Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 16 - Evidence - Meeting of May 31, 2005
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 31, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 5:03 p.m. to examine the development and security challenges facing Africa; the response of the international community to enhance that continent's development and political stability; and Canadian foreign policy as it relates to Africa.
Senator Peter A. Stollery (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. I want to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, a meeting held in the context of our special study on Africa.
[Translation]
Today's meeting will be divided into two parts. Firstly, we will be focusing on the science and technology sector in Mozambique, and in Africa in general; and in the second part of our meeting we will be hearing from representatives from the International Development Research Centre.
[English]
We have today the honour and pleasure of welcoming His Excellency, Dr. Venâncio Massingue, Minister of Science and Technology, of Mozambique. Dr. Massingue is the former Vice-Rector of the University Eduardo Mondlane of Maputo. Since 2001, he has created and continues to support the Mozambique Information and Communication Technology Institute. In 1998, he won the UNESCO Albert Einstein Medal for Science and Technology. Welcome to the Senate of Canada.
Before we begin, I should like to take this opportunity to thank IDRC, some of whose people are sitting in the back of the room, for making us aware of Minister Massingue's visit to Ottawa. Thank you very much for your kind cooperation.
Again, I wish to remind our members and people who follow our hearings that we try to get people as they are coming through Ottawa. We do not always get a lot of notice, because of the nature of things. We have had some wonderful witnesses because of this policy and the assistance that groups have been giving us by telling us about people like our distinguished guest who are in Ottawa.
Minister, you have the floor. You know our techniques. I know that one of your first languages is Portuguese but that you also speak English and that you will be giving your testimony in English. Our members are quite flexible when it comes to languages. We are used to it in this committee, and in Canada generally, as we operate in two languages.
Dr. Venâncio Massingue, Minister of Science and Technology, Mozambique: I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your introductory remarks. I should also like to say that it is my pleasure to meet this very important committee. My presence here today is a result of the excellent relationship that I have with Canada through the IDRC.
IDRC has made it possible for us to start programs in information and communication technology, ICT, not only for the implementation of technology, but also in human resources development. My doctorate was supported by Canada in full. I thank you very much for having this opportunity to be here.
I come here in my capacity as Minister of Science and Technology of Mozambique. Our government was established in February this year as a result of the general elections that took place in Mozambique. My ministry is a new ministry. When it was created, President Armando Guebuza said to me, ``I am expecting you to help us discover what science and technology can contribute in our programs in general for development toward poverty alleviation.''
My agenda became very clear. I am a science and technology minister who must promote the message that technology transfer will contribute to poverty alleviation. It is our aim to put science and technology as the primary force for the development of Mozambique. From this time forward, we have to put in place instruments that will allow us to have as much as possible the positive impact of science and technology. As we all know, science and technology is a transversal issue. It is cross-cutting. As such, there is no area of development today that is not involved with technology. Therefore, it will require good institutional coordination and cooperation between the different players.
In our five-year government program for 2005 to 2009, which has been approved by the Parliament of Mozambique, we have defined three major pillars on science and technology. The first is scientific research. We want to undertake scientific research that will allow us to boost the development of both the economy and social conditions.
The second is technology transfer and innovation. We would very much like to promote programs that will put the appropriate technology in different areas of development, such as agriculture, education, energy, agro-processing, health, natural resources and low-cost construction, to mention only a few. It is very important that those areas have a very big impact, mainly in the rural areas.
The third pillar is information and communication technology. We regard information and communication technology as a very important tool for the development of Mozambique. In a country with a 60 per cent illiteracy rate, it may be asked how information technology can contribute to development and influence positively. We can look for answers in formal education and services that can be provided, as well as in targeting specific groups. We are already doing that with the IDRC through the establishment of telecentres and schoolnets.
As this is a new issue for our economy and our development, our government is challenged to undertake critical measures. The first measure is to mainstream science and technology in all development programs and establish a national strategy on science and technology with a definition of priorities and areas of concentration. In fact, we are already planning the establishment of such programs to be present on our PRSP to be launched in January 2006. We want to promote the necessary donor coordination and establish articulation mechanisms with internal and external partners. Our idea is that not all of our projects bring added value when it comes to technology because we do not all follow a concrete agenda. It is necessary, therefore, that we promote coordination between donors. We also want to promote partnership with industry, to encourage the retrieval of valuable research done within higher education institutions in Mozambique to the market and to establish fiscal incentives.
The government wants to develop building capacity in research planning management and performance monitoring at the institutional level and at the system level. That is to say, we want to establish a system for research and innovation in technology that will be done not by a single institution but by various institutions. We want to establish long-term research programs with research institutions with proven competence in the research field. We do not want to re-invent what has already been invented, but we do want to adopt the appropriate technology to ensure that we take advantage of it for the development of Mozambique.
We also want to develop an information and communication technology infrastructure, a very important element that will target all levels in the nation. When we speak of the users of technology, in many cases people think we are talking only about cities. In the five-year program, it has been defined that we want to put priority on the development of the rural areas at the district level. Therefore, we must put the necessary infrastructure in place at this level to allow the development and the growth of possibilities in agriculture and other areas.
We want to promote the establishment of databases. It is usual to hear in Africa that there is no content. One reason for that is that we do not have a systematic way of putting our content into electronic form, and that is because we do not have enough knowledge of the levels and stages of the development of databases.
Therefore, we are planning to establish the Mozambican Information and Communication Technology Institute, comprised of the following three complements: research and learning, a technology incubator for the development of entrepreneurship, and the technology and science part. We also want to establish formal and operational connections with international knowledge centres through cooperation protocols. We want to increase the potential for commercial, industrial and research activities and interact with the aim of solving the real problems and better exploring technology and knowledge.
I hope I have transmitted some of the major issues of our program.
Senator Grafstein: Welcome. This is a fascinating paper. It is very modern. It is almost as if I were talking to the Prime Minister's advisor on science and technology, because this would be a great plan for Canada as well. I congratulate you on the plan.
Have you met with the Prime Minister's advisor on science and technology, Dr. Carty?
Mr. Massingue: Unfortunately, no.
Senator Grafstein: Put him on your agenda while you are here.
Senator Prud'homme: Introduce them to each other.
Senator Grafstein: I will meet with Dr. Carty tomorrow, and I will ensure that, if you call him, he sees you. He is going away, will only be here for a couple of hours tomorrow, but he might see you.
I would also suggest that you meet with Mr. Phillipson, the head of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which is doing precisely what you are talking about here. You will find that all of the objectives you have listed are the objectives of that foundation, which is at arm's length from the government and funds specific projects of research and innovation.
I would be glad to assist you in setting up meetings with these people, because I think you will find it very useful.
This committee is studying a model of development that would allow underdeveloped countries such as yours, with high levels of illiteracy, to leap ahead. One model you might look at is that which has been adopted in Jordan. Although Jordan has absolutely no natural resources, they decided that, rather than going through the normal steps of development, they would leap ahead. They started five or six years ago giving wireless computers to Bedouin villages that had never before seen a computer, and in particular giving them to children. They discovered that, within a year or two, with minimal training, the Bedouin children became skilled in the use of computers and their level of education improved.
What are the building blocks that you need to move to this very ambitious plan from the problems that you have in terms of basic communications? For instance, you talk about science, innovation and technology. The key to this is the Internet and digital communications. What is the digital, wireless or broadband framework in your country? Have you invested in the infrastructure to make this platform possible?
Mr. Massingue: Thank you for the observation and advice. The meetings you have suggested will be of great help. I hope we will find a way to make the adjustment.
We would very much like to be connected to other initiatives that are being successfully implemented. Some of things we are talking about, other nations have passed by. The suggestion of going to the Jordanian model, at least to learn about what they are doing there, is very useful. I have put that on my agenda. Some assistance may be required for us to be able to learn about this model.
We have to have mainstream building blocks. We have to manage to make science and technology visible in each development area. We must be clear in what the technology can help. We also need to create a vision. We need to create a strategy. We will be developing a strategy where some of the elements will be strongly addressed. However, there are already some ongoing plans. Unfortunately, they are still in a very infant stage in terms of impact at a national level. It is important that we come up with a plan for implementation of the infrastructure. It is my conviction that as soon as we have the infrastructure in place, most of the other things will follow.
In my presentation, I targeted rural areas. We have to ensure that we have radio and television in the communities as well as the Internet. This is the infrastructure component. Again, both for the designing of the plans and also for the implementation, we will be requiring some assistance.
Senator Di Nino: Minister, it is the good to see you here. I hope my colleagues will be able to arrange those meetings for you tomorrow morning. It would be useful. Frankly, I am surprised that they have not happened already. Perhaps no one thought about it.
Minister, I wish to focus first on the plans and strategies that you were talking about. Are these plans and strategies being looked at nationwide or are they being focussed right now in specific areas only?
Mr. Massingue: The strategy is national, but with an emphasis on what is happening in each sector. It is important for us to lay an infrastructure that will allow the health sector to operate properly. As soon as the health sector is connected in a region, why not also address education to take advantage of that? We are looking nationwide, but responding to the needs of each sector.
Senator Di Nino: I understand that, at this time, most of the investment in your country is coming from South Africa. Could you confirm that? Also, I understand that you have two or three primary corporate entities that operate in your country. Does this make the technology transfer easier or more difficult?
Mr. Massingue: No doubt the fact that we have a big brother close to us in some aspects is an advantage.
Senator Di Nino: We know about that with the U.S.
Mr. Massingue: According to statistics, at the moment most of the investment comes from South Africa. In terms of consumption products and some services, we can get that from South Africa. However, when we talk about low-cost technology applied to the different areas, we must look into the other markets, not only to South Africa.
I cannot discuss in detail what is happening inside South Africa. However, I know they are also receiving technology from abroad, although they are producing internally. We will be looking to technology not only within our neighbours, but also with other nations.
Senator Di Nino: It is not so bad to have a big brother; it has worked quite well for Canada. As you know, we have our challenges, but there are tremendous benefits to be had if one creates the kind of relationship that is respectful and friendly.
In regard to your mandate and strategies, is a focus also being directed toward the female population of your nation? We have heard from witnesses who have come here that that is a mandate or focus of some other countries.
Mr. Massingue: Our Prime Minister is a woman. That is a strong signal that our government is promoting women at different levels.
We have specific programs that target females, not only on education, but also in business and politics. Women participate in different programs. In my ministry, I run special programs that create interest in young women to be able to participate in engineering and sciences. We have prizes and offer encouragement.
The problem is not only at the level in which they can do research; the problem is that the majority of the population is in the rural area. They are expected to do the work so they can start school. When it comes to the secondary school, the number of women is reduced dramatically because they must undertake other activities.
By putting the emphasis on rural areas, we also want to create special programs for these young women — programs that can be taught in a different way. They can become professionals on different subjects without necessarily going to school. We have specific programs at our telecentre directed at ladies. We have special programs for them.
The Chairman: In your paper, it reads: ``Natural resources: coal, titanium, natural gas, hydroelectric power, tantalum, graphite.'' What is tantalum? Does anybody know? Is it a metal?
Mr. Massingue: We have what we call in English heavy sands. Given that you speak Portuguese, Mr. Chairman, it is areias pesadas in Portuguese.
The Chairman: It is a rare earth mineral used in high tech metals. I understand.
Mr. Massingue, you are our first witness from Mozambique. Given that Mozambique is on the border of South Africa, you have some investment opportunities from South Africa. Of course, Mozambique is not just on the frontier with South Africa. It goes up the coast of the Indian Ocean, and it is also on the frontiers of Tanzania.
I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but the economic development there, although I have only been around Mozambique, is mostly in the south. It goes up towards Beira, which is at the end of the railway, to Zimbabwe and then to Pemba — you have a very good map here. In other words, without understanding a little bit of the geography and the nature of economic development in the country, it is difficult for me to apply myself to science and technology and to see where it will have the greatest effect or how you will do this. Could you give me an impression on that?
Mr. Massingue: Thank you for that question — which is both technical and political.
It is true that the south has benefited more in terms of development programs, not only after our independence but even before. The capital is in the south, in Maputo. Obviously, the infrastructure there is much better.
As soon as we became independent, there was a dramatic change in terms of planning. Of course, it takes time. We became independent in 1975. In 1976, a destabilizing war started that went until 1992. During that period, it was difficult to undertake serious development programs. Only after the peace agreement was signed in 1992 did it become possible to come back to the plans that were made for the development of Mozambique.
Today, we have centres of development in Mozambique that have more of an impact in terms of economy and social well-being. For example, Nampula, which is the capital of northern Mozambique, is doing very well in terms of economy and development.
The Chairman: Why is that?
Mr. Massingue: It is doing well because we have a couple of projects and programs, mainly in the area of agriculture. As I mentioned, we also have the heavy sands-producing products. However, it is mainly agriculture that is having a positive impact.
The government has decided to create three big corridors. One is the so-called Maputo corridor, which links South Africa to Maputo. We have a second corridor, which links Beira to Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, we thought establishing these corridors would serve as a gateway for linking inland entries, but the situation in Zimbabwe at the moment does not allow for a big flow of business. Then we have the other corridor that has been established in the north, the Nacala corridor.
These corridors are now being improved in terms of infrastructure, by developing railways that link the inland to the outland. These developments are boosting the economy. In fact, we have the Cahora Bassa Dam in the central part where we generate electricity, which is not only being used by Mozambique but also goes to South Africa and through to Zimbabwe. There are negotiations with Malawi, which would also like to benefit from this hydro power station.
In terms of at the ministry level, the science and technology component is a new issue for many African economies. We really do not have anything in terms of infrastructure. What we have decided to do is to establish what we call three regional centres, but the centres are not there yet. We have them on paper. The idea is to implement the programs that we have at regional levels. One will be in the south, one will be in the centre part, and the other will be in the north.
Those centres will quickly assist the provinces in which they are located, but also the neighbouring provinces. In our plans, we are also saying that the centres themselves cannot take the whole responsibility of developing science and technology. We have to create what we call a provincial and a district nucleus. Hence, we are establishing a nucleus at the district level, as well as at the provincial level, which will interact with the regional centres they are going to establish.
What will we put in the regional centre? We want to put three kinds of activities: First, we want to put scientific research over there because we already have a critical mass of Mozambicans. It is a small number, but we can locate them in the different provinces to do scientific research in partnership with other countries. Second, we also want to promote business incubators. We want to make sure that we mainly teach the young people how they can use their skills to generate income. Third, we will use that as the linkage between industry and the scientific research process. These will be the major three activities that we will be doing in the centre for the benefit of the region, the province and the districts.
The Chairman: That enlightens me and helps the committee. If we think about it for a moment, for places like Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi the ports are all in Mozambique. In order for them to have any export facility, they have to go out basically through your country, which is, of course, an important potential source of revenue for your country. I just wanted to get that on the record and make it clear.
Senator Downe: Thank you minister, for your very impressive presentation. You indicated that this proposal was accepted by your Parliament and it is the priority of your country.
I note that the Canadian International Development Agency has indicated that it will provide development assistance of $42 million to your country this year, but none of it is directed at the priority you outlined today. Would you like that money shifted from the current priorities to the priority you highlighted today to this committee?
Mr. Massingue: Senator Downe, I will first say that when the president appointed me minister and I looked at the budget, I found out that for the whole year I have $1.3 million only for investment, running costs and salaries. Of course it is impossible to implement even 1 per cent of these ideas. Therefore, I will need critical support to do this.
I do not have information in terms of the $42 million that has been allocated, but I also would like to say something which is true: Agencies such as the one you mentioned have not been confronted that much with science and technology. Therefore, it is a new area that is coming, as well as the leadership. We are putting this at the government level, the top level of the management of the country, meaning that it is a new area of development.
Of course, I will be cautious in saying that I want to shift the $42 million that has been announced — because I do not know which areas are covered. However, I should very much like to see science and technology covered in one or another way by the cooperation program. I do not know if this means increasing resources from other sources, or allocating part of it, but it will be useful because all these ideas you consider positive will only move if I have resources.
The Chairman: Did I understand correctly that $1.3 million is your departmental budget?
Mr. Massingue: Yes.
Senator Eyton: Minister, your plan is impressive and it is formidable, and you have just given a few numbers and I will get to some later on that underline that. Can you tell me about the plan? How was it developed? What kind of support did it have in order to be passed by your Parliament? How widely known is it in your country? Is it something that has been well or partly communicated? I want to know where it came from and the state of it now in your country.
Mr. Massingue: The planning process, at the beginning of each fiscal year, we do get indications from the Minister of Planning and Development and the Minister of Finance in terms of methodology for the planning.
Senator Eyton: I was talking about this particular plan, the plan here and what you presented to us. How did this particular plan evolve?
Mr. Massingue: It was generated inside of my ministry by me and my colleagues, following which it was submitted for discussion in the cabinet. Following discussion in cabinet, it was sent to Parliament for discussions, and finally became approved.
Senator Eyton: Is it well known throughout the country? It is a very large country with a large population. Is there an awareness of this plan and what you are trying to do?
Mr. Massingue: Yes. In fact, this plan is a result of the manifesto and then the electoral process that took place, so it was not designed and then given, but it is the result of what from bottom to top has been discussed as priorities.
There are some technicalities that are done at the ministerial level, but the major issues arise from the communities themselves. For instance, the communities ask when they will have higher education institutions in their region. Other communities are saying that they are producing crops but that the crops are getting destroyed because they do not have the technology to save the crops.
For instance, fruits in Mozambique are available during a two-month period. In two months, everyone can eat fruit, but as soon as those two months are over we do not have any more fruit, and most of the fruit is destroyed because we do not have even basic technology to transform mango into juice.
I visited one area in which they are producing a lot of tomatoes. They did tell me that 30 per cent of their production is lost between when they collect until they are able to sell, meaning that there is a problem of processing the tomatoes.
Most of the problems that we are resolving with this plan are generated from the needs.
I have given senators two examples of the implementation of technology at the community level that will allow them to take greater advantage of what they are producing.
Senator Eyton: I can understand why technology and new approaches are needed. However, in the context of your budget of $1.3 million, it seems a tremendous challenge.
The facts that we have on Mozambique before the committee indicate that there is a high poverty rate. I will not deal with that, but there is a lack of resources at the ground level.
As well, the illiteracy rate is high. Could you tell me what the government is doing to try to improve the literacy rates? Without literate men and women, it is difficult to advance science and technology. Could you tell me what you are doing and what effect it may be having?
Mr. Massingue: We have three big plans in respect of this issue.
First, we are increasing educational facilities and training more teachers for deployment to those facilities. Second, we have decided that, from 2005 to 2009, we must concentrate on vocational and technical training. We are developing programs for this implementation so that our people can learn how to do things. Third, we are embarking on our plans for the so-called distance education platforms because we cannot service all areas with a sufficient number of teachers for all the subjects to accomplish the work. Distance education is one of the pillars. That is why we have a clear program to promote and develop education using ICT.
Here, we are talking about formal education, but we are also developing programs to train people to become professionals in their areas. In that way, they do not have to wait four or five years to take on specialized activities. We have specific programs for that. Of course, it is one thing to have the programs but it is another thing to have the necessary resources for implementation. That is why we would like support for these plans.
Senator Grafstein: I will question the development plan from a different direction. We looked at statistics that are a little old, but they do indicate that the per capita annual income in Mozambique in 2001 was $156. What would that income be today? Would it be much higher? I am quoting statistics provided to the committee that date as far as 2001.
Mr. Massingue: I can provide updated information.
Senator Grafstein: I assume it is well below $400 per capita.
Mr. Massingue: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: Mozambique, where 81 per cent of the population is engaged in agriculture, is dependent on imports for its food. Is there any rationale as to why that is? Canada, for instance, exported wheat to Mozambique in 2001. Could you explain to us why the economy, which is 81 per cent agricultural, has a low per capita GDP and remains dependent on foreign imports for food sustainability?
Mr. Massingue: First, for most of the 81 per cent of Mozambicans involved in agriculture, it is a matter of subsistence. Certainly, by doing this they are not applying any basic technology that could increase production. It is so bad that one district might prosper in one year and two years later not have enough to feed itself, and so we must seek aid from outside for that area. Agriculture has to be looked at in terms of irrigation systems, the nature of crops planted, the need for fertilizers and people who know what to do in each seasonal period. We have deficits in both infrastructure and knowledge.
The 81 per cent involved in agriculture are growing the bare minimum simply to survive. I see challenges in this area when the President tells me that science and technology to support the development program will alleviate the poverty. My question now is what we can do in the area of science and technology to promote, within our system, the idea of increasing our production. Most of the 81 per cent of the population dependent on agriculture are sitting on the most beautiful and arid area of the country. If they had the means, they would be able to produce more. That is the solution that my ministry is seeking. The Minister of Agriculture and I want to know how we can turn this situation into a different situation.
Senator Prud'homme: Briefly, I noticed that you are making a great effort to promote literacy. I am working on something that continues to fascinate me each time I read the UN reports on education. Let me take the example of Cuba, a country that achieves close to 100 per cent literacy. That compares unbelievably with Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Central America, where literacy rates are so low by comparison. Why is it so difficult to achieve higher rates of literacy? Is it because we do not know how to utilize modern technology to the best advantage? Rather than engage many expert teachers, one professor could teach in many villages across Mozambique through the use of television. That could be done from morning to night with only one supervisor per education site — and anyone could supervise.
I have seen that done in the past where a French Canadian mama or an English Canadian mama will make sure that the students watch. Since we know that children are so fascinated by the big screen, all it would take in a village is one screen and a professor who knows how to reach the children. The literacy rate would then go up very rapidly. Why is it so difficult?
I used the example of Cuba intentionally, because everybody is hitting Cuba these days, to see how it would be possible to achieve the degree of literacy they have.
Mr. Massingue: Just to recall, in 1975, when we became independent, 90 per cent of Mozambiquans were illiterate. We only had five Mozambicans who were academic professors at the university. Today, these numbers have changed, regardless of the 16 years of a destabilizing war that took place and did not allow most of the schools to go ahead.
What we want to do — and I will not rephrase what you said, I just take it as you said — we would like to put in the technology to do exactly what you are suggesting because we are convinced that we will target more people and we will be able to educate more Mozambicans.
The issue of leapfrogging with technology, in particular ICT, is a reality. We can achieve that. In two years, it was possible for us to double the number of users of telephones as soon as we established the cellular phone. This is to show the speed in which ICT can contribute.
When I visit schools or communities, I am always asked if I could give them two or three computers. What I would like to see in two or three years is a different scenario, as soon as we implement the technologies.
Yes, I fully agree with you and I am convinced that this will change the situation. It will change because we can target different levels and different parts of the country that we cannot target now. We will even be able to offer different kinds of education. That is what we want to do, not only formal education.
I will use an example that apparently is working quite well at MIT, where students use a website to study. A survey revealed that students would prefer to study via the website as opposed to sitting in class. One of the explanations for the preference was that if they want to repeat the material, they can do that as much as they want, because it is available there.
Of course, our problem is the initial phase. What I want to do is to train people, supervisors, that can have large numbers in front of a terminal and provide the training to these students. That is our plan, our thinking, our objective, that such technology will be applied.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, minister, for an extremely interesting presentation. The importance of technology in agriculture is apparent to all of us.
[Translation]
The second part of today's meeting will be dedicated to the IDRC, the International Development Research Centre. We have the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Rohinton Medhora, vice-president of the centre's Programs and Partnership Branch; and Mr. Gerd Schönwälder, team leader, Peace, Conflict and Development. Welcome to the Senate of Canada, gentlemen.
[English]
IDRC is a Canadian public corporation that works in close collaboration with researchers from the developing world in their search for the means to build healthier, more equitable and more prosperous societies. IDRC has worked in close collaboration with Africans since 1971 and has a regional office in Dakar and one in Nairobi.
Mr. Medhora, you now have the floor.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, just as a clarification, you said IDRC is a Canadian public corporation.
The Chairman: Yes, a Crown corporation.
Senator Di Nino: A Crown corporation.
The Chairman: I believe it is still technically a Crown corporation.
Senator Downe: On the agenda, the president was shown as attending this evening. Is the president not here?
The Chairman: Let us ask Mr. Medhora what happened to the president.
Mr. Rohinton Medhora, Vice-President, Program and Partnership Branch, International Development Research Centre (IDRC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having us here. Yes, our president has had a scheduling conflict with commitments in Montreal.
In no more than 10 minutes, I will give you a snapshot of where the continent is and then look ahead to what the different issues might be and, in the process, connect with many of the points Minister Massingue has made to you as well.
I have with me my colleague Mr. Gerd Schönwälder, who heads our peace, conflict and development program. If there are any questions on that dimension, he will be well placed to respond to your questions.
Senator Downe: Just so I am clear on this, following up on Senator Di Nino's question, this is a Crown corporation of the government.
Mr. Medhora: Yes.
Senator Downe: The president of the Crown corporation was asked to appear before the Senate committee, and she has a conflict. Could we pursue what her conflict was and why she decided to do that instead of her original commitment to appear before this committee, unless she was asked and not confirmed?
The Chairman: I am informed by the clerk that she was not confirmed.
Senator Downe: Thank you, chair.
Mr. Medhora: Last year, Africa grew, depending on how you count and which statistics you take, by between 4.5 and 5 per cent, which, in the scheme of things, is quite respectable.
The Chairman: There must be huge variations.
Mr. Medhora: In the scheme of things, Central Africa and East Africa grew faster, between 6 and 7 per cent. Southern Africa and West Africa grew slower, around 4 per cent. However, the average growth rate was 5 per cent.
There are two interesting things about that, the first of which is that this is the highest growth rate that the continent has had in about a decade. Also, if you look at some of the macroeconomic fundamentals on the continent, you will find that they are quite respectable. Inflation was the lowest in 25 years on the continent. If you compare that kind of growth rate with growth rates in the developed world, they are higher. The issue, however, is that relative to other developing countries, these growth rates are not as high. That is point number one. The second point is that African growth, for the most part, is still quite reliant on changes in commodity prices, so that is what is driving it. Third, internal markets are weak, and the one thing that always stays in my mind is that the total GDP in sub-Saharan Africa is no more than the GDP of the city of Chicago. If you imagine all the processes times 50 in foreign relations, political mediation, for a GDP the size of a large North American city, you get a sense of the transaction costs involved in the development process on the continent.
Third, as Marcel Massé mentioned to this committee some weeks ago, 5 per cent is pretty much the growth rate you need to maintain poverty levels, not improve them. That 5 per cent is very much a platform and is not in any way a ceiling.
Fourth, Africa still has the highest poverty rate, meaning the largest proportion of people living on a dollar or less a day, in the world. This proportion has been growing in the past 10 years. Again, this is the only region in the world where that is the case.
Employment growth is flat and, as a result, progress towards many of the millennium development goals has been weak. That, generally speaking, is where we are.
What does that mean? What does all of this add up to? It adds up to the fact that institutions on the continent are weak, so that the links between economic progress, political progress and social progress are not what they should be. Capacities to deal with problems locally, as we just heard, are low. If you look at indicators of capacities to deal with problems such as expenditures on research, such as the number of patents issued to nationals of the continent, you will find that Africa is well below its weight, using whatever measure you wish.
For example, expenditures on research and development as a percentage of total research and development expenditures in the world are less than 1 per cent in Africa. Less than 1 per cent of the world's scientific publications emanate from Africa. The number of patents issued on the continent is less than 0.1 per cent. The capacity to use science, as the minister was saying, to deal with problems is low.
Add to that several indicators that suggest that connectivity on the continent is low. In other words, people are paying more, sometimes nine or ten times more than we do here, and using connectivity, i.e. telephones and the Internet, a lot less. They are simply not connected with each other and the rest of the world. That is the situation.
IDRC was established, as the chair said, in 1970, by an act of Parliament. It is one of the few institutions in the world that actually is dedicated to building capacity in developing countries themselves to deal with these kinds of issues.
One example, in fact, is the previous speaker, Minister Venâncio Massingue. We first worked with him almost 10 years ago when he was a professor at the university in Maputo. Over the years, he became the vice-rector, the rector and is now a minister. The point I am trying to make is that development is as much about patience and about investing in people as it is about anything else, and so when I say weak institutions, that is roughly what I mean.
We at IDRC deal in four broad areas of inquiry — that is, social and economic policy, the use of ICTs for development, environment and natural resource management, and science and technology for development. Our projects tend to be classified in those four areas. We have six regional offices the world over, including the head office in Ottawa that we deliver our programs through.
To return to the point about the importance of building local capacity, one of the issues in Africa has consistently been that advice from outside is often not seen as being valid simply because it does not have the credibility that home- grown solutions would have. Outside advice by its very nature can often be wrong, and sometimes spectacularly so. There is something to be said for building capacities locally.
An example is the kinds of things that Canada and IDRC have been doing with health policy in Tanzania. We have been working in two districts in Tanzania to assess the burden of disease in those districts and to allocate local health expenditures based on the burdens of disease. What we found was quite interesting. When we actually measured the burden of disease, we found that malaria and a cluster of childhood diseases are the big killers in those regions. When we looked at health allocations, we discovered that the primary expenditures were on TB and a host of diseases that can be treated or prevented through vaccination. Small adjustments to health allocations made by the local authorities using data that they had gathered and analyzed themselves have resulted in an almost 40 per cent decrease in child mortality in those two districts in Tanzania.
The minister mentioned several interesting uses of ICTs. In Uganda, we are using palm — held devices to gather various kinds of socio-economic data and then using wireless to collect and analyze the data. As a result, the errors go down and the data is available sooner, which results in superior solutions to dealing with problems.
We have talked about growth rates and the fact that they do not always translate into social development outcomes. One reason is that there is outside advice. In 1989, Canada created the African Economic Research Consortium, which since then has trained about 700 scholars, most of whom have remained on the continent. We are committed to strengthening the institutions in which they work so that the home-grown economic analysis and advice that is created on the continent is used and is used credibly.
The final example is from agriculture. The minister mentioned the use of various kinds of national and international agricultural processes to develop plants that can grow in the highlands of eastern, central and southern Africa, where the majority of people live, as well as plants that are hardier in the desert, because desertification is also a fact of life. Again, judicious application of foreign know-how used locally is what makes the difference.
Let me end with this message. This is a time-consuming process. It is a process where we have to listen as much as we give. Finally, it is about investing in people and institutions.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a point of order. I have just discovered that although we have been provided with maps which are available in both official languages, we have also been given what seems to be a fairly substantive document describing the role of the International Development Research Centre in Africa which, I am told, is not available in French. The IDRC is a crown corporation which, like everybody else, is governed by the Official Languages Act. Could somebody please explain to me why this document is not available to committee members in French?
Mr. Medhora: The document has just been drafted and the French version will be available shortly.
Senator Corbin: No, that is not acceptable; either you table the document in both official languages, or you do not table it at all. This is a principle which lies at the heart of the Official Languages Act. I am sorry that, in order to get you to take note, I have to insist on this point, but I know what I am talking about here. I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, and I was also the co-chair of the first House of Commons Committee on Official Languages. Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw attention to the fact that we are still confronted with agencies and departments which do not respect the Official Languages Act. I do not wish to create an unpleasant atmosphere, but French-speakers have had it up to here with this attitude. There you have it, I hope that I have got my message across.
The Chairman: Yes, you are absolutely right, Senator Corbin.
[English]
I must say I did not realize it until you pointed it out, because the last time we met, we were not certain we would be sitting this week. I have nothing to add except that Senator Corbin is absolutely right.
Senator Di Nino: I agree with my colleague, Senator Corbin. It is particularly unacceptable from a Crown corporation that we would be given information in only one language, particularly when the information is available in both languages, which I understand it is. I am sure Senator Corbin will deal with it. He can count on everybody's support, particularly mine, on this one.
Let me thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Let me go to a different tact, if you wish. We have been at this for only two or three months.
The Chairman: Yes, and we have learned a great deal.
Senator Di Nino: We have learned a great deal, but one of the things I have learned is that we have an avalanche of organizations, not just from Canada, but around the world working in Africa to provide direction, assistance and support.
Do we have any idea how many Canadian organizations are working in Africa, including non-governmental organizations, entities associated or near to the government and government agencies? Do we have any idea what these organizations cost? Could we extrapolate from that that there is probably a multitude of organizations from around the world that work in Africa? It hit me as we were going through this that we are hearing from a wide variety of entities. Do either of you gentlemen have any idea how many organizations are currently working in Africa?
Mr. Gerd Schönwälder, Team Leader, Peace, Conflict and Development, International Development Research Centre (IDRC): I cannot provide any figures, but I know that Jeffrey Sachs in his recent book on ending poverty makes some comments in that regard. He makes a very strong case for increasing resource flows to Africa in particular, because despite everything that is being done by the multitude of donor organizations, donor governments and non- governmental actors, the resource flow is actually still fairly minor, according to Jeffrey Sachs. It would be worthwhile checking what figures he provides in his book with regard to that.
Senator Di Nino: Our staff should try to put some figures together on that.
There is a myriad of organizations, and they cost money. Do we need as many organizations as we have, with all of their costs associated with structure, travel, accommodation, et cetera? I am not suggesting that they do not do marvellous work. I have not yet met one that I would not applaud.
Has the idea ever been raised of combining some of these organizations, thereby saving a lot of money, money that could be redirected?
Mr. Medhora: In a continent with as much need as Africa, this is a bigger problem. The key is, first, donor coordination and, second, capacity on the part of recipient governments to sift through the advice they receive.
Jeff Sachs has said that officials in some African countries do nothing but receive missions from donors. Tanzania actually imposed a moratorium for a few weeks per year on donor missions in order that they could get some work done. If there were an easy solution, we would have found it. I think the solution is to establish the capacity to filter the advice received.
When institutions are clearly weak, a foreign institution, of which there may be hundreds, may simply set up a juice factory. It would be counted as a foreign institution, but over a generation it should become part of the local fabric. One measure of the issue you raise is whether there is more and more indigenization of the foreign presence.
Senator Di Nino: In this study, we have seen that, with some marvellous exceptions, this has been a total failure. The eventual objective is to eliminate poverty, but, as I said, with a few wonderful exceptions, most people have told us that Africans are no better off today than they were after the war when we started this avalanche of assistance, advice and support. If I understand correctly, most of the direction for these organizations should be under the auspices of the UN. Can the UN do its job in this area? Has it been able to provide the direction that can lead to better results than we have seen?
The Chairman: I should like to comment on Senator Di Nino's question.
It is not that African countries are no better off. We have heard testimony here that many countries are worse off than they were at independence in 1962. At that time, Kenya was an exporter of food. We know what Jeffrey Sachs has had to say. We have had some smart people appear before this committee.
It is unfortunate that the president of the IDRC could not take the time to come to this committee, because this committee takes this project very seriously. I also think it is unfortunate that we do not have material in two languages.
We know about agriculture in Africa. Mr. Massé told us that in 1962 Africa was self-sufficient in agriculture. That is not that long ago. The minister from whom we heard today has a budget of $1.3 million and is talking about wiring Mozambique. It is obviously impossible to do that with $1.3 million. We hear that a continent that was self-sufficient in food 40 years ago now spends as much money importing food as it receives in aid. I think IDRC should give us some advice on what can be done to correct this outrageous situation. We know about plants that grow in the Sahel. This is not satisfactory. I do not know what the budget of IDRC is in Africa, but I would like to hear a more solid contribution than this.
Mr. Medhora: As I said before, if there were easy answers, we would have dealt with this problem.
First, population growth rates in Africa have been the highest in the developing world. One way to address the food security issue is by lowering birth rates. If you look at the trends in other parts of the world, that is accomplished through a variety of interventions, including education and higher incomes.
Second, there are two reasons Africa imports so much. One is that there has been land degradation. We must either have a green revolution in Africa such as there was in South Asia, or we must use technologies in creative ways to increase the productivity of the agrarian land that remains.
The second reason Africans import their food is that the West subsidizes its agricultural sector. As a result, as you mentioned in your previous session, cheap imports into African countries has resulted in a perverse incentive system. It does not make sense for a farmer or pasturer in West Africa to grow his own food or cattle.
You mentioned the UN. There is no single agency or institution that we can hold responsible for this range of issues. However, it is the case that it is the role of the development community, including IDRC, to bring these facts to the table, to operate at all those levels — women's education, higher incomes, lower agricultural subsidies and better land degradation. These are not things we can bullet in one or two minutes. These are complicated issues. This is an issue on which we must invest over time.
There are success stories as well. There are far more democracies in Africa today than there were even five or 10 years ago. There has been progress on some MDGs, but not others. As we saw through the case of the minister, the investment we have made in people a generation ago is starting to pay off.
If we are looking for quick solutions, we will not find them. If we are willing to stay in for the long haul, we will find that that is the only way we will get there.
The Chairman: The long haul so far has been 40 years; that is a long time. It is at least a generation or two.
Senator Grafstein: Let us probe Senator Di Nino's and the chairman's analysis more fully. Today in Zimbabwe, there is a story in the New York Times about farms being ruined today because of the Mugabe policies. Productive farms are being ripped out of the hands of those who produce those farms, that were self-sufficient, that used modern technology and then they are being ruined and turned into non-use. That has happened in the last two or three years. That is not 1962; it is 2004, and this month. The question is this: Where are the international institutions? We are not asking you this. You have said, ``Well, the United Nations and others have been moving,'' but I do not see them moving on that front, where people are being put into poverty because of these practices.
I know that Canada is involved in criticizing the government of Mr. Mugabe, but other than staunch criticism, I do not think action has been taken by the international community and certainly not by the NGO community.
If no one is responsible and no one is accountable, the only advice we are getting is pour more money into what looks like a bottomless sieve, as opposed to making decisions to say we will not deal with most of that continent, maybe we will focus on Mozambique. I made a suggestion in the Senate that we focus on South Africa. Let us ensure that that is a model of productivity.
Maybe the problem with the IDRC is that it has 177 projects, little drops of water all over the place, but there is not one big focus or country that could be a model for the rest of Africa. There is an argument to be made about success cases. That is the way business works — success cases breed success. Do you have a comment?
Mr. Medhora: In regard to Zimbabwe and the concept of bottomless sieve, there are situations, and there are several in Africa, where the international community has limited leverage. Zimbabwe is one of them. You can stay and deal with a regime that is quite inefficient and autocratic, or you can leave. Either way, if you are spending money there, it will not be used wisely.
Senator Grafstein: Before you continue, Canadian policy has been changed under the current regime to talk about the new universal statement about the responsibility to protect. Where does Canadian policy fit into the ability to protect those people who are being dispossessed from their farms, causing massive poverty and worse, as we speak? Where is the United Nations' notion of the responsibility to protect, the Kofi Annan theory, amplified by Canada, yet we see these things happening before our eyes? Has this thought ruminated through the NGO community and through the people spending this money?
Mr. Medhora: I would not speak for the NGO community, as such. I know that there is an active debate on exactly the point of what is the scope of responsibility to protect. When do you act and when do you not? Zimbabwe is an example of that.
Senator Grafstein: Zimbabwe is an example of inaction. This has been going on for three years.
Mr. Medhora: I am not sure it is all inaction. In some cases, there has been active dialogue that has been rejected by the national authorities. We must recognize that it is not all the international players who make the difference. If you deal with a particularly intransigent situation or government, then there is only so much you can do.
That leads me to the other point of where to spend the money and where not to. It would be a mistake for any of us to think that more money is the solution to all of these problems. The trend in the developing community has been to say that resources should be spent in situations or countries where we know they will be well spent. Ever since the so- called dollar report came about five or six years ago from the World Bank, that has been the way in which the donor community has been operating.
What do you do about situations where you know the dollar will not be well spent? Either you keep investing until the situation turns, or you stay away. Both of those carry risks with them, as your Zimbabwe example shows. That should not prevent us from working in situations, and Africa now has several, Senegal, Mali, Uganda and Tanzania, where we know that our interventions can make a difference and where the governments in power are generally sound, as we heard from our colleague from Mozambique, where the intentions are good and the needs are high.
When you have the situation of $1.3 million to wire up the country, there is only so much he can do by being more efficient and saying, ``Let's fight corruption.'' At the end of the day, $1.3 million is $1.3 million.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I know we appreciated listening to the minister. Our experience has been that when we hear Africans tell us about their own situations, it has been extremely interesting. We are all struck by the fact that the minister spoke about wiring Mozambique, but he only has $1.3 million. Would someone like to explain how he will go about doing that with $1.3 million? I have not understood that. Does anyone have any thoughts on that? What is the story? The minister has been before the committee and his presentation was very interesting. We all understand what he is trying to do. What happens now?
Mr. Medhora: There is a domestic allocation process. The minister has colleagues around his cabinet table who have needs and demands as well.
The Chairman: He only has $1.3 million. That would not run very much of a department, never mind an investment.
Mr. Medhora: We have a program on ICTs. It is difficult to convince people, as the minister was saying, that ICTs or science can be applied to these types of problems. Some people still ask why they should invest in computers when they are in a country where the schools do not have chalk for the classrooms.
I was in Senegal in January looking at a school. This was not a rich, upper-class school. The school was in downtown Dakar, where the kids are mostly the children of fisher folk. We are piloting a project to introduce ICTs into the primary school curriculum. The children use icon-based programs to improve their grammar, to learn about the world, to learn about animals and so on. This is a demonstration project. It does not cost a lot of money. We are working with the local education NGO and the Department of Education in the country so they can go national with this pilot project.
Since IDRC is a small institution, we need other folks with us when we go national. The power of demonstration is what we need in this case. Can $1.3 million make the difference? No. However, if our series of projects on ICTs in Mozambique demonstrates to his own government that this is the way forward, then over time the $1.3 million would increase.
The Chairman: Senator Grafstein made a point about how much of what we give goes to health. Senator Downe asked the question. The $1.3 million relates to his department. It has nothing to do with putting in whatever needs to be put in to have the lines. The $1.3 million is for administration. He is administering something, but not very much with $1.3 million.
You are saying that if there is a small demonstration, this will start the ball rolling.
Senator Downe: I do not have a full understanding of your Crown corporation. I am wondering how large it is. What is your yearly budget? Roughly, how many employees do you have?
Mr. Medhora: In 2004-05, our grant from Parliament was $119.1 million. That is approximately 3.6 or 3.7 per cent of Canada's international assistance envelope.
Senator Downe: How many of your employees are based in Canada and how many are outside of the country?
Mr. Medhora: In Canada, we have about 250 employees. We have another 100 in our regional offices in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Senator Downe: I saw from your presentation the number of offices you have in Africa. How many do you have in Asia and Latin America?
Mr. Medhora: We have offices in Singapore for Southeast Asia and in New Delhi for South Asia. In Africa, we have offices in Cairo, Nairobi, Dakar, and there is a smaller presence in Johannesburg. In Latin America, we have an office in Montevideo.
Senator Downe: I noticed that CIDA has refocused their development dollars on a smaller number of countries. Have you done the same thing?
Mr. Medhora: We have not because we are organized primarily thematically. We have organized our programming in the four themes I mentioned. Within that, we spend the bulk of our money in about 20 countries.
Senator Downe: Of those 20 countries, how many are in Africa?
Mr. Medhora: We spend 40 to 45 per cent of our budget in Africa. I think more than half of those 20 would be in Africa.
Senator Downe: The majority of your budget is spent outside of Africa?
Mr. Medhora: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: I have a follow-up question on that. You say that 40 to 45 per cent of your budget is spent on Africa and that 60 to 55 per cent is spent outside of Africa. How much of that is spent in Canada?
Mr. Medhora: About 18 per cent of our projects are what we call cooperative projects with Canadian institutions. Even in that instance, the money that flows through a Canadian institution would go on to a developing country.
Senator Di Nino: How much do you spend on administration? Is this mostly administration?
Mr. Medhora: We also raise another approximately 20 to 25 per cent of our program spending by co-funding with other donors, including CIDA, the U.S. foundations and other bilaterals. If we look at our total annual revenue, we spend about 30 per cent on administration.
Senator Downe: Of your additional funding, other than the allocation from Parliament, which I think you indicated was $119 million, is any of that non-governmental?
Mr. Medhora: Are U.S. foundations what you mean by non-governmental?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Mr. Medhora: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: That is the 25 per cent extra, right?
Mr. Medhora: Yes.
Senator Downe: What dollar figure do U.S. foundations contribute?
Mr. Medhora: Of the $20 million that we raised through external funding last year, about half of it was from Canadian CIDA. The rest was from other bilaterals such as the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Swedes, as well as U.S. foundations.
Senator Downe: These were for joint projects involving those foundations and those countries that we are administering?
Mr. Medhora: Yes.
Senator Downe: Is your corporation covered under the Access to Information Act?
Mr. Medhora: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: I wonder if the government has given thought to approaching development in a different way based on our comparative advantage. We are the most wired country in the world. We now have the highest number of hubs in place. Even though the government is not efficient and effective, under the United Nations statistics, we are the most e-ready country in the world from a governance standpoint. We are the leaders in long distance, fixed line and wireless. We are leaders in communications of all sorts. The key to the new world is wireless and digital communication.
I look at Africa, and the total density is 10 per cent at best in some places. Libya is better off, as well as Egypt, Algeria, and the Mediterranean states.
Canada should think in terms of trying to do something effective instead of spending nickels and dimes that disappear into the Sahara of poverty of Africa and decide to wire up two or three countries. We could do it for $10 million. I could do it myself by phone in three months. I could wire up Mozambique.
Mr. Medhora: I do not know why we have not simply selected a country and said, ``Wire it up.''
After the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, which was three years ago, the government created the Institute for the Connectivity of the Americas. After the G8 Summit in Kananaskis two years ago, they created something similar called Connectivity Africa, both of which recognize the comparative advantage that you mention, and both are housed in IDRC and get co-funding from other donors as well. Could we be doing more? Yes.
Senator Grafstein: Are you spending more than $1 million to match the $1 million in Mozambique?
Mr. Medhora: Our ICT program accounts for one third of our spending. That is probably an understatement because when we do something on social and economic policy or environmental management, there is a strong ICT component as well.
Senator Grafstein: Let us break it down. We are talking about infrastructure versus add-ons. We are not talking about computers and phones. What percentage are we spending on infrastructure?
Mr. Medhora: I do not know the Canadian figures. In IDRC's case, it would be low. We are a research-support agency, not an infrastructure-building agency.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: I will be brief. I would like you to provide us with more details on your external sources of funding; based on the figures which you provided, you receive around $10 million from what you term ``bilaterals,'' is that correct?
Mr. Medhora: Yes, it is.
Senator Corbin: What are bilaterals? Explain to me what you mean by bilaterals?
Mr. Medhora: Our bilateral partners are the development agencies of other countries such as, for example, Sweden and the Netherlands. Our bilateral partners are CIDA's counterparts abroad.
Senator Corbin: Do you only have two bilateral partnerships?
Mr. Medhora: No, we have several.
Senator Corbin: Who are these partners? Do you have a list?
[English]
Mr. Medhora: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Swiss Agency for Development and Corporation, the UK Department for International Development, DFID, USAID, the American aid agency. All the national aid agencies are called bilateral.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Why are they involved in what is essentially a Canadian agency? Do we not have the necessary resources to follow our own path? In other words, explain to me how this ``bilateralism'' in which you are involved with international partners works. You have not yet explained it to me.
[English]
Mr. Medhora: It is again the counterpart to what we just heard. Let us take for granted that Africa is overrun by individual agencies working there. The other side of donor coordination is for donors to group together, choose a common problem and invest jointly in it.
Senator Corbin: Is that a problem or a project? There is a difference.
Mr. Medhora: A project that addresses a problem.
Senator Corbin: You are talking bureaucratese. Could you speak plain English and tell us the plain facts about what this is all about? I just do not understand.
[Translation]
In French or in English. You are talking bureaucrat-speak, which is of no help to us. Day after day, we are inundated with statistics; we want facts, examples, activities, results. Can you provide us with any?
[English]
Mr. Medhora: The problem is low capacity to analyze economic policy in Africa. We created the African Economic Research Consortium, which is a training and resource support agency based in Nairobi. It was created by IDRC. A dozen other donors have joined us over the years since its creation in 1989. That is an example of what I am talking about.
Senator Corbin: That is what I have been asking for from the beginning. Give me more examples. I want to know what we do with our taxpayers' money. I want to know and you have not totally satisfied me that we cannot go this route alone. I particularly do not understand —
[Translation]
Why are American foundations involved in Canadian projects?
[English]
Mr. Medhora: If we jointly recognize that there is something wrong in the developing country that needs to be tackled, and if the American foundation, like the Ford Foundation, has the same goals and objectives as we do, rather than each of us set up our separate projects to deal with, as you say, a problem, why would not we want to work together on it?
Senator Corbin: I am all for that.
Are the monies you obtain from the foundations earmarked in any way? Are they for specific uses, or is this money dumped into a common fund and used by whoever is in charge of administering a particular project? Are decisions imposed from a donor bilateral, or whatever?
Mr. Medhora: It depends. In some cases, the funds are earmarked. In other words, it is what we call core funding, which is to say that it is pooled and the pot is managed commonly. It is a very individual, specific situation.
Senator Corbin: You have to understand, sir, that when you come to Parliament, leave your bureaucratese at the door. It is not helpful. We are not dumb or stupid, but we are here to address specific problems.
In your earlier recitation, you did not at all mention the insidious impact of the IMF and World Bank policies on deteriorating food supplies in Africa. Why did you not mention that? That is well known. Are you aware of it?
Mr. Medhora: Yes, I am.
Senator Corbin: Why did you not mention it?
Mr. Medhora: I am not sure it is all one way. I did mention, by the way, that outside advice has not served Africa well.
Senator Corbin: That is general.
Mr. Medhora: In the case of food policy, countries have been following what is called policies that are biased against the rural sector. In fact, there are instances where the IMF and World Bank have been arguing to raise farm prices so that more food production is grown at home. Where I think a lot of agencies like that have to answer for is to not be more upfront about the effect of agricultural policies in the north on agricultural systems in the south. That is something that the bank and fund have only recently taken up, but it is something they should have dealt with years ago.
Senator Corbin: Yes, after the burnt land policy, finally they wake up. Where were you all that time? Did you not identify this problem as it was developing? What is it that you do?
I will leave it at that, but I am far from satisfied and happy with the approach that this organization is taking to serious human problems.
Senator Eyton: In your opening remarks, you suggested that unless you had a growth rate of something over 5 per cent you were wasting your time. I assume that is because of the high birth rate and the increase in population in Africa and other places?
Mr. Medhora: As well as low rates of return on domestic investment.
Senator Eyton: IDRC has a wide mandate. Have you done anything about lowering birth rates in African countries?
Mr. Medhora: Not directly, no. What we have done is worked on raising levels of education, which do impact on birth rates, on awareness building of the issue, and finally, simply gathering the right statistics, but we have not actually operated on lowering birth rates, no.
Senator Eyton: I would have thought that communicating and giving that kind of advice is exactly how you go about lowering births.
I want to pick up on Senator Grafstein's call for success stories. I have a business background and am well aware that the most important thing in any organization, big or small, is to have some successes and to build on those successes. I see just one sentence in your handout that would discourage me, I think, and it said that IDRC supports 138 different projects and 116 institutions in 22 countries, with a value of $45 million. To do that, you have a staff here in Ottawa of 250, or two and a half times the number of people you have out in the regional offices doing the hands-on work. I would have thought that that recipe of small grants scattered all over the place — it certainly will engender employment and use time here in Ottawa, but I would not think that that is the way to generate success stories that you can look at and that serve as a kind of a living, breathing example for other countries who can emulate.
Have you thought that you might change your way of operating, thereby emphasizing fewer projects in fewer countries and employing more people on the ground in those places and fewer people here? Has there been any fundamental consideration of the direction of the IDRC?
Mr. Medhora: First, we have an international board of governors with 21 members, 10 of whom are non-Canadian who approved our five-year program in November 2004 for the period 2005-10 when this issue arose. Our average project size has been increasing. Second, it is not necessarily the case that you need a large project to demonstrate some things. Some of our success stories have come from relatively small $300,000 to $400,000 investments. Third, on the question of presence on the ground versus in Ottawa, it is not that the people in the regions are delivering the projects and we in Ottawa are not delivering. There is a mixture of competencies in both areas. Cost levels are not necessarily that different and sometimes having a field office can be more expensive than working from an office in Canada. We constantly review our regional presence and we have a system.
For example, Mr. Schönwälder leads a team of eight or nine people situated in both our regional offices and in Ottawa. There are regional specialists in the region and sectoral specialists in head office. Our projects are run by teams. It is difficult to determine the optimal mix of staff between the regions and head office.
You mentioned a business where you can measure that through rates of return. It is much more difficult to do when your output is research. However, we think we have approximately the right mix on the issue you raised.
Senator Eyton: I might accept that if you were dealing with developed countries with developed economies. I find it hard to understand when you are dealing with developing countries that have the rates of poverty and illiteracy that we are seeing in Africa.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: When you set your priorities in terms of which countries and projects are to be chosen, do you undertake consultations with CIDA? Is that something you do when deciding how to focus your intervention? These are Canadian agencies. When encouraging other countries to focus their work, does Canada lead by example by adopting an approach which allows us to optimize our interventions in Africa?
[English]
Mr. Medhora: We have good, close relations with CIDA at every level, although the mandates of the two agencies are quite different. We are much more focussed on research analysis and capacity building. We are a relatively small proportion of the official Canadian aid effort — 3.5 per cent to 4 per cent over the last two decades. The president of CIDA sits on our board of governors. As such, that is the most immediate link. At the executive level, we have exchanges on these kinds of issues regularly, as do program colleagues and staff. The general sequencing would be that IDRC invests in something at the pilot and research stage, and when it becomes large, it becomes something that CIDA might do.
For example, I cite health in Tanzania. The IDRC and CIDA have worked jointly to develop the Tanzania Essential Health Interventions Project in two districts. We are now working together, with CIDA taking the lead, to see, based on the success we have had in the past five years, how this project might be scaled up in the country as well as scaled out. We are working on something similar in Nigeria. That is how it works at the operating level.
Senator Robichaud: When you initiate a project, it does not necessarily mean that once you have shown results, CIDA will continue the project. Would it not be better to have the assurance before you begin the project?
Mr. Medhora: Yes, I agree that it would be better, but times and priorities change, and project gestation periods are long. Working at IDRC, I could not say with any certainty that we would have a commitment from CIDA or any other agency that might click in three, four or five years down the road. I could not give you that assurance at the start of any project because research is fundamentally about success or failure. Research results take you one way or the other way. It is difficult for someone to buy into something that is unproven and in the future.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I think that it would be easy to buy into a project if the results were positive. Were the results negative, you would surely not continue with the project. It does not make sense to commit funding if the results are entirely negative. However, if a project proved to be worthwhile, you would at least have the certainty that an agency could take over and continue the work; the project would not be completely lost.
[English]
Mr. Medhora: Your point is well taken. I gave you the example of Tanzania, where if there is a success story CIDA has said we should do more of the same elsewhere — and we are doing that.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Mr. Medhora, you told us that you held a meeting with the board of governors last fall. How many governors are there on the board?
Mr. Medhora: Twenty-one.
Senator Corbin: Twenty-one, of whom 10 are from countries other than Canada?
Mr. Medhora: That is correct.
Senator Corbin: How many are from Africa?
Mr. Medhora: Two.
Senator Corbin: And who are they?
Mr. Medhora: There is Ms. Lalla Ben Barka, the former deputy director of the UN Economic Commission for Africa, who is now UNESCO's representative at the regional office.
Senator Corbin: What I actually wanted to know was whether any members of your board are real Africans who have had careers in Africa, not representatives of United Nations organizations.
Mr. Medhora: Yes. Ms. Ben Barka is either from Mali or Burkina; Burkina, I think.
Senator Corbin: Yes, but she works for a United Nations organization, she does not work in her own country. Do you understand the distinction that I am making? We know that there are many people in New York buzzing around the hub that is the United Nations. I am talking about Africans working at grassroots level in Africa, not people who work in ivory towers. Are there any such people on your board of governors?
Mr. Medhora: I am not convinced that somebody who works for the United Nations, and who is based in Africa, is not aware of Africa's problems; but, I understand the point that you are making.
Senator Corbin: Are you sure that you have got my message?
Mr. Chairman, we should seriously consider summoning, once again, the president of the IDRC to appear before the committee. Somebody has to be held accountable, somebody has to be politically accountable for the organization's policies and programs. I have many questions to ask on the subject.
[English]
The Chairman: I understand perfectly well what Senator Corbin is saying, as do other members of the committee. There are two points. The committee should not be taking it out on you when these are questions that should be asked of CIDA, and we have not done that. Committee members know that the huge problem in Africa is agriculture, and you have only touched upon that. One could ask why it is that years go by before suddenly someone agrees that, yes, it is a terrible.
We know the Doha Round is trying to address this, but the question does cross one's mind as to how we got into this in the first place. If we have people who are supposed to be researching development, and the one big subject in development is that a huge percentage of the people work in subsistence agriculture and suddenly they are in a state of disaster, why was this allowed to happen? Point one.
Number two, in terms of the witnesses before our committee, most of us would agree — and again, we are not having an inquisition here — that the ones who work in Africa, the African ministers and farmers from different countries we have had, have been very good. Even the minister who was just here told me when I was speaking with him that their main exportable product in Mozambique — which would give them revenue to do the things that they need to do because you cannot do anything if there is no revenue — is cotton. They produce quite a lot of cotton. We all know the cotton scandal, that the prices are being destroyed by subsidized cotton. We have all read the papers about that.
Before I adjourn the meeting, Senator Di Nino, did you want to say a word?
Senator Di Nino: If you are finished?
The Chairman: Yes. Everyone knows what I am talking about.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, I will share with the witnesses, in a form of an apology on my part, that there is a lot of frustration around this room in the facts that we are hearing. So much for so long has been tried, has been given, has been granted, and yet we see little or no results. As a matter of fact, we are hearing that the poverty is actually worse now than it was. If it comes out as being aggressive toward you, we are part of the same organization, we are part of the same government, we are part of the same structures and we can take the liberties that we cannot with a minister or the prime minister of a country.
My colleague asked that we ask the president of the organization to come back. Something has been mulling through my mind that I have discussed privately with one or two of my colleagues and that is the idea of twinning countries so that you have some focus, rather than a variety of 22 countries, 128 projects and all of the other groups that are in effect doing the same thing. You can ask your president — hopefully, she will attend and we look forward to seeing her — to answer this question. Has twinning ever been tried? Is there any benefit to it? Do we have any information that could be helpful in answering that question, which I will also ask of her? I appreciate that.
The Chairman: Thank you. I will adjourn the meeting and thank our witnesses for taking a fair amount of heat this evening. We will be very happy when we can make room for the president of IDRC.
The committee adjourned.