McLeod Group Blog, Nov. 30, 2015
The Centre for International Policy Studies (CIPS) at the University of Ottawa recently released a report entitled “Towards 2030: Building Canada’s Engagement with Global Sustainable Development”. The report was produced by a working group co-chaired by Margaret Biggs, former President of the erstwhile CIDA, and John W. McArthur, an economist with a solid pedigree in a range of cross-cutting development issues.
The report is nothing if not optimistic about Canada’s proposed engagement with “global sustainable development” (GSD). It reads like a blueprint for the new Liberal government and it offers eight “non-partisan” recommendations for the medium term, including the creation of a Global Sustainable Development Forum, “global centres of expertise” at “multiple major Canadian universities”, the establishment of “at least three Canadian philanthropic foundations, each focussed on GSD and investing at least $50 million per year”, the launch of a cross-sectoral, “multi-generational task force”, a “High-Level CSO [Civil Society Organization] ‘Enabling Environment’ Review”, and turning the federal government into a “systems architect” for Canadian engagement on GSD.
After a decade of bullhorn diplomacy and slovenly, leaden aid behaviour, Canada does need a tonic, and for this the CIPS report is to be commended. But for precisely the same reason, we also need a bit of humility. In fact, we need a lot of humility.
A recent study by AidData, a research group at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, asked 6,750 practitioners and policymakers in 126 developing countries to rate their experience of several dozen development assistance organizations between 2004 and 2013. It then created an index indicating how aid money from a range of countries and institutional donors translates into agenda-setting influence compared to what would be expected from a donor of their size. At the top of the list, punching far above its weight, was the Geneva-based GAVI Alliance, which promotes equal access to vaccines for children around the world. Next were the Inter-American Development Bank, Taiwan, the IMF, the World Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank. The study ranked Canada 37th out of 46, punching far below its weight.
If the AidData study is any indication of Canada’s standing, we have a long way to go to catch up. The CIPS report uses the word “innovation” 25 times and the word “new” 87 times. It speaks of actual and potential Canadian “leaders” and “leadership” dozens of times and refers to an “enabling” environment for CSOs as though the disabling legacy left by the Harper government has suddenly vanished. A “multi-generational task force”? How many generations might that include? The creation of three $50 million/annum foundations? Easy: “Only a small number of Canada’s 39 billionaires would need to meet the ‘Giving Pledge’ of committing half their wealth.” By 2030, every university student should complete “an overseas learning or work opportunity prior to graduation, with an emphasis on emerging economies.” That sounds like a good idea until you realize they’re talking about approximately a quarter of a million students every year. Welcome to Zambia!
If Canada wants to do better, we should put aside magical thinking and we should forget about leadership for a while. We need more realistic ideas (see for example the McLeod Group’s 18 Policy Briefs on international development), some serious costing data and the money to go with it, plus some hard work and the time required to get back up to speed. And more humility.