Will changes to the Canadian International Development Agency increase its effectiveness?

A few comments in the recent federal budget seem to indicate changes for the Canadian International Development Agency. Robert Shepherd of CBC News reports that speculation is running rampant in the foreign aid community after Ottawa indicated that it will seek to be among the top five donors in its core countries of interest and put more of their staff in the field.

This follows the model of the British Department for International Development (DFID), which chooses to place many of its staff in the field to allow effective bilateral engagement with receiver countries. Those opposed to the transfer of staff from headquarters to the field argue that this move will lead to larger administrative expenses but when combined with a focused plan more field staff could prevent the government from wasting millions of dollars of aid money due to increased accountability and efficient delivery of funds.

Time will show how these changes impact the government’s main vehicle for foreign aid. I think if Canada chooses to engage in a developing country they should engage fully rather than sprinkling a few goodies and moving on to the next place in need. It is only through sustained long term commitment that aid dollars can really make lasting change.

Why do South African leaders keep silent while Robert Mugabe throws his country into the abyss?

There is a fascinating tie that binds African leaders who struggled against colonialism. It binds them together long after colonialism has ceased to become a rational explanation for poor governance, lack of education, incessant poverty and economic decline.

A case in point in South Africa’s relative silence as the brutal dictator Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe ruins the lives of his countrymen. That bond of loyalty, which goes back to the days when the African National Congress and ZANU PF, fought against white dominated governments in their respective countries, seems so strong that South Africa’s current President Thabo Mbeki continually refuses to speak out against his colleagues lunatic behavior. This is despite the fact that nearly 3 million Zimbabweans have fled in recent years to South Africa! So much for South Africa as the model of economic prosperity and bastion of African democracy.

Is shopping a reasonable response to human suffering?

Recent news about the Red campaign (see the March 26th issue of Macleans) questions the effectiveness of fundraising through specially branded corporate products. Red was launched with great fanfare in January 2006, as a great way to get consumers to fight AIDS in Africa, by having corporation donate a percentage of profits from distinctly Red product to the Global Fund. While advocates, like Bono and Oprah Winfrey, sell Red as a triple win scenario for charities, corporations and shoppers; the tactic has produced a backlash by those who feel Red lacks transparency. Some such as Ben Davis, the cofounder of a website called buylesscrap.org, do not feel that shopping is a reasonable response to human suffering, and believe that people should be encouraged to give their money directly to charities.

Red’s CEO Bobby Shriver responds: “I think it’s thrilling if it (people giving directly to charity) would happen in the real world.” He says. “But I wonder if any of those guys who set up the website had ever donated to the Global Fund or even heard of it prior to Red.”

Shriver may be right that large scale consumer driven marketing campaigns like RED can effectively raise very general awareness about an issue but he should be careful about selling Red as an efficient or transparent way to give to charity. The danger is that consumers come away feeling that they have done their part and appeased their guilt without doing anything other than buying a red cell phone or pair of shoes. I wonder how many purchasers of empowe(red) gap t-shirts could even tell you that money from their purchase was going to the Global Fund.