Merci. First of all, let me say that yes, we will be targeting the $5 billion by next year. As far as the relationship goes, in the most recent OECD report that came out in March of this year, it has been noted that for Canada, the ODA level is up over 12% due to our scaling up of our overall aid contributions and our contributions to the World Bank. Canada is one of the top 10 countries in ODA contributions in 2008. In fact we surpassed the DAC country average, the European Union average, and the G-7 average. In fact, as you will know, we've increased to a level of 0.32%.
As you know, the ratio between ODA and GNI depends on the economy of the country, so looking at the situation that all the developed countries are in presently, I'm watching the contributions closely.
Canada has maintained its commitment to increase its international assistance. We are doing that every year. Other countries have been decreasing their international assistance. In fact, Italy, for example, threatened to decrease its international assistance by 57% or 58%. Through international discussions, they've reduced that reduction, but unfortunately, they're still reducing by over 40%. When we see this happening, we always have to make sure that we are going to be effective, and there's more coordination amongst the countries that we're looking at.
This leads me to how we selected the countries. Canada is not the only one that's been focusing geographically. Other countries have been doing so, and in fact some of them took some of these steps before Canada did. When I look at the various countries, the African countries, to see who has increased their contribution to those countries, and what kinds of commitments, what efforts they are making, we're also looking at the effectiveness of those things. We want to work with the African countries. We're working with the African Union. We're supporting the African Development Bank. Some countries prefer the multilateral approach because it's closer to home, and they have more impact on saying what can be done in that country, so we're looking at that.
When I look at the actual countries and the impacts on what is being done there, I would tell you that generally, across the board, the United Kingdom and the European Union have increased their support in Africa, but they're decreasing, at the same time, in the Americas. We have the Netherlands, which now potentially is going to leave Haiti completely--and I've spoken to the head of the Netherlands agency.
If you look at Australia, they're moving their focus to the South Pacific, to countries within their region. I would say to you that there is a regional realignment happening.
As to how we looked at the African countries, as I pointed out, need and level of poverty were one of the criteria, and an important criterion, but only one of the criteria. The second criterion, I think, deserves as much attention as the level of poverty. In fact, if you look at how much has been invested by the western world into Africa, it's over $23 trillion. I'm as discouraged about this as others are. This is why it's important for us to make sure our contribution--and other countries are doing the same--produces real results. We have to look at the way that aid is being done, etc. It's the capacity of the countries.
This is a real tragedy. We've seen many countries that we thought were progressing really well, and yet, when you look at those same countries.... If you look at a country like South Africa, it was triumphant, and we thought it was moving along very well, and now it has some challenges. If you look at Kenya, it was moving along very well, and now if you look.... We are also seeing an increase in conflict and refugee situations, etc. So events and situations evolve.
We look at countries and ask, where is the country and the government willing to take responsibility? Even if it's in one sector, we would prefer to work with a government that's willing to work in that sector.
I met recently with an African ambassador from a country that is very, very rich in natural resources. The country has significant GDP growth, but there is a particular humanitarian situation there. I asked the ambassador—and I'm hoping I'll get information from them—what is your government willing to do to help address this humanitarian situation? We will partner with them; we will work with them.
But I think the thing here is that we know the way to ensure long-term, sustainable movement out of poverty is to help the governments themselves take over that responsibility, or else we're continually going to have countries that are aid dependent. And that does not help, I believe, the social stability and the political stability of a country. They want to see their own leadership providing them with the needs they have. So that's a very important criterion.
The third criterion as a government is that we have policies and priorities, but we do not, and we will not, tie our aid only to the countries where we have any trade or economic interests. For the countries we look at, yes, we are undertaking trade negotiations with Peru and Colombia, but there were other countries on that list with whom we have no trade relationships and where we don't have an economic interest. There is an immense need, but there is an ability to make a difference in that country.