More and better aid is needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals of reducing extreme poverty by half by the year 2015.

At the Millennium Summit in 2000, world leaders committed themselves to the achievement of 8 Millennium Development Goals (sometimes referred to as the 'MDGs') by 2015. Both rich and poor countries agreed to work towards the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, the elimination of gender inequalities, the prevention of environmental degradation, the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS, and the provision of education, healthcare and clean water.

The Millenium Development Goals involve a global deal between rich and poor countries: poor countries pledged to reform policies, improve governance, and to channel resources to development objectives, as embodied by the first 7 Goals. Rich countries, for their part, promised to deliver more and more effective aid, faster and deeper debt relief, and fairer trade rules. Rich country commitments are, in particular, outlined in the 8th Goal.

On June 28, 2005, the House of Commons unanimously passed a groundbreaking resolution calling on the federal government to:

• set a plan to give 0.7 % of Gross National Income in aid annually by 2015;
• introduce legislation to ensure that aid is provided in a manner consistent with Canada's human rights obligations and respectful of the perspectives of those living in poverty; and
• improve our aid effectiveness by strengthening the partnership with civil society, both in Canada and overseas.

Make Poverty History is calling for Canada to take action. Canada should:

• Set a timetable to reach the UN target of 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) within the decade. Because of government inaction, the Millennium Development Goal target of reaching 0.7% of GNI by 2015 may now be impossible for Canada to meet. But if we start now, with 17% annual increases to aid spending, we should be able to achieve the 0.7% goal by 2017.
• Enact legislation to make "ending poverty" the exclusive goal of Canadian foreign aid in a way consistent with our human rights' obligations.

FAQs

Why should the Canadian government honour the 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) targets for foreign aid?

The 0.7% target for official development assistance was first proposed in 1969 in the report of the Pearson Commission, chaired by former Canadian Prime Minister and Nobel Prize winner, Lester B. Pearson. At the time they called on developed countries to set a timetable to reach this target by 1975. The Canadian government committed itself to achieving the 0.7% target over 30 years ago but never set a timetable. Increased aid is needed to invest in development projects and public services such as health and education in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

In 2006-07, Canada's official development aid was about 0.33% of our GNI, or half of what we should be giving. After increasing slowly since 2003 as a result of a government commitment to increase aid by 8% annually, our aid as a percentage of our GNI is expected to fall to 0.32% in 2007-08. The government announced in its Federal Budget 2007, that aid spending in 2007-08 would be held at $4.6 billion, the same dollar level as it was in 2006-07. Because the size of the economy will likely grow, aid as a percentage of GNI will begin moving in the wrong direction.

What countries have achieved the 0.7% aid target?

Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden meet or exceed the UN target of 0.7% of Gross National Income. A number of other countries including France, the United Kingdom, Finland, Spain and Belgium have committed themselves to a timetable to achieving the 0.7% goal.

How does Canada compare to other donor countries?

The donor countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development give an average of 0.47% of Gross National Income in aid. Canada at 0.33% is well below this average. During the last election, Conservative Party committed to increasing Canada's aid levels to reach the donor country average (then 0.42%). The Prime Minister has yet to deliver on this promise.

The Netherlands, a much smaller country with a smaller economy gives more aid in dollar terms than Canada.

What's the big deal about tying aid to conditions set by donor nations? Isn't it a win/win situation?

Tied aid often has negative consequences for those on the receiving end. Take the case of Tanzania: aid to the country was made conditional on the government privatizing the water system in Dar es Salaam, the nation's capital. Doing so has increased water prices for Tanzanian citizens and has made poor populations more vulnerable to water borne diseases like cholera.

Better Aid

Increasing foreign aid is critical to ending poverty; however, improving the quality of the aid distributed is just important as its quantity. Far-reaching changes in how aid is delivered are required in order for these funds to provide the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people.

For both taxpayers and aid recipients alike, we must also ensure that aid spending is accountable and transparent. Too much of Canada's aid is currently not related to fighting poverty.

• Forty percent is tied to purchases of Canadian goods and services and 50% of food aid is tied.
• In 2003-04, only 28% of Canada's ODA went to the least-developed countries (sometimes referred to as LDCs) and another 12% to other low-income countries.
• In recent years aid has been shifted to countries based on security objectives rather than poverty reduction needs.

The Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-293 in May of 2008. It makes the purpose of Canada's foreign aid clear: Canadian aid should be focused on ending poverty.

Bill C-293 requires Canadian foreign aid to:

• Contribute to poverty reduction
• Take into account the perspectives of the poor
• Be consistent with Canada's international human rights obligations.

FAQs

What is the purpose of Bill C-293?

Bill C-293 makes Canadian aid spending more accountable and transparent. It ensures that our aid remains focused on reducing global poverty.

Do any other countries have similar legislation and has it worked?

In the United Kingdom, the 2002 International Development Act makes poverty reduction the primary focus of development assistance. In Sweden, legislation is even broader, stipulating that a poverty and human rights perspective should permeate all government policy. These models have prevented aid spending from being diverted to "flavour of the week" foreign policy whims, ensuring, for example, that British aid was not massively diverted to Iraq after the war.