PART I: Global Health Outcomes from the Toya-ko Summit

3.Using the Results of the Toya-ko Summit

  1. Using the Opportunities
  2. On pursuing issues that were lacking at the G8 Toya-ko Summit
  3. The necessity of increasing cooperation and strengthening coordination among Civil Society Organizations involved in the G8 process.

1Using the Opportunities

The greatest opportunity gained during the Toya-ko Summit is the follow-up mechanism. The G8 leaders have agreed to establish a follow-up mechanism to monitor their progress on meeting the commitments. Thus Civil Society must use this opportunity provided by this follow-up mechanism, and to advocate for the G8 for the attainment of its past commitments. In order to ensure that the follow-up mechanism will be used to ensure accounatibily, it is important for Civil Society to do the following:

a) Evaluation of the matrices

The matrices that came out of the 2008 G8 Summit will be revised every year, and as to the existing commitments of the G8, the G8 has agreed to evaluate how much and what kind of contribution each country has provided towards its attainment. Thus meaning that these matrices will become the baseline for measuring the accounatibily of G8 countries.

It is important to examine the format and contents of the matrices, which will be the baseline, point out areas that are false or lacking, and then call for revisions to ensure that the matrices will be comprehensive and easily understood.

b) Independent review of the performance of each G8 country

The attached matrices created by the G8 are the fruits of compromises among the G8 countries. No matter the amount of proposals and recommendations made by Civil Society, there will always be points which are insufficient and lacking. The civil society should use the information on these matrices to bring focus to the performance of each G8 country.

Currently, the attached matrices which contain the contribution of each G8 country to the three infectious diseases are broad contribution amounts and not accordingly to each issue within the global health agenda. As for the past commitments, it is only a list of what each country has accomplished, and does not contain information on the contributions of each G8 country for the attainment of a certain goals. Furthermore, the contribution amount is not aligned in currency and includes other features that are not user friendly. On these points, as Civil Society, we must call on revision, and using the independent review of the matrices, we will ensure that the G8 countries are held accountable for their commitments.

2On pursuing issues that were lacking at the G8 Toya-ko Summit

2010 is a milestone for the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals, the deadline for the attainment of Universal Declaration for treatment, care and prevention to HIV/AIDS and furthermore, the deadline for the Abuja target on Malaria. At the 2008 G8 Summit in Toya-ko, actions, plans and contributions for the attainment of these goals were lacking. Of this, on HIV/AIDS, there are few things that must be pointed out:

a) Creation of a concrete financial contribution plan for the attainment of Universal Access by 2010

According to UNAIDS, in 2009 USD 30 Billion, in 2010 USD 40 Billion will be needed for the attainment of Universal Access by 2010. Yet, at this summit, the G8 has made a commitment for 60 Billion for infectious diseases and health strengthening within five years; far from what would be necessary to achieve Universal Access by 2010.
(See: advocacy_grne2_en.pdf

We must work to ensure the creation of a concrete financial contribution plan for the attainment of Universal Access in lieu of the 2009 G8 Summit in Italy.

b) Creation of a concrete financial contribution plan for the attainment of goals set at the Heiligendamm Summit

At the 2007 G8 Summit in Heiligendamm Summit, the G8 leaders have made the following commitments concerning HIV/AIDS:

The financial contribution severely undermines what the G8 countries should be contributing, yet to even to ensure this commitment, a concrete action and financial plan will be necessary.
(See: PART II: Pledges in the Past G8 Summits: Pledges in Heiligendamm G8 Summit (Germany))

3The necessity of increasing cooperation and strengthening coordination among Civil Society Organizations involved in the G8 process.

Throughout the G8 Summit and the policy process for global health, Civil Society of each G8 country must have an effective information sharing and cooperation mechanism and must be prepared to provide resourceful response to issues that comes up. The reason for the following is as follows:

For the 2008 G8 summit, the Japanese Government has held the G8 Health Experts meeting three times since Feburary, and concluding the results of the meetings in the Toya-ko Framework for Action on Global Health. Within this process, on various issues stakeholders of each G8 country faced off with each other, and the Framework for Action is a result of compromises made among the participants of each country. Due to the difference each country has on the various issues, the content is lacking in many areas. The following are examples of the conflicted views/positions of the G8 countries.

  1. On the deadline for the 60 Billion commitment made at the 2007 Heiligendamm G8 Summit: The Government of the UK pushed for three years (by 2010), however, the German Government pushed for eight years. Other European countries and Canada remained passive on this issue.
  2. On reproductive health and improvement of maternal health: The Japanese government pushed for the inclusion of these issues, however even though the US government showed some understanding, they kept their tradition of not getting their hands too deep in this issue.
  3. On travel restriction of PLWHA: France pushed for easing or abolishing the travel restrictions, as well as Japan. However, the United States and Russia aggressively pushed against this.
  4. The character of Toya-ko Framework for action on Global Health: Japan has worked to ensure that the character of the Framework for Action is similar to the character of the G8 communique. However, Italy and Canada intervened to making the Framework nothing more then a document to hand over to the G8 leaders.

As stated previously, the G8 countries have different stances on different issues, and compromises become necessary for every issue that was is on the table. Thus, creating ambitious and innovative commitments became almost impossible. At an early stage, Civil Society groups of each country gathered information on the position each of their respective governments will hold on certain issues. Then, with the cooperation of civil society groups in different countries, reacted to their countries' positions through advocacy and campaigning. These kinds of pressure and positive interventions from civil society helped prevent the G8 governments from making easy compromises and made sure the governments are forward-moving in their decisions and/or commitments. Thus, it is necessary to create a greater mechanism for information sharing and a mechanism for cooperation in advocacy among civil society of the world.
Closing Celemony of the People's Summit 2008
Closing Celemony of the People's Summit 2008

Copyright© Japan AIDS & Society Association. All Rights Reserved.