G8 Background Policy Brief

February 2013

Establishing G8 Accountability: Still a Work in Progress

For more information, please contact: John Ruthrauff Director, International Advocacy InterAction jruthrauff@interaction.org 1-202-552-6523 Sue Pleming Senior Director, Communications InterAction spleming@interaction.org 1-202-552-6561 Comments and questions on specific recommendations should be addressed to: Rob Lovelace Senior Fellow Trade Union Sustainable Development Unit rlovelace@tu-sdunit.com 1-301-762-5692

People around the world are demanding more openness from their leaders and their governments. They are calling for greater participation in public affairs and are searching for ways to make governments more effective, responsive, transparent, and accountable. There is growing recognition among governments of the importance of accountability and transparency as public policy tools that broaden access to, and increase the efficiency of, public resources and services both at home and abroad. These trends are causing a growing number of countries to embrace accountability and transparency as important principles underpinning the Open Government Partnership. From the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness to the Busan principles, donors have stated that they consider accountability and transparency to be essential elements for ensuring that official development assistance (ODA) is spent wisely and effectively. The G8 deserves credit for formally establishing an accountability mechanism, but in practice it is getting the concept of accountability only half right. Accountability and transparency go hand in hand. The G8s persistent lack of transparency is troublesome and out of step with the expectations it places on other countries.

Summary of Recommendations
Continued U.S. leadership is essential to ensure that transparency a fundamental principle underpinning the Open Government Initiative is adopted as standard operating procedure by the G8 Accountability Working Group. Specifically, the United States should play a leading role in urging the G8 to take the following steps: 1. Direct the Accountability Working Group (AWG) to collect input from international organizations, recipient governments and civil society to inform the preparation of the Accountability Report. International organizations should include, but not be limited to, the UN, its specialized agencies, the OECD Development Assistance Committee and the African Union. The AWGs terms of reference for all future reports should include a requirement to make public a plan to collect input from the sources mentioned above. 2. Mandate the AWG to initiate transparent practices by publicly identifying all G8 working groups, releasing their terms of reference, and the names and affiliation of all experts advising the AWG and its working groups as soon as they are selected. Meeting schedules for such groups and a detailed agenda should be publicly available at least 20 days before each meeting. 3. Make public the AWG annual report 30 days before the G8 summit and release a schedule of future reports, with provisional topics, through 2015. Institute the same advance release and report schedule publication rules for future years.

www.InterAction.org 1400 16th Street, NW Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 202.667.8227

zz

Background
G8 countries continue to contribute the lions share of development assistance at a time when the architecture for development cooperation has grown more complex. Today there are larger numbers of state and non-state actors engaged in different ways to complement traditional North-South forms of cooperation. G8 countries responded to these new realities by playing significant roles in forging the Global Partnership in Busan and the OECDs new 2 framework for a strategy on development with the aim of improving the quality of aid in the future. The G8 is already playing an active role in promoting new partnerships in the form of public-private partnerships that are tasked 3 with implementing G8 development priorities and commitments. This reliance on non-state development actors makes transparency even more important; it should be readily apparent who is engaged in the processes of selecting new partners, determining the scope of their work and how their performance will be evaluated. Accountability has not always been a part of the G8 process. It is a relatively new addition whose origins can be traced to the mid-2000s. As the G8 became an increasingly popular advocacy venue to advance major development priorities, concerns were raised in various quarters of civil society as to how a small and self-selected group of wealthy countries could be held to account for their wide and sweeping development commitments. Undoubtedly, some G8 governments also shared similar concerns. These concerns were well placed. At the 2005 Gleneagles summitwhat some would consider the high watermark of G8 development summits bold commitments were made including substantially raising official development assistance (ODA), doubling aid to Africa and providing universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support by the end of the decade. Although the final communiqu referenced a one-off means for monitoring 4 progress , former Prime Minister Tony Blair underscored the G8s good intentions at a press conference, insisting that this is what we declare; we are going to be held to this, we are bound by it, we are committed to it and 5 judge us by it. By the time the 2010 Muskoka G8 summit took place, the Gleneagles commitments were unceremoniously 6 dropped from the summit communiqu . In the final tally, according to the OECD, total 2010 ODA fell short of the 7 2005 promises by about $19 billion USD, with aid to Africa alone $11 billion short of the promised $25 billion . Three years past the promised delivery date, the commitment to achieve universal access to HIV prevention and treatment still remains an elusive goal. Beginning in 2005, a coalition of trade unions and HIV/AIDS advocates began lobbying for the creation of a G8 accountability mechanism, primarily to monitor the G8s progress in fulfilling its HIV/AIDS related commitments. Steady progress was achieved in the next few years. 2005 saw the designation of a one-off monitoring mecha8 nism, and the 2006 St. Petersburg summit resulted in a call for a regular review of health commitments . The 2007 9 Heiligendamm summit established a regular monitoring exercise , and Japans Hokkaido summit saw continued 10 11 improvements in 2008 .The culmination of these efforts came at the 2009 LAquila summit in Italy . There, G8 members called for a full and comprehensive accountability mechanism by 2010 to monitor progress and 12 strengthen the effectiveness of our actions , that would come to be known as the Accountability Working Group (AWG). Recent Gains Beginning in the run-up to the 2010 Muskoka summit, InterActions G8/G20 Advocacy Alliance has consistently called on the G8, and specifically its AWG, to build on these noteworthy strides toward greater G8 accountability by promoting a process based on the principles of inclusion and transparency. The 2010 Muskoka Accountability Report set a high bar for future accountability reports by introducing a standard methodology and degree of thor1

zz

oughness in its review of G8 development commitments. It also proposed recommendations for constructing future G8 commitments in a way that would clarify the G8s intended actions and encourage measurable resultsoriented outcomes. Unfortunately, the preparation process for the Muskoka report was notably lacking in transparency and only allowed for limited inputand only then at the invitation of the AWG. Because it lacks a permanent staff, the G8 cannot be expected to prepare a report on par with the expansive Muskoka report on an annual basis. Accordingly, the heads of state charged the AWG with producing a 2011 report more narrowly focused on health and food security. The 2011 Deauville Accountability report highlighted the perils of failing to follow the principles of inclusion and transparency. Whatever might have been said about the reports findings with respect to progress on the G8s health and food security commitments was immediately overshadowed by a clumsy attempt to paint a brighter picture of G8 performance than was accurate. Civil society organizations as well as leading media outlets such as the New York Times immediately took the G8 to task for claiming that it came close to fulfilling its 2005 promise to 13 boost annual development aid by $50 billion by 2010. It is difficult to imagine that such a blunder would have occurred if the report preparation process had been more inclusive and transparent. Despite getting off to a good start in 2012, the U.S. governments stewardship of the G8s accountability mechanism ultimately earned mixed reviews. The report compiled and released by the AWG tracked donor progress against commitments, providing more in-depth and country-by-country data than previous accountability reports. It also initiated a new self-reporting scorecard intended to catalogue indicators of progress in specific focus areas and to include more in-depth information and detailed reporting tables to give a more comprehensive picture of G8 members actions. In this regard, the Camp David Accountability Report was a substantial improvement over the 2011 Deauville report. However, the improvements in the Camp David report were overlooked due to the fact that the report was released with little fanfare days after the summit concluded. Each of the three G8 accountability reports produced thus far have been the product of preparatory processes that have consistently failed to meet basic standards of transparency and inclusion. Without a systematic means of ensuring the input of outside groups, especially development practitioners, the G8s accountability reports will continue to fall short of their potential for providing insights on how to improve and showcase ODA effectiveness. In 2012, the G8 continued its practice of failing to identify working groups and their members, failing to release a schedule of meeting dates and agendas, and failing to identify the parties to the consultation process. These process issues continue to undermine the G8s credibility and serve as an impediment to improving the substance of 14 its reports. The G8 pays a price for a lack of openness and inclusion. During these economically challenging times, maintaining or even increasing domestic support for ODA in donor countries might be easier if more stakeholders contributed to the G8 reports and evidence of the G8s progress was shared more prominently with the public. Busan We urge the United States government to become first among nations in leading G8 members and other countries in promoting the establishment of accountability mechanisms at all levels. This effort is required to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of development cooperation in meeting the needs of the people these programs aim to serve. We note the potential of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation proposed at the

zz

Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea as an open platform that embraces diversi15 ty, providing a forum for the exchange of knowledge and the regular review of progress. The Busan High Level Forum called attention to civil society organizations for their vital role in enabling people to claim their rights, in promoting rights-based approaches, in shaping development policies and partnerships, and in 16 overseeing their implementation. We call on the U.S government to urge the G8 to initiate the practice of engaging civil society, especially development practitioners, and, in doing so, to demonstrate that greater transparency and the engagement of civil society is in the mutual interest of all concerned especially those whose urgent needs have called us all to action. Principles To that end, the G8s Accountability Working Group (AWG) and any G8 working groups should function in accordance with the following principles: 1. Inputs. The G8 should direct the AWG to receive input from other international organizations (e.g., the U.N., specialized agencies, the OECD Development Assistance Committee and the African Union), recipient governments, and a broad spectrum of civil society to inform their reporting. This directive to engage, particularly with civil society, should be made explicit in the Terms of Reference for all future reports. In response, the AWG should develop and publish its plan for soliciting and receiving input from this array of international representatives. Terms of Reference. The AWG should publicly release the terms of reference for each G8 expert group and the names and affiliation of all experts as soon as they are identified. Meeting schedules for such groups and a detailed agenda should be publicly available at least 20 days before any meeting. Comprehensive Evaluation. The AWG should conduct a comprehensive evaluation of all G8 commitments to devise performance indicators consistent with the Muskoka Accountability Reports criteria for commitments. Report Release. Beginning in 2013, the AWG should make public its annual report 30 days before the summit and release a schedule of future reports, with provisional topics, through 2015. This should apply both to years in which the report is comprehensive in scope, as was the Muskoka Accountability Report, and years when the report is thematic, as it was in 2011.

2.

3.

4.

The Accountability Report Preparation Process We appreciate the AWGs role in ensuring that the G8 reporting process builds on prior progress and in providing continuity in the scope and quality of reporting from year to year. For the sake of coherence, we urge the AWG to identify thematic topics in alternating years that assess progress towards attaining overarching G8 commitments such as the Millennium Development Goals. The AWG should strive to identify the best possible means of gathering input from development practitioners in government, the private sector, civil society and the beneficiaries of development assistance programs, to improve efficiency and effectiveness. As the AWGs members have noted, better-crafted commitments are needed to improve the G8s ability to meas17 ure progress. We reiterate our support for recommendations that: (1) identify clearly defined, time-bound objectives, that measure progress against indicators, and are tied to results-oriented outcome targets; (2) establish

zz

baselines for financial commitments and differentiate between new and old funding; and (3) designate how and when the G8 will report on each commitment. We reject the notion that aspirational commitments are exempt from the accountability process. All G8 commitments especially the aspirational ones should influence the global policy agenda, set G8 priorities, and catalyze action that should be tracked and measured. Among otherwise positive signs, three impediments still cast doubt on the G8s commitment to clear and transparent monitoring and reporting: 1. 2. To date the G8 accountability reporting process has not been transparent; There are few indications of the G8s willingness to involve civil society in monitoring and reporting efforts, despite the fact that many G8 states do so in their own development assistance programs; and Civil societys access to the G8 summit is restricted, leading to nearly annual negotiations between civil society and host governments over access to summit facilities.

3.

The G8 regularly convenes specialized groups of experts to consider issues in-depth. These issue-oriented groups should function in a transparent fashion. As key implementers of the G8s initiatives, we consider expert groups essential actors in gathering and receiving information from international organizations, governments and civil society to inform G8 decision-making. While there are some encouraging signs that the UK government is making serious attempts to engage civil society in meaningful ways, there is room for improvement. In the 2012 Camp David Declaration, G8 leaders stated that 18 they were strongly committed to reporting transparently and consistently They can get started long before the summit convenes in June.

While the statement is not designed to be a consensus position of the contributors, it has been endorsed by InterActions leadership. The recommendations were developed by a Policy Team of the G8/G20 Advocacy Alliance, whose members are listed below.

ActionAid USA InterAction Management Sciences for Health Oxfam America Save the Children Trade Union Sustainable Development Unit Transparency International-USA

End Notes
1

The G7 countries contribute nearly 70% of ODA. OECD (2012), "Development aid: Net official development assistance (ODA)", Development: Key Tables from OECD, No. 1. doi 10.1787/aid-oda-table-2012-1-en 2 Policy Coherence for Development Towards an OECD Strategy on Development, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/pcd/towardsanoecdstrategyondevelopment.htm 3 Camp David Declaration, 2012 G8, May 18-19, 2012

zz

18. Building on this progress, and working with our African and other international partners, today we commit to launch a New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition to accelerate the flow of private capital to African agriculture, take to scale new technologies and other innovations that can increase sustainable agricultural productivity, and reduce the risk borne by vulnerable economies and communities. This New Alliance will lift 50 million people out of poverty over the next decade, and be guided by a collective commitment to invest in credible, comprehensive and country-owned plans, develop new tools to mobilize private capital, spur and scale innovation, and manage risk; and engage and leverage the capacity of private sector partners from women and smallholder farmers, entrepreneurs to domestic and international companies. 4 Africa, Partnership and mutual accountability: Gleneagles and beyond 33. We need an effective mechanism to take forward our high-level strategic dialogue with Africa, focusing on the results of our joint efforts. We acknowledge the productive role played by the Africa Personal Representatives and the Africa Partnership Forum. We agree that the APF should be strengthened We encourage the APF to develop a process for monitoring, reporting and reviewing progress against milestones and benchmarks and to enable corrective action to be taken. There should be sufficient support for the APF to enable effective follow up, including by the G8, on implementation between meetings, working with AU/NEPAD, OECD/DAC, ECA and other organizations. 5 Blair Press Conference July 8, 2005, Transcript, Gleneagles Summit official documents 6 Larry Elliott, G8 summit communiqu drops Gleneagles pledge on aid to Africa, The Guardian, June 3 2010 7 See: OCED, Development aid reaches an historic high in 2010 8 Fight Against Infectious Disease, St Petersburg, July 16, 2006 25. Finally, we commit ourselves to a regular review of our work in the field of tackling these three pandemics. 9 Growth and Responsibility in Africa Summit Declaration, Heiligendamm, June 8, 2007 59. In view of the G8 countries contributions to achieving the health related international goals we agreed in St. Petersburg to review the progress in this regard, including our financial commitments, in fighting the three diseases HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, regularly. We will undertake this monitoring exercise for the first time this year under the Presidency's guidance. The report will inform our activities and commitments and we affirm that we will continue this close monitoring process regularly. 10 Development and Africa, Health, Hokkaido Toyako Summit, July 8, 2008 45. G8 members are determined to honor in full their specific commitments to fight infectious diseases, namely malaria, tuberculosis, polio and working towards the goal of universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care by 2010In this regard, we welcome the report submitted by our health experts along with its attached matrices, showing G8 implementation of past commitments to ensure accountability. Building on the Saint Petersburg commitments to fight infectious diseases, the experts' report sets forth the 'Toyako Framework for Action', which includes the principles for action, and actions to be taken on health, drawing on the expertise of international institutions. We so agreed to establish a follow-up mechanism to monitor our progress on meeting our commitments. 11 RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, L'Aquila Summit, July 9, 2009 98. To improve transparency and effectiveness we decide to strengthen our accountability with respect to G8 individual and collective commitments with regard to development and development-related goals. We have asked our experts to provide a preliminary report, attached as an annex, reviewing our achievements up to now. Furthermore, we have tasked a senior level working group to devise, in cooperation with relevant international organizations, a broader, comprehensive and consistent methodology for reporting with a focus on our activities in development and development-related areas and with attention to results. A report will be delivered in 2010 at the Muskoka Summit in Canada. We also ask for an international assessment, in 2010, on what is needed in order to achieve the MDGs. 12 Ibid, 3. Guided by our common values, we will address global issues and promote a world economy that is open, innovative, sustainable and fair. To this end, effective and responsible leadership is required. We are determined to fully take on our responsibilities, and are committed to implementing our decisions, and to adopting a full and comprehensive accountability mechanism by 2010 to monitor progress and strengthen the effectiveness of our actions. 13 The G-8s Self-Serving Math, The New York Times, May 25, 2011, p. A26 14 See InterAction Policy Brief (http://www.interaction.org/document/2012-g8-background-policy-brief-accountability) for needed reforms 15 BUSAN PARTNERSHIP FOR EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION, FOURTH HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON AID EFFECTIVENESS, BUSAN, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, 29 NOVEMBER--1 DECEMBER 2011 36. a) Establish a new, inclusive and representative Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation to support and ensure accountability for the implementation of commitments at the political level. This Partnership will offer an open platform that embraces diversity, providing a forum for the exchange of knowledge and the regular review of progress. 16 Ibid, 22. 17 Muskoka Accountability Report: Assessing Action and Results against Development-related Commitments, 2010, page 7 18 Ibid, 19. The G-8 reaffirms its commitment to the worlds poorest and most vulnerable people, and recognizes the vital role of official development assistance in poverty alleviation and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. As such, we welcome and endorse the Camp David Accountability Report which records the important progress that the G-8 has made on food security consistent with commitments made at the LAquila Summit, and in meeting our commitments on global health, including the Muskoka initiative on maternal, newborn and child health. We remain strongly committed to reporting transparently and consistently on the implementation of these commitments. We look forward to a comprehensive report under the UK Presidency in 2013.