G8 Policy Paper
Please address general
comments and questions to:
John Ruthrauff
Director of International
Advocacy
InterAction
jruthrauff@interaction.org
202.552.6523
Sue Pleming
Senior Director of
Communications
InterAction
spleming@interaction.org
202.341.3814
Comments and questions on
specific policy sections should
be addressed to the following
individuals:
Accountability
Rob Lovelace
Senior Fellow
Trade Union Sustainability
Development Unit
Lovelace.RE@gmail.com
Food Security, Agriculture
and Nutrition
Steven Myers
Leland Hunger Fellow,
Public Policy & Advocacy
Save the Children
smyers@savechildren.org
Maternal, Newborn and
Child Health
Kimberly Sutton
Policy Manager
Government Relations
Global Health Council
ksutton@globalhealth.org
www.InterAction.org
1400 16th Street, NW
Suite 210
Washington, DC 20036
202.667.8227
May 2011
Recommendations for the
G8 Deauville Summit
Summary of Recommendations
InterAction’s G8/G20 Task Force urges G8 leaders to implement the following recommen-
dations at the May 26-27 summit in Deauville, France. As the largest association of U.S.-
based, non-profit organizations, InterAction and its members deal daily with the impact
of global poverty. The current financial crisis has had a serious impact on commitments
made by G8 members to developing nations. Through strong actions and a commitment
to greater transparency, the G8 should leverage good governance efforts by its partners
and remove impediments to economic growth. In a bid to maximize the outcomes of the
Deauville summit, the following steps should be taken:
Food Security, Agriculture and Nutrition
1. Fully fund the L’Aquila $22 billion pledge.
2. Rebalance donor funds to improve nutrition and reach small-scale producers.
3. Integrate resilience to climate change and civil society partnerships into food secu-
rity plans.
Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH)
1. Implement MNCH commitments made under the 2010 Muskoka Initiative and
ensure much needed international engagement, coordination, accountability and
investment to achieve Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5 through active sup-
port of the UN Secretary-General’s Global Strategy on Women’s and Children’s
Health.
2. Coordinate donor funding to support integration of services within the health and
other development sectors, and ensure equitable access to health services across
the full continuum of care.
Accountability
1. Direct the G8 Accountability Working Group (AWG) to seek outside input to inform
its reporting.
2. When the AWG establishes a new expert group, make public its terms of reference
and the names and affiliations of all of the experts; then update the information in a
timely and transparent fashion.
3. Require that the AWG conduct a comprehensive evaluation of all G8 commitments,
make it publicly available 30 days before each summit and hold a public comment
period.
4. Publish the report schedule (with probable topics) through 2015.
 Detailed Recommendations
Food Security, Agriculture and Nutrition
G8 leaders created the 2009 L’Aquila Global Food Secu-
rity Initiative and pledged to invest $22 billion over 3 years
in food security, to encourage rural development in poor
countries, and create sustainable solutions for about 1 bil-
lion hungry people worldwide. The leaders also decided to
promote new investments and improved efficiency of aid
programs and regional coordination by involving all part-
ners. This initiative still lacks a clear action plan, transpar-
ent timeline for fund delivery or accountability framework.
To this end, we urge the G8 to:
1. Fully fund the L’Aquila $22 billion pledge. Estab-
lish a robust accountability framework requiring
nations to honor these commitments, including to
the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program.
This should include annual reporting on country
allocations; types of interventions, including assis-
tance for small-scale producers; results indicators,
including child stunting and wasting; and donor
disbursements against pledges. We applaud the
United States government for its progress toward
these accountability and transparency measures.
The L’Aquila commitments should be supported by
strengthening the U.N.-based Committee on World
Food Security.
2. Rebalance donor funds to improve nutrition
and reach small-scale producers. We applaud
the 2010 Muskoka G8 focus on reduced child and
maternal malnutrition as a primary outcome of the
Food Security Initiative. However, the Muskoka
Accountability Report indicates that G8 pledges
for nutrition are less than 3 percent ($426 million)
of the bilateral total. Over 50 percent ($9 billion) is
pledged for agricultural, agro-industries, forestry
and fishing. To ensure that pledges translate into
tangible results for the nearly 1 billion hungry peo-
ple worldwide, G8 leaders must rebalance donor
funds to improve nutrition and reach small-scale
producers. We strongly encourage G8 nations to
participate in and support the Scaling Up Nutri-
tion (SUN) movement to raise the priority of direct
nutrition interventions and nutrition-sensitive devel-
opment in nations affected by high rates of child
malnutrition.
3. Integrate resilience to climate change and civil
society partnerships into food security plans
through impact and risk analysis, vulnerability
assessments to identify and target the most vulner-
able populations and help them develop increased
adaptive capacity. Ensure that civil society, includ-
ing local and non-governmental organizations and
2
vulnerable populations and communities, are full
partners in food security planning and program
implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Climate
change threatens to reduce agricultural produc-
tivity by half in parts of sub-Saharan Africa1 and
cause yield declines and price increases for rice,
wheat, maize and soybeans, leading to an increase
in child malnutrition by 20 percent by 2050 rela-
tive to a world with no climate change2. Identifying
the most vulnerable populations and integrating
risk and impact analyses ensure that food security
approaches are responsive to a changing climate
and does not lead to increased vulnerability to
climate change. Participation of civil society and
vulnerable populations is critical to ensure that pro-
grams incorporate local knowledge and respond to
the needs of the most vulnerable populations.
Maternal, Newborn and Child Health
We welcome the G8’s recognition of unacceptably slow
progress toward achieving Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) 4 and 53 and the group’s decision to prioritize
maternal and child health by launching the Muskoka Initia-
tive. The Muskoka Initiative and President Barack Obama’s
Global Health Initiative (GHI) offer a critical opportunity to
galvanize international action to expand existing successes
and accelerate progress in improving maternal, newborn
and child health (MNCH). To this end, we urge G8 leaders
to take the following steps.
1. Implement the MNCH commitments and sup-
port MDGs 4 and 5 made under the 2010 Mus-
koka Initiative. Ensure international engagement,
coordination, accountability and investment to
achieve MDGs 4 and 5 through support of the UN
Secretary-General’s Global Strategy on Women’s
and Children’s Health.
2. Integrate health services. Coordinate donor fund-
ing to support integration of services within the
health and other development sectors and ensure
equitable access to health services across the full
continuum of care.
Both of these sets of actions should be reinforced by
continued G8-civil society dialogue and periodic meet-
ings of G8 Health/Development Ministers.
Background. The G8 Muskoka Initiative committed its
members to support significant progress in developing
countries with high rates of maternal and under-five child
mortality and an unmet need for family planning. This
includes a focus on comprehensive, high impact and
integrated interventions at the community level, across the
continuum of care.4 The initiative has added value in that
a number of other donors have also endorsed it includ-
ing: the governments of Australia, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden and
Switzerland, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
the Hewlett Foundation, the McCall McBain Founda-
tion, the Packard Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation
and the United Nations Foundation. It has also garnered
endorsements from the group of eight international agen-
cies in the health sector (the World Health Organization,
the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria,
UNICEF, the World Bank, the UNFPA (the UN Population
Fund), UNAIDS and GAVI (the Global Alliance for Vaccines
and Immunizations)), the heads of the schools of pub-
lic health of 22 universities in the United States and the
Micronutrient Initiative based in Canada.
We welcome the G8’s commitment under the Muskoka
Initiative to mobilize an additional $5-10 billion of addi-
tional resources over the next five years for MNCH funding
from G8 countries and other partners. The G8 must fund
fully its share of resources for strategies and programs
to accelerate the reduction of maternal, newborn, and
child mortality and morbidity in developing countries. The
U.S. must meet its existing $1.346 billion commitment
and leverage fulfillment of this pledge to influence other
G8 countries and partners to make and deliver on robust
funding commitments.
We also welcome the inclusion of strong integration
language in the Muskoka Initiative and its alignment with
the principles of the GHI. A strategy to address health
issues globally must recognize the inextricable linkages
between maternal, reproductive, newborn and child health
and development areas. As the Muskoka Initiative states,
its impact goes beyond MDG 4 and 5: It is related to ele-
ments of success across all the MDGs.
Accountability
The Deauville Accountability Report is a step towards
improved accountability. But the report is disappointing
in that it presents disbursements in “current dollars” (not
taking into account inflation) with only a few references
to “constant dollars”. The report reaffirms its adherence
to the Paris Declaration’s Aid Effectiveness Principles.
Unfortunately the “specific recommendations” are general
statements to “improve transparency”, “build common
sets … of performance criteria”, “mapping of vertical
funds and multilateral donors”, and pilot evaluations. The
recommendations propose no deadlines nor do they give
implementation plans.
We urge the G8 to adopt the following recommenda-
tions to build on progress towards fully implementing
their commitments. At the Deauville summit, we call on
G8 leaders to articulate support for greater civil society
engagement year round, which is in the interest of all
concerned—particularly those whose urgent needs have
called us all to action.
To that end, the G8’s Accountability Working Group
(AWG) and any other sector- or issue-specific groups it
establishes, should function in accordance with the fol-
lowing principles:
1. Inputs. G8 members 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 Afri-
can Union), recipient governments and a broad
spectrum of civil society to inform their reporting.
2. Terms of Reference. The AWG should publicly
release the terms of reference for each 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.
3. Comprehensive Evaluation. The AWG should
conduct a comprehensive evaluation and publish
G8 commitments consistent with the Muskoka
Accountability Report’s criteria for commitments.
4. Report Release. Make public the AWG annual
report 30 days before the summit and release a
schedule of future reports, with provisional topics,
through 2015. This should apply to both years in
which the report is thematic (as it is this year) and
years when it is comprehensive in scope.
Background. We welcome the AWG and its duty to pre-
pare reports. The suggestion to alternate between sector-
specific or thematic reports one year—such as the 2011
focus on food security and health commitments—and
more comprehensive reviews the next year is reasonable.
The AWG should also look to civil society and recipients
for full participation in the evaluations.
As AWG’s members have noted, better-crafted commit-
ments are needed to improve the G8’s ability to measure
progress. We support the recommendations to do so
by: (1) identifying clearly defined, time-bound objec-
tives, that measure progress against indicators, and are
tied to results-oriented outcome targets; (2) establishing
baselines for financial commitments and differentiating
between new and old funding; and (3) designating how
and when the G8 will report on each commitment.
The Muskoka Report calls for the exemption of “aspira-
tional commitments” from the accountability process. We
disagree with that approach. All G8 commitments—and
especially aspirational ones—should influence the global
policy agenda, set G8 priorities and catalyze action that
should be tracked.
Among otherwise positive signs, three impediments
cast doubt on the G8’s commitment to clear and trans-
3
 parent monitoring and reporting: 1) the G8 accountabil-
ity reporting process is not transparent. 2) there are no
indications of the G8’s willingness to involve civil society
in monitoring and reporting efforts, despite the fact that
many G8 states do so in their own development assist-
ance programs. 3) civil society’s access to the G8 summit
is restricted.
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 G8’s initiatives, we consider expert
groups essential actors in gathering and receiving infor-
mation from international organizations, governments and
civil society to inform G8 decision-making.
Many organizations contributed to one or more recom-
mendations in this policy statement. While the statement is
not designed to be a consensus position of the contribu-
tors, it has been endorsed by InterAction’s leadership.
End Notes
1 Boko, M., I. Niang, A. Nyong, C. Vogel, A. Githeko, M. Medany, B.
Osman-Elasha, R. Tabo and P. Yanda, 2007:Africa. Climate Change
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J.
van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge UK, 433-467.
2 Nelson, G.C., Mark W. Rosegrant, Jawoo Koo, Richard Robertson,
Timothy Sulser, Tingiu Zhu, Claudia Ringler, Siwa Msangi, Amanda
Palazzo, Miroslav Batka, Marilia Magalhaes, Rowena Valmonte-San-
tos, Mandy Ewing and David Lee, October 2009. “Climate Change:
Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation.” International Food
Policy Research Institute.
3 MDG 4 aims to “reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the
under-five mortality rate” and MDG 5 aims to “reduce by three quar-
ters the maternal mortality ratio” and “achieve universal access to
reproductive health”
4 This is described in the Consensus for Maternal, Newborn and Child
Health statement.

Accountability
ActionAid USA
Bread for the World
Global Health Council
InterAction
Management Sciences for Health
Oxfam America
Save the Children
Trade Union Sustainability Development Unit

Food Security, Agriculture and Nutrition

ActionAid USA
Bread for the World
CARE
PATH
InterAction
International Medical Corps
Oxfam America
Save the Children

Maternal, Newborn and Child Health

CARE
Family Care International
Global Health Council
InterAction
International Medical Corps
Management Sciences for Health
Oxfam America
PATH
Population Action International
Save the Children