Formative Evaluation of Canada’s Development Assistance on Extractives and Sustainable Development
FY 2010-11 to FY 2016-17

December 19, 2017

List of Acronyms

ALSF

African Legal Support Facility

ARIA

Architecture for Results in International Assistance

ASM

Artisanal and small-scale mining

CIDA

Canadian International Development Agency

CIRDI

Canadian International Resources and Development Institute

CSOs

Civil Society Organizations

CSR

Corporate Social Responsibility

DFAIT

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EITI

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative

EXCEED

Extractives Cooperation for Enhanced Economic Development Program

FY

Fiscal Year

GC

Government of Canada

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GE

Gender equality

ICMM

International Council on Mining and Metals

IFC

International Finance Corporation

IGF

Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development

MDTF

Multi-Donor Trust Fund

MSMEs

Micro, small, and medium enterprises

Norad

Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

NGOs

Non-governmental organizations

NRCan

Natural Resources Canada

PRA

International Assistance Evaluation Division

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

SEG

Sustainable Economic Growth Strategy

TMAA

Tanzania Mineral Audit Agency

VPI

Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative

Acknowledgments

The International Assistance Evaluation Division (PRA) would like to thank all of those who contributed to this evaluation, including colleagues from Natural Resources and Governance (MES) who provided support and advice throughout the evaluation process and the Colombia, Peru, Tanzania and Mozambique programs who hosted the field missions to facilitate the data collection.

The evaluation design, collection of data and analysis for this evaluation was carried out by an independent evaluation team from Project Services International and PLAN:NET Limited. The reporting phase for this evaluation was done by Dianne Lepa and Amanda DeSadeleer from PRA. PRA provided oversight and management throughout the evaluation process.

We would like to thank the many stakeholders and partners who participated in interviews in Canada and abroad, and who helped to build a better understanding of Canada’s impact within the extractives and sustainable development sectors.

David Heath
Director, International Assistance Evaluation, Global Affairs Canada

Executive Summary

This evaluation provides an evidence-based neutral assessment of Global Affairs Canada’s development assistance on extractives and sustainable development globally. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are intended to contribute to informed decision making and to support policy and program improvements.

Rationale and Scope

In January 2015, Global Affairs Canada’s former Development Evaluation Committee requested that a thematic evaluation of Canada’s development assistance on extractives and sustainable development programming be launched. Evaluation questions were designed to address issues of relevance, effectiveness (including the cross-cutting themes of gender equality, governance and environmental sustainability), the sustainability of results achieved, as well as programming efficiency. Since Global Affairs Canada does not have a specific extractives and sustainable development program, evaluators identified and collected information on all projects that were internally coded as contributing to the extractive sector (either partially or fully) and that had disbursements between Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11 to FY 2015-16. The final portfolio included 77 projects that disbursed approximately $218 million over the six-year review period and are listed in Appendix 2. The evaluation also reviewed the policy work that Canada had done globally in the extractive sector.

Programming Portfolio

In 2009, Sustainable Economic Growth (SEG) became a priority for Canadian development assistance. In 2010, the SEG Strategy was announced on the basis that to reduce poverty, development efforts needed to focus on stimulating sustainable long-term national, regional, and local economic growth.

In 2011, Global Affairs Canada’s approach for development assistance on extractives and sustainable development was formulated. Instead of developing a specific program, an approach for designing projects across divisions was designed using the SEG Strategy as the overarching framework. Under this framework, three extractives programming pillars were identified: Improving Resource Governance Capacity; Growing Businesses and Supporting Local Economic Development; and Enabling Communities to Maximize Benefit. Improving Resource Governance Capacity was the primary area of focus, with 61 percent of disbursements during the evaluation period were to projects supporting this pillar. The intended result of the 77 projects was to increase the contribution of the extractive sector (mining of metals and minerals, oil, and gas) to sustainable economic development and poverty reduction outcomes in resource-rich developing countries.

In June 2017, the Feminist International Assistance Policy was announced. Going forward, Global Affairs Canada programming will align with this policy.

Findings

The evaluation found that Global Affairs Canada’s provision of extractives programming had been relevant to resource-rich countries’ needs and requests for assistance, as well as to Canadian goals to reduce global poverty and promote sustainable development. The extractives portfolio was aligned with key Canadian policies and priorities during the time under review and could be aligned with emerging international assistance policy priorities.

The performance of the extractives portfolio was determined to be on track to meet expected outcomes. However, the achievement of results across the extractives portfolio was found to have been negatively impacted by a series of factors: rapid timelines of programming that promoted short-term projects and prevented more strategic decision making and greater coordination across the portfolio; communication challenges that resulted in staff and partners feeling uncertain and frustrated about the actual objectives of extractives programming; challenges accessing extractive sector experts; and performance measurement challenges that prevented the department from aggregating project level results to a departmental or even Country Program level.

As most of the programming was still relatively new, it was unclear whether results would be sustained. However, key factors promoting sustainability included having the right partners, locally-driven decision making, and proven models and tools adapted to the local context.

In terms of efficiency, staff was able to set up programming relatively rapidly by collaborating with a range of existing and trusted multilateral institutional partners initially. While expensive compared to other delivery methods, to date the multilateral funding initiatives provided the most efficient project delivery model for results achieved. Less costly delivery modalities that also produced good results included program-based approaches and core funding to existing institutions. Most of the programming with non-government organizations was at an earlier stage and some had substantial delays as they adapted their models. This meant fewer results to date, making them less efficient in the short term.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Global Issues and Development - Economic Development Bureau (MED) should collaborate with the International Assistance Policy Bureau (PVD) in the Feminist International Assistance Policy suite renewal exercise to provide clearer direction and guidance to branches concerning extractives-related programming. This should include consultations with the International Economic Policy Bureau (PED) and the Foreign Policy Bureau (POD) to ensure alignment with broader departmental policy objectives.

There is a need to clarify the role that extractives-related programming could play in meeting the department’s policy objectives. Guidance could cover:

1. Alignment with the 2017 Feminist International Assistance Policy and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development priorities;
2. Alignment of extractives international assistance cooperation with foreign policy and trade objectives; and
3. Suggested expected outcomes and performance indicators at the project level to promote more consistent and coordinated performance monitoring.

Recommendation 2: The Global Issues and Development - Economic Development Bureau (MED), in collaboration with the International Assistance Policy Bureau (PVD), should develop communication guidelines to support project officers when engaging with partners. These guidelines should provide consistent messaging on the role of extractives- related programming within the Feminist International Assistance Policy.

Management Response

1. Introduction

This evaluation provides an evidence-based neutral assessment of Global Affairs Canada’s development assistance programming in the extractives and sustainable development sectors globally.^{Footnote 1} The findings and recommendations are intended to provide accountability for programming resources, and results to Canadians, Parliamentarians, Ministers, Central Agencies, Global Affairs Canada’s management, partners, and beneficiaries. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are also intended to contribute to informed decision making and to support policy and program improvements.

Evaluation Objectives and Scope

In January 2015, Global Affairs Canada’s former Development Evaluation Committee requested that a thematic evaluation of Canada’s development assistance on extractives and sustainable development be launched.

The formative evaluation was conducted from December 2016 to October 2017.  The evaluation covered the portfolio of extractives-related projects across the department during Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11 to FY 2015-16. Evaluation questions addressed issues of relevance and effectiveness, the sustainability of results achieved, as well as programming efficiency. Since Global Affairs Canada does not have a specific extractives and sustainable development program, evaluators identified all projects that were internally coded as contributing to the extractive sector - no matter how great or small the focus - and that had some disbursements during the period under review. The final portfolio included 77 projects that disbursed approximately $218 million over the six-year review period and are listed in Appendix 2. The evaluation also considered Global Affairs Canada’s policy work and leadership role in the extractive sector globally.

Evaluation Questions:

Relevance

1. To what extent is the current and planned programming relevant to the needs and priorities of recipients and/or stakeholders in developing countries, particularly in relation to poverty reduction?
2. Is current and planned programming strategically aligned with Global Affairs Canada policy approaches including the Sustainable Economic Growth (SEG) Strategy?

Effectiveness

3. To what extent has the programming made progress toward the achievement of expected outcome results?
4. To what extent have the approaches to the design and implementation of programming impacted overall results achieved?
5. To what extent is extractives programming informing and informed by the achievement of results?
6. What factors have had the greatest influence (positive and negative) on the achievement of results?
7. To what extent has the programming integrated gender equality, governance and environmental issues? Have results been achieved in these areas?

Sustainability

8. To what extent is programming likely to produce continued benefits on the community, country, regional and global levels?

Efficiency

9. To what extent have resources been allocated reasonably for achieving the expected outcomes, in light of the thematic context, priorities and alternatives?

Methodology

Evaluation findings and recommendations were the result of the triangulation of evidence from five evaluation methods.

Key Stakeholder Interviews: Thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals, or as small group of interviewees, including 20 Global Affairs Canada management and staff, five civil society organizations (CSOs) and associations, two other government departments in Canada, and three international donors and experts.

Case Studies: Five country case studies were completed including Peru, Colombia, Mozambique, Tanzania and Indonesia. Case studies involved in-depth reviews of 31 projects which included a review of project documents and interviews. On-site visits were made to all countries except for Indonesia. Ninety-two interviews were conducted with countries’ government officials, Global Affairs Canada officials, project implementers, project beneficiaries, community groups and CSOs, donors and multilateral institutions, experts and extractive sector companies.

Project Reviews: Fourteen projects outside of those covered in the case study countries were assessed including their implementation processes and recorded results. Of the 14 projects, eight were geographic projects managed by geographic branches including Asia Pacific, Americas and Sub-Saharan Africa; five were multilateral and global projects managed by Global Issues and Development Branch; and one was a partnership project managed by Partnerships for Development Innovation Branch. To support the reviews, project approval and implementation documents were consulted as well as performance reports and evaluation reports.

Program Reviews: A review of overall Program Frameworks was undertaken to understand overall extractives programming at the country and regional levels including country/regional program strategies, annual reports and results frameworks. Nine countries were included in the review: Peru, Colombia, Mozambique, Indonesia, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mongolia and Senegal. Two regional program were included: the Extractives Cooperation for Enhanced Economic Development (EXCEED) for Africa under the African Regional Program and the Inter-American Regional Program.

Document and Data Review: Program documents were reviewed including internal Global Affairs Canada policy and strategy documents on extractives, as well as documents on the International Assistance Review, the Feminist International Assistance Policy, and other Government policies. Data on the 77 projects was analyzed to see patterns and trends. External documents pertaining to the extractive sector were consulted along with international databases.

Limitations and Mitigation Strategies

The evaluation encountered two key limitations as follows:

1. The extractives portfolio was a series of projects without an explicit or approved results framework at the departmental level (e.g. baselines and expected levels of improvement) making it difficult to determine how the overall results for the programming were to be assessed

To mitigate this limitation the evaluators:

• undertook initial discussions at the evaluation work planning stage with over 25 Global Affairs Canada staff at headquarters and select missions in order to understand the intended results of the overall portfolio;
• used a purposive sampling method that took into account: the complexity of the programming; a variety of delivery channels, geographic areas and pillars; and the context of how projects fit into the broader portfolio; and
• reviewed specific project and program results in the context of the broader portfolio and their fit.

2. New Canadian policies and priorities (Feminist International Assistance Policy) and shifts in results based management tools made it more complex to determine forward-looking lessons and practices

To mitigate this limitation, the evaluators:

• focused on expectations that guided the programming for the evaluation period; and
• in looking forward, made suggestions on the basis of an understanding of practices and of results to date and mapped the relationships between existing frameworks and information available on the Feminist International Assistance Policy and other Global Affairs Canada priorities.

2. Portfolio Background

Extractives Sector Context

In 2017, non-renewable mineral resources played a dominant role in 81 countries that collectively account for a quarter of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), half of the world’s population, and nearly 70 percent of those in extreme poverty.^{Footnote 2} Many low-income countries are resource-rich. For example, some of the most mineral-dependent economies are in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burkina Faso, Botswana, Liberia, Mozambique and Senegal.^{Footnote 3} In 29 low-income and lower-middle income countries, the extractive sector accounts for at least 20 percent of total exports and at least 20 percent of government revenue.^{Footnote 4} Many of the most mineral-dependent countries continued to become even more dependent on the economic contribution of mining between 2011 and 2014, despite the fall in commodity prices.^{Footnote 5}

As a result of the importance of the sector, a growing number of low-income countries have focused on resource extraction and processing activities as fundamental to their economic growth plans. However, according to recent studies, the sector’s performance has not always brought the benefits anticipated by governments or citizens.^{Footnote 6} Almost 80 percent of resource-rich countries have per capita income below the global average and, since 1995, more than half have failed to match the average growth rate globally^{Footnote 7} One study within Africa found that in resource-rich countries life expectancy is 4.5 years shorter, malnutrition among women and children is more prevalent (by 3.7 and 2.1 percentage points, respectively), incidence of domestic violence is higher (by 9 percentage points), and voice and accountability measures are weaker.^{Footnote 8}

A review of relevant literature suggests that to reverse these trends, better governance of resources is the first step. Studies have shown a direct link between good resource governance and poverty—with one indicating that improved governance was causally linked to a tripling in per capita income, a one-third reduction in the rate of infant mortality and a significant increase in literacy rates.^{Footnote 9}

The context in which the extractive sector operates is also very complex with a long history of mistrust and conflict between stakeholder groups—including communities, various levels of government, mining companies, and civil society—which has made finding common ground difficult. Additionally, the extractive sector often operates in volatile economic and political environments driven by swings in commodity price cycles and resource nationalism.

Within both the formal large-scale extractive economic activities and the informal artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) sector, women face a disproportionate amount of the associated risks. Men associated with the sector tend to accrue more economic benefits, primarily through job creation while women are more affected by the loss of farming land, deforestation and reduced access to firewood and/or water, increased unpaid work (as men are often less available), and increased violence as populations become more transient.^{Footnote 10}

Furthermore, approximately 30 percent of the world’s artisanal miners are in fact women, with up to 100 percent in specific mineral sectors of some countries.^{Footnote 11} Often, they work under hazardous, labour-intensive conditions to supplement their limited livelihoods. Women’s roles in this type of extraction can include heavy labour, and they are still expected to perform household duties. An increasingly serious issue is the exposure of women miners (and their unborn children) to mercury poisoning. The extractive industries have also been linked with women experiencing increased human trafficking, sexual and gender-based violence, and HIV transmission.^{Footnote 12}

Extractives-led development can have a broad range of negative impacts on the environment if it is not managed well by governments, companies, and artisanal and small-scale miners. In a 2017 survey, environmental concerns were ranked as the most serious issue facing the mining and metals industry over the next five years by private sector, public sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).^{Footnote 13} While many countries may have strong environmental legislative frameworks in place, there is often ineffective implementation. The failure to adequately implement environmental regulations was identified in a Natural Resource Governance Institute 2017 global governance review as a current major shortcoming.^{Footnote 14}

Background to Canada’s Extractives Programming

In 2009, Sustainable Economic Growth became a priority for Canadian development assistance. In 2010, the Sustainable Economic Growth Strategy was announced on the basis that to reduce poverty, development efforts needed to focus on stimulating sustainable long-term national, regional and local economic growth. In addition, in 2009 the Government of Canada approved Doing Business the Canadian Way: A Strategy to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility in Canada’s Extractive Sector Abroad that included a call for building the capacity of governments to manage their extractive sectors in ways that promoted sustainable economic growth.

In 2011, Global Affairs Canada’s approach for development assistance on extractives and sustainable development was formulated using the SEG Strategy as the overarching framework. Three programming pillars were identified: Improving Resource Governance Capacity; Growing Businesses and Supporting Local Economic Development; and Enabling Communities to Maximize Benefits. The overall intended result of the extractives programming was to increase the contribution of the extractive sector (mining for minerals and metals, oil and gas) to sustainable economic development and poverty reduction outcomes in resource-rich developing countries.

The programming pillars reflected the complexity of issues facing countries that had active extractive industries. While revenues were being generated, few resource-rich countries were able to convert the wealth into broad-based economic and social benefits for citizens and communities. The biggest challenges included weak governance, poor linkages to the broader economy and insufficient mechanisms for meaningful engagement and consultation with communities and stakeholders.

The extractives and sustainable development programming was not a standalone program, but a collection of thematic projects funded through Global Issues and Development Branch (MFM), Partnerships for Development Innovation Branch (KFM) and bilateral and regional development cooperation programs within three geographic branches—Asia-Pacific (OGM), the Americas (NGM) and Sub-Saharan Africa (WGM). The geographic branches managed the majority of projects. Projects were delivered through a range of implementing agencies including multilateral and international organizations, non-governmental organizations, developing country governments and other groups such as Canadian government departments and consulting firms.

Canada also played an important role in a wide range of international policy forums including the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF), the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative (VPI). These policy initiatives were also supported through funding under the Global Issues and Development Branch.

Donor Context

Both bilateral and multilateral donors were working in the sector to enhance the development impacts of extractives industries. Bilateral donors such as Germany, Australia, United Kingdom, Norway and the European Union provided: technical assistance for governments (and occasionally for communities); supported transparency and accountability initiatives; and fostered partnerships with the private sector. The largest funding from a multilateral institution was from the World Bank through its lending operations. For example, in 2015, the World Bank extractives programming totaled US$480 million.

One area that saw substantial donor coordination was support to improved transparency and accountability. Assistance focused mainly on revenue transparency through the EITI. The World Bank’s EITI Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) received funding from 15 donors with Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom providing over 65 percent of that funding. Led by the United Kingdom in 2013, the G7 Partnerships for Extractives Transparency were launched as a method to coordinate support for extractive transparency reforms in key countries. Canada took the G7 Partnership lead in Tanzania and Peru and worked to improve coordination and policies around transparency with other donors and a wide range of stakeholders.

The most active donors in the area of establishing partnerships with the private sector or facilitating programmes linking the private sector with government, civil society, or educational institutes were the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) and the World Bank.^{Footnote 15} Norad took a whole of government approach for its support to the petroleum sector in developing countries in its Oil for Development Programme.

Programming Overview

Over the six-year period between FY 2010-11 to FY 2015-16, Global Affairs Canada had 77 development projects that were either principally or partially extractives programming (Appendix 2). These projects had a total of $218.4 million of disbursements during this period.^{Footnote 16} The projects were led by five branches and provided funding through four types of implementing agencies around the world, as demonstrated in the following graphs.

Figure 1: Disbursements by Pillar

Text version

A vertical bar graph showing the value of disbursements across the three extractives programming pillars for the fiscal years 2010/11 to 2015/16. Pillar one always made up the greatest share of disbursements, though disbursements across multiple pillars were also high. The graph shows a general upward trend in disbursements during the time period under investigation. The disbursements by year were: 2010/11 ($8.3M), 2011/12 ($34.4M), 2012/13 ($29.5M), 2013/14 ($38.1M), 2014/15 ($35.7M), 2015/16 ($72.3M).

Disbursements increased as the programming gained momentum.

Figure 2: Disbursements by Global Affairs Canada Branches (millions)

Text version

A pie chart which shows disbursements for extractives programming by the various branches of Global Affairs Canada. The largest share came from the Americas branch ($78.8M), followed by Sub-Saharan Africa ($67.1M), Global Issues and Development ($49.1M), Partnerships for Development Innovation ($14.8M), and Asia Pacific ($8.5M).

The Americas Branch disbursed the largest amount of funding.

Figure 3: Disbursements by Implementing Agencies

Text version

A pie chart showing disbursements for extractives programming by the type of implementing agency. The largest share went to multilateral and international organizations (53%), followed by NGO’s (30%), developing country governments and agencies (7%) and other groups (9%).

Multilateral and International organizations received the largest amount of funding.

The predominate type of projects were delivered under pillar 1: Improving Resource Governance Capacity. The following table provides examples of programming in each of the pillars as well as the breakdown of disbursements and number of projects. It should be noted that the project and disbursement figures for pillars 1, 2 and 3 include only those projects that were exclusively assigned to that pillar. In addition, work was done on all three pillars through the multiple-pillar projects and these are listed separately.

3. Findings

Relevance

Finding 1: Global Affairs Canada’s provision of extractives programming was relevant to resource-rich countries’ needs and requests for assistance, as well as to Canadian goals to reduce global poverty and promote sustainable development.

To better harness the benefits of the sector, resource-rich countries have increasingly recognized the need to improve the management of extractive sectors and the associated benefits. As demonstrated by the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) through the graphic below, there are a number of legal frameworks, regulatory instruments and administrative, safeguards and enforcement practices necessary to translate the discovery of mineral ores and resources into benefits for communities.^{Footnote 17} These were also the areas where resource-rich countries were asking for support from donors such as Canada.

Figure 4: Mining Governance Instruments Necessary for Supporting Human Development

Text version

An infographic showing the relationship between the mining value chain and governance. This value chain moves horizontally through a process from discovery to production, revenue, investment, and concluding with human development. Governance has a role in each of these phases, and table categorizes these actors and policy instruments in three categories: the legal framework, enforcing instruments, and administration.

	Discovery	Production	Revenue	Spending	Human Development
Legal framework	Mining law	Environmental production	National tax legislation	National development plan
Enforcing instruments	Industry regulations		Annual budget
	Exploration Licenses	Commercial licenses	Tax regulations	Economic and social policies
Administration	Ministry of energy and mining		Ministry of finance
	Industry regulator		Revenue authority		Sector ministries
		Environmental regulator		Central bank

Adapted from Dietsche, Evelyn, Samantha Dodd, Dan Haglund, Mark Henstridge, Maja Jakobsen, Esméralda Sindou and Caroline Slaven. 2013. Topic Guide: Extractive industries, development and the role of donors. Oxford Policy Management.

The growing number of countries that joined initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) demonstrated a recognition that countries needed to improve their extractive-sector transparency and accountability. Methods to increase local content and socio-economic impact and benefits were also being explored and tested. Legislation and policies around artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) were being rethought to find methods to minimize the environmental impact of these activities while ensuring the rights of women, men and children were protected and livelihoods maintained. Conflict resolution over natural resources became a higher priority. Even countries with strong environmental legislative frameworks in place were recognizing that more effective implementation of environmental measures for the sector was required.

Overall, Global Affairs Canada’s portfolio was found to be relevant to countries’ needs and addressing key issues facing governments, communities and enterprises. The department’s programming covered a wide range of needs including: developing legal and policy frameworks; strengthening transparency and accountability; optimizing financial benefits; creating local content; ensuring socio-economic benefits; addressing ASM practices; promoting conflict resolution; and encouraging improved environmental management. The department’s country and regional programming was well-aligned with the specific plans and priorities of the countries and regions in terms of governance areas to improve and reform. 

Canada also played an important role in a wide range of international policy forums. As an active participant in the IGF, EITI, VPI, the Kimberley Initiative, and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, Canada was able to bring its extensive knowledge of the extractive sector and assist with developing more sound global initiatives. As a result of this leadership role and involvement in the sector, Canada was viewed by partner countries as having a comparative advantage. This included significant knowledge within Global Affairs Canada, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), provincial governments, universities/think tanks, NGOs, as well as the private sector.

Finding 2: The extractives portfolio was aligned with the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act and Global Affairs Canada’s policy priority of Sustainable Economic Growth. Some projects align with the new Feminist International Assistance Policy, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Progressive Trade Agenda.

The Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, establish poverty reduction as the central focus of Canada’s official development assistance. Whether working at the sector level on governance or at the community level to support local investments from extractives profits, the programming was found to be directly or indirectly supporting poverty reduction.

The SEG Strategy was used as the framework for all the extractives programming. Overall, the programming undertaken supported key elements of the SEG Strategy and was found to be making a contribution to the department’s SEG programming results. Country Programs reported extractive results as part of their annual reporting on SEG. The Departmental Reports to Parliament also included extractives results under SEG for a number of years.

Some portions of the programming were found to be supporting women and girls, and will likely be aligned with the 2017 Feminist International Assistance Policy as these projects provided opportunities for safer and more prosperous involvement of women in the extractive sector. Women were actively involved in the ASM skills and access to markets activities. Women were engaged in decision making at the local level on investment priorities. They also benefited directly from value chain development as the value of their artisanal mining products increased.

Current extractives programming was also found to be aligned with 10 of the United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A 2017 study assessed how the SDGs interact with each other.^{Footnote 18} The analysis identified which targets have the most positive influence to guide where efforts may be directed. Exerting the greatest positive net influence were effective institutions, sustainable consumption/production and resource efficiency – three key areas that Global Affairs Canada’s extractives programming targeted.

Mineral resource development was also found to be a complement and not competitor, to a greener, more sustainable future by the World Bank.^{Footnote 19} The push to develop renewable energies in the wind, solar, hydrogen and electricity systems was expected to create more demand for metals and minerals than the traditional fossil-fuel based energy systems, demonstrating the ongoing need to address environmental issues surrounding extractive industries.^{Footnote 20} The extractives programming being undertaken by Global Affairs Canada was found to be improving environmental management, practices, awareness and compliance.

As demonstrated by Global Affairs Canada’s Progressive Trade Agenda, Canada is committed to ensuring that the benefits of international trade and investment are broadly shared and create growth and opportunities. For the extractive sector, Canada’s international trade, foreign direct investment and policy interests intersected with development objectives. One of the pillars within Canada’s 2009 CSR Strategy was supporting host country capacity development, with Global Affairs Canada and NRCan being responsible for implementing these initiatives. The 2014 update to the CSR Strategy - Doing Business the Canadian Way: A Strategy to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility in Canada’s Extractive Sector Abroad—reinforced the need for complementarity with the extractive development programming. The governance programming undertaken by Global Affairs Canada was found to be contributing to a better trade and investment environment within developing countries through increasing transparency and improving laws, policies and government institutions.

Effectiveness

Finding 3: The performance of the extractives portfolio was on track to meeting the immediate outcomes targeted at a project level and, in the case of some governance projects, the intermediate outcomes. Results were seen in improved transparency, increased local benefits, and improved decision making at the national and subnational levels.

Pillar 1 Results: Improving Resource Governance Capacity

The expected intermediate outcome for this pillar was: “Improved performance of national, regional, and local governments and institutions to support responsible resource development”.

Significant progress within the portfolio was made in the areas of improving resource governance. This was largely because the governance-focused projects started earlier and worked with partners that were able to implement more quickly. Over 75 percent of the disbursements between FY 2010-11 and FY 2012-13 went through multilateral and international institutions primarily targeting governance support. These delivery partners had existing relationships, in-country expertise and the ability to leverage other funding. This contributed to timely implementation and the earlier realization of results within the pillar including some intermediate outcomes.

Governance-focused projects contributed to increased transparency, improving legal and regulatory frameworks and fostering broader engagement at the community level. These results were important since the quality of governance and the influence of resource revenues on governance are expected to be major determinants of the welfare impacts of resource exploitation.

In addition, within the policy space, NRCan and Global Affairs Canada promoted better governance structures to improve the transparency and responsiveness to developing countries through the EITI and VPI. The support to the IGF made the organization more effective, with a broader developing country membership and an increasing role in capacity development.

The following table provides an overview of the types of results realized under pillar 1 as well as some project examples.

Pillar 2 Results: Growing Business and Supporting Local Economic Development

The expected intermediate outcome for this pillar was: “Improved social and economic performance of the private sector (including local micro, small- and medium-sized enterprises, women-owned businesses, associations and cooperatives) operating in and around the extractive sector.” Many of the projects started in the last several years and, for many, were too early in the implementation process to see immediate outcomes emerging. Overall, the progress to date indicated that most projects were on-track for achieving at least the immediate outcomes in the next two years.

Business and local economic development programming was found to be supporting a strengthening of local content and economic diversification. Increased economic linkages (direct, indirect or induced) in extractive areas were considered key to ensuring the benefits to communities are maximized.

The following table provides an overview of the types of results realized as well as some project examples.

Summary of Pillar 3 Results: Enabling Communities to Maximize Benefits

The expected intermediate outcome for this pillar was: “Increased social and economic benefits for local communities, including men, women, youth, entrepreneurs, and Indigenous Peoples, arising from mining, oil and gas operations.” Many of these projects started in the last several years and, for many, were too early in the implementation process to see immediate outcomes emerging. Overall, the progress to date indicated that most were on-track for achieving at least the immediate outcomes in the next two years.

One of the main goals for community-focused programming was enhancing the employability of women, men and youth in extractives-related industries. The other was to improve the consultation and planning systems at the community level to allow greater say in decision making and better processes for conflict resolution.

The following table provides an overview of the types of results realized as well as some project examples.

The projects addressing multiple pillars were slowest to start up given the complexity of working on a range of levels—often with local governments, communities, and micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). This required a level of understanding of the complicated environments within which they worked and the gradual building of trust across stakeholders. These projects were found to have potential for achieving results but would take time to demonstrate outcomes, which will likely take place toward the end of projects.

Cross-Cutting Themes

Related to the cross-cutting theme of Good Governance, Global Affairs Canada’s extractives programming was focused on strengthening resource-rich countries’ ownership and management of their extractive sector. There was evidence that the programming contributed to enhancing transparency and accountability and building capacity at the national and subnational levels. In the overall extractives portfolio, governance was more than a cross-cutting theme: it was integrated into over 75 percent of all the projects, either fully or as a component within a project.

Related to the cross-cutting theme of Gender Equality, although the extractives portfolio did not have programming specifically targeting women, the majority of projects integrated gender equality to some extent into their design. The integration of gender also improved as projects were being implemented.

The strongest gender focus was seen within business and local economic development programming and community-development programming (Pillars 2 and 3). Women’s economic participation was being supported through three potential pathways: direct employment within the extractive company; indirect jobs related to suppliers of goods and services; and induced employment created through increased economic activity related to spending in the general economy. A number of projects were specifically supporting women in ASM. Other projects were targeting women’s participation in decision making at the local, regional and national levels including around social and economic investments. Some results had already been seen with increased participation of women in investment decisions and transparency initiatives at the local level.

Related to the cross-cutting theme of Environmental Sustainability, the extractives portfolio integrated a broad spectrum of environmental issues into the programming. Of the projects reviewed, 90 percent integrated environmental management into their design and implementation. Some projects were exclusively focused on environmental issues. This was true for projects under all three pillars and with all categories of implementing partners.

For example, a number of governance projects were specifically focusing on environmental management at the national level to close the gap between regulations and implementation. Work was being done with ASM to change technologies to move away from the use of mercury. MSMEs were improving their production techniques and adopting climate-smart techniques. Conflict resolution mechanisms were being put in place to deal with environmental issues around extractive sites. Some results emerged in terms of the ability by a national government to undertake environmental audits of mining waste streams and the capacity to undertake environmental assessments. A wide range of other environmental outcomes were expected as the projects progress.

Finding 4: The achievement of results across the extractives portfolio was negatively impacted by challenges experienced in four key areas: pressure to program quickly which drove short-term projects without a strategic, longer-term vision; unclear communication of objectives; lack of access to extractives sector expertise; and a performance measurement approach.

Approach to Programming

When the extractives priority was announced, there was pressure to immediately put programming into place. Although a general overall framework was developed at the departmental level, decisions had to be made quickly on which countries Canada would engage with on extractives cooperation. As a consequence, the decision making became fragmented and driven by decisions at the country program level about whether to engage in bilateral programming. Projects were identified and put forward for approval based on what individual country programs saw as priorities.

Some opportunities were missed as a consequence. Countries with clear needs who were requesting support, such as Ghana, did not receive it. Other countries were chosen that did not necessarily have an enabling environment where resource governance reforms could be made. This decreased the potential results that could emerge. Overall, the decisions on which countries to include in the extractives portfolio did not appear to be strategic or based on a consistent and explicit long-term departmental vision and commitment.

Since most programming was determined at an individual country level, coordination did not occur between geographic, regional and global extractives programming. The only area where a synergy was seen was around the support to countries for EITI compliance. The World Bank Multi Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) allowed Canada to support the EITI in a range of countries. Funding from geographic programs provided complementary support to the MDTF for the EITI institutions, citizen participation and dissemination of the EITI reports. The G7 Partnerships enhanced the dialogue around transparency and coordinated support. NRCan was able to pressure for changes to the EITI Secretariat to make the EITI more aligned with countries’ needs.

Additionally, minimal effort was dedicated to either coordinating with or providing development support to complementary initiatives within development, trade and foreign affairs sectors at DFAIT and CIDA. For example, DFAIT was actively participating in the Kimberley Process and recognized the need to provide support to the artisanal diamond miners that would be impacted. DFAIT funded a pilot to support the miners which was reportedly successful. However, attempts to get funding for the scaling-up from the then Canadian International Development Agency were not successful. Even after the amalgamation in 2013, other attempts to obtain development funding for the scaling up were not successful.

Similarly, at a federal level, a whole-of-government approach was not undertaken between Global Affairs Canada and other federal government departments. Despite NRCan’s global role in the extractives sector, NRCan was treated as a potential supplier, not a resource and expert in the field that could be consulted on potential programming and overall strategic funding approaches. Instead, only limited collaboration occurred on specific projects. In the same way, provincial partners were also not engaged to any extent.

Communication Challenges

Throughout the implementation of the extractives portfolio programming, Global Affairs Canada struggled to articulate and communicate the goals of programming both internally and externally. This was partially due to how programming was introduced. Initial discussions within the department focused on corporate social responsibility, not development. Roundtables were held in 2009 and 2010 by Global Affairs Canada that brought together Canadian extractive sector firms and civil society organizations to discuss how to collaborate in the implementation of Canada’s new CSR Strategy. A number of high-profile CSR pilots were developed and funded by the Partnership for Development Innovation and the Americas Branches that supported NGOs working with mining companies around specific development issues.

This initial CSR focus triggered a perception within and outside Global Affairs Canada that the programming was funding extractives companies and was about promoting trade and investment opportunities rather than development programming. Confusion continued as the communication strategies around the priority sent mixed messages. This led to misunderstandings by both Global Affairs Canada staff and partners on the actual objectives of the programming and a lack of clarity on what the focus for the programming should be. While the approach paper for extractives provided a broad scope within which development programming could take place, the overall policy parameters remained unclear and misperceptions continued.

When funding in the sector came to an abrupt halt in 2015, funded partners were uninformed and confused by what was going to happen with existing programming as well as projects under development. There were a number of examples where Global Affairs Canada had requested the development of extractives projects which partners had begun to design that were then terminated. This caused frustration among some partners and raised concerns about Canada’s overall reputation.

Challenges Accessing Sector Expertise

Prior to amalgamation, the leads on the initial global extractives policy work were DFAIT and NRCan. When CIDA started undertaking programming, the agency had few in-house technical experts on mining, oil, and gas that were available to assist staff in understanding the sector, identifying the best opportunities and reviewing responsive proposals.

The first challenge was identifying opportunities to insert extractives programming into already approved Country Strategies. While some Global Affairs Canada programs, particularly in Latin America, had experience with the extractives sector, other country programs had limited knowledge of extractive industries in their countries.

Staff faced difficulties in quickly assessing where realistic opportunities existed. Development staff were reluctant to consult with trade staff who had experience on where opportunities might exist. Some staff perceived the sector to be fraught with risks, while others found it difficult to identify appropriate entry points given the complexity of the sector.

Development staff looked for options to source outside expertise to assist them. However, some perceived contracting obstacles to be too onerous to source expertise on a timely basis. The Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI), which in part was started for this purpose, took time to get set-up and initially focused on other areas. Tip sheets were then developed to assist staff. While the sheets were seen to be useful, they were also often difficult to apply by someone not familiar with the sector. Lack of access to extractives sector expertise continued into the implementation of the programming making it difficult for staff to effectively monitor many of the projects.

Performance Measurement Challenges

Because extractives programming was not a standalone program, but a collection of disparate projects, an approved results framework was never developed. At the departmental level, a draft extractives logic model was developed but not a performance measurement framework to assess progress (i.e. baselines and expected levels of improvement). The logic model was neither formally approved nor implemented. A designated lead was not identified to capture overall results from the portfolio. Instead, investment results were reported at the individual project level in Management Summary Reports by each programming desk using a wide range of indicators and data collection methods unique to each project. The quality of the data reported was inconsistent and difficult to roll-up.

To meet departmental reporting requirements, results were reported through short summaries using isolated projects and anecdotes. Some lessons learned were shared, but predominantly focused on specific projects with limited utility for broader learning.

Annual Country and Regional Reports used a template that primarily focused on SEG overall indicators which did not include extractives-specific indicators. In the absence of specific sectoral performance measurement information, the development of new extractives projects was unable to benefit from a solid evidence-base of best design practices and pitfalls to avoid. As a consequence, an overall roll-up of results and performance information for the sectoral programming as a whole could not be done easily.

These performance measurement issues were not unique to extractives programming. In response to performance measurement challenges across all programming, during the period under review, Global Affairs Canada began developing a new performance measurement tool, the Architecture for Results in International Assistance (ARIA).  ARIA will be a method to align outcomes and indicators to allow the roll-up of project and program performance information into meaningful evidence-based corporate level results. Clear roles and responsibilities will be outlined in terms of how this will take place. The results reporting on the existing extractives portfolio will need to be melded into this new system.

Sustainability

Finding 5: Key sustainability factors included identifying the right partners, locally-driven decisions, and proven models and tools adapted to the local context.

A review of project sustainability plans demonstrated that projects were considering the various factors that would support or hinder the sustainability of results. For the most part, it was too early to determine whether these strategies would ultimately be effective. However, some projects had been operating long enough to demonstrate elements being sustained. For example, in Tanzania, new legislation to regulate the gas sector, including a regulatory framework and the establishment of a semi-autonomous regulatory board, had been passed and was being implemented. In Peru, a web-based platform to provide on-demand support to municipalities to get explanations of revenue-management issues was being institutionalized by the national government and made available across the country. The CSR network established in Burkina Faso was being led by the Ministry and funding was being provided by the government, NGOs and mining companies.

For projects that were further along and producing results that partners expected to be sustainable, key factors that led to greater prospects for sustainability included: identifying the right partners; building local buy-in; and using proven tools and models that were adapted to the local context. Implementing partners were carefully chosen based on their in-country experience and understanding of the operating context. Projects that chose partners that were committed to the reforms or changes being pursued were thought to be encouraging the sustainability of post-project benefits. These projects were designed to allow local partners to make programming decisions. This was believed to be cultivating higher local buy-in, which would ultimately ensure communities sustain or further project results.

Finally, these projects benefited from the implementation of previously proven models and tools that were adapted to the local context. The caveat was that, in some cases, the models needed to be extensively adapted. In these circumstances, projects fell behind schedule and, in some cases, experienced major challenges in adapting previous models from other countries or sectors, such as agriculture, which were not suitable for the extractives context of the particular country receiving the assistance.

The sustainability of extractives projects in addressing governance issues was difficult to predict due to external factors. Shifts in politics, staffing and institutional environments will influence whether changes made are sustained. For example, in Bolivia, the hydrocarbon revenue reforms, as well as the use of the revenue for social programming, were sustained even with changes in government. On the other hand, in Tanzania, tensions arose in early 2017 between the government and mining companies, with the Tanzania Mineral Audit Agency negatively affected by the conflict despite its strong performance to date. In Peru, the work on conflict resolution made substantial progress but the mechanisms at the regional level were conditional on the agreement of each successive regional government.

One of the most important factors for promoting sustainability in the governance area was the ability of implementers to be flexible and adapt project designs to evolving circumstances. For example, in Indonesia, the government had been reluctant to commit to reforms in the extractives sector. In response, governance programming became more flexible and looked for ways to promote pockets of reforms as they emerged within different government agencies.

Regarding the sustainability of increasing local content, projects were assisting in the development of direct, indirect and induced economic growth opportunities within the extractive communities. However, the programming around promoting increased local content relied on broader economic trends. The downturn in commodities pricing impacted the ability of some projects, for example in Peru and Tanzania, to find good opportunities as the global demand for goods and services declined. This meant that opportunities for linking MSMEs to extractive sector companies or other economic opportunities within the mining areas were lessened.

Finding 6: The overall sustainability of sector results may be negatively affected by changing departmental priorities.

Although projects were implementing their sustainability strategies, shifting priorities within the department may negatively influence the extent to which results achieved will be sustainable. During the time of evaluation, a number of changes were taking place within the portfolio. The introduction of new priorities and funding commitments combined with existing funding commitments within the same annual operating budget, made it necessary to adjust project funding schedules. In some cases, projects were being spread out over a longer period of time to allow for the funding of new commitments and several projects were decreased in size.

These changing timelines and levels of funding may impact results of the programming at a critical time when many projects were just gaining momentum. For example, many of the pillar 2, pillar 3, and multiple pillar projects were in early stages during the evaluation period and implementers were still testing models. During this testing of models phase, some projects faced difficulties in adapting the models, which lengthened the time required to get the programming to a stage where it could be sustained by the partners. If these projects were to lose funding, or were required to shift focus, including engaging new partners, the chances of sustainability will likely be lessened.

Efficiency

Finding 7: Although extractives was a new international assistance sector for Global Affairs Canada, staff were able to rapidly and efficiently set up programming by collaborating with existing and trusted in-country multilateral institutional partners that had expertise under pillar 1: Improving Resource Governance Capacity. Efficiency successes, however, started dwindling in 2015 with the uncertainty on the future of programming in the sector.

When the Canadian Government announced in 2011 that development programming would be designed in the extractive sector, management and staff had to respond quickly. Faced with little in-house expertise, contracting challenges to obtain outside experts, as well as a lack of a strategic approach for bringing in other federal, provincial, and private-sector expertise, programming leads turned to low-risk and trusted multilateral partners in the field which proved to provide efficiency gains. For example, in Peru, funding was provided to the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to extend work it was doing with local governments and extractives revenue management. An additional tranche of funding was given to the World Bank EITI MDTF, despite the trust fund having significant unspent balances.

The second wave of approvals saw more unsolicited proposals with approximately 45 percent of the geographic funds approved through this route—almost exclusively organizations and consulting firms in Canada. However, the implementers were highly concentrated with almost 70 percent of the geographic funds approved through unsolicited proposals going to six Canadian groups.^{Footnote 21}

As demonstrated in the following timeline of project approvals, the planning and approval process for extractives programming shifted from high-gear in FY 2015-16 to a series of starts and stops starting in mid-2015, prior to the October federal election.

Figure 5: Approved Extractives Projects from 2010-2017

Text version

A vertical bar graph showing the number of approved extractives projects on the y axis, set against the time period from 2010 to 2017-18 on the x axis. The graph depicts a fast start, as many projects were approved from the pre-2010 period to 2012/13, followed by a downturn in 2013/14 and 2014/15. Another spike of approvals took place in 2015/16 before a reduction the following year as new priorities led to a move away from extractive programming. The number of projects approved per year is as follows: prior to 2010 (7 projects), 2010-11 (12 projects), 2011-12 (12 projects), 2012-13 (13 projects), 2013-14 (8 projects), 2014-15 (7 projects), 2015-16 (17 projects, 13 in-universe and 4 outside universe), 2016-17 (7 projects, all outside universe).

Project approvals were put on hold until December 2015, after which a few proposals received approval. Approvals were then suspended again in mid-2016 during the annual Global Affairs Canada Investment Planning process, after which point departmental funding was re-allocated to new priorities leaving no funding available for extractives programming in the planning stage.

At the same time, Canada’s International Assistance Review was underway signaling a shift in priorities. The nature of the new priorities was not known until the June 2017 release of the Feminist International Assistance Policy. These shifts in priorities, and the removal of available funding from planning budgets in the system, impacted the approval of extractives projects that were in the planning process. Branches and country programs determined that extractives projects needed to be removed from the approval process quickly to reorient to new priorities. Even proposed projects that had strong potential to align with the new Global Affairs Canada priorities, such as a project working with women miners, were not put forward.

Finding 8: The most efficient funding delivery modality that provided good results were grants to multilateral and international organizations, which also proved to be expensive. Less costly delivery modalities that also produced good results included program-based approaches and core funding to existing institutions.

Extractives programming relied on six types of project funding modalities, including the use of grants to multilateral institutions and some international organizations, approving unsolicited proposals, requests for proposals, engaging in program-based approaches, providing core funding to existing institutions, as well as emerging institutions and mission-based local funds. The following chart demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses experienced for each modality as well as the influence this modality had on the achievement of results. The resulting analysis concluded that the most efficient funding modality to date was grants to multilateral and international organizations. However, this funding modality also proved expensive due to the use of international consultants almost exclusively for delivery of technical assistance and the trust fund fees charged on some grant arrangements. Less costly delivery modalities that also produced desired results included program-based approaches and core funding to existing institutions.

4. Conclusions

The extractives programming at Global Affairs Canada was triggered by emerging Government of Canada priorities in 2009. When the priority was first introduced, it was relevant to the needs of resource-rich countries that were struggling to govern and gain benefits from the sector. The portfolio also met a number of other Global Affairs Canada’s priorities in the areas of sustainable economic growth and promoting corporate social responsibility as part of foreign policy.

Although it was still early to expect many of the expected outcomes of the portfolio to be achieved, results were seen to be emerging from all three pillars with the most notable results from pillar 1: Improving Resource Governance Capacity. Achievements included governments recovering millions of dollars in extractives revenues, more than 30 countries implementing transparency and accountability measures and better involvement of local communities in decision making as well as profiting from sector revenues. For governance, the targeted intermediate results were expected to be achieved in the next two years.  For pillars 2 and 3, results were starting to emerge in areas such as improvements in the performance of MSMEs and better management of local investments. These were at a more preliminary stage, with more immediate-level outcomes emerging over the next two years.

The effectiveness of programming was impacted by a number of challenges. The rapid timelines of programming prevented more strategic decision making and greater coordination across the portfolio, as decisions were made on a project by project basis and not within a longer-term framework. Communication challenges resulted in staff and partners feeling uncertain and frustrated about the actual objectives of the extractives program and how it should be programmed. Staff faced challenges accessing extractive sector experts which prevented them from effectively utilizing the robust knowledge and skills available across Canada to support programming design and implementation. Performance measurement challenges prevented the department from aggregating project level results to a departmental or even Country Program level. These challenges were the result of an environment that demanded rapid implementation, to which officers responded by using trusted partners such as multilateral organizations working in the field.

Despite the solid development performance of the portfolio, by 2015, with the shifting priorities identified in Canada’s International Assistance Review, extractives programming was quickly losing support and funding. Planned extractives projects that clearly aligned with the new priorities including the new Feminist International Assistance Policy were no longer being considered by programming branches. Despite the potential alignment of programming to new priorities including the SDGs, there was a sense among Global Affairs Canada officials that there was no longer support to continue to work in the sector. The policy shift also resulted in uncertainty concerning whether the results from ongoing projects would be sustained if current programming needed to shift course or be terminated.

The continued importance of the extractives programming remained unclear as official direction on extractives and natural resources management programming, in general, was not articulated and communicated to partners. Once a clear direction is articulated, and if extractives-focused projects continue to be funded, gaps to be addressed would include the need to better engage Canada’s experts to support programming as well as the need to implement a strategic approach to funding and performance measurement that would allow for reporting on sector results and sharing best practices across departmental programs.

5. Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Global Issues and Development - Economic Development Bureau (MED) should collaborate with the International Assistance Policy Bureau (PVD) in the Feminist International Assistance Policy suite renewal exercise to provide clearer direction and guidance to branches concerning extractives-related programming. This should include consultations with the International Economic Policy Bureau (PED) and the Foreign Policy Bureau (POD) to ensure alignment with broader departmental policy objectives.

There is a need to clarify the role that extractives-related programming could play in meeting the department’s policy objectives. Guidance could cover:

1. Alignment with the 2017 Feminist International Assistance Policy and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development priorities;
2. Alignment of extractives international assistance cooperation with foreign policy and trade objectives; and
3. Suggested expected outcomes and performance indicators at the project level to promote more consistent and coordinated performance monitoring.

Recommendation 2: The Global Issues and Development - Economic Development Bureau (MED), in collaboration with the International Assistance Policy Bureau (PVD), should develop communication guidelines to support project officers when engaging with partners. These guidelines should provide consistent messaging on the role of extractives- related programming within the Feminist International Assistance Policy.

6. Considerations for International Assistance Programming

1. When Global Affairs Canada pursues thematic programming using a decentralized approach, the various projects across the department should be grouped and guided by a coherent programming approach that provides consistent and explicit objectives under a unified long-term vision that includes clear performance measurement (such as baselines and expected levels of improvement).
2. Extractive sectors in resource-rich countries, if properly managed, can support inclusive growth and development and contribute to poverty reduction. Programming in this area can remain relevant to developing countries’ needs and aligned to the Feminist International Assistance Policy.
3. Understanding the historical and social context in which mining and other extractives industries operate and how these influence systemic change was critical for effective development programming. As such, extractives development programming often requires longer timeframes for programming to build relationships and trust.
4. At both the national and subnational levels, the quality of governance was the key element that determined the welfare impacts of resource exploitation. Programming in countries where there is momentum for reform can produce results more quickly than in countries that do not have a strong focus or commitment to governance reform.
5. Access to sectoral experts in mining and oil and gas to support Global Affairs Canada in its decision making around planning, implementing and monitoring programming as well as its policy work allow for more informed and strategic decision making.
6. A clear and consistent communication strategy designed at the outset of programming implementation as well as when priorities were shifting could prevent misunderstandings about which projects were funded and why. Clear messaging can ease partners’ concerns and minimize the potential reputational risk to Canada during a time of changing priorities.

Appendix 1: Proposed Draft Extractives and Sustainable Development Departmental Logic Model (2010-2015)^{Footnote 23}

Appendix 2: Universe of Projects Covered by the Evaluation