 Good morning. Good morning. Welcome to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I'm Andrew Schwartz. I'm our Vice President for External Relations, and I'm pleased to see all of you here, and I hope you enjoy some of the t-shirts and the reports. The t-shirt we made up was for this series specifically, and we're going to be continuing to do series, an ongoing series, in partnership with the University of Miami Night Center for International Media. And I'd like to welcome you all to CSIS and the Night Center. We have a terrific panel today. We're going to be talking about the one report, obviously. And I think that, you know, this series has really brought a lot of the Millennium Development Goals out for people to examine and assess and see where they are. We're going to be, this will probably be our last session for before the summer, and then we're going to start up again in the fall, so I hope to see some of you here for that. With this, I'd like to turn to my colleague, Richard Daly, who is a senior fellow at our Africa program and has graciously agreed to moderate this, and with that, Richard in particular. Thanks very much, Andrew. And as Andrew just explained, the theme of this series is to look at issues surrounding the U.N. development, Millennium Development Goals. And this morning, we're going to be looking at the important role that the richest countries in the world have been playing in helping the poorest ones to meet those challenging targets by 2015 targets, such as achieving universal primary education, eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, and six other very ambitious targets as well. So back in 2005, representatives from the G8 group of leading economies met in Glen Eagles in the U.K. and made a series of big commitments to Africa. These commitments were meant to go a long way towards helping African countries achieve and meet the MDGs. They included a collective pledge to more than double by 2010 the amount of official development assistance to give them to Africa, also to cancel the outstanding debts of the poorest countries. And they weren't just monetary pledges, there were also commitments to boost not just the quantity but the quality of aid given and also to free up barriers to trade with Africa. Well, this year 2010 is a deadline for meeting those ambitious Glen Eagles commitments and a good time to reflect on the progress made. Well, the one organization has been helping us to do that. One is an advocacy and campaigning group working to combat global poverty and preventable disease, as most of you probably know, has more than two million members worldwide and it's been at the forefront of efforts to hold the richest nations to account on the promises they made back in 2005. It's got a newly released report, which many of you will see, a big chunky report, data report, and it's a comprehensive attempt to put the G8 and the other donor countries under the microscope and see whether they've been willing to put their money where their mouth is. So we're very grateful this morning to have, as our main speaker, David Lane. He's the president and CEO of One. Prior to long illustrious career before One was previously director of public policy and external affairs and director of the East Coast Office for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and previous to that, held a number of senior positions in federal government, including executive director of the National Economic Council at White House and also chief of staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Mr. Lane holds a master of public affairs degrees from the Woodrow Wilson Center at Princeton and also an undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia. In addition, also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Vice-Chair of the Board of Transparency International, USA. So Mr. Lane's going to give us a snapshot of the data report's main findings and then we're going to broaden the discussion out and I'll bring in our other panelists who I'll introduce properly later, but Joshua Bolton on my right and Pearl Alice Marsh on my left. So anyway, over to you, thanks, David. Thank you, Richard. That was completely unnecessary and I'm not going to stand up. I think I'll just do this sitting. I know most of what I think I need to say and I want to thank Andrew Schwartz for bringing us together, CSIS and University of Miami. You, Richard. And I'm really honored to be sitting here with Pearl Alice and Joshua's also my board member, so I'll be on my best behavior. One last thank you. Erin Thornton is over here and she is the guru of this report for us at one and has been doing so for years and she did a great job. And if it gets really technical or you want to ask about methodology, we'll bring Erin up here. Let me just say word about what one is. We're a global anti-poverty advocacy organization. We work with lots of you. I recognize a lot of people here in town. We're co-conspirators with many of you. Focus mostly on, as Richard said, the rich countries and their commitments to Africa where we have offices in London and Berlin, now Brussels and Paris. And we kind of work the G8 circuit because that's the framework that we thought was provided the greatest opportunity to change policy, improve policy and increase the flow of resources to Africa. I should say, we had a trip to Africa in March. Josh was part of it. One of our founders, Bonna, was part of it. And the other trip he scratched his head and said, I wonder if we've been misnamed all along. Maybe we shouldn't be one. Maybe we should have only been one-half. Because we're focused on the rich countries, but look at all the stuff that's going on down here where we ought to be engaging more fully with African voices in terms of their leadership and supporting their leadership. And to be honest with you, as an organization, we're wrestling with that right now and trying to find better ways to engage more directly with countries in Africa, though we do have staff there already. The data report is our annual effort to hold the G7, in this case, accountable for the commitments they made in Glenn Eagles. Data is the original name. It's the name of the predecessor organization, Dead AIDS Trade Africa, Democracy, Accountability, Transparency in Africa, which was always meant. And you probably know that organization. That's the organization that used to lobby Josh when he was both Chief of Staff and Director of OMB at the White House. And I think it was a very effective policy and lobby outfit. And then we merged with one to become more of a grassroots organization so that we bring all the tools sort of in one place to mobilize support for development. This report is the final one, because it's the final year of the Glenn Eagles' commitments. It may live on in some other form. We're thinking about ways that it should reflect new accountability metrics going forward. But we actually launched it two weeks ago. We launched it in London, in Paris, Brussels, Berlin, and in Canada, where we're trying to put some pressure on the Canadians as they lead this year's G8 and to get them to focus on accountability. I should say, at the same time, the Africa Progress Panel also released its report in Cape Town that was very important to us, because we have always believed this is a two-way street. And their report said that African countries themselves need to be mobilizing more resources to fight poverty, focus on health and education, and many of the things that we're focused on. And said that, in fact, there are resources there. They can be mobilized much more effectively. And I think that's important. And I want to convey that message as well. So the headlines of the report, we clearly believe that the last five years, the period since clinicals, have seen historic increases in aid flows and in debt cancellation to Africa, and that there's a lot to show for it. You can focus on disappointments, and I can highlight some of those. But in fact, by the year 2009, the G7 have delivered on 44% of the commitments made to double assistance to Africa. I think it was actually costed out at $22.7 billion or something like that would be the doubling. By the end of 2010, our projections, and we think they're pretty sophisticated. Aaron and her team have done a nice job of sort of projecting what the 2010 numbers will be. We believe they will have delivered on 61% of the commitment. That's disappointment in some particular cases. And 61% is a little more than half full. But by any measure, $13.7 billion, which is the number that has been delivered over this period, is pretty dramatic. It's more than double the rate of increase in the five years leading up to Glenn Eagles. If you were, and I'm not playing a game, but if you were to take out the bogus Italian commitment, which was to meet 0.7, where they have in fact not grown at all, but in fact shrunk by 6% since that time, the other G6 would have delivered on 75% of their commitment. I think that's a fairly impressive picture. All of you know that dollars only matter to the extent that they have yielded results. And I think it's very important that we always focus on actual results. And again, I think the record of this last decade, it has been a decade of development. We've seen 42 million more kids in Africa in primary school as a result of debt relief from 50,000 people in ARVs in 2002 to more than 3 million today in sub-Saharan Africa, more than 200 million bed nets as a direct result of the Glenn Eagles commitment. And again, bed nets are not an ultimate outcome. But malaria deaths cut in half in a number of countries, Zambia, Ethiopia, Rwanda. There's a lot to be said for that. Vaccination, I think 257 million more kids vaccinated as a result of largely the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, which I think they can accurately pinpoint 5.4 million lives saved as a result of effective immunizations. So my organization believes there's a lot to show for these dramatic increases in foreign assistance. Debt forgiveness, just to remind everybody in the report lays this out. Glenn Eagles was not just about money, but there were debt cancellation commitments as well. They were met early. Right out of the gate, there was a lot of action on bilateral and multilateral debt. Though our report issues a bit of a warning on there, that there's some backsliding countries converting from grants back to loans because it's an easier way to leverage their bigger resources, countries borrowing more and we're concerned about that trend. Should also point out there were commitments made and not at all kept on trade investment. Probably a lot of, in one sense, the commitments were vague. They were about making trade work for Africa. When you make a vague commitment, it's hard to know whether you've measured up. But I think nobody with a straight face would claim that that commitment has been delivered on. There's probably a lot of stock place in Doha and everybody knows the frustrations with Doha. So that's a disappointing area. And we believe as an organization there's much more that can be done in that area. And Josh is my board member, was another one of our insights from Africa. It's an area that we as an organization are going to focus on to a much greater extent. The US piece of the picture, the way we've been characterizing the seven performances are that some countries aimed high, one country aimed really high and didn't deliver at all. That's Italy. France and Germany aimed high and have had a hard time delivering. They're at the 25% of their commitment. Canada, we've been comfortable saying Canada, Japan and the US made modest commitments and exceeded them. I'll get back to the US in a second. And the UK, I think, really is a superstar. They made really bold commitments. They're committed to spending 0.7 of their GDP by the year 2013, and they're damn close to doing it. When you say the US made a modest commitment, I think that's usually a characterization of development assistance relative to GDP. In absolute terms, of the $13.7 billion that we talked about, $5.4, I think, is the US increase in aid to Africa? President Bush at the time of Glenn Eagle said we had doubled it so far and we're going to double it again. That was the commitment to get to 8.8. And the US actually exceeded that in 2009, and the 2010 projection means we exceeded by a healthy degree. I think 158% is the number that we've calculated. I should point out, so this report, and I'm not saying this because Josh is here, that is largely a Bush administration achievement. It was a Bush administration commitment. And the delivery, if you look at the pipeline and how numbers flow, that is delivering on the Bush commitments and Bush performance. We will also say that I think President Obama has pivoted in a way that builds on that, and so has announced a global health initiative of $63 billion, food security initiative, I think, $3.5 billion of new money in three years. The path continues for the US, and President Obama has committed to doubling US foreign assistance without a specific number on Africa, which is something we as an organization are looking for. But the US has had a strong performance, and we believe is a leader in health in some of these other sectoral areas, and we as advocates need to continue the momentum in that area. And that the US has an important leadership role to play going forward. So now the last few things I'll say is about going forward. What are the lessons of this for us? I just want to restate that results matter, and we think there have been substantial results, especially in the health areas over the last few years, and that's important. As advocates, it's always important that you let people know that what they've advocated for has made a difference, but I think we can all say that with confidence. The second finding, I guess, for us is a response to the question, does the G8 or do collective commitments matter? And we would say they do. As disappointing as it is that a country would only deliver on 25% of what it said it would do, I don't think many people believe that $13.7 billion would have flowed to Africa from the G7 without the mutual pressure that the G8 commitment yielded. And I think that's a good thing, and we want to find ways as an organization to replicate, not exactly the same way, but to garner additional shared commitments with some greater specificity. There's a real lesson here about accountability. We've embraced something we call the track principles, which is that commitments need to be transparent, results oriented, you need to know, they need to be specific about additionality, about conditionality, and you need to be able to measure at the end of the day whether they were kept. That's something we think is very important. Probably we wish that at the G8 last year in the Laquilla food commitments that somebody had followed those practices because they were a little squishy and it's hard to know how the G8 is doing on its commitments from last year. The Canadians, the good news is the Canadians are deeply committed at this G8 to publishing an accountability matrix to look at what the G8 has done in the past to live up to its commitments, and that's very, very important. So the last point I want to make is that even though we've described this as the end point, this is the end of the data reports that measured the Glen Eagle's commitments, we really just believe it's a turning point. This is a step along the way. We really are counting on the G8, even though this is a tough time to put forward a bold maternal and child health initiative to get much more specific about how the hold themselves accountable going forward. And we believe that's a key moment as we head towards September, where if you were paying attention last September when President Bush, sorry, President Obama went to the UN General Assembly, he made a very bold statement about this year's UN General Assembly. We call them the 36 words. I don't think anybody in the White House thinks of them as 36 words, but Bono said so in the New York Times, we're trying to make it real, that by the time we come back this year in September, we want to see a global plan to get the MDGs on track and that he really believes that extreme poverty can be eliminated in our time. So we've yet to see the administration's plan. We want to see a national development strategy, but we think an MDG plan will be an expression of that. We're eager to see that soon because they don't have a whole lot of time to then take it and multilateralize it and then try to sell it as more of a global approach. We believe that's very important and we're going to be spending most of our energy between now and September as an advocacy organization pushing for that. I think I exceeded my limits. I hope I gave the basic findings of the report and we'll be happy to elaborate or call on Erin later. Thanks, Richard. Thanks very much, David. Well, plenty of strands to pick up there and material for a good discussion now. And to help us get into the details, I want to bring in our other panelists and introduce them. You have their biographies in front of you, so I won't go into all the details. I'm pleased to have on my right here Joshua Bolton who's on the board of directors at one. And as David mentioned, former White House Chief of Staff under George W. Bush, President Bush, from 2006 to January 2009. On my left, joined by, oh, and I should mention actually to update that you're now teaching at Woodrow Wilson Centre as well, so alumnus there. And on my left, we have Pearl Alice Marsh, who's the majority professional staff member in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. In that role, Dr. Marsh is responsible to the chairman for oversight of foreign assistance and legislation relating to Africa and global health as well. So we're keen to bring in her perspective. So anyway, let's kick off with some questions. And maybe I should start with you, Joshua. You were deeply involved in the process. You were serving in the White House at the time when these Glennie Gull's commitments were made. And let's just reflect a little bit. And how, you know, David mentioned the size of the ambitions made by the respective nations. How would you yourself judge the size of the US ambition and how it went about achieving them? And reflect on success from your perspective. Richard, thank you. Thank you to CSIS and the University of Miami. And to one, for putting out this excellent report, I do serve on the board of one, but I deserve no credit for the good work that they do. So I feel comfortable complimenting what I think is a terrific report year on year because what it reflects is accountability, which I think is the most important word and concept that can be applied these days in the world of development assistance. In this case, it's accountability for the nations that have made commitments to help the poorest, but one also is well focused on accountability among those who are the recipients of the commitment. And there needs to be accountability on both ends if we are to see a world in which the developed world is helping the developed world move out of extreme poverty. I was around, for Glennie Gull's, I was in the administration in a way even more important for these purposes than my post as chief of staff, which I didn't take until early 2006, was the post I held when Glennie Gull's was underway.