South Korea's aid agency ready to go global

Although it was created back in 1991, the Korea International Cooperation Agency, South Korea’s bilateral aid agency, only started making waves a few years ago. That’s partly thanks to a rapidly increasing budget: Between 2000 and 2008, the volume of South Korea’s total official development assistance increased by 278 percent and its bilateral aid by more than 311 percent — in turn boosting total staff numbers to 440 today. The country has been celebrated for making the leap from aid recipient to donor within just a few decades when it joined the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2009. But South Korea is still a relatively small player in the international development community, with net ODA totaling $1.55 billion in 2012. Its ODA last year, however, grew 17.6 percent, much more than other OECD-DAC members and surpassed only by Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. The South Korean government’s goal is to spend 0.25 percent of its gross national income on ODA by 2015. And despite a recent economic slowdown, we can expect to see “steady growth” in those figures, KOICA President Kim Young-mok told Devex in London on the sidelines of an event hosted by Chatham House where, in a speech, he called on fellow donors to be more “honest” on what they classify as ODA, and continue to make “substantial contributions” to the pot. The agency, Kim explained, now wants to be “less isolated,” form new partnerships and adopt international standards in aid transparency to become “a partner for producing best practices” in all sectors, drawing especially on its expertise in rural development, education and new technologies. Below are highlights from our conversation with the KOICA chief: KOICA gives a relatively small amount of aid but has prompted a lot of interest both from other donors and from developing countries. What is your added value, and what are your particular strengths? I think we are strong — maybe comparatively weaker than others, but we believe we are strong — in vocational training, education, e-government and information systems. Also, we are very strong in helping villagers to organize by themselves and do their jobs with the help of us so that villagers can be richer … which is sustainable. That’s what we are trying to do with many villages, many governments along with organizations like UNDP. [South] Korea was very poor until the mid-1970s [when] we started this new village program, Saemaul Undong [New Village Movement] … It helped a lot to reduce the gap between rural and urban areas ... and also wake up villagers who had no future at the time, so they can start to work hard and coordinate among themselves. Everyone in [South] Korea believes that Saemaul was [the] real base for starting Korea’s industrialization because this started from the village, but has extended to many cities. It has become one principle for everyone, for any organization to abide by. It stresses a lot the spiritual side, and cooperation. Where has this experience been applied so far? We’ve been working on this in Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania. And we are starting in Senegal. In Asia, we’ve been doing this in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Sri Lanka. There is surging demand from many, many countries. About 40 countries are trying to introduce this campaign and this strategy for them — because they see it as a really wonderful national goal to make villages be developed and reduce the gap between rural and urban. Many leaders believe this will help their national strategy. Another [thing] is that [South] Korea is famous for ICT. There are many demands from governments to establish ICT training centers, ICT colleges, science and technology institutes — and training them, transferring technology — so we are trying to meet those requests. Is Korean aid really different from Western aid? I don’t think so. We have the same goals — poverty eradication and education, gender promotion, the same values — democratization, open government, accountability … we are [essentially] the same. [But] maybe one difference is that KOICA's ODA programs are intellectual and knowledge-based. The second one is more human character: with the heart, with sincerity. Engaging on the ground more, through kinship with those people and more direct engagement with recipient[s]. We emphasize a lot being friends, helping them, rather than just distributing checks. KOICA has existed since the early 1990s — but what changes will we see coming up in the near future? Big changes are coming up. [Under my leadership there has been] change but it’s not me — I think it’s the international situation and the [South] Korean situation. The interest of the public has been growing very fast in development, so a lot of people would like to participate as volunteers, consultants and experts [and] the interest of company owners and managers has [also] become very high. It’s a good time to include all these people for real inclusive partnerships. The second one is that KOICA has been a little bit operating in an isolated way. Now it’s time for us to engage more with the international community. We have been establishing cooperation with many organizations ... Now it’s time for us to engage with them on specific programs and projects. We have started with [the U.S. Agency for International Development] and the Peace Corps, now we are discussing with [the U.K. Department for International Development], we are also discussing with [the French Development Agency] and many organizations from Spain, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey ... they are very much interested in working with us. We are [also] preparing to abide by [the International Aid Transparency Initiative] — we have decided to join officially by 2016. Until that time, we must prepare ourselves to share information, data, our proposed way of doing an assessment and effectiveness ... We will have a huge job to do before that. That is forcing us to change our culture. What are you looking for in a partner organization? Sustainability would be one of the keys when we choose partnership in a project. When we work with a company on rural development, we’d like the company to bring in their gifts, management skills, storing, processing and sales knowledge ... so that villagers themselves would know how to sell, how to make their fortune ... Maybe teach them how to manage their own money, to do agricultural business. I hope that any project working with us would become one of the best practices. Even though the size would be small, we would like to be a partner for producing best practices in any case — this is my ambition. Are there any new sectors KOICA is considering getting involved in? Information systems, energy, food processing, making purified water, some medical and pharmaceutical technologies … There are many being developed in [South] Korea — I would like to give opportunities for those [South] Korean companies at the same time they make partnerships and being used by recipient countries so they can create their own base for creative income. Even service, food and hotel — there are many areas we can do this. You’ve said that South Korean aid — in terms of the amount — is looking at “steady growth.” Can you be any more specific? Our only commitment was to hit 0.25 percent of GNI by 2015, [but] all of a sudden the economy has been down … A severe reduction in government revenue has led our planners to be timid, last year and this year too. [However] our president is very committed — she clearly understands what we must do. So I think from next year, maybe for three years in a row, there will be substantial growth in [both percentage and absolute terms]. South Korea is now a member of OECD-DAC. Have you been able to influence discussions there, and what is your position on revisiting the definition of ODA? We don’t have influence. But — even if we’re still small — our position is clear that everyone must be honest in putting ODA in more clear terms, without some technical adjustments. Some countries are trying to redefine ODA and trying to introduce new measurement methods, while not increasing substantially the volume, they would like to make data look better by new methods. I don’t oppose a new definition or modernized measurement methods — but however the technique would be changed, substantial contribution must be increased by every government. Don’t make cosmetic changes — that is the main message. What do you think? Is KOICA ready to become a major player in the international development scene? Please let us know by sending an email to news@devex.com or leaving a comment below. Join the Devex community and gain access to more in-depth analysis, breaking news and business advice — and a host of other services — on international development, humanitarian aid and global health.