Looking Back on Shanghai World Expo 2010

With the Shanghai Expo coming to a close, it’s time to evaluate what was accomplished by at perhaps the world’s largest PR campaign.

From China’s perspective, the event was a resounding success. With an estimated 100 million guests, and a total cost of some $45 billion, Expo 2010 was far and away the largest, most attended, and most lavish show in the Expo’s 159-year history. Following tightly on the heels of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, China has entrenched its international position, proving that it is capable of the most elaborate productions, and able to summon the world at its beck and call.
What about from Canada’s perspective?

Ignoring operating costs, building our pavilion alone cost Canada $58 million, the majority of it public money. Many have argued that this cost needs to be understood in context, that this spending was well within the average for the G8. The US spent about CAN$61M, the UK CAN$40M, and France CAN $ 67 M. China itself spent $220 million. To Expo’s defenders, the event was simply the cost of doing business in China: a tribute for the new emperor.

Maybe Canada had no choice. Participation was in many ways required. To forgo the event would be considered a snub of the first degree, and the hyper sensitive political elite in Beijing would no doubt have made their displeasure known. Canada has worked hard to repair relations with China over the past few years, and $58 million may not be an exorbitant price to pay for keeping one of our most important trade partners happy.

On the other side of the coin, World Expo should be more about more than appeasement or keeping up with the Jones; it should be about standing out and presenting Canada at its best to the world.

In this way too Canada missed the mark well before the starter’s pistol even began the race. I suppose our intention was to distinguish ourselves from other nations and present an image that “reflects Canadian values of inclusivity, sustainability, and creativity.” However, by doing what everybody else did, trying to define ourselves through aggressive spending on a grandiose pavilion, we faded into the crowd.

We bought a fancy tent, and stacked it full of empty clichés. We hawked raw-lumber and Power Corporation. We paid lip service to the sustainability theme by building a “living wall” and pointing out that once the whole thing is torn down, the 2 x 4 cedar can be used again. Inclusivity, forget about it. Our pavilion largely functioned as a private clubhouse for well-connected deal-makers. One journalist described the public displays to me as “pathetic” offering “easily obtainable information only Canadians could understand. “

Canada had an opportunity at Expo to demonstrate Canadian values of fiscal responsibility, environmental responsibility, and global leadership. Instead of a popsicle- house designed by Cirque du Soleil, we could have stood above the fray and put the money squandered to good use. We could have used the stage to present to the world the good work that Canada has done in international development and cooperation and building healthy communities.

We could have planted a beautiful garden on our space surrounding a prominent sign listing the many health, environment and social justice programs that we were able to fund by not spending the $58 million on a temporary house of chest-thumping and glad-handing.
Now that would have been creative leadership and a public relations triumph!

 

Michael Bloomfield
Founder and Executive Director
Harmony Foundation of Canada
Victoria, BC Canada V8S 1K7
harmony@islandnet.com
www.harmonyfdn.ca

http://chinaandharmony.wordpress.com/

Canada, China and Human Rights: Indifference, Self-Righteousness or a Truly Principled Approach

Canada is not only a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but Canadians were among its principal authors. The protection of human rights is a principle that Canadians take very seriously, one that deeply informs our world view and the way we interpret international relations.

In 2006 the Globe and Mail conducted a major survey that found that 72% of Canadians agree that promoting democracy and human rights in Asia should be a priority. Concerns include the widespread use of the death penalty, “re-education” through labour and arbitrary detention of minorities such as Tibetan, Mongolian and Uyghur people. No less important are the conditions under which people labour to make the consumer goods we buy from China. Accusations of prisoner abuse, including forced labour are bad enough, but organ-harvesting claims are so outrageous they are beyond our comprehension.

These concerns are ones that clearly weigh heavily on the Canadian public’s consciousness. The pursuit of economic and commercial interests can therefore not ignore China’s human rights record without a fundamental clash with Canadian values and public opinion.

If we Canadians are truly committed to human rights and ethical behavior aren’t we obliged to speak up at home and abroad, and work for positive change? Shouldn’t our good reputation and relations in the world compel us to play a constructive role in helping to resolve human rights violations as they occur?

Arguably yes, but, unfortunately, to speak up can also mean to be shut up.
Dealing with Chinese violations of human rights is a difficult balancing act for Canada, as the Harper Government has awkwardly discovered. In the realm of international relations and realpolitik, interests commonly come before principles and to interfere with another country’s internal affairs is often taken as provocation.

China considers human rights to be nothing more than domestic affairs, well outside the realm of acceptable external influence. For the Chinese government, Canada has absolutely no right to interfere in these areas and the Chinese leadership has no reservations about saying so.

When Stephen Harper first came to power in 2006 he took a principled, bold, and ultimately antagonizing stance with China in regards to human rights and Tibet. He made numerous strong speeches, claiming that Canada would not “sell out to the almighty dollar.” He avoided attending the opening ceremony of 2008 Beijing Olympic Games— though he claimed it was not a snub— and even publicly hosted the Dalai Lama in 2007.

After several high profile Chinese snubs, and increasing pressure from Canadian business groups, the Harper government has slowly reversed its tough stance on China.

It hasn’t been easy. In December of 2009 Harper made his first state visit to Beijing, the first prime ministerial visit since Paul Martin in 2005. This lapse was not lost on Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, whose public rebuke of Harper in front of the international press, the Globe and Mail described as an “unprecedented breach of diplomatic protocol.”

Since that time, the Harper government has worked hard to repair relations, and they have indeed improved. Canada has since been awarded “approved destination status” for Chinese tourists, some Canadian beef has been allowed back into the Chinese market, and the two nations have pledged to double bilateral trade.

Unfortunately, a part of this campaign of building back the Chinese relationship has been to roll back our focus on human rights, not a comforting development for those concerned about Canada renewing our old habit of tepidly raising concerns and then pursuing business as usual.

Our challenge is to build and maintain a healthy relationship with China without kowtowing and relinquishing our core values for the sake of a buck. Indifference is not a respectable option, and nor is cynical posturing. The relationship with China cannot be just interests or just principles. We need a maturity that acknowledges the complex reality of the situation that China is too big, too important, and too proud to be treated like a recalcitrant school-boy.

On one hand we cannot be too over bearing, lest the Chinese turn their backs and shut us out. On the other hand, we cannot be silent lest the Chinese take our acquiescence for granted, and ignore our concerns with smiling faces and deaf ears. For both our future and the world’s, we must remain engaged—acquiescence will benefit no one.

This position may be obvious and easily preached in the classroom, but in the real world it is much, much tougher. Some recent scenarios make that dramatically clear. The first is a case of three Tibetan brothers, previously honoured by China and the world for wildlife conservation, that were recently thrown in jail because they tried to stop a government official from hunting illegally in a park. They are not Canadian citizens, but their case is regarded by many international observers as a major reversal of Chinese progress that sets an unsettling precedent. How should Canada respond to this? Do we agree that it is an internal issue and stand back or do we acknowledge the greater implications, become involved even if it threatens our economic interests?

Is the situation different when a Canadian is involved? Another example: Husein Dzhelil, a Canadian citizen of Uighur descent was sentenced in 2007 to life imprisonment by the Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court for “plotting to split the country” and to 10 years in prison for joining a terrorist organization. How do we address this? He unequivocally denies the charges. Do we treat it like a one-off consular case? Do we risk addressing the broader issues of minority repression?

Or do we mumble some objection and then let it go after China rebuffed our enquiries?

How about when a former Chinese prison guard arrives in Europe claiming to have witnessed organ harvesting from prisoners? These horrific accusations have not been proven but do they demand investigation? Should Canada make enquiries, ask for verification, and risk provocation? Do we ignore what may be malicious gossip or join those clamoring for China’s head? What if it is true and verified at a later date? What would our reaction be then after many more people have suffered?

How and when Canada addresses human rights abuses in China and elsewhere is a difficult issue. Material gain that results from ignoring human rights violations is not something Canadians support. We expect our government to behave with integrity when violations occur, even if we risk political or economic consequences. In an age of sound bites and web trolling campaigns we need to keep our wits about us and hold fast to the principles, integrity and common sense that make us the envy of the world. Unless, of course, cheap consumer goods and wealthy Chinese students and tourists are more important to us.

Tibetan Philanthropist Wrongly Imprisoned

How Canada should best engage with China over the issue of China’s human rights practices is not an easy question t address. It is one wrought with complexity, uncertainty, and difficulty, as explained in our recent post entitled Canada, China and Human Rights: Indifference, Self-Righteousness or a Truly Principled Approach.

Let’s look at a developing story, one that exposes some of the thorns in the thicket of Human Rights. Karma Samdrup is a prominent Tibetan environmental activist, and also one of the wealthiest business men in Tibet. He has been praised by the Chinese government and has won international acclaim for his philanthropic work.

On 24th of June, Samdrup was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on the charge of “robbing graves.” He consistently denies this charge, one previously tried and dropped against him in 1998.

Karma Samdrup was arrested again in January 2010, after visiting his brothers in prison. According to Human Rights watch, this appears to be the real reason for his imprisonment—a thinly veiled retaliation for his efforts to gain the release of his two brothers, Rinchen Samdrup and Chime (Jigme) Namgyal. The two brothers were arrested in August 2009, after the award-winning local environmental NGO they had created in their home village had publicly denounced local officials for illegally hunting endangered animals in a park.

This case is especially alarming because of the precedent it sets. Karma Samdrup and his brothers are, by all accounts, model Tibetans. As Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, explains, “These people embody the characteristics the government says it wants in modern Tibetans – economically successful, lending support to only approved cultural and environmental pursuits, and apolitical – yet they, too, are being treated as criminals.”

These arrests appear to be part of a broader crackdown on Tibetan artists, intellectuals, and students that has heightened since the 2008 rioting in Tibet during the lead up to the Olympic Games. This case represents a major set back to China’s progress in political freedoms and environmental leadership.

This is a difficult situation. Because it appears to be such a seminal event, many would argue that Canada has an obligation to address the issue with China. The situation does offend our values— and that is something that is not and should not be easy to walk away from. This could be done diplomatically and would not need to be an affront.

However, It is in no way a consular issue. The people involved are not Canadian, and in no way does the case threaten Canada’s material interests. China would be well within in her rights to say “mind your own business.”

What are your thoughts on the issue, and how Canada should approach the subject?

What advice would you give to Lawrence Cannon, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs?

To read more about this troubling case please see:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/06/10/china-drop-charges-against-tibetan-environmental-philanthropist

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/world/asia/25tibet.html

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/karma-samdrup-06222010095833.html

Canada, China and Human Rights: Indifference, Self-Righteousness or a Truly Principled Approach

Canada is not only a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but Canadians were among its principal authors. The protection of human rights is a principle that Canadians take very seriously, one that deeply informs our world view and the way we interpret international relations.

In 2006 the Globe and Mail conducted a major survey that found that 72% of Canadians agree that promoting democracy and human rights in Asia should be a priority. Concerns include the widespread use of the death penalty, “re-education” through labour and arbitrary detention of minorities such as Tibetan, Mongolian and Uyghur people. No less important are the conditions under which people labour to make the consumer goods we buy from China. Accusations of prisoner abuse, including forced labour are bad enough, but organ-harvesting claims are so outrageous they are beyond our comprehension.

These concerns are ones that clearly weigh heavily on the Canadian public’s consciousness. The pursuit of economic and commercial interests can therefore not ignore China’s human rights record without a fundamental clash with Canadian values and public opinion.

If we Canadians are truly committed to human rights and ethical behavior aren’t we obliged to speak up at home and abroad, and work for positive change? Shouldn’t our good reputation and relations in the world compel us to play a constructive role in helping to resolve human rights violations as they occur?

Arguably yes, but, unfortunately, to speak up can also mean to be shut up.

Dealing with Chinese violations of human rights is a difficult balancing act for Canada, as the Harper Government has awkwardly discovered. In the realm of international relations and realpolitik, interests commonly come before principles and to interfere with another country’s internal affairs is often taken as provocation.

China considers human rights to be nothing more than domestic affairs, well outside the realm of acceptable external influence. For the Chinese government, Canada has absolutely no right to interfere in these areas and the Chinese leadership has no reservations about saying so.

When Stephen Harper first came to power in 2006 he took a principled, bold, and ultimately antagonizing stance with China in regards to human rights and Tibet. He made numerous strong speeches, claiming that Canada would not “sell out to the almighty dollar.” He avoided attending the opening ceremony of 2008 Beijing Olympic Games— though he claimed it was not a snub— and even publicly hosted the Dalai Lama in 2007.

After several high profile Chinese snubs, and increasing pressure from Canadian business groups, the Harper government has slowly reversed its tough stance on China.

It hasn’t been easy. In December of 2009 Harper made his first state visit to Beijing, the first prime ministerial visit since Paul Martin in 2005. This lapse was not lost on Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, whose public rebuke of Harper in front of the international press, the Globe and Mail described as an “unprecedented breach of diplomatic protocol.”

Since that time, the Harper government has worked hard to repair relations, and they have indeed improved. Canada has since been awarded “approved destination status” for Chinese tourists, some Canadian beef has been allowed back into the Chinese market, and the two nations have pledged to double bilateral trade.

Unfortunately, a part of this campaign of building back the Chinese relationship has been to roll back our focus on human rights, not a comforting development for those concerned about Canada renewing our old habit of tepidly raising concerns and then pursuing business as usual.
Our challenge is to build and maintain a healthy relationship with China without kowtowing and relinquishing our core values for the sake of a buck. Indifference is not a respectable option, and nor is cynical posturing. The relationship with China cannot be just interests or just principles. We need a maturity that acknowledges the complex reality of the situation, that China is too big, too important, and too proud to be treated like a recalcitrant school-boy.

On one hand we cannot be too over bearing, lest the Chinese turn their backs and shut us out. On the other hand, we cannot be silent lest the Chinese take our acquiescence for granted, and ignore our concerns with smiling faces and deaf ears. For both our future and the world’s, we must remain engaged—acquiescence will benefit no one.

This position may be obvious and easily preached in the classroom, but in the real world it is much, much tougher. Some recent scenarios make that dramatically clear. The first is a case of three Tibetan brothers, previously honoured by China and the world for wildlife conservation, that were recently thrown in jail because they tried to stop a government official from hunting illegally in a park. They are not Canadian citizens, but their case is regarded by many international observers as a major reversal of Chinese progress that sets an unsettling precedent. How should Canada respond to this? Do we agree that it is an internal issue and stand back or do we acknowledge the greater implications, become involved even if it threatens our economic interests?

Is the situation different when a Canadian is involved? Another example: Husein Dzhelil, a Canadian citizen of Uighur descent was sentenced in 2007 to life imprisonment by the Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court for “plotting to split the country” and to 10 years in prison for joining a terrorist organization. How do we address this? He unequivocally denies the charges. Do we treat it like a one-off consular case? Do we risk addressing the broader issues of minority repression?

Or do we mumble some objection and then let it go after China rebuffed our enquiries?

How about when a former Chinese prison guard arrives in Europe claiming to have witnessed organ harvesting from prisoners? These horrific accusations have not been proven but do they demand investigation? Should Canada make enquiries, ask for verification, and risk provocation? Do we ignore what may be malicious gossip or join those clamoring for China’s head? What if it is true and verified at a later date? What would our reaction be then after many more people have suffered?

How and when Canada addresses human rights abuses in China and elsewhere is a difficult issue. Material gain that results from ignoring human rights violations is not something Canadians support. We expect our government to behave with integrity when violations occur, even if we risk political or economic consequences., In an age of sound bites and web trolling campaigns we need to keep our wits about us and hold fast to the principles, integrity and common sense that make us the envy of the world. Unless, of course, cheap consumer goods and some wealthy Chinese students and tourists are our priority.

The Canadian-Chinese Trade Relationship

China is now world’s second largest economy. The centre of global manufacturing, China is the world’s largest importer and its second largest exporter. By all economic indicators China has risen, and with sustained double digit growth is indeed still rising.
This phenomenal transformation happened as companies across the world raced to relocate production to take advantage of low wages and a potential market of 1.3 billion people, including an emerging middle class that, according to the market research firm Euromonitor, has already reached 80 million and will grow to 700 million by 2020.

China has become an increasingly important trading partner for Canada too. While still dwarfed in volume by the United States, China has become our second biggest import destination (10.9% of imports compared to the US with 51%) and our third biggest export destination (3.1%, compared to the UK with 3.36% and the US with 75%).

In the lead up to the G8 and G20 summit, Premier Hu and Prime Minister Harper pledged to further that relationship and to double bilateral trade by 2015 to $60 billion.

This projected increase may be good for Canada if we get it right. As the recent recession made painfully clear, the American greenback is not infallible and if Canada is going to maintain its economic strength in the 21st century it is going to need to diversify its trade portfolio. With its soaring economy and prospects for the future, it only makes sense that China should play an increasingly larger role in Canada’s future trade strategy.

However, the crucial point is just that: Canada’s trade with China must be managed as a part of a forward-thinking and comprehensive strategy.

At the moment, Canada’s trade relationship with China is one of great imbalance. China sells us cheap consumer goods and electronics and we, almost exclusively, sell them raw resources— agricultural produce, pulp, lumber, oil and gas, coal, minerals, metallic ore. A table of the top ten imports and exports is included at the bottom of the post.

There are several problems with this current trade relationship. First of all, it is problematic from a Canadian point of view because natural resources are inherently unstable. Some natural resources— such as those in agriculture and forestry – produce at the whims of nature. The potential for bad weather, disease, and pests can all lead to sudden unforeseen disaster. More important however, all natural resource exports are unreliable in the sense that they are commodities that lack a unique selling point. Pulp from BC is not much different than pulp from elsewhere in the world, and the same goes for Alberta’s oil, Manitoba’s canola seeds, or Saskatchewan’s potash. If there is a sudden surge of output or a change in demand anywhere in the world, Canadian prices will be affected. Subject to intense competition and the fluctuations of natural systems and the international market, Canada’s current export base is at the mercy of forces well beyond our control.

Another problem with this current relationship is that it is not forward looking. It is representative of a past age, with Canada the hinterland supplying the needs of “metropoles” elsewhere in the world. If Canada’s role in the chain of production remains unchanged, China is merely replacing the United States, and the United Kingdom before that. If Canada wants to remain a global economic player we need to be more creative and much more innovative.

At the moment there is an enormous opportunity in the world for those actively engaged in the development of low-carbon and other “green” technologies. Rising energy costs, increasing resource scarcity, and a growing awareness of the enormous risks from climate-change, offers great potential for technologies and expertise that improve efficiency and reduce our environmental footprint.
According to estimates from a 2009 report by Roland Berger Strategy Consultants called “Clean Economy, Living Planet,” clean energy technologies will be the third-largest industrial sector in the world by 2020. The water treatment industry in China alone is projected to be worth $1 trillion by 2025. The global demand for green technologies is already on the rise, and, according to another report last year by the Canadian Conference Board, the green tech industry has grown at about 10 per cent each year between 2002 and 2008.
While making strides towards an environmentally sound, economic base, Canada does not have to reinvent itself. Our long history with natural resources and our natural geography give us definitive advantages over other countries, notably in waste management, water treatment, and energy-efficient resource extraction technologies. Canada may also be able to develop strengths in wave and tidal power and the next generations of biofuels.

While the opportunity is there, Canada is largely missing out. From 2002 – 2008, the same time period of global growth in the industry, Canadian trade in the green-tech sector actually shrunk by 2% a year, when adjusted for inflation. Comparatively, from 2000 – 2009 Canada’s oil production increased by 85%. Considering that oil prices will increase as demand rises and supply falls, this liquidation of our energy assets is simply bad business. At the same time, neglect of low-carbon energy— undoubtedly the energy sector of the future— is simply bad long-term economic policy.
The stimulus funding of 2009 presented a great opportunity for Canada to invest in the green economy. In the midst of the recession UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for a “Green New Deal” with investments focused on renewable green energy, green jobs and greater energy efficiency. Many of the world’s most powerful economies responded. South Korea allocated 78% of its stimulus to the green economy, and China 30%, and the US 12%. Canada spent just 8.8%– which placed us 10th in the ranking of the G20. Furthermore, according to a recent report, nearly half of that 8.8% was slated for funding of profitable oil companies for unproven carbon capture and storage technology.
Unfortunately in the past year not much has changed. According to the same report, entitled “Falling Behind: Canada’s Lost Clean Energy Jobs,” produced by Environmental Defense Canada and United Steel Workers, in 2009 Canada invested just $357 million on renewable energy, compared to the US which spent $27 billion. Even on a per-capita basis the US invested almost 9 times more than Canada. The report estimates that this investment gap already has cost Canada 66,000 direct and indirect jobs, not including the job opportunities lost in greener transportation and energy efficiency.

In stark contrast to the lackluster incentives given to green economic development, the Canadian government gives the oil and gas industries $2 billion a year in subsidies and tax relief, according to the Pembina Institute’s most recent estimate. This is an industry with annual revenue of $80 billion, and while profits have been down since their record highs in 2008, profits posted this quarter indicate a strong come back. In fact, following the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico the Albertan oil sands are looking more and more appealing to US buyers and the Canadian industry’s prospects are looking brighter than ever. Subsidies of this scale for an industry that is this profitable are absolutely ridiculous.

Canada’s oil and gas industry simply does not need government support. This is a fully mature industry that is more than capable of standing on its own two feet. Not only that, but those feet are firmly planted where they stand. Unlike other industries, like automotives, there is no risk of flight with the oil patch. The resource is ours and unlike an assembly plant it is not at risk of being moved elsewhere, no matter how much the oil and gas industry blusters.

China is already on board for pursuing a more sustainable path to economic development. They have acknowledged that their current approach simply cannot be maintained. While the West polluted its way to development and managed to put off dealing with its consequences, China cannot do the same. They are already choking on their own growth, reeling from the effects of unprecedented levels of smog, desertification, water contamination, and deforestation, to say nothing of the human costs.

In a nationally televised speech, which opened the annual session of the National People’s Congress in 2007, Premier Wen Jiabao announced:

“We must make conserving energy, protecting the environment and using land efficiently the breakthrough point and main focus for changing the pattern of economic growth.”
China is showing leadership and taking the initiative to chart sustainable economic growth and development. Canada needs to reassess its economic priorities in general, but needs to re-evaluate its relationship with China in particular. China’s economy is going to drive the 21st century, and how Canada relates to that economy is going to determine our future in this new century. We can continue to be hewers of wood and haulers of water or become leaders in the research and development of the technologies and methods which the world needs to ensure a healthy, sustainable, and secure future, as do we.

Canada’s Merchandise Trade with China, 2009
Canadian Imports from China Canadian Exports to China
Merchandise Classification % Merchandise Classification %
1 Electrical machinery and equipment 21.53 Oil seeds and misc. fruit, grain, etc. 14.33
2 Boilers, mechanical appliances, etc. 17.92 Woodpulp; paper or paperboard scraps 13.34
3 Toys, games, sports equipment 7.92 Ores, slag and ash 12.81
4 Furniture and stuffed furnishings 6.24 Mineral fuels, oils 8.01
5 Woven clothing and apparel articles 5.26 Boilers, mechanical appliances, etc. 7.78
6 Knitted or crocheted apparel 5.05 Nickel and nickel articles 6.38
7 Iron or steel articles 4.05 Fats, oils and waxes 3.68
8 Footwear 3.42 Wood and wood articles, charcoal 3.48
9 Plastic and plastic articles 3.12 Organic chemicals 3.43
10 Motor vehicles, trailers, bicycles, 2.42 Plastic and plastic articles 2.92
motorcycle

Top 10 as % of total from China 76.92 Top 10 as % of total to China 76.17
Chinese imports as % of Cdn total 10.86 Chinese exports as % of Cdn total 3.27

Source: http://www.asiapacific.ca/statistics/trade/bilateral-trade-asia-product/canadas-merchandise-trade-china

On the Environment: Canada Continue to Lift Far Below our Weight in China

Incredible dramatic economic growth since the 1970s has transformed China into a dominant force in the world economy, raising the standard of living for millions of Chinese.

China’s new role as a global power presents new challenges to the ranking world powers. Western nations can no longer afford to ignore or isolate China, which is quickly becoming a pace-setter on the world stage.

However, China’s economic success has not come without a steep environmental cost. The last three decades of unabashed economic and industrial growth has wreaked catastrophic results on the environment and compelled China to seek foreign partners to chart a greener more sustainable course for the future. According to TIME magazine, China currently occupies the dubious distinction of having two of the top ten polluted cities in the world, with Linfen and Tianying occupying the top two positions on the list. The top ten polluted rivers in the world include China’s Pearl and Yellow Rivers. While only 44th in the world per capita, China is by far the world’s worst polluter nation with the highest overall annual emission of greenhouse gases (6,018 million tonne).

Canadian companies, governments and organizations have an unprecedented opportunity to leverage their expertise and technological innovations in the environmental sector to create unique green solutions with the world’s foremost emerging economy. We not only have the opportunity to strengthen trade and commerce with China, which are commonplace today, but also long-term relationships in the vitally important and rapidly growing fields of environmental sustainability, education and social development.

However, moving forward the question remains; is Canada doing its part to help China through her environmental challenges or are we shirking our responsibilities in exchange for lucrative short-term economic profits? Does Canada have a long-term plan moving forward for its relationship with China? If so, what are our goals and interests in China besides dollars and cents and how can we show leadership on the environment and the development of more inclusive and open society?

The evidence strongly suggests not only that the Canadian relationship with China lacks a clear sense of direction, but that rhetoric about environment and human rights is a thin veneer covering overwhelmingly commercial ambitions emphasizing fossil fuels, uranium and lumber. Significant evidence of a long-term commitment towards environmentally and socially sustainable development is simply not there,
The Canadian relationship with China seems as backwards as the coal-burning plants that Canadian companies are installing in China. Rather than emphasizing investment in the economy of the future, renewable energy, value-added commodities and green solutions to tackle climate, water and other problems, the Canadian model has been strictly ‘business as usual.’ What message are we presenting to China, that Canadian companies are only driven by bottom-line economics and not the place to look for innovative solutions to the pressing environment and development issues facing China, Canada and the world? For example, Canada’s leading overseas development agency, CIDA, lists one of its objectives as “to promote environmental sustainability in China through support for Chinese efforts to manage environmental issues in western regions of China by enhancing the capacity of the country’s land resource management systems.” Laudable goals and sentiments but what’s preventing CIDA from delivering results?

As we explored in the blog article entitled “Where’s the Beef in the Canada China Relationship” there is much political pressure on CIDA to abandon China because China has the financial capability to provide for itself. We disagree because China’s development decisions will affect the world’s economy, security and environment, trends to which Canada will not be immune.

In the interest of meeting our global responsibilities we must do more not less. However, we must recognize that funding needs to be focused on sustainability initiatives that bring practical results, prosperity while protecting public health and the environmental and building social assets too.

CIDA certainly talks the talk, but how well it actually walks the walk is an entirely different story. In too many cases CIDA’ rhetoric and progress at the grassroots level simply do not match, a problem across government where much more money is spent on policy development, bureaucratic exchanges and research without practical application than spent on results- based projects which improve health, education, social justice and the environment.

For example, between 2005 and 2012 CIDA spent 13.5 million dollars on a Statistical Information Management project, “so that it can provide data relevant to the Millennium Development Goals and other international economic, environmental, and social agreements.” Do Canadian taxpayers need to spend over 13 million dollars on data collection? Another project, led by Simon Fraser University, consumed over 16 million dollars developing agricultural policy options for China. SFU doesn’t have a department of agriculture and like many other projects there isn’t clear evidence that this project generated real results for communities and peoples in China. Need another example, how about over 4.4 million dollars being spent on “Cooperation on the Management of the Environment Sustainability.” Sounds good right? Unfortunately most of the money was consumed by more policy options, study tours and talks about environmental sustainability.
Now don’t get me wrong, I respect the value of baseline research in order to collect information necessary to develop and implement practical projects, and I believe CIDA supports many valuable activities despite political pressures to increasingly fund commercial or bureaucratic initiatives.

However, looking at the list of CIDA’s funded projects the majority seem to simply study and write about policies, and never produce or even lead to results for communities and people and the environment in China. It is one thing to study and analyze problems at Canadian universities, and consulting companies but there simply is not enough funding available to waste in on projects that produce little more than work and professional credits and papers for the participants. CIDA is not the only Canadian government organization whose mission is comprised by misdirected and misplaced spending; recently NRCAN launched a project to export “clean coal” to China and India. If you have a perplexed look on your face, you are not alone; there is nothing clean about coal period. According to NRCAN, “coal’s environmental impacts are the primary challenge to overcome for this industry to continue its vital role in providing an essential service. NRCAN’s “Canada’s Clean Coal Technology Roadmap” essentially provides Canadian corporations with more opportunities to flog their dirty coal products overseas, reaffirming that it is “business as usual.”

And what about Environment Canada our lead agency for environmental protection, conservation and management, what could they be doing? Of course, we need to meet our national requirements for clean air and water, carbon reduction, but Canada cannot even meet its own goals let alone its international commitments by staying home. Our environmental report card has been inconsistent at best.
In the year 2010 Canada still dramatically lags behind other dev eloped nations in demonstrating a tangible commitment to the environment. A 2008 analysis by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in collaboration with the financial services and consulting firm Deloitte concluded that Canada currently ranks sixth among the eight major economies when it is evaluated across five key categories and 1.5 comprehensive indicators necessary for low-carbon performance. In comparison to the rest of the G8, Canada continues to fall severely behind in the creation of green energy jobs, sustainable energy investments and renewable technologies. Simply put, Canada has some serious catch up to do in the Green Race.

Although this isn’t a pitch from some naive Sinophile there is much to be admired in China’s emerging grassroots environmental effort. There should be no doubt that China’s environmental performance will greatly affect the health and well-being of Canadians too! And, of course, the environmental consequence of our voracious appetite for cheap consumer goods gives us greater responsibility.

Simply put Environment Canada should be doing more to help China protect endangered species and disappearing habitat, to conserve energy, rehabilitate its fresh water and reduce carbon and other greenhouse gases. For that to happen Canadians and our leaders a need a new type of thinking, one that looks towards the future and not back at the past, which contributes to meeting the world’s problems rather than just talking about them.

A Closer Look At CIDA: Transparency, Accountability, and A Dash of Common Sense

As the previous post discussed, CIDA has cemented a solid commitment to Chinese development and has in place a laudable program framework, however, there remain serious problems with CIDA’s implementation of that program.
The first major issue is with its transparency.

For a public organization with a $3.6 billion budget, CIDA certainly has low levels of public transparency. Despite much talk about proactive disclosure, there are no publicly available sources that give detailed and systematic accounts of the agency’s spending and the results that they have achieved.

We are told that in China $56 has been spent, but that is all. There is no break down of the areas that has been spent in or a list of all the projects that have been funded. Projects can be searched through the Projects Browser, but not all are listed, it appears to be a year outdated, and the information provided is very uneven. For some projects, pages are written; on others, less than thirty words.
Aside from the online projects listings, the main initiative CIDA seems to have undertaken amounts to a glossy 33-page brochure entitled “Development for Results.” Here there are lots of pictures, and case studies, and a broad break down of the numbers. The information is far from comprehensive, and is certainly insufficient to make an assessment of.

Unfortunately, the terms that define CIDA’s China mandate, such as “capacity building” and “sustainable development,” are notoriously ambiguous and open to interpretation. They can mean a lot, and with a little creativity they can mean almost anything. Without comprehensive information on the projects being sponsored it is impossible to tell if they are legitimate forms of development. As previous posts have discussed, by reviewing the public information on its projects in China, many of CIDA’s undertakings appear to be little more than exchanges of dignitaries, academic indulgence, and overly gratuitous research— all of which may be good for international relations and portfolio building but that does little to advance real solutions to development. This criticism may be overly harsh, but without better disclosure this is exactly the kind of accusation that the agency leaves itself vulnerable to.

One hopes that greater disclosure would eliminate the kinds of wasteful programs that get the agency into hot water with the press and public. One prominent example of this came in early 2009, when it was revealed that through its Industry Cooperation program CIDA had funded a large Ontario ice wine vintner and a Montreal lingerie manufacturer to research developing operations in China. Outrage, confusion, and bemusement ensued in the editorial lines across the country. CIDA emerged with a blackened eye and a tarnished reputation, and Canada’s entire development undertaking was put in serious jeopardy.

Although highly questionable, these projects are not representative of the vast majority of the agency’s undertakings. The clear majority of CIDA’s undertaking are well designed and well deployed. The agency is, however, subject to political oversight, and occasionally that oversight blurs into interference. Politicians have in the past unfortunately used the agency’s resources to advance special interests. Greater public exposure would in the firstly discourage these wasteful, indefensible initiatives and secondly ensure that when they do happen they are understood in the broader context of all the good work that the agency does.

Perhaps CIDA feels that full disclosure would mean greater risk, that certain details of its operations might be misunderstood or taken out of context by aid opponents, and that the agency would be criticized for some project failures. In fact, the opposite is true. While there would certainly be some criticism, full disclosure would go a long way in strengthening public trust. If people are able to see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent, and the differences they are making, they will not begrudge spending them.

More than just preventing the spread of negative publicity and misperceptions, full disclosure would benefit our development program through constructive feedback and evolutionary change. The system would become more responsive to the people it is meant to be helping and more adaptive to a world and development context that is ever changing. For the sake of the democratic health of our entire international development undertaking, we need greater transparency at CIDA and in our aid programs generally.

The second major concern we have with Canada’s current development strategy in China is accountability. By this we are referring to what is expected in terms of records and audits of CIDA’s grant recipients. Here CIDA’s current policy, unlike its transparency policy, is excessive and overbearing, and could benefit from some common sense.

Typically, all CIDA grant recipients in any given program are subject to the same reporting requirements, regardless of grant size or the organization’s track record. On top of regular reports and evaluations, grant recipients must provide and pay for a special project audit required by CIDA, one separate from the annual audit already required to maintain charitable status.

This practice is prohibitively expensive and tends to discourage proposals from smaller and newer organizations, favouring instead larger, often more bureaucratic, organizations. Opportunities for more innovative and flexible development solutions are being lost for the sake of liability protection fostered by a bureaucratic culture based on fear of error or criticism. Obviously, systematic accountability measures are important, and a fundamental component of responsible governance. However, accountability measures need to be adaptable to context— to take into account the size of the funding, the size of the organization, and its previous track record.

CIDA does good and valuable work, however without full transparency, the public is unable to fully understand the differences it makes. The agency is instead seen only in the lights of bad publicity and misunderstandings. Shrouded in confidentiality, the agency is also hindered in its growth and development. Without proper oversight and criticism, the agency is unable to keep pace with the changing landscape of the world around us. The accountability measures it asks from its recipients are a key example of this outdated model. Geared towards the administrative capacities of behemoth international organizations like the UN, World Bank, and IMF, CIDA is missing out on great opportunities with the smaller, more agile, and more creative NGOs that are simply unable to deliver the standards that CIDA demands.

Greater transparency, flexibility, and common sense would go along way to making good work go further.