Please find attached the document again by dfhercbml

VIEWS: 116 PAGES: 7

									>Please find attached the document again. It's in MS-Word 2000 format.
I'm also including the text in the body of this e-mail as follows:

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:CONSULTATIONS MODERATOR/GEORGIA CDPF CONSULTATIONS/CEE BRANCH/CIDA
FROM: EMMANUEL MANKUMAH, DIRECTOR/PROGRAMS, CFTC
SUBJECT:    REVIEW AND COMMENTARY ON GEORGIA CDPF
DATE: 11/13/2003
CC:   JEAN-MARC METIVIER, VICE-PRESIDENT, LUC FRECHETTE, DIRECTOR;
MICHAEL KOROS, ANALYST; ASHLEY MULRONEY, PROGRAM OFFICER; CEE

Dear friends at the South Caucasus Desk, I want to thank you again for
giving us the opportunity to comment and contribute to the formulation
of the Country Development Program Framework. It is obvious that a lot
of thinking and hard work has gone into the development of this
document and I want to join others in commending you and your team for
an excellent effort. Nothing I have said verbally (in Montreal) or will
state in this memo should diminish my respect for this high quality
CDPF. What follows is my attempt to address the three key questions
that have been tabled for consultation process.
Question 1: Characterization of the development realities in Georgia
With respect to Question #1, my view is that the CDPF is generally very
well done! The document is fairly accurate and in-depth. The
characterization of the Governance realities in Georgia is very good.
The portrayal of socio-economic conditions and the deepening/widening
poverty is particularly accurate and troubling. The analysis on Gender,
Youth and Poverty is excellent and extremely useful as a tool in
understanding and interpreting the widening, deepening poverty
situation in Georgia.
However, the analysis could be further strengthened by developing a
paragraph or two on the issue of displacement and its impact. Although
the impact of conflict and security provides a backdrop to the document
as a whole, it is discussed in very abstract terms. Some analysis on
Displacement and Poverty, and the plight of IDPs in general, and the
Gender dimension in particular, will help to put human faces to the
challenge at hand. Of the 272,000 IDPs population in Georgia, 27% are
under 18 years old (including some 8,160 under-5 year-olds) and live in
communal shelters with little access to effective educational and
psycho-social rehabilitation. Women constitute 55% of the total IDP
population. (UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2001). As a group, this
population is about 5.2% of the Georgia‟s population of 5.2 million,
but given the very visible and sensitive nature of the problem, the
issue carries weight far in excess of its proportionate size.
Furthermore, although the gender and youth dimensions of poverty are
discussed, the CDPF is fairly silent on the dimensions of child poverty
and its attendant impact.
Question 2: Are CIDA‟s proposed goals and expected outcomes relevant
and realistic to the development problematique in Georgia? AND
Question 3: What are the key obstacles and opportunities CIDA may
encounter in following the principles of aid effectiveness, reducing
poverty and enhancing sustainable development in Georgia? (I will
respond to the two questions in one go due to their inter-relatedness)
My response to question 2 is both Yes and No for the following reasons.
Yes, the placement of emphasis/priority on governance is relevant to
the extent that governance is all so encompassing. In a sense, „all
roads lead to governance‟ especially in the context of this region. I
am in agreement that governance is all about “how power is exercised
through a country‟s economic, social and political institutions…”
Viewed from this angle then, governance could become a “catch-all but
catch none” framework for CIDA‟s financial resources. Considering
CIDA‟s interest in re-focusing and consolidating, I have a concern that
the exact opposite may occur. My further concern is that in this all-
encompassing, catch-all scenario, faces of the most vulnerable and
displaced in Georgian will get lost in the seamless web of
bureaucracies. At the very least, it would seem appropriate that CIDA
not put all its eggs in this governance basket.
Furthermore, the emphasis on economic governance may require some
further reflections in light of the realities over the past eight
years. Your own analysis demonstrate that the Georgian economy has been
growing at an average of nearly 5% since 1995 yet during this same
period, poverty has both widened and deepened. Your admission that this
was in part due to lack of effective mechanisms “to redistribute the
benefits” is very instructive. My key concern here is that I still do
not see any bold mechanisms proposed to reverse and check the
concentration of wealth from economic growth in fewer hands. My point
is non-controversial: I accept that economic growth is a sine qua non
if poverty reduction is to occur at all but obviously, that is not
enough in itself. Your analysis of the reasons for the growing poverty,
especially, the sectoral nature of the economic growth over the past
eight years is very helpful but the strength of what is proposed to
avoid or reverse this challenge is not nearly as convincing, in my
view. Even in North America (Ontario, as an example), we witnessed this
syndrome in the 1990s when the economy was booming while child poverty
was on the increase.
It is in the context of the above that I also believe the role of civil
society needs to be reconsidered. Right now, as I write, there is
mounting opposition and disgust with the way the current regime
manipulated the November 2nd elections. By your own admission, the
regime has a long way to go in improving probity. Given this admission,
it baffles me why CIDA will even consider putting them in the “driver‟s
seat”, to use World Bank/PRSP‟s parlance. In the not too distant past,
when CIDA has had doubts about the probity of a regime, it has opted to
orient the CDPF more in favour of civil society channels. A case in
point was the Philippines under Marcos and subsequently, when CIDA
channeled a substantial portion of its support through the Philippines
Development Assistance Program (PDAP). By most accounts, the PDAP
experience has been positive for both CIDA and the civil society
members of the PDAP coalition. Might this be a model that is both
timely and cost-effective in the case of Georgia? Admittedly, the level
of maturity of civil society groups in the Philippines was/is more
advance than in the case of Georgia. On the other hand, this presents a
unique opportunity where capacity building can be instrumental in
advancing CIDA‟s agenda.
In advancing the role of civil society including Canadian NGOs) in
Georgia, CIDA will also be advancing Canadian presence in the region, a
stated area of interest. The idea of opening a Cooperation Office is
excellent and long overdue. My caveat here is that CIDA should not view
“Canadian presence” only or even mainly in terms of this type of CCO.
In deed, Canadian presence may more appropriately be emphasized in
terms of ordinary Canadians building people to people collaborations
through civil society engagements. This is also the reason why CIDA
should take a very considered view of the potential outcomes of Direct
versus Responsive programming especially in the context of untied
development assistance. Might it turn out that Directive programming
through untied assistance results in less rather than increased
Canadian presence? What mechanisms or decision-weighing process might
mitigate the potential for such an undesirable outcome?
As I have indicated at the beginning, the CDPF, taken as whole is of a
high quality and demonstrates deep reflection on the part of the South
Caucasus team at CIDA. As often happens, the devil is in the details
and I hope our contribution will help strengthen the framework in terms
of it details and nuances.
Thank you.

Emmanuel Mankumah,
Director of Program
Canadian Feed The Children (CFTC)
174 Bartley Drive, Toronto, Ontario
M4A 1E1
(416) 757-1536 ext.227
E-Mail: emankumah@canadianfeedthechildren.ca
www.feedayoungmind.ca


Thanks.

Emmanuel Mankumah

Jean-Marc Metivier, Vice-President, luc Frechette, director; michael koros, analyst; ashley
mulroney, program officer; cee

 Dear friends at the South Caucasus Desk, I want to thank you again for giving us the opportunity
to comment and contribute to the formulation of the Country Development Program Framework. It
is obvious that a lot of thinking and hard work has gone into the development of this document
and I want to join others in commending you and your team for an excellent effort. Nothing I have
said verbally (in Montreal) or will state in this memo should diminish my respect for this high
quality CDPF. What follows is my attempt to address the three key questions that have been
tabled for consultation process.

Question 1: Characterization of the development realities in Georgia

My view is that the CDPF is generally very well done! The document is fairly accurate a nd in-
depth. The characterization of the Governance realities in Georgia is very good. The portrayal of
socio-economic conditions and the deepening/widening poverty is particularly accurate and
troubling. The analysis on Gender, Youth and Poverty is excellent and extremely useful as a tool
in understanding and interpreting the widening, deepening poverty situation in Georgia. \par
However, the analysis could be further strengthened by developing a paragraph or two on the
issue of displacement and its impact. Although the impact of conflict and security provides a
backdrop to the document as a whole, it is discussed in very abstract terms. Some analysis on
Displacement and Poverty, and the plight of IDPs in general, and the Gender dimension in
particular, will he lp to put human faces to the challenge at hand. Of the 272,000 IDPs population
in Georgia, 27% are under 18 years old (including some 8,160 under-5 year-olds) and live in
communal shelters with little access to effective educational and psycho-social rehabilitation.
Women constitute 55% of the total IDP population. (UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2001 As a
group, this population is about 5.2% of the Georgia’s population of 5.2 million, but given the very
visible and sensitive nature of the problem, the issue carries weight far in excess of its
proportionate size. Furthermore, although the gender and youth dimensions of poverty are
discussed, the CDPF is fairly silent on the dimensions of child poverty and its attendant impact.

Question 2: Are CIDA’s proposed goals and expected outcomes relevant and realistic to the
development problematique in Georgia?
AND
Question 3: What are the key obstacles and opportunities CIDA may encounter in following the
principles of aid effectiveness, reducing poverty and enhancing sustainable development in
Georgia?

I will respond to the two questions in one go due to their inter-relatedness
My response to question 2 is both for the following reasons. Yes, the placement of emphasis
priority on governance is relevant to the extent that governance is all so encompassing. In a
sense, all roads lead to governance especially in the context of this region. I am in agreement
that governance is all about how power is exercised through a country’s economic, social and
political institutions. Viewed from this angle then, governance could become a \'93catch-all but
catch none framework for CIDA’s financial resources. Considering CIDA’s interest in re-focusing
and consolidating, I have a concern that the exact opposite may occur. My further concern is that
in this all-encompassing, catch-all scenario, faces of the most vulnerable and displaced in
Georgian will get lost in the seamless web of bureaucracies. At the very least, it would seem
appropriate that CIDA not put all its eggs in this governance basket.
Furthermore, the emphasis on economic governance may require some further reflections in light
of the realities over the past eight years. Your own analysis demonstrate that the Georgian
economy has been growing at an average of nearly 5% since 1995 yet during this same period,
poverty has both widened and deepened. Your admission that this was in part due to lack of
effective mechanisms to redistribute the benefits is very instructive. My key concern here is that I
still do not see any mechanisms proposed to reverse and check the concentration of wealth from
economic growth in fewer hands. My point is non-controversial: I accept that economic growth is
a sine qua non if poverty reduction is to occur at all but obviously, that is not enough in itself. Your
analysis of the reasons for the growing poverty, especially, the sectoral nature of the economic
growth over the past eight years is very helpful but the strength of what is proposed to avoid or
reverse this challenge is not nearly as convincing, in my view. Even in North America (Ontario, as
an example), we witnessed this syndrome in the 1990s when the economy was booming while
child poverty was on the increase.

It is in the context of the above that I also believe the role of civil society needs to be
reconsidered. Right now, as I write, there is mounting opposition and disgust with the way the
current regime manipulated the November elections. By your own admission, the regime has a
long way to go in improving probity. Given this admission, it baffles me why CIDA will even
consider putting them in the driver’s seat, to use World Bank/PRSP’s parlance. In the not too
distant past, when CIDA has had doubts about the probity of a regime, it has opted to orient the
CDPF more in favor of civil society channels. A case in point was the Philippines under Marcos
and subsequently, when CIDA channeled a substantial portion of its support through the
Philippines Development Assistance Program (PDAP). By most accounts, the PDAP experience
has been positive for both CIDA and the civil society members of the PDAP coalition. Might this
be a model that is both timely and cost-effective in the case of Georgia? Admittedly, the level of
maturity of civil society groups in the Philippines was/is more advance than in the case of
Georgia. On the other hand, this presents a unique opportunity where capacity building can be
instrumental in a dvancing CIDA’s agenda.
In advancing the role of civil society (including Canadian NGOs) in Georgia, CIDA will also be
advancing Canadian presence in the region, a stated area of interest. The idea of opening a
Cooperation Office is excellent and long overdue. My caveat here is that CIDA should not view
Canadian presence only or even mainly in terms of this type of CCO. In deed, Canadian
presence may more appropriately be emphasized in terms of ordinary Canadians building people
to people collaborations through civil society engagements. This is also the reason why CIDA
should take a very considered view of the potential outcomes of programming especially in the
context of untied development assistance. Might it turn out that Directive programming through
untied assistance results in less rather than increased Canadian presence? What mechanisms or
decision-weighing process might mitigate the potential for such an undesirable outcome?

As I have indicated at the beginning, the CDPF, taken as whole is of a high quality and
demonstrates deep reflection on the part of the South Caucasus team at CIDA. As often
happens, the devil is in the details and I hope our contribution will help strengthen the framework
in terms of it details and nuances.
Emmanuel Mankumah,
Director of Program
Canadian Feed The Children (CFTC)
174 Bartley Drive, Toronto, Ontario
M4A 1E1
(416) 757-1536 ext.227
emankumah@canadianfeedthechildren.ca



INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM


TO:     CONSULTATIONS MODERATOR/GEORGIA CDPF CONSULTATIONS/CEE BRANCH/CIDA
FROM: EMMANUEL MANKUMAH, DIRECTOR/PROGRAMS, CFTC
SUBJECT:        REVIEW AND COMMENTARY ON GEORGIA CDPF
DATE: 11/13/2003
CC:     JEAN-MARC METIVIER, VICE-PRESIDENT, LUC FRECHETTE, DIRECTOR; MICHAEL KOROS,
        ANALYST; ASHLEY MULRONEY, PROGRAM OFFICER; CEE



Dear friends at the South Caucasus Desk, I want to thank you again for giving us the opportunity
to comment and contribute to the formulation of the Country Development Program Framework.
It is obvious that a lot of thinking and hard work has gone into the development of this document
and I want to join others in commending you and your team for an excellent effort. Nothing I
have said verbally (in Montreal) or will state in this memo should diminish my respect for this
high quality CDPF. What follows is my attempt to address the three key questions that have been
tabled for consultation process.

Question 1: Characterization of the development realities in Georgia

With respect to Question #1, my view is that the CDPF is generally very well done! The
document is fairly accurate and in-depth. The characterization of the Governance realities in
Georgia is very good. The portrayal of socio-economic conditions and the deepening/widening
poverty is particularly accurate and troubling. The analysis on Gender, Youth and Poverty is
excellent and extremely useful as a tool in understanding and interpreting the widening,
deepening poverty situation in Georgia.

However, the analysis could be further strengthened by developing a paragraph or two on the
issue of displacement and its impact. Although the impact of conflict and security provides a
backdrop to the document as a whole, it is discussed in very abstract terms. Some analysis on
Displacement and Poverty, and the plight of IDPs in general, and the Gender dimension in
particular, will help to put human faces to the challenge at hand. Of the 272,000 IDPs population
in Georgia, 27% are under 18 years old (including some 8,160 under-5 year-olds) and live in
communal shelters with little access to effective educational and psycho-social rehabilitation.
Women constitute 55% of the total IDP population. (UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2001). As a
group, this population is about 5.2% of the Georgia‟s population of 5.2 million, but given the very
visible and sensitive nature of the problem, the issue carries weight far in excess of its
proportionate size. Furthermore, although the gender and youth dimensions of poverty are
discussed, the CDPF is fairly silent on the dimensions of child poverty and its attendant impact.

Question 2: Are CIDA’s proposed goals and expected outcomes relevant and realistic to the
development problematique in Georgia? AND
Question 3: What are the key obstacles and opportunities CIDA may encounter in following
the principles of aid effectiveness, reducing poverty and enhancing sustainable development in
Georgia? (I will respond to the two questions in one go due to their inter-relatedness)
My response to question 2 is both Yes and No for the following reasons. Yes, the placement of
emphasis/priority on governance is relevant to the extent that governance is all so encompassing.
In a sense, „all roads lead to governance‟ especially in the context of this region. I am in
agreement that governance is all about “how power is exercised through a country‟s economic,
social and political institutions…” Viewed from this angle then, governance could become a
“catch-all but catch none” framework for CIDA‟s financial resources. Considering CIDA‟s
interest in re-focusing and consolidating, I have a concern that the exact opposite may occur. My
further concern is that in this all-encompassing, catch-all scenario, faces of the most vulnerable
and displaced in Georgian will get lost in the seamless web of bureaucracies. At the very least, it
would seem appropriate that CIDA not put all its eggs in this governance basket.

Furthermore, the emphasis on economic governance may require some further reflections in light
of the realities over the past eight years. Your own analysis demonstrate that the Georgian
economy has been growing at an average of nearly 5% since 1995 yet during this same period,
poverty has both widened and deepened. Your admission that this was in part due to lack of
effective mechanisms “to redistribute the benefits” is very instructive. My key concern here is
that I still do not see any bold mechanisms proposed to reverse and check the concentration of
wealth from economic growth in fewer hands. My point is non-controversial: I accept that
economic growth is a sine qua non if poverty reduction is to occur at all but obviously, that is not
enough in itself. Your analysis of the reasons for the growing poverty, especially, the sectoral
nature of the economic growth over the past eight years is very helpful but the strength of what is
proposed to avoid or reverse this challenge is not nearly as convincing, in my view. Even in
North America (Ontario, as an example), we witnessed this syndrome in the 1990s when the
economy was booming while child poverty was on the increase.

It is in the context of the above that I also believe the role of civil society needs to be
reconsidered. Right now, as I write, there is mounting opposition and disgust with the way the
current regime manipulated the November 2nd elections. By your own admission, the regime has a
long way to go in improving probity. Given this admission, it baffles me why CIDA will even
consider putting them in the “driver‟s seat”, to use World Bank/PRSP‟s parlance. In the not too
distant past, when CIDA has had doubts about the probity of a regime, it has opted to orient the
CDPF more in favour of civil society channels. A case in point was the Philippines under Marcos
and subsequently, when CIDA channeled a substantial portion of its support through the
Philippines Development Assistance Program (PDAP). By most accounts, the PDAP experience
has been positive for both CIDA and the civil society members of the PDAP coalition. Might this
be a model that is both timely and cost-effective in the case of Georgia? Admittedly, the level of
maturity of civil society groups in the Philippines was/is more advance than in the case of
Georgia. On the other hand, this presents a unique opportunity where capacity building can be
instrumental in advancing CIDA‟s agenda.

In advancing the role of civil society including Canadian NGOs) in Georgia, CIDA will also be
advancing Canadian presence in the region, a stated area of interest. The idea of opening a
Cooperation Office is excellent and long overdue. My caveat here is that CIDA should not view
“Canadian presence” only or even mainly in terms of this type of CCO. In deed, Canadian
presence may more appropriately be emphasized in terms of ordinary Canadians building people
to people collaborations through civil society engagements. This is also the reason why CIDA
should take a very considered view of the potential outcomes of Direct versus Responsive
programming especially in the context of untied development assistance. Might it turn out that
Directive programming through untied assistance results in less rather than increased Canadian
presence? What mechanisms or decision-weighing process might mitigate the potential for such
an undesirable outcome?

As I have indicated at the beginning, the CDPF, taken as whole is of a high quality and
demonstrates deep reflection on the part of the South Caucasus team at CIDA. As often happens,
the devil is in the details and I hope our contribution will help strengthen the framework in terms
of it details and nuances.

Thank you.

Emmanuel Mankumah,
Director of Program
Canadian Feed The Children (CFTC)
174 Bartley Drive, Toronto, Ontario
M4A 1E1
(416) 757-1536 ext.227
E-Mail: emankumah@canadianfeedthechildren.ca
www.feedayoungmind.ca

								
To top