact CIDA’s list covers only 19 countries plus the Caribbean. Some of the 19 are not poor (for example, Ukraine and Peru) and 88% of Africa’s 54 countries are excluded.
But that’s the way it is. So NGOs that want or need CIDA funding knuckle under, pore over CIDA’s incredibly obtuse 45-page guidelines, try to fill out the 16-page questionnaire (keeping the answers and annexes to the maximum 25-page limit), send it in and hope for the best. The cost in staff time and dollars is high and the CIDA approval process is as opaque and as fickle as it is slow.
If you are an NGO that engages in any kind of advocacy, you might as well forget it. The Mennonite Central Committee, one of Canada’s most respected development organizations, had a recent proposal rejected. Maybe all the others in that competition were better. Maybe the MCC proposal was just no good. Or maybe it was because MCC has been a strong advocate on issues of human rights around a Canadian gold mining operation in Honduras.
So here are a couple of hints for securing CIDA funding: a) no advocacy, and b) find a Canadian mining firm you can “partner” with. No competitive bids were required for generous CIDA grants to Plan, WUSC and World Vision in their co-funding arrangements with IAMGOLD, Rio Tinto Alcan and Barrick Gold respectively.
CIDA Minister Bev Oda talks non-stop about results and effectiveness, but the new funding arrangements almost guarantee the opposite. Schools do not operate on a CIDA funding cycle; farmers cannot wait for CIDA decisions and a minister’s signature. Trust does not develop on a stop-start basis. And without a modicum of predictability and continuity, no NGO can offer efficiency or effectiveness.
When backed into a corner on the stupidity and destructiveness of the current systems, CIDA officials shrug and say that they are under no obligation to fund anyone. True enough. But perhaps they should have a look at the Hippocratic Oath and think about its fundamental principle: “Do no harm.” The current system damages Canada’s reputation and our outreach to the world; it damages good organizations and good people; and it damages the very principles CIDA and its minister espouse: effectiveness and efficiency, not to mention CIDA’s own purpose for existence: “to make a meaningful difference to people living in poverty”.
The CCIC report can be found at http://www.ccic.ca/media/news_detail_e.php?id=190.