The Globe and Mail

Thank you, Guy. Perhaps I'm very biased being based in Washington, DC, but the U.S. presidential election is spurring a lot of talk about what to do about foreign assistance today. There is a lively debate about it amongst the different candidates, but it is bringing out some useful facts.

Is micro-credit homogenious groups a viable answer to poverty reduction? And what is immoderate about about the micro-credit approach?

I'm wondering if you could comment on the role played by Northern generosity in stifling local economies. Food donated by Northern farmers being given away free prevents local farmers from selling their food in local markets. Donated second hand clothing prevents local clothing industries from arising to fill the demand.

The modern concept of foreign aid has been with us for decades now. Why haven't we mastered this yet?

I think Louisa and BrandonSK's comments are in some way related. It's about the role of outsiders in supporting development. One of the major challenges is in balancing patience for change to be brought about, with the urgency of some of the humanitarian challenges. Our own experience with Engineers Without Borders is that patience generally loses out.

Regarding foreign expertise and local expertise: Part of the challenge is in the way we define the relationship. We talk about partnerships, but true partnerships recognize assets, balance out power imbalances, allow for free flowing information, etc. It's one of the reasons we think Cash of Delivery Aid is so interesting -- it forces a different type of negotiation and partnership between donor and recipient governments.

Local capacity building must be a part of every aid project, and normally it is. But accountability is also incredibly important -- making sure donor funds are not stolen, and that requires time-intensive partnerships and setting up accountability systems. I think that is a weakness of far too many aid projects -- the propensity is to spend, spend, spend, with not enough attention to ensuring that every dollar is spent properly.

George, that is so right. I've just returned from meetings with World Vision DRC's office where they are taking on advocacy as part of their development approach. Engaging directly with various members of government. Figuring out appropriate partnering with their government, calling their government to account, in a very challenging situation. I can bring some experience to contribute, but it was awe inspiring to see them run.

"The modern concept of foreign aid has been with us for decades now. Why haven't we mastered this yet?" I think mastery is probably a false goal and part of the problem. This is a complex system. Think about something as seemingly simple as having farmers use fertilizer properly in Northern Ghana. There's probably 1,000,000 farmers whose behaviours have to change, they each have different reasons for making the decisions they do. To use fertilizer properly, they need access to information on fertilizer choice and application methods, and then access to the right kind of fertilizer (deciding, for example, if they'll go with inorganic or organic fertilizers). Then they need funding to buy it (credit, free cash flow?), and of course there needs to be a robust fertilizer supply chain so it's available. And that's just one small part of development.

For Mr. Lezhnev: The ENOUGH Project's mandate seems to be around promoting peace in conflict zones through exerting political influence. In your opinion, what's the ideal role of foreign expertise in promoting peace and good governance abroad?

Are you familiar with the Canadian Foodgrains Bank? They seem to have a very good model for ensuring that the aid goes where intended and keeping administration at a minimum.

What role do you see consumers in the Global North playing in the future of the Global South? Inundated with distraction and choice, and sold on things other than social good, it seems an impossible goal to get consumers to really vote with their dollars. Is there a role for international NGOs in promoting socially oriented companies and/or "good" companies in the South?

From my experience in Africa surrounding the coffee industry, it appears to me that aid often comes without a clear plan or exit strategy on behalf of the organization granting the aid. Without a clear exit strategy, the aid can turn into a form of perpetual funding, resulting in dependancy and not sustainability. Thoughts?

@danno In fact, Canadian Foodgrains Bank (and the farmers who direct it) did something incredibly heroic in the past 3 years. They lobbied the Canadian Government to end "tied food aid" -- basically the requirement that some of the emergency food relief we send must be purchased in Canada (which doubled the cost as compared with local and open sourcing). This was directly against their interests, but it was the right thing to do. It's time that more NGOs take stands of that sort. At EWB, our biggest criticism of the NGO sector is that they are unwilling to bite the hand that feeds them: NGOs are the best placed, because of our position close to the ground -- to help our government have better aid policies. But the sector shies away from this role because of fearing a loss in funding. Ultimately, at EWB, we believe that it doesn't matter if we exist or not if the system is fundamentally broken.

@BrandonSK That's one of the most powerful tools that we have. We are unknowing consumers of goods and raw materials that from all over the Global South, from our sweaters to our laptops. The problem is awareness -- most people aren't aware where and under what conditions these products were made. I believe that once people find out, they can and will make changes. When it came to light that Nike and other companies were using sweatshop factory labor in the 1990s, some pretty intense campaigning led to serious reform and the formation of the Fair Labor Association certification system. There's a lot more work to be done on consumer involvement and supply chains, though. Raisehopeforcongo.org shows how you can get involved in the movement on conflict minerals from Congo and cell phones/computers.

@Poul True and not. Most aid comes in the form of 3 to 5 year projects or programs, with the outputs and activities pre-determined sometimes 2-3 years BEFORE the project even begins. So, programs proceed, without really thinking about or evolving in response to changing circumstances -- this learning and evolution just isn't taken seriously. And then the project ends and the interventions just go away, because the clock ran out, rather than because it was appropriate to end. Certainly we need to start with the end in mind, and be very cognizant of dependency issues, but we also need to be intelligent about this.

@George Roter isn't this largely the case in terms of government aid, like USAID. When I was in Ethiopia, from my vantage point, it seemed like most of the aid projects were more about influence peddling and less about developing sustainability.

Do you think that the demands of donors can tend to stifle innovation, in that innovation is seen as risky, while 'the same thing we did in country X' is much more comfortable?

@Paul Agree that, at times, the purposes of why aid is given
get corrupted.