The future of aid

In a time when some development agencies report a chilling relationship with the Canadian International Development Agency, and others have seen their funding reduced, three organizations found a new way to work with CIDA.

World Vision Canada, Plan Canada and World University Service Canada (WUSC) have all entered partnerships with CIDA to work on development projects in countries where Canadian mining companies operate. While they may sound like typical development initiatives, these three pilot partnerships have attracted significant controversy because of a third partner—Canadian mining companies.

The new arrangement leaves development actors, scholars and those who donate asking questions: Are these projects an indirect subsidy for Canadian corporations? Are charities that many Mennonites donate to being used? Will this shift in funding affect the ability of agencies not partnered with companies, such as MCC, to receive government funding?

Aid or subsidy

Many Canadian mining companies already participate in corporate social responsibility initiatives—projects that benefit local communities or repair environmental damage—and some NGOs have long-time relationships with the extractive industry. However, the addition of CIDA dollars to these partnerships has raised questions in the development community.

The government has made it clear that no public money goes to corporations in these partnerships; the funds go directly to NGOs. By supporting these partnerships, CIDA “is leveraging additional financial support from mining companies to increase development impacts,” CIDA media relations staff Isabelle Poirtras, wrote in an email. Adding that Canada’s expertise in the extractive industry will help countries benefit from their natural resources.

But international development expert Stephen Brown, professor at the University of Ottawa, said that while corporations do not receive CIDA money they still receive benefits. As part of the five-year project in Burkina Faso, worth $7.6 million, some funds are dedicated to skills training in mining, in addition to other professions. While the training programs operate around the country some of the graduates are expected to work for IAMGOLD, the project’s corporate partner.

That some of the training money comes from CIDA bothers Brown. “If mining companies need to train workers they should train them, and they don’t need CIDA to pay for that and call that corporate social responsibility,” he said.

Catherine Coumans, Research coordinator and coordinator of Asia pacific programs for Mining Watch Canada, agrees that even without receiving direct funds the corporations benefit.

“Local level conflict and social opposition to mines is actually costly and it creates uncertainty and instability for the industry,' Coumans said by phone from Ottawa. “Anything that they can do to essentially calm down opposition and conflict at their mine sites is good for them.”

She also suggested that by joining with CIDA and development NGOs, companies will have an easier time gaining permission to operate. Now when a mining company meets with the government in countries where it operates “they’re in the door as a mining company with a development NGO and the Canadian government in tow, and it sends a much stronger message to the governments of these countries that our government supports this industry,” Coumans said.

Reputation or real improvement

MiningWatch is also concerned about these partnerships because it allows the companies to improve their reputations without necessarily changing practices. She suggests that one of the benefits the corporations receive is “this bigger message that they’re putting out to the world to shareholders to others, ‘they must be a good company because they’re partnering with World Vision or WUSC,’” Coumans said.

Over the years the reputation of Canadian mining has become increasingly tarnished. When a company tries to set up a new mine, Coumans said, communities are more skeptical than they were in the past because of environmental damage and other local concerns. “We’re finding more and more communities, even in very remote areas, starting with no instead of starting with yes,” she said.

After the World Vision-Barrick Gold project in Peru was announced, valued at $1 million, Miguel Palacin Quispe the coordinator of an Andean Indigenous group, wrote an open letter of opposition to then Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda, World Vision Canada and Barrick Gold.

“Unfortunately, Canadian mining companies have a bad track record in our countries, where companies such as Barrick Gold are the source of many conflicts because of the dispossession of lands, destruction of water sources, and ignoring of internationally recognized rights,” he wrote.

World Vision, however, said it is not worried that its name might be used to improve Barrick’s image. “We use the opportunity to share our development expertise and help improve Barrick’s approach in working with communities.” Patrick Canagasingham, vice-president for international and Canadian programs wrote in an email.

World Vision had an opportunity to critique Barrick’s corporate social responsibility report and participates with Barrick at a government-led forum that meets with community leaders to discuss local development.

Other charities have also touted the idea that through these partnerships they can improve the operating practices of Canadian mining companies.

In a January 26th interview with CBC’s The Current, Rosemary McCarney, president and CEO, of Plan Canada said that Plan requires that its partners sign onto all governments corporate social responsibility programs as well as Plan’s own partnership principles designed to protect children’s rights.

But MiningWatch remains skeptical that real improvements will result, aside from reputation. If the participating NGOs are concerned about improving the policies of these corporations, Coumans said, there should be clear guidelines on how NGOs monitor the positive effects of their partnerships. “You ask them well, how are you monitoring that you are having an effect and how are you verifying those claims etcetera, and there’s no response.”

The future of Canadian foreign aid

Experts are also concerned that these pilot partnerships may represent a shift in the nature of Canadian foreign aid. Some worry that aid organizations that choose not to partner with mining, or other, corporations will not receive the same consideration from CIDA.

“I find [these partnerships] extremely worrying,” said Brown, who edited a book on foreign aid titled Struggling for Effectiveness, CIDA and Canadian Foreign Aid. “They’re [NGOs] being forced to compete against each other in these special calls, those who work with mining bypass that process, so they’re not actually being assessed in the same way as everybody else just because they’re partnering with mining companies.”

Brown believes these projects are a test run for a new foreign aid strategy. He sees this as part of a trend where development money is used to bolster Canadian industry instead of devoted to foreign aid. “If we want to help Canadian businesses there are other government funds for that,” he said, “CIDA should not be used for that, CIDA is not about advancing Canadian interests, it’s about fighting poverty.”

In her interview with The Current, McCarney suggested we could see repeats of this partnership style if the initial projects are considered successful. “There’s a handful of pilots that are not terribly large in terms of the ODA [official development assistance] budget but are significant enough to test some new models of working together,” she said. But she also said that these projects make up just a small part of CIDA’s work and she doesn’t believe that non-partnered NGOs will see any change.

Don Peters, executive director of MCC Canada, has not followed the partnerships closely, but said that working with a corporation would make an unusual fit for MCC. “North American companies are not natural partners for us. We are rooted with community-based organizations worldwide and that’s our niche,” he said by Skype from Winnipeg. If the opportunity arose for MCC to form such a relationship Peters suggested MCC would have to investigate the motives, “we have to ask the question what’s in it for them,” he said.

While an MCC application for CIDA funds was turned down earlier this year, Peters does not believe that MCC’s advocacy on mining issues has affected the organization’s relationship with CIDA. He suggested that its advocacy is not altogether anti-mining and because its suggestions are reasonable the funding relationship has not been damaged. “Really what we’re saying is we, we don’t want anything less for people who live outside of Canada than we have in Canada. It seems pretty reasonable to me,” he said.

The three pilot projects are just one year old, and their impact on the future of foreign aid remains unclear. But regardless of any possible shift in CIDA’s priorities, MCC’s considerations on government partnerships will remain the same. “My perspective is that in our application for government source funds we need to know first of all who we are and what our objectives are,” said Peters, “if we’re not convinced they will be met or will be met more handily we won’t apply for them.”

With files from Will Braun