OTTAWA – Ottawa should have been basking in praise by now for its efforts to push the G8 to fund maternal and child healthcare in developing countries.
The last time Canada hosted a G8 summit, Ottawa’s centrepiece – to build a self-help plan for Africa – was well framed and well financed by this point in the summit cycle.
This time, with just seven weeks to go before G8 leaders meet in Huntsville, Ont., the signature campaign is still so vague that observers are left wondering if it will ever be meaningful.
No funding target has been set, no structure for the funding has been made public, and it’s not clear exactly what the donor countries will be contributing their money to, says John Kirton, director of the G8 research group at the University of Toronto.
“They’ve left it so long,” he said.
When Canada hosted the G8 in Kananaskis, Alta., in June 2002, the donor funding for the African initiative was already on the table by March of that year, Kirton noted. The rest of the time leading up to the summit was spent figuring out how to divvy up the money.
This time, “we’re almost two months late,” Kirton said.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced with much fanfare at the end of January that the maternal and child health focus would be his signature on the summit. But many insiders say that decision was made just a few days before the announcement, and was not thought through beforehand.
“They just threw it out there,” said Liberal MP Keith Martin, who is heavily involved in international efforts for development and health.
Then, questions about whether Ottawa would support access to safe abortions and family planning dominated the discussion, until Harper and International Development Minister Bev Oda finally settled the matter 10 days ago with a firm No.
“The system did lose several weeks and months fighting about abortion,” Kirton said.
Development ministers from the G8 countries decided at a meeting in Halifax last month that their maternal and child health initiative should be cost-effective, focused on the poorest countries, and not involve new funding mechanisms.
They also agreed that their efforts would have “high impact” at the community level, targeting pre-natal and post-partum care, family planning, reproductive health, disease prevention, transmission of HIV, immunization and nutrition.
But they also said that before they agree on how to do this, they need international organizations to set out concrete goals, develop methodologies, collect data and improve tracking of investments.
“Having broad statements is fine,” said Kimberly Hunter, spokeswoman for ONE, a large, global anti-poverty group. “But we want to see specifics.”
Such talk about collecting more data is a clear sign the G8 countries are a far cry from agreeing to put money on the table, says Mark Fried, policy coordinator for Oxfam Canada.
“It generally has no substance to it.”
Improving maternal and child health is central to the Millenium Development Goals established by the United Nations as bench marks for the world to achieve by 2015. Of the eight goals, maternal health is the one showing the least progress.
So, efforts by the Harper government to have the G8 tackle that area were initially warmly welcomed around the world.
Non-governmental estimates for how much the G8 should contribute range from about $4 billion (U.S.) over the next five years to about $15 billion.
But as development officials figure out how to deliver something substantial by June 26, the G8 agenda has been overcome by other priorities that are just as demanding of the countries’ pocketbooks.
Rich countries have promised to pay poor countries $30 billion to help them deal with climate change. The G8 promised a year ago to contribute $20 billion for food security.
And now, the debt crisis that started in Greece and is spreading to other countries has meant an enormous bailout financed by European governments and the International Monetary Fund.
Talk of further funding is in the air, even as most G8 countries are struggling to keep their deficits from spiralling out of control.
Add to that an emphasis by Harper to make governments accountable for their previous promises, and countries are loath to trumpet big new spending announcements.
“I can see why they’d be gun shy about putting funding numbers on the table,” Kirton said.