Imagine this:  in a few months, the heads of most of the biggest and most important countries will get together for a couple of days.  A few leaders from developing countries will tag along.  The media will cover the event in detail because…well, because why not?  And for a few hours, a lot of the world’s power and attention will be focused in a single place.

What if I told you that the agenda for the meeting isn’t set, and that the outcomes of the meeting have not yet been decided?  Do you think you might have some ideas?

This is the G8 summit, a traveling carnival that reappears every year.  Leaders of some of the most powerful countries gather to discuss weighty topics.  Sometimes they make big promises.  Sometimes they don’t.

For anti-poverty campaigners, this combination of factors is absolutely irresistible.  Or it might be better to say that ignoring such an opportunity would be absolutely irresponsible.  If you believe in making a difference, advancing a cause, having an impact, changing policies and the world, you really must try to take advantage of the G8 summit—and it’s supporting processes and negotiations—for your mission.

Despite some significant and measurable achievements, the G8 and campaigners at the summit have come under some criticism in recent years.  The argument is that while it’s an enormous public relations event, it has a declining value as a negotiating venue and achievements are only symbolic.  Some argue that a better target is the G20.  Others argue that these summits are all losing (or have long lost) their significance.

But if the G8 and the G20 didn’t exist, would anti-poverty campaigners have to invent them?  There’s just no bigger and better way to get these global issues onto a world stage and put pressure on critical leaders to make commitments and then follow them up.  Done.

On Wednesday a coalition of UK groups, including Oxfam, launched the “Enough food for everyone IF” campaign.  The goal is to push Prime Minister David Cameron “relentlessly and every which way” to take action on hunger with the G8.  The campaign has a platform that includes promoting more foreign assistance, clamping down on tax dodging by big companies, stopping land-grabs, and increasing transparency.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi38ZtG4NhM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

I like this effort.  It’s positive without being pandering.  There are some real asks that aren’t easy, but aren’t completely unreasonable.  It has focus, but there’s enough room for a broad coalition.  (For additional commentary about the campaign, see these posts from Duncan Green of Oxfam UK, David Harewood of Cafod, David McNair of Save the Children UK, Lawrence Haddad of IDS, and Leni Wild of ODI and Sarah Mulley of IPPR.)

What many seem to miss is that if the campaign and this year’s G8 will be a success, the US will have to step up and take a lead.  The issue of food security and agriculture has actually been championed more by the US than other G8 members in the past.  President Obama managed a modest coup by pulling a significant agriculture and food security initiative out of the otherwise embarrassingly disorganized G8 in 2009, hosted by Silvio Berlusconi.

But what can President Obama deliver this time round?  For now, the newly re-inaugurated President is putting together his team.  Senator Kerry at State Department and Jack Lew at Treasury will both have a hand in the G8 discussions, assuming they are confirmed by the Senate.  President Obama’s key staffer on the G8, National Security Council aide Michael Froman, is strongly rumored to be moving into a new job as the US Trade Representative.  So there’s a lot of uncertainty and movement.

Let’s hope President Obama gets his team in place and his game-plan organized, so we can make something big out of this year’s G8.

Victoria Marzilli is Oxfam America’s new media specialist.

As the G8 Summit came to a close, we had a bit of a surprise twist in the outcome. There was more movement on food security than we expected and day one of the summit was focused almost solely on that issue, a rarity in recent G8 history. The increased attention was due in part to the stirring outcry from anti-hunger and poverty activists all over the world.

In the weeks before the Summit, Oxfam supporters contributed to the nearly three thousand #DearG8 tweets, keeping the pressure on G8 leaders to help 50 million people lift themselves out of poverty. Our supporters sent thousands of letters to President Obama, to reiterate that message. We also held two media “stunts” during the week of the summit, bringing activists dressed as the G8 leaders to the White House, and then outside the Reagan Building where President Obama unveiled his “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition”.

In his pre-G8 speech at the Chicago Council Symposium, and again in his closing remarks, he mentioned the G8 will set a new goal of helping 50 million men, women, and children lift themselves out of poverty through country-led agriculture plans. Since 500 million small farms in developing countries support nearly 2 billion people, supporting those farmers means that their families can earn an income, get an education, and thrive. The goal is spot-on, but the way to achieve that goal doesn’t add up.  Though fulfilling their L’Aquila pledges (which were $7.3 billion per year through 2012), the G8 failed to renew their commitments. Instead, they’ve invited the private sector to pledge $3 billion over 10 years in a New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. This is a shrinking response to a growing problem and, even if companies deliver, it still represents 96% decrease in investment from previous public funding levels. At a time when more than 18 million people across West Africa are facing a massive food crisis, we need to recognize that the scale of the problem requires a serious investment that matches the plans from people on the ground. After all, aren’t the world’s small-scale farmers who sell their goods in local markets part of the private sector, too?

On the bright side, G8 countries have made additional pledges of $1.2 billion to the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). Read more about GAFSP here: http://www.gafspfund.org/gafsp. We’re happy to see this important mechanism for country ownership get the funding it deserves.

While it’s reassuring that our leaders are making food security a global priority, we must make sure that we hold them accountable to match the scale of the need and listen to what people in developing countries really need.

Though fulfilling their L’Aquila pledges (which were $7.3 billion per year through 2012), the G8 failed to renew their commitments. Photo: Victoria Marzilli/Oxfam.

Porter McConnell is the Oxfam policy lead for the G8 Camp David summit.

This Friday, G8 leaders are making a big announcement on food security. We expect the launching of a new initiative. Past summits haven’t always had development on the agenda, and the US hosts deserve credit for making sure food security is front and center. Now that the G8 is on the trail to food security, how will we know if they get there?

Although we don’t have all the details of the initiative, here are some key mile-markers to measure the G8’s progress on the new food security initiative. If they can meet these mile-markers on their trail, it will indeed be a great day for nearly 1 billion poor and hungry people:

1.       Does it match the scale of the need?

G8 leaders committed to support developing-country plans for agriculture to the tune of $7 billion a year over three years when they met in L’Aquila, Italy, three years ago. Earlier in Maputo, African governments committed to allocating 10% of their budgets to support agriculture, since it’s how three-fourths of Africans make a living. Experts suggest the global need for agriculture funding is between $60 and $75 billion a year. As much as private sector commitments are welcome, they are usually in the millions of dollars, rather than billions.  There’s no substitute for public investment. If the G8 wants to stay on the trail, the new G8 food security initiative needs to scale up the G8’s public sector investments from $7 billion a year to $10 billion to show forward momentum. At a minimum, the modest funding commitments of L’Aquila should not be eroded.

A new G8 food security initiative needs to be consistent with Africa's plans for agriculture. Photo: Alun McDonald/Oxfam

2.       Is it consistent with Africa’s plans for agriculture?

Just as important as the “how much” test is the “how” test. Efforts to tackle food insecurity work best when they are led by the people and the nations who are closest to the problem. That’s why the G8 committed, through the Rome Principles, to channel their funding through country investment plans for agriculture. While a lot of the G8 countries are on track to meet their “how much” goals, they’re not doing so great on this “how”. A recent ActionAid report suggests that donors are, for the most part, still not funding through country plans. Any new initiative has to be consistent with country plans if it’s to succeed. Unfortunately, this week, we expect the G8 leaders to focus on private sector investment—despite the fact that most country plans don’t include much of a funding role for the private sector. African civil society wants to see a continued commitment to L’Aquila and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), not a distraction or a shift in responsibility. A new initiative needs to prove it’s part of Africa’s plans to be headed in the right direction.

3.       Does it hold everybody accountable for delivering on promises?

Every year, the G8 puts out an accountability report intended to hold itself accountable for progress. This year, the US hosts are to be commended for making an effort to include not just what the G8 committed, but what it actually delivered. But next year and especially the year after, the accountability report will be measuring progress against the new food security initiative. How does—or should—the G8 hold the private sector accountable for pledges made? They don’t answer to other G8 leaders, they answer to their shareholders. Their pledges are strictly voluntary. For the new food security initiative to succeed, all pledges must have a clear accountability mechanism, or else the initiative will get stuck at the trail head.

4.       Is it based on evidence, with a clear path to poverty reduction?

Governments are often tempted to turn to well-resourced multi-national companies and investors in a period of constrained public budgets. But this faith in the private sector as a panacea is not always based on evidence. There’s not much evidence that using donor dollars to leverage private sector funds delivers results for poor people. A recent report by the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group pointed out that less than half of its International Finance Corporation (IFC) projects successfully reached the poor. For a new G8 food security initiative to succeed, it needs to have a clearly-marked path to poverty reduction, one that’s based on the evidence, not on blind faith.

On Friday, G8 leaders will announce a new food security initiative at a special event in Washington the day before they head out to Camp David. Stay tuned this week to hear how they’re faring on the trail!

This blog by Mahamadou Issoufou, Executive Director, The Federation of Unions of Farmers Groups, is cross posted from the Huffington Post.

This piece is part of a series of blogs by leading NGOs to call attention to a range of issues that should be raised at the G8 summit at Camp David in rural Maryland from May 18-19.

My country, Niger, has consistently been one of the world’s poorest countries. And in the last decade, we’ve been hit by a series of food crises—in 2005, in 2010, and today—pushing us further and further into poverty.

With only three months of rain every year and virtually no available irrigation, our farmers struggle to grow whatever they can from our parched earth. Increasingly erratic weather patterns are making things much worse, with droughts leading to extreme floods and vice versa.

Crisis after crisis has had a devastating impact on the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. Even minor shocks are having an increasingly severe impact on the lives of the poor, as coping mechanisms reach their limits. Many, especially, men, left their families in search of food and work, leaving women to fend for their children alone. Others have sold their possessions and taken on debt, often at very high interest rates, so they can feed their families.

In pastoral areas, even families who anticipated the crisis by selling off their animals in time only benefited from a few additional weeks’ worth of food. But then they were left with no source of further income.

This hunger threatens the survival and development of our youngest children, as well as the health, livelihoods and survival of the adults. It threatens the future of my country.

But we can fight back against this lethal cocktail of climate change and extreme poverty. In fact, we created a plan on how to fight hunger in my country, both in the short term and in the long term, so we can finally pull ourselves out of this cycle of crisis.

Improving access to credit for famers, so farmers can buy seeds, fertilizer and tools to fertilize their crops, will definitely help. Investing in the resilience of farming communities in the face of climate change is crucial. Prioritizing programs that get people working, such as cash for work or food for work programs, will deliver. As will partnering with farmer groups and investing in their capacity to fight for the rights of farmers and involving farmers in the strategies to fight hunger.

We have a plan, but now we need help putting it into action.

Three years ago at the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy, the world’s richest countries made a promise: if poor countries came up with good plans to help poor farmers grow more and earn more, rich countries would help make it happen. Donor countries, including the United States, have helped, but it’s been too little and too late.

As President Obama prepares to host this year’s G8, I hope he remembers the initiative he kicked off at L’Aquila and gets G8 leaders to step it up and deliver. We kept our end of the bargain, but we’re waiting on theirs. If they can muster the courage to prioritize this extremely important issue, they not only can help us in Niger, but they have the chance to lift 50 million people out of hunger and poverty through agriculture. With such an amazing payoff, isn’t it worth a try?

Victoria Marzilli is Oxfam America’s New Media Specialist focusing on social media.

In less than a month, leaders of the top eight economies of the world will gather in the secluded Camp David locale for the 38th annual G8 Summit—a forum for discussion on today’s most pressing issues. This year, top priorities include food security and agriculture—and for a few good reasons! Hunger is the world’s number one health risk with one in seven people going hungry. Fighting for food security initiatives at the G8 is just one part of Oxfam’s GROW campaign to build a better food system that sustainably feeds a growing population and empowers poor people to earn a living, feed their families, and thrive.

In addition, the deadline is up for commitments made at the 2009 G8 Summit in L’Aquila—and G8 countries need to move forward with a bold food security initiative that helps 50 million people lift themselves out of poverty through agriculture with a $30 billion commitment over three years. While we’re thankful that food security and agriculture are going to be discussed, we need to make sure that leaders deliver more than just empty promises; 50 million lives depend on it.

So starting today, Oxfam is working together with a big group of other NGOs including Save the Children, ONE, InterAction, and many more, to raise the volume on the issue —so loud that G8 leaders can’t ignore it.

Join us in taking the fight against hunger and poverty to Twitter!

A moment like this could be a turning point for the millions of small-scale farmers working hard every day to fight poverty and hunger, but it’s up to us to hold our leaders accountable.

Take action with us to speak up and ask President Obama to lead the G8 to keep their promises. Click the links below to tweet at the @WhiteHouse!

• .@WhiteHouse #DearG8, help 50 million people lift themselves out of poverty at the #G8! http://bit.ly/HKr4td

• .@WhiteHouse, 1 in 7 people will go hungry. Act now: support food security at the #G8! http://bit.ly/HQYKau #DearG8

You can also send a message to President Obama here and follow all of the conversation by searching #DearG8 on Twitter. And don’t stop there. Share the action with friends on Facebook, at work, and at school!

Since 2009, thirty poor countries have risen to the challenge: they have developed plans to improve agriculture and food security in their countries. Now Obama needs to lead the G8 to keep their promise and play their part.

This blog post was written by Porter McConnell, Oxfam America policy and advocacy manager for aid effectiveness.

G8 leaders will meet in Camp David in a month’s time. In 2009 at the L’Aquila summit, they took a bold step forward on food security, committing to resources and a promise to be better partners. Fast forward to 2012, and many of them are cutting their aid to poor countries.

The Obama administration has put food security on the agenda at the Camp David G8. There are proposals circulating for what a Camp David Food Security Initiative should look like. It’s all the rage for donor governments to emphasize the need to entice the private sector to get engaged in promoting growth that fights poverty. One of the models cited often is a public-private partnership in Tanzania called the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania, or SAGCOT.

The private sector has not invested in any significant way in SAGCOT.

In some ways, Tanzania is the perfect “donor darling.” The Tanzanian economy has been growing at 6-8% per year over the past 10-15 years, and budget allocations to agriculture, education, health, roads, and water are on the rise. But at the same time, low growth rates in agriculture, which provides 74% of Tanzania’s jobs, and continuing high population growth, have pushed at least one million more people under the poverty line. Research suggests that investments in agriculture and other productive sectors have failed to benefit small scale agriculture producers or to produce jobs in sufficient numbers, especially in rural areas, so poor people still aren’t feeling Tanzania’s growth.

Yesterday, the German Marshall Fund’s Translatlantic Experts Group released a report on partnerships in food security which digs deeper into the story of the SAGCOT in Tanzania. SAGCOT is intended to be a hub of international partnerships to develop the potential of a formerly marginal region through infrastructure projects like dams and roads, export market zoning, and smallholder access to inputs and agriculture extension through “hub and out grower” relationships with commercial agribusinesses.

While the report is optimistic about SAGCOT, the authors point out some problems with the model. First and probably most damning: the global corporate partners that donors and the Tanzanian government are anxious to recruit have not yet invested in any significant way. SAGCOT’s model is based on private sector investment coming through, in addition to the public resources committed. The lack of investors calls into question the effectiveness of the public money that has been contributed to the partnership. The report also outlines more troubling concerns that agribusiness will dominate at the expense of the region’s small scale agriculture producers, the partnership will encourage land grabbing by investors, and SAGCOT’s governing body leaves little room for small scale producers to participate or influence the partnership’s direction.

These findings mirror Oxfam research in Tanzania in 2011, which also investigated the promise of SAGCOT for poverty reduction through agriculture and found similarly that smallholders seemed to be missing out in the focus on large commercial farms, and the partnership posed a significant risk of land grabs and environmental abuse irrigation, drainage, salination of land, and loss of wildlife habitat and poaching. It was unclear whose role it was to conduct oversight over SAGCOT.

While generally supportive of the partnerships with the private sector, the GMF report acknowledges that donor-private sector partnerships are of limited use for meeting the needs of small scale agricultural producers. And since smallholder farmers, especially women, make up the majority of the world’s poor, it’s tough to argue that these partnerships will be the ticket out of poverty for most.

The private sector can play a supportive role on food security if it invests in ways that strengthen sustainable small-scale production. But there needs to be a high bar: using scarce public resources for private finance may be worth the risk only if it has clear poverty reduction purposes and proven benefits to the neediest. Unfortunately, donors have been taking steps to create an “enabling environment” for private sector investment in agriculture for decades, and there are still a billion hungry people in the world. A recent report by the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group pointed out that less than half of IFC’s projects successfully reached the poor. If the private sector is to play a productive role, there needs to be better evidence that these kinds of partnerships can actually deliver for the poor.

All of this begs the question: is Tanzania’s SAGCOT the model for a new G8 food security initiative, or is it more like a cautionary tale?

I asked the question whether President Obama could surpass the rather low standard set by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi when Italy hosted the G8 in 2009.

The parallels are eerie. In the wake of an earthquake, Berlusconi, made a grandiose gesture of moving the G8 from Sardinia to the ravaged L’Aquila. It was a symbolic statement that Italy would rebuild L’Aquila, although it was a logistical nightmare.

Yesterday, California had an earthquake as well. But President Obama eschewed the Italian grand gesture. Instead, he retreated, moving the G8 meeting from his home town, Chicago, to his mountain redoubt, Camp David.

Berlusconi eating spaghetti. Ilaria DiBagio/Oxfam-UCODEP

In fairness, the California earthquake wasn’t so bad, so making a grand symbolic gesture about rebuilding wasn’t really called for. But the symbolism and purpose of Obama’s move to Camp David aren’t yet clear. The White House, in a short explanatory statement, said, “To facilitate a free-flowing discussion with our close G8 partners, the President is inviting his fellow G8 leaders to Camp David on May 18-19 for the G8 Summit, which will address a broad range of economic, political and security issues.”

The Occupy movement declared a sort of victory, tweeting: “#BREAKING: #G8 Summit is retreating from Chicago to Camp David, afraid they might have to listen to the voice of the people. #OWS #winning”

The City Mayor Rahm Emanuel (former Obama Chief of Staff) demurely said, “We wish President Obama and the other leaders well at the G8 meeting at Camp David and look forward to hosting the NATO Summit in Chicago.”

For the rest of us, there’s confusion. Oxfam and others had hoped that this G8 summit would be an opportunity for President Obama to launch the next generation of the G8 food security initiative that was launched in 2009. Does moving the G8 summit out of sight and out of reach make this more likely? Is it easier for leaders to make commitments when they’re holed up on a mountain?

I have my doubts. But we haven’t yet seen or heard from President Obama about what his ambitions are for the meeting.

Perhaps his main purpose is to contribute to the slow asphyxiation of the G8. This might, in fact, be a good thing to do. But if that’s the plan, why not say so and just kill it off?

On May 19, Barack Obama will become President of the developed world, for all intents and purposes. That’s when the G8 meeting begins in President Obama’s hometown of Chicago. He will host the heads of the eight most important and powerful countries, and a raft of other dignitaries and officials, in an annual summit that has a rich history and a record of accomplishment.

In every year, the host uses the G8 for their own personal and political advantage, with photo-ops looking powerful and “presidential,” shaking hands with other world leaders, and discussing the most important political and economic issues of the day. In some years, the host has used the G8 summit to promote important international agendas. Increasing foreign assistance, responding to the AIDS crisis, the cause of Africa’s development, reducing the burdensome debt of poor countries; each has featured prominently in past G8 summits.

So, what’s President Obama’s agenda for his G8?

President Obama was the driving force behind the L'Aquila Food Security Initiative at the 2009 G8 hosted by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. What is his ambition for the Chicago summit in May? Photo by Ilaria DiBiagio/Oxfam-UCODEP.

Strangely, we don’t know. With less than three months to go till the summit, things are still very vague from the White House—which is frustrating and could signal a missed opportunity of historic scale. Even if he wins re-election, President Obama will only get to host one G8, this one. So this is his chance to set a big outcome, to deliver a big international win.

A natural area for President Obama to push would be around food security and agriculture development. This has been a keystone international development theme for his Administration, embodied in the Feed the Future initiative. And President Obama used the 2009 G8 summit in Italy to launch the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative which cajoled and leveraged other donors to make funding commitments and to improve their donorship practice. Although former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi gets the credit for L’Aquila, President Obama was the driving force.

But for now, we don’t know what President Obama is thinking. What’s his ambition? What’s the goal? Perhaps there’s a secret plan; although we hear, through colleagues and whispers, that other G8 leaders (and G20) are confused and are waiting for a signal from President Obama.

The G8 comes in for a lot of criticism—and rightfully so. It’s an exclusive, rich-man’s club. But the G8 summits have also delivered some impressive outcomes, brought global attention to neglected issues, and helped mobilize the international community around important concerns. Silvio Berlusconi set pretty low standards for behavior in his career. But it would be a shame if historians wrote that Berlusconi delivered a more meaningful G8 summit than President Obama.