What's Going On With Global Affairs Canada and Their $392 Million Spending Trip to Brazil?
As I’m sure your eyes have been glued to every scrap of news about the recent COP30 climate conference, I need hardly tell you about Canada’s related $392 million commitment. This, of course, will be part of (or perhaps in addition to) our overall $200 billion investment in the fight against global warming since 2015.
$200 billion, by the way, comes to nearly $5,000 for each man, woman, and child in the country. The yearly interest on the loans that were required to spend that money will cost considerably more. And, as far as we can tell, all that money has so far failed to even slow the rise in global temperatures.
Ok. But who’s getting this particular tranche of $392 million? Well, $263 million of it will go to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
IFAD is a fund, so it doesn’t do anything itself. But in this case, it’s expected to distribute money for projects in the Brazilian Amazon and work with local partners on forest and rural development issues. It’s the local partners who will do the work.
No matter who’s holding the shovels, any rural, agricultural, or environmental operations taking place in, for example, the State of Amazonas will require approval or licensing from the government agency, Instituto de Proteção Ambiental do Amazonas (IPAAM).
And that could be interesting. Because that very same IPAAM, as it happens, has been under Brazilian Federal Police investigation for the past year. In other words, the agency in control of issuing licenses and authorizing the work IFAD wants done, is (allegedly) as crooked as a corkscrew.
Well that certainly gets us off to a great start.
The next $106 million from Canada’s commitment has been directed to Deetken Asset Management’s new Inclusive Climate Action Fund (ICAF). As the name suggests, ICAF is a climate-focused investment fund whose broader strategy includes a “gender lens”. Which is another way of saying that financial success is not the fund’s overriding priority.
Under the best of circumstances, deploying climate-focused financial instruments through small and medium-sized enterprises - especially in emerging markets - is notoriously challenging. Besides all the regular headwinds facing any business startup, initiatives in those parts of the world will routinely face risks related to corruption, criminal gangs, and plenty of currency volatility. Being forced to operate while business solvency is your second or third-tier priority is like swimming across a fast-moving river with your legs tied to a tree.
What’s curious is that the government is doubling down on ESG investments at just the moment in history when ESG failures are hitting their stride. U.S.-based ESG funds faced net outflows of $8.6B in Q1 2025, while fund closures outpaced launches in 2024. Major managers like Vanguard approved no ESG proposals at all in 2024.
Closer to home, Canada Pension Plan Investments scrapped its net-zero emissions commitment “after several Canadian banks left the Net-Zero Banking Alliance earlier this year”. It seems that they felt rigid climate targets could conflict with the Plan’s fiduciary duties to maximize financial returns.
I for one would be curious to know who in Global Affairs Canada was ultimately responsible for those spending choices and whether they’ll be held responsible in the event of program failures. Although, all things considered, I’d be surprised if we ever hear anything at all about where all that money really ended up.
Here’s some more great reading:
What Is It About Politicians and Corporate Bribery Scandals?
On the surface, this is about a strange venture involving Canadian private equity firm Brookfield Asset Management - whose chair until a few weeks ago was Mark Carney. But it seems to me that this particular event is really just one example of a much larger pattern.
How Gender-Based Violence Reduction Funds are Spent
Everyone here will agree that the crimes these days referred to as gender-based violence (GBV) are an evil that should be fought. And I’d imagine even the most hard-core libertarian will agree that it’s within the mandate of a responsible government to do its part to help that happen.
Tracking Federal Funding Through Layers (and Layers) of Non-Profits
This won’t be the first time I’ve written about how complicated things can get when you try to follow government funding through nested layers of NGOs, charities, and other governments. But every attempt to pull back the curtain helps add a bit more clarity.
State adopted green theocracy will do that to fiscal prudence. Hysteria trumps reason for those lacking in it. Numeracy is under-appreciated.
Interesting as usual and mildly depressing, which seems to be he case with with the Audit sadly. Also at risk of revealing myself to be 'uninformed' could you kindly obey the FIRST RULE of ACRONYMS and clue me in as to the meaning of ESG. I reread the piece several times and it's meaning still escapes me.